2009-02-16
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Sanderson who is away on a training trip.
Madam SPEAKER: It is for the whole sitting week, is that right?
Mr MILLS: Yes, for this whole sitting week.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full sitting week 16 to 19 February 2009 for the member for Sanderson, whose pair is the member for Arafura. It has been signed by both the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from Palmerston High School accompanied by Mrs Kirsteen Squires and Mrs Beryl Brugmans. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death of the Reverend Jim Downing AM on 4 January 2009, a Minister in the Uniting Church in Australia, a former Moderator of the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, the instigator of the Institute of the Aboriginal Development, a fighter for justice, and a great Territorian.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of many visitors who have come here today to listen to this condolence debate.
I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the family and friends of Jim Downing: his widow, Shirley Downing; his two sisters, who travelled from Melbourne to be here; his daughters Bronwyn, Kathy, and Sue; and many distinguished visitors as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the official officers’ gallery of the former Administrator of Norfolk Island and former member of this Chamber, the Hon Grant Tambling; former member for Macdonnell and former Deputy Labor Leader, Neville Perkins; the Synod Secretary of the Uniting Church in Australia, Mr Peter Jones; the Reverend Djiniyini Gondarra OAM; Bishop Ted Collins, the former Bishop of Darwin; Reverend Wendell Flentje, the Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia; the past Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, Reverend Steve Orme; and Hon Brian Martin, former Chief Justice of the Northern Territory. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to, as an aside, say there a number of people who are here today who are neighbours and friends of Jim, from Shackle Street in Anula. As Australians, we are very aware that many people do not know any of their neighbours whatsoever. It is a tribute to the man that, in fact, almost the whole street is here today. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome those people from Shackle Street in Anula.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
In paying tribute to the Reverend Jim Downing in the Assembly this morning, we celebrate the life of a man whose contributions to the people of the Northern Territory is not measured in bricks and mortar or in the accumulation of material wealth, but in the lives of the people he worked with for over 40 years. He was a man of faith and a man of vision. He was always convinced that the Northern Territory could be a far better place and that the lives of Aboriginal Territorians, in particular, could be vastly improved. For this last reason alone, he was also - in the best of possible traditions – a stirrer and something of a troublemaker. This is, perhaps, no better summed up than his experiences gained in childhood and as a youth growing up in the Great Depression in Melbourne. He was the eldest of six children, living in the working class suburb of Footscray, one of the heartlands of Aussie Rules - Jim took up Rugby Union.
In World War II, he was an apprentice patternmaker, and then a tradesman - a role vital to the war effort. At the same time, he was heavily influenced by the union movement, workers clubs, and the church. However, it was the church that provided a greater calling than union or party politics. Against his father's wishes, he joined the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and began social worker training in 1957. The same year, he married Shirley, his partner for more than 50 years.
In 1959, he was ordained and assigned to work in Redfern, where he spent six years. It was the beginning of a ministry with Aboriginal people, but a ministry - in the words of Dr Stuart Philpott - of working with many others amongst the ‘homeless and marginalised’.
Redfern was a time, too, of building a family, with three of his children born in Sydney, followed by the youngest born in Alice Springs where Jim was sent in 1965. It was the beginning of four decades of service to the people of the Territory. Eloquently described in this way by his daughter Kathy at Jim’s memorial last Saturday: ‘His ministry was simple: meet people’s needs’.
That he did. He recognised early that the massive changes occurring in Central Australia at the time ill served Aboriginal people, whose levels of literacy and education were wholly inadequate to cope with the cash economy. He established the first courses for Aboriginal mothers in dietary and budgetary matters. From the beginning, he realised the necessity to provide language training and took it on himself to learn Pitjantjatjara as his parish took in the Pitjantjatjara lands in northern South Australia and south-west of the Territory. Thus began the internationally recognised Institute for Aboriginal Development which, to this day, provides educational, language, and publishing services.
It was work that led to Jim receiving an Order of Australia in 1978. Just as significantly, the same award went to Yami Lester, the Aboriginal man who was to succeed him as the Director of IAD in 1980.
Jim’s work also led to the provision of interpreter services and the desegregation of wards in the Alice Springs Hospital whilst he served on its board. At the same time - as the Administrator, Tom Pauling, has pointed out - Jim’s work in the courts assisted in the establishment in 1976 of the Supreme Court Anunga Rules relating to the questioning of Aboriginal witnesses. As a great lover of music and singing and, as a footnote to history, Jim would have been happy to know that it is probable that the Anunga Rules is the only judicial ruling ever set to music by a rock band.
Jim worked with the people of northern South Australia to establish the Pitjantjatjara Council, a precursor to the APY Land Rights Act passed by the Tonkin government in 1981. Jim was also involved with the Alyawarra people who were evicted from Lake Nash and assisted them to gain title to traditional land at Alpurrurulam. A successful agreement was finally reached with Lake Nash management and the CLC in 1988.
Much of Jim’s work with people on remote communities and outstations led to the publication of the book Country of My Spirit in 1988. Having handed over leadership of IAD to Yami Lester, Jim moved to Darwin in 1980, where he worked for many years at the Aboriginal Advisory and Development Services or ARDS. Amongst many other projects over this time, Jim undertook organisational training with Aboriginal organisations throughout the Northern Territory and the Kimberley, particularly with the CLC and the Kimberley Aboriginal Pastoral Association. This included the seminal publication Understanding Constitutions released in 1982. This was the sort of fundamental governance training that was not picked up by governments for a decade.
Mind you, Madam Speaker, much of the work continued well after his formal retirement. In 2003, he was working in Epenarra on a project with World Vision. His last project was in 2007, successfully working with the people of Mutitjulu to lift the suspension of that community’s incorporated association. In an irony, that work was completed a week before the announcement of the Northern Territory Intervention.
Jim’s daughter, Bronwyn, last week recalled that her father, Jim, was often away from home as part of his work, but their close-knit family always looked forward to his return, ‘with a fresh handful of stories’. I can only imagine what it must have been like sitting around the kitchen table at the Manse in Alice Springs. He would have had more than a ‘handful’: there would have been thousands of stories to be told as he and his work touched so many lives.
The Reverend Djiniyini Gondarra from Galiwin’ku, who has described Jim as a spiritual father and mentor, first met Jim in Alice Springs in the 1970s, and was told their job was not just as a pastor in parish, but ‘We must stand with the people’. That really sums up Jim’s life; he stood with the people. He stood for social justice for the people. It was why the Pitjantjatjara people gave him the title ‘Tjilpi’. It is a word that means more than ‘old man’, it implies the possession of wisdom. In this case, as Reverend Gondarra said, it was wisdom from his heart.
More than five decades of Jim’s life was in partnership with his wife, Shirley. I will leave it to others to speak of their marriage, but draw the Assembly’s attention to a small corner of Nightcliff in which this partnership lives on. It is a humble reminder: the Uniting Church clothing collection bin. Shirley, the artist of the family, designed the artwork for the collection bin. For days, the two of them, working side by side, painstakingly painted it together. Over a decade-and-a-half later, it is still there as a small memorial to a loving relationship, as well as Jim and Shirley’s enduring commitment to the life of the church and their community.
My sincere condolences to Shirley, your children and grandchildren. Today, we all stand proudly in this Assembly, Madam Speaker, to speak passionately about the great difference that Jim Downing AM made to the Northern Territory. All of us try, in small ways, to make a difference, and Jim really did make an enormous difference and touched the lives of many thousands of people. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition joins in this condolence motion to recognise the passing of a man - a man who can rest in peace - who has made a great contribution to others lives. His legacy continues in the thoughts and the words of others. You can have no greater legacy than that which you leave written in the lives of people, and there is such a legacy.
One only has to read the record of letters that Jim had written to editors over many years, and the message was constant. There was a burning passion for justice behind every one of those letters. I did not know Jim well, but I had met him on a couple of occasions. They were memorable occasions because he made sure he never missed an opportunity to keep that fire burning; to ask a question; to drill down and to ensure that you were accountable. He spoke the truth and he spoke it boldly, and with dignity. I still remember being stopped on two occasions. He made use of that time to pass on a very important message which went beyond the superficial and straight to the core issues, and it stays with me today.
As I have seen in so many letters written by Reverend Downing, the core of the message when he was speaking of the need to look at the past was to gain the tools to move on: you cannot ignore the past, we cannot live in the past, but we must learn from the past. These were his words. His legacy is contained in these words, because these words should motivate us to continue.
We have nothing to put in the place of people’s roots and sources of renewal which were contained in their ceremonies and traditional beliefs, and vested in their science. I know of no convincing social work or sociological evidence which supports the need to cut off these roots in the name of advancement of their lives. To the contrary. By doing so, we produce social and psychological disruption to a people with costly, though never adequate, social service remedies. There was something deeper constantly behind the words expressed by Reverend Downing. It would be wise to listen carefully to these words. They live on, there is a legacy there. When the opportunity arises to speak for justice, it must be deep justice that is delivered.
The man’s work, given an understanding when you understand that man’s motivation, is that of a man of faith. That is a faith which believes that all are created equal; a faith that believes that all are created in the image of God. If that is the case, then how noble is the task to champion the plight of those who are disaffected or disconnected from a dominant culture? How noble is that task? That is why we pause today to honour and respect one who has made that a life’s cause. It must touch us, it must challenge us, otherwise our activities are but dust.
Jim gave 40 years of devoted service – devoted, hard, genuine, heartfelt service that I am sure caused him sleepless nights, such was the depth of his passion and the cry for justice. He stood for those who felt they had no voice, and was the voice for those who felt they could not express, be understood, or understand.
He came to the Territory in 1965. It is a further testament and reinforcement of his character that there are people who lived in the same street here to witness today’s proceedings. He had 50-plus years of marriage. That is a lesson to all of us – loving, enduring, constant marriage in a time when relationships are challenged by the forces of this world; to see that endurance and to see his neighbours and others living in the same street here today to celebrate his life. It is a challenge to every one of us.
He lived in Alice Springs and then, in Darwin. However, those who know the record of the man know that his home was with those who needed representation, those who felt they were disconnected or who felt they had no home or place. That was where his home was. Home is where the heart is, and his heart was alongside the underdog - even extending to East Timor. His heart could not cause his mouth to be silent on issues that concerned him and he spoke up. He never hid it inside himself. As I said at the beginning, he spoke. He spoke to me on a couple of occasions, and I remember those words.
He was a writer of books. Those words were expressed and were written down. It is good to write books. It is good to have something to write about. He had something to write about and his words remain with us in his books.
Importantly, I believe, he was an advocate for cross-cultural understanding. That is the core of it: an understanding of those who are our fellow citizens. He saw the evidence of a lack of understanding nationally and the effect that has had on decisions that were made by the powerful. He was a pioneer of Indigenous education and a promoter of Indigenous leadership.
My colleagues, this is a man who will rest in peace. As his heart led him to speak, to struggle and to fight, now he is in the arms of the everlasting; a man of faith who has come to the end. I am confident to say that the end of a journey such as this should be noted, not only noted with words in this Chamber in recognition of the legacy he left, but we should be challenged by his testimony, with the added words: well done, good and faithful servant.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness that I speak in the condolence debate for the late Reverend Jim Downing AM, who died on 4 January 2009 at the age of 82 at the Darwin Hospice, surrounded by his greatly loved wife of 51 years, Shirley, and his family.
I knew Jim as a friend, spiritual mentor and dogged fighter for justice, particularly for the poor and oppressed. It is impossible for me to speak of Jim Downing without speaking of faith, so I apologise to members for the move away from the secular in my speech. I reflect on the comments of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in a recent interview on the ABC Compass program, who chose not to speak of faith during his time as Prime Minister for fear of people thinking him a nutter. I will take the risk in memory of my good friend.
I first got to know Jim and Shirley Downing around 16 years ago when I became a member of the Nightcliff Uniting Church. I had met him a few times socially before that when I was a member of the Darwin Memorial Uniting Church. He was a Moderator for the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, which is similar to a bishop, and was respected throughout the country for his work with Aboriginal people, the poor and the oppressed.
The President of the Uniting Church in Australia, the Reverend Gregor Henderson, who sends his apologies to the parliament for not being here today, paid tribute to Jim as one of Australia’s churches great saints. He said for those who had known Jim since the 1970s his contribution to the life of Australia, to our Aboriginal sisters and brothers, to good relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, was way up there. Reverend Henderson said that Jim had made that contribution with courage and with sacrifice and he was supported unfailingly by Shirley, who is no less of a Territory hero and saint. Reverend Henderson went on to say that Jim’s commitment to justice for Aboriginal Australians had been a most significant influence throughout the Uniting Church, and a major factor in the establishment of the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress in 1985, and in the Uniting Church’s strong stance with and for Aboriginal people ever since.
Jim was not your average church man; he hated false piety. He particularly hated the Bible being used as an instrument to discriminate against others, and the misuse of passages of scripture to justify things such as slavery, the subjugation of women, the oppression of non-Caucasian people which led to racism and, in his later years - after much prayerful consideration and, particularly as he was a very conservative man - the use of the Bible to discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
In his first parish in Redfern in Sydney, he worked with Aboriginal people for the first time. He was a social worker as well as a minister of religion. In those days, ministers of religion wore full black suits with a white jabot, similar to ones used by judges and barristers. On the first occasion that he had to appear in court for a young Aboriginal boy as a character reference, he realised that he was dressed in almost identical garb to the magistrate, and he decided from that moment that he would never wear the uniform of a minister for fear that people he was serving would consider him to be judging them. He preferred the simple suit which, I might add, became even more casual when living in the Territory – simple shorts and shirts with sandals was his standard dress code.
Jim was a man who was intent on changing the world for the better, particularly for Aboriginal people and, as such, he became friends with many politicians over a 40-year period. While he was political, he was not party political, and he was a great admirer of the Liberal Aboriginal Affairs minister, Fred Chaney who, he claimed, was Australia’s best Aboriginal Affairs minister; and also Ian Viner, who played the same role. He spoke warmly of former Legislative Assembly member, Neville Perkins; Warren Snowdon; the member for Macdonnell; and many others.
When I was first elected in 2001 and appointed as Health minister, Jim was very pleased for me. He hoped that I would meet his very good friend, Victorian Liberal Senator, Hon Kay Patterson, at some stage. Kay had been a family friend of the Downings since the Redfern days. As a teenager, she would spend most afternoons after school at the Downing home and used to babysit the Downings’ son, John. Kay, who attended the memorial service for Jim on Saturday, told me if it was not for Jim and Shirley, she would never have finished her education nor had a lifelong passion for music. Jim used to relate the story of how, when Kay was first elected to the Senate, he rang and told her how proud he was of her and her achievements. He then went on to say: ‘Do you think the Lord got the party right?’ When Kay became the federal Health minister soon after I was appointed, he said to me: ‘It looks like the good Lord got the party right after all’. Indeed, Kay and I went on to become quite good friends because of our link with the Downings. I can say we worked very cooperatively for the Territory and remain friends.
Jim was a man well ahead of his time and believed strongly in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. He had close friends across the religious spectrum - and I acknowledge Bishop Ted Collins who is here today, who I know to have been a close friend of Jim. Jim believed that it was important to work on the things that unite us as human beings and as people of faith, rather than concentrating on the things that divide us; to always look for the good in people and assume that they are your friend.
As an aside, Shirley was telling me a story yesterday about Jim when he was Moderator of the Uniting Church. He was supposed to appear at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral for the opening of the legal year. He arrived early and it was teeming rain, and he had had to borrow a Moderator’s robe - because, of course, he never wore robes - from a previous Moderator. It was immaculately dry-cleaned, covered in plastic and on a coat hanger. He was carrying his minister’s stole and a pair of shoes. He got to St Mary’s and, instead of going to the main entrance of the cathedral to find the vestry, he decided to dash through a side entrance because it looked faster. He ended up fully immersed in the pool beside the cathedral with the beautifully laundered robe saturated, as well as his shoes. He staggered out of the pool and found the vestry, where he found Bishop Collins who asked what on earth had happened to him. After explaining, Bishop Collins found him a Catholic priest’s vestments, which Shirley noted were more transparent than the Uniting Church version. I am not quite sure what that means, exactly. He was wearing his sandals and, apparently, there were comments after about him wearing sandals. Nevertheless, they did the job and, after the service Jim had to get back into the pool because his glasses were still at the bottom. While he was trying to find the glasses, Bishop Ted came out and started throwing things into the pool. Jim asked: ‘What on earth are you doing, Bishop Ted?’ and he replied: ‘Throwing the fish back into the pond that you blasted out during your immersion’.
I also have a short comment from the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend Dr Philip Freier, who, as members would know, was the Anglican Bishop for the Northern Territory, who also asked me to pass on his condolences to Shirley and family. Archbishop Freier had been a great admirer of Jim and his work with Aboriginal people, and talked of him as one of Australia’s saints.
I did not know Jim during his years in Alice Springs, but I would like to use some of the comments that were made by Dr Stuart Philpott, a well-known Australian who has worked with Aboriginal people for more than 40 years, and who also worked with Jim and Shirley in Alice Springs:
Madam Deputy Speaker, Jim and I both celebrated birthdays in June, mine on the 2nd and his on the 10th. In 2006, we both had the landmark birthdays of 50 years and 80 years respectfully. We had both just been diagnosed with life-threatening tumours - mine of the breast and his of the colon. Being diagnosed with a life-threatening cancer is not your best day, and it started a number of very profound conversations between us, reflecting on the great questions of life and death, faith and friendship. One of the things we both reflected on was that if you have to have a life-threatening illness, cancer at least gave you the opportunity to talk to people you love, and also the people with whom you have differences, and to be at peace. In a sense, this diagnosis is a dress rehearsal for death itself.
As a very humble man, I remember him being overwhelmed by the outpouring of kindness towards him and Shirley at the time of his diagnosis. I remember saying to him: ‘Why should you be so surprised, since you are a man who has done so much for so many people?’ It was now his turn to enjoy the love of others, just as he had shown great love and compassion to probably thousands of people over many decades.
During this time, our treatment often coincided and, on one occasion I recall, I was walking to my car after a chemotherapy session at the hospital and feeling very ill – and, I might add, very bald; we called ourselves the bald and the beautiful. Jim was recovering from one of his operations and was outside the main entrance of the Royal Darwin Hospital, holding court in his dressing gown and slippers, with a group of equally sick Aboriginal men and women, all in pyjamas, some in beds with drips attached, some in wheelchairs. He introduced me: ‘Do you know Jane? She is the Speaker of the House. These are my new friends from Elcho Island and Maningrida. Come and join us’. We sat there on the garden bed edge and talked about many things. It was both bizarre and moving. Jim made friends everywhere he went.
Early last year, Jim was told that his cancer was so extensive that he was unlikely to make it to Christmas. After the inevitable sadness and, knowing that he would die within a certain time frame, Jim spent his last few months telling people how much he cared about them. When he went into the hospice late last year, I visited him a few times and, on the longest occasion, I decided it was important to ask him the main questions about life, because I knew that I would miss his wise counsel in the future.
I said to him: ‘So, Jim, what do you think it is all about?’ He paused and said: ‘It is all about love, everything else is illusory’. Jim died on 4 January this year. He was determined that he would make it to Christmas and to his 51st wedding anniversary which was on the 28 December. All during his time in the hospice, he would suddenly turn to his beloved Shirley and say to whoever was there: ‘Isn’t she a lovely girl?’, with a look of such love and tenderness.
I will greatly miss Jim as a friend and mentor and as a fighter for justice. The world needs more people like him. How fitting that he should, as a faithful servant of Christ, die on the Sunday in the Christian calendar known as Epiphany, the day that marks the visit of the Magi, or the three kings, bearing gifts for the Christ child. I have a very clear image of Jim being presented as a special gift to God - to the God he loved and served faithfully to the end.
Jim, like Moses, spent many years wandering the desert, seeking the promised land of justice for all, equality and love. Also like Moses, I believe he was one of those fortunate people who had been to the mountain top and seen the Promised Land.
Vale, Jim Downing.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for moving this motion. It is a good motion; I am very keen to support it. Member for Nightcliff, that was a fantastic eulogy. You have certainly enlightened me and I am sure you have enlightened many of my colleagues about the Reverend Jim Downing.
I did not know him particularly well. I met the man a few times and always found him a decent fellow. On one occasion, however, I did manage to sit down with him for some time and share a cup of tea. He was very interested in my motivations for supporting the Aboriginal Intervention - the emergency response legislation - in the Northern Territory. As speakers have said, the fight for Indigenous rights and the betterment of the lives of Indigenous people was a priority of Jim Downing, and it was something he was intensely interested in.
It was quite obvious to me - and I believe most people – that he had some particular views on the Intervention and how it was being carried out. Most surprising to me, I suppose, was his interest in my views on it and what my motivation was in support of it. It was quite obvious to me that he was really looking to gain an understanding of exactly what it was we were doing and what we were trying to achieve. I did not have the impression that he was a strong supporter of that particular legislation at all, but he was very interested in knowing the motivations for it and the way it would practically pan out in communities. He had concern about long-term leasing of townships, removal of the permit system on townships and arterial roads and the like. I was quite happy and touched to be able to sit down with the man.
In the meetings I had with him, and knowing Jim Downing, I believe there are very few people in the Northern Territory who would not know of the man. As the Opposition Leader said, he was a prolific writer of letters; he seemed to be everywhere all the time, and he would pop up at most places that I would visit. I found him to be an inherently decent man, an exemplar of the Christian faith and, as the member for Nightcliff mentioned, Philip Freier called him a saint, and that is a pretty good summation of the man. He seemed to me to be the human encapsulation of everything that Christianity stands for.
To his wife and family, you can be very proud of the legacy that the Rev Downing has left for the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. He was a man who made his mark on many people’s lives. He will be remembered fondly for the work he has done and the compassion he had for people. It is wonderful to see you here, and it is wonderful to see all of his friends, as well. I wanted to say how much I appreciated knowing the man in the small way that I did.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I talk about the life of the person that we knew not as Rev Jim Downing but Tjilpi Downing. I pass on my condolences on behalf of all Central Australians and the people of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands to Shirley and her family. This goes deeper and beyond the immediate family that he loved; he shared that love, passion and hope with all Territorians, with all Australians.
Jim’s view was to bring people together. Rather than fighting about the differences that we all have, we look at the commonalities that we had; you could get a lot of wins on the board by striking out your commonalities rather than your differences.
I worked with Jim and Yami at the Institute for Aboriginal Development as the first interpreter training centre was established there, and was the first interpreter. You would see Jim and Yami walking along Todd Street before it became the mall in Alice Springs, arm in arm, talking to all the people who owned the shops and to the Indigenous people about their drinking habits - why they came into town, and if there were possibilities that they could get themselves together and go back home to their communities.
Jim leaves a huge gap in our lives as Australians, as Territorians - a huge gap. As we all pick up and move forward on behalf of Tjilpi Downing, his hope was really to make a difference for anyone living in poverty. He fought for social justice of Indigenous rights, but he also fought for social justice for non-Indigenous people. He fought, with his hope, love and inspiration, so that we would become Territorians and Australians, rather than categorising ourselves into different nationalities.
I commend the hope, inspiration and love that Tjilpi Downing brought to Australia and to the Territory. He always gave to others. When we spoke about the motion on the bushfires, it highlighted what a strange group of Australians, a strange group of human beings, we are. Every day, we will not help a lady with a child who is struggling because it is raining and she cannot get her umbrella up, and she is trying to put the baby inside the pram. We will not knock on our across-the-road neighbour’s house to ask how the family is going, or our next door neighbour. It is as if we do not know each other.
I hope, through Jim’s love, that we can do this, because Jim has brought love, inspiration and hope to his street, and made sure that he got to know his next-door neighbour and every person who lived in his street. That should be the aim of every single one of us as human beings in this country.
Today, I chose to read a verse from 1 Corinthians 13, in Jim’s second language, Pitjantjatjara. Does everyone in the House have the English version of 1 Corinthians 13? The verse is about charity. I will read it in Pitjantjatjara …
Madam SPEAKER: I have given the member for Macdonnell leave to speak in Pitjantjatjara.
Ms ANDERSON:
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a message from His Honour the Administrator relating to the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill 2009.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, on 19 September 2008, the Chief Minister announced a project to improve telecommunication services in Arnhem Land. This $34m project is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council. I am very pleased to report to the House on progress to date.
In just a few short months, some 800 km of optical fibre has been installed between Jabiru and Nhulunbuy. Along the way, the remote communities of Oenpelli, Maningrida, Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, and Yirrkala have been directly connected to the optical fibre. Residents are now able to use high-speed broadband at the same costs and service as people enjoy in Alice Springs and Darwin. I am advised that Telstra has already received more than 100 applications for broadband access. Meanwhile, government agencies in these communities are in the process of connecting to the faster broadband network, which will provide schools and clinics with better services.
Access to broadband will complement the government’s Closing the Gap initiatives to address Indigenous disadvantage across a range of areas including health, education, and business. Attraction and retention of professional staff and workers to remote communities will be assisted by having access to high-quality broadband services. They will now be able to communicate with the rest of the world in the same way that people in larger centres take for granted.
The island communities of Minjilang, Warruwi, Milingimbi, and Galiwinku will be connected to the optic fibre by high-speed radio links. Work on these radio transmission links will begin as soon as possible, weather permitting, and is expected to be completed by the middle of the coming Dry Season. The Northern Territory government is now in discussions with the Commonwealth government and industry to explore options to deliver access to high-speed broadband to other remote communities in the Territory.
In December, I met with the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, at the Online and Communications Council meeting held in Melbourne. I took the opportunity to discuss with Senator Conroy the Territory’s needs for broadband, particularly in our remote communities where access to high-speed broadband is essential for the delivery of quality health, education, and policing services. Senator Conroy agreed to the Territory Department of Business and Employment and his department exploring options for the provision of broadband services in the Territory.
The Department of Business and Employment has since met in Canberra with Senator Conroy’s department to table a broadband initiative that could be pursued in the Territory using some of the $400m earmarked to tackle the recommendations of the Regional Telecommunications Review. This is the so-called Glasson report, which identified the telecommunication requirements of the 2% of Australian premises that are not encompassed by the proposed national broadband network. I am optimistic that the broadband services which meet the needs of businesses and households in the Territory will be forthcoming, one which is, at the very least, equivalent to those on the eastern seaboard.
Finally, I inform the House that the next meeting of the Online and Communications Council will be held in the Northern Territory and, unusually, will not be held in the state capital. This year, it will be held in the very central location of Alice Springs, and I look forward to giving my interstate colleagues an introduction to outback IT.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the ministerial report by the minister for ICT, and thank him very much. It has been a fantastic joint venture to get the fibre optic out to these remote localities. It is great to see when mining companies can engage with government and organisations such as Telstra to deliver these great services, because we should be able to access this high-speed broadband wherever we are in Australia - we are in a place of much and plenty – but there are times when we cannot.
My experience in life at Kintore, where we did not have optic fibre, gives me an understanding of the problems that people face. The cost of obtaining broadband in these remote communities of the Northern Territory is very inhibitive, as the satellite options are very expensive and somewhat limiting.
I encourage the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology to continue these works. It is a great opportunity to further push into our remote communities and open all opportunities we have for people within Central Australia. I am willing to work with him and listen to what he has to say on these things; they are very important. The services that can be provided are still staggering; once we get that technology to the remote communities. I thank him for his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I notice that he said that people who live in the outback should receive the same services as people who live on the seaboard. People who live on the seaboard do not get the services that they should be receiving, especially in my electorate. There are people on one side of the road in my electorate who can get high-speed broadband, and others on the other side of the road cannot get anything - or very little. It is amazing, in this day and age when there is so much discussion about the money that is being poured into high-speed broadband and services for the people who live in the outback, that those people who you think would have access, simply do not have it. They have been asking for access year in, year out. Telstra keeps saying that, until the funds are there, they cannot do anything about it. I am all for the outback having high-speed broadband, but I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that in areas of population just around the Darwin region, there are people who are not receiving that service yet, and they have been asking for it for a long time.
Another issue is of mobile telephone services which, of course, you can connect into high-speed broadband. I know the member for Fong Lim, during his days as a federal minister, discussed the possibility of having mobile phone coverage all the way up and down the Stuart Highway. Just having come back from Alice Springs, I believe that is one thing we should continue to push for - and also along the Barkly – (1) for emergencies, and (2) for communication. I believe the minister may be able to respond to that as well.
Even for those people who have broadband, I believe that sometimes reliability is a problem. I spent some time out at Benmara Station, out near the Nicholson River, last year or the year before and, even though they had contact, it was unreliable. Sometimes, they had connections and, if the satellite moved a fraction, they did not have any connection. It is not only having it, but ensuring that it is reliable, especially in those times when communication or travel is difficult because of the Wet Season. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both speakers for their points, particularly the member for Nelson. I am taking those concerns on board. I am fully aware of some of the issues that we have with coverage, not only in the remote areas but also in Darwin. It is an issue that I raised with Senator Conroy. My department is discussing those issues with them - I know that we can improve that – and in making the costs more affordable, not only in remote areas, but also in Darwin and in Alice Springs. As a member who travels greatly through our roads network, such as up and down the Stuart Highway, I agree with you on the need for greater coverage for mobile phones. I will take that issue on as the new minister, and feed that back to both members and the parliament in the near future.
NT Heritage Register
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of important work being done to preserve the Territory’s history so that it can be enjoyed by future generations of Territorians. In the Territory we have many places that teach us about the past. It is vital that we safeguard our historic places.
My department’s Heritage Branch is working with the Heritage Advisory Committee to identify our most important landmarks which are being recommended to me for declaration under the Heritage Act. Eight places have been placed on the NT Heritage Register since November last year. The Jessie Gap Climbing Dune in Alice Springs has been declared because of its natural beauty and scientific interest in its formation. The Union Camp in Central Australia has been cited because it was the scene of the workers’ rights uprising by Indigenous station staff midway through the last century. This site is being preserved so that we have a physical reminder of the struggle for equity. Like many others on the register, this site teaches us important lessons about how we got to where we are today. Ghan’s Bore at Tennant Creek is another recent addition to the register. It is a remnant of the development of the gold fields in the area and a relic of European settlement in the town. Ghan’s Bore was drilled in 1934 and was the first bore in the district. This site is the hallmark of the beginning of infrastructure in Central Australia.
This government is also protecting the sites that tell the story of early Darwin: the stone kerbing at the harbour end of Smith Street dates back to the 1880s and is one of the earliest civic works projects carried out in Darwin. It was created using porcellanite stone which, at the time, was commonly used in building projects around Darwin. This historic feature is now protected under the act and was declared, along with the milkwood trees outside Brown’s Mart. These trees were planted in the 1890s by V V Brown, after whom Brown’s Mart was named. It is vital that we preserve sites such as these so that we have a living reminder of our history. It is also vital that we assess the risk to our historic and significant places and react accordingly. The government is the owner of several heritage-listed places and is moving accordingly to prevent these sites from being damaged or from falling into disrepair.
This government has allocated $1m per year from 2004 to 2010 for repairs and maintenance for government-owned heritage assets. Some of the projects that will be undertaken this year include repairs to World War II ammunition bunkers at Frances Bay, and the refurbishment of the Sandfly steam locomotive currently housed at the historic Qantas Hangar at Parap.
This government is also engaging the community and enlists everyone’s support for keeping relics of our past in sound condition. Territorians have the opportunity to apply for $200 000-worth of heritage grants as part of the government’s funding program designed to protect heritage-listed sites. These grants are for privately-owned properties and safeguard sites that tell us more about our identity as Territorians. However, most credit needs to go to the many volunteers who give us their time and money to protect heritage sites across the Territory. To these people, I give my heartfelt gratitude.
Finally, I acknowledge there are some places of historic significance in the Territory which are not on the register. I am committed to ensuring that we get the processes right to ensure these sites are preserved, including through improvements to the Heritage Act. The way we preserve our history defines who we are today, and that is something we should never forget.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her report today. Heritage is certainly an important part of – I was going to say history and, of course, that is technically correct. Yesterday, I visited the East Point Museum on its wonderful open day they held - and congratulations to all those involved. It was very successful as could be seen by the number of people who went through the gates on that day.
When you visit these museums, it can be such a sombre experience to remember what some people went through in times of war, and other tragic things that have happened in our history. It is our heritage that we really need to do more to protect today. I take my hat off to the government for taking some steps in the right direction to protect some of these vital and very important assets - and they are assets – such as the Sandfly, the old train sitting at the Qantas Hangar, and what the volunteers have done to restore that.
It is very important to acknowledge all the volunteers who are involved in heritage programs because they do so much work. I know what Gerry Wood did years ago down at Berry Springs with the Anzac Day cricket match oval. I had been in the Territory for many years and did not know that that oval existed and that the Americans based here used to play cricket there. There is so much that we know has happened and we must do something to protect our history. Thank you very much to the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. One of the things I would like the government to give real consideration to is the establishment of heritage parks. With little sites here and there, perhaps it cannot happen. However, I believe we have to do a lot more work in relation to preserving our major heritage sites, especially our World War II sites, so that they do not fall into disrepair any more than they need to. Naturally, they age and, of course, you cannot do much about that.
However, not only is it important that people know about these sites, but they are important for the economy of the Northern Territory. It is like a lot of things; you have to have a mixed economy for a successful economy overall. If we can increase the number of reasons why people should come to the Territory, then we should do our best to create parks in relation to some of our World War II sites especially. There are places like the Long Airfield and the Fenton Airstrip, with huge amounts of establishments in those areas - a tremendous amount of history - yet, we do not really do enough to tell people about them. It could be that we have Parks, Wildlife and Heritage rangers. We should be looking at that as part of the Territory’s future in this area.
Someone said the Sandfly was at the Qantas Hangar. Recently, it was taken to the wharf and, before that, it was in South Australia. Perhaps there is an opportunity for it to be put inside the front of the convention centre . The Sandfly operated at the wharf for most of its life, although I gather that it was taken down to Pine Creek on occasions. That would have been interesting to see. Perhaps there is a place where it can be put where it is out of the weather but close to where it actually did do most of its work.
I thank people like the Friends of the North Australian Railway. As the member for Brennan said, they are volunteers who do their darnedest to keep the history of the Territory alive and they should be recognised as well for their continual hard work.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members opposite for their comments. There are things that we can do, as I said quite clearly in the last paragraph on the last page:
If you have a look at the third-last paragraph:
It is just so wonderful what you said, member for Nelson; that we have to be encouraging tourists to come to have a look at our past, and how we have moved on as a Territory into the future as well. I believe that we can balance both of them out.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I report to the Assembly on this government’s commitment to establish a community-based recreational fishing development plan to make fishing even better into the future.
Fishing is more popular here than anywhere in the nation. It continues to be the lure of the Territory, and makes such an important contribution to our great lifestyle, our economy, and in creating jobs. Past surveys of recreational fishing habits have shown that, in some parts of the Territory, more than half of all of the residents go fishing at least once a year, and is considerably higher than the national average. It has also been revealed that around one in every four households owns a boat, primarily to go fishing.
It is not only the locals. The Territory is renowned for its unparalleled fishing experience that it can offer which, in turn, provides jobs for Territorians. A past national survey of anglers showed the Territory is a nett importer of fishing tourists, with interstate visitors contributing around 40% of the total fishing activity here in the Territory. The national survey also showed that anglers spend $1.8bn on fishing-related equipment and activities each year.
We are committed to ensure that the unparalleled fishing experiences available today continue into the future. It is simply too important to leave it all to chance. That is why we are committed to delivering a community-based recreational fishing development plan. Such a plan will recognise the significant economic and lifestyle contribution that recreational fishing makes here in the Territory, and that fishing continues to be a major drawcard for tourists. It will identify the key strategic issues and opportunities for recreational fishing so we can ensure that we continue to have some of the best fishing experiences available nationally. Such a plan will also canvas and make recommendations on further development opportunities for recreational fishing. It will consider infrastructure needs, opportunities for greater access, diversity of fishing experiences, and enterprise support programs to make fishing even better. It will also canvas options to deal with resource sharing issues and support the integrated management of our shared fisheries resources. Importantly, such a plan will examine the future management directions for recreational fisheries to ensure their long-term sustainability.
Given increasing popularity and growing numbers of anglers here in the Territory, we must ensure the ongoing sustainability of our fisheries so that the fishing experience available to Territorians today will continue well into the future. We will also examine the resourcing needs and prioritise actions to support the application of the fishing strategy.
Shortly, I will be calling for public nominations for appointment of a community-based working group to develop the draft plan. Members will recall that AFANT first raised the concept of a stand-alone recreational fishing development plan, along with the Guided Fishing Industry Association, both of which have broad community-based membership. Shortly, I will be inviting nominations from regional representatives covering the Katherine, Borroloola and Gove regions, club anglers, non-club anglers, and the fishing tackle industry. It is important that all proposals for the future development of recreational fishing opportunities are the subject of widespread community awareness and discussion. Proposals to protect our iconic barramundi rivers such as the Daly River will also be canvassed in formulating the recreational fishing development plan.
It is terribly important that everyone with an interest, whether they are anglers, tourism operators, fishing guides, Indigenous fishers and the wider community, have a say about the future management on the way we manage our iconic recreational fisheries.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his report this morning. I share the passion of the fishermen who visit the Northern Territory; I am quite a keen angler myself. I understand the importance of having a fishery in the Northern Territory that is attractive to the tourism sector. It does bring an enormous amount of economic value to the Northern Territory, and it has a huge flow-on effect for other tourism products within the NT as well.
I applaud the government’s initiative for putting together the proposal in relation to having broad-based community input for a management scheme of the amateur fishery. I trust that they will be able to find all the right people to sit on that with the expertise, the experience and the knowledge to contribute in a meaningful way to it. I hope that they take into account all the factors that affect the fisheries, and not just perceive them from one side.
Again, I thank the minister for his report and look forward to the results of the program he is proposing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I am very pleased he is talking about getting a broader point of view about some of these issues.
One thing that concerned me, reading AFANT’s proposals for the Daly River, was that they were talking about, for instance, having no live bait downstream from the crossing; limit of the number of barra; and, I think, restrictions on the number of - I call them - freshwater prawns. What worried me is, though those things might have a good basis for what they are trying to say, 500 people live at Nauiyu, and a lot of people who live there are farmers. I used to live at Daly River and, I must admit, one felt like a foreigner sometimes in their own piece of country when hordes of people came down from Darwin and camped at the crossing and, basically, took over the river.
We have to be careful that the people who are focusing on some of these changes do not alienate themselves from the locals, and also ensure that they are discussing these things with the locals. I am not sure the locals would love to hear that they can only have two barra and they are not allowed to use any live bait downstream from the crossing. I am not sure whether they have spoken to people in that area about that. It highlights the fact - and it is good, minister, that you are talking now about being very inclusive to those people who live in those areas.
I will get back to the same old thing. You said one in four people own boats – terrific! Three in four do not, and they probably have to go to the fish and chip shop. I believe it is important that Territorians should be able to buy, at a reasonable price, their own wild catch barra, or salmon, or whatever. We need to find that balance between what is a very important industry - I recognise that. You just have to hear the radio, or see in the newspapers what is written about fishing, and all the businesses that rely on it. It is important to keep that balance, but we also must recognise that a lot of people are not able to fish and they still want to enjoy Territory barramundi.
The last thing, quickly, is that you need to do something about the Channel Island road. You have opened it up for a boat ramp for people to use. It has weight restrictions on it at the moment. I bet your bottom dollar it will be potholed and corrugated in the Dry Season. Government had a good plan to open it up, but it needs to ensure the infrastructure matches it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support. Since AFANT released their submission to me, I have to tell you I have received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, either supporting or opposing, or anything between. That reinforced my opinion that it should be a broad discussion with the whole community, not only one particular organisation. The reality is that AFANT represents 1000 people. There are another 110 000 people not represented by AFANT, but who still want to go fishing. We have to actually ask the community for their opinion, and then I will make a decision.
As for the road, the Minister for Transport heard the comment, and I am pretty sure that he will move very quickly. As for the barramundi - whether local or imported - that is a decision that the consumer has to make. However, I prefer the consumer to be fully informed of what he pays for and what he buys, rather than saying ‘barramundi’ with no indication of whether it comes from Thailand, Katherine or the Daly River.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill is to ratify the Northern Territory’s participation in the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement, which is a joint undertaking of the Australian, Queensland, South Australian, and Northern Territory governments. The Territory signed the agreement in 2004 and has been an active participant in Lake Eyre Basin activities since then, working closely with communities in the region, with the assistance of world-class scientific and technical advice.
The Lake Eyre Basin covers a very large part of Australia, approximately 1 200 000 km2, and lies within the jurisdiction of a number of states and territories. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure sustainability of the river system in the basin and, in particular, to avoid or eliminate cross-border impacts arising from use of water resources and related natural resources.
The rivers in the Lake Eyre Basin are very important globally, representing one of the world’s largest internally draining river systems; that is, the rivers drain inland rather than to the sea. Rivers such as the Georgina, Diamantina and the Cooper also rank amongst the world’s last unregulated dry-land rivers, where the ecology continues to be sustained by highly variable flows free of dams and other structures that restrict water flow. As a result, the basin contains areas of very high conservation significance. The basin is also important to people. Natural resources are used for pastoralism and mining, and are culturally very important to Indigenous people from many communities.
In the Territory, the basin includes the catchments of the Finke, Todd, Hay and Georgina Rivers. While major cross-border water flows derive from Queensland into Lake Eyre in South Australia, significant flows do occur from time to time out of the Territory and into Queensland and South Australia.
The framework for this bill is based on existing legislation previously enacted by Queensland and South Australia which, together with the Commonwealth, were the original parties to ratify the agreement.
The Territory is upstream of other states and has a responsibility to ensure that adverse natural resource management effects do not propagate downstream. Good cross-border arrangements between agencies are already in place regarding most aspects of natural resource management. Membership of the agreement will ensure that this is maintained and made more effective. The Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement and strategies have been used as a guide for cross-border aspects of the integrated natural resource management plans being developed in all jurisdictions, and is expected to contribute to cross-border integration of these plans.
This bill is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the protection and sustainable use of the Territory’s natural resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in relation to this bill, it is a very unusual step for a second reading speech to be presented to this parliament and, then, for debate to ensue forthwith. However, I wish to address an issue that is of some concern to me, all of a sudden. It deals with this bill less than completely directly. It is the letter which has just been tabled by the Speaker in relation to this bill which, surprisingly, is an advice from the Administrator to this House that we can discuss what is, essentially, an appropriation bill. I note that the letter that was tabled in this House was signed by the Chief Minister to His Honour, Mr Tom Pauling, AO, QC, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, seeking permission to pass an appropriation bill.
An appropriation bill is what we pass at budget time. I, as the shadow Treasurer, have some concerns. I have spoken to the Treasurer about this issue very quickly. She was unaware that this letter had been tabled and that there was, essentially, an appropriation bill before this House - something I find extraordinarily surprising. I also found it surprising that, when I spoke to the minister behind the scenes, she was also unaware of an appropriation bill being brought before this House.
What concerns me is not that this is a occurring - there are good grounds why you would bring in an extra appropriation bill out of the budget cycle. One of the reasons you would do it is if you were building something like a railway and you needed $160m-odd to have an out-of-budget appropriation. However, the requested amount for this appropriation is $10 000. That makes me somewhat cautious. Although I am sure I have not been given all of the advice I sought, so far, from the Treasurer and the minister concerned, and there is probably advice to come - and I note that the minister made some comments in relation to some sort of intergovernmental agreement - what I do not understand is why this government has to come into this Chamber with what is, essentially, an appropriation bill, and appropriate $10 000 only.
When we go through the budgetary process every year, we give the Treasurer a Treasurer’s Advance which is a little extra money just in case of the upsies and downsies of the parliamentary and budgetary cycle will need to be met. The value of the Treasurer’s Advance in the 2008-09 budget is $40m. It is interesting to note that we have an appropriation bill for an extra $10 000. Surely, she could reach into that $40m and find the $10 000 from there?
I also point out that, under the Financial Management Act, without coming back into parliament for a new appropriation bill, the Treasurer and the government of the day are capable of going to the Administrator and seeking a 5% blowout in the appropriation, which means - off the top of my head without having the figures in front of me - there is a capacity for government to get an extra $180m, $190m in the current budgetary cycle without having to come back into this House.
Madam Speaker, the only conclusion I can currently draw, with the limited information that is available to me at the moment, is that the government is broke and they are actually looking for some more money ...
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, why did you just drop this on the table and why do we not have a debate as to why you are walking in here with an appropriation bill? Let us see some explanations. This is part of the problem that I have with the way that you guys conduct government; you walk in here with traps, and do not notify what is going on. We should have received advice of this letter at least 24 hours ago, or on Friday, not 10 seconds into the debate, with the Speaker dropping it on the table and hoping that nobody would notice.
Madam Speaker, why have I been inherently suspicious of this arrangement? Why would I have my ears prick up when the Speaker drops a letter on the table from the Chief Minister and, when I read that letter, find out that they are going to the Administrator asking for $10 000 extra cash out of the Central Holding Authority through an appropriation bill, when they have nearly $200m capacity to sidestep this process? That is why I am concerned. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, unless there is a clear explanation forthcoming, the only logical explanation that can be drawn from what is occurring in this House today is that the government is broke. I would like to know why we are appropriating $10 000 when we have a budget which is in the order of $3.5bn - off budget spend?
I made some comments last week about the way that Cabinet does business and how they are quite happy to go through the budget cycle and put together a budget, which then gets tinkered with and tinkered with throughout the course of the year so what actually comes out at the other end of the year is almost unrecognisable. Now, we have a Cabinet decision which means that they are coming to parliament asking for more cash.
It is up to the government to explain when they come into this place why they are passing legislation and seeking extra money - not to try to slip it in under the radar and hope that nobody notices.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s explanation in relation to this. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to respond to the extraordinary outburst and tirade by the member for Port Darwin which, as usual, is way off the mark. The letter that the member for Port Darwin refers to is simply a procedural requirement under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he raised the question about the letter with me just some minutes before this debate and the introduction of the legislation in regard to Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement, it is confined within the requirements of the IGA that we proceed with a payment, a …
Mr Elferink: You enter into these agreements all the time. You did not have an extra appropriation bill for the …
Dr Burns: We listened to you in silence.
Mr Elferink: Actually, no, you did not. I was interjected on.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting, please. Deputy Chief Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he first raised this issue of the letter with me in the corridor some minutes before the introduction of the legislation, it is a requirement of the intergovernmental agreement that the Northern Territory provides a payment of $10 000 per annum as a cash contribution. Clearly, we are not broke, we have plenty of cash. We are not in the dire straits the CLP were in when they were in government. As a backbencher, the member for Port Darwin probably is living in the shadows of that still.
This is not anything but a requirement under the terms of section 11 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that requires a recommendation in and around the provision here. It is not an appropriation bill. The bill before the House simply, as has been explained in the second reading speech, gives effect to the Lake Eyre IGA. If the member for Port Darwin remains confused, I will be happy, of course, to step him through it, yet again - that will make it the third time.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, this is one bill that we, on this side, wholeheartedly support. The reasons for the amendments have been explained. I thank the minister’s office for providing such a detailed brief on the amendments. We fully understand why the amendments needed to be brought in, and we support the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this legislation. I guess there is a bit of surprise on this side of the Chamber because the CLP, in the past, had been vehemently opposed to what this government was doing in Parks and Wildlife. Surprise aside, I support the introduction and debate – albeit short debate – on the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill that my colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, has brought before this House.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to allow parks status to be declared upon areas of land held by the Aboriginal Land Trust, Park Land Trust, or an Aboriginal landholding corporation that are leased back to Northern Territory for the purposes of joint management of parks. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act and amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act have established joint management arrangements over some of the Territory’s parks and reserves.
I guess there was stunned silence on this side of the House with the wholehearted support of the opposition, because we recall the lengthy debates that have occurred and, indeed, some very divisive comments and petitions that have been circulated by the CLP in regard to this critically important Parks and Reserves Framework for the Future. They were vehemently opposed to the joint management arrangements of some of the Territory parks and reserves. However, we welcome the change – the change that the breeze has blown in with the new shadow spokesperson for the Environment. It is a very welcome change, because it was a very divisive debate. Actions by the CLP in the past, which had slogans such as ‘they are handing over the parks’ and the like, were pretty divisive. It truly is a good day for Territorians when we see the CLP set aside the rhetoric of division. The shadow has had his way in the party wing room. He rolled the Opposition Leader and the Whip in their stance. That is a future leader here; that is pretty fantastic ...
Mr Mills: Get on with matters of substance, you mischief maker.
A member: They already know that we are in next time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Extraordinary, well done shadow, rolling the Opposition Leader and the Whip in the party room. I will have a talk to you later about how you pulled off the coup ...
Mr Mills: You need some advice, do you?
Ms LAWRIE: No, not at all; we have just been taking bets. I pick up on the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. We have just been taking bets on who was going to challenge who in the CLP and who was working the numbers ...
Mr Mills: Get on with the business of running the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE: We had it wrong. We were underestimating the member for Brennan. You are going up in the batting order, member for Brennan, I have to say from this side of the House. That was a clean bowl, really, of the Leader of the Opposition and the Whip.
This was groundbreaking legislation that the government pursued, despite the divisive stance of the CLP, because it truly did bring together joint management and enabled the development of joint management arrangements between the Territory and, critically important, of course, the traditional owners of these lands. Joint management, we believe sincerely, gives Indigenous people opportunities to manage their own lands, and provides employment and economic development opportunities for traditional owners.
The Parks and Wildlife Service has done a significant job of implementing a range of these employment and training initiatives for the traditional owners. This amendment being discussed today gives effect to the anticipated outcomes of those joint management sections of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, changing the area of land leased back to be a jointly-managed park.
As mentioned by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, these additional areas may now include: former stock routes located within or adjacent to a park; closed roads; areas of park previously subjected to Aboriginal and/or native title claims, and not able to be declared; and adjacent areas of land long proposed and agreed for inclusion in the parks. The amendment will now allow the declaration of park status over the entire park area in a single process.
The joint management provides a great opportunity for traditional owners to become involved in tourism, economic development, and the workforce. Through these types of opportunities in education and employment, we believe it will help to close the gap of the Indigenous disadvantage. That is why the government has been a strong advocate of this bill. I recall some of the debates in and around this legislation ...
Dr Burns: The advertisements.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, there were some pretty stark advertisements. As I said, there was a petition of which the former member for Greatorex, one Dr Lim, was a great advocate.
I noticed the first signs of a split in the CLP on this issue started to form and appear in and around July 2008, when the CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion, voted for some enabling legislation for this legislation in the Senate. At that stage, that was really the first signs of a split within the CLP ranks, because they had vehemently, publicly, and quite stridently pursued this agenda of saying that joint management was going to be the end of public access to parks as we know it. Even though, of course, we were pointing out at the time the well-managed Nitmiluk example of a joint-managed park, and Uluru as well. We have plenty of examples in the Territory where joint management had been successful but, despite that, the CLP had pursued this agenda of saying that joint management would be the end of access to parks as we know it, and that it was just a land giveaway by government to Indigenous Territorians - basically beating the racist drum that the CLP has long beaten. Those of us in the Chamber at the time were horrified that they continued to pursue this stance - not too surprised, but truly horrified. It was in July 2008 that the first cracks of dissent, from this drum beating of the past, started to appear when Senator Scullion voted for the parks framework agenda in the Senate.
I refer to some comments that the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, made of his CLP party colleague, Nigel Scullion, after he voted in the Senate in favour of transferring to Indigenous people the ownership of the 13 national parks in the Centre. Erwin Chlanda from the Alice Springs News interviewed him on the subject, and I will quote the view that the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, had about Senator Scullion’s support of the national parks and the joint management agenda on 3 July 2008 in the Alice Springs News:
That was the blunt assessment that the Opposition Leader had on his CLP colleague, Nigel Scullion. Another quote from the Opposition Leader:
Mr Mills was, obviously, pointing out that he was very disappointed that the Senator for the CLP voted with the federal opposition in support of the bill. He went on to say that the Coalition had misjudged the issues, and that they were possibly misjudging them in the context of recently issuing an apology to the Stolen Generations. He went on to say that, after speaking to Senator Scullion, he understood the lie of the Coalition land. He said that the opposition’s actions were creating barriers and divisions in the community - and it went on.
We had the CLP continuing to oppose the rights of Indigenous Territorians to have joint management of parks. Many of us in this Chamber recall those nasty, divisive remarks coming from the opposition - consistently under the leadership of the member for Blain, but also under the period and the leadership of the member for Araluen, when she held the opposition leadership reins for that period of time. It is somewhat of a surprise for the opposition to support this legislation today when, as I say, they are well and truly on the record as pointing out that they had immense difficulty with this agenda of joint management.
I have an Alice Springs News article from 10 July 2008, again by Erwin Chlanda. He was talking to the member for Araluen in this article, who was quoted as saying:
Erwin Chlanda asked:
The member for Araluen responded:
The member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, said:
The Alice Springs News questioned:
The member for Araluen said:
Strident messages coming from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, the Whip, the member for Araluen, and the would-be contender for the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Greatorex, in around the party’s strong stance against joint management of the parks.
Yet, here today in this Assembly is an opportunity for the CLP to pursue its very strong views around their opposition to joint management of parks. Here today you have an opportunity, and what occurs? The member for Brennan has had a coup in the party wing meeting. He has managed to turn around, I hazard to guess, 27 years of entrenched opposition to joint management and the ability of the Indigenous Territorians to manage their land. He has turned that around, had a coup in the party wing meeting, come in here, and the CLP is on the record as wholeheartedly supporting the legislation before the House. I take my hat off to the member for Brennan. He has done something that thousands of Territorians have been unable to achieve in the past; which is to get a sensible and appropriate approach to the management of parks in CLP policy ...
Dr Burns: Enlightened.
Ms LAWRIE: A truly enlightened approach by the CLP. Members on this side of the House are delighted with the bipartisan support the member for Brennan has delivered in the parks agenda.
As I said, the opposition have been unerring in its opposition in the past, even so far as having a very public display of division between the members representing the CLP in this parliament and their representative in the federal parliament, one Senator Nigel Scullion. There were some very strident, public assessments from their current leader, the member for Blain, about Senator Scullion having stuffed up and, then, the member for Greatorex described Senator Scullion’s performance as disappointing. Then, the member for Araluen weighed in on the issue, saying they were immensely disappointed.
I just wonder what Senator Scullion will be saying with a few phone calls to his colleagues today. Would he be saying: ‘Well, hang on a second, you had a red hot go at me in the Alice Springs News over my support for the joint management framework. How about just coming out and publicly apologising perhaps?’ …
Dr Burns: He would be hailing the member for Brennan.
Ms LAWRIE: He would be ringing the member for Brennan and saying: ‘Mate, thanks for your backup there and thanks for getting the numbers in the party wing meeting’ - truly, an incredible performance by the member for Brennan.
You just wonder what the comments will be in the support for this legislation from the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition on support for this legislation or, indeed, the member for Araluen. I am looking forward to hearing her comments in support of this legislation. I also invite and welcome comments and support of this legislation from the member for Greatorex. They have all been on the public record in relation to the framework and what they think about joint management of our parks.
I congratulate our minister for Environment. Fittingly, this is the first legislation the minister for Environment will take to full debate and, it ends up being a seminal moment in Territory political history …
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious me.
Ms LAWRIE: … where the member for Macdonnell …
Mr Elferink: You have been there, you have made your point. Are you going to do this for the next 15 minutes, or are you going to want an extension of time to say the same thing again and again? It is really awful.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Do not tempt me.
The member for Macdonnell, as the Environment minister, is carrying through tremendous legislation, which we sincerely believe takes the management of Territory’s parks into the 21st century. We know that our hard-working rangers on the ground get a great deal of personal satisfaction working alongside the traditional owners of the lands on which these parks lie. They share their expertise and knowledge. We know, also, that central to tourism opportunities in the Territory are our parks. We get a lot of feedback, as a government, that tourists come here to understand and experience Indigenous culture. We sincerely believe that, uniquely, the parks stand to provide a truly Indigenous cultural tourism experience, and joint management provides a strengthening of that opportunity.
This is a seminal moment because we have, in the political history of the Territory, a day when an Indigenous minister for the Environment, a very strong Indigenous spokesperson for her people and the people of the Territory, is bringing through this legislation for debate and passage - and the CLP has collapsed in upon itself and has stopped its senseless opposition to the joint management framework and put aside the strident rhetoric of just some seven months ago with the support today in the Chamber. It is very fitting that the member for Macdonnell, as the Environment minister, is bringing this through passage and into enactment.
I hope it bodes well for the policies of the CLP into the future, in the roles and rights Indigenous Territorians should enjoy as landowners in the Territory and the economic opportunities, and employment and training opportunities, that ownership and the use of that land brings, and the role, importantly, that our beautiful parks will provide in that framework. I sincerely congratulate the minister for the Environment for this legislation before the House today.
As minister for Planning, I know my agency has worked closely with the environment agency NRETAS. I thank all of those hard-working staff in the department for the efforts they have undertaken. Joint management is proving to be a success, but it is also proving to open up knowledge and information in the bush that will bode the Territory extremely well. It is an incredibly exciting era for those who are working in our parks, and it is going to be interesting to watch the fruition of the labour of this framework unfold. I congratulate the minister for the legislation before us, but I also thank sincerely the member for Brennan for the party room coup that has silenced the ranting of the CLP opposition of the past.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the previous speaker has referred to this as a seminal moment and, indeed, it is a seminal moment. However, what we have seen displayed is a crass outpouring of blatant politicisation, when there was a decision made to recognise what has already been established; reasoned concern about the direction that this Labor government has embarked upon. That does not change. However, in the discussions from one side to the other, there was a recognition that there were some technical glitches that needed to be corrected on the decision that you had taken and the path that you had chosen to embark upon. On that basis, in a spirit of goodwill, rather than to fight in the trenches on an ideological battle and point of reasoned difference - which is quite permissible; to have two different points of view. I only wish that they could be debated and assessed on their merits, on the strength of argument, not on this churlish, shallow rubbish that accounts for parliamentary debate. It is a nonsense, an embarrassment and a shame on the honourable member who insists upon being called honourable when we have had this dishonourable tirade that is bringing discredit to this very …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not believe the member for Blain should be reflecting in such a fashion on the character of the member for Karama, and I ask that he withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe there is any need to withdraw. However, Leader of the Opposition, if you can contain any personal comments that might be unparliamentary for the future.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I was referring to Standing Order 62, Offensive or Unbecoming Words. I still believe that those words are offensive and unbecoming.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, I have already ruled on this. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If it is a genuine and sincere – that word was used eight times, or perhaps I lost count, by the member for Karama - concern, therefore, it would apply both ways. On that basis, I withdraw it, if it is genuinely felt and honestly believed. It would, therefore, have you on your feet raising points of order when it applies on your side.
Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: What was referred to as a seminal moment is, in fact, that. We want to get on with the business and focus our attention on things that matter in this parliament. We have had debates, and even a motion just before that spoke of the need to get on with our business and develop a better understanding. We know what matters. We have made our point, but we want to move on.
Therefore, I find it extremely disappointing that this path was embarked upon by the Deputy Chief Minister to fill the pages of the Parliamentary Record and take this time to make such childish and shallow comments when, really, the position is quite clear: we wish to simply get on with the business and assist you in correcting a mistake that has been made in the structure of this agreement, which is your decision, and which has been clear from the beginning. There are significant points of difference.
I almost feel embarrassed having to defend those shallow and – I will not say any more - those assertions that were referred to, which was a thin mask for raw ambition. Clearly, we will be providing you with some counsel and advice on how to conduct coups, as that is really the bottom line here. It seems to be the greatest focus that you seem to have about your personal ambitions and a political agenda being delivered. Rather, we need to get out of the way and ensure that the business of the Chamber proceeds. We can clear the road blocks and you can get on with the decisions that you have made. A point remains; there is a point of difference, and that has never, ever compromised at all. It is simply a matter of getting on with the business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the changes to the bill, and I thank the government for its briefing. One could be a little cynical in saying it covers some earlier mistakes that the government probably should have been aware of when it first introduced the legislation. Be that as it may, it has come back to this parliament to be rectified, and that is a necessary thing.
I am not sure whether we are going to any committee stage here, but this could be answered in the minister’s summary. I did note, reading this once again, that clause 6 relating to section 24(4), says:
My query is: what happens if you made an error here? What happens if another error about a park shows up? Is this saying that this legislation will not cover that, if there was a second mistake or something was left out? I would like the minister to respond to that.
In general matters in relation to the parks, I understand there is a difference between the CLP and the government on this. My belief was that the changes that the government was bringing forward were the best in the circumstances. We all know the history of why these changes were made in relation to the incorrect gazettal of some of the parks and their livelihood; that they would be challenged under the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
If the CLP believes that should be challenged just to ensure that those people who were claiming to be claimants were legitimately the correct people, I understand that. However, I also understand that, rather than dealing with the overall philosophical argument when you looked at those parks; it was very hard for me to believe that we would not have the correct traditional owners of those parks identified through the land councils. I believe you have to take into perspective where those parks are in the geography of the Northern Territory.
I support the concept that this will create jobs for Aboriginal people in those areas. However, they have to ensure they are not paternalistic-type jobs. If we have jobs for Aboriginal people out there, are we giving them jobs that will advance them? For example, we have a ranger who goes to university and works somewhere and, then, we have someone from an Aboriginal community we call a ranger. What we should be trying to do all the time is ensuring those rangers we are bringing out from those communities have opportunities for more education, to be not just the ranger based on: ‘I live in that area, this is my culture, and I know about the country’, but also adding to that some of the scientific reasons we have rangers as well – improving those qualifications. Not just say in a nice glossy brochure that four or five people in that area now have jobs. That is fine, and I accept that. However, that is not where it stops. Jobs, and ongoing jobs, have to be a priority. We also have to improve the qualifications of those people because we have to look at the future, and not just now.
I also like the concept of expanding our parks. There is an opportunity with Gregory National Park. Instead of having a sliver of a park on the eastern side, and a large section of park on the western side, those two sections of the park will now be combined with the land the traditional owners have said they would agree to be part of that. Davenport Ranges, I believe, now has an expansion which will make it a much better park as well. There are some positives.
My concern, as I have said before and will probably say to the day I leave, is that I really believe that one day we have to sit down and say: ‘This is not about leasing parks. We are all members of this earth, regardless of whether our ancestry goes back in Australia further than some of our non-Indigenous people’. I believe parks would be better with a parks title that was in perpetuity. It would recognise that, as human beings, there are some parts of this earth we want to protect and preserve forever more because of their special cultural, heritage, or environmental significance.
We are all part of this one universe. I believe that, by having a parks title in perpetuity it recognises all the interests that we have. Aboriginal people certainly have a lot of interest in that land. I, as a fellow human being, also have a lot of interest. I enjoy the rivers, the bush, the sunsets, the rocky hills, the stories Aboriginal people have about it, the geography, the geology, and the science as well. It is not just a single issue of a national park we are talking about; it is about all of us being able to enjoy something that is part of us - I believe our very being. You can go anywhere in the world, in countries all over the world, and there are important places like Yellowstone. I bet you that is just as important for American Indigenous people as it is for non-Indigenous Americans.
My goal would be to one day convince this government that we do not have Djukbinj National Park agreements, Cobourg National Park agreements, or Uluru National Park agreements, and the whole range of other agreements we have now. We have three other forms of parks. I believe that if we are to work as a community that believes very much in working together, it would be a great thing for this government to consider putting forward - with time, not in a hurry, but as we move along - a proposal that all our parks are recognised in perpetuity, and they recognise the influences of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the landscape. That would be good for not only the Territory, but all of us as people of Australia.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Ms Lynne Walker MLA, member for Nhulunbuy, resigning as the Chair of the Sessional Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development. Ms Walker will remain as a member of the committee.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, what we are seeing from the government is a desperate attempt by them to deflect attention away from their own internal issues which have been plaguing them over more recent times. The vehicle by which they choose to do that, rather than improve their own standards and lift themselves to a higher level of efficiency, as I said last week, is to lash out at those people around them, particularly their political opponents. That is all the cut and thrust of politics, but what is astonishing is the choice they have made and the depths they will lower themselves to continue this particular approach.
The bill before the House is a minor amendment which has to do with some poor drafting problems in earlier times. It was never the intention of the Country Liberals to come into this House and challenge the government on what was, ultimately, a drafting error on their part. Consequently, we indicated our support for the bill, not because we support the hand-backs of the parks, but the fact is the government has taken us to this point where these packages are being delivered and it is something that the Country Liberals have passionately fought in its place.
If the government wants to come in for minor amendments to prevent mistakes and those sorts of things, and we support it, we hope that they would accept that support for those minor error amendments in the spirit in which it was offered. However, rather than that, they have chosen, in a desperate attempt to deal with the issue that they have two Cabinet reshuffles in the past week, to try to use what was a genuine offer on this side of the House to deal with a small side issue and get it out of the way quickly, because there would have been third parties affected by it. They have decided to try to make a song and dance about that regarding internal division.
If they want to have the fight, I am more than happy to have the fight in this place, on each and every bill that comes through which has to do with this particular issue. This was a big package. If they want us to drag and torturously go through every bill clause by clause in the committee stages, so that we can sit there and go over the same arguments again and again and again, to make some point that we have already well made, then, if that is really what they want, then continue down this path. That is my advice to them.
I will reiterate now for the record. Because of the churlishness and short-sightedness of the government - particularly the Treasurer - on this issue, in trying to turn what was meant to be a straightforward amendment into a political issue, I will revisit one aspect of the parks hand-back - and it is the one that concerns me most - which was the result of the Ward decision. We will not go into all of that again. However, the government sought two instances of legal advice from various commentators, one being the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, the other being an undisclosed third party who was not a member of government. Government reported back and said it was the opinion of the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, and of this other lawyer, that the Territory government is exposed in claims against it because of the original declaration process.
The advice I have subsequently received is that it was three parks only that fell within that category. I do not know if that is true or not; that is the advice I have received. Whilst the government may sit there and deny it was only three parks, or whatever, the fact is I do not know. I will tell you why I do not know, Madam Speaker. Because on each occasion that we have tried to extract from government the opinions themselves, the government has clammed up and refused to hand over those opinions. This is a government which swore black and blue it would be open, honest and accountable.
The CLP has, from time to time in the past, as has the Northern Territory government, challenged the quality of claims against the possessions of the Crown; that is, of the people of the Northern Territory as represented by the Crown in the courts and in this place. The government has done so with the native title claim over Darwin, and they certainly did so with the Blue Mud Bay case all the way to the High Court of Australia. They took out full-page advertisements saying that they were fighting those particular cases.
Whilst we acknowledge the government’s right - in fact, duty - from time to time to test these cases, what we were concerned about on this side of the House originally - and remain concerned about now - is that in that decision to simply hand back the parks to claimants, potential or otherwise three parks were under threat - 49 was the original figure, I think it has dwindled down to about 18 now; I stand to be corrected on that.
Why is it so outrageous for this side of the House asking the government to deliver and lay on the table the two legal opinions they received in relation to this matter? That is all we have asked for. Until such time as we get to see those legal opinions and get a feel for the actual threat that was made against the parks, I do not think it is an outrageous position for this side of the House to say, basically: ‘Put up or shut up’. Put up the decisions - convince us. Come into this place with the legal opinions and convince us that, indeed, all of those parks were under threat because, until you do so, you are asking us to fly blind. This side of the House has been abundantly clear on this particular topic: we will not fly blind. We will not sit ourselves in the passenger seat and see large amounts of Crown land and park land simply given away on ’Trust us, we are in government’.
From time to time, the government has engaged in behaviour which is less than trustworthy and, so far, the government has been more than happy to be less than trustworthy on this particular issue. It is not a big ask to ask people to hand over the very things which would justify their position because if, indeed, all those parks were under threat then, surely, the best argument you could ever lay on the table are two legal opinions that said all those parks are under threat. The advice I have received is that it was not all those parks that were under threat, it was three. I do not know which three parks they were; it could have been the Western MacDonnells. I can tell you, I would be a lot more close to convinced about the parks hand-back if it was the whole of the Western MacDonnells under threat. To turn into inalienable freehold outright without a leaseback arrangement - that would make me jittery.
Put it on the table. I would love to see those decisions, because those decisions are the ones that could convince me to say: ‘All right, there is a legitimate claim’. However, until we see those decisions, we are going to be stuck in a situation where we just cannot accept the ‘trust me’. It is not meant to be angry or insulting. I am not engaging in anything to try to upset people. However, it works in reverse. If somebody has a claim against Aboriginal title of any sort, it would be well within the rights of Aboriginal people to test the quality of the claim against their property, and I would expect that to occur.
If you want to distil all this noisy political rhetoric, and everything else, down to a single issue in relation to this matter; that is the one issue. Show us the legal opinions and give us an opportunity to digest them. In that case, if you want support for your position, then we would be in a much more educated position to be able to provide that support. It is not an unreasonable request. For that matter, Madam Speaker, I make that request again today.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support the Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill presented by the Environment minister. I congratulate her on her first legislation to be passed, hopefully, today.
This bill streamlines the revocation and redeclaration of joint-managed parks and reserves where changes have been made to the park’s boundaries. It continues this government’s policy position of working with Indigenous people, which is more effective, more equitable and far easier on the public purse than disputing land management matters in the courts. As a member with a bush electorate, I welcome the introduction of this legislation. The Territory has some of the best parks in the world and we need to ensure that we have modern and efficient legislation in place.
These are very much world-class joint management arrangements. My experience around the Timber Creek area, when the discussions occurred regarding Gregory National Park, was that it was seen as an opportunity to resolve issues. As the minister alluded to, some land trust area – I think it is theNgaliwurru/Nungali Land Trust in between the two bits of Gregory - was seen as part of that. You also have the other land trust’s Innisfail Station, which is being run as a cattle station now, which also could be incorporated in that. There are opportunities, because there is genuine commitment. Through the Flora National Park, there have been job opportunities created and it is a better working relationship.
The other parts of my electorate – perhaps I will just go through them. The Channel Point Coastal Reserve is a beautiful little reserve in the west. Working with the Wadjigan people, there is a commitment to improve the services and general management of that area. In a former part of my electorate is the Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park. It is a beautiful park and the gorge is absolutely fantastic. Those joint management arrangements with the Wadjigan people have produced results. Another park is the Douglas Hot Springs. This is part of the Douglas River and is owned by the Wadjigan people who properly manage it with the Parks and Wildlife people. It will also be the subject of formal joint management arrangements in the near future. The Wadjigan women have a cultural responsibility to this area, which is recognised as a place for their ceremonial practices. There needs to be flexibility in the park management arrangements to protect those interests for everybody concerned.
The key focus of the bill is to clarify land tenure issues on joint-managed national parks when changes are made to the park boundaries. The bill allows the minister to remove small areas of land such as road corridors and public utilities from the park. It also allows other adjoining areas of land which are subject to title change and lease-back as a joint-managed park to be included in the declaration as a park. This is important. The current arrangements are costly and time-consuming. This bill allows a seamless and streamlined declaration to ensure the proper and continued management of the park.
The changes allow park rangers and traditional owners to get on with the important business of managing joint-managed parks and reserves, rather than having to go through a lengthy process of declaring different land portions such as former stock routes and closed road reserves separately. Non-park interests such as major roads, Aboriginal living areas, and utility corridors are removed from the title grant to Aboriginal land to allow public interest to be maintained. Parks and Wildlife will negotiate with those parties with an interest in those exclusions to ensure the management of those areas is, as much possible, consistent with the adjoining managed park.
This bill addresses all the technical issues associated with these changes and streamlines the process. Significant public consultation will still occur through the joint management planning process, and all draft management plans will still have to go on public exhibition for a period where the comments from the public are sought and considered. The joint management arrangements in these parks are partnerships in which the Northern Territory government works together with Aboriginal traditional owners to manage those parks. The joint management is not new to the Northern Territory, having been a part of our parks management arrangements for 28 years; the first being Gurig National Park at Cobourg and, later, with Nitmiluk National Park. Those arrangements have been robust and productive for all parties. The visitor numbers have been increasing and the confidence of the traditional owners to invest in infrastructure and other facilities is expressed in the joint management arrangements.
Around one-third of our parks are currently joint managed with decision-making shared so that the natural and cultural heritage of parks is conserved. Visitor enjoyment and other public benefits are provided. Also, traditional owners benefit and their interests are taken into account.
This is a great result. It is a win/win win. Traditional owners benefit, the government benefits and the people of the Northern Territory and Australia also benefit. This is a sensible and pragmatic way to go. It has been seen to succeed. I am sure, with these more streamlined arrangements, it will allow traditional owners to get on with managing their land with the Parks staff for the enjoyment of the public also. I look forward, along with everyone here, I am sure, to getting around those parks over this next Dry Season. I am sure it will be a lovely Dry Season.
Minister, I again congratulate you on the introduction of this bill; your first legislation.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, there is little doubt we are not all celebrating national parks in the Northern Territory. I support these amendments. Minister, I congratulate you also.
There are choices in a democracy. We have choices, and the choices could have meant lengthy legal battles, extensive expense and time, and uncertainty for the community. However, the Northern Territory government has chosen a pathway of joint management, consultation and pragmatism, as was mentioned by my parliamentary colleagues.
Let me drill down - to use a term from the opposition - and talk about the Devils Marbles, for instance, as a very pragmatic example of great legislation in the amendment. The Devils Marbles are in the Barkly and, I dare say, a feature of the Barkly, a feature of the Northern Territory. We have an old highway corridor and a new highway. As the minister has outlined, the pragmatic nature of this amendment, through negotiations and joint management, has been able to solve that problem immediately and create that new corridor within the Marbles for additional tourism benefits, safe areas, stopovers, and excellent areas to view the Marbles and to take in the history and the culture of the area, while delivering road safety and an alternative route for heavy vehicles and road traffic well away from such a beautiful, sensitive cultural and historical area of the Northern Territory.
This relates to good management from government, good legislation, and this good amendment. We have chosen, as a government, to go into agreement with traditional owners and their representative bodies, the Northern and the Central Land Councils. We have secured parks systems through joint management with traditional owners, and this choice has resulted in the passing of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. We have heard lots of benefits. I have outlined very briefly an economic benefit for government and Territorians. There are lots of social benefits in the Territory in negotiation in partnership; there is a very positive way forward.
A resolution of costly and divisive land rights, native title, and compensation claims has been mentioned. The opportunities are to improve land management overall by sharing information and resources with the traditional owners of this land and Territorians, to go into a better understanding and a better future for all. There is a greater sense of community ownership and management of issues. Enhanced community involvement in decision-making, improved relationships with neighbours, and enhanced regional approaches to conservation also cross over into the area of feral animals and weeds control. This is a very positive thing. In the Barkly, I have already outlined the examples of where we can progress this new, innovative strategy that will benefit our environment and all our people.
With the enhanced potential for cross-agency ranger training, we are talking about jobs and employment. The list goes on. The list is endless for improving opportunities and enhancing opportunities for Indigenous Territorians from the land, from the country. The benefits will provide an inclusive approach to park management, as well as improved social and ecological outcomes.
The changes made to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act give full legal force to the joint management arrangements negotiated and settled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. The legislation and legal documents provide the context of joint management while the practice and the policy are continuing to develop. I congratulate the minister on this legislation.
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my shadow, the member for Brennan, and also the opposition and the member for Nelson, for their support and recognition of how important it is to have joint partnership, and to have this bill go through. I reiterate some of the things that have been spoken about here today, and give acknowledgement of the traditional owners of those parks and traditional lands who have realised, through Commonwealth legislation when the land was handed back to them, that they are not greedy; they do not want the land for themselves. They have negotiated with the Northern Territory government in the parks framework to allow parks to belong to all Territorians, to all Australians.
This is the message that we get out of this bill, through this legislation: that they want to share it with everybody and they want everybody to appreciate and enjoy the beauty in our parks in the Northern Territory. The parks framework and the partnership is very vital in that, if ever, as Territorians, we can encourage real economic development, real employment opportunities and real outcomes for Indigenous people, then it is through this framework.
You can ask: ‘Well, how many people does this framework employ? Where are they heading?’ I went back and researched last night and had a look – and there is an old saying that people use all the time: ‘You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink’. The vision that we have seen through this framework is the parks framework, a joint partnership that says to people: ‘Okay, the job opportunities are there for you. Economic opportunities are there for you’. We need to ensure that we encourage, as local members in this House, all Indigenous people who are traditional owners or tied to those parks to take the opportunities of economic development and employment with both hands. This is a great opportunity for us as Territorians. As I said, this is something that has been handed back to these people through federal legislation.
I want to answer some of the member for Nelson’s questions. We would all love these parks to belong to us. Through this framework, they do belong to us. They belong to us as Territorians now. These people have said: ‘We will give it back under a 99-year lease to the Northern Territory government in joint partnership, saying that it belongs to us all as Territorians; it belongs to us as Australians’.
One of the other points that my colleagues on this side of the House brought up was trying to encourage the tourism and economic aspects of joint partnership. That is a very important aspect in this framework and, if we lose that aspect, we can be guaranteed that in the future we will see nothing. It is up to every single one of us in this House to ensure that we push through this framework, through this legislation that we will pass today, some tourism, economic development and real job opportunities for Indigenous people as park rangers. In my second reading speech, you will see that there is an Indigenous park ranger who has now been employed at Gregory National Park. That has to be so positive for Indigenous women; to see a young Indigenous woman being employed as a park ranger. That sends a loud and very clear message to Indigenous people that park ranger jobs are not only jobs for men, but they are also jobs for women.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their input and their support in passing this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, my question to the minister is a very brief one. It was not attended to in her reply, which is why I have asked to go into committee. It pertains particularly to the two legal opinions which were sought by the Northern Territory government as a result of the Ward decision. Minister, will you make those two opinions public?
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Chair, the whole process of the relationship that we have with a 99-year lease back to the Northern Territory government on the parks is that there has always been the litigation. We have always taken each other to court. At the end of the day, nobody should continue to spend the money on behalf of the public on litigation. This gave us a great opportunity, without litigation, to make a joint partnership agreement with Indigenous people and government. I support the fact that we have not gone through the process of taking each other to court, but have come to some resolution in a partnership to ensure that all Territorians, and Australians, enjoy the parks that we have in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: I will take that as a no, Madam Chair. The minister can well understand the point that I made in the second reading debate, and continue to make now: if you require the support of this side of the House in relation to these sorts of things, and for the acquisition of what is, essentially, Crown land, you can well understand - and I pick up on the point made by the member for Barkly, the new minister for Corrections, about us making decisions. However, we must make informed decisions. It is beyond our capacity to honestly serve the interests of Territorians, both Aboriginal and otherwise, in relation to these sorts of things when we do not know the strength of the claim that is being lodged against the Crown. Therefore, you can well understand our reluctance, because we cannot effectively inform ourselves of the issues before this House when the whole thing is being done on a ‘trust me’ basis.
I point out to the minister as well that this is now, essentially, done and dusted. It is being pushed through, etcetera. There would be no essential consequence that would flow from those two opinions being now made public. I urge the minister to take the time out to take what is, essentially, now two academic documents for the purposes of government and what they have been trying to achieve, and to lay them on the table, so that we and all Territorians can inform ourselves of the actual threat that existed against the parks. I said threat - I will rephrase the word ‘threat’, it is probably not accurate - the strength of the claim against the Crown by potential litigants and which parks were identified as being most threatened. Until such time as I can get access to those opinions, I will have to believe what I have been told unofficially; that there were only ever three parks which were under threat. Which ones, I do not know. If it was only three, but they were three big ones, that still may have changed this side of the House’s opinion. However, we cannot support a government action unless government informs us.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I raised an issue during my earlier speech. I am not sure you covered it, but it is in relation to clause 6, which has a new section 24(4) which says:
Does that mean that after you have fixed up these particular issues in relation to the parks - for instance, excluded public roads or reserves or other corridors for transport or supply of a utility or Aboriginal community living areas, etcetera - as you intend to do in the case of, say, the Devils Marbles, if you happen to have made a mistake and you have left something out in one of those parks, does section 24(4), basically, say: ‘Well, too bad?’
Ms ANDERSON: The new section 24(4) gives me the power to do it once – only once. After that, I have to go back under sections 12 and 13.
Mr WOOD: Without having section 12 and 13 in front of me, could the minister just tell me what those sections relate to?
Ms ANDERSON: I am advised, member for Nelson, they are the normal processes of declaring and undeclaring land.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Territory government believes the passage through the Senate of the Australian government’s $42bn stimulus package, Nation Building and Jobs Plan, was a victory for the Territory community.
This package has been widely welcomed across the Territory and broadly supported. The only exception to this has been the CLP which has, to their enduring disgrace, slavishly followed the orders of their Canberra Liberal masters and opposed this great opportunity for the Territory. The CLP voted against Territory jobs.
This package will be worth approximately $500m to the Territory economy - $0.5bn aimed directly at stimulating growth, developing and building infrastructure, and providing tax breaks to small businesses. It is a well-targeted package and will serve this nation well. The latest Territory breakdown suggests the following possible amounts for the Territory: schools, including non-government schools, $180m to $200m-worth of investment; social housing, $65m; community, $5m; roads, $4m; business tax relief subject to take-up, around $27m; insulation and other components of the package subject to take-up, $34m; Defence housing, $76m; direct payments, around $95m. So, the total package, subject to take-up, is around $490m to $505m to the Territory.
We have made an estimate of the breakdown of this money across the regions of the Territory. The Darwin and Palmerston figure is influenced by the additional $76m expected to be generated by the Defence housing expenditure. Regional breakdown: for Darwin/Palmerston and the western Top End, we estimate a direct injection into the economy of around $329m; Alice Springs around $80m; Katherine around $37m; Tennant Creek around $13m; Jabiru around $14m; and East Arnhem around $32m – an estimated total, as I have said, of around $505m.
The breadth and depth of this stimulus is evident from the spread of funds right across the Territory. ACIL Tasman suggests that, for infrastructure projects under $100m, there are three jobs created for every $1m spent. Across the Territory, that means between 1400 and 1600 jobs sustained from the infrastructure money alone in this package. Those are jobs that otherwise could have been lost to the Northern Territory.
For us now, the rubber hits the road. Since the announcement on 3 February 2009, the government has been working with the Commonwealth government to ensure that the Territory gets its share and is ready to spend the money available. I am very proud of the work that has been done by our public service; they have been working day and night in preparing for this package. Despite the setback of the initial rejection by the Senate, the government and the public sector did not take a backward step in continuing our preparations for the package.
On returning from face-to-face discussions with the Prime Minister, I have put into place a plan for preparing the Territory to get to work on implementing the stimulus package. The plan I announced included: the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month; a summit of construction industry leaders, which was held on Sunday; dedicated stimulus action squads set up in government departments to get these projects up and running as quickly as possible; making it easier for local companies to get local projects; and a short and sharp review of procurement to streamline development and cut red tape.
The government has already held one element of that plan, the summit of industry and community leaders here at parliament yesterday. In excess of 130 people attended the summit; they were drawn from a broad cross-section of the economy. Guests included many of the construction companies and businesses that would be delivering this work. There were union leaders, representatives of school principals and education leaders, the non-government sector represented by the NT Council of Social Services, and non-government schools were represented. Undoubtedly, we missed some people and for that I apologise, but the audience that attended will spread the word far and wide. People were first and foremost appreciative of being informed.
Members may not be aware that the government has embarked on a widespread program of community information around the issues that are arising from this global financial crisis. We believe that information is better than rumour and fact better than misinformation at a time when it is critical that confidence remains high. On Sunday, we took another important step in that process of informing people.
I opened the summit and informed people of the elements of the package, the likely Territory share, and general outline of time lines we have for delivery. I also outlined proposals for streamlining the procurement system. My speech was followed by that of the Coordinator-General who has been established across government, Mr Alastair Shields. A panel of senior public servants was available to discuss implementation plans in more detail. They included the Chief Executives of the Department of the Chief Minister, the Department of Business and Employment, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the Department of Local Government, and the Acting Chief Executive of the Department of Education and Training. I am grateful for their contribution.
Attendees were invited to discuss the issues put forward in the presentation. I was pleased with the wide-ranging discussion that occurred. The time lines for the implementation of the package were the subject of much discussion. Members would not be aware, but the Commonwealth has imposed very strict time lines. It is their clear intention to get as much of this money out into the economy as soon as possible. The following highlights the speed with which the Commonwealth wants this money to hit the economy: for the Primary Schools for the 21st Century Schools, Round 1 – that is 20% of schools - projects to commence June 2009 to be completed by December 2010; Round 2, 40% of schools, July-August 2009 commencement, to be completed January 2011; and Round 3, 40% of the remainder of the schools, December 2009, to be completed by March 2011. The science and language centres for our 21st Century Schools project are to commence July 2009, to be completed by June 2010.
The National School Pride Program, which is up to $200 000 of repairs and maintenance for every school in the Northern Territory: Round 1, 60% of schools to commence in April-May 2009 to be completed by December 2009; and Round 2, around 40% of schools, July 2009, to be completed by February 2010.
The social housing component, with up to 20 000 new allocations of social housing around Australia: Stage 1 of that project commences April/May 2009, to be completed by June 2010; Stage 2 commencing September 2009 to be completed by June 2012. Repairs to existing public housing stock: projects to commence in March 2009, just next month, to be completed by June 2010. The black spots, boom gates, and repair of regional roads: the black spot 2008-09 funding projects are to commence in April 2009, to be completed by December 2009; boom gates projects to commence in April 2009 to be completed by June 2010; and road maintenance projects to commence in March 2009, to be completed by December 2009.
In addition to these time lines, there are real penalties that go with missing the deadlines. Not only will the Commonwealth name people, they will throw the brakes on funding if feet dragging occurs. Businesses are acutely aware of how fast those time lines really are. They wanted to know more about our coordination effort and the effort to reduce red tape to ensure that everyone could comply.
I was able to inform the meeting of the appointments of the Coordinator-General and the new coordination processes within the public sector. The appointment of the Coordinator-General is an important step. He has been uniquely involved in many of the major Territory projects with various governments over many years. The government has absolute confidence in Alastair Shields’ ability to coordinate this project. He outlined to the group the internal process the public service is undertaking to implement the plan. The Coordinator-General has responsibility for ensuring that milestones are reached and implementation issues are addressed urgently.
The Commonwealth has also appointed a Coordinator-General, and he chairs the oversight group that reports to COAG. In addition, the Territory has appointed coordinators in each of the relevant line agencies. These coordinators are assembling the action squads. Each line agency coordinator has a high level of commitment to get the job done. Coordinators are supported by Treasury and the Construction Division in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Action squads have been established in various key agencies. In the Department of Local Government and Housing, there is already a very dedicated focus on the delivery of the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. They have now established a dedicated group of public servants to implement the substantial money flowing from this package. Dedicated squads have also been established in the Department of Education and Training, and in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Industry was very receptive to this effort. Arising out of suggestions from industry at the summit, I have also set into place a reference committee that will be formed to keep industry involvement in the coordination effort. Industry, after all, is best placed to talk with us about what is required. Industry was keen in its support of the increase in meetings of the Development Consent Authority. They were also interested to hear of proposals around procurement.
I have outlined to industry leaders proposals to lift the threshold for procurement, with the aim of taking weeks out of the process. More important is the plan to lift the threshold before a tender is invited. Currently, this level is $50 000, and I am proposing it be lifted to $200 000. There are other subsequent movements as well. This is a proposal at this stage, and I have asked for input, but I am convinced that, with the right oversight, the proposed new levels will reduce the paperwork around procurement considerably.
Discussion also included: coordination with councils and federal agencies; sourcing tradespeople; shortening time lines in government paperwork beyond the procurement process - for example, in implementing DCA decisions; early contractor involvement plans and briefing out intentions; and ensuring everyone gets the chance at the work available. I was pleased to advise industry that I consider this program that we are undertaking an opportunity to overhaul government process on a broad front and reduce paperwork, red tape, and unnecessarily complex administration.
Over the coming weeks and months, the government intends to keep the community informed on the progress achieved in implementing this program. It is clear the community is very strongly supportive of this package, and they will be interested in seeing the proposals turning into reality. They will be pleased to see new houses, upgraded schools, and new community infrastructure. They will be pleased to see direct financial benefits that will help them with the costs of living. All members of our community will be supportive of the jobs that are kept as a result of this package.
As all members are aware, the nation is headed into difficult times. This stimulus package gives everyone an opportunity to avoid the financial mess that has engulfed the rest of the world. My government will be doing everything it can to ensure its smooth, efficient, and rapid implementation.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my initial comments are to welcome this statement, for it describes a specific response to the matters which were discussed last week. I commend the Chief Minister for bringing together, at short notice on a Sunday, the stakeholders, because the implementation phase is the critical phase. Notwithstanding, we have had a discussion and, to some extent, an unsatisfactory discussion about the nature of the package itself - the degree of scrutiny and so on. I will cover some of those issues during my comments. However, to be fair, I need to recognise that this statement is primarily about the implementation phase.
From reports that we have received in opposition - granted they are only reports - as those in this Chamber represent half the Territory community, an opportunity was missed in not including at least a representative from this parliament’s opposition side of the Chamber at this important discussion. This is an indication that issues that are of concern in matters like this, where there is opportunity to weigh a little more the political nature than the economic nature of these matters, is a temptation that it appears this government is susceptible to falling the wrong way on.
This is not a political agenda, this is an economic agenda. It is not a political strategy, it is an economic strategy. To reinforce that and to build that sense of security and certainty within our business sector it would, in my view, have been a wise step to negate that by having representation from this side of the Chamber, noting it is not just four of us here anymore. We do, in fact, represent half the Territory community. Perhaps most of those being urban, there are many employers represented on this side of the Chamber.
From the Chief Minister’s comments in reference to apologies, I will take that not all could have been included, because I acknowledge that, in the haste, perhaps there had been that oversight. However, that aside, more importantly, I hope to see within that apology that there is recognition of the regions and how adequately the regions were represented in that summit on Sunday. It is very important, because that is where we are more exposed than anywhere else. We would be deluding ourselves in thinking we are truly strengthening our economy in the Northern Territory, if we fail to build in the framework of delivering support and strength for regional communities. We would be missing a great opportunity. We are very aware that those who are far from us, who live in the regions, do it very hard. Those who live in the regions who endeavour to find employment are the ones who would need our support more than anyone else. We need to ensure that that level of representation, that level of care, is provided and extends deeply into the regions.
The reference to this side of the Chamber being against the package and, therefore, against jobs, made early in the statement, is political strategy being played out quite heavily, once again. It is a very simple argument. I believe you help an injustice if you are going to continue to run that line, because these are serious matters, and very difficult and serious times that require a certain level of gravitas. If you are going to talk about these matters, you have to gain some credibility.
I am pleased to hear from the reports that I have had from the summit that those agendas were not run through the summit because, if they were, those stakeholders would have been offended by that shallow approach. You have it in the statement at the beginning – political - but let us keep that to a minimum.
The fact is you will not find substantially, genuinely, in a reasonable way, clear opposition to the need for a package. What you have from the Territory opposition is the need for proper and sensible scrutiny to ensure we have real benefits, and that a range of options is explored. That is what you have. You can continue to run the agenda and the strategy you have cooked up, but you are not only doing yourselves a disservice, but not providing the leadership required at this time.
You do not find that on the record. There is an opportunity provided by scrutiny to come up with other solutions, which could well have merit - even if they do come from the other side of the Chamber, heaven forbid. It might be difficult to accept that, but all of us are qualified in the sense that we have received the support of our communities; we have different experiences. We could find a place to meet and have discussions about such matters. For example, the idea of strengthening security in times of natural disasters like cyclones. We have put that on the table and, today, the Chief Minister told us that has already been raised. I challenge the Chief Minister to show us on the public record where that has been raised.
If we are going to get so churlish and say we have already talked about that at some other forum, put it on the table and let us get on with the business, because there is the possibility of meeting to determine the most effective way of implementing this package. We are all in this together. It is not a political strategy or issue; it is an economic strategy and issue that requires cool minds to work their way through this. It also requires leadership.
The party I represent has a proud record of steering the Territory through difficult times, as the Chief Minister well knows. The member for Karama may find that very difficult to concede, but there is a record of steering the Territory through very difficult times. I am proud to stand on that record. When the Country Liberal government invested in major projects - did the heavy lifting on the railway, the gas plant, Yulara, State Square Precinct and many other projects – they saw the Territory through tough economic times; including the recession that we had to have. These infrastructure projects have stood the test of time and remain today as Territory icons. They will continue to play a significant part in the economy well into the future.
You need to consider, when we are going into deficit - which is debt, which is money borrowed - and must factor in the wealth creation to allow yourselves the capacity into the future, beyond the political reach, to repay what you borrow. You do not make such decisions in your own budget. You cannot afford to make those decisions without proper recognition of the forward capacity which is enhanced by wealth creation by the building of real infrastructure. That must guide our thinking. That is why we need these discussions.
Rest assured, we will always be there for the Territory and Territorians, and will continue to scrutinise and speak out against changes if we believe them to be contrary to the interests of Territorians. As we have seen recently, daring to question government brings quite hideous and extreme charges against us. That does not deter us. There is the need, in fact a duty, to ask questions. It is our duty to ensure we are not going to be living completely in the political domain. There is a time for leadership.
The Country Liberals, like the federal opposition, have always supported the concept of a stimulus package. The Country Liberals have called for closer scrutiny of that package to ensure Territorians get the best deal for their taxpayer dollar. I point out that all the numbers contained in the package are estimates, possible amounts and suggestions. That is why scrutiny is required.
The instruments of government in modern times have been increasingly viewed with cynicism by the wider population because it has become a marketing exercise. It has become an exercise to create impressions for political objectives. That is why people become cynical and wary of such packages. That is why it is a time for leadership and genuine scrutiny. You have to go beyond the estimates of possible amounts and suggestions to drill down to find out what is meant by that. We cannot have the hollow men running the show, because it is not a show, it is leadership to establish foundations upon which our children will base their lives. It is not the next Territory election and how you appear in the media today, tomorrow or the next day; it is much more than that.
It was only 11 days ago that the Treasurer was celebrating a $200m windfall from the federal government to the Territory - only 11 days ago, celebrating $200m. There needs to be closer scrutiny to ensure that the benefits of the package actually are relevant for Australians who do not live on the eastern seaboard. How is it that only a few days ago it was only $200m, and now it is $500m? Those stories need to be told and explained honestly and candidly so that we can get beyond the spin, the hype, and the shallow game playing to the truth of the matter as best we can. The appetite within our community is increased for honesty and genuine leadership in the best interests of the Territory.
All the Country Liberals have done is to call for scrutiny on the $42bn blank cheque the federal government has written …
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Senator Scullion voted against it. Talk about honesty.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Blain has the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am growing stronger as days go by not to be drawn into such responses.
There should be dialogue, discussion, and examination of what projects would most help the economy of each state. Instead, we have a package that sucks the skilled labour in one sector of the community into projects at the expense of true diversity. We need to assess and weigh that, and ensure we have the right policy fix and the right response in the best interests of the Territory.
Many of the most underfunded areas of the Territory have been neglected. We need to talk about that rather than be blinded by our enthusiasm, or by government’s enthusiasm, for that which has the interests of the Labor Party and of the Labor government. We really need to have a look at these matters and have a discussion about them. This is not a political strategy; it is an economical one in the best interests of delivering real care and support to our community in response to the problems that we are becoming more and more aware of each day, so that we can lay proper foundations for the future, and sleep peacefully at night and know that when we have finished here we have done the best we can in the interests of those who come after us.
It does not appear much money is being spent of public transport. Is that something we should discuss? Next to no money will be spent on the roads, to be frank, and we do not hear a boo from the Chief Minister on that. We just hear enthusiastic celebrations of a package. It is as though we are called into cheering for some political feat and achievement. It is not a political issue, this is an economical issue. It is a time to dig a little deeper.
There does not appear to be very much money spent on research or our primary industries. In times of economic difficulty, it is primary industry that strengthens and under-girds our economy. Food becomes important. For the supply of food to the marketplace, roads, water, research, bridges, power, and engagement with the region is significant. Primary industry is not called primary industry for any other reason than it is the foundation. There is no money spent on research. Should we talk about that? Should we dare scrutinise and ask such questions and explore those possibilities so that we can get the right fix for the Territory? It appears that we cannot ask those questions for fear of being responded to by the member for Karama with her compelling arguments.
It is a done deal; we have the money coming. Now it is time to ensure there are proper checks and balances on how that money is managed within the Territory. Dare we ask how it is going to flow through our books? We are probably not even allowed to ask those questions, but it is necessary. How is it going to pass through the public account? How will we defend the issue that has been raised, in fact, by the Prime Minister: ‘Make sure you states and territories do not take this money and apportion it for your own commitments’? We need to do that. We will remain ever vigilant to ensure that that is not going to occur; that you do not appropriate the money which is being given to this jurisdiction for your own political objectives and pass it off as some achievement of your own. That has happened before. Dare we ask such questions? Dare we scrutinise? We must do, even though we will be chided again and again by the member for Karama who will find such questioning offensive. However, we will go on undeterred. There is a need for that level of questioning, even if we are holding that request from the Prime Minister as our reason for asking these questions. Well, it is much more than that because the Prime Minister is quite right in this.
The package has hit the ground fast, according to the Prime Minister. The US package took a fair while to go through, and there was quite a level of scrutiny. The scrutiny comes from not just looking at it; the scrutiny comes from asking questions from a whole range of different perspectives. What happened in the US – the Treasurer is probably fully aware of this and would be able to give an explanation of why this did not occur in Australia – is that the money that goes in had the requirement in the US to return, effectively, dollar-for-dollar. So, you are putting it into the economy to get the capacity for the economy to generate wealth and bring it back in.
However, it appears that in the Australian response – for which the Prime Minister required only 48 hours in the initial proposition for assessment by the federal parliament - it does not appear that the same requirement is there for that same dollar in/dollar back. Some have calculated it to be significantly less than that.
You get that by the balance between social and physical infrastructure. There is a balance there, and there is that money that will come back. It has hit the ground fast and, hopefully, we will get that return; that wealth that comes back. However, it appears that the balance between social and physical infrastructure is different. We need to have an explanation of that, if I may humbly put that on the table for a reasoned debate. Why is it that the balance is different in Australia? Help us understand why we have gone down the track of not tying it so strongly to wealth generation. As I have heard one commentator say, we are a little more swayed towards the sugar hit - the money that goes in quickly, and is spent quickly.
Of course, just as the member for Johnston, I am asking people: ‘What will you be doing with it?’ It appears now, from the conversations that I have had - I spoke to a couple of characters on the weekend at the Palmerston shops – yes, some will be paying off debts, fixing a computer. Some are simply just looking forward to having that money come in, and they are going to look forward to spending it. A lot of them are going to be putting it in the bank and retiring debt, because they are becoming concerned about what lies ahead. People are tightening up. Ask people who run restaurants up and down the street how they are responding. People are responding, whether it is personally or in their businesses, by tightening up - they are tightening their belts.
In my prediction, the flow of money into our economy is going to slow right down. Those who have studied statistics of a sample group in the Northern Territory well know a small change can have a dramatic effect in the Territory. It can work both ways. We can have a few extra properties this way or that way, a price up or a price down, and it can have significant effects. If you know statistics, as most do, we could well be in a situation where a small effect can be amplified in the Territory.
That is why there is a need for scrutiny and open discussion. On this occasion, I will take the Chief Minister at his word, because I have checked, and the opposition have had consultations too. I will say again: the money has hit the ground, that first phase is now completed. We now focus on the application for those, and there are a whole range of issues that will be raised: the red tape, the procurement changes and so on - a whole range of issues.
I find it curious - more than curious; there are words I can use that come ready to be used to describe this. It is darn annoying that we talked for a long time in this parliament about the need to release land; we needed to prepare. How many times have we said in the times of plenty to prepare for the lean times? Again and again and again. I remember speaking to the former Treasurer again and again about this: ‘Please, for goodness sake, recognise that these good times will not last forever. It is in the times of plenty you prepare for the lean times. It is the time to put something away and, substantially, make some sacrifices in the times of plenty. Get on with the business of releasing land in a timely way’. That should have occurred. We should be two years down the track.
It is almost impossible to believe that Weddell is going to occur in the time frame that has been indicated by the Chief Minister. Why? Because of your track record. If you cannot turn off a subdivision in time, how on earth are you going to turn off a city? Your track record is appalling and, at a time we need confidence, we do not get it by just looking at the form guide. We come to the place where we are entering the lean times with no adequate provision from this administration. Talk about certainty – there is uncertainty about the capacity to provide that leadership at this time.
There is a disingenuous approach to all of this. You are being consumed by the giddy little snide comments and the poisonous remarks about the politics of all this, and ‘You mob over there’, as though the Country Liberal Senator is the only Senator who can bear influence on this process. Come on! Is there another Senator there? Are there two other Labor members there? Do they not exist? Do they bear any influence on this? Were they called upon?
Do you not recall that, in previous debates, when the Coalition were in government, you kept on calling upon those characters who were sitting there alongside government: ‘Pull your weight for the Territory’? Are they off the hook? They do not have to do anything? They just go along for the ride? Three cheers for the chairman; whatever he says is the go. Nigel Scullion was singled out. Come on, give us a break. People can see through this. This is not high school debating, or political point scoring, or some weird little club where all your giddy little mates giggle because you said something quite nasty in parliament to get a point. It is more serious than that.
How disingenuous is this? On the Notice Paper, under the name, ‘the member for Fong Lim’, there is notice of a motion. I can imagine this will be rejected outright. It says we need to establish a regulation review advisory committee to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and recommend removal or reform of these regulations and processes where appropriate.
No 3 says:
Let us all get together. This is a time when we could position ourselves well. You think anything we put on the table is completely without merit. That is what you say until it comes to an occasion that you will apportion something like this and describe it in grand terms and have a statement on it. Come on. Let us get beyond this childish response to serious matters.
That is there on the table. We can predict how that will go. Those who cannot find any belief that any genuine effort is made in this Chamber will be the ones who judge these things as being disingenuous. Well, I tell you that is fair dinkum. That is at a time when we could have put something in place. I am only saying that just to highlight some of the issues we really face here; that is, the attitude that sits within government that wants to protect these matters and see things through a political prism and play political strategy when it is a time for leadership. It is a time to start talking in reasoned ways about economic issues and how they impact on the Territory, and how we can ensure we lead in the best interests of the Territory and make the right decisions.
Having said all that, the statement is supported. It is supported because it is a response to the next phase. It is supported because, at short notice, stakeholders were called together. I made my comments about the reach of that select group. I will not add any more to that. The intent of this I judge as being the right step at the right time. I am pleased to hear the reports from those who attended viewed this response as being favourable. We will continue to work in the best interests of the Territory and will be undeterred in our right - in fact, our duty - to ask questions. I expect that same duty to be followed by those opposite; that there will be considered responses to serious matters so we continue to seek and act in the best interests of the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on the implementation of the Rudd Labor government’s economic stimulus package. As most commentators recognise, this stimulus will be of enormous significance to the Territory’s economy. It does step right in to the breach of the period where we know we would have had private sector investment contracting due to the global financial crisis, resulting in the economic downturn. This is a result of contractions within the credit markets. It is much more difficult for business to secure the investment that they would have otherwise received in their projects.
We are not seeing the job shedding that is occurring in the southern states as a result of the economic downturn. However, there was some job shedding here over the Christmas period, particularly in the mining sector. We saw miners and their families affected by that. I talked about the transferability of the skills from the mining sector into the construction sector and how this government would remain focused on rolling out our record $870m infrastructure program. This is a program not confined to our urban centres; it quite significantly builds into our regions.
Listening to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition about the importance of the regions clearly sits with what the Chief Minister has said the package will deliver for our regions. We should bear in mind - and a big part of meeting with industry and community leaders yesterday in the stimulus summit in the Territory was explaining that you cannot view this work in isolation. Whilst the stimulus package is of enormous significance, it is not work done outside of other work that will continue to be rolled out by this government, which is our $870m record infrastructure spend. Importantly, also, put that in the context of the significant infrastructure going into the regions, particularly through the SIHIP housing program. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Housing, will talk further on that.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the importance of wealth generation and how he could not see in this package the wealth generation as focused on by President Obama’s package in the United States. Quite frankly, he could not be more wrong. The construct of this package is very much for wealth generation, as the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have articulated. We articulated in this Chamber last week how the stimulus package was constructed. Very clearly, it was a wealth stimulus in and around 2008-09; that is, we are in the second half of that financial year right now. The most effective way to stimulate the economy and the wealth generated through small business turnover and investment in small business was, very clearly, those direct payments hitting into the pockets of families.
Coupled with that - and this is a point that the opposition seems to be missing - are the very significant tax breaks embedded within this package. If you look at a 30% tax rebate on assets, the wealth generation within that area of small- and medium-size enterprises which can pull down on those tax break benefits is significant. Of the commentary I have seen, all the economists point to the wisdom of that double incentive in both the direct payments, as well as the tax breaks. Fundamentally, as we or anyone who has tried to deliver infrastructure in any sense whatsoever knows, you cannot just snap your fingers and see something constructed. You have to design, put tenders out, and mobilise crews, particularly so in the regions. People were speaking yesterday at the Chief Minister’s summit about the time it takes to mobilise the expertise you need in the regions to get out on worksites in our more remote areas to deliver the infrastructure.
Therefore, in the construct of the package, very cleverly, the bulk of the infrastructure dollars started to heave in time lines - very tight time lines, but time lines nevertheless - that gives governments and private sector industry the opportunity to deliver the infrastructure. Construction is an enormous wealth generator, particularly so in a jurisdiction like the Northern Territory. Our construction has underpinned the health of our local economy significantly. We saw the effects in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the construction sector was on its knees: the Territory’s economy had flatlined to 0% economic growth. It had flatlined and that is a real indicator of just how critical the construction sector is to the Territory’s economy.
I had to put on the record that this package goes to the heart of the wealth generation, but is very cleverly doing that in its construct in that those direct payments hit in, in the 2008-09 year. The R&M is kicking in from April, providing that filter through those small businesses, subbies and trades that are critical to the R&M across our schools. The large infrastructure pieces are landing from as tight as May/June of this year. We will see some significant construction programs, obviously, in 2009-10 and 2010-11, which are the key years for those projects. That is not without reason. The very simple reason is, whilst they are incredibly tight time lines, you have to construct a program that, in its essence, is actually deliverable in any sense whatsoever. Whilst this government and industry appreciates the time lines, I do not think that has quite dawned on the Leader of the Opposition, because he was questioning the wealth generation. Infrastructure is a practical wealth generator but, also, it leaves a legacy for future generations of what we absolutely need the most.
We are, as I am fond of saying, a developing jurisdiction. When you look at the task ahead of us in the regions, we have a very long way to go to catch up with the backlog we inherited as a Territory on self-government. Any assessment of that would indicate that any injection of capital works without matching requirements into the Territory is a leap forward, as I like to describe it. The Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan will be supporting, importantly, not just those jobs for Territorians, providing an opportunity for those former workers in the mines who are doing it tough to translate over into building up capacity in the construction industry because, significantly, a lot of their skills are transferable into construction. Fundamentally, its entire construct was designed to insulate the Australian economy from the global downturn and, therefore, the Territory’s economy as well.
This government supports the package because it is responsible. It will support jobs and it will absolutely leave that legacy of improved infrastructure, not only right across our regions, but our urban centres as well. This is the single biggest one-off injection by a federal government into infrastructure across the nation. To put it in context, it comes off the back of a decade of the Howard government, which walked away from infrastructure and decided that infrastructure was the sole responsibility of the states and territories. As a result, we saw federal surpluses grow, and states and territories suffer under the burden of trying to meet that infrastructure requirement on their own. It is great to see a federal government recognise, as early as it did, the need to step into infrastructure - not only to do it in a very large nation-building sense through Infrastructure Australia, which is a process still yet to be finalised, and ultimately announced, but to do it in response to the global financial crisis through the stimulus package.
We are estimating the package will be worth at least $500m to the Territory’s economy. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know why, as Treasurer, I said $200m at COAG, and why we are saying $450m to $500m now. Very clearly, he does not understand that I was referring specifically to the funding ...
Mr Elferink: No, you were talking about a package.
Ms LAWRIE: If he wants to go back and read my media release, it was very clear. I was referring specifically to the funding contained within the capital works component of the schools, the roads, the rail, and the housing. I made it very clear, again, that it was all estimates at that stage. I did background the NT News journalist Nick Calacouras because he at least rang and said: ‘That does not even meet the per capita cut’. If you want to take it per capita cut, it would be about $420m for the Territory, in its simplicity. That would be simplistic because, obviously, if you look at what you will get in per capita on the capital - which are the calculations we have done - you then look at what, potentially, you can get through your individual payments, which is what we have done. You also then look at what you could potentially see businesses claim …
Mr Elferink: Here comes the fix-up.
Ms LAWRIE: … which is what we have done. The Leader of the Opposition was saying that we have taken a childish approach to this. I hear the interjection of the shadow Treasurer. They like to pick a very simplistic approach, because there is no fix-up here at all …
Mr Elferink: Yes, this is a fix-up. We are talking about a $200m package.
Ms LAWRIE: What there very clearly is, and what there always has been, is an approach of honesty. We have been honest, from the announcement of this package by the Rudd government, about what the carve-up could mean to the Northern Territory. We did our figures in and around the capital works, identified quickly that we were looking at approximately - and I have used the words ‘estimated’ - $200m. In itself, that is significant. What that will mean to the Territory’s schools is phenomenal – a large piece of that infrastructure for all of our primary schools. The repairs and maintenance money, coupled with this government’s own commitment to repairs and maintenance, is significant; the likes of which has never been seen in one-off injections into schools’ R&M. Bearing in mind we have ageing infrastructure, as in every jurisdiction, R&M is critically important.
We do not have a calculation on the opportunities in secondary schools - and we believe this is an area where we can punch above our weight - because it is a needs-based submission. However, we believe we are well placed to punch above our weight and get more than you would in a straight per capita slice of the secondary schools funding opportunity.
We will be out there promoting the package because we know that, in supporting parent payments, we have an enormous number of Territorians who stand to benefit from that if they understand the package and its requirements. We will be out there letting the people in our regions know how they can access that funding available to them.
We have to go back and remind ourselves why we are in this position and why we are having this debate. Fundamentally, the federal government took this step because the world economy is facing the slowest growth since World War II. The International Monetary Fund has cut world growth from more than 2% to just 0.5% flatlining. On 23 January this year, Australian shares reached a new five-year low. This package is aiming to insulate our nation from what we are seeing as a global recession. The global downturn is weakening our own national economy, with growth now expected at 1% in 2009 and 0.75% in the 2009-10 financial year. National unemployment is set to rise by 5.5% by June of this year, and 7% by June 2010.
In contrast, the Territory’s economic growth for the 2008-09 financial year, forecast by Treasury in my mid-year report, which I still stand by, is at 4.5%. Access Economics is forecasting economic growth of 4.7% for the same period, slowing to 2.4% in 2009-10. That is why you have heard the Chief Minister and me, as Treasurer, say that, whilst we will not be immune from the global financial crisis and the economic downturn, we are the best placed of the nation’s jurisdictions to ride through the tough times.
The federal budget is now forecast to move into deficit, a deficit they are forecasting at $22.5bn. In my own mid-year report, I forecast that we would face a cash deficit of $47m this financial year due to the economic downturn and the reduction in GST receipts. I am on the record indicating that we face a potential deficit of up to $150m in the next financial year, 2009-10, as the global economy worsens. All of the economic commentators are predicting a worsening. They are saying this will be deep and, potentially, long.
What I am saying is that, after six budget surpluses in a row, with the strong fiscal management of the Labor government, we can afford a temporary deficit position. I am predicting, as Treasurer, that we will get through this economic cycle. It is certainly ambitious in saying two to three years, but that is an ambition I will strive for through strong fiscal management. I believe it is absolutely the right decision to go into deficit temporarily to ride through the tough times.
The other option is to cut spending and increase taxes - and now is certainly not the time to do either. Leading economic commentators are calling on governments around the world to keep spending to keep their economies moving. The Territory business community has not opposed our government’s decision to maintain our spending. In fact, quite the opposite, they have lauded it. The CLP continues to bang the drum of spending, slashing jobs and looking at tax increases to avoid a deficit. We will ensure we are doing our bit against an economic slowdown in the Territory. That is why we will continue with our record infrastructure commitment, rolling out that $870m infrastructure spend. We are proud of our record of having the lowest taxes for small and medium business anywhere in Australia. As I said, our strong fiscal strategy has produced those six budget surpluses. Importantly, it has reduced debt to place us in the strongest possible position to weather the global financial crisis.
The key drivers like private consumption, residential dwellings investment, and exports, are expected to remain strong. Our population growth is expected to remain strong, predicted at around 2%. However, like everywhere, we will see the credit crunch affecting that private investment. That is why this economic stimulus package is so critical. It provides the boost on top of the Territory’s own infrastructure program to step into gaps in the market and provide those all-important jobs in the private sector.
The package, as we say, is estimated in total to be worth around $500m. However, we also estimate it to be worth about 1600 jobs. Schools will get between $180m to $200m. Investment in capital, social housing we are estimating at $65m. We are estimating $9m for roads and boom gates and that community infrastructure. The potential business tax relief is $27m subject to take-up. Insulation and others is $34m subject to take-up. Defence housing is a $76m investment. Also, direct payments we estimate at $95m. Hence, the total package of $490m to $505m. Again, these are estimates based on take-ups and the like. Are we getting our fair share per capita of capital investment? Yes, we are. Do we expect to punch above our weight in the secondary schools because it is based on need? Yes, we do.
I know that the stimulus action squads put in place by our Chief Minister are working hard to ensure we are best placed with our bids. We already have bids in place for our housing and roads and they are very strong bids, indeed. We were straight off the mark and we have met …
Dr BURNS: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Treasurer be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Very deliberately, we have already met all the time lines set down by the federal government in putting bids in for the infrastructure requirements. We have given them a great deal of detail. I thank the stimulus action squad members across the departments who have been working very hard. I welcome the Chief Minister’s initiative of the summit. That was an incredibly important opportunity to deliver the detail of the implementation plan to the industry, business and community sectors. It gave a whole lot of buy-in, in feedback. I welcome the procurement review that is being undertaken by our Minister for Business. I welcome, of course, the step-up in planning. We are going to have fortnightly meetings of the DCA to process any applications coming forward. Ensuring government is working side-by-side with industry to deliver this package will mean a much greater result for Territorians.
There is a regional breakdown I want to outline because the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. At this stage, in Darwin/Palmerston and the western Top End, we estimate the regional breakdown will be some $329m; in Alice Springs we are estimating $80m; in Katherine we are estimating $37m; Tennant Creek $13m; Jabiru $14m; and East Arnhem $32m.
As the Chief Minister has indicated – again, because the Leader of the Opposition seems to have not heard this - the Territory government will undertake regional forums to talk about the implementation of the stimulus package and what this means to the regions. We can indicate to the Chamber today the Ministers for Regional Development and Local Government will be undertaking those forums as soon as parliament rises at the end of this week.
We are very focused, not just on what this stimulus package means for our urban centres. It is incredibly significant for Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. However, obviously, we are also very focused on what it means for our regions.
I have pages upon pages of third party endorsements which I am sure the member for Port Darwin would want to hear, but I will spare him that. I also …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am more than happy to have the minister table all of them.
Ms LAWRIE: I am more than happy to read through some of them, because they are great. The International Monetary Fund has been calling on governments to act through stimulus: borrow where necessary for that stimulus and go into deficit to stave off job losses. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry say the package is good for business: ‘This package will encourage business to go out and invest and employ’. The Territory Construction Association’s, Graham Kemp, said: ‘We are seeing a slowing down of the private market so, as that is rescinding, this type of expenditure is very timely and very important’. Of the summit, he said: ‘It is a pretty important meeting. It is unusual to have a meeting of business leaders on a Sunday, so I think that gives emphasis to the importance of this situation’. Mr George Roussos, from the Chamber of Commerce, today said: ‘There is potential with the amount of spending anticipated in the Territory of an expected $510m. That is a fairly significant spend in our jurisdiction and it would have the impact of tiding us through the next two to three years’.
I talked about the support from the Civil Contractors Federation, the Territory’s Cattlemen’s Association, and the Property Council, during Question Time today. Because they are industry leaders, they know the significance of this spend here in the Territory and what it will deliver in not just economic stimulus but, importantly, in jobs for Territorians, and in that legacy of infrastructure which we will all benefit from.
It is interesting that the CLP stands alone in its attempt, with their little mates in Canberra, to scuttle the stimulus package. They are now wriggling around saying that they just had a few questions to ask on it. Well, CLP Senator Nigel Scullion has not covered himself in glory. When you look at the questions that Nick Xenophon was asking of the stimulus package and the additional funding that he brokered for his state of South Australia, the CLP could have asked a few more questions in Canberra and stood up, as they might have in decades past, for Territorians and clearly advocated for a take for Territorians, because it came to the power of one.
If Senator Scullion had indicated in Canberra that he was willing to negotiate on the package with the federal government, there would have been a lot of time invested in him and in delivering a package around his request for the Territory. But, no, he did not give a damn really about the needs of Territorians and the opportunity that presented itself to him, he chose just to sit there with his little mates in Canberra and vote against the stimulus package. I recall other times when the Senator had the power of one when the Senate was finally balanced previously. Again, time after time, he was afforded the opportunity to deliver for Territorians and, time after time, he sat meekly with his Liberal and National Party mates in Canberra and did not stand up for Territorians.
I tell you who will be standing up for Territorians, and it is this government. We have identified everything that can be done, that must be done, that will be done, to deliver the projects in the time lines required by the federal government. We will ensure that we are drawing down every last dollar and cent available in this stimulus package for Territorians. The Primary Schools for the 21st Century, the Science and Language Centres for the 21st Century schools, the National Schools Pride Program, the new social housing, the repairs to existing public housing stock, black spot funding, the boom gates funding, the road maintenance funding - we will be there investing every effort across all of the government agencies, working closely with the private sector to ensure the industry capacity delivers on the ground across all these areas of opportunity presented by the Rudd government’s stimulus package.
I congratulate the Chief Minister for ensuring that he has introduced a five-point plan to drive this package forward in the Territory: the DCA meeting every fortnight instead of every month and extra staff to support that immediately; the summit that was held yesterday for the construction industry, business and community leaders; the dedicated stimulus action squads that have been established across our government departments to get these projects up and running as fast as possible, making it even easier for local companies to get local projects and get this work; dollars into the pockets of Territorians; and the short sharp review of procurement to streamline those processes and cut red tape, and changes to the procurement threshold.
This is not a government that is sitting around navel gazing as the opposition was doing, saying: ‘We need a good talk about it a little longer’. This is a government of action and I congratulate the Chief Minister for his action. I look forward, as one of the ministers responsible, to ensuring that our stimulus action squads deliver for Territorians, in close concert with the work of the private sector. I look forward to meeting with members of the private sector reference group, who will be integral to insuring that the industry responds as the government is putting these projects out the door, ultimately providing wages from jobs for Territorians who might otherwise have been in the unemployment queues that we see as a result of the global financial crisis and the economic downturn.
I thank the Prime Minister for this stimulus package because, not only will it deliver the infrastructure legacy we so needed but, fundamentally, it will keep Territorians employed. It will keep the wolves at bay. They can pay their mortgage, they can pay their rent, and support their families. Unless you have been in those circumstances, they are tough yards for families. Our Prime Minister has stepped up and provided a stimulus package so this ensures that we see the economic stimulus delivering jobs and legacy infrastructure at the same time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I often find it curious that those who would establish themselves as the protectors and the champions of others spend so much time doing that championing and protecting, all the while drawing attention to themselves and how good they are. I noticed that the Treasurer, at the completion of her comments, started saying what a great job Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, was doing. She thanked him and that is her business.
It actually is not his money; it actually comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. The problem is that, when it comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets in the form of credit card expenditure - and that is all we are talking about; the borrowing - we also know that the taxpayer has to pay it back. I understand the nature of the economic argument that we have to provide a stimulus package. There is the almost flippant dismissal of the fact that we are actually trading off jobs into the future by trying to protect jobs today through this economic structuring.
I find it curious that I have not heard an utterance from either the federal Treasurer or the Northern Territory Treasurer as to why we are engaging in a stimulus package before we have exhausted the principles of monetary policy; namely, interest rates. Whilst they still tick along at 3.5%, there is still room to move in a monetary environment. However, clearly, the government’s assessment is that the situation is so grim and dire that a reference to a monetarist approach needs to be truncated in favour of a Keynesian stimulus package.
The vital difference between the position of the Northern Territory government and the federal government is at least that the federal government expunged its debt and actually had a small amount of savings so that they were able to offer a stimulus package of $10bn in December last year, a further $43bn - we keep saying $42bn; it is actually $42.8bn - stimulus package, and only go on to the wrong side of the ledger a bit.
The problem we have in the Northern Territory is that, in spite the musings of the Treasurer that debt has been reduced, it is actually an untruth because, to make that assertion, she is relying exclusively on the general government sector balance sheet and the nett debt situation that has been recorded on that balance sheet in recent years. However, the truth of the matter is that the government is already engaged in a massive borrowing program for its neglected infrastructure over the next few years. If you take the non-public sector balance sheet and look at that, you will see that debt is tracking up into the future, and tracking up sharply. This is debt that was planned prior to the stimulus package being considered even in December. These were borrowings that existed long before the federal government had any intention of travelling down that path.
What we have now is a government which really had been in a challenging position when it came to borrowing any further. Whilst I appreciate the Treasurer keeps referring to her mid-year financial economic report as being the source document by which she estimates that we will only be $47m on the wrong side of the ledger this year, the fact is that the mid-year economic report is still reliant on projections of income which just do not make sense any more. However, the other day, I did hear the Treasurer say ‘a conservative estimate’, or words to that effect, in relation to the deficit. She is positioning herself, as she so often does, by changing her language slightly each time, so that the position does not so much change or she does not do a backflip, she merely evolves to a new world view.
The other issue that we have before us today is non-clarification. I was hoping, at some point during the Treasurer’s chat, that she would describe how this money is going to pass through the books. If it passes through the normal channels of SPPs, then I suspect that one of the great deficit reduction schemes that will occur this year is the same deficit reduction scheme we saw last year. That is where we are going to hang on to the SPPs, which arrive in late June, and hold them over so that, on midnight on 30 June, we have all this money in the bank, only to have to spend it the next day.
Our last year’s surplus was entirely the product of the government hanging on to Specific Purpose Payments at the death knell of the year, so when the auditor ran their ruler over the books, sure as eggs, 2359 hours on 30 June 2008, there was money in the bank. That money was gone very shortly thereafter, but it produced a very artificial result - and that is an artificial surplus. The fact is that it was not Territory money and Territory savings that was produced in that surplus; it was SPPs being held over.
I notice that the Treasurer, the Chief Minister, and the Prime Minister have all made the observation that this money will not be used to offset state level expenditure. This little trick was used by the government last year. As much as they scream their denials, the paper trail is undeniable; that is, the use of federal government funds - SPPs in this particular instance - to offset the money that they had set aside, or appropriated in the Appropriation Bill of that financial year.
They actually made the appropriations smaller by some $18m. You can track the money through the transfers of access allocations last year. You can see how the money was taken out of Health, because the SPPs were picking up on some of those issues that Health was supposed to be paying for out of its own appropriation. A lot of this does not mean a great deal for many people, other than the fact that, by a sleight of hand, the federal government ended up paying for Territory commitments. It was for that reason, I suspect, that the Prime Minister has become a bit twitchy about this issue. I know that in a recent inquiry, not only I, but other people, had made observations about the states offsetting state-level commitments against federal government expenditure. It was a good way for government to save a few million bucks here and there.
I pick up from the answer during Question Time from the minister for Corrections - who is also the minister for railway crossings, it would appear. I note he said that money spent on railway crossings will be in addition to the $4.2m that was committed to level crossings. I hope the government commits itself to its own appropriation.
It is the nature of credit card expenditure that what you borrow you must pay back. Whilst one of the peculiarities of government debt is that it is very easy to rack up government debt without too much flowing from it in some instances, by virtue of the fact that governments, essentially - unlike private businesses and private individuals - cannot go broke. Whilst a jurisdiction exists no matter how in debt it is, it can still continue to exist. Ask Zimbabwe how they are managing with theirs. So, it is possible, but it does produce really poor outcomes.
We will return to an age where monetarism is the way of the future - and I am sure it is a policy that will be revisited. If it is the way of the future, then interest rates will eventually go up as we work our way through this as a global community. If that is the case, then the package being passed - which includes accesses, I understand, to some other $150bn more than just the $43bn that is being passed - will mean we will end up with a hefty interest bill. If that is the case, that will be a loss. What we are doing now is trading off jobs for the present against the future.
I note also that the government’s fiscal strategy, as outlined in Chapter 3 of Budget Paper No 2, current and in past times, is in tatters, particularly in the area of prudent management of liabilities. The prudent management of liabilities has completely gone out of the window and will be amplified by the current situation. The effect of the current situation on our superannuation liabilities, I suspect, will be quite profound. We will see a sharp growth in the superannuation liabilities because of the circumstances we find ourselves in. I expect we will see a sharp growth in our superannuation liabilities area because the low interest rates now continue a commitment to those superannuation liabilities; particularly in what we pay out on an annual basis. That is a matter of concern for me.
The government’s bank guarantee will have an effect on TIO. TIO’s exposure in the current environment as a non-bank is a matter of some concern. Whilst I note the Auditor-General’s report - I hope I do not get pulled up by the Leader of Government Business and he gives me a little latitude - at the risk of preempting debate on the Auditor-General’s report I notice that there are a lot of brackets and parentheses around TIO’s numbers. Whilst I understand why that has happened, they will have maturing expenses into the future. That is not necessarily a thing for investors to be scared of, and I do not want my comments to be interpreted as, in any way, encouraging people to be afraid. There is something that underwrites TIO and that is the Northern Territory government guarantee on the TIO investments and insurances. The issue is not so much for those people who have investments in TIO. TIO is, I understand it, completely government guaranteed. My comments today, hopefully, should not cause any fear in anyone’s heart. However, what it will do is amplify the pressure on the government profit or the government purse if TIO has to meet maturing and crystallising investment and their exposure to them. There is that issue as well.
It was clear last week that, in the government‘s haste to attack the Country Liberals, they did not actually really know what was in the package and, still, we are hearing the language of $15m - plus or minus. The number that was being used consistently last week was a package of $200m. Now that, mystically, has gone up to $500m. I suspect that may have had something to do with the criticisms levelled in this place that $200m was actually not a good result for the Northern Territory. So, all of a sudden, it crystallises into something else and morphs into this and that, and you add bits on the side, and you have a $505m package. It is reliant on things like take-up rates - and I pick up on what the Treasurer had to say in relation to take-up rates. One of the problems I have with this package is that it does not give what I would classify as proper discretion to the Northern Territory government to apply the funds.
If you read this document, our pink batts - depending on the take-up rate - are worth about 10 or eight times what our roads funding is worth. I really hope that we are going to insulate the Plenty Highway with pink batts; it is probably the only way that we can get a decent road out that way. The last time I drove the Plenty I was losing fillings out of my teeth - or at least that is the way it seemed.
Another matter of concern to me is the issue of what Lindsay Tanner, the Finance minister, said on television last night. It immediately leapt out at me, because Lindsay Tanner said: ‘Do not expect any of this stuff to percolate through the system for the next 12 months. You will not see the results of this for a year or so’. Really? Well, that is a concern, because our problem in the Territory is quite specific. I want to talk about the circumstances we have in the Territory, briefly. The Territory is actually in an odd position in the financial climate. If we were on a mountain top and the world was going to be flooded by a deluge of poor economic outcomes, the Territory would actually be one of the last places in the world to go under water. The reason for that is because we are very fortunately positioned with some very fortunate commodities.
It is not down to the Country Liberals and it is certainly not down to the ALP that, by an accident of geological history, certain forests chose to decay in an area which is now called the Browse Basin and produces lots and lots of gas which, even in difficult times, turns out to be a valuable commodity. Why? Because the downstream consumer of this particular gas is the Japanese public itself. It is my understanding that a large slice of the gas which is being sold through the INPEX project and – touch wood, Western Australia does not get their way - will go to the domestic consumer. The last time I checked, Japanese people like to stay warm in winter; it is the nature of who they are. Therefore, as a domestic consumer - and I suspect that is probably why the Japanese government’s interest in INPEX is so high; to protect the consumer and the outcomes for the consumer - there is a real political ramification in that.
So, we are lucky. We are lucky that we have that commodity which is of interest right now and we are in the current environment we are in. I am grateful to all those forests that died all those millions of years ago that gave us that much gas to bail us out now. Hats off to government; I am glad that they did take the punt on Tyrrell’s advice and go out and try to snatch this away from Western Australia. Hats off to former Premier Carpenter, who decided to call an election which left the parliament in such a parlous state with a minority government there, so that we could at least offer INPEX a unified, unanimous voice out of this parliament for the project to come to the Northern Territory. I am delighted at all of those fortuitous outcomes. Plus, I acknowledge the good management of government to get it here. Well done.
Having said all of that, we find ourselves in this fortunate position, but the next year is going to be a bit tough. I have spoken to a lot of people around town. In March, the contracts start drying up and people are starting to get a bit twitchy. So, the timing of this package is what you would consider to be also fortunate for those reasons. However, I am concerned about what Mr Tanner had to say, because there is another side to this effect.
The last time we had an economic downturn - not as pronounced as the current downturn, but we had an economic downturn - around the 2000-01 period, there was a decision taken by government when they came to power to try to start off one of the big projects themselves. What happened in that environment is that, rather than creating an element of counter-cyclical spending - because the lead-up time for the convention centre and the waterfront development was what it was - by the time the project started ticking over and producing jobs and outcomes and those sorts of things, it was then directly competing with the local economy which was then doing very well. You had this situation where it was almost impossible to get a chippie, a brickie, a plumber, a sparkie, or any of those trades into your own home, and people were competing directly with each other.
I suspect that INPEX and ConocoPhillips will be talking to each other right now about how they roll out their particular projects, because they are looking down the barrel of the same problem. If the second train of ConocoPhillips at Wickham Point is going to go ahead, they are going to be looking at dealing with INPEX at that time. Now, all of a sudden it is going to be 12 months, according to Lindsay Tanner, before some of these projects start rolling off the production line. We are not setting ourselves up to make the same mistake again, I hope. I counsel the government to turn their attention to this. I appreciate that they are trying very hard to roll this package out as fast as possible, but it would be a surprising result if the rest of the world slipped into recession and, in Darwin, you could not get somebody to work for you for love nor money because there were so many competing interests in various fields of construction.
Whilst we may say it is all very good, the fact is that …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that member for Port Darwin be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their kindness and I hope I will not take up the whole 10 minutes, if members bear with my observation.
Getting back to what I was talking about, the issue is of having a lot of jobs running parallel to each other. I do not know about ConocoPhillips’ downstream customers. I do not know if they are going to delay or not. I do not know enough about it. Certainly, if INPEX keeps going as all indications are, you then have another $500m of projects - that is not correct, $200m-worth of projects - rolling off the government production line on top of the $1bn which is going to be spent over the next few years on supporting infrastructure.
People want to come to Darwin; there is no doubt about that. However, they will be coming to a limited number of houses. Even if we rolled off Bellamack in time, Weddell would not be ready in time for this particular time frame. What happened in places like Port Hedland, as I understand it if I remember the Four Corners report correctly, a three-bedroom house was renting for $1400 a week. That is a tough situation. I am concerned that, in spite of the world being in an economic hole, we actually might continue to do well and suffer the growing pains of a healthy, vibrant economy to the extent where the pressure in other areas will drive people to come here, and we will find infrastructure which will be hard pressed to cope. When I say infrastructure, I am talking about roads, schools - all that sort of thing.
I hope that the government is turning its mind to these particular issues, because this stuff will surprise government in the speed in which it comes on. I suspect that government has been surprised to a degree already. We have seen the reluctance of government to turn off land. It was not that long ago that the Treasurer was saying that turning off land would cause a flood of housing into the market. Not a few months later, that flood of housing onto the market has now become a priority of government.
It is all of these issues that government has to be particularly concerned about. We have particular local problems that we need to turn our attention to, which will be quite unique in the Australian and, probably, the international community. Few cities in the world right now are better positioned than Darwin to deal with the economic future. However, with that will come its own particular and very grievous problems.
It will take a remarkable government to negotiate that particular future with ease, because it will not be easy. It will be very hard, and the pressures on the Territory budget particularly will be enormous. If I remember correctly, the ACIL Tasman report into the phantom gas project that happened to look like the INPEX one said it is worth about $10m-worth of income as a result of revenue to the Northern Territory government from taxes that arise from that area. If that is true, that is not a lot of dough compared to what you have to spend.
I will look with interest to see if the competitive tax environment of the fiscal strategy will be maintained by this government because, I suspect, there will be a great deal of pressure on the Northern Territory government, not only to have to borrow, but to also bump up its own source revenue, or at least protect the revenue stream that it has now. I will be willing to bet a bottle of halfway decent wine with the Treasurer - not that I would drink it if I won - that payroll tax will not be reduced in accordance with plans for this year’s budget. However, we will see.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on implementing the stimulus, the summit of industry and community leaders. It is one of the most important ministerial statements delivered during my time in this Assembly. Why? Because it is about the future of the Northern Territory regarding investment, jobs, family, and infrastructure. I am proud to support the statement as the new Minister for Business. The Henderson government is a pro-jobs, pro-business government. We want to create opportunities for Territory families, businesses, and workers. We want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the Territory’s future prosperity.
In this Assembly last week, the Chief Minister outlined the international, national and local impacts arising from the global economic crisis. It was in response to these very serious circumstances that the Prime Minister announced the Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs and invest in future economic growth. As the Chief Minister said, 2009 will be a year of immense challenges and real opportunities for our Territory community. Through measures such as sound fiscal management, investment in infrastructure and human capital, taxation reform, and industry support, we have positioned the Territory for sustained economic growth. However, we cannot avoid entirely the impact of the global financial crisis.
The position of the Henderson government is clear. We unequivocally welcome and support the Prime Minister’s nation building stimulus package, as do our federal parliamentary colleagues, Warren Snowdon, Damian Hale, and Trish Crossin. As the Treasurer outlined, this package will be worth about $500m to the Territory economy - $500 000 aimed directly at stimulating growth, developing and building infrastructure, and providing tax breaks for small business.
It is interesting to see the shift, I believe, in the position of the CLP opposite. Last week, although there was not a vote, they did oppose the package and the implementation of the package. We had a motion to that effect in this place last week. Certainly, we had Senator Nigel Scullion actually voting against this in the federal parliament, with agreed support from members opposite. It is interesting to hear what was said last week and compare it to what has been said today.
The word ‘segue’ comes to mind. It is a bit of a trendy word. It is a word with a long history in music, where there is seamless movement from one part of a musical piece to another. I will read, in terms of journalism, what the definition of ‘segue’ is: ‘In journalism, segue is a method of smoothly transitioning from one topic to another. A segue allows the host or writer to naturally proceed to another topic without jarring the audience. A good segue makes the subject change seem like a natural extension of the discussion’. That is exactly what the opposition is trying to do. Last week, in the party room, ‘Oh yes, we have to support Malcolm Turnbull and we have to support Nigel’.
Then, suddenly, over the last week, it has dawned on them. It has dawned on them through their contact with business leaders, which should really be their national constituency. The feedback is coming back, basically: ‘You have it wrong, fellahs’. So, in the party room: ‘All right, let us have a segue. How do we move from here to here? Well, we will just say that we always supported it. We did not vote against it, there was no vote, so we actually support it – all we are interested in is the details of the package’. A segue. They have tried to have a segue but it has jarred. It has jarred with me because I was here last week in this place. I heard exactly what was said. I got exactly the attitude of what was being said, and I got the new answers today.
I quote another saying in politics, from Don Watson:
We had the groans and the laughter in Question Time. Often, when I close my eyes and hear the member for Fong Lim laughing, it takes me back to my childhood in front of the television set with the Three Stooges when I hear ‘yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk’. Whenever I hear that laugh from the other side, that is what I think of. Also, it showed in the language of the shadow Treasurer. There was a call from the opposition that they should have been invited to the summit yesterday. I would have liked the shadow Treasurer to get up there in front of those business leaders and mouth on with what he said in here today. It was empty, it was torturous, it was meaningless. All of those people at that summit know that. With the problems and issues we are facing in this global financial crisis, the only ones who do not seem to get it are the opposition members.
We are a government that is implementing this package for the welfare of Territorians and our economy. The sort of person who needs praise is the Prime Minister. He is someone with energy, imagination and enlightenment. He is a true leader of this country. The polls are reflecting that; the Australian public recognise that. Members opposite are being a little churlish if they cannot recognise it.
We are taking concrete steps to implement the key initiatives for the benefit of Territory families, businesses and workers. Our implementation plans were outlined by the Chief Minister to a summit of more than 130 key industry leaders, businesses, peak bodies and educators in Parliament House yesterday. The government’s focus is on speed of implementation, probity and transparency, and maximising the participation of local businesses.
The package is so important that it is worth reiterating the indicative allocations to the Territory, emphasising once again these are indicative allocations. A lot depends in some areas on uptake of the package: schools, including non-government schools, $180m to $200m; social housing, $65m; the community, $5m; roads, $4m; business tax relief subject to take-up, $27m; insulation and other measures subject to take-up, $34m; Defence housing, $76m; and direct payments $95m. That makes a total package of somewhere between, we believe, $490m to $505m …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Here we go, Curley again! Listen to him.
What does the package mean? It means jobs, jobs, jobs for Territorians. It means better infrastructure, better schools, better housing and better roads. This is a decisive and substantial plan for the Territory’s future. It is also very important to remember that the stimulus package is additional to our own $870m program for capital works, repairs and maintenance. There will be no reduction in these programs to offset increased expenditure on the stimulus package.
I have a table here that indicates the regional break-up, and I will table that. Just going over the table: Darwin, Palmerston and western Top End, $329m; Alice Springs, $80m; Katherine, $37m; Tennant Creek, $13m; Jabiru, $14m; East Arnhem, $32m; with an estimated total of somewhere in the region of $505m. The benefits of this package will flow right across the Territory. A lot of work remains to be done to implement this package. As I mentioned earlier, the government’s implementation plans for the stimulus package focus on fast implementation, transparency and probity, and maximising the participation of local Territory businesses.
The Chief Minister has already set out a number of initiatives to cut red tape and achieve the very demanding time lines required to complete construction and get the stimulus money out into our community. The Department of Business and Employment will conduct a review of procurement. That is going to be a short, sharp review. In fact, a lot of the ideas have already been floated to the summit, including proposals to lift the threshold before a tender is required. The Chief Minister detailed that today, so I will not go over that. It is about raising those thresholds, cutting red tape, and keeping transparency and probity, but also getting the work out there.
The review will be undertaken on a priority basis. The need for speedy implementation is illustrated by the following time lines for the stimulus package: Primary Schools for the 21st Century - June 2009 to December 2010; Science and Language Centres - July 2009 to December 2010; National School Pride Program - April 2009 to December 2010; social housing repairs and maintenance - March 2009 to June 2010; new social housing - April 2009 to June 2010; road maintenance - March to December 2009; black spot funding - April to December 2009; and boom gates - April 2009 to June 2010.
We will ensure there is wide consultation with business and industry during the procurement review process. The Auditor-General will also be consulted on the proposal. The ultimate objective is to make it faster and easier for businesses to obtain government contracts. Further summits of industry and community leaders will be rolled out in the next week or so, and will be held in Alice Springs and other regional centres.
My clear view is that those present at the Chief Minister’s summit appreciated the opportunity to receive further information about the stimulus package. Many of the business and community representatives asked questions and put forward very constructive proposals about how we can consolidate the implementation process and also involve business and industry. In the Northern Territory, we have very resourceful businesses which are also very innovative. I am confident that, working together, we can maximise the benefits of the package to Territory families, businesses and workers.
I congratulate our Prime Minister for his leadership in delivering the $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I congratulate the Chief Minister for his leadership in developing and implementation strategy for the Territory’s $500m share of the package. I also thank all those business and community leaders who attended yesterday’s summit. I look forward to being part of this very important era in Territory business and for the economy of the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this ministerial statement. I received it last night about 6.30 pm. I did not stand on it; I did turn the light on. My first reaction was that this goes to prove starting parliament on Monday is an absolute joke, because we debated this ad nauseum last week. We also debated it at Question Time last week. We also had a fair share of it being debated courtesy of Question Time today. That is not to say there are not some new concepts which we should talk about. However, give us a break, this honestly looks like a fill-in statement especially designed for Monday. I really have some concerns about whether we are just using Mondays as window dressing. I do not mind working the Monday if we need to, but I get the feeling today that we are doing it because that was the arrangement with government to show that we are working harder.
Be that as it may, the government has given us this statement. It is an important statement. I need to say at the beginning there has been a fair bit of criticism from the government that anyone who did not agree with the 10-minute motion or the no-warning motion last week that no one really knew was coming, was, therefore, against jobs, against growth of the Territory, and all those sorts of things. I would have thought sensible people, including all those businessmen at the forum - that was not open for many other people except invited guests - would agree there is nothing wrong with being prudent about at least asking questions about the stimulus package. That does not mean you are against the stimulus package.
The minister was just comparing some of the people on this side of the House with the Three Stooges. I could compare some of the people on that side with a load of sheep because, when the shepherd says ‘baa’ everyone else says ‘baa’. I am sure you do not believe that is the way we should be debating a really important document like this. If we believe in the stimulus package, surely we allow for other opinions. What kind of parliament is this if over this side is right, over that side is wrong?
The package that was agreed on, that we were arguing about on Thursday, was not the package that was agreed with finally in parliament. You were agreeing with something that actually never ended up being the package, because there were other people who had some concerns. The Greens had some concerns. The government said: ‘Okay’. Senator Fielding had some concerns; the government said: ‘Okay’ Senator Xenophon had some concerns; the government said: ‘Okay’. So, the package was different than the original package that was put forward to parliament on 3 February.
Why was it different? Because some of those politicians believe that we should look at what the government is doing, and they felt that that was, perhaps, heading in the wrong direction in some areas. Whether you agree or not is not what I am here to argue about. It is that - they had the gall, from the government point of view - they wanted to query where this stimulus package was going and whether it was going in the right direction. The Liberals and the Nationals in Canberra believed that it was going to create too much debt. Whether it will or not - I am not a great economist - it would have been nice to hear from the government about that issue. Surely, that is a fairly serious issue to raise?
Some people have said that we will have to pay back in the future the $900 we are going to give out to families now - about $9000 per family in debt. Whether that is correct or not, I am not the person to answer that. Surely, the debt that the country is going to have to wear and pay back is a reasonable thing to debate. It does not say you are against the stimulus package. It might say we think the stimulus package is too big for the country to pay in the future. That is not something that is bad; that is opening up the debate to give this stimulus package that the government is putting forward some critical analysis and to find out whether there are some flaws in it or not.
I will give you an example of what I think is a flaw. Open up the package and it says $4m for roads. Blow me down, I do not mind stimulus packages, but $4m for roads is not going to stimulate the economy. Litchfield Shire spends $4m on roads. It might stimulate the economy in Litchfield. I would be very happy for the Minister for Transport to allocate some of that money for the bicycle path that this government has been promising ad infinitum. Especially last year, they promised it from Palmerston to Howard Springs - and still it is not there. It might be a small thing for some people, but very important for local people. We can get excited over some things, but let us keep the lid on getting excited over some of the minor issues.
The reason I opposed this last week was not because I do not think we should have a stimulus package, but simply because we did not have the time to go and research it as well as the government members did. It was dropped on us in 10 minutes. I was expected to support everything that was in that stimulus package by the way the motion was written. There was no room to have disagreement.
I have some concerns about the package that is being given out to families, the $900 - it was $950. I know the member for Johnston said that the member for Nelson was talking about people wasting it on gambling. Well, I know not everyone is going to waste it on gambling. That was not the issue. I was saying if the government says that by giving every family $900 they are going to stimulate the economy then, surely, you would think the sensible approach is to ensure that is exactly what it does, and have a system which ensures that money can be spent, as much as possible, on stimulating the economy. If 10% of the population is putting it into the pokies, you would say, well, that has wasted 10%. If 40% of the people are putting it away in the bank, well, that is not going to help stimulate the economy either; they might just pay off some of their debt.
Surely we could have had a debate about how people really see that the $900 given to every family is actually going to do what the government wants it to do? I am not saying that, if giving people that money actually stimulates the economy, it is not worthwhile. At the same time, I do not believe we should take a blanket approach to it. We should ensure that money is targeted for what we want to achieve.
Regarding the $34m for insulation for houses, I am interested to know whether the government had much input into this, because that insulation is for the southern states, I gather. Are these categories of money the government is giving to stimulate the economy being specified by the Commonwealth government to apply all over Australia without taking into any account what the specific needs of that area would be best served by to get the economy stimulated? If I said: ‘We have a new town at Weddell. We want to get it going. We need some money for proper design, and we want the money for headworks’. That, surely, would stimulate the economy.
Maybe in Alice Springs - and I know in the Davenport Ranges it gets freezing cold - insulation might be good. I do not know. All I am saying is we have picked out these items. Are these the most appropriate items to spend the Commonwealth money on to stimulate the Northern Territory economy, which is vastly different than the Victorian and Tasmanian economy? Have we done some work with the Commonwealth to ensure this is targeted at the right areas to stimulate the Northern Territory economy?
There are a couple of things here I have some queries about. Just so people do not get excited and say, ‘Negative, negative’, they are queries that people raised during the forum. Even though the media was not allowed in this forum, there is an article in today’s paper. It said that the Territory government plans to start projects funded by the Northern Territory’s $450m slice of the Rudd government’s stimulus package within weeks. I should query this figure now. It has just dropped, in this morning’s news, down to $450m. It does say $500m in the statement, but the newspaper says $450m. I am interested to know why ...
Mr Bohlin: They said $500m.
Mr WOOD: That is right, something has moved there. While Territory industry figures support the package, there are concerns over skills shortages, the housing crisis, and fears tight deadlines could compromise transparency and quality. I raise two of those issues. Regarding skills shortages, I ask the government to ensure that working people in Australia who have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the mining industry and other industries are the people we should be looking to, to overcome our skills shortages. Although the government did send departmental people over to various countries last year, I reckon they should put on hold the importation of people from overseas to fill some of the jobs that we were having problems filling in the good times, and ensure that those people who are unemployed in Australia, because of the downturn in the mining industry and other industries, should be the people we are looking for to fill these jobs.
I say to the government, although you have been out there looking to various countries for people to come to Australia in the good times, these are not the good times any more, and we should put that idea of getting skilled migrants on hold at the moment. Not that I am against skilled migrants - in case someone takes me the wrong way, which has happened to me before – but, when unemployment of locals is involved, they should have priority.
The other concern was the possibility of tight deadlines compromising transparency and quality. We have a system for our tenders and the way government deals. The Chief Minister mentioned the Auditor-General could be involved. Something I raised last week was that we have procurement guidelines that are there for a reason. It is all very well to say we need to rush. I think the member for Fong Lim said: ‘Well, how come you did not do this when you first came to parliament?’ It is all very well to hurry things through, but we need to ensure that this money is spent properly; that the big rush does not mean that money gets lost here, sent off there, and we waste money.
There is an issue here about how much the government administration takes off. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning takes 10% off every project, or something like that. Will the government say they are not going to take that 10% this time? Will they ensure that the $50m for whatever, is $50m spent where it is meant to go? It is a bit like when people say they are giving money to the Red Cross and they say: ‘All that money will go to the victims and there will be no administration costs’. Will the government guarantee all these projects will not have the 10% removed from them, because 10% of $500m is $50m? We can build some roads with that $50m. We can start the Plenty Highway with $50m. How about, if you really want to stimulate the economy, stop taking the 10% cream off the top?
I heard what some people have said at this forum. Unions NT Secretary, Matthew Gardiner said: ‘A key concern was to ensure time pressures did not compromise safety or result in dodgy contracting’. That is what I am saying: be careful. It is all very well to say to the people we are going to push, push, push, but you still have to ensure those safety areas are not compromised and contracting is done up-front and transparently.
There were concerns about the issue of the housing. We have been down that path many times and, hopefully, in the near future we can improve that area as well.
There is no doubt, from things I am hearing of late, that we would be doing fairly well. We have a big development plan for my rural area, in Coolalinga, for a very large shopping centre. It has not been to the planning authority yet, but it has at least been planned. It needs to wait for approval. INPEX is coming, which is, I hope, is going to increase jobs to locals. I ask the minister, when she is talking to INPEX, to make sure they will encourage as many local companies to be involved in this construction of the workers’ village. This, at the moment, is being discussed amongst many rural people. Where it ends up, I will have to wait and see. One of the key concerns would be to ensure the building of this workers’ village can, where possible, use as much local content as we can. That keeps the jobs in the Territory, and that is what we need.
There is Weddell. I can probably harp on it until the cows come home, but we have to have a plan. We need to ensure it is a decent plan. We need to have a competition to design Weddell. I am not sure if I brought it here, but I noticed the new glossy brochure which I believe is overkill for this, considering the people at the NT News wrote about Weddell and put out a glossy brochure about it. Weddell is about half the size it is on the Litchfield zoning map. I do not know what happened to the original size; it has shrunk. It was much bigger than is shown on this brochure. It used to go from Cox Peninsula Road to Elizabeth River. It is now about half that size. I do not know what has happened; whether that is a bit of a softly, softly, approach, I am not sure.
If we put some money into the planning, the design, the infrastructure, or the headworks for Weddell, we could be on the way. We need a high school. I repeat now, if we had the plans done five years ago, we could have plonked a high school there now. Now, we have to wait for the plans. Be that as it may, there are lots of good things in the pipeline, even if I believe they should be done more quickly. The prison is in the wrong place. You could still build it in the right place and create jobs. That is important infrastructure that is needed.
I realise that the Territory does need to ensure that it keeps its workforce here. I have said before that we have to ensure that some of this stimulus package is not just for the bigger regions. We must be careful that, in a wealthy place like the Territory - because it has a lot of projects and there is money, especially when the mining industry is booming, although to some extent it is in a downturn at the present - those people living in the outback, in remote communities, benefit.
We talk about stimulation so that jobs can occur, but most of us talk about jobs in Alice Springs and Darwin and, maybe, the regional centres. However, if we do not create jobs in the bush, then we will continue to have the same problems where people go to school, have no jobs, get bored, and we come back here talking about social issues and problems in those communities. Whilst the government talks about the great economic stimulus for the country and the Chief Minister talked about the great economic stimulus for the Northern Territory in the statement, except for perhaps some Indigenous housing infrastructure program, we need to be ensuring that those people who are not in the mainstream when it comes to some of these projects are helped because they are, in many ways, in the areas most in need of help.
I support a stimulus package. There is nothing wrong with debating it. There is nothing wrong with saying you agree with some of it and disagree with other parts. That does not mean we should not be putting some effort into making sure our economy does not stall. At least Australia seems to be in a luckier position than a lot of other countries. At the moment, England looks like it might be heading the way of Iceland; they are certainly having some problems with their banks and their economy. Australia, I believe, is well placed to be able to work through that because we not only supply raw materials, but we supply energy. It does not matter whether industry is working, people still need the lights on in their houses and heating, and there will always be a need for that energy - whether it is LNG, uranium, or whatever. People will need that regardless of the state of the economy.
Yes, it is good that the federal government has brought through this stimulation package; it will certainly help the Territory in certain areas. In some things it has really not been targeted well. The $4m for roads - without giving chickens a bad name - is chicken feed when it comes to roads in the Territory. The insulation issue could be debated more. Is it wise to spend money on something else that would help the economy?
Good debate is what we need, and I hope the government, just because I might have some doubts about some things or I might put some other options, does not go out and say: ‘The member for Nelson opposes it’. No, he believes that we should look at these things carefully because $47bn is a lot of money, and we should spend it wisely.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement and strongly support the $42bn economic stimulus package. I know very well that we are not the parliament that decided about the allocation of the money; it was the federal parliament.
However, I was surprised and dismayed, listening to the federal opposition having a strong position on the package, demanding to debate and to do things which, to me, appear to be stalling tactics. The reality is at times talk and, at times strike and to truly see the signs in a situation of crisis. Today, we are facing an economic crisis we never, ever faced before. When you hear of 80 000 people losing their jobs in one day, things are really grim. When you hear millions of people in China have lost their jobs and they have to go back to where they came from in the provinces, we are in really deep trouble.
I recall very well in times of recession, 1982, the first time I visited Great Britain. It was in deep recession at the time. I asked my then wife: ‘Why are those people waiting around the corner?’ She said to me: ‘Oh they are waiting for the dole, the unemployment benefit’. Never before in my life had I seen hundreds of people waiting in the cold outside the office to receive the dole. I remember seeing people queuing to get concert tickets around the corner but I had never seen this before in my life. The last thing I would like to see in Australia is something like that because we are talking about people’s job, incomes, and houses. If we do not act quickly and decisively, things could happen here in Australia, and it could happen very quickly.
I am very proud of the Prime Minister, not because he is my own political side; I would be very proud if a Prime Minister on the other side had done exactly the same. There are times when, to be a true leader, you have to actually lead your nation. It is time to think about the people: Joe the plumber, the subcontractor that does the lawn mowing, the one who works in a car factory, the one who is a retailer - their jobs, their aspirations, their needs, are to bring food home. They need to provide for their families and to pay the mortgage. I have been there, as a young married man with a child who had to pay a mortgage. Of course, we were thinking every day how we were going to raise the next payment because things were tough a few years back, paying 18% interest rates. Things were not very bright here in Australia. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and his colleagues made a decision to bite the bullet and provide this $42bn for an economic stimulus package.
What is funny, though, if you look at what has happened around the world, is that the conservative parties always wanted to debate any economic stimulus package any government put in place. In America, the Republican Congress wanted to delay the passing of the economic stimulus package that the President had put in place. They wanted to debate, despite the fact that everyone was calling for something to be done quickly because America is in a real bad state. The only exception was the opposition in Great Britain which supported the Prime Minister’s economic stimulus. The nationalising of the banks is something that is unheard of, unexpected and unbelievable for conservative politics. Obviously, things happen in places for a particular reason.
Do not believe for a moment that the opposition was united in its opposition to the economic stimulus. If it was united, you would not see what we saw today: Julie Bishop lost her job as Treasurer. Julie Bishop was not the one who actually came out with the idea; it was the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. The cracks are starting to appear in the party. I bet there are a lot of backbenchers in the Liberal Party who think: ‘If we had succeeded that would mean my school would not get $200 000 for upgrades’ …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank God for us that we might have to pass it, so you can get something back in your electorates. If you really were people of principle, I would like you to put out a pamphlet that says: ‘I oppose it. I oppose you receiving $900. I oppose my electorate schools getting $200 000 for upgrades. I oppose that because I want to debate it more. I did not want it to happen. I want it to debate more’. You would be very brave. Actually, I would like to be there and see what debate your pamphlet - if you put one out - would generate.
We are not talking about $900 in somebody’s pocket. Yes, they might put it in the bank to pay their credit card, but that means they have more money in their pockets to spend, to buy the things they want, the little luxuries, the things they cannot afford such as going to a restaurant with the family. This is not only about the money that you put in your pocket, it is about things other people put in their pockets.
A $200 000 upgrade in a school means some subbie - a brickie, a guy who puts the concrete on the floor, or a guy who puts the paint on the wall - will have an income. It is not only the big companies we are supporting here; they are the small contractors, the one who works by himself and probably employs one or two people. These are the people for whom the $200 000 can be an income for the whole year. That $200 000 can pay his mortgage, provide the payment for the car, send the kids to school, buy the clothes, and he can go with his wife to the restaurant.
We are talking about a maximum injection of funds into the Territory. We talked about $505m. Somebody said: ‘Well, not really, if the business tax relief and the insulation is not taken up’. This is only $65m dollars. That means $450m can still be spent in the Territory. On top of that, you have $700m to spend in the next three years on CDEP programs. So, together, the economic stimulus program and the CDEP is $1.2bn to be spent in the Territory.
The other issue, of course, was: ‘Yes, if we give $900 today we create a debt of $9000’. If all these jobs are lost, what are the potential social costs in the future for this country? What figure do you put on a person who lost his job and stays unemployed for three years and probably will lose his house, the kids probably will not reach their potential because he will not send them to a good school, and the family breaks down? I would rather owe $9000 than have the social debt to all these people in Australia in years to come.
In addition to that, what cost do you put to the social houses that are not going to be repaired today, so people continue to live in really bad conditions? For me, that is an investment for the future. Governments have a responsibility to provide for their citizens. Yes, it is great to have surpluses in good times, but governments should have deficits in bad times to safeguard employment, education, and the health of their citizens. Yes, we might owe money; that is okay. However, at the same time, we ensure that people are healthy. We cannot put a figure on people’s health. Yes, they can be educated. What figure do you put on education and the social problems that we avoid by doing what we are doing now?
Personally, as a local member, I am thrilled. I am thrilled because my school in Alawa will get $200 000 which they need. My school in Alawa was never upgraded from the time it was built until we made a commitment to put $2m in the first term of government, and $2m in the second term of government. I am thrilled because Nakara will get $200 000 …
Mr Wood: Howard Springs need $2m.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am talking about my own electorate. I am thrilled that we get $200 000 per school. I bet you that every member in here would be very proud to go to their school and say: ‘Yes, you have $200 000 and you can do things you could not do’. I am thrilled that Dripstone school will get a science laboratory and a language centre, on top of the money we promised to actually put in place to upgrade it. For me, it is important.
There are quite a few old Housing Commission houses in Casuarina, and that will be great that there will be so much money spent to upgrade this social housing. And, yes, we have some of these new suburbs in Casuarina to be developed, where the Defence Housing Authority will build houses for Defence people here. That will be another $76m over two or three years. That means a lot of work for people in Darwin and a lot of people in Casuarina.
Of course, it was very cute to hear that Lindsay Tanner said that this money will not appear until 12 months from now. That is interesting, because the Commonwealth has put strict time lines on when the project is to commence and when the project has to finish. For example, for Primary Schools for the 21st Century, Round 1, the project has to commence in June 2009 and complete in 2010, which is great. You cannot just put the money out straightaway, but there are strict time lines on when it is to commence and when things have to actually finish. The concerns about, ‘The money is not going to appear quickly enough’, are not true. The government said: ‘Here is the money. You go out and spend it quickly. We want the money to go into the economy, to stimulate the economy’. The biggest problem we have is banks; they are very strict with credit. Banks are now not lending money. The information I have is that, when before you could build a building in Darwin and the bank would ask for 50% sales, now they ask for 75% or 80% sales before they commit the funds to finance your project.
The other thing I am thrilled with is, in my electorate, together with your electorate in Darwin, there will be people who receive in total $56m. Okay, half of it will be saved. That is still $28m to do something with. We heard the manager of Harvey Norman say: ‘In the rest of Australia they are closing shops down, but, boy, here in Darwin, we would like to open another one’. Obviously, people have faith in what is going to happen in the Territory and they will spend it. I bet you this $56m, even 50% of that, will pay the credit card debts. That is still $28m that is going to grow the economy of Darwin.
With an investment of $273m - all your schools, social housing, Defence housing - $273m; that is a hell of a lot of money. If you write it down, there are a lot of zeros, and those zeros will translate into jobs. They will translate into subbies. They will actually go and buy a car because, if you buy a car, you get a tax break, don’t you? If you buy a car for your business that costs $60 000, next year you get back on your tax return 30%, which is an excellent idea, because you can upgrade your …
A member: Ferrari.
Mr VATSKALIS: You can upgrade your Ferrari, if you need a Ferrari, because you might be in the business of taking people to weddings. That is something that you use in your business. That is a very good investment.
The other thing is that the member for Nelson said people will oppose it. Actually, the only group of people who opposed the stimulus was the Liberals. The Greens, the Family First Senator, and my compatriot, Xenophon …
[Editor’s note: Words expunged by resolution of the Assembly]
Mr Wood: Mine, too. He is an Independent, he is a sensible chap.
Mr VATSKALIS: What they did was negotiate. They did not oppose the package; they used the package to benefit their own electorate. Nick Xenophon actually said he would vote for it if they give more money for the Murray/Darling. The Family First member negotiated, getting a reduction from $950 to $900, in order to put the extra $50 towards creating jobs and opportunities for unemployed people. They did not oppose it. They found a way …
Mr Wood: But your minister complained about the $50.
Mr VATSKALIS: But the argument was: did they oppose it? No, they did not. They worked their own way to benefit their electorate, to do what they thought was right. The only people who stood fast to oppose it were those in the Liberal Party and their branches, except one branch, the Western Australian.
As Paul Keating said, you put a bucket of money in front of a Premier and there is nothing that can stop the Premier lunging for the bucket of money. That is exactly what happened. The Western Australian Liberal Premier did not oppose it. He said he thought it was good for his state to have such a massive investment of funds, despite his state having a $4bn surplus. He agreed and he took it and said: ‘Thank you very much’. He held a media conference and applauded the Rudd government for providing this economic stimulus for all states and territories.
The only people who did not oppose it were the Western Australians. As I said before, you can be true leader. Colin Barnett, to his credit, was a leader for his state. Can we say the same for Country Liberals in the Northern Territory? No, we cannot. Because, not only did they not support it, not only did they argue against it, they even failed to instruct their Senator not to go against it. The reality is, can they instruct their Senator? Is their Senator a person who will comply with their requests? Has he done it before? We have seen it before with the parks. He voted for the parks, for our parks, the way we went forward against the wish of the party. Despite the breast beating of his party that this will never happen again, and he will follow the party line, I do not think they can ensure it.
Senator Scullion voted against the economic stimulus. I would like to see him explain to his own electorate why he was against it; and why he voted for them not to receive the extra payment, for the little subbies not to have the jobs, and for the schools not to be upgraded.
This is a type of economic crisis we have seen before. I have seen one in my lifetime already. We have seen recessions, but this is an economic crisis which will affect everybody. In the Territory, we say that we are probably better equipped than other states to weather the storm but, in reality, it is going to affect us. We are a resource rich province. We are exporting a lot of our resources overseas. We have seen what happened when China decided to use their stockpiles rather than buying materials from us. We have seen what happened with China when, instead of having 12% growth rate, it went down to 6%, to such a degree that the government of China is now preparing to pour a lot of money into their economy to stabilise their growth rate at 8%.
We have problems because we are exporting live cattle to Indonesia. What if Indonesia is hit by an economic crisis tomorrow and the people cannot afford to buy meat from us? That would mean a lot of our private producers and pastoralists would not be able to export their cattle and this, in turn, would have a significant effect on our economy.
This economic stimulus at least guarantees that if there is any effect in the Territory, it will not be as severe as we thought. On top of that, this economic stimulus provides the opportunity to do the things that we could do here in the Territory: upgrade our schools, upgrade our social housing, upgrade and provide more houses for Defence, and provide a lot of money for the community. The $4m for the roads is $4m more than the previous Liberal government ever gave to the Territory. I know very well because, as a minister, I used to go down there and, when John Anderson was the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible for roads, I used to argue with him all the time. I never got any more money because the excuse at the time was: ‘Because councils are incorporated, we cannot give you money. If you are not incorporated, we can only give money to Local Government. Go away’. Even Senator Boswell from Brisbane used to defend me and ask him to consider the Territory a special case, but he was not prepared to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not only an economic stimulus that will provide relief to families in the Territory and Australia, this economic stimulus will secure jobs and ensure that jobs are not lost in the Territory and Australia. This economic stimulus will provide relief to the Territory and Australia to protect it from the economic crisis and, at the same time, build our nation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this afternoon to speak on the Chief Minister’s statement. There is one thing I think everybody in this place agrees with: when you need to bucket money out the door and go on a mad spending spree, there are no better people for it than Labor people. There is absolutely no doubt, when you need to get rid of money in a crazy, scandalous way, you elect a Labor government and they will do the job.
Contrast this federal Labor government with what we had with 13 years of Coalition government, the hallmark of which was scrimping, saving, putting away money, saving money, paying off $96bn-worth of Labor debt, putting money into future funds, putting money into higher education endowment funds and, fundamentally, setting up a strong economy. At the same time, we have had eight years of hard Labor here in the Northern Territory that has seen the Territory finances go to pot - go to absolute rack and ruin.
They are not alone in this. You only have to look at all the other Labor state governments around the country and you see how they also manage to mismanage money - and they do a very good job of it. In pretty well every state now the hospital systems are stuffed, road networks are stuffed, education systems are stuffed, and they were all constantly bleating to the Coalition government in Canberra that they were never getting enough money, despite the fact that GST revenue - something they opposed - was pouring into their Treasury coffers like never before.
Now, all of a sudden we find we have Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor government in power. The prayers of all these guys all around the country in state Labor governments have been answered, because we have another free-wheeling, free-spending comrade of the same ilk as them. He is going to come riding out on his white horse and throw money around like a drunken sailor to all these mendicant state governments - a sad situation. However, sadly, it is true.
All we hear from the other side is: ‘How can you possibly oppose this? How can you not support this $42bn stimulus package that Canberra is giving us?’ You have to actually ask who is giving us the money. Who is giving us the money? It is working Australians who are giving us the money. However, it is not only working Australians, but it will be working Australians of the future. My children are giving us this money. We are throwing our children, and probably grandchildren, into $42bn-worth of debt.
We are reliably informed by many people that this is not the only stimulus package that is coming - this is just the first of some; that there will be many more stimulus packages to come from Kevin Rudd and the Labor government in the federal parliament. This will, somehow, kick-start the economy and everything will be roses. Well, it may well be roses until the next election campaign. That is as far down the track as Labor people seem to think, because it is the only thing that ever motivates them. That dream and goal of being in power is the only thing that motivates Labor governments. There is no thought for the future; no thought for the legacy that they are going to leave the children or the grandchildren. It is all about the here and now and maintaining power. It is an absolute sorry state when we have governments of the same ilk right around the country which are all prepared to spend our children’s inheritance to meet some short-term goal now.
I am not opposed to going into debt at times of crisis - and we are in a time of crisis. I do not see that there is any harm in going into debt, but let us think about what we are going to use that debt for. It is generally believed that, if you go into debt, you use the money that you borrow - in this case we are borrowing from future generations of Australians, future generations of Territorians - to put into something that is going to grow and benefit future generations of people and produce wealth, as well as spending that wealth now creating projects that will keep the economy moving. However, at the same time, you want to have projects that will add value into the future.
What do we get? We get this mad Labor government fellow who started off – well, I do not know what he started off as but, prior to the last federal election he called himself an economic conservative. Now, he is writing books about neo-liberalism and how it has wrecked the Australian economy. He has a short memory, because it was exactly that that he supported right through the election campaign. Only a few months ago, he suddenly changed to somebody now who condemns neo-liberalism and economic conservatism. He is quite prepared to throw wads of money to Australians in the hope they run out and spend it.
What are they going to spend it on? People say: ‘Oh, it will just go into drink and drugs’. I am not as cynical as that. There will be people who use the money for that; I have no doubt. Other people may use the money to go to the casinos or the horse races. I have no doubt that that is where some of the money will go. I do not think it is a large portion at all. I tend to think Australians are much smarter than that. Most Australians, by now, recognise that we are in some sort of financial crisis. They recognise that times will get harder. Most Australians, I suggest, will save that money - they will save that money. They will not go and spend it on a brand new Sony flat screen television or some other luxury item; they will put that money in the bank and they will save it. In that regard, as far as stimulating the economy, I do not think that aspect will work too well at all.
It is interesting to hear the comrades on the other side of the Chamber talk about what it means for the Territory and how desperate they are to get their hands on this money. In that regard, they are no different from any other state Labor government around the country. They have all blown the budget; they are all in serious trouble; systems are collapsing all around them. Kevin offering up this money is like manna from heaven for them. It is no wonder that they are encouraging oppositions around the country and federally to get behind this cash splurge, this stimulus package as they call it.
The problem with the Territory government, of course, is they have not done the work. They have not got our share. The Chief Minister has trotted off to Canberra and has rolled over like a puppy. Kevin Rudd scratched his belly, the Chief Minister wagged his tail and trotted back here and he said: ‘Oh goodness me, we are getting $200m, isn’t that fantastic?’ Well, it was $200m last Monday, and we were told that we had to accept this or we would lose that $200m - $200m out of a package of $42bn. Now, it has grown and, by mid-week, it was somewhere round $300m, $350m. If I am correct, the member for Johnston is now talking of somewhere between $490m and $505m. That is supposed to satisfy us up here that we are getting our fair share.
There is a long-held practice in this country that we use to determine fairness. It is a system called horizontal fiscal equalisation. It served the country quite well for a long time. It is a principle that ensures that money goes where it is most needed and best required. It means that, in the Northern Territory, we do reasonably well and we are recognised for having to supply services to a large area with a very small population. Under that very fair system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, the Territory should be in for something like $2bn. That would go some way to what I would call fairness. However, here we are being asked to swallow a paltry amount in comparison to that - at best, a quarter of that. All through the Chief Minister’s statement, he used words such as ‘possible’ and ‘likely’. It is not ‘we will get’ or ‘we have coming into our economy’. It is none of that, it is ‘possibly we will get this’, ‘likely we will get that’ ...
Ms Carney: That is how they stand up for the Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, they do not stand up for the Territory. They run down to Canberra, they roll over, and they let the Prime Minister tickle their tummies. That is what happens, and we are expected to stand in here, cop all this nonsense - listen to all this nonsense from these guys - about how we need to support this package which clearly rips off the Territory.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister, today in Question Time, was asked what he has done to support the McArthur River mining project. Here we have - here and now - 300 jobs in the balance just waiting for a sign-off from the federal Environment minister. The Chief Minister, in his own statement today, said he was in Canberra talking face-to-face with the Prime Minister - face-to-face. You have to ask the question: when he had his face-to-face meeting, did he spare a single thought for the 300 workers at McArthur River Mine? Did he put to the Prime Minister: ‘Prime Minister, it would be really nice if you could give our mate over there, Midnight Oil, a little nudge and get him to put his moniker on this piece of paper, because we are hurting in the Territory. We want this mine to stay open’. Did he say that? No, he did not. As far as the Chief Minister is concerned, he says, ‘Oh, we support the mine’, but what has he actually done? This is the here and now. This is 300 workers, sitting there on tenterhooks, waiting to see whether they have a job, while Midnight Oil is doing something else ...
Mr Elferink: Blue sky mining.
Mr TOLLNER: Blue sky mining.
This is a disgraceful situation. Meanwhile, the Chief Minister says: ‘Oh, thank you very much, Prime Minister, we will take the $200m. We will scoot back to the Territory and we will lambaste the Country Liberals up there, and we will belt them over their Senator, because he has actually seen through your cunning little stunt and he is not supporting the project. We will put a bit of pressure on Senator Scullion’. That is what it is.
This is nothing but a con job on Territorians. Discussions I have had with some industry leaders and people who turned up to the meeting yesterday show that the implementing of the stimulus package is to be applauded. I applaud the government for that. All the feedback I have received – and I would have loved to have been at the summit – is that the government does deserve some credit, irrespective of the fact that they rolled over for Kevin Rudd; that they could not get in there and negotiate a better deal for the Territory from the federal government. They have done a pretty good job in the Territory of talking to businesses about some changes that need to be made.
However, I ask the question regarding you saying you are going to make it easier for companies to get local projects. Why have you not done that already? What is to crow about? Why are we not feeding more work to our local companies? Why is the fifth floor constantly dragging in interstate consultants? Why are they constantly sending work out of the Northern Territory? This stuff should have been happening years ago.
Similarly, with the short, sharp review of procurement and red tape. Great stuff. I can imagine business would love it. I love it. I applaud you for taking that step. I would like to take some of the credit for the government decision to do that, because we still see on our Notice Paper under General Business Notice No 1, Mr Tollner to move that this Assembly establishes a regulation relief review advisory committee to cut back red tape. That has been on the Notice Paper now for goodness knows how long. It is the first thing that I put on to the Notice Paper after I was elected to this place. I am glad to see that the government has finally switched on to the fact that it is a good idea. We do need to cut red tape and get in and support business.
I understand it was a well-attended meeting, with people from all walks of life - businesses, school principals, and the non-government sector. I even note you had a group called the NT Council of Social Services. Did Clare Martin turn up? Did she front? She is probably scared of another life with the Chief Minister. Maybe that is what kept her away. They tell me she lives in Darwin. She is the national CEO of ACOSS. You would think, if the Council of Social Services was invited, they would invite Clare Martin. Maybe that might be too close to the bone for the Chief Minister.
If you listened to the Chief Minister’s comments, and look through the document, you see it is all ‘ifs’, ‘maybes’, ‘possiblys’, ‘probablys’, ‘likelys’ - nothing concrete at all. That is rather alarming.
I note the Chief Minister said that there are some pretty strict guidelines and time lines. I imagine that is what mobilised the Territory government to get out there and throw this money around a bit quicker than they normally would. The reason they are going to mobilise, as the Chief Minister said, is that the Commonwealth is not going to tolerate any feet dragging. They are not going to tolerate that at all, and they will name people. My goodness me – they are going to name people. That is a threat-and-a-half. We might find the member for Johnston being named by the Prime Minister, or the Chief Minister being named - or even the member for Barkly.
What a great fellow the member for Barkly is. The Transport Minister jumped up in Question Time today and crowed on about the wonderful relief package we are getting up here - $4m for roads. Member for Barkly, I know you are new at your job, all that sort of caper, but this is $4m. The rule of thumb up here is around $1m per kilometre. Maybe you are building 4 km of double-lane highway, maybe you are going to build 8 km of a single-lane highway. Irrespective, $4m ain’t going to go too far at all ...
Mr Conlan: Maybe it could go to the Mereenie Loop.
Mr TOLLNER: Mereenie Loop. Yes. Is that more than 4 km?
Mr Conlan: It is heaps more than 4 km.
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe they can go back with the next stimulus package and talk to Kev about the Mereenie Loop, the Outback Highway, something like that, and get some money there.
There is money in there for housing. I see my friend over here, the nodding dog, is in the Chamber. He is very happy with it - chuffed – that he is getting some money for housing. A lot of money for housing has been hanging around for a long time now. Long before the federal election, we had a lot of money sitting on the table. It is curious to know how many houses have been built from that wad of money - not too many at all. This government is a bit of a failure as far as building houses is concerned.
Footpaths, bike paths, I can just imagine now: ‘Forget the Stuart Highway, we only got $4m for bitumen but, my goodness, we got a good cycle path down for the Japanese tourists …
Dr Burns: What about mobile coverage along the Stuart Highway? What happened to that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Fong Lim be granted an extension of time for 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the members of the Chamber for that. I promise I will not speak for the whole 10 minutes. I am winding up.
You can imagine these Japanese tourists you pass along the roads, on their treadlies, peddling down the Stuart Highway; they are going to love this. We will have a brand new concrete bike path going right through Tennant Creek. This will be a boom for the tourism industry in Tennant Creek because these Japanese will be able to ride down on a brand spanking new concrete bike path, all the way down to Alice Springs and beyond. It will be a marvellous thing to see.
The Chief Minister should be corrected in relation to schools. He said Dave Tollner – me - organised a paltry few flag poles for schools. Again, members opposite know that that is errant nonsense - absolute errant nonsense. I have been with the member for Johnston at schools where we have opened particular extensions. Likewise, with you, Madam Speaker. I recall being at a couple of primary schools with you in your electorate. The Chief Minister himself has been. In actual fact, every single school in the Solomon electorate received around $150 000 under the Investing in Our Schools Program. They know that is a fact. That happened over a three-year period. Members opposite know that that is the case. That is just one program where the Commonwealth put money into our schools here in the Northern Territory. I will accept an apology, but I do not know whether I will be getting one. However, in any case, the vitriol that the government has come out with towards the opposition, I believe, is unwarranted.
Government should be taking its time on this sort of stuff. It should be sitting down and analysing things. It should be actually asking the question, ‘Are we getting our fair share?’ – not putting it on to Senator Scullion. My goodness me! This is an elected government with huge amounts of resources; the ability to get down there and talk face-to-face with the Prime Minister. It is the role and the responsibility of this government to get down there and stand up for the Territory and ask for our fair share. We deserve our fair share up here because, after all, the Northern Territory is probably the best part of Australia. I believe there is probably not a person in this Chamber, or who has ever been in this Chamber, who does not believe that this is the best part of Australia. We deserve our fair share. We have, for a long time, been treated poorly by governments in Canberra. There is a requirement that Territory governments punch above their weight, that they get down there and they demand and demand. Sadly, that has not been the case with this economic stimulus package. We have come out of this in an absolutely appalling situation.
I find it amazing that the government can even support this package - absolutely stunned that the government can support this package. It is a poor deal for the Northern Territory. I cannot say that in strong enough terms. It is a poor deal for the Northern Territory. The government would be better advised - rather than spending time belting up the opposition, who really have no capacity to do a great deal at all by reason of the fact that we are in opposition - using their time belting up the federal government and trying to get a better deal for Territorians.
That is what government is about. Government is about leadership; not expecting the opposition to lead the government of the day as I have done with my motion on regulation laws, cutting red tape. It is not incumbent on an opposition to constantly lead as we have been. They pick up our ideas on a whole range of things. I cannot think of a single project that this government, the previous Labor government, or the one before that, had the wit to come up with. There is nothing. The railway was put in place by the Country Liberals. The waterfront - the great waterfront and convention centre - was originally a plan of the Country Liberals. Even the Defence hub - the hub that I have been lambasting for quite a while - was originally called the Darwin Defence Technology Park by the former Chief Minister, Denis Burke. You would hardly call that an original idea from this government. They have not had an original idea. They have done nothing but tie up Territorians with bureaucracy and, at the same time, waste money.
The service that we get in our hospitals is an absolute disgrace for the money that we pour into them. The service that we get in most areas is an absolute disgrace for money that we pour in. I join with members from other parts of the Territory in my concern for the services, in particular, that are delivered into regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. That is seriously shambolic.
As I said, congratulations. You seem to have won some hearts in the business community by virtue of the way you have stepped up and immediately are going to spend this money. Obviously, you are being driven because you do not want to be named; that would concern you. However, as I say, all hats off to you. It looks like you have done a reasonably good job in trying to ensure that the package is implemented in a timely manner. Business seems quite happy in that regard.
It is just an awful shame; it is a crying shame that we are being ripped off the way we are by the Rudd Labor government in Canberra.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the contributions from the member for Fong Lim over the last couple of weeks. This side of the House has been concentrating on the stimulus package, and the member for Fong Lim has been very busy on his Facebook. He has bothered to join us today. Perhaps they have shut down his site on him, or he does not have any more friends to accept. It is nice of him to join us today. I know he thinks parliament is a joke.
This is very important. This is hundreds of millions of dollars coming in to the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim also alluded to his motion on the Notice Paper. It has been seven months since the election, and his party has chosen not to bring that matter forward. That is how important they think business and his matter is with respect to easing the regulations.
This initiative by the federal government certainly is welcomed. I was also at the leaders’ summit with the Chief Minister and other ministers. The business community was very impressed with the speed at which the response came from the Chief Minister, and the detail which was provided. Obviously, this is a fairly massive program being rolled out across Australia. A significant amount of work has already been done, but there is still a lot to be worked out. The Coordinator-General, Alastair Shields, is working very hard with the other coordinators from the housing area, the education area, and also the infrastructure area, so this is very significant. This stimulus package will support the growth of the Northern Territory.
Last week, I talked about our housing program making real inroads into our public housing sector through new land release, new initiatives in housing policy, and greater investment in housing maintenance and construction. This package provides the necessary capital to drive these projects and to move up a gear in delivering real results for Territorians. Providing adequate housing for all our constituents is of paramount importance for all governments. This government is committed to providing access to housing for all Territorians. Last week, the opposition called for more to be spent on public housing in the Territory, and for this government to do what it can in response to addressing housing affordability. We are, through the range of fresh ideas in housing service delivery, in rural housing growth, and through the fast-tracking of land release strategies.
However, I question the strength of the opposition’s conviction. The opposition’s comments about investment in housing are in direct contradiction to the Country Liberal Party’s stance against the federal government’s $42bn stimulus package. The CLP is opposed to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan as announced by the Prime Minister on 3 February. Senator Scullion has been actively arguing against, and voted against, the package in the Senate, turning his back on the Territory and blocking this investment. The CLP opposition is opposed to this government working in partnership with the Rudd government in driving investment in jobs, tax cuts, building better roads, improving education through better schools, improving energy efficiency, and the much-needed cash bonus to support jobs. They are focused on cheap political points instead of putting the Territory first.
We have already heard from my colleagues that the Territory is not immune from the impacts of the global financial crisis. This government is taking action to ensure that we protect Territory jobs and businesses from the full impact of the crisis, regardless of the head-in-the-sand attitude of the opposition. We must put Territory families first, and we will. We are putting our case forward to the federal government to gain as much of the stimulus package as we can for investment in the Territory. This government is focused on positioning our economy and our community for the best possible future.
We are working towards establishing a shared vision for the future for 2030. We know that we will witness significant population growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston areas, and in the bush. We will need to drive our housing market to deliver around 1700 extra houses and units a year. As the Territory grows, we know there is more to do to meet the demand for housing across the Northern Territory. The housing package alone will deliver investment of at least $65m into social housing, and $75m into Defence housing. This will deliver a real boost in the Territory’s construction industry - jobs for contractors and for subcontractors. These figures should be seen as a minimum, and we want to work in partnership with the private sector to leverage more investment, leveraging off industries’ planned investment and getting stalled development up and running. We will work in support of the non-government housing support sector, and provide organisations with the new improved housing options to assist their activities in the community where possible.
I inform the House what the stimulus package can deliver in housing for the Northern Territory. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about nation building, and we will be part of that program. The housing package is expected to deliver 20 000 social and Defence homes. We want to get that work out the door. This is a massive investment at a time when employers and employees are calling for the government to support jobs and investment in the long-term future of the Australian economy. This investment includes 802 new houses for Australian Defence Force personnel. We already know that Darwin is set to receive 185 new Defence homes - homes that are over and above the Defence Housing Authority’s planned capital investment program. This is a fantastic result for the Territory.
We will receive almost a quarter of the $252m Defence Housing investment in the Territory alone, which means jobs for the construction industry and homes for our Defence personnel. However, let us not forget the obvious flow-on effect of this investment, including the freeing up of properties on the rental market as Defence personnel move into their new homes. This historic investment is for Australians who serve and protect Australia in our Australian Defence Forces. This package is ready to go, with work on the ground set to begin in April. This package is not supported by the opposition, and this rejection must be seen as a refusal to support our forces and a slap in the face for the 1300 Defence personnel and their families living in the Northern Territory.
This stimulus package is also about urgency. The vast majority of houses built under this program will be completed by December 2010, which represents a massive and immediate support for jobs in the housing and construction industry. This program will also fund urgent maintenance to upgrade social housing that would otherwise be unusable. I am working hard in finalising my submission to ensure the federal government knows we have projects ready to go, land ready to be built on, renovations and upgrades and projects ready to be delivered, and strategies to leverage private sector investment opportunities.
The social housing component of this program will deliver 20 000 new social housing dwellings across Australia. These dwellings provide shelter to some of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; people who might be low-income Australians and Territorians who are homeless or struggling in the private rental market. The package is not supported by the CLP. We need to increase the supply of social housing and this project would deliver for homeless families and individuals.
Immediately, we will see investment in repairs and maintenance to existing public housing stock. The stimulus package includes the fast-tracking of $400m over two years on urgent maintenance. Work will begin next month. The investment will lift the quality of public housing dwellings, and upgrade about 250 000 vacant dwellings that would otherwise be unable to remain as public housing. New social housing will be delivered in two stages. The first stage of the package includes the construction program of about 2300 social housing dwellings, which are already planned and approved. They are set to begin work in April. The second stage involves new construction, including the spot purchase of houses, and loan packages for use as public and community housing. The construction and purchasing will commence later this year. We support the Rudd government’s mandate in the majority of the second stage of construction to be completed by December 2010.
We need to drive immediate market and job growth. We want this money invested in the Territory and we are ready to deliver projects immediately. I quote from a Darwin radio interview with the Housing minister, Tanya Plibersek:
I have met with peak Northern Territory industry associations, the TCA and the Housing Industry Association to discuss these packages. I encourage and hope the opposition will also talk to these groups, to understand the real needs for the funding. The opposition really does need to engage with industry now so they understand that their continued failure to support the package will impact on Territorians. The opposition is rejecting Territory businesses and Territory jobs. Hundreds of homes and units are ready to be built and renovated. The Henderson government is working overtime to attract as much of the stimulus package investment as possible. We have identified a range of housing initiatives targeting those projects that can be delivered immediately. Yesterday, we put forward our first case to the Commonwealth for housing investment.
The opposition should be aware that the stimulus package which they will not support has direct impacts in their electorates. For example, the Leader of the Opposition is standing against the investment of housing in Blain. He is opposed to the stimulus package providing cash for public housing in the new Bellamack subdivision and in much-needed renovations to public housing properties within his electorate.
The member for Fong Lim has a significant Defence base in his electorate, but is rejecting almost 2000 new homes in the Territory for Defence personnel. That is tens of millions of dollars.
I put forward the upgrade of the Bloomfield Street housing complex in Araluen. The stimulus package could fund the upgrade of the 27-unit complex, which a non-government housing organisation has shown a real interest in managing. Again, a project which the CLP is putting in jeopardy. This stimulus package certainly goes to the heart of everyone’s electorate, everyone’s community, and it touches everyone - and that is the idea of it. We get to stimulate the economy so that the money trickles down, people have jobs and the confidence still exists. That is the important part of it.
In conclusion, I hope the opposition has a good think about what they have said tonight. I was a bit disappointed that the member for Fong Lim was laughing and joking about Japanese tourists. I thought, as the shadow Tourism minister, that was not in very good taste. The Japanese tourist sector in the Northern Territory is something that we, obviously, want to grow. However, the laughing and innuendo against Japanese tourists was very sad, indeed ...
Mr Mills: This is embarrassing.
Mr KNIGHT: It was very embarrassing that the member for Fong Lim was making those comments. I hope he provides a personal explanation about his laughter and insinuations against Japanese tourists.
This is the biggest project we have seen in the Territory. We have a lot to get done, and we are certainly ready to go in the housing sector. This gives us a chance to bring forward a lot of development, getting more public housing out there, getting more support for our community housing sector, to get properties back online. I saw some figures tonight that, over a 10-year period that the Howard government was in office between 1997-98 and 2007-08, the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement funds to the Territory government had, in real terms, dropped by 24%. There is little wonder that we have properties which we cannot get back into service. Over those 10 years, when the so-called economic masters of the Howard government were holding the keys to the Treasury coffers, they were starving the states, particularly in the social housing area. We now have the Rudd government providing money – much-needed money - to the social housing sector to provide for many very needy Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the stimulus package, and thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement forward.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this whole parliament and the Australian Labor Party are completed misguided if they think there should not have been any debate on this subject.
It is interesting to note that Labor, in opposition, were opposed to every single major reform of the Howard government. In the 11 years that the Howard government was in government, the federal Labor opposition opposed every single major reform from that government. Now, all of a sudden, they are outraged that Malcolm Turnbull has opposed this $42bn package before it was properly debated.
The Financial Review editorial the week before last made the point that Kevin Rudd thinks it is cheap politics by the opposition for not instantly saluting his plan and, somehow, insinuated that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals were responsible for this financial crisis. Of course, that is what he wrote in his 700-word essay in The Monthly just recently. It is Kevin Rudd who is playing cheap politics on this issue, wanting 40 bills - 40 bills - to be rammed through federal parliament without one ounce of scrutiny and, then, expects the opposition to be saluting, saying ‘Amen’ and yelling ‘Hallelujah, thank you, Kevin’.
We have had guarantees to bank deposits, guarantees to inter-bank loans, without any debate - without one single ounce of debate in federal parliament - guaranteeing bank deposits and inter-bank loans without any debate whatsoever. It is very clear, as is clearly demonstrated in this parliament, that the Labor Party is afraid and terrified of debate.
It is a case with this financial crisis - I am certainly no economist, everyone knows that, but I simply read. All you need to do is read credible journals like The Australian or The Financial Review to realise that we are in a world of pain. There is an enormous world of pain to come. $42bn will not go anywhere near rescuing the pain that this country is going to face in the future. It is a case that you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you do not, when it comes to a stimulus package. If you do, then there should be more on economic infrastructure rather than a social infrastructure package that the Prime Minister has put forward. The problem is that we do not know where we are going. We do not know how great this financial crisis, as it has been called, is going to be; what is ahead of us economically.
Malcolm Turnbull, in my opinion, was correct when he said: ‘We need to keep our powder dry. We need to have something up our sleeve for the future’. There is an interesting article in today’s The Australian by Glenn Milne. I will read some of that. It says:
Glenn Milne went on:
We have not seen any details of this package, which equates to 5% of GDP. We have not seen any details of the model which Treasury has based this sum on. So, $42bn; we have not seen anything. No one has seen anything as to why they have based this model on $42bn - no knowledge why Treasury chose this particular package over other packages.
We are seeing handouts to people who do not need them or, indeed, handouts to people who do not deserve them - and they are not means tested.
The IMF has forecast economic contraction of 0.2% this financial year, and unemployment at 4.8% - an economic contraction of 0.2% and unemployment of 4.8%. Canada, for example, which the IMF forecast an economic contraction of 1.2% with unemployment over 7%, has provided an economic stimulus package of 2.5% of GDP - only 2.5% of GDP in Canada, with an economic contraction of 1.2% and unemployment over 7%. Our economic contraction is 0.2% and unemployment is 4.8%, and our stimulus package is at 5% of GDP - $42bn.
There is also further manoeuvrability for the Reserve Bank to bring interest rates down but, on all accounts and by past history, it is pretty clear that banks will not pass that cut on to customers. These are the same banks that have been receiving guaranteed deposits from the government, without any debate, and guaranteed inter-bank loans - with our money, I might add, all our money - and they are not giving anything back. Where is Mr Rudd on this?
There are many aspects of the package, of course, that need to be debated and argued. It is not just about the Murray/Darling. We have seen a lot of talk about where Senator Nigel Scullion was. The question has to be asked: where were the three Labor members in the debate on this? Where were they when it came to sticking up for and asking more for the Northern Territory?
Prime Minister Rudd is fast breeding a welfare mentality when it comes to this sort of stuff. It is interesting that the head of the Commonwealth Bank has said that, with tax cuts, lower fuel prices, and interest rate cuts in the last six months, it has resulted in an 11% boost to the average Australian’s disposable income - 11.0% to the average Australian’s disposable income in the last six months. That is equivalent to three annual wage rises, and it is the biggest increase in disposable income in the country’s history. In the last six months, when you combine tax cuts, lower fuel prices and the cut in interest rates, it is the biggest increase in disposable income in the country’s history; that is, an 11% boost to the average Australian’s disposable income. Despite the scaremongering by this government and the federal government, they conceded that, at the end of four years, there will still be 300 000 people unemployed and, at the end of four years, unemployment will hit 7%. So, at the end of four years, we will have unemployment in this country at 7%. It is worth remembering also that it is not just the $42bn that the Prime Minister has splashed around. He has already given $6bn to the car industry; $15bn to state and territory health; $10.4bn before Christmas; the $4.7bn Nation Building Package; $500m Renewable Energy Fund; and $300m in local government funding.
The country is set to go into deficit to $22bn this year; $35bn next financial year; $34bn the following year; and $24.7bn the year after that. Even Treasurer Wayne Swan has said in this story by Glenn Milne in today’s The Australian:
That is out of the Treasurer’s own mouth. As Glenn Milne said, we know this thing has a long way to go. When you add up all those deficits - from this year $22bn; $35bn; $34bn the following year; and $24.7bn the year after that - it is a total of $118bn by 2012. Hardly worth going to work, you would think, with all the tax that Territory and Australians workers are going to be slugged to repay this debt …
A member: And their kids.
Mr CONLAN: And their kids, of course.
It seems the Rudd government is happy to accept that. They have developed a welfare mentality. By 2012, it is estimated that close to 50% of the population will pay no tax; that is, they will be part of that middle class welfare that is ever increasing under the Labor government - 39% in 2004, 42%, 43% currently, and set to increase staggeringly after this $42bn package. The Prime Minister - with the greatest respect to him and the position - is all rhetoric and no substance.
What would have happened if, when asked about the financial tsunami - as Treasurer Costello at the time described was on our doorstep in 2007 - at the federal election Kevin Rudd’s answer to that had been: ‘Well, my answer to that is to put our country into $118bn of debt and, by 2012, unemployment will be at 7%’. He would have been run out of town - absolutely run out of town.
Malcolm Turnbull and the Territory Leader of the Opposition were right to demand more debate on this. We should not be afraid of debate. Forty bills needed to be scrutinised. This was rammed through parliament. Malcolm Turnbull and the Territory Leader of the Opposition were right, and we should be cheering them for trying to secure the future of Territorians for years to come and save them from years and years of debt - $118bn and 7% employment. Those are the facts and figures as highlighted by industry experts. You can read them. They were all in the newspapers such as The Financial Review and The Australian over the last couple of weeks while this has been talked about in parliament and the media.
I support Malcolm Turnbull and Terry Mills, the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there has to be some sort of stimulus package, but we do not know what we are going into. This is bigger than anyone can possibly imagine. Companies such as Rio Tinto in 18 months will be looking at repaying a debt of $35bn. Where is that money going to come from, because the banks are not giving it to anyone? Corporations are completely dried up giving anyone any money. The banks have stopped lending. We are in for a world of pain. Malcolm Turnbull was right. Let us keep our powder dry. Certainly, let us inject some money into this economy. However, to plunge us into such a huge, significant amount of debt at this stage is reckless and irresponsible.
Madam Speaker, I support fully the Leader of the Opposition and his stance when it comes to this issue.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I welcome this statement from the Chief Minister on the federal government’s $42bn economic stimulus package. I certainly welcome the move by our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to see the urgency and the need for this country to look into the needs of the people across this country and, in particular, in the Northern Territory.
I listened with interest to the debate across the Chamber, not only in the last few hours, but last week as we looked at the stimulus package, and the importance of having that kind of injection, particularly in the Northern Territory. As a bush member, as the member for Arnhem, I am very pleased with the outcome of this stimulus package. I want that recorded in our discussions here, and for our Labor colleagues in the federal parliament to recognise that it has been very much appreciated.
If we want to talk about the politics of the actual financial package itself, what I find interesting is the impact of one person. The one person in this debate in the federal parliament was the Independent member, Nick Xenophon. We all know what he has been able to achieve for his state by holding on to what he wanted to do in getting the Rudd government to follow through with his conditions. I ask myself what kind of impact could our Senator for the CLP, Nigel Scullion, have had in that same debate had he really looked at this package? This was one time in his political career where he could have made a tremendous difference, not only for the CLP in the Northern Territory but, in particular, the people of the Northern Territory. This was one time where one person could make a tremendous impact on where that money was going. We look at people like the Independent Senator, Nick Xenophon, and recognise that, even though we all belong to our particular beliefs and parties, there are times when those opportunities come up. It is a sad indictment on the Senator in that regard, because I do know Nigel Scullion and believe that there could have been an opportunity - a real opportunity - to push forward on some of those very issues that his own colleagues have raised in this debate, not only this afternoon, but in the previous week.
It is clear, if we want to look at the political issues of this, the toing and froing of whether the money was too much or too little, if we look again at Premier Colin Barnett of Western Australia. He is a man who has said: ‘Look, it might be just a little too much money but, hey, I will take it. I will take it because it is going to make a huge difference to my state. It is going to make an incredible difference to the livelihoods of all people across Western Australia’. I look at that kind of leadership and think: this is one opportunity where we could have had that complete bipartisan support here and, if that bipartisan support had been there, incredible pressure could have been put in the federal parliament for any kind of extras that the opposition, in particular, would have liked to have seen.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the Territory is going to benefit from this federal government’s initiative. I think of the number of schools in my own electorate of Arnhem, in particular Ramingining CEC, a school that is doing well in seeing Year 12 students graduate. Because of the Labor government, in Kalkarindji we saw our first Year 12 students graduate. I am very pleased to say that in Ramingining, Milingimbi and Ngukurr, we have seen a number of Year 12 students graduate.
I have made phone calls to schools in my electorate to ask them how this will impact on them, and what the things are that they would like to see changed and improved as a result of this stimulus package. The principals of the schools in Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, Ngukurr, and even in Numbulwar, recognise that this is an incredible opportunity for them to see some major improvements, on top of the already prepared and promised improvements for this year, and the structures that have already been built in the last few years. I think of Wugularr, formerly in my electorate, and the new school that is being built there, knowing that the member for Stuart will certainly be seeing extra facilities in that school.
Members have said to me, both in and outside the parliament: ‘Why put so much money into these schools when the issue is about getting children to school? Why not just focus on something else?’ They are valid arguments. We should always have that discussion, and I do not think there is ever a right or a wrong for these things. It is about the continuity of knowing that we have to deal with this on all levels. The level that we are dealing with this is on the economic level, recognising that this is going to have a tremendous impact on the people in the regions. It is going to have that for those members who have bush electorates. Looking at the costs here, the good news for bush members is that the impact of the Territory’s $500m share of this package will be felt right across the region.
The federal government has committed to deliver $14.7bn to boost Australia’s education system over the next three years and, as you have heard the Chief Minister say, the Territory’s share of this will be in the vicinity of $180m to $200m. This funding is available for both government and non-government schools. As this program will commence this year and roll out over the next three years, every Territory primary school will be eligible for a new library or multipurpose hall, with the amount of funding subject to school size. Schools with contemporary libraries and multipurpose halls will be able to apply for funding for refurbishment or building of other facilities. Secondary schools that can demonstrate need and readiness will be eligible to build new science laboratories and language centres. Every Territory school will receive up to $200 000, subject to the size of the school, to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor new works.
Let us not take away from the significance of this for the schools. I urge members of the Assembly to take that into consideration. While, on one hand, we want to look at the overall package - and listening to the member for Greatorex as he talked about the economic pain that is being felt and will continue to be felt over the coming months, even years - let us not lose sight of that one level. Yes, we should be looking at that but, on a very closer-to-home level for people who are struggling in their own home communities, who want to see changes within their own community; that they can see changes and activity. This is vital; we should not lose sight of that, and not think that, by rejecting the package as a whole we are doing the right thing, because we are not - most definitely not.
I am very pleased to see that the Chief Minister has called businesses here in Darwin - and immediately. It is something that our government is working on straightaway, because we know that it is one thing to have the package announced and talked about within the federal parliament, but we also need to ensure that our businesses here on the ground know how to tap into that straightaway.
Large-scale projects must provide facilities that will benefit the local community. As I said, it is important to note that this money is available for all schools, government and non-government. For instance, in my electorate, this funding will add to existing commitments already in education. I highlight that I am very passionate about education. There is more than $1m under Closing the Gap for Ngukurr Community Education Centre. Last year, we celebrated 100 years of Ngukurr as a community. I was there just a couple of weeks ago as we opened the safe house and the men’s cooling-off centre. It is extraordinary; the change in Ngukurr is quite beautiful. I urge my colleagues to have a look. It has been tremendous to see the difference for the community in what the Roper Gulf Shire is doing in that area. It has probably had a bit of an advantage in the sense that the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority in the Beswick/Barunga region has now grown and become the Roper Gulf Shire.
Seeing Ngukurr and the school where there are so many new demountables; we know that the new housing for the teachers has made a tremendous difference. It is not enough - most definitely not enough; I will be the first one to say that. The teachers and people at Ngukurr know very much that I am working on that. Yet, they can see the difference. When communities can see the difference and that activity, and they know when they have asked and lobbied for something and it is actually happening, it makes a difference. It actually makes people feel really good that there is action on the ground. However, it is a two-way street.
This is one of the things I say to not only the mob in Ngukurr, but as I travel through Arnhem Land: it is one thing for governments at either the Territory or federal level to provide that kind of support, but it has to actually be met halfway. We need the families and the people on the ground in the communities to see that there is change, and to stand up and take some more responsibility as well on what they can be doing to ensure that these changes are for the better, not only for themselves and their family, but for the children. It is always about the children as far as I am concerned.
I like talking about Ramingining, it is a wonderful community. Again, there is over $1m for classroom upgrades under Closing the Gap. Gapuwiyak is a place that I will be going to a lot more often now that I picked that up in the last redistribution. Again, there is over $1m for the Gapuwiyak school.
At Angurugu, I know that the principal of Angurugu, Maurice Higgins, will be very pleased with the stimulus package. They have a large area already for assembly, so I know they will be thinking: ‘How can we look at this funding - maybe not for multipurpose halls’. For others it will be a hall. They can consider the priority in some areas. They are already talking about what they can use it for. They are looking at the home economics room.
We have the ranger program working within the Groote area. The ranger program has a great children’s program and the youth in Angurugu are part of that. So, already there is discussion and there is some excitement. Groote is leading the way in a lot of respects, not just with the ranger programs, but the housing and the leasing that is going on there at the moment. You can ask any of the Anindilyakwa mob and they can tell you that there have been significant improvements in the last four or five years. Again, a lot of that comes back to not just governments at the Territory and federal level, but actually the people. It is the people who can see the changes and are now a part of the process to say: ‘This is how we want the change to happen. This is what we want to see happen for our kids’. Once you start including the people - any people, wherever they are - in that process and in their vision for the future, then you see the real results. It is about investing in people. The people of Angurugu know that this stimulus package is going to go a long way to contributing towards their plans for their school.
At Milingimbi, again there is $1.25m under Closing the Gap already, and they know that this is going to be an incredible assistance for them. The Numbulwar mob, $1.25m with the Closing the Gap, and again, this stimulus package - it is quite exciting for them. If we look at what we have done in education with the Remote Partnership Learning Agreement, Ngukurr and Numbulwar have signed up, Milingimbi is about to, and Gapuwiyak in my electorate. These sorts of things are all a combination of what is changing and improving for the better in people making a decision about how they want to see education in their communities. To know that they again can talk about this funding and the stimulus package as an addition to some of the other plans they have, is just really exciting - it really is.
When I hear the negativity about the package - and I know that members have argued that it is not actually about the package per se, but your opportunity to scrutinise it - I say to you: do not forget the importance of this and what it means on the ground – the small things. It makes a tremendous difference. If that is going to happen within those communities, and then, obviously, to the contractors and the businesses, it does have a flow-on effect.
I have just mentioned the $300 000 in infrastructure upgrades for Alyangula and a number of the communities. All of this under Closing the Gap, plus the stimulus package, creates some real incentives in our communities.
As you have heard from my colleague, the Housing Minister, housing in the Territory stands to benefit from the federal government’s $42bn economic stimulus package. The housing component of the package will provide capital to drive housing projects that will deliver real results for Territorians. I say real results, because I know that my colleagues, especially my bush member colleagues, want to ensure that that housing package, the stimulus package in the SIHIP program, is about real jobs on the ground. I know for a fact that, on Groote Eylandt, which has kicked off with the SIHIP program, we want to see the local people involved. In fact, we went so far as to say we know that, over the years, we have seen many contractors going to our communities. We talk about wanting to have local people involved and, then, when they get involved and the contractors leave, nothing happens. Those local people then do not have a housing program or a building company to go to. Well, we have to change that.
One of the things we did with this new incentive with the housing monies was to ensure that the contractors and the camps are set up - and I use Numbulwar as an example. If we have the contractors set up in a camp, we have to ensure that those local people can sleep in that area. They can have a demountable, airconditioning, three meals a day, just like any other contractor who comes in, because we know that our local people are starting from a disadvantage of being in already overcrowded houses. Whether there is fighting going on, arguments or disagreements, overcrowding creates all kinds of problems. We know that; everyone knows that. You know what it is like when you do not have enough space and someone is crowding you. Imagine that 20 times over.
We know that with the housing program we have made changes, so that, within that alliance program, those contractors make sure they have those local people in there; they are part of the team from the get go. They are part of the team, they are learning, they are living in the same conditions, they can have decent sleep, decent food - everything, the whole works - and still have their family down the road. However, there is the intent that, at the end of it, they can then continue on by being the repairs and maintenance group, or setting up their own construction industry if they want. It has to be about what happens after the contractors leave; what happens beyond that. This is the excitement that comes with the housing program that we are beginning to roll out.
Before we get to that, of course, we have to ensure we have the local people up to scratch, whether they need VET training, numeracy and literacy upgrades, what kind of skills we have in our communities and how we can pinpoint those particular people. We know the people in those communities. We know who would have the energy and enthusiasm to do it, but they may not be at that skills level. How can we help them get up to that skills level? These are the fantastic things I get really excited about.
Australia-wide, it is anticipated the package will deliver some 20 000 social homes. In the Territory, the stimulus package will deliver $65m for social housing. That is going to be in addition to $75m for Defence housing. We know the impact of Defence in the Northern Territory in Darwin and, most definitely, in Katherine – as the member for Katherine would know with the Tindal Air Base. I would like to think, too, that we also must consider NORFORCE, which is very much a part of Defence in the Northern Territory.
The $65m contained in the stimulus package will be ...
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arnhem be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Barkly.
The $65m contained in the package will be in addition to the $672m already committed to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, or SIHIP. It is a great record investment by both the Australian and NT governments. Improving housing, as we all know, is essential to closing the gap. We are going to see about 750 new houses, including new subdivisions, more than 230 new houses to replace houses to be demolished, and more than 2500 housing upgrades, essential infrastructure to support new houses, and improvements to living conditions in town camps.
I spoke at the beginning and said there are two ways we need to look at this; obviously, from the political level and the economic level, as a whole. Some people are arguing it is too much of a stimulus package, or it is not enough. What I am saying is: let us keep it real; let us look at it on the ground, the impact on the everyday Territorian out there. This is going to have a tremendously good impact for them. I urge members of the Assembly to get on board, to recognise the improvements that can be made with the many programs going on out in our communities, especially with the housing programs. It is to the benefit of the Northern Territory parliament that we can see these improvements for all Territorians out in those regions.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I was not going to talk on this, but I have been stimulated to do so. In all good conscience, knowing that perhaps my own children, and even their children’s children, may be affected by this, as a dad I need to say something.
The conservative side of politics, in some light, has taken a hit over this. That is just aimed at trying to get a headline in the media, and not really what is behind it. I am sure people reading history may look back and see that the conservative side of government right across this country, as leaders, stood up to see what was right; it was nothing at all like what has been demonstrated here in the last few days.
In fact, it probably demonstrated to me how dirty politics can get from time to time. The fact is, today people are smarter than the other side of the House thinks. Perhaps those kinds of stunts worked back in the days of Merlin. However, no one on this side of the House - no conservative government in this country - suggested that a stimulus package was not what was required. We even suggested that we needed to go into debt to stimulate the economy and help through this economic crisis that we face. I have a real problem when we are asked to make a decision very quickly on something as large as a $42bn stimulus package.
When I was discussing this the other night with my son and I told him that when he goes to work he will still be paying this debt back, he said: ‘Bugger off’. I had to agree that it was not the nicest thing to have to let him know.
Mr Rudd, our Prime Minister, blamed this economic crisis on greed and the wants of the here and now. In fact, the stimulus package is doing just the same; it is feeding the wants, the needs, right now. However, later on people are going to have to pay it back.
We need to have a stimulus package in this country - we certainly do. However, there is not one person in this parliament today who would sign a document for even a house without reading the fine print - putting your signature on a document that puts you into debt for many years. That is something that I can speak to from the heart, having had debt problems myself in the past, particularly with credit cards. I know the pain a single family can go through from being in debt and the need to service that debt. We are not talking about one family here, we are talking about families all over this nation.
Servicing that debt is a very hard thing to do. It is okay for those people today who are cashed up and can go and purchase something with cash. But when you are about to put something on a credit card, take a loan out for something, you really need to think hard whether you require that item. Is it a luxury item or is it an item of need?
I put to you that a plasma TV put on a credit card is just servicing a luxury. People buying a home - a big debt - in future many realise that it was the right thing to do because they have capitalised on their investment. Any money invested should be on things that you are investing into the future, which will have a real benefit for this country. I put it to this House that there is not a government in this country that would have the bajoolies to do another Snowy River Scheme.
That saddens me. At a time like this, when we should be looking at the future and doing some major infrastructure, here is the perfect chance to maybe fix up some of those big picture item issues they face down south with water - in Victoria, South Australia and southern New South Wales. I suggest, and I hope, that governments around this country spend money in planning the big ticket items. There is probably not a person in this room who has not seen a surveyor out walking through the scrub or on the side of the road. One would hope, as a normal person in the community, that person is working for a government department or a private business, out there surveying the bigger things. We say we need to stimulate the economy quickly. I hope that this and other governments of this country have plans on their desks right now so they can use the money for things that will stimulate the economy, but also provide long-term investments for this country.
I heard on the news the other day that governments all around the world agreed to packages by their respective parliaments and, in fact, Obama was mentioned. Much criticism was laid upon our own Opposition Leader in Canberra, Malcolm Turnbull, that he did not support this package. I will go back and clear the record, right here. The conservative side of government has not said that a stimulation package is not required; in fact, they agreed to it. They agree that we need to go into debt to make that happen. However, it is a debt that we need to scrutinise to ensure we are putting in place investment opportunities that are going to pay off in the future.
The difference that someone like Obama did that the Rudd government did not, was speak to members in the opposition - Congressmen in the United States - where they both agreed on a direction. I heard, time and time again, Malcolm Turnbull in Canberra saying he was prepared to work with government on this. Let us, as a nation, work together. You have some smart people on that side, we have some smart people on this side. Let us have a think tank. Let us work on this quickly and stand together in front of a nation, and say: ‘This is what is needed’. You would have bipartisan support because a deal was worked through and some real infrastructure needs and investments met into the future.
I also worry that, without scrutiny, we do not know whether one school here needs $1m, and this school only needs $100 000. Let us be true here, again. There is not a school in this country that would knock back a package of something like $200 000. Let us face it; any additional dollar is a benefit. Perhaps there are schools out there - and I can name a few just in Palmerston - that have not been touched or upgraded in many years. I am sure there are many more schools throughout the Northern Territory. Perhaps they need some more money, and some of the more affluent schools do not need so much money. This is what scrutiny can do. You can go back to these schools and have a look at their wish lists. However, none of this, of course, happened because that side of the House decided to attack us, simply because we did not agree with their point of view – and that is all it was, just to get a headline.
What if it does not work? We have seen $10m spent just before Christmas and, still today, there is no clear evidence that suggests that has stimulated the economy and saved 75 000 jobs that Mr Rudd said it would. I was told recently that, for a $1000 plasma TV where $900 goes overseas, only $100 of that money has stimulated the economy in this country. So, if you put that on to the bigger scale and look at $10bn, perhaps $10bn stimulated the economy by $1bn. That is a sad thing; to think that we have invested $10bn to stimulate the economy by a factor of only $1bn.
What if it does not work? What if we spend $42bn and send this country well into debt for many years and next quarter comes along and our Prime Minister says: ‘It did not work; we need to find some more’? He stands there and puts his hand out like Oliver: ‘Please, sir, I need some more’, and we have to go further into debt. Again, I know personally what it is like to have the pain of debt, and owing money to other people. So, what if it does not work - next quarter, next year?
I do not prescribe to the notion that we cannot do things quickly if we work together. Let us look at the environment for a minute, at the energy efficiency side of this stimulus package and the $1600 rebate and things like that. One such example is the energy efficiency rebate. Does the Henderson government know how many Territorians will be eligible for the $1600 for roofing insulation or the $1600 for solar hot water? This is means tested but, for the solar hot water rebate, you cannot double dip. It is either one or the other.
The concept is laudable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save householders’ electricity costs. I notice that you estimate $34m subject to take-up. That money is for 21 250 households to take up either the solar hot water or the insulation. Is pink batts the answer? Is that going to stimulate the economy? It will for that industry - it sure will. The federal government boasts that the stimulus package could result in almost all Australian homes winning at least two-star energy efficiency rating. The NT standard is 3.5, with plans to impose five-star standards.
Driving around the suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston, you will see most roofs have solar hot water units. As at 2004, more than half of Territory households used solar systems to heat their water. There have been ongoing solar hot water rebates since then, so it would be hard to imagine that number has not substantially increased. Due to the high dependence on solar hot water, many households got in early and installed hot water services – they are an efficient device. These households will be unable to access the rebate to replace ageing systems. They will not be able to use this rebate to replace their existing solar hot water system. This is a provision that should have rung alarm bells for the Chief Minister.
While we are on the subject, if they were really looking at finding efficiencies in hot water systems – there are heat pumps. Many may have heard of heat pump hot water systems. There are two great examples in the Northern Territory right now. Heat pumps can provide up to a 75% reduction in household energy. Crowne Plaza, across the road, has just replaced a hot water system with a heat pump hot water system – a 75% reduction in the costs of hot water. Through a heat pump system, the by-product is cold air. Guess what? They have placed the cold air ducts across their cooling towers for airconditioning. So, as a direct result of heating water, they actually have far more efficient airconditioning. Let us look at the Crowne Plaza as a wonderful example. Another one is the new Airport Hotel …
A member: The casino is doing the same.
Mr CHANDLER: Doing the same thing with these heat pumps. This type of technology is here, it is available. It has been used in other states. It is showing great reductions in energy. Unless the government’s true angle here is to ensure people are using as much electricity as possible, and money coming back in through Power and Water, they really should be looking at ways to take the heat, if you like - excuse the pun - out of the grid by looking at solutions such as heat pump hot water systems.
I want to be sure that people realise the conservative side of government knows that we need a stimulation package. The only thing we wanted was the opportunity to read the bottom line, to read between the lines and, before signing it, to know what it was about. Already in this House, we have seen in the last few days, since last week, a change in the numbers. We did not have the full numbers up-front. They have changed this week and, perhaps, they will change again by the end of this week.
What are we deciding on? What are we agreeing to? What do you think we are opposed to? We are opposed to not knowing, not understanding. Again, I am using an analogy: we would not buy a home, sign for a mortgage for 25 or 30 years, without knowing the full implications. If you want me to pay it back in all good conscience, then tell me what I am getting for my money. Even now, after days and days, more and more is flowing out. Yet, back then, you wanted us to make a decision and say that yes, we will put our hands up, support this 100%, without knowing what the full details were. That is a sad occasion. We have done this just after a $10bn stimulus package was given to us before Christmas - $10bn, with no real proof that it has worked. Yet again, here we are, a month down the track, and you want us to sign off on $42bn. It is not about the money in the end; it is about how it is used.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on the stimulus package. However, I want to talk in general up-front about some of the confusion I have in my own mind. It is federal parliament legislation that has been passed through parliament far away. I guess it is good for the Northern Territory.
I supported the Chief Minister’s summit on the weekend to allow businesses to have an input. We need a stimulus package for business, to ensure we support our Territory businesses. My biggest concern, though, is with all these buildings we are putting on remote Aboriginal communities, who is going to pick up the oncost of these communities after they are put there? That is my biggest concern, because that can be a real burden on Indigenous communities. I hold the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs and I am from a remote Aboriginal community, and that is a huge concern. For short-term gain, we need to ask ourselves about the long-term ramifications of doing something tomorrow, and what impact it will have next week.
Everything that has been factored into the housing packages is about stimulating the industry to build these infrastructures. We certainly need roads infrastructure. With the latest rains in Central Australia and in the Top End, we have huge problems having bush roads fixed. It is good to put the workers out there very early to have these roads fixed. But again, I question who picks up the tab for everything that we put in there? We could be just putting extra pressure on these communities.
I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Arnhem’s comments, regarding the building industry having huge packages for Indigenous people to train and build these houses and get their certificates. I remember in ATSIC, three years ago, we had the IHANT program, which was put together with the Territory and federal governments and ATSIC. We had the Builder Trainer program. I remember asking a question in this very House - I think I was over there - about why it was that we got rid of the Builder Trainer Program. That is only three years ago. These people in the communities with Certificate III Level Building qualifications are now unemployed. I encourage my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, to get out there while we introduce the stimulus package, to encourage all these workers to come back to the workforce to ensure they are part of the development, part of building on the communities, and part of having true stimulus employment, so the employment can be continuous.
I suppose, from my position, I get frustrated because of the stop/start, stop/start of things that happen to Indigenous people. The package is good; we welcome it, and I support the Chief Minister. I supported the summit that he held. However, when we are dealing with Indigenous communities and people, we have to be very careful in the sense that we do not give them a false hope of things happening on their community - which only happen today; it is not going to be ongoing tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. That is my biggest concern.
We have to have a holistic approach to doing things in the Northern Territory. The economy needs the stimulus package, businesses need it, and we need to kick-start the economy in order to make it survive. That is our job, as politicians. These people outside, out there, listening to us, voted us in to make decisions - and the right decisions - on behalf of Territory people.
Let us not play games, because this is not something that we determined today, in here, in this parliament. It has already been determined thousands of miles away from us in the federal parliament. I agree with the member for Nelson when he said the Greens and Independents are in an important position since it is their job to question whether something is right for their electorate or party. Other people have that right as well.
I just do not want to see us playing games in this House with people’s lives because our families are in the long queues at Centrelink; people we are related to who have mortgages are going to be homeless because they have lost their jobs, and they maybe have to get the wife to get a second job. This is where I really believe we should talk in this House with the honesty and passion that we have when we go and knock on their door and ask them for their vote to get us into this House. I know, for one, I feel really upset at the fact that there are hundreds of people who have lost their jobs in the mining industry and other areas because of what is happening to the economy. This is a global financial crisis that we have; it is not just happening in the Northern Territory, in Australia, it is happening everywhere.
Last week, we were talking about the bushfire disaster. This is a disaster. It is a disaster in the sense that people are unemployed. Parents are going to be going home and telling their children: ‘You are not going to have the things that you had last week. You cannot have it today, you will not have it next week, because mum and dad do not have jobs anymore’. What we, the members in this House, have to be are clean, conscionable politicians. I know whatever I say here tonight makes no difference, because the decision has already been made somewhere else.
However, I do support the Chief Minister’s statement. I am glad he has had an industry summit to encourage industry and let it know that government is supporting it, and talk about some of the things in this package that, obviously, affect my portfolio. We have had a look at the short-term, medium-term, and the long-term measures that have been rolled out in this package and the programs ready to be rolled out straightaway.
It is very encouraging to Territorians, and especially to Central Australia. My job as the member for McDonnell is to ensure that I fight for Central Australia and for all Territorians to ensure we are putting Territorians first. I do not ever want to get myself into a position where, after being here, I go back to Alice Springs and someone tells me: ‘What you said inside that House was not right’. I know that I go with pride and honour when I go and knock on someone’s door, whether they are Indigenous people or not - since the redistribution, I have had the rural blocks in Alice Springs - and say: ‘Vote me in because I can speak for you and I will support you’. In this, I really want to support mankind. This is not something that we play political football with.
We know that we are going to get all this infrastructure. They have already decided in Canberra that we are going to get the roads and schools infrastructure. I am really concerned about people’s pride, honour, and the fact that people are hurting and we see them every day lining up at Centrelink. I do not ever want to see or get myself into a situation where I am blaming other people and playing games with the ordinary man and woman’s life out there. That is what I stand here for, and I support the statement of the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arnhem for her comments. That is the first time that I have seen the member for Arnhem speak freely and not from a scripted speech from the fifth floor. I thought the member for Arnhem’s speech was good. I do not agree with everything, but she spoke fairly well and spoke from the heart in what she said.
I also thank the member for Macdonnell for what she said. I have been sitting here this afternoon listening to the debate about this. It is a decision that has been made federally and we cannot have any influence on that point of view right now. To see such a waste of time as we spent today on labouring the point about who could have done what and where and so forth has been a sad day for me. Two speeches from one side and two speeches from the other side would have been enough, from my point of view. It has been done, it has been said and, now, they have thrown it out.
What was done yesterday by the Chief Minister would have been good if some opposition members were there, considering we represent half the Territory. It would have been good if we were there, but the process that was taken was very good. It looks a way to be able to roll out the stimulus.
I also share the concerns that the member for Macdonnell raised. I picked up those concerns during the speech by the member for Arnhem when she was talking about the school infrastructure, and going to some of the communities that she represents. She also reflected on the housing package. She was talking about SIHIP, in particular, and some of the housing, and saying how that is so good for the communities and it builds jobs. Well, the member for Macdonnell, quite accurately, reflected that it does not build jobs; it comes, delivers a certain amount of work, and then leaves again. There is no longevity in it. There are no sustainable jobs in that process. People will argue that if you train people to get skills, people have those skills and that is really good; that is a positive. However, where are those skills utilised in the community when there is no local industry? There is no continuity of jobs in the longer term for people to have an income to buy more houses, to mortgage something, or to build. The cycle stops as soon as the end of that funding program or that grant is reached.
While there might be money out the door in the short term, it does not really represent the bush. Bush electorates are held by the people on the other side, and that is something that really needs to be reflected upon. That is why there is argument about whether Senator Scullion did the right thing or not. Members need to be reminded that there are four federal members in the Northern Territory, plus one Chief Minister. The leverage that someone such as Senator Scullion could have made also could have been made by the members for Solomon, Lingiari, or the other Senator, Trish Crossin. The same leverage could have been made. Just because Senator Scullion did not make that leverage, as government is talking about, does not mean that there is any implication taken off the Labor federal members for not doing the same thing. It also does not take from the Chief Minister not looking for that leverage when he looked the Prime Minister in the eye and signed up for the money.
My point in disagreeing with the member for Arnhem on the school and the housing package, and aligning myself with what the member for Macdonnell said, is that this process, or that localisation of the stimulus package, could have been identified by the Chief Minister or the three Labor members in federal parliament.
The position, as I understand it, that Senator Scullion was trying to take was to get greater scrutiny of the package and trying to tailor it to local needs. That is very important, and I applaud Senator Scullion for trying to do that. I spoke long and hard with him about that because I wanted better scrutiny and more to be delivered through this package. Forget that we did not receive enough money. It could have been localised. We could have received more money for roads infrastructure - and I would have supported the member for Barkly, the new Minister for Transport in getting more roads money. $4m is just an absolute joke. We could have received a lot more bang for the buck of the money we have, or we could have tried to negotiate more money.
The SIHIP program is a perfect case in point right now. The SIHIP program has not rolled out. It has been since 1997 when Mal Brough gave the GST/John Howard money to the Territory government …
Mr Tollner: In 2007.
Mr GILES: In 2007. … which was widely criticised by this government, although they now have it in their bank. Still, the houses are not being built. To take the point of the member for Arnhem, that is not helping those communities out there. It is not even helping the communities in the main cities because they are not getting the work. I am led to believe that $30m in administrative fees have already been paid to the Territory government to run this program, and houses are not being built.
Regarding the announcement by the Minister for Housing, the member for Daly, in this statement earlier that there will be 2000 Defence houses built in the electorate of Fong Lim, I am sure the member for Fong Lim will be happy to know that he is getting an extra 2000 houses. Check Hansard, that is what you said.
To me, that equates to about $600m. I welcome an extra $600m by the member for Daly, the Housing Minister, who is doing a great job in rolling out the SIHIP program ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: The whole point of the argument is that, unless we localise the way we deliver projects and industry development in small communities, but also in our larger regional centres, it is not going to have the right outcome that we want in long-term stimulus, or long-term economic development. That is where we get it wrong. The questions asked by the shadow Health minister, the member for Greatorex, today talked about handing over power – such as the Labor proposal to hand over the health system to the federal government – completely takes a centralised approach and removes specifically what I am talking about: trying to have local strategies in local areas for longevity.
Canberra bureaucrats sit in Canberra. As someone who has worked there, I know that there is absolutely no way it will meet the needs of health patients in the Northern Territory. It will not help anyone at Borroloola. It will not help the people in Alice Springs or Darwin. When you translate the proposal by Labor to take health off the Northern Territory and put it in Canberra, and correlate that directly to what is happening with housing in the Northern Territory, it is exactly the same issue and it reflects poorly on this stimulus package. Even though I do not believe in the principles or in borrowing, and I support Senator Scullion 100%, I believe we now have to move forward the stimulus package.
We need to stop bickering about it, and ensure that we do get the best bang for our buck and support those local communities, because the way it is designed at the moment, it will not. It will be just very short term, the money will leave the Territory, and we will back in the same position as we were before.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister on his statement on implementing the Commonwealth stimulus package in the Northern Territory. As I said last week, it has become painfully clear that the Northern Territory economy is going to be buffeted by the global economic downturn. As this global crisis has unfolded, we can see how entwined the world’s economies have become. The problems within the US and UK financial systems have rapidly affected the rest of the world. Countries in the Euro zone are facing the worst recession for 50 years. The current economic crisis has also been described as the worst since World War II.
To our north, our Asian neighbours have begun to suffer as well. We cannot underestimate the importance of our Asian neighbours. In particular, we see today how important they are with the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, making her first official visit to China. We hear that 20 million workers have lost their jobs In China. That is extraordinary - 20 million workers losing their jobs. In Japan, exports fell 35% in December and, in Singapore, the deepest recession in that country’s history is looming.
Anyone who believes that Australia is not going to be affected is quite simply deluded. We face a reduction in national growth, job losses and economic hardship. The challenge for all governments, whether they be federal, state or territory, is to provide leadership, economic management and clever planning, while maintaining confidence within the community.
That brings me to the Commonwealth’s $42bn economic stimulus package. It is absolutely essential that this package is quick-acting. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said during an interview recently, we have to keep our economy going. That is why, as well as the immediate cash injections, there are also strict time limits attached to many of the projects.
In the Territory, we are better placed than most to weather the coming economic storm, and are blessed with rich resources to draw upon and new opportunities to capitalise on, especially in our regions. We are fortunate that many of the minerals that are in our country are in the Northern Territory, such as gold, rare earths and phosphate, and also fortunate not to have their price value reduced by the current global economy.
There remains the potential for new mining activity, such as Minemakers near Tennant Creek, and Arafura Resources at Nolans Bore near Alice Springs in my electorate of Stuart. Our Indigenous Economic Development Strategy is due to be launched in the first half of 2009. This new strategy is founded on the work that my department has been doing to identify the aspirations of Indigenous communities and the opportunities for new business enterprises to develop.
One of our key challenges is to engage Indigenous Territorians in the economy. That is something the member for Braitling and my colleagues, the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem, spoke so well about in their contributions. Earlier today, I was very pleased to report to the House on the government’s successful partnership with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the NLC to bring high-speed broadband to eastern Arnhem Land. Some 800 km of optical fibre has been laid in record time, connecting the communities of Oenpelli, Maningrida, Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala to the information superhighway. We need to capitalise on this investment in broadband, helping with the development of new Indigenous businesses which can be connected to the world in ways we have never thought about before.
We also need private enterprises to engage in business opportunities in Indigenous communities. We need partnerships built on mutual respect, in response to the aspirations of Indigenous people. We have compiled economic profiles of Alice Springs and Katherine, and we aim to do one in Tennant Creek this year. These profiles give us a good base from which to have productive conversations with the Economic Development Committees and the communities about what they need, and we need to do, to stimulate economic development, particularly in the current economic climate we find ourselves.
Meanwhile, in Katherine, we have the Growing Katherine Business Project, the Territory’s pilot Sirolli project. Ernesto Sirolli is an internationally recognised and passionate enterprise facilitator who is committed to seeing local communities become the incubator for small- to medium-sized enterprises. The Directors of Growing Katherine Businesses are supported by my department in Katherine, and we are looking forward to the appointment of an enterprise facilitator in the very near future.
The Commonwealth stimulus package will assist us as we steer our course through the difficult times which lie ahead. I listened to the figures provided by the Chief Minister and the Business Minister this afternoon, and would like to reinforce those figures. Approximately $500m for the Northern Territory is quite substantial - I support this: around $80m for the Alice Springs region; $37m for the Katherine region; $13m for Tennant Creek; $14m for Jabiru; and $32m for East Arnhem Land.
On the issues of housing, if we add funding from the Commonwealth stimulus package to the roll-out of SIHIP, the figures for our main regional centres are extraordinary: East Arnhem receives $154m; Tennant Creek $57m; Alice Springs a whopping $199m; Katherine $127m plus a further $123m from the upgrade and expansion of Tindal which is due to commence in June 2009. I support this, just as I support the Commonwealth’s $42m economic stimulus package, which is compatible with our nation’s long-term economic and social aims.
The Chief Minister has already made it clear he places an emphasis on securing jobs for Territorians. As the Minister for Regional Development and the member for Stuart, I am committed to the challenge of creating jobs in our regions.
I can make a couple of comparisons to the Commonwealth’s $42bn economic stimulus package with the Northern Territory Emergency Response and our government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. All three of these initiatives, or government policies, are very important to us in not only the dollars that they are bringing into the Territory, but of our infrastructure and social development. I share some of the concerns that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has raised, as well as the member for Arnhem, in that, with all this money coming into the Territory, we need to ensure it is spent in the right places and it gets to the people who most need it: those in businesses, the everyday person in the street, the people who lose their jobs, or the people in the remote regions and pastoral properties throughout the Territory.
I make another comparison with the Northern Territory Emergency Response. I am particularly concerned about the $900 one-off payment. We have seen improvements and, while there has been a fairly topical debate about the income management measures with the emergency response, we have seen many benefits and positive outcomes from this. I am concerned the $900 one-off payment is not spent properly, or according to how it should be by some people in our community. Also, regarding the member for Macdonnell’s comments about the impact, we put into context that whole issue not only of the measures of the emergency response and our Closing the Gap initiatives, but also this economic stimulus package. Particularly, we should not lose sight of what it is all about; that is, families.
I do not know how we would feel losing our jobs; it would be quite devastating. We all have mortgages, we all have to put food on the table week in, week out. Just imagine how hard it is on those people who have lost a job recently because of the current economic climate. We should not lose sight of those factors that we are here for; we are here to represent people in our electorates - I am certainly here to represent people in my electorate of Stuart in the hardship that people are going through out there. People are struggling, as I said, simply to make car payment or to put food on their table. While I support the stimulus package, as a member of the Northern Territory community, it is something that I will be watching closely in my role, to ensure it is spent properly.
As a government, we can do a lot, but we cannot achieve long-term sustainable development on our own. We can only achieve it in partnership with the businesses and the individual communities. I believe the Prime Minister has shown leadership in this nation-building investment package. However, as I said, it is now up to the rest of us to support it and get behind it.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Chief Minister and the Business Minister for the speed with which you have both been involved, in particular with the business community. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Daly, and getting out there to our regions to inform businesses and people throughout our regional centres about the package.
The feedback I have had from my electorate has been positive, particularly the measures for the schools in my electorate. The member for Arnhem spoke about several schools in her electorate, but I can certainly see the benefits for many of my schools in Stuart, as well, in the extra money for classrooms and the science laboratories.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement, and I stand very proud today as a Labor member for Barkly, as a member of the Labor government, and as a constituent of the Australian community with a Labor Prime Minister.
It was a great honour yesterday to be able to attend the summit of industry and community leaders held here to discuss the implementation of the Commonwealth government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan program.
What struck me very strongly in the course of the meeting was the absolute commitment by those present, many of whom would not normally see eye-to-eye on very many issues. They have committed to working together to protect their economy and working on fresh ideas to achieve that end. The discussion yesterday was robust, but it was marked by a single motivation: getting it right for the Territory. It was a very heartening sign of unity of purpose from Territorians. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who made such valuable contributions.
I have every confidence that the formation by the Chief Minister of a reference committee to maintain involvement in the coordination effort will be successful. I am sure it will lay the foundations for further future, cooperative efforts in growing the Territory, not just in the short term, but in many years to come. That is what it is about; the government is committed to growing the Territory to minimise the effect of the international economic crisis.
The Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan will support Australian jobs and help insulate the Australian economy from the global downturn. This package delivers an estimated $500m into the Territory’s economy and provides a broad spread of infrastructure projects across schools, housing and roads. As Transport Minister, I welcome this package; it is good for the Territory and will deliver an estimated $9m extra, not only for roads infrastructure, but the spin-off of road safety measures. As a bush member of this House, I also welcome the commitment to spread this spending across the Territory, including our regions.
At a national level, this package provides an extra $890m for black spots, boom gates, regional roads, and community infrastructure. The roads and road safety breakdown is as follows: black spot funding increase of $30m in 2008-09, and $60m in 2009-10; $150m for construction of rail crossing boom gates across Australia over two years; and $150m to repair regional roads across Australia in 2008-09. Only 23% of the Territory’s vast road network is sealed and, as you would expect, we welcome any extra dollars to the Territory.
The Treasurer and Infrastructure minister shares my passion to improve Territory roads, and has been continuously lobbying Canberra for more road dollars for the Territory. Those messages have been heard and, in announcing this package, the Prime Minister has indicated that the Territory will receive high priority in slicing the funding pie because of the roads maintenance backlog we face. This stimulus package for roads comes on top of $52m extra over four years delivered by the member for Solomon, Hon Damien Hale, for community, beef, and mining roads. It can clearly be demonstrated that the new era of cooperation between the Territory and Commonwealth governments under Kevin Rudd is delivering for our roads, and Territorians are the winners.
The Territory government is continuing to invest in our roads network at record levels, spending a record $271m across our roads budget this year, targeted at improving remote roads. This is the highest roads budget per taxpayer in the country. That spending will continue, and the extra $9m expected under this package is a welcome boost. Roads are the lifeblood of our bush communities, and that is why we are strategic in our roads spending in focusing on beef, mining, and tourism roads and improving access to remote communities.
The extra funding for boom gates on the rails is also welcome. The federal Minister for Infrastructure, Hon Anthony Albanese, has written to the Territory confirming the NT will receive $2.5m over two years for rail safety initiatives under the stimulus package. The Territory government has already undertaken a comprehensive audit of the Territory’s rail crossings using the Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model assessment risk tool. The Territory government has already committed $4.26m this year and $2.2m in 2009-10 for rail safety initiatives, and the federal funding will boost this program. This work has placed us well to immediately implement this spending. The first rail safety crossing upgrades will start next month at the Ilparpa Road and Bradshaw Drive crossings in Alice Springs. Ilparpa Road will receive boom gates, lights and bells, and Bradshaw Drive will receive boom gates. As part of the first phase, the following crossings will then be upgraded in a priority order: Wishart Road at Berrimah will receive advance warning lights; Fountain Head Road near Ban Ban Station will receive an upgrade to lights and bells; Leonino Road in Litchfield near Darwin River will receive lights and bells; Elizabeth River boat ramp will receive lights, bells and boom gates; the Kakadu Highway will receive an advance warning system; and Gardens Road on the Alice Springs/Tennant Creek line will have the road realigned as it approaches the crossing.
The Chief Minister outlined the Territory’s response on delivering this package, including the establishment of stimulus action squads across government. Those teams are working diligently to identify projects eligible for funding and fast-track measures to get those projects out the door. Already, Cabinet has signed off and submitted to the federal government a list of roads under the Repairing Regional Roads component of the stimulus package. These include resealing, re-gravelling, and shoulder repairs across the Territory’s Auslink roads - the Stuart, Victoria, and Barkly Highways - with the bulk of the funding proposed to be directed to the Katherine and Tennant Creek areas, and a smaller number of projects in the Darwin and Alice Springs region.
I look forward to updating the House on the details of the funding spread as they are finalised between the Territory and Commonwealth governments. This is a great package for our roads. The Territory Cattlemen’s Association welcome the infrastructure as a shot in the arm for the Territory. The Civil Contractors Federation of the Territory also welcomes the package, and will be working with government to maximise employment and training opportunities, particularly in remote areas, and the benefits of this additional spend for their members.
Territorians travel on roads; I travel on a lot of Territory roads. As a Territorian, I welcome every bit of extra spending to improve our transport network. This package is bold; it is targeted at supporting spending, jobs and building our nation and our roads. That is good news for the Territory.
A new Correctional facility is another major infrastructure project to assist construction in the Northern Territory. This will drive employment opportunities for the wider Darwin region. The regional work party roll-out will also provide direct economic and construction benefits in regional areas. The $300m facility will create 555 total new jobs, just when the Territory needs it – 375 direct jobs and 180 indirect jobs. The construction phase will last four years, and will help the Territory overcome negative national and international employment conditions. Prison officers and other current Correctional Services employees will also welcome improved working conditions, reducing turnover and keeping skilled workers in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I took time out to praise the great sense of unity and purpose that was evident at the weekend summit. We had a group of Territorians whose commitment was totally in getting it right for the Territory and growing the Territory.
Sadly, I must return to the Barkly, and let the constituents of the Barkly and the Northern Territory know that the member for Fong Lim considers me a joke. The member for Fong Lim considers the additional funding for regional roads a joke. This disappoints me. Whilst I listened with great diligence to the debate from the opposition about not politicising this debate, I am afraid it is political - and it is seriously political. The member for Fong Lim and the members opposite have opposed the spending of some $13m in the seat of Barkly. I challenge the member for Fong Lim and the members opposite to write to the communities in the Barkly - the cattle stations, the mines - and explain why they oppose the plan. Write to the parents of children in Barkly schools, and to the businesses, small and large in the Barkly, and explain why the member for Barkly is a joke. Explain, member for Fong Lim, to our earthmovers and contractors in the Barkly how much of a joke the $4m additional funding is to Tennant Creek and the Barkly where our roads are targeted. I am looking forward to that, member for Fong Lim, because I will certainly be doing some talking in the Barkly when I get home.
I am puzzled. I outline to the House how exciting and how stimulating it is for me to work with a proactive government, with academics with serious research background, to be able to provide direction under the Chief Minister’s leadership for the Northern Territory. However, I read the Northern Territory News, and I read Saturday’s paper. When I go home to the Barkly, I will be reminding people about Saturday’s Northern Territory News and the research that the member for Fong Lim conducts.
In the House, I take this job very seriously indeed. The Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan program will develop and deliver outcomes for the Territory. I challenge the member for Fong Lim to consider the United States Congress, the radical socialist Christian Democrat Union’s Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, the crazy socialist billionaire from Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, or the wicked socialists from the International Monetary Fund. No. The member for Fong Lim reckons he alone has the answer; that is, to oppose the stimulus nationally and in the Northern Territory.
The opposition and the member for Fong Lim lack credibility, and have called for not politicising this matter. However, the rest of the Territory is about moving on and getting it right to grow the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I respond to something that was said by the member for Barkly. I feel certain I heard the member for Barkly correctly. I hope I did not, and I feel equally certain that either in the Chief Minister’s response he will correct me or, perhaps, inform me the member for Barkly will correct me. I thought I heard the member for Barkly say that boom gates at Ilparpa and Bradshaw Drive in Alice Springs would be paid for by this money. That is a curious thing - a curious thing, indeed. It is curious for a number of reasons. I recall earlier today one of my colleagues - I think it was the member for Port Darwin, possibly the Leader of the Opposition - asking the question whether boom gates that had already been earmarked by the Territory government would come from this federal fiscal stimulus. If I heard correctly - and I do look forward to the Hansard - I believe I heard a member from government, possibly the Treasurer saying: ‘No mate’. It could have been the Leader of Government Business, I am not sure but, believe me, I will check. ‘No’, I believe came the reply. It is a curious thing because, of course, what the member for Barkly said was at odds with what happened earlier in the day.
However, it is a concern because, interestingly, Kevin Rudd had been quite specific when asked by press gallery journalists a week or so ago whether part of this $42bn could or would be used by the states as a form of substituted funding; that is, that the states did not need to spend their money. Most of them have next to nothing left, but the states would not be able to use money from the federal government to pay for their commitments. The Prime Minister, if memory serves me correctly, was very specific and said, ‘No’. In fact, there were some articles. One, in particular, was an editorial in The Canberra Times written by Jack Waterford talking about raising the issue of whether the federal government’s money would be used by fiscally irresponsible governments such as New South Wales. The Northern Territory even received a reference as well.
I understood it was clear. It goes back to the naming and shaming to which the member for Fong Lim referred earlier; how Kevin Rudd and his friends would name and shame those governments, those Treasurers, who sought to substitute their own state or territory spending with the money received from the Commonwealth. I have no reason to doubt the Prime Minister. I accepted as, indeed, many other Australians would have, his word that this package would not be used by states and territories - not even the really bad ones like this one - they would not be allowed to take money from the $42bn to substitute and, thereby, avoid using their own money.
Well, the boom gates of Ilparpa and Bradshaw - we might have just scratched the surface here. It is abundantly clear from what the member for Barkly said in his response to this statement that the boom gates would be paid for from the $42bn.
In 17 April 2008, when things were apparently going gangbusters globally and, in fact, economists and political commentators said Labor politicians throughout the country wore as a badge of honour how well they were doing and how well the whole world economy was going - until, of course, Kevin Rudd had his change of mind and decided to have a go at everything that he had hitherto subscribed to in his recent essay. However, I digress.
On 17 April 2008, the then minister for Transport came to Alice Springs and announced that rail crossings in Alice Springs would be upgraded. It was four years too late. Members from the Ninth Assembly, I think, would remember that I came in with photographs of the Ilparpa Road crossing. Ilparpa and Bradshaw, of course, are in the best electorate in the Northern Territory; namely, Araluen. I came in, batting away for my constituents, having surveyed them about whether they wanted an upgrade to this potentially dangerous crossing at Ilparpa. The results came in, I fed them to government, did some questions from memory - if it was not questions in Question Time, it may well have been an adjournment. We got the photos. I implored another minister - I think it was you, member for Johnston - to come with me and have a look at the Ilparpa railway crossing. Four years too late, on the 17 April 2008, the member for Karama flew into Alice Springs and said that she - or the government - would upgrade the crossing at Ilparpa Road. Although I stand to be corrected, I think on that day she may also have referred to the Bradshaw Drive crossing.
This is very interesting. For those smiling away on the other side, they might only be boom gates to you, but this is an issue of public safety, and one I have been interested in for some time. However, for the purposes of this statement, if I heard the member for Barkly correctly - and I believe that I did - then the government has been sprung. If they are not going to use Territory government money - and I do not remember seeing in the May budget an allocation for these railway crossings then, therefore, the Territory government has not made an allocation for them; I would have been looking for them in the forthcoming budget - it means, therefore, that the Territory government has been saved by the federal government’s package.
In a sense, I feel certain that my constituents, quite frankly, do not care where the money is coming from. However, I have been following various media reports over the last couple of weeks and I, along with many other people, believed that this $42bn was in addition to the spending that would be undertaken by other states and territories. It appears from what the member for Barkly has said that that is not the case. If it is only a couple of boom gates today, I cannot help but wonder what on earth it is going to be in the forthcoming weeks or months. What else?
In the core funding of the Northern Territory government, have they either committed to, indicated by way of a nudge, a wink or a nod, that they would use Territory money to pay? What else is going to come …
Mr Knight: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Ms CARNEY: … from the federal government? Well, Noddy over there, the member for Daly is saying: ‘Wrong, wrong, wrong’. Well, I am very interested to hear his comments on a subsequent occasion, because I know he has already spoken in this debate. I am very interested to hear from anyone in government as to whether the member for Barkly made an error. If he did, I look forward to hearing from him in that regard.
However, I believe I can ask - speaking on behalf of all of us on this side of the House and, indeed, the member for Nelson - what else is it that you have not been able to fund because you are financially reckless? What else is it that you will use federal government’s money for that is a core responsibility of the Northern Territory government? I look forward to someone enlightening me.
I also say in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement - and I think the point has been made, but I do this as a person representing an electorate in Alice Springs - that he said that on Sunday there were a lot of industry and business leaders and he apologised that not everyone could be included. However, I make this point: we have industry and business leaders in Alice Springs. They can catch aeroplanes too. One wonders how many of them were invited. It also ought to be said that if no one from the deep south - as it were or as I feel certain it is referred to by those opposite – in Alice Springs was invited to attend, then could the Chief Minister advise in his response what action in particular he will take so that the views of those industry and business leaders in Alice Springs will be listened to?
I am not sure that they would want much more than that. They are entitled to the same good hearing and attention from government that those in Darwin received yesterday. I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister and, indeed, anyone else in government as to the two issues I have raised, Madam Speaker.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on how the federal government’s economic stimulus package will be implemented by the Northern Territory government for the benefit of all Territorians.
Indeed, as the $42bn package has been widely welcomed across Australia and the Territory, so too, it has been welcomed and supported in my electorate of Nhulunbuy. Though I have only been home for two brief days following the announcement last Friday that the package had made its way through the Senate, I do not recall a single conversation while I was at home - in the aisles of our local supermarket or at the end of the lanes of our local town pool where my boys were having a swimming club meet Saturday afternoon, nor at the Arnhem Club on Saturday night where there were lots of people due to fundraising efforts for the bushfire victims - that I had with anyone who said that it was a bad idea, or an irresponsible act of economic management. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Not surprisingly, I know those conversations would have been very different if the package had not gone through the Senate. The blame would have been pointed, quite rightly, squarely back at the CLP whose representative in the Senate chose not to support the package and the Territorians that he represents and, in so doing, chose not to support a raft of infrastructure projects including $200 000 for every school in the Territory. Ultimately, this also means that Senator Nigel Scullion has not supported jobs for Territorians. Member for Braitling, it was not his leverage that was lacking in the Senate, it was his vote. The flow-on effect from the CLP Senator’s decision not to support the package flows right back through to the Territory CLP members, who also, to their eternal shame, have not supported this package.
As the parent of school-age children, wife of a schoolteacher and a former teacher myself, I recognise that the injection of $200m to Territory schools provides a significant boost to education for all Territory students, whether they be at government or non-government schools. This is something which I know families, educators and school support staff will welcome. In order to help our children have the best education we can possibly provide them with, with the best possible outcomes, we need to have the best educational settings in schools which are well equipped.
This is certainly at the core of the Prime Minister’s $14.7bn Building the Education Revolution strategy. It represents a long-term investment and commitment to improve the quality of facilities such as school libraries, science laboratories and multipurpose halls, including gyms. An important aspect of this strategy, apart from generating jobs for Territorians, is also the benefits for local communities. The Prime Minister’s media release on this subject on 3 February stated:
This is a real bonus, not only for schools but for the communities that those schools are located in. In Nhulunbuy, there is strong competition for available hall or indoor venue space for clubs like indoor soccer, indoor volleyball and hockey, karate, aerobics classes, and dance classes - and so the list goes on. I am sure other parts of the Territory face the same issue and welcome the opportunity to have access to new or improved facilities.
In the Nhulunbuy electorate, schools in recent years under the Labor government have received some significant funding boosts for upgrades to existing infrastructure, as well as new infrastructure. I moved to Nhulunbuy in 1990 to take up a teaching position at the high school, and I remained there until the end of 1996 when I resigned. The CLP government, at that time, had made some significant contributions to education infrastructure. I had taught at Driver High School, as it was then, now Palmerston High School, in 1987. At that time, the school was not even two years old. When in Katherine, I moved with staff and students to brand spanking new premises in the middle of 1988 in Katherine East.
Nhulunbuy High School was also built during the days of CLP government, in around 1980 I think it was. The old Nhulunbuy Area School, which is today Nhulunbuy Primary School, had been built by Nabalco and took students through to Year 10, but it was no longer adequate, so a new high school campus was built. Unfortunately, the CLP government never saw fit to build for Nhulunbuy High School an airconditioned multipurpose hall, in line with other secondary schools around the Territory. However, our long-serving local member, Syd Stirling, saw to that when Labor government came to power and he became Education minister. Over 2002 and 2003, this long-overdue facility was constructed at a cost of $2.5m. There is barely a lesson during the day that does not have a class of students in that gym. It provides a terrific venue for school assemblies and the facility is hired out, on average, three to four afternoons and evenings a week, as well as regularly on weekends.
If there is one thing the CLP government is well remembered for in the Nhulunbuy electorate in education, was its decision to close down Dhupuma College in 1980. During debate in the Chamber last week - I cannot remember if it was the member for Fong Lim or the member for Braitling, so forgive me - one of them had mentioned what a good idea it would be to have boarding schools for Indigenous students to facilitate their education in a school boarding facility during the week, and to be able to return to their communities on the weekends. Well, that is exactly what Dhupuma College was. It was a boarding school which was closed down at the end of the school term once students and teachers had finished for the term, and the doors never reopened.
This government has, historically, given a solid commitment to supporting education and schools’ infrastructure across the Territory since 2001. In my electorate, we have seen, in addition to the Nhulunbuy High School gymnasium - as I said, built at a cost of $2.5m - $2.5m for Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island for new secondary facilities which were opened in 2006. We have seen $1.06m at Marparu School for a new homeland learning centre and visiting teacher accommodation. We have seen $80 000 for Nhulunbuy Preschool to have a safe drop-off zone and car park. We saw $1m for Nhulunbuy High School in 2007 to prepare for the increase in student numbers with the transition to the middle years program. We have also seen $79 000 for Nhulunbuy High School towards building modifications for the annexe where students with special needs spend a big part of their school days.
Current infrastructure projects under way in schools in my electorate include: $2m towards the transition of Yilpara Homelands School to small school status, with new ablution facilities now constructed, and two three-bedroom houses to accommodate teaching staff. This will enable the school to have full-time teachers there, teaching five days a week. This is a really important part of the Closing the Gap strategy on reducing Indigenous disadvantage.
We are currently seeing a $1.55m upgrade to Yirrkala Community Education Centre, also part of the Closing the Gap strategy. Currently, $1.25m is being spent at Shepherdson College for upgrades. Nhulunbuy Primary School has recently seen the completion of a $1.142m upgrade to give the school, which is now 38 years old and home to more than 500 students, a much-needed facelift. A large part of that facelift included external painting. I remember being at the school council meeting in September when the decision around the new colour scheme was being discussed with some excitement, and colour charts pored over across a table. Red and grey was the final choice and the end product looks fantastic.
My eight-year-old was particularly thrilled when we returned to Nhulunbuy mid-January after a holiday to see bright red doors and bright red seating benches. He certainly was not alone; the kids were really excited at the prospect of their school freshly painted. Schools do need to be welcoming places for students, teachers and families. I also believe building that sense of school pride is important.
An important part of this recent work at Nhulunbuy Primary School is that fact that the contract was awarded to a local company, B.I.G. Carpentry, a business which has been run by Brett Grieve and his wife for many years in Nhulunbuy. I am certain that Brett Grieve will be absolutely delighted - without knowing his political allegiances – at the fact that this stimulus package will bring him and his employees more work. This government’s commitment to supporting local businesses is important, because we need to keep Nhulunbuy people in jobs, just as we need to keep other Territorians in jobs as well. This is exactly what this economic stimulus package will do. It will not only keep Territorians in jobs, it will create new jobs.
Schools, like hospitals, will always be happy to receive infrastructure funding. On top of all the spending on schools in my electorate, I can assure you that the additional $200 000 now headed their way is very much welcomed. I phoned each of the principals in my region last Friday and managed to speak with five of the six of them. Unfortunately, the one principal I was not able to speak with - and I missed her again this morning because she is out travelling - is the principle of Laynhapuy Homeland School. Like the member for Arnhem, I have a particular interest in seeing those schools well supported, because they are amongst the toughest and the most challenging. Having visited just about every homeland in my electorate, I can see those schools and classrooms are in need of infrastructure spending and support. As I made those phone calls on Friday afternoon, not only was it plain that a bonus of $200 000 was welcomed, but each of them had already begun consultation within their school executive about where that money might be spent. Spending ideas on Friday afternoon were around possible classroom refurbishments, improvements to upgrade the open general purpose area, an upgrade to a manual arts area, as well as an art room. For the one non-government school in Nhulunbuy, a science lab or textiles room for their middle school is on the wish list.
While I do not know the dollar details of what exactly Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem region might expect to see through the stimulus package’s social housing component, it is also welcome. This additional expenditure comes on top of significant expenditure through the SIHIP, the Strategic Indigenous Housing Improvement Program. SIHIP will deliver new houses and housing refurbishments and renovations to the tune of - and I refer to my electorate here: $16m at Yirrkala; $1.6m at Gunyangara, or Ski Beach as it is also known; and around $33m at Galiwinku. On that note, I was thrilled to see media releases last week from the NLC and minister Macklin’s office advising that traditional owners at Galiwinku, along with three other communities, have signed off on leases which now paves the way for much-needed housing and housing repairs to progress.
Whilst I note the frustration from the member for Braitling around the SIHIP program not happening fast enough and houses not up yet, projects on a scale such as this take time to scope and plan in order to deliver. A really key part of these negotiations has been the negotiations of leases with traditional owners.
Like the SIHIP program, this will generate jobs and training. The alliance contractors are obliged to provide local employment and training in these communities. So, too, will additional work through the social housing component of this package. The intention for these training and job opportunities – again, the member for Braitling expressed his frustration and doubts about the SIHIP program to deliver on outcomes like training and employment - most definitely, is a component of the program. It is not just for the benefit of the life of the SIHIP program; this is a program that we expect will deliver those benefits. Those skills are to be with people on their communities well into the future so they will be able to take on responsibility for their own repairs and maintenance program.
I welcome the Chief Minister’s advice to members in the House earlier that, following on from the summit held yesterday, there will be a series of regional summits to engage and consult with communities, businesses, and other stakeholders. I also reiterate, as a couple of my colleagues have said on this side of the House, that when we are speaking about regions, a number of us are also talking about bush electorates. The interests of bush electorates are way different to those of urban electorates. I am not always comfortable to see ‘bush’ lobbed in under the broader heading of ‘region’.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for his statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and the federal government’s stimulus package. I support our government’s efforts to get that package out as quickly as possible.
We are facing difficult times. We are all aware of the global economic crisis and implications, and we are not immune. While the Territory is better placed than other jurisdictions around the world to deal with the challenges from the global economic crisis, we are still growing. We still have important projects on the horizon ...
Mr Chandler: Are there anything original in any of this?
Mr GUNNER: I wish the member for Brennan was listening to what I was saying.
The stimulus package will have a significant impact on our economy. Like all members, I read with interest the commentary in the media, and the comment from the Reserve Bank and other financial institutions. I have had conversations with experts, briefings from officials, discussions with people at the pointy end: in small business, construction industry, retail, people in the social services sector and, perhaps closest to home, all of us - our constituents who are sitting around the kitchen table wondering what is happening next and what the future might hold. The message from all of them is pretty straightforward: act and act quickly. That is the philosophy that has been captured in the measures of the stimulus packages. Measures in the package have been built around lessons learnt from previous recessions; that the government should respond in a targeted, timely and temporary fashion to the threat of recession.
The measure I want to pay particular attention to is the infrastructure upgrade to primary schools. The comprehensive nature of the response is good news to the Territory. I believe the decision to invest in our primary schools was more than sensible; it was inspired. Schools often sit at the very heart of communities around the country. People are passionate about their schools. The fact that every primary school qualifies for a major infrastructure project upgrade means there are not going to be any fights - Alice versus Palmerston, city versus bush, Parap versus Stuart Park, private versus public. They all qualify for this investment, and that is great news.
As somebody who went to school up and down the track in the Territory, I find it welcome news. I had great experiences at different schools in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Darwin. I am sure my old stomping grounds are very happy with this package, although my old primary school in Tennant Creek, Kargaru, is now a state-of-the-art Adult Education Centre. When I was there in 1983 and 1984 they did not have a hall. It is great to know that all primary schools are going to benefit from this package.
In the Fannie Bay electorate, both Parap and Stuart Park Primary Schools are already in the planning stages for new halls. I know the member for Araluen had some concerns about these sorts of things. They are in the planning stages. These are not substitutions, they are the things that people are working towards. One reason we are already working on plans for new halls was to address an emerging need in both these schools for after-school care, as well as what they need the hall for during ordinary school hours. Both the schools are experiencing an increase in the number of students needing after-school care; both the schools use their assembly halls as part of their after-school care programs. Schools are very expensive assets and, often, are only used strictly during school hours. The assembly area is one of those parts of the school which are common exceptions to the rule. An investment in these schools with new, better halls is an investment that goes beyond school hours. The work that both of these primary schools have already undertaken places them in a good position to take quick advantage of the package.
Parap primary had its 50-year anniversary last year. Over the last five years, we have been working with the local school community on much-needed upgrades for the school. In 2002-03, we commenced Stage 1 of the Parap school upgrade, delivering over $2m to construct the new administration block, new library, and move the front entrance of the school to Urquhart Street to improve safety.
In 2004-05, we provided Stage 2 funding of $2.5m to redevelop the old library building, construct new early childhood classrooms, and construct four new general learning areas. This was completed late in 2005. Stage 2 was done in two parts. The second part was for about $3m for demolishing the remaining old classroom blocks and constructing eight new classrooms. The final stage, Stage 3, focuses on the redevelopment of the school assembly and stage area. The project has been estimated around $3.5m to redevelop the assembly area, build a new canteen and provide a general purpose area that can also benefit the school community.
The current assembly area is very old and deteriorating rapidly. For example, the school stage has had to be rebuilt about three times in 10 years, due to major termite damage. The school continues to grow. Parap is an exciting place and, with residential developments currently under way in the area, student numbers are strong, even with Grade 7s going to the new middle school. Parap school is also fortunate to have very passionate parents with the time to come along to assemblies, and the assembly area is becoming increasingly crowded, not only for students, but for parents, teachers and staff.
As I already mentioned, Parap primary holds an after-school program at the request of parents. The school also provides the assembly area as a community facility for local residents and local groups. With a very passionate local community which has been very active in supporting the school, this is evident from large amounts of money the school raises each year through fundraising. Last financial year, the school council raised over $200 000 through fundraising and community grants they won. That is a fantastic effort.
The whole school community is excited about the stimulus package and the new hall. After the Chief Minister and I went out last week to visit the school and talk to the principal and media about the package, news went round the school like wildfire. I had parents, staff and students approaching me, very excited about what was going on. They loved Hendo - big Hendo. The students, in particular, were totally rapt about the thought of a new hall.
The same is true at Stuart Park. We are very lucky to have a passionate school community at Stuart Park also. I have had some very constructive conversations with the principal at Stuart Park, Bernie Bree, who has walked me through what they would like to see at the assembly area. I now Bernie is already working with the department around the drawing up of some plans and where they can go. However, they are not as advanced in their plans as Parap, because they have had to tear up the original concept plans and start again.
Stuart Park Primary had an explosion of after-school students. In 2007, they had around 50 needing after-school care. In 2008, that went to around 100 and, this year, they are looking at 120 and growing. The school has already given over its general purpose room and sports store shed to become after-school facilities. Initially, they are looking at works around these facilities, these rooms, to increase their after-school numbers. However, now they think doing work at the assembly area and building that in will create a dual educational facility that would be much more useful for after-school care facilities. They also think they might be able to create an additional classroom by doing that.
After-school care needs to be offered by the schools, especially with the recent increase in enrolments which will only get larger when developments such as the Dinah Beach Road housing development are complete. There are also clear guidelines for running after-school care, and the space required for each child. This is very necessary, of course, when you are caring for children. The work they are looking at doing at the assembly area is a very sensible solution. It will be an asset to the school community.
Madam Speaker, the stimulus package is very exciting for both of these schools. It comes at the perfect time. It has the extra benefit of being very good for our economy, and will take a tradie and put a tool in one hand and a pay cheque in the other. This is great news, and I am very happy to support this statement and this package.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution in debate this evening. I will pick up from my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay. I like the last line - the tradies picking up the tools in one hand and a pay packet in the other - because that is exactly what this package is all about. It is about maintaining jobs right throughout the Northern Territory, and leaving a legacy of improved infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory, especially in our schools, our community housing and roads across the Territory. It really is a win/win.
There has been a lot said in debate tonight, and an attempt by members opposite to rewrite history. As my colleague, the Business Minister said, they are trying to segue from one version of history early last week into a new version this week or next week. The opposition fails to recall that everything that we say in this House is recorded for posterity in the Parliamentary Record, and they just cannot come in here and attempt to rewrite history. They tried to deny that they did not support the package; that they voted against the package. As I said in Question Time, they are all of the same colour over there. They call themselves ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Goodness, gracious me! The Chief Minister was pulled up on this very issue in Question Time on the very statement. We did not vote against the package, and he cannot come in here and assert that we did, because it is not true.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you like to reword?
Dr Burns: Come in, spinner.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As my colleague said: ‘Come in, spinner’. The CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion - and I thought they were one party here in the Northern Territory and that they take their orders from the Leader of the Opposition, who is the leader of the party - said in the Senate last week:
That does not sound like support to me. It is very conclusive: ‘I do not support, and the coalition do not support the passage of the package of these bills’. During the debate on the motion last Tuesday, the member for Greatorex interjected and said: ‘Debt, debt for your kids, my kids’. That does not sound like support either.
However, the doozey is the member for Fong Lim. He really is getting a bit of a reputation for not putting one foot in it, but for putting both feet in it and leaving his current Leader of the Opposition totally exposed. They tried to say tonight, yes, they support the package. However, let us look at what the member for Fong Lim said in debate last week on the ministerial statement made in the House. The member for Fong Lim said:
What a mouthful:
Tell us what you really think, member for Fong Lim. He went on to say:
The complete opposite:
That does not sound like support either. That sounds as though the member for Fong Lim thinks this is a crazy idea: to spend money on upgrading schools, on new community housing, on new roads and rail infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim thinks that this is all crazy stuff and we should not be doing it. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition and others tonight tried to rewrite history and segue their way through that, now that the bill has passed, somehow, they have to recover their face on this issue and say they now support the package. They do not, Madam Speaker.
In all of the school council meetings that they will be going to over the next couple of years, when the school councils are going to be talking excitedly about improvements to the schools, I am sure that members opposite are going to be sitting there saying: ‘Oh no, this is a bad thing, we should not be doing this. It is going to put Australia into debt and we do not support that’. They are well and truly on the record, and they and their electorates will be continually reminded that they did not stand up for the Territory. They did not stand up for jobs in the Northern Territory. Their one and only vote in the Senate that could have stood in support of Territorians in this package, voted against it. We will not let them forget that.
I make it absolutely clear here tonight that we will not, as a government, be substituting Territory money for federal money. I have made an absolute commitment that we will continue to spend money as we have committed to do. I reiterated that commitment at the summit yesterday. There has been a lot of follow-up and feedback today - very positive feedback - in regard to the summit that was held here yesterday. The proposed changes to procurement have been put out for public comment and, as I said, the feedback is very positive.
I can say to the member for Araluen and all regional members that there will be regional summits or information sessions held next week. My colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, and other ministers will be holding briefing sessions exactly in the same way that we held them for the business community and the community sector in Darwin yesterday. Of course, we are going to do that. However, the bill only passed the Senate on Friday. We are in a week of sittings, and it is totally appropriate to start the briefings in Darwin. They will continue around the Northern Territory at the end of these sittings and next week. We are working hard, and I will be working with the Minister for Regional Development and my colleague, the Business Minister and procurement minister, looking at how we can absolutely ensure that as much of that spending as possible that is going to occur in the regions in upgrading this infrastructure goes to local businesses in our regional communities and supports local businesses. That is a body of work that is under way.
In conclusion, $500m over the next three years is going to make a very significant difference in supporting our economy. It really does depend how you cut the numbers on this - up to 1000-odd jobs across the Northern Territory during that period. As I said last week, there has been a bit of a defining moment in the Territory’s political history when, for the first time - I do not think it has ever been in the history of the politics in the Northern Territory - an opposition member in Canberra has voted against such an enormous sum of money coming to the Northern Territory for nothing other than what is, obviously, his blatant personal political ambition in advancing up the slippery slope of either the National Party hierarchy in Canberra or the Liberal Party hierarchy; whichever particular party room he happens to sit in at any moment in time. That can be the only reason he voted against a package that will deliver some $0.5bn-worth of economic investment, and an investment in infrastructure to the Northern Territory. It cannot have been out of any commitment to the Northern Territory. It could only have been out of commitment to Malcolm Turnbull, Warren Truss, and whatever personal political ambitions he has to climb the slippery slope in opposition.
Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the House. I know when sittings conclude this week we will be back out in our electorates talking to our constituents, in our schools, amongst our business community, and to the mums and dads who will be benefiting from the direct family payments. We want to ensure our economy benefits to the best possible advantage we can from this stimulus package; our schools benefit to the maximum capacity that they can. We work hard as Territorians to see this great place come through these difficult economic times better than anywhere else in Australia. However, it is no thanks to those who sit opposite who voted against this package; who, in Canberra, voted against jobs for the Territory …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know he is being cute and deliberate and wants to rile us up. Okay, it has worked. He cannot sit here and say we voted against something when there was no vote in this House. He said the members opposite ‘voted against’. No, the members opposite did not vote for anything.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you could reword, Chief Minister?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The political party …
Mr Elferink: You just tell lies. You just cannot help yourself.
Mr HENDERSON: I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin is too cute by half. He cannot pretend that those members who sit here - those 11 members who sit here representing the Liberal Party in the Northern Territory - are, in any way, any different at all from Senator Nigel Scullion, who is the same member of the party who ran on a Country Liberal ticket at the last election ...
Dr Burns: It houses party HQ.
Mr HENDERSON: That is right. The party HQ is housed out there in the northern suburbs. He cannot pretend that, somehow, when Nigel Scullion voted against the bill, the Country Liberals who sit opposite did not also support the vote against this bill. It is an extraordinary proposition to say: ‘No, no, somehow, us here in Darwin, we support it. But the Senator is off on his own. He is some sort of a unique individual in his own right. He has nothing to do with us. Nigel who? He has nothing to do with us. He has just gone and done his own thing’. What a load of rot!
If these people opposite had any leadership …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I actually tried to ring Nigel Scullion. I put a phone call to his office in the Senate. Guess what? I am sure the lady who answered the call, a delightful receptionist, was a bit taken aback that there was a call from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, the good Senator could not be found. She did not know where he was; he could not be found. Do not ask me how I got it, but I also got hold of his mobile phone number. I will give him a call on the phone because this is very important for the Northern Territory. We wanted him, because we did not know on Friday morning when I tried to call, what the outcome of the vote was going to be, or what Nick Xenophon was going to do. I wanted an opportunity to talk to him, one-on-one, to implore him to do the right thing by the Northern Territory. But, no, he did not answer his phone. I left a message imploring him to call me back so we could talk about the importance of his vote in the Senate for Territorians. Guess what? He did not call back - could not care less.
I tried to show leadership. I tried to show bipartisanship. I would have been the first person out of the door to say: ‘Well done, Senator Nigel Scullion, thank you to the Country Liberals …’, or the Liberals, as I will call them now, ‘… for standing up for the Territory’. However, they have failed the test - they have failed the test dismally. They failed every Territorian who stands to benefit from this package, and I will continue to remind Territorians all the way up to the next election and beyond.
Madam Speaker, I thank members on this side of the House for their support of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first of all this evening, I would like to talk about Chinese New Year and a number of great functions that many members of this House have participated in over the last few weeks. The Chinese community is a very important part of our community in the Northern Territory; a great part of the wonderful cultural richness of the Northern Territory. The fact that the community celebrates Chinese New Year for two weeks leaves us all a bit partied out at the end of the two weeks - but what a fantastic two weeks it is.
I congratulate the Chung Wah Society and their Lion Dance Troupe for their fabulous Lion Dance performance and support of people in Darwin and Alice Springs, going from shop to shop, business to business, right throughout Darwin, Palmerston, the northern suburbs, Alice Springs, every year. It really is part of what makes growing up in the Territory a wonderful place to bring up children. To president, Adam Lowe, and everybody in the Chung Wah Society, it really is a defining part of every year, and I thank you very much for your continued, wonderful commitment to your culture in the Territory that we all benefit from.
The Chung Wah Society had their Chinese New Year banquet last weekend at the Chinese Temple in the city. It was a fabulous evening, although I could not stay for the whole evening. To MC, Donna Quong and everybody who organised the evening, it was a fantastic occasion, and my best wishes for the Year of the Ox.
There was a great function at the Chinese-Timorese Community Hall a couple of weeks ago, hosted by President Rui Mu. A wonderful rich culture was on display and a fantastic evening enjoyed by all. To all our Chinese community: Gong Xi Fa Cai and I hope the Year of the Ox is a good year for our community.
Very close to Christmas, I held my Wanguri electorate Christmas party at the Tracy Village Sports Club. There was a great turn-out, and it was fantastic to catch up with many of my constituents. Christmas is such a busy time, so I really appreciated that people took time out of their own schedules to catch up over a few drinks and a bite to eat. It was also great to the see the principals and staff from our local schools out in force as well. 2008 was a hectic year and much happened around the Wanguri electorate. The Christmas party always give me a chance to catch up with people, thank them for the past year and wish them all the best for the following year. I thank the staff and board at Tracy Village, especially Teena Houghton, for all their support and assistance throughout the years.
Last week, to mark the opening of parliament, I was lucky enough to have 47 students from Wanguri Primary School visit us at Parliament House. I invited them to come up to my office for a tour, and was very impressed with the way the children behaved. All the children were from Year 5 and 6, and three teachers - Mere Barlow, Donna Mincham, and Annemarie Heraud - came along as well. These children are studying politics and government. I had a chat with them all about what we do here. They stayed on to watch the formal opening of parliament and then went off on a tour of Parliament House. They also received information about the Bombing of Darwin in anticipation of this Sunday’s commemorations. The school is encouraging students to come along on Sunday to represent the school. It was fantastic to see 47 children from Wanguri Primary School here at Parliament House.
There are going to be significant upgrades at Leanyer Primary School this year. I spoke to principal, Henry Gray, last week at the school, and the school is very excited that tenders have gone out for their Stage 2 upgrades, which should start soon. Henry also mentioned they had a good start to the school year, with students getting back into full swing, and a great complement of teachers.
Both Leanyer and Wanguri Primary Schools held mufti days last Friday for the victims of the bushfires. The schools are encouraging kids to come along in normal clothes instead of their school uniforms. The SRCs will be collecting gold coin donations for kids in mufti, and will be donating it to the victims of these horrific bushfires. It is great to see the schools acting so swiftly and generously to help out others.
It is going to be a busy year in the Wanguri electorate; lots of great work to do amongst our schools and amongst our community. Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further updating the House about happenings around Wanguri.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak very quickly about something I saw on the news tonight that gives me great concern. I am sure it will give the Chief Minister and Treasurer great concern as well. It was Alan Kohler’s report on the back of the ABC news. I like to watch Alan Kohler, because he takes difficult economic issues and makes them simple. However, there was nothing he could have made more simple about the 12-month results to the end of December in Japan last year.
Japan’s economy contracted by 12.5%. That is worse than anything it achieved in the decade of depression that it underwent in the 1990s, and only was just starting to recover from now. I hope that the $42bn is going to be enough because, if that particular cancer takes hold on the rest of the world, then we are in for a very rough time, indeed. It may well be the case that any stimulus package at all will not be sufficient to fill the hole that is forming.
I note the world is full of born-again social democrats, in the ALP in particular, not least of which is the Prime Minister of this country. I want to place on the record, for what it is worth, that I continue to be a free market supporter, and support the principles of the free marketplace. The qualifications that our former Prime Minister, John Howard, used to place on the marketplace can be discovered in organisations like APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. APRA and the standards that you can find in our corporations law, as well as the Trade Practices Act, were the handbrake on the fiscal recklessness that we saw that led to this in the United States.
I agree with our Prime Minister, inasmuch as it was the unbridled greed of the United States which drove the ridiculous lending arrangements in the sub-prime environment that has not been replicated in Australia. I have watched very carefully how the two jurisdictions have unfolded around this particular area, and have looked at the legislative instruments of restraint that we operate under in this country. I have always been a person who has believed in strong, steady, careful growth. I am always nervous about things in the economic environment that move too quickly. I have been nervous for several years of China’s double digit growth. Whilst I have been looking at economics as a general issue over the last few years, but particularly more recently as the shadow Treasurer, I have become more convinced that double digit growth comes with a price tag - and the price tag or the bill is now being presented.
Whilst we stand in this place and argue about stimulus packages and those sorts of things, I suspect that, when confidence falls out of the marketplace so savagely, the effects will be profound. I will talk about this more tomorrow, of course. We have a few things coming up on the Notice Paper that will touch on these issues.
However, I want to place on the record my fear that is beginning to cloud my mind. I did not think it was within comprehension that an economy the size of Japan’s would be so savagely affected in a 12-month period.
I urge all leaders, be they at state level or national level, to continue to commit to principles of the free market. I still believe that the free market is the vehicle by which the future of growth and, therefore, the future wealth of nations, is best protected. Sticking up trade walls, protectionist walls, and those sorts of things, will only serve to isolate economies, and I suspect that what you will get are results that they are achieving in places like North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe. If you want to create isolated economies, it is not the way to go.
However, I do counsel now, and have always counselled in the past, that the process of generating growth has to be based on a couple of things. One is real productivity. You have to make stuff to make money worthwhile. You have to generate real wealth that underpins paper money and that avaricious conduct, clipping the tickets. So many people on the pipeline that are massaging these lines back and forward as they sell and trade these valuable commodities as they are, which are not that valuable, is not the way to go. Our regulatory environment in Australia has protected us. If it had been reproduced in other places, I suspect we would not be where we are now.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I join the Chief Minister wishing Gong Xi Fa Cai to the Chinese community - certainly to my constituents of Chinese descent. It was a wonderful celebration. I was privileged to attend some of the celebrations such as the Chung Wah Society banquet. My congratulations to Adam Lowe, the President of the community for many years, and Donna Quong, who was the master of ceremonies - once again, a fantastic job. My congratulations go to the young Territorians of Chinese extraction who performed admirably and fantastically, once again, the Lion Dance and the blessing of the Lion. I had the good fortune for them to visit my office in Casuarina and bless my office, together with many other shops in the Casuarina district.
This is what it is all about in Darwin. Nowhere else in Australia do people, unless they are Chinese, celebrate a Chinese New Year. Here in the Territory, it does not matter whether you are Greek, Italian, Thai, Indigenous, we all celebrate Chinese New Year because we are all sharing the experience and the culture, the same way they share our culture.
This year is the Year of the Ox, which means very hard work. I believe everybody knows that is going to be very hard work, especially when it comes to the economic problems of this world. Congratulations, once again, to the Chinese community for the fantastic organisation of the Chinese New Year celebrations.
I am always very proud of the achievements of young people within our community, especially if the young people come from Casuarina. I congratulate Simone Liddy of Nakara, who was recently awarded the NT Young Citizen of the Year. I have known Simone since she was a young girl at Dripstone High School. Simone is a lovely young lady who is going to be a wonderful young Indigenous leader in our community. I also know Simone will be completing her internship at Royal Darwin Hospital this year, after which she will become a successful young pharmacist.
I also congratulate the students who received the Students Citizen Awards 2009. I have known Emily Moo from Nakara and her family for many years now. Since 2001, when I was elected as the member for Casuarina, I regularly attended these school events at Nakara, as well as Alawa, and I know Emily and her sister. Sayed Feozkhan was the winner from Alawa. Harry Kerr, from Dripstone Middle School, was awarded the Student Citizen Award of the Year and does not know why. He is a lovely young man - a fantastic person who has leadership qualities.
I also sing the praises of the new Police Beat shopfront that is now open in Casuarina Square. Since the shopfront has opened, I have to say that the issues with antisocial behaviour, or young people doing silly things in Casuarina, has been completely eliminated. Congratulations to Sergeant Mick Read, who is in charge of that police shopfront. The shopfront is located next to the Body Shop and is manned by two police constables and police auxiliaries. Both constables are out on the beat regularly patrolling the area - I have seen them with my own eyes. While the constables are on patrol, the office is staffed with an auxiliary to answer any questions or concerns.
That was an election promise made by the Northern Territory government. The first one of these shopfronts is in Casuarina. Others are going to be rolled out. I have to say, if the others achieve what the Casuarina Police Beat shopfront has achieved currently, we are going to see a significant change in the attitude of some young people in Darwin when they realise they cannot muck around in shopping centres, or around the areas of shopping centres, because the police will be there. The fact that police are patrolling the shopping centre on foot – and not only inside the shopping centre but also the car park and the underground car park - shows that we are really keen to address some of these antisocial issues. If you are caught doing silly things, you will have the book thrown at you. I thank them very much and I pledge my full support for them, because the job they are doing is fantastic.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I place on record a dedication, and respect for a beloved Territorian who spent many years in my electorate; that is, Reverend Fr John Leary MSC AM. Sadly, he passed away in Sydney on 10 January aged 86, which is a great age. He is sadly missed.
I attended the service at St Mary’s Cathedral, which was very well attended. It was great to see members of different communities - Daly River, Tiwi and Wadeye - who came in for that service. I also attended the actual funeral at Port Keats. He was buried near the church at Port Keats next to some other missionaries’ graves, which was quite a good dedication.
Fr Leary spent many years working with Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians, guiding them through his love of God. Fr Leary helped set up the original Daly River Mission in the 1950s, and it was in 1958 that Fr Leary first came to Wadeye and lived there for 15 years. Fr Leary had kept very strong ties to the area for more than 45 years. During those years living in the community, he witnessed the critical years of change from cultural to mainstream living.
I read an article written by Fr John Leary where he wrote about how the traditional people retained their independence and their capacity to live the same as their ancestors had done over centuries with a unique independence. In later years, he witnessed a dramatic turning point in the history and that was, in his opinion, the advent of money.
When Fr Leary lived at Wadeye, his home was an unsealed Sydney Williams hut. There was no money and very little administration, which gave him time to work alongside the men on various jobs, including the airstrip. Sixty men were involved in that particular project and the work was done with picks, shovels and axes over a long period of time. During this time, the people of Wadeye and Fr Leary engaged in stories, beliefs - both spiritual and educational - while working alongside each other. They got to know each other very well.
Fr Leary said in an article:
With respect to change, Fr Leary continued his article with
Hasten slowly, carefully, slowly ...
Fr Leary certainly made a difference to a lot of people there. There was a genuine outpouring of emotion. He did a lot of work at Daly River and helped set up the leadership centre, I understand. In the hearts of Tiwi, the Murampatha, and the Daly River people, he has a place - and that was expressed. To Fr Leary, from the people of those communities: you will be truly remembered and your lessons live on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would quickly like to report on a short trip I made to Katherine and Daly River recently. I try to get out to the national parks in the Wet Season. My point of view is that that is the best time to see them. I went to Nitmiluk and did a 8 km walk, which might not sound that far. It is further than you think when you have to walk up and down rocks and travel along stony roads. When the temperature is fairly high it is actually quite exhausting.
The walk I went on is called the Southern Rockhole Walk. The reason for the name is because, when you get to the end of it there is this beautiful rock hole that is the most glorious place to jump into. It has a waterfall and a big pool and is well above the gorge. It is a magnificent place to go.
The park is at its best. I only saw a small part of it, but I always like to tell people to go to Nitmiluk or Katherine Gorge park at the moment and you will see it at its best. So many plants are out in flower. The escarpment has green all over it which tends to soften what is a fairly harsh environment. It is just a great place.
There are some issues there. On my short walk, as I said the other day, there are quite a lot of weeds around the visitors centres and along the river bank. That is a problem with many parts of the Katherine River. You would hope there could be a bit more work done controlling those weeds within the national park, but it is a big park, so it would require a big effort.
I then drove back to Daly River, staying overnight at Pine Creek. The reason I went there was because of Fr John Leary’s funeral. I had missed the service in Darwin. I deliberately made an attempt to stop at Daly River because I knew that Fr Leary’s body was being flown there and they were going to have a short service there as well.
That was far more appropriate for me because it was Fr Leary who brought me to Daly River 39 years ago next month. He took me down in an old Toyota Land Cruiser, one of those with the big gear box in the middle. I sat in the middle over the big gear box. I had Sister Bernadetta on one side and Fr Leary on the other side. I just got off the ship that day, the P&O’s Oronsay – a beautiful ship, airconditioned which, for me, was luxurious. I had come up from Melbourne and Sydney and $95-worth of ship fare got me to Darwin. So, all of a sudden, on the same day, I had disembarked, said hello to the Bishop of Darwin, hopped into this Toyota and headed off down the track.
The highway was narrow, with spear grass, which I had never seen before, six to eight feet high on the sides - off into the unknown. We got down to the Daly River Road, which was mainly gravel in those days, which was covered in water here and water there, and the vehicle broke down. We were about 10 miles out - I can only remember it in miles - and I had no idea where I was. This was a totally new environment and I had just been dumped in it. I had Sister Bernadetta on one side, who I thought was old then, but she lived for another 35 years. Fr Leary had just had an operation on his stomach. He actually walked the 10 miles into the mission to get help to come out and fix the Toyota, which had a fuse - would you believe? - that just happened to be dirty.
That was my first encounter with Fr Leary who had founded Daly River Mission. I have many stories to tell about him. I might do that in another five minutes, when I get a chance.
I quickly say that the other reason for my trip down there was to talk to locals about local government issues. There certainly are some issues in relation to ownership of houses and leases. One thing that I was concerned about is that they call it the VD shire, which is a bit unusual - the Victoria Daly Shire. That is a local joke they have down there. It has not had a meeting outside of Katherine and that is unfortunate. Katherine is not in the shire, yet all the meetings have been held in Katherine. We have the ability to have teleconferencing, which is something special in the Local Government Act. I believe we should really be pushing that there be less meetings in Katherine and more meetings out there. Regardless of the weather, you can still get to Daly. You probably still can get to Timber Creek and you can fly to Wadeye. It is important that, if local government is going to work, it has to go out to the people it represents.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Chief Minister spruiking his political claptrap on a daily basis - and it really comes down to spruiking ad nauseum. I can cope with it, but it does get rather repetitive. What upsets me is the fact that the slurs that the Chief Minister tosses so nonchalantly across the Chamber often amount to either an insult to, or an insult to the intelligence of, many people of the Northern Territory.
Let me make a case in point. Last week, on Thursday in Question Time - and I quote from the Daily Hansard of the day - the Chief Minister referred to the opposition members as ‘spivs in suits’. He said, and I quote again: ‘They look like a bunch of North Shore Sydney bankers …’. Then, he said again: ‘The spivs in suits over here, doing the bidding of the merchant banker from the North Shore of Sydney …’. True to his form, all these references to spivs and North Shore bankers and what have you, have no relevance whatsoever to the matters that have been carried on in this House. I gather that the Chief Minister really only makes those utterances because he has nothing else to say that can possibly fill the void.
I say to the Chief Minister: did your mother not teach you that it is better to overdress than under-dress for any given occasion? That may sound a little frivolous. However, your dress sense, Chief Minister, may well have insulted a head of state towards the end of last year. I remember when the President of Timor-Leste visited this parliament and was given an official reception at the front of Parliament House. In keeping with the tradition of his country, I imagine, the President of Timor-Leste arrived in a black suit with a white shirt in a style that I imagine is traditional. You, Chief Minister, greeted the head of state from another country in a shirt and tie. I felt embarrassed for you, Chief Minister. I felt embarrassed for the people of the Northern Territory whose Chief Minister could not be bothered to dress appropriately to meet the head of state from a country with whom we have a great relationship.
I take my role here in parliament very seriously. I gather that the Chief Minister takes his role less seriously, and that is evidenced by the fact that he cannot even muster up enough integrity and dignity to dress appropriately for such an important occasion.
Regarding the fact that the opposition is now dressing appropriately for parliament, I have had a lot of feedback from people around the place. The vast majority of the feedback is that people appreciate the fact that their parliament - or at least this side of it - is now starting to look a little professional.
That is just another example that the Chief Minister’s utterances continue to denigrate the members of opposition whom, I might add - and I have said this before but I will say it again - represent at least half, and probably a little more than half, of the people of the Northern Territory. He continues to denigrate us, and it just is a prime example of how out of touch the Chief Minister is with the real people of the Territory.
Chief Minister, you need to look at your performance. You need to look at the way you treat people in the parliament, and how that will have a flow-on effect to the people of the Northern Territory half of whom are represented on this side of the Chamber.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Sanderson
Member for Sanderson
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Sanderson who is away on a training trip.
Madam SPEAKER: It is for the whole sitting week, is that right?
Mr MILLS: Yes, for this whole sitting week.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Sanderson
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full sitting week 16 to 19 February 2009 for the member for Sanderson, whose pair is the member for Arafura. It has been signed by both the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from Palmerston High School accompanied by Mrs Kirsteen Squires and Mrs Beryl Brugmans. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Reverend Jim Downing AM – Death of
Reverend Jim Downing AM – Death of
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death of the Reverend Jim Downing AM on 4 January 2009, a Minister in the Uniting Church in Australia, a former Moderator of the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, the instigator of the Institute of the Aboriginal Development, a fighter for justice, and a great Territorian.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of many visitors who have come here today to listen to this condolence debate.
I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the family and friends of Jim Downing: his widow, Shirley Downing; his two sisters, who travelled from Melbourne to be here; his daughters Bronwyn, Kathy, and Sue; and many distinguished visitors as well.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the official officers’ gallery of the former Administrator of Norfolk Island and former member of this Chamber, the Hon Grant Tambling; former member for Macdonnell and former Deputy Labor Leader, Neville Perkins; the Synod Secretary of the Uniting Church in Australia, Mr Peter Jones; the Reverend Djiniyini Gondarra OAM; Bishop Ted Collins, the former Bishop of Darwin; Reverend Wendell Flentje, the Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia; the past Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, Reverend Steve Orme; and Hon Brian Martin, former Chief Justice of the Northern Territory. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to, as an aside, say there a number of people who are here today who are neighbours and friends of Jim, from Shackle Street in Anula. As Australians, we are very aware that many people do not know any of their neighbours whatsoever. It is a tribute to the man that, in fact, almost the whole street is here today. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome those people from Shackle Street in Anula.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Reverend Jim Downing AM
Reverend Jim Downing AM
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
- (a) express its deep regret at the death of Reverend Jim Downing AM, a valuable member of the Territory community, and
- (b) sends its profound sympathy to his family and friends.
In paying tribute to the Reverend Jim Downing in the Assembly this morning, we celebrate the life of a man whose contributions to the people of the Northern Territory is not measured in bricks and mortar or in the accumulation of material wealth, but in the lives of the people he worked with for over 40 years. He was a man of faith and a man of vision. He was always convinced that the Northern Territory could be a far better place and that the lives of Aboriginal Territorians, in particular, could be vastly improved. For this last reason alone, he was also - in the best of possible traditions – a stirrer and something of a troublemaker. This is, perhaps, no better summed up than his experiences gained in childhood and as a youth growing up in the Great Depression in Melbourne. He was the eldest of six children, living in the working class suburb of Footscray, one of the heartlands of Aussie Rules - Jim took up Rugby Union.
In World War II, he was an apprentice patternmaker, and then a tradesman - a role vital to the war effort. At the same time, he was heavily influenced by the union movement, workers clubs, and the church. However, it was the church that provided a greater calling than union or party politics. Against his father's wishes, he joined the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and began social worker training in 1957. The same year, he married Shirley, his partner for more than 50 years.
In 1959, he was ordained and assigned to work in Redfern, where he spent six years. It was the beginning of a ministry with Aboriginal people, but a ministry - in the words of Dr Stuart Philpott - of working with many others amongst the ‘homeless and marginalised’.
Redfern was a time, too, of building a family, with three of his children born in Sydney, followed by the youngest born in Alice Springs where Jim was sent in 1965. It was the beginning of four decades of service to the people of the Territory. Eloquently described in this way by his daughter Kathy at Jim’s memorial last Saturday: ‘His ministry was simple: meet people’s needs’.
That he did. He recognised early that the massive changes occurring in Central Australia at the time ill served Aboriginal people, whose levels of literacy and education were wholly inadequate to cope with the cash economy. He established the first courses for Aboriginal mothers in dietary and budgetary matters. From the beginning, he realised the necessity to provide language training and took it on himself to learn Pitjantjatjara as his parish took in the Pitjantjatjara lands in northern South Australia and south-west of the Territory. Thus began the internationally recognised Institute for Aboriginal Development which, to this day, provides educational, language, and publishing services.
It was work that led to Jim receiving an Order of Australia in 1978. Just as significantly, the same award went to Yami Lester, the Aboriginal man who was to succeed him as the Director of IAD in 1980.
Jim’s work also led to the provision of interpreter services and the desegregation of wards in the Alice Springs Hospital whilst he served on its board. At the same time - as the Administrator, Tom Pauling, has pointed out - Jim’s work in the courts assisted in the establishment in 1976 of the Supreme Court Anunga Rules relating to the questioning of Aboriginal witnesses. As a great lover of music and singing and, as a footnote to history, Jim would have been happy to know that it is probable that the Anunga Rules is the only judicial ruling ever set to music by a rock band.
Jim worked with the people of northern South Australia to establish the Pitjantjatjara Council, a precursor to the APY Land Rights Act passed by the Tonkin government in 1981. Jim was also involved with the Alyawarra people who were evicted from Lake Nash and assisted them to gain title to traditional land at Alpurrurulam. A successful agreement was finally reached with Lake Nash management and the CLC in 1988.
Much of Jim’s work with people on remote communities and outstations led to the publication of the book Country of My Spirit in 1988. Having handed over leadership of IAD to Yami Lester, Jim moved to Darwin in 1980, where he worked for many years at the Aboriginal Advisory and Development Services or ARDS. Amongst many other projects over this time, Jim undertook organisational training with Aboriginal organisations throughout the Northern Territory and the Kimberley, particularly with the CLC and the Kimberley Aboriginal Pastoral Association. This included the seminal publication Understanding Constitutions released in 1982. This was the sort of fundamental governance training that was not picked up by governments for a decade.
Mind you, Madam Speaker, much of the work continued well after his formal retirement. In 2003, he was working in Epenarra on a project with World Vision. His last project was in 2007, successfully working with the people of Mutitjulu to lift the suspension of that community’s incorporated association. In an irony, that work was completed a week before the announcement of the Northern Territory Intervention.
Jim’s daughter, Bronwyn, last week recalled that her father, Jim, was often away from home as part of his work, but their close-knit family always looked forward to his return, ‘with a fresh handful of stories’. I can only imagine what it must have been like sitting around the kitchen table at the Manse in Alice Springs. He would have had more than a ‘handful’: there would have been thousands of stories to be told as he and his work touched so many lives.
The Reverend Djiniyini Gondarra from Galiwin’ku, who has described Jim as a spiritual father and mentor, first met Jim in Alice Springs in the 1970s, and was told their job was not just as a pastor in parish, but ‘We must stand with the people’. That really sums up Jim’s life; he stood with the people. He stood for social justice for the people. It was why the Pitjantjatjara people gave him the title ‘Tjilpi’. It is a word that means more than ‘old man’, it implies the possession of wisdom. In this case, as Reverend Gondarra said, it was wisdom from his heart.
More than five decades of Jim’s life was in partnership with his wife, Shirley. I will leave it to others to speak of their marriage, but draw the Assembly’s attention to a small corner of Nightcliff in which this partnership lives on. It is a humble reminder: the Uniting Church clothing collection bin. Shirley, the artist of the family, designed the artwork for the collection bin. For days, the two of them, working side by side, painstakingly painted it together. Over a decade-and-a-half later, it is still there as a small memorial to a loving relationship, as well as Jim and Shirley’s enduring commitment to the life of the church and their community.
My sincere condolences to Shirley, your children and grandchildren. Today, we all stand proudly in this Assembly, Madam Speaker, to speak passionately about the great difference that Jim Downing AM made to the Northern Territory. All of us try, in small ways, to make a difference, and Jim really did make an enormous difference and touched the lives of many thousands of people. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition joins in this condolence motion to recognise the passing of a man - a man who can rest in peace - who has made a great contribution to others lives. His legacy continues in the thoughts and the words of others. You can have no greater legacy than that which you leave written in the lives of people, and there is such a legacy.
One only has to read the record of letters that Jim had written to editors over many years, and the message was constant. There was a burning passion for justice behind every one of those letters. I did not know Jim well, but I had met him on a couple of occasions. They were memorable occasions because he made sure he never missed an opportunity to keep that fire burning; to ask a question; to drill down and to ensure that you were accountable. He spoke the truth and he spoke it boldly, and with dignity. I still remember being stopped on two occasions. He made use of that time to pass on a very important message which went beyond the superficial and straight to the core issues, and it stays with me today.
As I have seen in so many letters written by Reverend Downing, the core of the message when he was speaking of the need to look at the past was to gain the tools to move on: you cannot ignore the past, we cannot live in the past, but we must learn from the past. These were his words. His legacy is contained in these words, because these words should motivate us to continue.
We have nothing to put in the place of people’s roots and sources of renewal which were contained in their ceremonies and traditional beliefs, and vested in their science. I know of no convincing social work or sociological evidence which supports the need to cut off these roots in the name of advancement of their lives. To the contrary. By doing so, we produce social and psychological disruption to a people with costly, though never adequate, social service remedies. There was something deeper constantly behind the words expressed by Reverend Downing. It would be wise to listen carefully to these words. They live on, there is a legacy there. When the opportunity arises to speak for justice, it must be deep justice that is delivered.
The man’s work, given an understanding when you understand that man’s motivation, is that of a man of faith. That is a faith which believes that all are created equal; a faith that believes that all are created in the image of God. If that is the case, then how noble is the task to champion the plight of those who are disaffected or disconnected from a dominant culture? How noble is that task? That is why we pause today to honour and respect one who has made that a life’s cause. It must touch us, it must challenge us, otherwise our activities are but dust.
Jim gave 40 years of devoted service – devoted, hard, genuine, heartfelt service that I am sure caused him sleepless nights, such was the depth of his passion and the cry for justice. He stood for those who felt they had no voice, and was the voice for those who felt they could not express, be understood, or understand.
He came to the Territory in 1965. It is a further testament and reinforcement of his character that there are people who lived in the same street here to witness today’s proceedings. He had 50-plus years of marriage. That is a lesson to all of us – loving, enduring, constant marriage in a time when relationships are challenged by the forces of this world; to see that endurance and to see his neighbours and others living in the same street here today to celebrate his life. It is a challenge to every one of us.
He lived in Alice Springs and then, in Darwin. However, those who know the record of the man know that his home was with those who needed representation, those who felt they were disconnected or who felt they had no home or place. That was where his home was. Home is where the heart is, and his heart was alongside the underdog - even extending to East Timor. His heart could not cause his mouth to be silent on issues that concerned him and he spoke up. He never hid it inside himself. As I said at the beginning, he spoke. He spoke to me on a couple of occasions, and I remember those words.
He was a writer of books. Those words were expressed and were written down. It is good to write books. It is good to have something to write about. He had something to write about and his words remain with us in his books.
Importantly, I believe, he was an advocate for cross-cultural understanding. That is the core of it: an understanding of those who are our fellow citizens. He saw the evidence of a lack of understanding nationally and the effect that has had on decisions that were made by the powerful. He was a pioneer of Indigenous education and a promoter of Indigenous leadership.
My colleagues, this is a man who will rest in peace. As his heart led him to speak, to struggle and to fight, now he is in the arms of the everlasting; a man of faith who has come to the end. I am confident to say that the end of a journey such as this should be noted, not only noted with words in this Chamber in recognition of the legacy he left, but we should be challenged by his testimony, with the added words: well done, good and faithful servant.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness that I speak in the condolence debate for the late Reverend Jim Downing AM, who died on 4 January 2009 at the age of 82 at the Darwin Hospice, surrounded by his greatly loved wife of 51 years, Shirley, and his family.
I knew Jim as a friend, spiritual mentor and dogged fighter for justice, particularly for the poor and oppressed. It is impossible for me to speak of Jim Downing without speaking of faith, so I apologise to members for the move away from the secular in my speech. I reflect on the comments of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in a recent interview on the ABC Compass program, who chose not to speak of faith during his time as Prime Minister for fear of people thinking him a nutter. I will take the risk in memory of my good friend.
I first got to know Jim and Shirley Downing around 16 years ago when I became a member of the Nightcliff Uniting Church. I had met him a few times socially before that when I was a member of the Darwin Memorial Uniting Church. He was a Moderator for the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, which is similar to a bishop, and was respected throughout the country for his work with Aboriginal people, the poor and the oppressed.
The President of the Uniting Church in Australia, the Reverend Gregor Henderson, who sends his apologies to the parliament for not being here today, paid tribute to Jim as one of Australia’s churches great saints. He said for those who had known Jim since the 1970s his contribution to the life of Australia, to our Aboriginal sisters and brothers, to good relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, was way up there. Reverend Henderson said that Jim had made that contribution with courage and with sacrifice and he was supported unfailingly by Shirley, who is no less of a Territory hero and saint. Reverend Henderson went on to say that Jim’s commitment to justice for Aboriginal Australians had been a most significant influence throughout the Uniting Church, and a major factor in the establishment of the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress in 1985, and in the Uniting Church’s strong stance with and for Aboriginal people ever since.
Jim was not your average church man; he hated false piety. He particularly hated the Bible being used as an instrument to discriminate against others, and the misuse of passages of scripture to justify things such as slavery, the subjugation of women, the oppression of non-Caucasian people which led to racism and, in his later years - after much prayerful consideration and, particularly as he was a very conservative man - the use of the Bible to discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
In his first parish in Redfern in Sydney, he worked with Aboriginal people for the first time. He was a social worker as well as a minister of religion. In those days, ministers of religion wore full black suits with a white jabot, similar to ones used by judges and barristers. On the first occasion that he had to appear in court for a young Aboriginal boy as a character reference, he realised that he was dressed in almost identical garb to the magistrate, and he decided from that moment that he would never wear the uniform of a minister for fear that people he was serving would consider him to be judging them. He preferred the simple suit which, I might add, became even more casual when living in the Territory – simple shorts and shirts with sandals was his standard dress code.
Jim was a man who was intent on changing the world for the better, particularly for Aboriginal people and, as such, he became friends with many politicians over a 40-year period. While he was political, he was not party political, and he was a great admirer of the Liberal Aboriginal Affairs minister, Fred Chaney who, he claimed, was Australia’s best Aboriginal Affairs minister; and also Ian Viner, who played the same role. He spoke warmly of former Legislative Assembly member, Neville Perkins; Warren Snowdon; the member for Macdonnell; and many others.
When I was first elected in 2001 and appointed as Health minister, Jim was very pleased for me. He hoped that I would meet his very good friend, Victorian Liberal Senator, Hon Kay Patterson, at some stage. Kay had been a family friend of the Downings since the Redfern days. As a teenager, she would spend most afternoons after school at the Downing home and used to babysit the Downings’ son, John. Kay, who attended the memorial service for Jim on Saturday, told me if it was not for Jim and Shirley, she would never have finished her education nor had a lifelong passion for music. Jim used to relate the story of how, when Kay was first elected to the Senate, he rang and told her how proud he was of her and her achievements. He then went on to say: ‘Do you think the Lord got the party right?’ When Kay became the federal Health minister soon after I was appointed, he said to me: ‘It looks like the good Lord got the party right after all’. Indeed, Kay and I went on to become quite good friends because of our link with the Downings. I can say we worked very cooperatively for the Territory and remain friends.
Jim was a man well ahead of his time and believed strongly in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. He had close friends across the religious spectrum - and I acknowledge Bishop Ted Collins who is here today, who I know to have been a close friend of Jim. Jim believed that it was important to work on the things that unite us as human beings and as people of faith, rather than concentrating on the things that divide us; to always look for the good in people and assume that they are your friend.
As an aside, Shirley was telling me a story yesterday about Jim when he was Moderator of the Uniting Church. He was supposed to appear at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral for the opening of the legal year. He arrived early and it was teeming rain, and he had had to borrow a Moderator’s robe - because, of course, he never wore robes - from a previous Moderator. It was immaculately dry-cleaned, covered in plastic and on a coat hanger. He was carrying his minister’s stole and a pair of shoes. He got to St Mary’s and, instead of going to the main entrance of the cathedral to find the vestry, he decided to dash through a side entrance because it looked faster. He ended up fully immersed in the pool beside the cathedral with the beautifully laundered robe saturated, as well as his shoes. He staggered out of the pool and found the vestry, where he found Bishop Collins who asked what on earth had happened to him. After explaining, Bishop Collins found him a Catholic priest’s vestments, which Shirley noted were more transparent than the Uniting Church version. I am not quite sure what that means, exactly. He was wearing his sandals and, apparently, there were comments after about him wearing sandals. Nevertheless, they did the job and, after the service Jim had to get back into the pool because his glasses were still at the bottom. While he was trying to find the glasses, Bishop Ted came out and started throwing things into the pool. Jim asked: ‘What on earth are you doing, Bishop Ted?’ and he replied: ‘Throwing the fish back into the pond that you blasted out during your immersion’.
I also have a short comment from the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend Dr Philip Freier, who, as members would know, was the Anglican Bishop for the Northern Territory, who also asked me to pass on his condolences to Shirley and family. Archbishop Freier had been a great admirer of Jim and his work with Aboriginal people, and talked of him as one of Australia’s saints.
I did not know Jim during his years in Alice Springs, but I would like to use some of the comments that were made by Dr Stuart Philpott, a well-known Australian who has worked with Aboriginal people for more than 40 years, and who also worked with Jim and Shirley in Alice Springs:
- In 1965, Jim and Shirley received a call to accept a role as a Minister of the Word with the Flynn Church in Alice Springs, with a special ministry to Aboriginal people.
Alice Springs then was a remote town, small and not more than 5000 people, and was heavily reliant on the pastoral industry, the railway which ended there, some
mining, and government work. At that time, the majority of Aboriginal people in Alice Springs and the surrounding regions were wards of government, award
wages were not on the agenda, and most Aboriginal people were paid in rations, clothes and some cash.
The Manse was in Hartley Street and it backed onto the prison cells behind the police station where the cries of prisoners could regularly be heard. It was also alongside
the Griffith Hostel and was part of the United Church in Northern Australia complex that provided support to the patrol padres and other Australian Inland Mission staff.
Today, it is the site of the Yeperenye Shopping Centre.
It was at the kitchen table in the Manse that Jim Downing’s ministry began. It was here that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people would receive hospitality, be listened to,
counselled and guided. It was here that political agendas with Aboriginal leaders were discussed and strategies planned. It was here that the first language course for
non-Aboriginal staff and the English language, and numeracy courses for Aboriginal adults were discussed, designed and prepared.
It was at the Manse and its surrounds that vulnerable bush mothers and children sought day time refuge under the trees in the back yard, where white and black kids played
together and where, at night, families camped further inside the Uniting Church in Northern Australia block.
Amongst Jim’s first challenges were the desegregation of the hospital wards and the improvement of police procedures in the treatment of Aboriginal suspects and witnesses.
He was well placed to address both as a hospital Chaplain and, later, as a member of the Alice Springs Hospital Board. He witnessed the differential treatment and the fear
and anxiety many Aboriginal people experienced when dealing with legal or health authorities. It was the observation of the stress Aboriginal people experienced when
communicating with non-Aboriginal people that led Jim Downing to conclude that language was a crucial aspect of his ministry, and he commenced to learn Pitjantjatjara.
It was this initial interest and learning that would evolve into the language programs for the future Institute for Aboriginal Development.
As Jim’s language facility grew, his relationships with a number of Aboriginal people intensified, particularly among the Anangu of northern South Australia and south-west
Northern Territory. In part, this was due to the Ernabella connection, and in part due to the agreement between the churches as to which church would minister to which
language group. This relationship with Anangu was to lead to the beginnings of Jim Downing’s involvement in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara land rights struggle. However, as
his relationship with the Anangu was developed a new challenge emerged.
In 1967, the Northern Territory Administration replaced the rations system with an early form of CDEP called the Training Allowance. This, effectively, introduced Aboriginal
people to a cash economy and the need to buy goods and services instead of being provided. At the same time, Aboriginal infant mortality was increasing. At one stage,
it was second highest in the world after India. Jim, together with doctors Kerry Kirk and Barry Wittenburry, quickly recognised that there was an urgent need to educate
nursing mothers on the nutritional value of store bought food. So began the first courses for Aboriginal adults run by what was to become the Institute for Aboriginal Development.
In 1969, the Uniting Church established the Institute for Aboriginal Development with Jim as its founding director and, by 1971, this program had a full-time nurse educator and
translators. Concurrent with this activity, language training now began to be offered to non-Aboriginal people and a language laboratory was established on the Hartley Street site.
Throughout the 1970s, IAD continued to grow and, finally, moved to its current location on the banks of the Todd River.
In 1978, Jim was honoured with the award of the Order of Australia. A large part of this growth was due to the partnership that developed between Jim and Yami Lester, also
honoured with an Order of Australia. Together, these two men encouraged the leadership cohort amongst the Anangu culminating in the formation of the Pitjantjatjara Council in 1976.
The formation of the Pitjantjatjara Council provided a basis for arguing for land rights, and Jim and Yami were intimately involved in this as interpretators, advisors and advocates.
Negotiations were formidable, with several stops and starts, and included the occupation by Pitjantjatjara people of the Adelaide Showground. Finally, the struggle was over when the
Tonkin government passed the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981.
Concurrent with the struggle for the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act was a struggle for the Lake Nash community. In the 1970s, the new management of Lake
Nash Station pursued a deliberate policy of driving traditional landowners off the station by cutting Aboriginal employment and closing the station’s door to all but station employees.
The Alyawarra had, for many years, camped near a waterhole, an important sacred sight. The camp was just a kilometre from Lake Nash homestead. The Alyawarra elders approached
Jim and the Central Land Council for help and legal advice, which resulted in the Lake Nash management negotiating on the basis that there was legal evidence of discrimination.
The station management offered a number of alternative sites which the Rural Extension Program of IAD was asked to evaluate. This necessitated significant consultations between Jim,
the community government, and the Central Land Council. This work laid a foundation for the final agreement negotiated by the Central Land Council to establish Alpurrurulam on land
excised from the station in 1988.
- Jim was not always easy to work with because his pre-planning and preparation for a field trip often left family, friends and colleagues exhausted and devastated, for he is a master at winging it,
both in life, work, and in the air. One example was travelling with him to Lake Nash during the struggle to establish Alpurrurulam. On this occasion Jim, Yami Lester and myself were flying by
light aircraft to Lake Nash to discuss with the community a proposal put forward by the then Lake Nash management. Jim was the pilot. Yami, who is blind, dislikes flying, and particularly in
light aircraft, and I do not like it either. We took off at first light and, after we took off, the wind, which was variable, dropped and immediately a warning - barp, barp, barp - sounded in the cabin.
Yami, who was sitting in the back drifting off to sleep, became immediately alert and said: ‘What is that sound?’ Jim quietly explained that it was the stall warning, and that he had lost some
power because of the drop in the wind, and that he increased the power to compensate. As the plane powered forward, the warning sound ceased and we went on our way.
After three days of discussion, we then began our return to the Alice. However, when Jim went to start the plane, the battery failed. After some improvisation, we eventually started the plane by
jump-starting it from a beat-up Holden utility. Shortly after taking off and achieving the plane’s designated height, the passenger side door - my side - popped open. There was a rush of air and
all front cabin conversation could now not be heard in the rear of the cabin. I turned to Jim and rather anxiously said: ‘What do we do?’ ‘Well’, he replied, ‘the book says we go down to 500 feet
then reduce speed to stall speed, then you push the door open, then close it with all your strength and lock it down’. ‘Okay,’ I said, and Jim immediately took us down to 500 feet and reduced speed
to stall speed and, as he did so, the stall warning started - barp, barp, barp. Then, over the combined sounds of the inrushing air and the barp, barp, barp, he shouted: ‘Open, shut and lock the door’.
I obeyed and, with all my strength I pushed the door open and pulled it and pushed the lock down. It did not work. ‘What will be do now?’ I cried. ‘Try again’, said Jim. It still did not work. ‘We will
have to land and do it on the Georgina ground’, Jim replied. ‘We will land at the Georgina strip and do it there’. As Jim put the plane into a steep turn towards the Georgina strip, Yami, who, because
of the noise had heard none of the conversation, but had heard the cabin door open and shut twice, suddenly spoke up with the question: ‘Jim, Stuie, are you still there?’ On landing and, after a cup
of tea, Yami was heard to say: ‘The way to solve problems with Aboriginal people and reconciliation was to go on a plane trip with Jim Downing, you all turn into white fellas’.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Jim and I both celebrated birthdays in June, mine on the 2nd and his on the 10th. In 2006, we both had the landmark birthdays of 50 years and 80 years respectfully. We had both just been diagnosed with life-threatening tumours - mine of the breast and his of the colon. Being diagnosed with a life-threatening cancer is not your best day, and it started a number of very profound conversations between us, reflecting on the great questions of life and death, faith and friendship. One of the things we both reflected on was that if you have to have a life-threatening illness, cancer at least gave you the opportunity to talk to people you love, and also the people with whom you have differences, and to be at peace. In a sense, this diagnosis is a dress rehearsal for death itself.
As a very humble man, I remember him being overwhelmed by the outpouring of kindness towards him and Shirley at the time of his diagnosis. I remember saying to him: ‘Why should you be so surprised, since you are a man who has done so much for so many people?’ It was now his turn to enjoy the love of others, just as he had shown great love and compassion to probably thousands of people over many decades.
During this time, our treatment often coincided and, on one occasion I recall, I was walking to my car after a chemotherapy session at the hospital and feeling very ill – and, I might add, very bald; we called ourselves the bald and the beautiful. Jim was recovering from one of his operations and was outside the main entrance of the Royal Darwin Hospital, holding court in his dressing gown and slippers, with a group of equally sick Aboriginal men and women, all in pyjamas, some in beds with drips attached, some in wheelchairs. He introduced me: ‘Do you know Jane? She is the Speaker of the House. These are my new friends from Elcho Island and Maningrida. Come and join us’. We sat there on the garden bed edge and talked about many things. It was both bizarre and moving. Jim made friends everywhere he went.
Early last year, Jim was told that his cancer was so extensive that he was unlikely to make it to Christmas. After the inevitable sadness and, knowing that he would die within a certain time frame, Jim spent his last few months telling people how much he cared about them. When he went into the hospice late last year, I visited him a few times and, on the longest occasion, I decided it was important to ask him the main questions about life, because I knew that I would miss his wise counsel in the future.
I said to him: ‘So, Jim, what do you think it is all about?’ He paused and said: ‘It is all about love, everything else is illusory’. Jim died on 4 January this year. He was determined that he would make it to Christmas and to his 51st wedding anniversary which was on the 28 December. All during his time in the hospice, he would suddenly turn to his beloved Shirley and say to whoever was there: ‘Isn’t she a lovely girl?’, with a look of such love and tenderness.
I will greatly miss Jim as a friend and mentor and as a fighter for justice. The world needs more people like him. How fitting that he should, as a faithful servant of Christ, die on the Sunday in the Christian calendar known as Epiphany, the day that marks the visit of the Magi, or the three kings, bearing gifts for the Christ child. I have a very clear image of Jim being presented as a special gift to God - to the God he loved and served faithfully to the end.
Jim, like Moses, spent many years wandering the desert, seeking the promised land of justice for all, equality and love. Also like Moses, I believe he was one of those fortunate people who had been to the mountain top and seen the Promised Land.
Vale, Jim Downing.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for moving this motion. It is a good motion; I am very keen to support it. Member for Nightcliff, that was a fantastic eulogy. You have certainly enlightened me and I am sure you have enlightened many of my colleagues about the Reverend Jim Downing.
I did not know him particularly well. I met the man a few times and always found him a decent fellow. On one occasion, however, I did manage to sit down with him for some time and share a cup of tea. He was very interested in my motivations for supporting the Aboriginal Intervention - the emergency response legislation - in the Northern Territory. As speakers have said, the fight for Indigenous rights and the betterment of the lives of Indigenous people was a priority of Jim Downing, and it was something he was intensely interested in.
It was quite obvious to me - and I believe most people – that he had some particular views on the Intervention and how it was being carried out. Most surprising to me, I suppose, was his interest in my views on it and what my motivation was in support of it. It was quite obvious to me that he was really looking to gain an understanding of exactly what it was we were doing and what we were trying to achieve. I did not have the impression that he was a strong supporter of that particular legislation at all, but he was very interested in knowing the motivations for it and the way it would practically pan out in communities. He had concern about long-term leasing of townships, removal of the permit system on townships and arterial roads and the like. I was quite happy and touched to be able to sit down with the man.
In the meetings I had with him, and knowing Jim Downing, I believe there are very few people in the Northern Territory who would not know of the man. As the Opposition Leader said, he was a prolific writer of letters; he seemed to be everywhere all the time, and he would pop up at most places that I would visit. I found him to be an inherently decent man, an exemplar of the Christian faith and, as the member for Nightcliff mentioned, Philip Freier called him a saint, and that is a pretty good summation of the man. He seemed to me to be the human encapsulation of everything that Christianity stands for.
To his wife and family, you can be very proud of the legacy that the Rev Downing has left for the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. He was a man who made his mark on many people’s lives. He will be remembered fondly for the work he has done and the compassion he had for people. It is wonderful to see you here, and it is wonderful to see all of his friends, as well. I wanted to say how much I appreciated knowing the man in the small way that I did.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I talk about the life of the person that we knew not as Rev Jim Downing but Tjilpi Downing. I pass on my condolences on behalf of all Central Australians and the people of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands to Shirley and her family. This goes deeper and beyond the immediate family that he loved; he shared that love, passion and hope with all Territorians, with all Australians.
Jim’s view was to bring people together. Rather than fighting about the differences that we all have, we look at the commonalities that we had; you could get a lot of wins on the board by striking out your commonalities rather than your differences.
I worked with Jim and Yami at the Institute for Aboriginal Development as the first interpreter training centre was established there, and was the first interpreter. You would see Jim and Yami walking along Todd Street before it became the mall in Alice Springs, arm in arm, talking to all the people who owned the shops and to the Indigenous people about their drinking habits - why they came into town, and if there were possibilities that they could get themselves together and go back home to their communities.
Jim leaves a huge gap in our lives as Australians, as Territorians - a huge gap. As we all pick up and move forward on behalf of Tjilpi Downing, his hope was really to make a difference for anyone living in poverty. He fought for social justice of Indigenous rights, but he also fought for social justice for non-Indigenous people. He fought, with his hope, love and inspiration, so that we would become Territorians and Australians, rather than categorising ourselves into different nationalities.
I commend the hope, inspiration and love that Tjilpi Downing brought to Australia and to the Territory. He always gave to others. When we spoke about the motion on the bushfires, it highlighted what a strange group of Australians, a strange group of human beings, we are. Every day, we will not help a lady with a child who is struggling because it is raining and she cannot get her umbrella up, and she is trying to put the baby inside the pram. We will not knock on our across-the-road neighbour’s house to ask how the family is going, or our next door neighbour. It is as if we do not know each other.
I hope, through Jim’s love, that we can do this, because Jim has brought love, inspiration and hope to his street, and made sure that he got to know his next-door neighbour and every person who lived in his street. That should be the aim of every single one of us as human beings in this country.
Today, I chose to read a verse from 1 Corinthians 13, in Jim’s second language, Pitjantjatjara. Does everyone in the House have the English version of 1 Corinthians 13? The verse is about charity. I will read it in Pitjantjatjara …
Madam SPEAKER: I have given the member for Macdonnell leave to speak in Pitjantjatjara.
Ms ANDERSON:
- Panya kuwari Kurunpa Milmiltu kutjupa tjutangka nintlpai Godaky tjukurpa anangu tjutangka wangkanytjaku, palu ngula paluru piruku tjananla alatji nintintja wiyaringkuku.
Kuwari paluru kutjupa tjutangka nintilpai jwangka kutjupa wangkanytjaku, palu ngula paluru piruku tjanala alatji mintintja wiyaringkuku. Kuwari paluru kutjupa tjutangka
nintilpai paluru jana ninti pulkaringkunytjaku, palu ngula paluru tjananya alatji piruku nintintja wiyaringkuku. Palu nyangatja paluru tjananya rawagku nintilku- panya
amukulya pulka titutjara nyinanytjaku. Panya kuwari Kurunpa Milmiltu tgananala tjukutjuku nguwanpa utini nganana kulintjaku. Munu tjukurpa tikutjuku nguwanpa
ngananala utini kutjupa tjutangka tjakultjunkunytjaku. Pala ngula uwankara wiruringkunyangka nganana putu kulintja wiya-angkuku, munula uwankaraku ninti nyinaku
Panya nganmanypala tjitji tnaralpi tjitji purunytju wangkapai munu kulilpai munulu tjiyji purunypamukuringkupai. Palu anangu pulkaringkulala tjitji purunypa nyinanytja
wiyaringkupai. Panya kuwarila Godanya putu uti nyanganyi kalawatja ruwanggka purunypa. Palu ngulala palunya ilangku uti nyakuku. Kuwarila Godanya putu nguwanpa
kulini, palu ngulala palunya ilangku nyakula ninti mularariku. Panya Godanya nganampa ninti pulka nyinanyi, palu purunypa nganana ngula palumpa ninti mularariku
munula ninti pulka nyinaku.
Uwa, tjukurpa pulka mankurpa ngaranyi nyanganpa – utila Godaku mulamularingama, munula uti palumpa pukultu kulil-kukuktu nyinara patanma, munula uti anangu tjutaku
mukulya pulka nyinama. Palu tjukurpa nyanga malatja pulka mulapa kutjupa nyanga kutjarangka waintarinytja, panya anangu tjutaku mukulya nyinanytjaku.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could
remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face-to-face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill 2009
Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill 2009
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a message from His Honour the Administrator relating to the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill 2009.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Arnhem Land Telecommunications Services
Arnhem Land Telecommunications Services
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, on 19 September 2008, the Chief Minister announced a project to improve telecommunication services in Arnhem Land. This $34m project is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council. I am very pleased to report to the House on progress to date.
In just a few short months, some 800 km of optical fibre has been installed between Jabiru and Nhulunbuy. Along the way, the remote communities of Oenpelli, Maningrida, Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, and Yirrkala have been directly connected to the optical fibre. Residents are now able to use high-speed broadband at the same costs and service as people enjoy in Alice Springs and Darwin. I am advised that Telstra has already received more than 100 applications for broadband access. Meanwhile, government agencies in these communities are in the process of connecting to the faster broadband network, which will provide schools and clinics with better services.
Access to broadband will complement the government’s Closing the Gap initiatives to address Indigenous disadvantage across a range of areas including health, education, and business. Attraction and retention of professional staff and workers to remote communities will be assisted by having access to high-quality broadband services. They will now be able to communicate with the rest of the world in the same way that people in larger centres take for granted.
The island communities of Minjilang, Warruwi, Milingimbi, and Galiwinku will be connected to the optic fibre by high-speed radio links. Work on these radio transmission links will begin as soon as possible, weather permitting, and is expected to be completed by the middle of the coming Dry Season. The Northern Territory government is now in discussions with the Commonwealth government and industry to explore options to deliver access to high-speed broadband to other remote communities in the Territory.
In December, I met with the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, at the Online and Communications Council meeting held in Melbourne. I took the opportunity to discuss with Senator Conroy the Territory’s needs for broadband, particularly in our remote communities where access to high-speed broadband is essential for the delivery of quality health, education, and policing services. Senator Conroy agreed to the Territory Department of Business and Employment and his department exploring options for the provision of broadband services in the Territory.
The Department of Business and Employment has since met in Canberra with Senator Conroy’s department to table a broadband initiative that could be pursued in the Territory using some of the $400m earmarked to tackle the recommendations of the Regional Telecommunications Review. This is the so-called Glasson report, which identified the telecommunication requirements of the 2% of Australian premises that are not encompassed by the proposed national broadband network. I am optimistic that the broadband services which meet the needs of businesses and households in the Territory will be forthcoming, one which is, at the very least, equivalent to those on the eastern seaboard.
Finally, I inform the House that the next meeting of the Online and Communications Council will be held in the Northern Territory and, unusually, will not be held in the state capital. This year, it will be held in the very central location of Alice Springs, and I look forward to giving my interstate colleagues an introduction to outback IT.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the ministerial report by the minister for ICT, and thank him very much. It has been a fantastic joint venture to get the fibre optic out to these remote localities. It is great to see when mining companies can engage with government and organisations such as Telstra to deliver these great services, because we should be able to access this high-speed broadband wherever we are in Australia - we are in a place of much and plenty – but there are times when we cannot.
My experience in life at Kintore, where we did not have optic fibre, gives me an understanding of the problems that people face. The cost of obtaining broadband in these remote communities of the Northern Territory is very inhibitive, as the satellite options are very expensive and somewhat limiting.
I encourage the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology to continue these works. It is a great opportunity to further push into our remote communities and open all opportunities we have for people within Central Australia. I am willing to work with him and listen to what he has to say on these things; they are very important. The services that can be provided are still staggering; once we get that technology to the remote communities. I thank him for his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I notice that he said that people who live in the outback should receive the same services as people who live on the seaboard. People who live on the seaboard do not get the services that they should be receiving, especially in my electorate. There are people on one side of the road in my electorate who can get high-speed broadband, and others on the other side of the road cannot get anything - or very little. It is amazing, in this day and age when there is so much discussion about the money that is being poured into high-speed broadband and services for the people who live in the outback, that those people who you think would have access, simply do not have it. They have been asking for access year in, year out. Telstra keeps saying that, until the funds are there, they cannot do anything about it. I am all for the outback having high-speed broadband, but I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that in areas of population just around the Darwin region, there are people who are not receiving that service yet, and they have been asking for it for a long time.
Another issue is of mobile telephone services which, of course, you can connect into high-speed broadband. I know the member for Fong Lim, during his days as a federal minister, discussed the possibility of having mobile phone coverage all the way up and down the Stuart Highway. Just having come back from Alice Springs, I believe that is one thing we should continue to push for - and also along the Barkly – (1) for emergencies, and (2) for communication. I believe the minister may be able to respond to that as well.
Even for those people who have broadband, I believe that sometimes reliability is a problem. I spent some time out at Benmara Station, out near the Nicholson River, last year or the year before and, even though they had contact, it was unreliable. Sometimes, they had connections and, if the satellite moved a fraction, they did not have any connection. It is not only having it, but ensuring that it is reliable, especially in those times when communication or travel is difficult because of the Wet Season. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both speakers for their points, particularly the member for Nelson. I am taking those concerns on board. I am fully aware of some of the issues that we have with coverage, not only in the remote areas but also in Darwin. It is an issue that I raised with Senator Conroy. My department is discussing those issues with them - I know that we can improve that – and in making the costs more affordable, not only in remote areas, but also in Darwin and in Alice Springs. As a member who travels greatly through our roads network, such as up and down the Stuart Highway, I agree with you on the need for greater coverage for mobile phones. I will take that issue on as the new minister, and feed that back to both members and the parliament in the near future.
NT Heritage Register
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of important work being done to preserve the Territory’s history so that it can be enjoyed by future generations of Territorians. In the Territory we have many places that teach us about the past. It is vital that we safeguard our historic places.
My department’s Heritage Branch is working with the Heritage Advisory Committee to identify our most important landmarks which are being recommended to me for declaration under the Heritage Act. Eight places have been placed on the NT Heritage Register since November last year. The Jessie Gap Climbing Dune in Alice Springs has been declared because of its natural beauty and scientific interest in its formation. The Union Camp in Central Australia has been cited because it was the scene of the workers’ rights uprising by Indigenous station staff midway through the last century. This site is being preserved so that we have a physical reminder of the struggle for equity. Like many others on the register, this site teaches us important lessons about how we got to where we are today. Ghan’s Bore at Tennant Creek is another recent addition to the register. It is a remnant of the development of the gold fields in the area and a relic of European settlement in the town. Ghan’s Bore was drilled in 1934 and was the first bore in the district. This site is the hallmark of the beginning of infrastructure in Central Australia.
This government is also protecting the sites that tell the story of early Darwin: the stone kerbing at the harbour end of Smith Street dates back to the 1880s and is one of the earliest civic works projects carried out in Darwin. It was created using porcellanite stone which, at the time, was commonly used in building projects around Darwin. This historic feature is now protected under the act and was declared, along with the milkwood trees outside Brown’s Mart. These trees were planted in the 1890s by V V Brown, after whom Brown’s Mart was named. It is vital that we preserve sites such as these so that we have a living reminder of our history. It is also vital that we assess the risk to our historic and significant places and react accordingly. The government is the owner of several heritage-listed places and is moving accordingly to prevent these sites from being damaged or from falling into disrepair.
This government has allocated $1m per year from 2004 to 2010 for repairs and maintenance for government-owned heritage assets. Some of the projects that will be undertaken this year include repairs to World War II ammunition bunkers at Frances Bay, and the refurbishment of the Sandfly steam locomotive currently housed at the historic Qantas Hangar at Parap.
This government is also engaging the community and enlists everyone’s support for keeping relics of our past in sound condition. Territorians have the opportunity to apply for $200 000-worth of heritage grants as part of the government’s funding program designed to protect heritage-listed sites. These grants are for privately-owned properties and safeguard sites that tell us more about our identity as Territorians. However, most credit needs to go to the many volunteers who give us their time and money to protect heritage sites across the Territory. To these people, I give my heartfelt gratitude.
Finally, I acknowledge there are some places of historic significance in the Territory which are not on the register. I am committed to ensuring that we get the processes right to ensure these sites are preserved, including through improvements to the Heritage Act. The way we preserve our history defines who we are today, and that is something we should never forget.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her report today. Heritage is certainly an important part of – I was going to say history and, of course, that is technically correct. Yesterday, I visited the East Point Museum on its wonderful open day they held - and congratulations to all those involved. It was very successful as could be seen by the number of people who went through the gates on that day.
When you visit these museums, it can be such a sombre experience to remember what some people went through in times of war, and other tragic things that have happened in our history. It is our heritage that we really need to do more to protect today. I take my hat off to the government for taking some steps in the right direction to protect some of these vital and very important assets - and they are assets – such as the Sandfly, the old train sitting at the Qantas Hangar, and what the volunteers have done to restore that.
It is very important to acknowledge all the volunteers who are involved in heritage programs because they do so much work. I know what Gerry Wood did years ago down at Berry Springs with the Anzac Day cricket match oval. I had been in the Territory for many years and did not know that that oval existed and that the Americans based here used to play cricket there. There is so much that we know has happened and we must do something to protect our history. Thank you very much to the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. One of the things I would like the government to give real consideration to is the establishment of heritage parks. With little sites here and there, perhaps it cannot happen. However, I believe we have to do a lot more work in relation to preserving our major heritage sites, especially our World War II sites, so that they do not fall into disrepair any more than they need to. Naturally, they age and, of course, you cannot do much about that.
However, not only is it important that people know about these sites, but they are important for the economy of the Northern Territory. It is like a lot of things; you have to have a mixed economy for a successful economy overall. If we can increase the number of reasons why people should come to the Territory, then we should do our best to create parks in relation to some of our World War II sites especially. There are places like the Long Airfield and the Fenton Airstrip, with huge amounts of establishments in those areas - a tremendous amount of history - yet, we do not really do enough to tell people about them. It could be that we have Parks, Wildlife and Heritage rangers. We should be looking at that as part of the Territory’s future in this area.
Someone said the Sandfly was at the Qantas Hangar. Recently, it was taken to the wharf and, before that, it was in South Australia. Perhaps there is an opportunity for it to be put inside the front of the convention centre . The Sandfly operated at the wharf for most of its life, although I gather that it was taken down to Pine Creek on occasions. That would have been interesting to see. Perhaps there is a place where it can be put where it is out of the weather but close to where it actually did do most of its work.
I thank people like the Friends of the North Australian Railway. As the member for Brennan said, they are volunteers who do their darnedest to keep the history of the Territory alive and they should be recognised as well for their continual hard work.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members opposite for their comments. There are things that we can do, as I said quite clearly in the last paragraph on the last page:
- I am committed to ensuring that we get processes right to ensure that these sites are preserved, including through improvements to the Heritage Act.
If you have a look at the third-last paragraph:
- This government is also engaging the community and enlist everyone’s support for keeping relics of our past in sound condition.
It is just so wonderful what you said, member for Nelson; that we have to be encouraging tourists to come to have a look at our past, and how we have moved on as a Territory into the future as well. I believe that we can balance both of them out.
Community-based Recreational Fishing Development Plan
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I report to the Assembly on this government’s commitment to establish a community-based recreational fishing development plan to make fishing even better into the future.
Fishing is more popular here than anywhere in the nation. It continues to be the lure of the Territory, and makes such an important contribution to our great lifestyle, our economy, and in creating jobs. Past surveys of recreational fishing habits have shown that, in some parts of the Territory, more than half of all of the residents go fishing at least once a year, and is considerably higher than the national average. It has also been revealed that around one in every four households owns a boat, primarily to go fishing.
It is not only the locals. The Territory is renowned for its unparalleled fishing experience that it can offer which, in turn, provides jobs for Territorians. A past national survey of anglers showed the Territory is a nett importer of fishing tourists, with interstate visitors contributing around 40% of the total fishing activity here in the Territory. The national survey also showed that anglers spend $1.8bn on fishing-related equipment and activities each year.
We are committed to ensure that the unparalleled fishing experiences available today continue into the future. It is simply too important to leave it all to chance. That is why we are committed to delivering a community-based recreational fishing development plan. Such a plan will recognise the significant economic and lifestyle contribution that recreational fishing makes here in the Territory, and that fishing continues to be a major drawcard for tourists. It will identify the key strategic issues and opportunities for recreational fishing so we can ensure that we continue to have some of the best fishing experiences available nationally. Such a plan will also canvas and make recommendations on further development opportunities for recreational fishing. It will consider infrastructure needs, opportunities for greater access, diversity of fishing experiences, and enterprise support programs to make fishing even better. It will also canvas options to deal with resource sharing issues and support the integrated management of our shared fisheries resources. Importantly, such a plan will examine the future management directions for recreational fisheries to ensure their long-term sustainability.
Given increasing popularity and growing numbers of anglers here in the Territory, we must ensure the ongoing sustainability of our fisheries so that the fishing experience available to Territorians today will continue well into the future. We will also examine the resourcing needs and prioritise actions to support the application of the fishing strategy.
Shortly, I will be calling for public nominations for appointment of a community-based working group to develop the draft plan. Members will recall that AFANT first raised the concept of a stand-alone recreational fishing development plan, along with the Guided Fishing Industry Association, both of which have broad community-based membership. Shortly, I will be inviting nominations from regional representatives covering the Katherine, Borroloola and Gove regions, club anglers, non-club anglers, and the fishing tackle industry. It is important that all proposals for the future development of recreational fishing opportunities are the subject of widespread community awareness and discussion. Proposals to protect our iconic barramundi rivers such as the Daly River will also be canvassed in formulating the recreational fishing development plan.
It is terribly important that everyone with an interest, whether they are anglers, tourism operators, fishing guides, Indigenous fishers and the wider community, have a say about the future management on the way we manage our iconic recreational fisheries.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his report this morning. I share the passion of the fishermen who visit the Northern Territory; I am quite a keen angler myself. I understand the importance of having a fishery in the Northern Territory that is attractive to the tourism sector. It does bring an enormous amount of economic value to the Northern Territory, and it has a huge flow-on effect for other tourism products within the NT as well.
I applaud the government’s initiative for putting together the proposal in relation to having broad-based community input for a management scheme of the amateur fishery. I trust that they will be able to find all the right people to sit on that with the expertise, the experience and the knowledge to contribute in a meaningful way to it. I hope that they take into account all the factors that affect the fisheries, and not just perceive them from one side.
Again, I thank the minister for his report and look forward to the results of the program he is proposing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I am very pleased he is talking about getting a broader point of view about some of these issues.
One thing that concerned me, reading AFANT’s proposals for the Daly River, was that they were talking about, for instance, having no live bait downstream from the crossing; limit of the number of barra; and, I think, restrictions on the number of - I call them - freshwater prawns. What worried me is, though those things might have a good basis for what they are trying to say, 500 people live at Nauiyu, and a lot of people who live there are farmers. I used to live at Daly River and, I must admit, one felt like a foreigner sometimes in their own piece of country when hordes of people came down from Darwin and camped at the crossing and, basically, took over the river.
We have to be careful that the people who are focusing on some of these changes do not alienate themselves from the locals, and also ensure that they are discussing these things with the locals. I am not sure the locals would love to hear that they can only have two barra and they are not allowed to use any live bait downstream from the crossing. I am not sure whether they have spoken to people in that area about that. It highlights the fact - and it is good, minister, that you are talking now about being very inclusive to those people who live in those areas.
I will get back to the same old thing. You said one in four people own boats – terrific! Three in four do not, and they probably have to go to the fish and chip shop. I believe it is important that Territorians should be able to buy, at a reasonable price, their own wild catch barra, or salmon, or whatever. We need to find that balance between what is a very important industry - I recognise that. You just have to hear the radio, or see in the newspapers what is written about fishing, and all the businesses that rely on it. It is important to keep that balance, but we also must recognise that a lot of people are not able to fish and they still want to enjoy Territory barramundi.
The last thing, quickly, is that you need to do something about the Channel Island road. You have opened it up for a boat ramp for people to use. It has weight restrictions on it at the moment. I bet your bottom dollar it will be potholed and corrugated in the Dry Season. Government had a good plan to open it up, but it needs to ensure the infrastructure matches it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support. Since AFANT released their submission to me, I have to tell you I have received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, either supporting or opposing, or anything between. That reinforced my opinion that it should be a broad discussion with the whole community, not only one particular organisation. The reality is that AFANT represents 1000 people. There are another 110 000 people not represented by AFANT, but who still want to go fishing. We have to actually ask the community for their opinion, and then I will make a decision.
As for the road, the Minister for Transport heard the comment, and I am pretty sure that he will move very quickly. As for the barramundi - whether local or imported - that is a decision that the consumer has to make. However, I prefer the consumer to be fully informed of what he pays for and what he buys, rather than saying ‘barramundi’ with no indication of whether it comes from Thailand, Katherine or the Daly River.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
LAKE EYRE BASIN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BILL
(Serial 31)
(Serial 31)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Bill is to ratify the Northern Territory’s participation in the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement, which is a joint undertaking of the Australian, Queensland, South Australian, and Northern Territory governments. The Territory signed the agreement in 2004 and has been an active participant in Lake Eyre Basin activities since then, working closely with communities in the region, with the assistance of world-class scientific and technical advice.
The Lake Eyre Basin covers a very large part of Australia, approximately 1 200 000 km2, and lies within the jurisdiction of a number of states and territories. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure sustainability of the river system in the basin and, in particular, to avoid or eliminate cross-border impacts arising from use of water resources and related natural resources.
The rivers in the Lake Eyre Basin are very important globally, representing one of the world’s largest internally draining river systems; that is, the rivers drain inland rather than to the sea. Rivers such as the Georgina, Diamantina and the Cooper also rank amongst the world’s last unregulated dry-land rivers, where the ecology continues to be sustained by highly variable flows free of dams and other structures that restrict water flow. As a result, the basin contains areas of very high conservation significance. The basin is also important to people. Natural resources are used for pastoralism and mining, and are culturally very important to Indigenous people from many communities.
In the Territory, the basin includes the catchments of the Finke, Todd, Hay and Georgina Rivers. While major cross-border water flows derive from Queensland into Lake Eyre in South Australia, significant flows do occur from time to time out of the Territory and into Queensland and South Australia.
The framework for this bill is based on existing legislation previously enacted by Queensland and South Australia which, together with the Commonwealth, were the original parties to ratify the agreement.
The Territory is upstream of other states and has a responsibility to ensure that adverse natural resource management effects do not propagate downstream. Good cross-border arrangements between agencies are already in place regarding most aspects of natural resource management. Membership of the agreement will ensure that this is maintained and made more effective. The Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement and strategies have been used as a guide for cross-border aspects of the integrated natural resource management plans being developed in all jurisdictions, and is expected to contribute to cross-border integration of these plans.
This bill is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the protection and sustainable use of the Territory’s natural resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in relation to this bill, it is a very unusual step for a second reading speech to be presented to this parliament and, then, for debate to ensue forthwith. However, I wish to address an issue that is of some concern to me, all of a sudden. It deals with this bill less than completely directly. It is the letter which has just been tabled by the Speaker in relation to this bill which, surprisingly, is an advice from the Administrator to this House that we can discuss what is, essentially, an appropriation bill. I note that the letter that was tabled in this House was signed by the Chief Minister to His Honour, Mr Tom Pauling, AO, QC, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, seeking permission to pass an appropriation bill.
An appropriation bill is what we pass at budget time. I, as the shadow Treasurer, have some concerns. I have spoken to the Treasurer about this issue very quickly. She was unaware that this letter had been tabled and that there was, essentially, an appropriation bill before this House - something I find extraordinarily surprising. I also found it surprising that, when I spoke to the minister behind the scenes, she was also unaware of an appropriation bill being brought before this House.
What concerns me is not that this is a occurring - there are good grounds why you would bring in an extra appropriation bill out of the budget cycle. One of the reasons you would do it is if you were building something like a railway and you needed $160m-odd to have an out-of-budget appropriation. However, the requested amount for this appropriation is $10 000. That makes me somewhat cautious. Although I am sure I have not been given all of the advice I sought, so far, from the Treasurer and the minister concerned, and there is probably advice to come - and I note that the minister made some comments in relation to some sort of intergovernmental agreement - what I do not understand is why this government has to come into this Chamber with what is, essentially, an appropriation bill, and appropriate $10 000 only.
When we go through the budgetary process every year, we give the Treasurer a Treasurer’s Advance which is a little extra money just in case of the upsies and downsies of the parliamentary and budgetary cycle will need to be met. The value of the Treasurer’s Advance in the 2008-09 budget is $40m. It is interesting to note that we have an appropriation bill for an extra $10 000. Surely, she could reach into that $40m and find the $10 000 from there?
I also point out that, under the Financial Management Act, without coming back into parliament for a new appropriation bill, the Treasurer and the government of the day are capable of going to the Administrator and seeking a 5% blowout in the appropriation, which means - off the top of my head without having the figures in front of me - there is a capacity for government to get an extra $180m, $190m in the current budgetary cycle without having to come back into this House.
Madam Speaker, the only conclusion I can currently draw, with the limited information that is available to me at the moment, is that the government is broke and they are actually looking for some more money ...
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, why did you just drop this on the table and why do we not have a debate as to why you are walking in here with an appropriation bill? Let us see some explanations. This is part of the problem that I have with the way that you guys conduct government; you walk in here with traps, and do not notify what is going on. We should have received advice of this letter at least 24 hours ago, or on Friday, not 10 seconds into the debate, with the Speaker dropping it on the table and hoping that nobody would notice.
Madam Speaker, why have I been inherently suspicious of this arrangement? Why would I have my ears prick up when the Speaker drops a letter on the table from the Chief Minister and, when I read that letter, find out that they are going to the Administrator asking for $10 000 extra cash out of the Central Holding Authority through an appropriation bill, when they have nearly $200m capacity to sidestep this process? That is why I am concerned. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, unless there is a clear explanation forthcoming, the only logical explanation that can be drawn from what is occurring in this House today is that the government is broke. I would like to know why we are appropriating $10 000 when we have a budget which is in the order of $3.5bn - off budget spend?
I made some comments last week about the way that Cabinet does business and how they are quite happy to go through the budget cycle and put together a budget, which then gets tinkered with and tinkered with throughout the course of the year so what actually comes out at the other end of the year is almost unrecognisable. Now, we have a Cabinet decision which means that they are coming to parliament asking for more cash.
It is up to the government to explain when they come into this place why they are passing legislation and seeking extra money - not to try to slip it in under the radar and hope that nobody notices.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s explanation in relation to this. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to respond to the extraordinary outburst and tirade by the member for Port Darwin which, as usual, is way off the mark. The letter that the member for Port Darwin refers to is simply a procedural requirement under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he raised the question about the letter with me just some minutes before this debate and the introduction of the legislation in regard to Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement, it is confined within the requirements of the IGA that we proceed with a payment, a …
Mr Elferink: You enter into these agreements all the time. You did not have an extra appropriation bill for the …
Dr Burns: We listened to you in silence.
Mr Elferink: Actually, no, you did not. I was interjected on.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting, please. Deputy Chief Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he first raised this issue of the letter with me in the corridor some minutes before the introduction of the legislation, it is a requirement of the intergovernmental agreement that the Northern Territory provides a payment of $10 000 per annum as a cash contribution. Clearly, we are not broke, we have plenty of cash. We are not in the dire straits the CLP were in when they were in government. As a backbencher, the member for Port Darwin probably is living in the shadows of that still.
This is not anything but a requirement under the terms of section 11 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that requires a recommendation in and around the provision here. It is not an appropriation bill. The bill before the House simply, as has been explained in the second reading speech, gives effect to the Lake Eyre IGA. If the member for Port Darwin remains confused, I will be happy, of course, to step him through it, yet again - that will make it the third time.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
(Serial 24)
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, this is one bill that we, on this side, wholeheartedly support. The reasons for the amendments have been explained. I thank the minister’s office for providing such a detailed brief on the amendments. We fully understand why the amendments needed to be brought in, and we support the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this legislation. I guess there is a bit of surprise on this side of the Chamber because the CLP, in the past, had been vehemently opposed to what this government was doing in Parks and Wildlife. Surprise aside, I support the introduction and debate – albeit short debate – on the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill that my colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, has brought before this House.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to allow parks status to be declared upon areas of land held by the Aboriginal Land Trust, Park Land Trust, or an Aboriginal landholding corporation that are leased back to Northern Territory for the purposes of joint management of parks. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act and amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act have established joint management arrangements over some of the Territory’s parks and reserves.
I guess there was stunned silence on this side of the House with the wholehearted support of the opposition, because we recall the lengthy debates that have occurred and, indeed, some very divisive comments and petitions that have been circulated by the CLP in regard to this critically important Parks and Reserves Framework for the Future. They were vehemently opposed to the joint management arrangements of some of the Territory parks and reserves. However, we welcome the change – the change that the breeze has blown in with the new shadow spokesperson for the Environment. It is a very welcome change, because it was a very divisive debate. Actions by the CLP in the past, which had slogans such as ‘they are handing over the parks’ and the like, were pretty divisive. It truly is a good day for Territorians when we see the CLP set aside the rhetoric of division. The shadow has had his way in the party wing room. He rolled the Opposition Leader and the Whip in their stance. That is a future leader here; that is pretty fantastic ...
Mr Mills: Get on with matters of substance, you mischief maker.
A member: They already know that we are in next time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Extraordinary, well done shadow, rolling the Opposition Leader and the Whip in the party room. I will have a talk to you later about how you pulled off the coup ...
Mr Mills: You need some advice, do you?
Ms LAWRIE: No, not at all; we have just been taking bets. I pick up on the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. We have just been taking bets on who was going to challenge who in the CLP and who was working the numbers ...
Mr Mills: Get on with the business of running the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE: We had it wrong. We were underestimating the member for Brennan. You are going up in the batting order, member for Brennan, I have to say from this side of the House. That was a clean bowl, really, of the Leader of the Opposition and the Whip.
This was groundbreaking legislation that the government pursued, despite the divisive stance of the CLP, because it truly did bring together joint management and enabled the development of joint management arrangements between the Territory and, critically important, of course, the traditional owners of these lands. Joint management, we believe sincerely, gives Indigenous people opportunities to manage their own lands, and provides employment and economic development opportunities for traditional owners.
The Parks and Wildlife Service has done a significant job of implementing a range of these employment and training initiatives for the traditional owners. This amendment being discussed today gives effect to the anticipated outcomes of those joint management sections of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, changing the area of land leased back to be a jointly-managed park.
As mentioned by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, these additional areas may now include: former stock routes located within or adjacent to a park; closed roads; areas of park previously subjected to Aboriginal and/or native title claims, and not able to be declared; and adjacent areas of land long proposed and agreed for inclusion in the parks. The amendment will now allow the declaration of park status over the entire park area in a single process.
The joint management provides a great opportunity for traditional owners to become involved in tourism, economic development, and the workforce. Through these types of opportunities in education and employment, we believe it will help to close the gap of the Indigenous disadvantage. That is why the government has been a strong advocate of this bill. I recall some of the debates in and around this legislation ...
Dr Burns: The advertisements.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, there were some pretty stark advertisements. As I said, there was a petition of which the former member for Greatorex, one Dr Lim, was a great advocate.
I noticed the first signs of a split in the CLP on this issue started to form and appear in and around July 2008, when the CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion, voted for some enabling legislation for this legislation in the Senate. At that stage, that was really the first signs of a split within the CLP ranks, because they had vehemently, publicly, and quite stridently pursued this agenda of saying that joint management was going to be the end of public access to parks as we know it. Even though, of course, we were pointing out at the time the well-managed Nitmiluk example of a joint-managed park, and Uluru as well. We have plenty of examples in the Territory where joint management had been successful but, despite that, the CLP had pursued this agenda of saying that joint management would be the end of access to parks as we know it, and that it was just a land giveaway by government to Indigenous Territorians - basically beating the racist drum that the CLP has long beaten. Those of us in the Chamber at the time were horrified that they continued to pursue this stance - not too surprised, but truly horrified. It was in July 2008 that the first cracks of dissent, from this drum beating of the past, started to appear when Senator Scullion voted for the parks framework agenda in the Senate.
I refer to some comments that the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, made of his CLP party colleague, Nigel Scullion, after he voted in the Senate in favour of transferring to Indigenous people the ownership of the 13 national parks in the Centre. Erwin Chlanda from the Alice Springs News interviewed him on the subject, and I will quote the view that the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, had about Senator Scullion’s support of the national parks and the joint management agenda on 3 July 2008 in the Alice Springs News:
- He has stuffed up. He knows that.
That was the blunt assessment that the Opposition Leader had on his CLP colleague, Nigel Scullion. Another quote from the Opposition Leader:
- Senator Scullion not only failed to secure the support of the federal opposition for the defeat of the bill, he acted against his long-held convictions.
Mr Mills was, obviously, pointing out that he was very disappointed that the Senator for the CLP voted with the federal opposition in support of the bill. He went on to say that the Coalition had misjudged the issues, and that they were possibly misjudging them in the context of recently issuing an apology to the Stolen Generations. He went on to say that, after speaking to Senator Scullion, he understood the lie of the Coalition land. He said that the opposition’s actions were creating barriers and divisions in the community - and it went on.
We had the CLP continuing to oppose the rights of Indigenous Territorians to have joint management of parks. Many of us in this Chamber recall those nasty, divisive remarks coming from the opposition - consistently under the leadership of the member for Blain, but also under the period and the leadership of the member for Araluen, when she held the opposition leadership reins for that period of time. It is somewhat of a surprise for the opposition to support this legislation today when, as I say, they are well and truly on the record as pointing out that they had immense difficulty with this agenda of joint management.
I have an Alice Springs News article from 10 July 2008, again by Erwin Chlanda. He was talking to the member for Araluen in this article, who was quoted as saying:
- Issues of this kind don’t come up very often. We were immensely disappointed with what Senator Scullion did. Various conversations have taken place since last week
and as a result I am confident Nigel will follow our party’s line.
Erwin Chlanda asked:
- What’s the mechanism of this? What should have happened? Should you have talked to Brendan Nelson?
The member for Araluen responded:
- No, that was Nigel Scullion’s responsibility. Nigel Scullion stuffed up and, unfortunately, Labor’s plans will now be realised. Nigel has taken a number of lessons out of this.
The member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, said:
- It’s been CLP policy for a long, long time to support the parks in the guise that they are in, and for Nigel to break ranks as such is disappointing. We can only hope that
this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.
The Alice Springs News questioned:
- How you can be sure?
The member for Araluen said:
- Nigel is now under no illusion. He’s made a grave mistake [but] it’s the first time something like this has happened.
Strident messages coming from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, the Whip, the member for Araluen, and the would-be contender for the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Greatorex, in around the party’s strong stance against joint management of the parks.
Yet, here today in this Assembly is an opportunity for the CLP to pursue its very strong views around their opposition to joint management of parks. Here today you have an opportunity, and what occurs? The member for Brennan has had a coup in the party wing meeting. He has managed to turn around, I hazard to guess, 27 years of entrenched opposition to joint management and the ability of the Indigenous Territorians to manage their land. He has turned that around, had a coup in the party wing meeting, come in here, and the CLP is on the record as wholeheartedly supporting the legislation before the House. I take my hat off to the member for Brennan. He has done something that thousands of Territorians have been unable to achieve in the past; which is to get a sensible and appropriate approach to the management of parks in CLP policy ...
Dr Burns: Enlightened.
Ms LAWRIE: A truly enlightened approach by the CLP. Members on this side of the House are delighted with the bipartisan support the member for Brennan has delivered in the parks agenda.
As I said, the opposition have been unerring in its opposition in the past, even so far as having a very public display of division between the members representing the CLP in this parliament and their representative in the federal parliament, one Senator Nigel Scullion. There were some very strident, public assessments from their current leader, the member for Blain, about Senator Scullion having stuffed up and, then, the member for Greatorex described Senator Scullion’s performance as disappointing. Then, the member for Araluen weighed in on the issue, saying they were immensely disappointed.
I just wonder what Senator Scullion will be saying with a few phone calls to his colleagues today. Would he be saying: ‘Well, hang on a second, you had a red hot go at me in the Alice Springs News over my support for the joint management framework. How about just coming out and publicly apologising perhaps?’ …
Dr Burns: He would be hailing the member for Brennan.
Ms LAWRIE: He would be ringing the member for Brennan and saying: ‘Mate, thanks for your backup there and thanks for getting the numbers in the party wing meeting’ - truly, an incredible performance by the member for Brennan.
You just wonder what the comments will be in the support for this legislation from the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition on support for this legislation or, indeed, the member for Araluen. I am looking forward to hearing her comments in support of this legislation. I also invite and welcome comments and support of this legislation from the member for Greatorex. They have all been on the public record in relation to the framework and what they think about joint management of our parks.
I congratulate our minister for Environment. Fittingly, this is the first legislation the minister for Environment will take to full debate and, it ends up being a seminal moment in Territory political history …
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious me.
Ms LAWRIE: … where the member for Macdonnell …
Mr Elferink: You have been there, you have made your point. Are you going to do this for the next 15 minutes, or are you going to want an extension of time to say the same thing again and again? It is really awful.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Do not tempt me.
The member for Macdonnell, as the Environment minister, is carrying through tremendous legislation, which we sincerely believe takes the management of Territory’s parks into the 21st century. We know that our hard-working rangers on the ground get a great deal of personal satisfaction working alongside the traditional owners of the lands on which these parks lie. They share their expertise and knowledge. We know, also, that central to tourism opportunities in the Territory are our parks. We get a lot of feedback, as a government, that tourists come here to understand and experience Indigenous culture. We sincerely believe that, uniquely, the parks stand to provide a truly Indigenous cultural tourism experience, and joint management provides a strengthening of that opportunity.
This is a seminal moment because we have, in the political history of the Territory, a day when an Indigenous minister for the Environment, a very strong Indigenous spokesperson for her people and the people of the Territory, is bringing through this legislation for debate and passage - and the CLP has collapsed in upon itself and has stopped its senseless opposition to the joint management framework and put aside the strident rhetoric of just some seven months ago with the support today in the Chamber. It is very fitting that the member for Macdonnell, as the Environment minister, is bringing this through passage and into enactment.
I hope it bodes well for the policies of the CLP into the future, in the roles and rights Indigenous Territorians should enjoy as landowners in the Territory and the economic opportunities, and employment and training opportunities, that ownership and the use of that land brings, and the role, importantly, that our beautiful parks will provide in that framework. I sincerely congratulate the minister for the Environment for this legislation before the House today.
As minister for Planning, I know my agency has worked closely with the environment agency NRETAS. I thank all of those hard-working staff in the department for the efforts they have undertaken. Joint management is proving to be a success, but it is also proving to open up knowledge and information in the bush that will bode the Territory extremely well. It is an incredibly exciting era for those who are working in our parks, and it is going to be interesting to watch the fruition of the labour of this framework unfold. I congratulate the minister for the legislation before us, but I also thank sincerely the member for Brennan for the party room coup that has silenced the ranting of the CLP opposition of the past.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the previous speaker has referred to this as a seminal moment and, indeed, it is a seminal moment. However, what we have seen displayed is a crass outpouring of blatant politicisation, when there was a decision made to recognise what has already been established; reasoned concern about the direction that this Labor government has embarked upon. That does not change. However, in the discussions from one side to the other, there was a recognition that there were some technical glitches that needed to be corrected on the decision that you had taken and the path that you had chosen to embark upon. On that basis, in a spirit of goodwill, rather than to fight in the trenches on an ideological battle and point of reasoned difference - which is quite permissible; to have two different points of view. I only wish that they could be debated and assessed on their merits, on the strength of argument, not on this churlish, shallow rubbish that accounts for parliamentary debate. It is a nonsense, an embarrassment and a shame on the honourable member who insists upon being called honourable when we have had this dishonourable tirade that is bringing discredit to this very …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not believe the member for Blain should be reflecting in such a fashion on the character of the member for Karama, and I ask that he withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe there is any need to withdraw. However, Leader of the Opposition, if you can contain any personal comments that might be unparliamentary for the future.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I was referring to Standing Order 62, Offensive or Unbecoming Words. I still believe that those words are offensive and unbecoming.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, I have already ruled on this. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If it is a genuine and sincere – that word was used eight times, or perhaps I lost count, by the member for Karama - concern, therefore, it would apply both ways. On that basis, I withdraw it, if it is genuinely felt and honestly believed. It would, therefore, have you on your feet raising points of order when it applies on your side.
Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: What was referred to as a seminal moment is, in fact, that. We want to get on with the business and focus our attention on things that matter in this parliament. We have had debates, and even a motion just before that spoke of the need to get on with our business and develop a better understanding. We know what matters. We have made our point, but we want to move on.
Therefore, I find it extremely disappointing that this path was embarked upon by the Deputy Chief Minister to fill the pages of the Parliamentary Record and take this time to make such childish and shallow comments when, really, the position is quite clear: we wish to simply get on with the business and assist you in correcting a mistake that has been made in the structure of this agreement, which is your decision, and which has been clear from the beginning. There are significant points of difference.
I almost feel embarrassed having to defend those shallow and – I will not say any more - those assertions that were referred to, which was a thin mask for raw ambition. Clearly, we will be providing you with some counsel and advice on how to conduct coups, as that is really the bottom line here. It seems to be the greatest focus that you seem to have about your personal ambitions and a political agenda being delivered. Rather, we need to get out of the way and ensure that the business of the Chamber proceeds. We can clear the road blocks and you can get on with the decisions that you have made. A point remains; there is a point of difference, and that has never, ever compromised at all. It is simply a matter of getting on with the business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the changes to the bill, and I thank the government for its briefing. One could be a little cynical in saying it covers some earlier mistakes that the government probably should have been aware of when it first introduced the legislation. Be that as it may, it has come back to this parliament to be rectified, and that is a necessary thing.
I am not sure whether we are going to any committee stage here, but this could be answered in the minister’s summary. I did note, reading this once again, that clause 6 relating to section 24(4), says:
- The powers under subsections (2) and (3) may be exercised only once in relation to each park or reserve.
My query is: what happens if you made an error here? What happens if another error about a park shows up? Is this saying that this legislation will not cover that, if there was a second mistake or something was left out? I would like the minister to respond to that.
In general matters in relation to the parks, I understand there is a difference between the CLP and the government on this. My belief was that the changes that the government was bringing forward were the best in the circumstances. We all know the history of why these changes were made in relation to the incorrect gazettal of some of the parks and their livelihood; that they would be challenged under the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
If the CLP believes that should be challenged just to ensure that those people who were claiming to be claimants were legitimately the correct people, I understand that. However, I also understand that, rather than dealing with the overall philosophical argument when you looked at those parks; it was very hard for me to believe that we would not have the correct traditional owners of those parks identified through the land councils. I believe you have to take into perspective where those parks are in the geography of the Northern Territory.
I support the concept that this will create jobs for Aboriginal people in those areas. However, they have to ensure they are not paternalistic-type jobs. If we have jobs for Aboriginal people out there, are we giving them jobs that will advance them? For example, we have a ranger who goes to university and works somewhere and, then, we have someone from an Aboriginal community we call a ranger. What we should be trying to do all the time is ensuring those rangers we are bringing out from those communities have opportunities for more education, to be not just the ranger based on: ‘I live in that area, this is my culture, and I know about the country’, but also adding to that some of the scientific reasons we have rangers as well – improving those qualifications. Not just say in a nice glossy brochure that four or five people in that area now have jobs. That is fine, and I accept that. However, that is not where it stops. Jobs, and ongoing jobs, have to be a priority. We also have to improve the qualifications of those people because we have to look at the future, and not just now.
I also like the concept of expanding our parks. There is an opportunity with Gregory National Park. Instead of having a sliver of a park on the eastern side, and a large section of park on the western side, those two sections of the park will now be combined with the land the traditional owners have said they would agree to be part of that. Davenport Ranges, I believe, now has an expansion which will make it a much better park as well. There are some positives.
My concern, as I have said before and will probably say to the day I leave, is that I really believe that one day we have to sit down and say: ‘This is not about leasing parks. We are all members of this earth, regardless of whether our ancestry goes back in Australia further than some of our non-Indigenous people’. I believe parks would be better with a parks title that was in perpetuity. It would recognise that, as human beings, there are some parts of this earth we want to protect and preserve forever more because of their special cultural, heritage, or environmental significance.
We are all part of this one universe. I believe that, by having a parks title in perpetuity it recognises all the interests that we have. Aboriginal people certainly have a lot of interest in that land. I, as a fellow human being, also have a lot of interest. I enjoy the rivers, the bush, the sunsets, the rocky hills, the stories Aboriginal people have about it, the geography, the geology, and the science as well. It is not just a single issue of a national park we are talking about; it is about all of us being able to enjoy something that is part of us - I believe our very being. You can go anywhere in the world, in countries all over the world, and there are important places like Yellowstone. I bet you that is just as important for American Indigenous people as it is for non-Indigenous Americans.
My goal would be to one day convince this government that we do not have Djukbinj National Park agreements, Cobourg National Park agreements, or Uluru National Park agreements, and the whole range of other agreements we have now. We have three other forms of parks. I believe that if we are to work as a community that believes very much in working together, it would be a great thing for this government to consider putting forward - with time, not in a hurry, but as we move along - a proposal that all our parks are recognised in perpetuity, and they recognise the influences of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the landscape. That would be good for not only the Territory, but all of us as people of Australia.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Sessional Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development - Resignation of Ms Walker as Chair
Sessional Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development - Resignation of Ms Walker as Chair
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Ms Lynne Walker MLA, member for Nhulunbuy, resigning as the Chair of the Sessional Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development. Ms Walker will remain as a member of the committee.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
(Serial 24)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, what we are seeing from the government is a desperate attempt by them to deflect attention away from their own internal issues which have been plaguing them over more recent times. The vehicle by which they choose to do that, rather than improve their own standards and lift themselves to a higher level of efficiency, as I said last week, is to lash out at those people around them, particularly their political opponents. That is all the cut and thrust of politics, but what is astonishing is the choice they have made and the depths they will lower themselves to continue this particular approach.
The bill before the House is a minor amendment which has to do with some poor drafting problems in earlier times. It was never the intention of the Country Liberals to come into this House and challenge the government on what was, ultimately, a drafting error on their part. Consequently, we indicated our support for the bill, not because we support the hand-backs of the parks, but the fact is the government has taken us to this point where these packages are being delivered and it is something that the Country Liberals have passionately fought in its place.
If the government wants to come in for minor amendments to prevent mistakes and those sorts of things, and we support it, we hope that they would accept that support for those minor error amendments in the spirit in which it was offered. However, rather than that, they have chosen, in a desperate attempt to deal with the issue that they have two Cabinet reshuffles in the past week, to try to use what was a genuine offer on this side of the House to deal with a small side issue and get it out of the way quickly, because there would have been third parties affected by it. They have decided to try to make a song and dance about that regarding internal division.
If they want to have the fight, I am more than happy to have the fight in this place, on each and every bill that comes through which has to do with this particular issue. This was a big package. If they want us to drag and torturously go through every bill clause by clause in the committee stages, so that we can sit there and go over the same arguments again and again and again, to make some point that we have already well made, then, if that is really what they want, then continue down this path. That is my advice to them.
I will reiterate now for the record. Because of the churlishness and short-sightedness of the government - particularly the Treasurer - on this issue, in trying to turn what was meant to be a straightforward amendment into a political issue, I will revisit one aspect of the parks hand-back - and it is the one that concerns me most - which was the result of the Ward decision. We will not go into all of that again. However, the government sought two instances of legal advice from various commentators, one being the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, the other being an undisclosed third party who was not a member of government. Government reported back and said it was the opinion of the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, and of this other lawyer, that the Territory government is exposed in claims against it because of the original declaration process.
The advice I have subsequently received is that it was three parks only that fell within that category. I do not know if that is true or not; that is the advice I have received. Whilst the government may sit there and deny it was only three parks, or whatever, the fact is I do not know. I will tell you why I do not know, Madam Speaker. Because on each occasion that we have tried to extract from government the opinions themselves, the government has clammed up and refused to hand over those opinions. This is a government which swore black and blue it would be open, honest and accountable.
The CLP has, from time to time in the past, as has the Northern Territory government, challenged the quality of claims against the possessions of the Crown; that is, of the people of the Northern Territory as represented by the Crown in the courts and in this place. The government has done so with the native title claim over Darwin, and they certainly did so with the Blue Mud Bay case all the way to the High Court of Australia. They took out full-page advertisements saying that they were fighting those particular cases.
Whilst we acknowledge the government’s right - in fact, duty - from time to time to test these cases, what we were concerned about on this side of the House originally - and remain concerned about now - is that in that decision to simply hand back the parks to claimants, potential or otherwise three parks were under threat - 49 was the original figure, I think it has dwindled down to about 18 now; I stand to be corrected on that.
Why is it so outrageous for this side of the House asking the government to deliver and lay on the table the two legal opinions they received in relation to this matter? That is all we have asked for. Until such time as we get to see those legal opinions and get a feel for the actual threat that was made against the parks, I do not think it is an outrageous position for this side of the House to say, basically: ‘Put up or shut up’. Put up the decisions - convince us. Come into this place with the legal opinions and convince us that, indeed, all of those parks were under threat because, until you do so, you are asking us to fly blind. This side of the House has been abundantly clear on this particular topic: we will not fly blind. We will not sit ourselves in the passenger seat and see large amounts of Crown land and park land simply given away on ’Trust us, we are in government’.
From time to time, the government has engaged in behaviour which is less than trustworthy and, so far, the government has been more than happy to be less than trustworthy on this particular issue. It is not a big ask to ask people to hand over the very things which would justify their position because if, indeed, all those parks were under threat then, surely, the best argument you could ever lay on the table are two legal opinions that said all those parks are under threat. The advice I have received is that it was not all those parks that were under threat, it was three. I do not know which three parks they were; it could have been the Western MacDonnells. I can tell you, I would be a lot more close to convinced about the parks hand-back if it was the whole of the Western MacDonnells under threat. To turn into inalienable freehold outright without a leaseback arrangement - that would make me jittery.
Put it on the table. I would love to see those decisions, because those decisions are the ones that could convince me to say: ‘All right, there is a legitimate claim’. However, until we see those decisions, we are going to be stuck in a situation where we just cannot accept the ‘trust me’. It is not meant to be angry or insulting. I am not engaging in anything to try to upset people. However, it works in reverse. If somebody has a claim against Aboriginal title of any sort, it would be well within the rights of Aboriginal people to test the quality of the claim against their property, and I would expect that to occur.
If you want to distil all this noisy political rhetoric, and everything else, down to a single issue in relation to this matter; that is the one issue. Show us the legal opinions and give us an opportunity to digest them. In that case, if you want support for your position, then we would be in a much more educated position to be able to provide that support. It is not an unreasonable request. For that matter, Madam Speaker, I make that request again today.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support the Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill presented by the Environment minister. I congratulate her on her first legislation to be passed, hopefully, today.
This bill streamlines the revocation and redeclaration of joint-managed parks and reserves where changes have been made to the park’s boundaries. It continues this government’s policy position of working with Indigenous people, which is more effective, more equitable and far easier on the public purse than disputing land management matters in the courts. As a member with a bush electorate, I welcome the introduction of this legislation. The Territory has some of the best parks in the world and we need to ensure that we have modern and efficient legislation in place.
These are very much world-class joint management arrangements. My experience around the Timber Creek area, when the discussions occurred regarding Gregory National Park, was that it was seen as an opportunity to resolve issues. As the minister alluded to, some land trust area – I think it is theNgaliwurru/Nungali Land Trust in between the two bits of Gregory - was seen as part of that. You also have the other land trust’s Innisfail Station, which is being run as a cattle station now, which also could be incorporated in that. There are opportunities, because there is genuine commitment. Through the Flora National Park, there have been job opportunities created and it is a better working relationship.
The other parts of my electorate – perhaps I will just go through them. The Channel Point Coastal Reserve is a beautiful little reserve in the west. Working with the Wadjigan people, there is a commitment to improve the services and general management of that area. In a former part of my electorate is the Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park. It is a beautiful park and the gorge is absolutely fantastic. Those joint management arrangements with the Wadjigan people have produced results. Another park is the Douglas Hot Springs. This is part of the Douglas River and is owned by the Wadjigan people who properly manage it with the Parks and Wildlife people. It will also be the subject of formal joint management arrangements in the near future. The Wadjigan women have a cultural responsibility to this area, which is recognised as a place for their ceremonial practices. There needs to be flexibility in the park management arrangements to protect those interests for everybody concerned.
The key focus of the bill is to clarify land tenure issues on joint-managed national parks when changes are made to the park boundaries. The bill allows the minister to remove small areas of land such as road corridors and public utilities from the park. It also allows other adjoining areas of land which are subject to title change and lease-back as a joint-managed park to be included in the declaration as a park. This is important. The current arrangements are costly and time-consuming. This bill allows a seamless and streamlined declaration to ensure the proper and continued management of the park.
The changes allow park rangers and traditional owners to get on with the important business of managing joint-managed parks and reserves, rather than having to go through a lengthy process of declaring different land portions such as former stock routes and closed road reserves separately. Non-park interests such as major roads, Aboriginal living areas, and utility corridors are removed from the title grant to Aboriginal land to allow public interest to be maintained. Parks and Wildlife will negotiate with those parties with an interest in those exclusions to ensure the management of those areas is, as much possible, consistent with the adjoining managed park.
This bill addresses all the technical issues associated with these changes and streamlines the process. Significant public consultation will still occur through the joint management planning process, and all draft management plans will still have to go on public exhibition for a period where the comments from the public are sought and considered. The joint management arrangements in these parks are partnerships in which the Northern Territory government works together with Aboriginal traditional owners to manage those parks. The joint management is not new to the Northern Territory, having been a part of our parks management arrangements for 28 years; the first being Gurig National Park at Cobourg and, later, with Nitmiluk National Park. Those arrangements have been robust and productive for all parties. The visitor numbers have been increasing and the confidence of the traditional owners to invest in infrastructure and other facilities is expressed in the joint management arrangements.
Around one-third of our parks are currently joint managed with decision-making shared so that the natural and cultural heritage of parks is conserved. Visitor enjoyment and other public benefits are provided. Also, traditional owners benefit and their interests are taken into account.
This is a great result. It is a win/win win. Traditional owners benefit, the government benefits and the people of the Northern Territory and Australia also benefit. This is a sensible and pragmatic way to go. It has been seen to succeed. I am sure, with these more streamlined arrangements, it will allow traditional owners to get on with managing their land with the Parks staff for the enjoyment of the public also. I look forward, along with everyone here, I am sure, to getting around those parks over this next Dry Season. I am sure it will be a lovely Dry Season.
Minister, I again congratulate you on the introduction of this bill; your first legislation.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, there is little doubt we are not all celebrating national parks in the Northern Territory. I support these amendments. Minister, I congratulate you also.
There are choices in a democracy. We have choices, and the choices could have meant lengthy legal battles, extensive expense and time, and uncertainty for the community. However, the Northern Territory government has chosen a pathway of joint management, consultation and pragmatism, as was mentioned by my parliamentary colleagues.
Let me drill down - to use a term from the opposition - and talk about the Devils Marbles, for instance, as a very pragmatic example of great legislation in the amendment. The Devils Marbles are in the Barkly and, I dare say, a feature of the Barkly, a feature of the Northern Territory. We have an old highway corridor and a new highway. As the minister has outlined, the pragmatic nature of this amendment, through negotiations and joint management, has been able to solve that problem immediately and create that new corridor within the Marbles for additional tourism benefits, safe areas, stopovers, and excellent areas to view the Marbles and to take in the history and the culture of the area, while delivering road safety and an alternative route for heavy vehicles and road traffic well away from such a beautiful, sensitive cultural and historical area of the Northern Territory.
This relates to good management from government, good legislation, and this good amendment. We have chosen, as a government, to go into agreement with traditional owners and their representative bodies, the Northern and the Central Land Councils. We have secured parks systems through joint management with traditional owners, and this choice has resulted in the passing of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. We have heard lots of benefits. I have outlined very briefly an economic benefit for government and Territorians. There are lots of social benefits in the Territory in negotiation in partnership; there is a very positive way forward.
A resolution of costly and divisive land rights, native title, and compensation claims has been mentioned. The opportunities are to improve land management overall by sharing information and resources with the traditional owners of this land and Territorians, to go into a better understanding and a better future for all. There is a greater sense of community ownership and management of issues. Enhanced community involvement in decision-making, improved relationships with neighbours, and enhanced regional approaches to conservation also cross over into the area of feral animals and weeds control. This is a very positive thing. In the Barkly, I have already outlined the examples of where we can progress this new, innovative strategy that will benefit our environment and all our people.
With the enhanced potential for cross-agency ranger training, we are talking about jobs and employment. The list goes on. The list is endless for improving opportunities and enhancing opportunities for Indigenous Territorians from the land, from the country. The benefits will provide an inclusive approach to park management, as well as improved social and ecological outcomes.
The changes made to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act give full legal force to the joint management arrangements negotiated and settled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act. The legislation and legal documents provide the context of joint management while the practice and the policy are continuing to develop. I congratulate the minister on this legislation.
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my shadow, the member for Brennan, and also the opposition and the member for Nelson, for their support and recognition of how important it is to have joint partnership, and to have this bill go through. I reiterate some of the things that have been spoken about here today, and give acknowledgement of the traditional owners of those parks and traditional lands who have realised, through Commonwealth legislation when the land was handed back to them, that they are not greedy; they do not want the land for themselves. They have negotiated with the Northern Territory government in the parks framework to allow parks to belong to all Territorians, to all Australians.
This is the message that we get out of this bill, through this legislation: that they want to share it with everybody and they want everybody to appreciate and enjoy the beauty in our parks in the Northern Territory. The parks framework and the partnership is very vital in that, if ever, as Territorians, we can encourage real economic development, real employment opportunities and real outcomes for Indigenous people, then it is through this framework.
You can ask: ‘Well, how many people does this framework employ? Where are they heading?’ I went back and researched last night and had a look – and there is an old saying that people use all the time: ‘You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink’. The vision that we have seen through this framework is the parks framework, a joint partnership that says to people: ‘Okay, the job opportunities are there for you. Economic opportunities are there for you’. We need to ensure that we encourage, as local members in this House, all Indigenous people who are traditional owners or tied to those parks to take the opportunities of economic development and employment with both hands. This is a great opportunity for us as Territorians. As I said, this is something that has been handed back to these people through federal legislation.
I want to answer some of the member for Nelson’s questions. We would all love these parks to belong to us. Through this framework, they do belong to us. They belong to us as Territorians now. These people have said: ‘We will give it back under a 99-year lease to the Northern Territory government in joint partnership, saying that it belongs to us all as Territorians; it belongs to us as Australians’.
One of the other points that my colleagues on this side of the House brought up was trying to encourage the tourism and economic aspects of joint partnership. That is a very important aspect in this framework and, if we lose that aspect, we can be guaranteed that in the future we will see nothing. It is up to every single one of us in this House to ensure that we push through this framework, through this legislation that we will pass today, some tourism, economic development and real job opportunities for Indigenous people as park rangers. In my second reading speech, you will see that there is an Indigenous park ranger who has now been employed at Gregory National Park. That has to be so positive for Indigenous women; to see a young Indigenous woman being employed as a park ranger. That sends a loud and very clear message to Indigenous people that park ranger jobs are not only jobs for men, but they are also jobs for women.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their input and their support in passing this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, my question to the minister is a very brief one. It was not attended to in her reply, which is why I have asked to go into committee. It pertains particularly to the two legal opinions which were sought by the Northern Territory government as a result of the Ward decision. Minister, will you make those two opinions public?
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Chair, the whole process of the relationship that we have with a 99-year lease back to the Northern Territory government on the parks is that there has always been the litigation. We have always taken each other to court. At the end of the day, nobody should continue to spend the money on behalf of the public on litigation. This gave us a great opportunity, without litigation, to make a joint partnership agreement with Indigenous people and government. I support the fact that we have not gone through the process of taking each other to court, but have come to some resolution in a partnership to ensure that all Territorians, and Australians, enjoy the parks that we have in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: I will take that as a no, Madam Chair. The minister can well understand the point that I made in the second reading debate, and continue to make now: if you require the support of this side of the House in relation to these sorts of things, and for the acquisition of what is, essentially, Crown land, you can well understand - and I pick up on the point made by the member for Barkly, the new minister for Corrections, about us making decisions. However, we must make informed decisions. It is beyond our capacity to honestly serve the interests of Territorians, both Aboriginal and otherwise, in relation to these sorts of things when we do not know the strength of the claim that is being lodged against the Crown. Therefore, you can well understand our reluctance, because we cannot effectively inform ourselves of the issues before this House when the whole thing is being done on a ‘trust me’ basis.
I point out to the minister as well that this is now, essentially, done and dusted. It is being pushed through, etcetera. There would be no essential consequence that would flow from those two opinions being now made public. I urge the minister to take the time out to take what is, essentially, now two academic documents for the purposes of government and what they have been trying to achieve, and to lay them on the table, so that we and all Territorians can inform ourselves of the actual threat that existed against the parks. I said threat - I will rephrase the word ‘threat’, it is probably not accurate - the strength of the claim against the Crown by potential litigants and which parks were identified as being most threatened. Until such time as I can get access to those opinions, I will have to believe what I have been told unofficially; that there were only ever three parks which were under threat. Which ones, I do not know. If it was only three, but they were three big ones, that still may have changed this side of the House’s opinion. However, we cannot support a government action unless government informs us.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I raised an issue during my earlier speech. I am not sure you covered it, but it is in relation to clause 6, which has a new section 24(4) which says:
- The powers under subsections (2) and (3) may be exercised only once in relation to each park or reserve.
Does that mean that after you have fixed up these particular issues in relation to the parks - for instance, excluded public roads or reserves or other corridors for transport or supply of a utility or Aboriginal community living areas, etcetera - as you intend to do in the case of, say, the Devils Marbles, if you happen to have made a mistake and you have left something out in one of those parks, does section 24(4), basically, say: ‘Well, too bad?’
Ms ANDERSON: The new section 24(4) gives me the power to do it once – only once. After that, I have to go back under sections 12 and 13.
Mr WOOD: Without having section 12 and 13 in front of me, could the minister just tell me what those sections relate to?
Ms ANDERSON: I am advised, member for Nelson, they are the normal processes of declaring and undeclaring land.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Implementing the Stimulus Package – The Summit of Industry and Community Leaders
Implementing the Stimulus Package – The Summit of Industry and Community Leaders
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Territory government believes the passage through the Senate of the Australian government’s $42bn stimulus package, Nation Building and Jobs Plan, was a victory for the Territory community.
This package has been widely welcomed across the Territory and broadly supported. The only exception to this has been the CLP which has, to their enduring disgrace, slavishly followed the orders of their Canberra Liberal masters and opposed this great opportunity for the Territory. The CLP voted against Territory jobs.
This package will be worth approximately $500m to the Territory economy - $0.5bn aimed directly at stimulating growth, developing and building infrastructure, and providing tax breaks to small businesses. It is a well-targeted package and will serve this nation well. The latest Territory breakdown suggests the following possible amounts for the Territory: schools, including non-government schools, $180m to $200m-worth of investment; social housing, $65m; community, $5m; roads, $4m; business tax relief subject to take-up, around $27m; insulation and other components of the package subject to take-up, $34m; Defence housing, $76m; direct payments, around $95m. So, the total package, subject to take-up, is around $490m to $505m to the Territory.
We have made an estimate of the breakdown of this money across the regions of the Territory. The Darwin and Palmerston figure is influenced by the additional $76m expected to be generated by the Defence housing expenditure. Regional breakdown: for Darwin/Palmerston and the western Top End, we estimate a direct injection into the economy of around $329m; Alice Springs around $80m; Katherine around $37m; Tennant Creek around $13m; Jabiru around $14m; and East Arnhem around $32m – an estimated total, as I have said, of around $505m.
The breadth and depth of this stimulus is evident from the spread of funds right across the Territory. ACIL Tasman suggests that, for infrastructure projects under $100m, there are three jobs created for every $1m spent. Across the Territory, that means between 1400 and 1600 jobs sustained from the infrastructure money alone in this package. Those are jobs that otherwise could have been lost to the Northern Territory.
For us now, the rubber hits the road. Since the announcement on 3 February 2009, the government has been working with the Commonwealth government to ensure that the Territory gets its share and is ready to spend the money available. I am very proud of the work that has been done by our public service; they have been working day and night in preparing for this package. Despite the setback of the initial rejection by the Senate, the government and the public sector did not take a backward step in continuing our preparations for the package.
On returning from face-to-face discussions with the Prime Minister, I have put into place a plan for preparing the Territory to get to work on implementing the stimulus package. The plan I announced included: the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month; a summit of construction industry leaders, which was held on Sunday; dedicated stimulus action squads set up in government departments to get these projects up and running as quickly as possible; making it easier for local companies to get local projects; and a short and sharp review of procurement to streamline development and cut red tape.
The government has already held one element of that plan, the summit of industry and community leaders here at parliament yesterday. In excess of 130 people attended the summit; they were drawn from a broad cross-section of the economy. Guests included many of the construction companies and businesses that would be delivering this work. There were union leaders, representatives of school principals and education leaders, the non-government sector represented by the NT Council of Social Services, and non-government schools were represented. Undoubtedly, we missed some people and for that I apologise, but the audience that attended will spread the word far and wide. People were first and foremost appreciative of being informed.
Members may not be aware that the government has embarked on a widespread program of community information around the issues that are arising from this global financial crisis. We believe that information is better than rumour and fact better than misinformation at a time when it is critical that confidence remains high. On Sunday, we took another important step in that process of informing people.
I opened the summit and informed people of the elements of the package, the likely Territory share, and general outline of time lines we have for delivery. I also outlined proposals for streamlining the procurement system. My speech was followed by that of the Coordinator-General who has been established across government, Mr Alastair Shields. A panel of senior public servants was available to discuss implementation plans in more detail. They included the Chief Executives of the Department of the Chief Minister, the Department of Business and Employment, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the Department of Local Government, and the Acting Chief Executive of the Department of Education and Training. I am grateful for their contribution.
Attendees were invited to discuss the issues put forward in the presentation. I was pleased with the wide-ranging discussion that occurred. The time lines for the implementation of the package were the subject of much discussion. Members would not be aware, but the Commonwealth has imposed very strict time lines. It is their clear intention to get as much of this money out into the economy as soon as possible. The following highlights the speed with which the Commonwealth wants this money to hit the economy: for the Primary Schools for the 21st Century Schools, Round 1 – that is 20% of schools - projects to commence June 2009 to be completed by December 2010; Round 2, 40% of schools, July-August 2009 commencement, to be completed January 2011; and Round 3, 40% of the remainder of the schools, December 2009, to be completed by March 2011. The science and language centres for our 21st Century Schools project are to commence July 2009, to be completed by June 2010.
The National School Pride Program, which is up to $200 000 of repairs and maintenance for every school in the Northern Territory: Round 1, 60% of schools to commence in April-May 2009 to be completed by December 2009; and Round 2, around 40% of schools, July 2009, to be completed by February 2010.
The social housing component, with up to 20 000 new allocations of social housing around Australia: Stage 1 of that project commences April/May 2009, to be completed by June 2010; Stage 2 commencing September 2009 to be completed by June 2012. Repairs to existing public housing stock: projects to commence in March 2009, just next month, to be completed by June 2010. The black spots, boom gates, and repair of regional roads: the black spot 2008-09 funding projects are to commence in April 2009, to be completed by December 2009; boom gates projects to commence in April 2009 to be completed by June 2010; and road maintenance projects to commence in March 2009, to be completed by December 2009.
In addition to these time lines, there are real penalties that go with missing the deadlines. Not only will the Commonwealth name people, they will throw the brakes on funding if feet dragging occurs. Businesses are acutely aware of how fast those time lines really are. They wanted to know more about our coordination effort and the effort to reduce red tape to ensure that everyone could comply.
I was able to inform the meeting of the appointments of the Coordinator-General and the new coordination processes within the public sector. The appointment of the Coordinator-General is an important step. He has been uniquely involved in many of the major Territory projects with various governments over many years. The government has absolute confidence in Alastair Shields’ ability to coordinate this project. He outlined to the group the internal process the public service is undertaking to implement the plan. The Coordinator-General has responsibility for ensuring that milestones are reached and implementation issues are addressed urgently.
The Commonwealth has also appointed a Coordinator-General, and he chairs the oversight group that reports to COAG. In addition, the Territory has appointed coordinators in each of the relevant line agencies. These coordinators are assembling the action squads. Each line agency coordinator has a high level of commitment to get the job done. Coordinators are supported by Treasury and the Construction Division in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Action squads have been established in various key agencies. In the Department of Local Government and Housing, there is already a very dedicated focus on the delivery of the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. They have now established a dedicated group of public servants to implement the substantial money flowing from this package. Dedicated squads have also been established in the Department of Education and Training, and in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Industry was very receptive to this effort. Arising out of suggestions from industry at the summit, I have also set into place a reference committee that will be formed to keep industry involvement in the coordination effort. Industry, after all, is best placed to talk with us about what is required. Industry was keen in its support of the increase in meetings of the Development Consent Authority. They were also interested to hear of proposals around procurement.
I have outlined to industry leaders proposals to lift the threshold for procurement, with the aim of taking weeks out of the process. More important is the plan to lift the threshold before a tender is invited. Currently, this level is $50 000, and I am proposing it be lifted to $200 000. There are other subsequent movements as well. This is a proposal at this stage, and I have asked for input, but I am convinced that, with the right oversight, the proposed new levels will reduce the paperwork around procurement considerably.
Discussion also included: coordination with councils and federal agencies; sourcing tradespeople; shortening time lines in government paperwork beyond the procurement process - for example, in implementing DCA decisions; early contractor involvement plans and briefing out intentions; and ensuring everyone gets the chance at the work available. I was pleased to advise industry that I consider this program that we are undertaking an opportunity to overhaul government process on a broad front and reduce paperwork, red tape, and unnecessarily complex administration.
Over the coming weeks and months, the government intends to keep the community informed on the progress achieved in implementing this program. It is clear the community is very strongly supportive of this package, and they will be interested in seeing the proposals turning into reality. They will be pleased to see new houses, upgraded schools, and new community infrastructure. They will be pleased to see direct financial benefits that will help them with the costs of living. All members of our community will be supportive of the jobs that are kept as a result of this package.
As all members are aware, the nation is headed into difficult times. This stimulus package gives everyone an opportunity to avoid the financial mess that has engulfed the rest of the world. My government will be doing everything it can to ensure its smooth, efficient, and rapid implementation.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my initial comments are to welcome this statement, for it describes a specific response to the matters which were discussed last week. I commend the Chief Minister for bringing together, at short notice on a Sunday, the stakeholders, because the implementation phase is the critical phase. Notwithstanding, we have had a discussion and, to some extent, an unsatisfactory discussion about the nature of the package itself - the degree of scrutiny and so on. I will cover some of those issues during my comments. However, to be fair, I need to recognise that this statement is primarily about the implementation phase.
From reports that we have received in opposition - granted they are only reports - as those in this Chamber represent half the Territory community, an opportunity was missed in not including at least a representative from this parliament’s opposition side of the Chamber at this important discussion. This is an indication that issues that are of concern in matters like this, where there is opportunity to weigh a little more the political nature than the economic nature of these matters, is a temptation that it appears this government is susceptible to falling the wrong way on.
This is not a political agenda, this is an economic agenda. It is not a political strategy, it is an economic strategy. To reinforce that and to build that sense of security and certainty within our business sector it would, in my view, have been a wise step to negate that by having representation from this side of the Chamber, noting it is not just four of us here anymore. We do, in fact, represent half the Territory community. Perhaps most of those being urban, there are many employers represented on this side of the Chamber.
From the Chief Minister’s comments in reference to apologies, I will take that not all could have been included, because I acknowledge that, in the haste, perhaps there had been that oversight. However, that aside, more importantly, I hope to see within that apology that there is recognition of the regions and how adequately the regions were represented in that summit on Sunday. It is very important, because that is where we are more exposed than anywhere else. We would be deluding ourselves in thinking we are truly strengthening our economy in the Northern Territory, if we fail to build in the framework of delivering support and strength for regional communities. We would be missing a great opportunity. We are very aware that those who are far from us, who live in the regions, do it very hard. Those who live in the regions who endeavour to find employment are the ones who would need our support more than anyone else. We need to ensure that that level of representation, that level of care, is provided and extends deeply into the regions.
The reference to this side of the Chamber being against the package and, therefore, against jobs, made early in the statement, is political strategy being played out quite heavily, once again. It is a very simple argument. I believe you help an injustice if you are going to continue to run that line, because these are serious matters, and very difficult and serious times that require a certain level of gravitas. If you are going to talk about these matters, you have to gain some credibility.
I am pleased to hear from the reports that I have had from the summit that those agendas were not run through the summit because, if they were, those stakeholders would have been offended by that shallow approach. You have it in the statement at the beginning – political - but let us keep that to a minimum.
The fact is you will not find substantially, genuinely, in a reasonable way, clear opposition to the need for a package. What you have from the Territory opposition is the need for proper and sensible scrutiny to ensure we have real benefits, and that a range of options is explored. That is what you have. You can continue to run the agenda and the strategy you have cooked up, but you are not only doing yourselves a disservice, but not providing the leadership required at this time.
You do not find that on the record. There is an opportunity provided by scrutiny to come up with other solutions, which could well have merit - even if they do come from the other side of the Chamber, heaven forbid. It might be difficult to accept that, but all of us are qualified in the sense that we have received the support of our communities; we have different experiences. We could find a place to meet and have discussions about such matters. For example, the idea of strengthening security in times of natural disasters like cyclones. We have put that on the table and, today, the Chief Minister told us that has already been raised. I challenge the Chief Minister to show us on the public record where that has been raised.
If we are going to get so churlish and say we have already talked about that at some other forum, put it on the table and let us get on with the business, because there is the possibility of meeting to determine the most effective way of implementing this package. We are all in this together. It is not a political strategy or issue; it is an economic strategy and issue that requires cool minds to work their way through this. It also requires leadership.
The party I represent has a proud record of steering the Territory through difficult times, as the Chief Minister well knows. The member for Karama may find that very difficult to concede, but there is a record of steering the Territory through very difficult times. I am proud to stand on that record. When the Country Liberal government invested in major projects - did the heavy lifting on the railway, the gas plant, Yulara, State Square Precinct and many other projects – they saw the Territory through tough economic times; including the recession that we had to have. These infrastructure projects have stood the test of time and remain today as Territory icons. They will continue to play a significant part in the economy well into the future.
You need to consider, when we are going into deficit - which is debt, which is money borrowed - and must factor in the wealth creation to allow yourselves the capacity into the future, beyond the political reach, to repay what you borrow. You do not make such decisions in your own budget. You cannot afford to make those decisions without proper recognition of the forward capacity which is enhanced by wealth creation by the building of real infrastructure. That must guide our thinking. That is why we need these discussions.
Rest assured, we will always be there for the Territory and Territorians, and will continue to scrutinise and speak out against changes if we believe them to be contrary to the interests of Territorians. As we have seen recently, daring to question government brings quite hideous and extreme charges against us. That does not deter us. There is the need, in fact a duty, to ask questions. It is our duty to ensure we are not going to be living completely in the political domain. There is a time for leadership.
The Country Liberals, like the federal opposition, have always supported the concept of a stimulus package. The Country Liberals have called for closer scrutiny of that package to ensure Territorians get the best deal for their taxpayer dollar. I point out that all the numbers contained in the package are estimates, possible amounts and suggestions. That is why scrutiny is required.
The instruments of government in modern times have been increasingly viewed with cynicism by the wider population because it has become a marketing exercise. It has become an exercise to create impressions for political objectives. That is why people become cynical and wary of such packages. That is why it is a time for leadership and genuine scrutiny. You have to go beyond the estimates of possible amounts and suggestions to drill down to find out what is meant by that. We cannot have the hollow men running the show, because it is not a show, it is leadership to establish foundations upon which our children will base their lives. It is not the next Territory election and how you appear in the media today, tomorrow or the next day; it is much more than that.
It was only 11 days ago that the Treasurer was celebrating a $200m windfall from the federal government to the Territory - only 11 days ago, celebrating $200m. There needs to be closer scrutiny to ensure that the benefits of the package actually are relevant for Australians who do not live on the eastern seaboard. How is it that only a few days ago it was only $200m, and now it is $500m? Those stories need to be told and explained honestly and candidly so that we can get beyond the spin, the hype, and the shallow game playing to the truth of the matter as best we can. The appetite within our community is increased for honesty and genuine leadership in the best interests of the Territory.
All the Country Liberals have done is to call for scrutiny on the $42bn blank cheque the federal government has written …
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Senator Scullion voted against it. Talk about honesty.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Blain has the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am growing stronger as days go by not to be drawn into such responses.
There should be dialogue, discussion, and examination of what projects would most help the economy of each state. Instead, we have a package that sucks the skilled labour in one sector of the community into projects at the expense of true diversity. We need to assess and weigh that, and ensure we have the right policy fix and the right response in the best interests of the Territory.
Many of the most underfunded areas of the Territory have been neglected. We need to talk about that rather than be blinded by our enthusiasm, or by government’s enthusiasm, for that which has the interests of the Labor Party and of the Labor government. We really need to have a look at these matters and have a discussion about them. This is not a political strategy; it is an economical one in the best interests of delivering real care and support to our community in response to the problems that we are becoming more and more aware of each day, so that we can lay proper foundations for the future, and sleep peacefully at night and know that when we have finished here we have done the best we can in the interests of those who come after us.
It does not appear much money is being spent of public transport. Is that something we should discuss? Next to no money will be spent on the roads, to be frank, and we do not hear a boo from the Chief Minister on that. We just hear enthusiastic celebrations of a package. It is as though we are called into cheering for some political feat and achievement. It is not a political issue, this is an economical issue. It is a time to dig a little deeper.
There does not appear to be very much money spent on research or our primary industries. In times of economic difficulty, it is primary industry that strengthens and under-girds our economy. Food becomes important. For the supply of food to the marketplace, roads, water, research, bridges, power, and engagement with the region is significant. Primary industry is not called primary industry for any other reason than it is the foundation. There is no money spent on research. Should we talk about that? Should we dare scrutinise and ask such questions and explore those possibilities so that we can get the right fix for the Territory? It appears that we cannot ask those questions for fear of being responded to by the member for Karama with her compelling arguments.
It is a done deal; we have the money coming. Now it is time to ensure there are proper checks and balances on how that money is managed within the Territory. Dare we ask how it is going to flow through our books? We are probably not even allowed to ask those questions, but it is necessary. How is it going to pass through the public account? How will we defend the issue that has been raised, in fact, by the Prime Minister: ‘Make sure you states and territories do not take this money and apportion it for your own commitments’? We need to do that. We will remain ever vigilant to ensure that that is not going to occur; that you do not appropriate the money which is being given to this jurisdiction for your own political objectives and pass it off as some achievement of your own. That has happened before. Dare we ask such questions? Dare we scrutinise? We must do, even though we will be chided again and again by the member for Karama who will find such questioning offensive. However, we will go on undeterred. There is a need for that level of questioning, even if we are holding that request from the Prime Minister as our reason for asking these questions. Well, it is much more than that because the Prime Minister is quite right in this.
The package has hit the ground fast, according to the Prime Minister. The US package took a fair while to go through, and there was quite a level of scrutiny. The scrutiny comes from not just looking at it; the scrutiny comes from asking questions from a whole range of different perspectives. What happened in the US – the Treasurer is probably fully aware of this and would be able to give an explanation of why this did not occur in Australia – is that the money that goes in had the requirement in the US to return, effectively, dollar-for-dollar. So, you are putting it into the economy to get the capacity for the economy to generate wealth and bring it back in.
However, it appears that in the Australian response – for which the Prime Minister required only 48 hours in the initial proposition for assessment by the federal parliament - it does not appear that the same requirement is there for that same dollar in/dollar back. Some have calculated it to be significantly less than that.
You get that by the balance between social and physical infrastructure. There is a balance there, and there is that money that will come back. It has hit the ground fast and, hopefully, we will get that return; that wealth that comes back. However, it appears that the balance between social and physical infrastructure is different. We need to have an explanation of that, if I may humbly put that on the table for a reasoned debate. Why is it that the balance is different in Australia? Help us understand why we have gone down the track of not tying it so strongly to wealth generation. As I have heard one commentator say, we are a little more swayed towards the sugar hit - the money that goes in quickly, and is spent quickly.
Of course, just as the member for Johnston, I am asking people: ‘What will you be doing with it?’ It appears now, from the conversations that I have had - I spoke to a couple of characters on the weekend at the Palmerston shops – yes, some will be paying off debts, fixing a computer. Some are simply just looking forward to having that money come in, and they are going to look forward to spending it. A lot of them are going to be putting it in the bank and retiring debt, because they are becoming concerned about what lies ahead. People are tightening up. Ask people who run restaurants up and down the street how they are responding. People are responding, whether it is personally or in their businesses, by tightening up - they are tightening their belts.
In my prediction, the flow of money into our economy is going to slow right down. Those who have studied statistics of a sample group in the Northern Territory well know a small change can have a dramatic effect in the Territory. It can work both ways. We can have a few extra properties this way or that way, a price up or a price down, and it can have significant effects. If you know statistics, as most do, we could well be in a situation where a small effect can be amplified in the Territory.
That is why there is a need for scrutiny and open discussion. On this occasion, I will take the Chief Minister at his word, because I have checked, and the opposition have had consultations too. I will say again: the money has hit the ground, that first phase is now completed. We now focus on the application for those, and there are a whole range of issues that will be raised: the red tape, the procurement changes and so on - a whole range of issues.
I find it curious - more than curious; there are words I can use that come ready to be used to describe this. It is darn annoying that we talked for a long time in this parliament about the need to release land; we needed to prepare. How many times have we said in the times of plenty to prepare for the lean times? Again and again and again. I remember speaking to the former Treasurer again and again about this: ‘Please, for goodness sake, recognise that these good times will not last forever. It is in the times of plenty you prepare for the lean times. It is the time to put something away and, substantially, make some sacrifices in the times of plenty. Get on with the business of releasing land in a timely way’. That should have occurred. We should be two years down the track.
It is almost impossible to believe that Weddell is going to occur in the time frame that has been indicated by the Chief Minister. Why? Because of your track record. If you cannot turn off a subdivision in time, how on earth are you going to turn off a city? Your track record is appalling and, at a time we need confidence, we do not get it by just looking at the form guide. We come to the place where we are entering the lean times with no adequate provision from this administration. Talk about certainty – there is uncertainty about the capacity to provide that leadership at this time.
There is a disingenuous approach to all of this. You are being consumed by the giddy little snide comments and the poisonous remarks about the politics of all this, and ‘You mob over there’, as though the Country Liberal Senator is the only Senator who can bear influence on this process. Come on! Is there another Senator there? Are there two other Labor members there? Do they not exist? Do they bear any influence on this? Were they called upon?
Do you not recall that, in previous debates, when the Coalition were in government, you kept on calling upon those characters who were sitting there alongside government: ‘Pull your weight for the Territory’? Are they off the hook? They do not have to do anything? They just go along for the ride? Three cheers for the chairman; whatever he says is the go. Nigel Scullion was singled out. Come on, give us a break. People can see through this. This is not high school debating, or political point scoring, or some weird little club where all your giddy little mates giggle because you said something quite nasty in parliament to get a point. It is more serious than that.
How disingenuous is this? On the Notice Paper, under the name, ‘the member for Fong Lim’, there is notice of a motion. I can imagine this will be rejected outright. It says we need to establish a regulation review advisory committee to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and recommend removal or reform of these regulations and processes where appropriate.
No 3 says:
- Agrees to the membership of the committee to be made up of a chairperson nominated by the Leader of Government Business; a deputy chairperson to be
nominated by the Manager of Opposition Business; two members nominated by business associations (made up of a representative from the Business
Council, REINT, Chamber of Commerce, Cattlemen’s Association, Trucking Association, Construction Association, the MTAA, the HIA and any other
organisation agreed to by the chair and deputy chair) of the Northern Territory; a consumer advocate agreed to by the chair and deputy chair of the committee
and the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
Let us all get together. This is a time when we could position ourselves well. You think anything we put on the table is completely without merit. That is what you say until it comes to an occasion that you will apportion something like this and describe it in grand terms and have a statement on it. Come on. Let us get beyond this childish response to serious matters.
That is there on the table. We can predict how that will go. Those who cannot find any belief that any genuine effort is made in this Chamber will be the ones who judge these things as being disingenuous. Well, I tell you that is fair dinkum. That is at a time when we could have put something in place. I am only saying that just to highlight some of the issues we really face here; that is, the attitude that sits within government that wants to protect these matters and see things through a political prism and play political strategy when it is a time for leadership. It is a time to start talking in reasoned ways about economic issues and how they impact on the Territory, and how we can ensure we lead in the best interests of the Territory and make the right decisions.
Having said all that, the statement is supported. It is supported because it is a response to the next phase. It is supported because, at short notice, stakeholders were called together. I made my comments about the reach of that select group. I will not add any more to that. The intent of this I judge as being the right step at the right time. I am pleased to hear the reports from those who attended viewed this response as being favourable. We will continue to work in the best interests of the Territory and will be undeterred in our right - in fact, our duty - to ask questions. I expect that same duty to be followed by those opposite; that there will be considered responses to serious matters so we continue to seek and act in the best interests of the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on the implementation of the Rudd Labor government’s economic stimulus package. As most commentators recognise, this stimulus will be of enormous significance to the Territory’s economy. It does step right in to the breach of the period where we know we would have had private sector investment contracting due to the global financial crisis, resulting in the economic downturn. This is a result of contractions within the credit markets. It is much more difficult for business to secure the investment that they would have otherwise received in their projects.
We are not seeing the job shedding that is occurring in the southern states as a result of the economic downturn. However, there was some job shedding here over the Christmas period, particularly in the mining sector. We saw miners and their families affected by that. I talked about the transferability of the skills from the mining sector into the construction sector and how this government would remain focused on rolling out our record $870m infrastructure program. This is a program not confined to our urban centres; it quite significantly builds into our regions.
Listening to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition about the importance of the regions clearly sits with what the Chief Minister has said the package will deliver for our regions. We should bear in mind - and a big part of meeting with industry and community leaders yesterday in the stimulus summit in the Territory was explaining that you cannot view this work in isolation. Whilst the stimulus package is of enormous significance, it is not work done outside of other work that will continue to be rolled out by this government, which is our $870m record infrastructure spend. Importantly, also, put that in the context of the significant infrastructure going into the regions, particularly through the SIHIP housing program. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Housing, will talk further on that.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the importance of wealth generation and how he could not see in this package the wealth generation as focused on by President Obama’s package in the United States. Quite frankly, he could not be more wrong. The construct of this package is very much for wealth generation, as the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have articulated. We articulated in this Chamber last week how the stimulus package was constructed. Very clearly, it was a wealth stimulus in and around 2008-09; that is, we are in the second half of that financial year right now. The most effective way to stimulate the economy and the wealth generated through small business turnover and investment in small business was, very clearly, those direct payments hitting into the pockets of families.
Coupled with that - and this is a point that the opposition seems to be missing - are the very significant tax breaks embedded within this package. If you look at a 30% tax rebate on assets, the wealth generation within that area of small- and medium-size enterprises which can pull down on those tax break benefits is significant. Of the commentary I have seen, all the economists point to the wisdom of that double incentive in both the direct payments, as well as the tax breaks. Fundamentally, as we or anyone who has tried to deliver infrastructure in any sense whatsoever knows, you cannot just snap your fingers and see something constructed. You have to design, put tenders out, and mobilise crews, particularly so in the regions. People were speaking yesterday at the Chief Minister’s summit about the time it takes to mobilise the expertise you need in the regions to get out on worksites in our more remote areas to deliver the infrastructure.
Therefore, in the construct of the package, very cleverly, the bulk of the infrastructure dollars started to heave in time lines - very tight time lines, but time lines nevertheless - that gives governments and private sector industry the opportunity to deliver the infrastructure. Construction is an enormous wealth generator, particularly so in a jurisdiction like the Northern Territory. Our construction has underpinned the health of our local economy significantly. We saw the effects in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the construction sector was on its knees: the Territory’s economy had flatlined to 0% economic growth. It had flatlined and that is a real indicator of just how critical the construction sector is to the Territory’s economy.
I had to put on the record that this package goes to the heart of the wealth generation, but is very cleverly doing that in its construct in that those direct payments hit in, in the 2008-09 year. The R&M is kicking in from April, providing that filter through those small businesses, subbies and trades that are critical to the R&M across our schools. The large infrastructure pieces are landing from as tight as May/June of this year. We will see some significant construction programs, obviously, in 2009-10 and 2010-11, which are the key years for those projects. That is not without reason. The very simple reason is, whilst they are incredibly tight time lines, you have to construct a program that, in its essence, is actually deliverable in any sense whatsoever. Whilst this government and industry appreciates the time lines, I do not think that has quite dawned on the Leader of the Opposition, because he was questioning the wealth generation. Infrastructure is a practical wealth generator but, also, it leaves a legacy for future generations of what we absolutely need the most.
We are, as I am fond of saying, a developing jurisdiction. When you look at the task ahead of us in the regions, we have a very long way to go to catch up with the backlog we inherited as a Territory on self-government. Any assessment of that would indicate that any injection of capital works without matching requirements into the Territory is a leap forward, as I like to describe it. The Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan will be supporting, importantly, not just those jobs for Territorians, providing an opportunity for those former workers in the mines who are doing it tough to translate over into building up capacity in the construction industry because, significantly, a lot of their skills are transferable into construction. Fundamentally, its entire construct was designed to insulate the Australian economy from the global downturn and, therefore, the Territory’s economy as well.
This government supports the package because it is responsible. It will support jobs and it will absolutely leave that legacy of improved infrastructure, not only right across our regions, but our urban centres as well. This is the single biggest one-off injection by a federal government into infrastructure across the nation. To put it in context, it comes off the back of a decade of the Howard government, which walked away from infrastructure and decided that infrastructure was the sole responsibility of the states and territories. As a result, we saw federal surpluses grow, and states and territories suffer under the burden of trying to meet that infrastructure requirement on their own. It is great to see a federal government recognise, as early as it did, the need to step into infrastructure - not only to do it in a very large nation-building sense through Infrastructure Australia, which is a process still yet to be finalised, and ultimately announced, but to do it in response to the global financial crisis through the stimulus package.
We are estimating the package will be worth at least $500m to the Territory’s economy. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know why, as Treasurer, I said $200m at COAG, and why we are saying $450m to $500m now. Very clearly, he does not understand that I was referring specifically to the funding ...
Mr Elferink: No, you were talking about a package.
Ms LAWRIE: If he wants to go back and read my media release, it was very clear. I was referring specifically to the funding contained within the capital works component of the schools, the roads, the rail, and the housing. I made it very clear, again, that it was all estimates at that stage. I did background the NT News journalist Nick Calacouras because he at least rang and said: ‘That does not even meet the per capita cut’. If you want to take it per capita cut, it would be about $420m for the Territory, in its simplicity. That would be simplistic because, obviously, if you look at what you will get in per capita on the capital - which are the calculations we have done - you then look at what, potentially, you can get through your individual payments, which is what we have done. You also then look at what you could potentially see businesses claim …
Mr Elferink: Here comes the fix-up.
Ms LAWRIE: … which is what we have done. The Leader of the Opposition was saying that we have taken a childish approach to this. I hear the interjection of the shadow Treasurer. They like to pick a very simplistic approach, because there is no fix-up here at all …
Mr Elferink: Yes, this is a fix-up. We are talking about a $200m package.
Ms LAWRIE: What there very clearly is, and what there always has been, is an approach of honesty. We have been honest, from the announcement of this package by the Rudd government, about what the carve-up could mean to the Northern Territory. We did our figures in and around the capital works, identified quickly that we were looking at approximately - and I have used the words ‘estimated’ - $200m. In itself, that is significant. What that will mean to the Territory’s schools is phenomenal – a large piece of that infrastructure for all of our primary schools. The repairs and maintenance money, coupled with this government’s own commitment to repairs and maintenance, is significant; the likes of which has never been seen in one-off injections into schools’ R&M. Bearing in mind we have ageing infrastructure, as in every jurisdiction, R&M is critically important.
We do not have a calculation on the opportunities in secondary schools - and we believe this is an area where we can punch above our weight - because it is a needs-based submission. However, we believe we are well placed to punch above our weight and get more than you would in a straight per capita slice of the secondary schools funding opportunity.
We will be out there promoting the package because we know that, in supporting parent payments, we have an enormous number of Territorians who stand to benefit from that if they understand the package and its requirements. We will be out there letting the people in our regions know how they can access that funding available to them.
We have to go back and remind ourselves why we are in this position and why we are having this debate. Fundamentally, the federal government took this step because the world economy is facing the slowest growth since World War II. The International Monetary Fund has cut world growth from more than 2% to just 0.5% flatlining. On 23 January this year, Australian shares reached a new five-year low. This package is aiming to insulate our nation from what we are seeing as a global recession. The global downturn is weakening our own national economy, with growth now expected at 1% in 2009 and 0.75% in the 2009-10 financial year. National unemployment is set to rise by 5.5% by June of this year, and 7% by June 2010.
In contrast, the Territory’s economic growth for the 2008-09 financial year, forecast by Treasury in my mid-year report, which I still stand by, is at 4.5%. Access Economics is forecasting economic growth of 4.7% for the same period, slowing to 2.4% in 2009-10. That is why you have heard the Chief Minister and me, as Treasurer, say that, whilst we will not be immune from the global financial crisis and the economic downturn, we are the best placed of the nation’s jurisdictions to ride through the tough times.
The federal budget is now forecast to move into deficit, a deficit they are forecasting at $22.5bn. In my own mid-year report, I forecast that we would face a cash deficit of $47m this financial year due to the economic downturn and the reduction in GST receipts. I am on the record indicating that we face a potential deficit of up to $150m in the next financial year, 2009-10, as the global economy worsens. All of the economic commentators are predicting a worsening. They are saying this will be deep and, potentially, long.
What I am saying is that, after six budget surpluses in a row, with the strong fiscal management of the Labor government, we can afford a temporary deficit position. I am predicting, as Treasurer, that we will get through this economic cycle. It is certainly ambitious in saying two to three years, but that is an ambition I will strive for through strong fiscal management. I believe it is absolutely the right decision to go into deficit temporarily to ride through the tough times.
The other option is to cut spending and increase taxes - and now is certainly not the time to do either. Leading economic commentators are calling on governments around the world to keep spending to keep their economies moving. The Territory business community has not opposed our government’s decision to maintain our spending. In fact, quite the opposite, they have lauded it. The CLP continues to bang the drum of spending, slashing jobs and looking at tax increases to avoid a deficit. We will ensure we are doing our bit against an economic slowdown in the Territory. That is why we will continue with our record infrastructure commitment, rolling out that $870m infrastructure spend. We are proud of our record of having the lowest taxes for small and medium business anywhere in Australia. As I said, our strong fiscal strategy has produced those six budget surpluses. Importantly, it has reduced debt to place us in the strongest possible position to weather the global financial crisis.
The key drivers like private consumption, residential dwellings investment, and exports, are expected to remain strong. Our population growth is expected to remain strong, predicted at around 2%. However, like everywhere, we will see the credit crunch affecting that private investment. That is why this economic stimulus package is so critical. It provides the boost on top of the Territory’s own infrastructure program to step into gaps in the market and provide those all-important jobs in the private sector.
The package, as we say, is estimated in total to be worth around $500m. However, we also estimate it to be worth about 1600 jobs. Schools will get between $180m to $200m. Investment in capital, social housing we are estimating at $65m. We are estimating $9m for roads and boom gates and that community infrastructure. The potential business tax relief is $27m subject to take-up. Insulation and others is $34m subject to take-up. Defence housing is a $76m investment. Also, direct payments we estimate at $95m. Hence, the total package of $490m to $505m. Again, these are estimates based on take-ups and the like. Are we getting our fair share per capita of capital investment? Yes, we are. Do we expect to punch above our weight in the secondary schools because it is based on need? Yes, we do.
I know that the stimulus action squads put in place by our Chief Minister are working hard to ensure we are best placed with our bids. We already have bids in place for our housing and roads and they are very strong bids, indeed. We were straight off the mark and we have met …
Dr BURNS: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Treasurer be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Very deliberately, we have already met all the time lines set down by the federal government in putting bids in for the infrastructure requirements. We have given them a great deal of detail. I thank the stimulus action squad members across the departments who have been working very hard. I welcome the Chief Minister’s initiative of the summit. That was an incredibly important opportunity to deliver the detail of the implementation plan to the industry, business and community sectors. It gave a whole lot of buy-in, in feedback. I welcome the procurement review that is being undertaken by our Minister for Business. I welcome, of course, the step-up in planning. We are going to have fortnightly meetings of the DCA to process any applications coming forward. Ensuring government is working side-by-side with industry to deliver this package will mean a much greater result for Territorians.
There is a regional breakdown I want to outline because the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. At this stage, in Darwin/Palmerston and the western Top End, we estimate the regional breakdown will be some $329m; in Alice Springs we are estimating $80m; in Katherine we are estimating $37m; Tennant Creek $13m; Jabiru $14m; and East Arnhem $32m.
As the Chief Minister has indicated – again, because the Leader of the Opposition seems to have not heard this - the Territory government will undertake regional forums to talk about the implementation of the stimulus package and what this means to the regions. We can indicate to the Chamber today the Ministers for Regional Development and Local Government will be undertaking those forums as soon as parliament rises at the end of this week.
We are very focused, not just on what this stimulus package means for our urban centres. It is incredibly significant for Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. However, obviously, we are also very focused on what it means for our regions.
I have pages upon pages of third party endorsements which I am sure the member for Port Darwin would want to hear, but I will spare him that. I also …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am more than happy to have the minister table all of them.
Ms LAWRIE: I am more than happy to read through some of them, because they are great. The International Monetary Fund has been calling on governments to act through stimulus: borrow where necessary for that stimulus and go into deficit to stave off job losses. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry say the package is good for business: ‘This package will encourage business to go out and invest and employ’. The Territory Construction Association’s, Graham Kemp, said: ‘We are seeing a slowing down of the private market so, as that is rescinding, this type of expenditure is very timely and very important’. Of the summit, he said: ‘It is a pretty important meeting. It is unusual to have a meeting of business leaders on a Sunday, so I think that gives emphasis to the importance of this situation’. Mr George Roussos, from the Chamber of Commerce, today said: ‘There is potential with the amount of spending anticipated in the Territory of an expected $510m. That is a fairly significant spend in our jurisdiction and it would have the impact of tiding us through the next two to three years’.
I talked about the support from the Civil Contractors Federation, the Territory’s Cattlemen’s Association, and the Property Council, during Question Time today. Because they are industry leaders, they know the significance of this spend here in the Territory and what it will deliver in not just economic stimulus but, importantly, in jobs for Territorians, and in that legacy of infrastructure which we will all benefit from.
It is interesting that the CLP stands alone in its attempt, with their little mates in Canberra, to scuttle the stimulus package. They are now wriggling around saying that they just had a few questions to ask on it. Well, CLP Senator Nigel Scullion has not covered himself in glory. When you look at the questions that Nick Xenophon was asking of the stimulus package and the additional funding that he brokered for his state of South Australia, the CLP could have asked a few more questions in Canberra and stood up, as they might have in decades past, for Territorians and clearly advocated for a take for Territorians, because it came to the power of one.
If Senator Scullion had indicated in Canberra that he was willing to negotiate on the package with the federal government, there would have been a lot of time invested in him and in delivering a package around his request for the Territory. But, no, he did not give a damn really about the needs of Territorians and the opportunity that presented itself to him, he chose just to sit there with his little mates in Canberra and vote against the stimulus package. I recall other times when the Senator had the power of one when the Senate was finally balanced previously. Again, time after time, he was afforded the opportunity to deliver for Territorians and, time after time, he sat meekly with his Liberal and National Party mates in Canberra and did not stand up for Territorians.
I tell you who will be standing up for Territorians, and it is this government. We have identified everything that can be done, that must be done, that will be done, to deliver the projects in the time lines required by the federal government. We will ensure that we are drawing down every last dollar and cent available in this stimulus package for Territorians. The Primary Schools for the 21st Century, the Science and Language Centres for the 21st Century schools, the National Schools Pride Program, the new social housing, the repairs to existing public housing stock, black spot funding, the boom gates funding, the road maintenance funding - we will be there investing every effort across all of the government agencies, working closely with the private sector to ensure the industry capacity delivers on the ground across all these areas of opportunity presented by the Rudd government’s stimulus package.
I congratulate the Chief Minister for ensuring that he has introduced a five-point plan to drive this package forward in the Territory: the DCA meeting every fortnight instead of every month and extra staff to support that immediately; the summit that was held yesterday for the construction industry, business and community leaders; the dedicated stimulus action squads that have been established across our government departments to get these projects up and running as fast as possible, making it even easier for local companies to get local projects and get this work; dollars into the pockets of Territorians; and the short sharp review of procurement to streamline those processes and cut red tape, and changes to the procurement threshold.
This is not a government that is sitting around navel gazing as the opposition was doing, saying: ‘We need a good talk about it a little longer’. This is a government of action and I congratulate the Chief Minister for his action. I look forward, as one of the ministers responsible, to ensuring that our stimulus action squads deliver for Territorians, in close concert with the work of the private sector. I look forward to meeting with members of the private sector reference group, who will be integral to insuring that the industry responds as the government is putting these projects out the door, ultimately providing wages from jobs for Territorians who might otherwise have been in the unemployment queues that we see as a result of the global financial crisis and the economic downturn.
I thank the Prime Minister for this stimulus package because, not only will it deliver the infrastructure legacy we so needed but, fundamentally, it will keep Territorians employed. It will keep the wolves at bay. They can pay their mortgage, they can pay their rent, and support their families. Unless you have been in those circumstances, they are tough yards for families. Our Prime Minister has stepped up and provided a stimulus package so this ensures that we see the economic stimulus delivering jobs and legacy infrastructure at the same time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I often find it curious that those who would establish themselves as the protectors and the champions of others spend so much time doing that championing and protecting, all the while drawing attention to themselves and how good they are. I noticed that the Treasurer, at the completion of her comments, started saying what a great job Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, was doing. She thanked him and that is her business.
It actually is not his money; it actually comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. The problem is that, when it comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets in the form of credit card expenditure - and that is all we are talking about; the borrowing - we also know that the taxpayer has to pay it back. I understand the nature of the economic argument that we have to provide a stimulus package. There is the almost flippant dismissal of the fact that we are actually trading off jobs into the future by trying to protect jobs today through this economic structuring.
I find it curious that I have not heard an utterance from either the federal Treasurer or the Northern Territory Treasurer as to why we are engaging in a stimulus package before we have exhausted the principles of monetary policy; namely, interest rates. Whilst they still tick along at 3.5%, there is still room to move in a monetary environment. However, clearly, the government’s assessment is that the situation is so grim and dire that a reference to a monetarist approach needs to be truncated in favour of a Keynesian stimulus package.
The vital difference between the position of the Northern Territory government and the federal government is at least that the federal government expunged its debt and actually had a small amount of savings so that they were able to offer a stimulus package of $10bn in December last year, a further $43bn - we keep saying $42bn; it is actually $42.8bn - stimulus package, and only go on to the wrong side of the ledger a bit.
The problem we have in the Northern Territory is that, in spite the musings of the Treasurer that debt has been reduced, it is actually an untruth because, to make that assertion, she is relying exclusively on the general government sector balance sheet and the nett debt situation that has been recorded on that balance sheet in recent years. However, the truth of the matter is that the government is already engaged in a massive borrowing program for its neglected infrastructure over the next few years. If you take the non-public sector balance sheet and look at that, you will see that debt is tracking up into the future, and tracking up sharply. This is debt that was planned prior to the stimulus package being considered even in December. These were borrowings that existed long before the federal government had any intention of travelling down that path.
What we have now is a government which really had been in a challenging position when it came to borrowing any further. Whilst I appreciate the Treasurer keeps referring to her mid-year financial economic report as being the source document by which she estimates that we will only be $47m on the wrong side of the ledger this year, the fact is that the mid-year economic report is still reliant on projections of income which just do not make sense any more. However, the other day, I did hear the Treasurer say ‘a conservative estimate’, or words to that effect, in relation to the deficit. She is positioning herself, as she so often does, by changing her language slightly each time, so that the position does not so much change or she does not do a backflip, she merely evolves to a new world view.
The other issue that we have before us today is non-clarification. I was hoping, at some point during the Treasurer’s chat, that she would describe how this money is going to pass through the books. If it passes through the normal channels of SPPs, then I suspect that one of the great deficit reduction schemes that will occur this year is the same deficit reduction scheme we saw last year. That is where we are going to hang on to the SPPs, which arrive in late June, and hold them over so that, on midnight on 30 June, we have all this money in the bank, only to have to spend it the next day.
Our last year’s surplus was entirely the product of the government hanging on to Specific Purpose Payments at the death knell of the year, so when the auditor ran their ruler over the books, sure as eggs, 2359 hours on 30 June 2008, there was money in the bank. That money was gone very shortly thereafter, but it produced a very artificial result - and that is an artificial surplus. The fact is that it was not Territory money and Territory savings that was produced in that surplus; it was SPPs being held over.
I notice that the Treasurer, the Chief Minister, and the Prime Minister have all made the observation that this money will not be used to offset state level expenditure. This little trick was used by the government last year. As much as they scream their denials, the paper trail is undeniable; that is, the use of federal government funds - SPPs in this particular instance - to offset the money that they had set aside, or appropriated in the Appropriation Bill of that financial year.
They actually made the appropriations smaller by some $18m. You can track the money through the transfers of access allocations last year. You can see how the money was taken out of Health, because the SPPs were picking up on some of those issues that Health was supposed to be paying for out of its own appropriation. A lot of this does not mean a great deal for many people, other than the fact that, by a sleight of hand, the federal government ended up paying for Territory commitments. It was for that reason, I suspect, that the Prime Minister has become a bit twitchy about this issue. I know that in a recent inquiry, not only I, but other people, had made observations about the states offsetting state-level commitments against federal government expenditure. It was a good way for government to save a few million bucks here and there.
I pick up from the answer during Question Time from the minister for Corrections - who is also the minister for railway crossings, it would appear. I note he said that money spent on railway crossings will be in addition to the $4.2m that was committed to level crossings. I hope the government commits itself to its own appropriation.
It is the nature of credit card expenditure that what you borrow you must pay back. Whilst one of the peculiarities of government debt is that it is very easy to rack up government debt without too much flowing from it in some instances, by virtue of the fact that governments, essentially - unlike private businesses and private individuals - cannot go broke. Whilst a jurisdiction exists no matter how in debt it is, it can still continue to exist. Ask Zimbabwe how they are managing with theirs. So, it is possible, but it does produce really poor outcomes.
We will return to an age where monetarism is the way of the future - and I am sure it is a policy that will be revisited. If it is the way of the future, then interest rates will eventually go up as we work our way through this as a global community. If that is the case, then the package being passed - which includes accesses, I understand, to some other $150bn more than just the $43bn that is being passed - will mean we will end up with a hefty interest bill. If that is the case, that will be a loss. What we are doing now is trading off jobs for the present against the future.
I note also that the government’s fiscal strategy, as outlined in Chapter 3 of Budget Paper No 2, current and in past times, is in tatters, particularly in the area of prudent management of liabilities. The prudent management of liabilities has completely gone out of the window and will be amplified by the current situation. The effect of the current situation on our superannuation liabilities, I suspect, will be quite profound. We will see a sharp growth in the superannuation liabilities because of the circumstances we find ourselves in. I expect we will see a sharp growth in our superannuation liabilities area because the low interest rates now continue a commitment to those superannuation liabilities; particularly in what we pay out on an annual basis. That is a matter of concern for me.
The government’s bank guarantee will have an effect on TIO. TIO’s exposure in the current environment as a non-bank is a matter of some concern. Whilst I note the Auditor-General’s report - I hope I do not get pulled up by the Leader of Government Business and he gives me a little latitude - at the risk of preempting debate on the Auditor-General’s report I notice that there are a lot of brackets and parentheses around TIO’s numbers. Whilst I understand why that has happened, they will have maturing expenses into the future. That is not necessarily a thing for investors to be scared of, and I do not want my comments to be interpreted as, in any way, encouraging people to be afraid. There is something that underwrites TIO and that is the Northern Territory government guarantee on the TIO investments and insurances. The issue is not so much for those people who have investments in TIO. TIO is, I understand it, completely government guaranteed. My comments today, hopefully, should not cause any fear in anyone’s heart. However, what it will do is amplify the pressure on the government profit or the government purse if TIO has to meet maturing and crystallising investment and their exposure to them. There is that issue as well.
It was clear last week that, in the government‘s haste to attack the Country Liberals, they did not actually really know what was in the package and, still, we are hearing the language of $15m - plus or minus. The number that was being used consistently last week was a package of $200m. Now that, mystically, has gone up to $500m. I suspect that may have had something to do with the criticisms levelled in this place that $200m was actually not a good result for the Northern Territory. So, all of a sudden, it crystallises into something else and morphs into this and that, and you add bits on the side, and you have a $505m package. It is reliant on things like take-up rates - and I pick up on what the Treasurer had to say in relation to take-up rates. One of the problems I have with this package is that it does not give what I would classify as proper discretion to the Northern Territory government to apply the funds.
If you read this document, our pink batts - depending on the take-up rate - are worth about 10 or eight times what our roads funding is worth. I really hope that we are going to insulate the Plenty Highway with pink batts; it is probably the only way that we can get a decent road out that way. The last time I drove the Plenty I was losing fillings out of my teeth - or at least that is the way it seemed.
Another matter of concern to me is the issue of what Lindsay Tanner, the Finance minister, said on television last night. It immediately leapt out at me, because Lindsay Tanner said: ‘Do not expect any of this stuff to percolate through the system for the next 12 months. You will not see the results of this for a year or so’. Really? Well, that is a concern, because our problem in the Territory is quite specific. I want to talk about the circumstances we have in the Territory, briefly. The Territory is actually in an odd position in the financial climate. If we were on a mountain top and the world was going to be flooded by a deluge of poor economic outcomes, the Territory would actually be one of the last places in the world to go under water. The reason for that is because we are very fortunately positioned with some very fortunate commodities.
It is not down to the Country Liberals and it is certainly not down to the ALP that, by an accident of geological history, certain forests chose to decay in an area which is now called the Browse Basin and produces lots and lots of gas which, even in difficult times, turns out to be a valuable commodity. Why? Because the downstream consumer of this particular gas is the Japanese public itself. It is my understanding that a large slice of the gas which is being sold through the INPEX project and – touch wood, Western Australia does not get their way - will go to the domestic consumer. The last time I checked, Japanese people like to stay warm in winter; it is the nature of who they are. Therefore, as a domestic consumer - and I suspect that is probably why the Japanese government’s interest in INPEX is so high; to protect the consumer and the outcomes for the consumer - there is a real political ramification in that.
So, we are lucky. We are lucky that we have that commodity which is of interest right now and we are in the current environment we are in. I am grateful to all those forests that died all those millions of years ago that gave us that much gas to bail us out now. Hats off to government; I am glad that they did take the punt on Tyrrell’s advice and go out and try to snatch this away from Western Australia. Hats off to former Premier Carpenter, who decided to call an election which left the parliament in such a parlous state with a minority government there, so that we could at least offer INPEX a unified, unanimous voice out of this parliament for the project to come to the Northern Territory. I am delighted at all of those fortuitous outcomes. Plus, I acknowledge the good management of government to get it here. Well done.
Having said all of that, we find ourselves in this fortunate position, but the next year is going to be a bit tough. I have spoken to a lot of people around town. In March, the contracts start drying up and people are starting to get a bit twitchy. So, the timing of this package is what you would consider to be also fortunate for those reasons. However, I am concerned about what Mr Tanner had to say, because there is another side to this effect.
The last time we had an economic downturn - not as pronounced as the current downturn, but we had an economic downturn - around the 2000-01 period, there was a decision taken by government when they came to power to try to start off one of the big projects themselves. What happened in that environment is that, rather than creating an element of counter-cyclical spending - because the lead-up time for the convention centre and the waterfront development was what it was - by the time the project started ticking over and producing jobs and outcomes and those sorts of things, it was then directly competing with the local economy which was then doing very well. You had this situation where it was almost impossible to get a chippie, a brickie, a plumber, a sparkie, or any of those trades into your own home, and people were competing directly with each other.
I suspect that INPEX and ConocoPhillips will be talking to each other right now about how they roll out their particular projects, because they are looking down the barrel of the same problem. If the second train of ConocoPhillips at Wickham Point is going to go ahead, they are going to be looking at dealing with INPEX at that time. Now, all of a sudden it is going to be 12 months, according to Lindsay Tanner, before some of these projects start rolling off the production line. We are not setting ourselves up to make the same mistake again, I hope. I counsel the government to turn their attention to this. I appreciate that they are trying very hard to roll this package out as fast as possible, but it would be a surprising result if the rest of the world slipped into recession and, in Darwin, you could not get somebody to work for you for love nor money because there were so many competing interests in various fields of construction.
Whilst we may say it is all very good, the fact is that …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that member for Port Darwin be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their kindness and I hope I will not take up the whole 10 minutes, if members bear with my observation.
Getting back to what I was talking about, the issue is of having a lot of jobs running parallel to each other. I do not know about ConocoPhillips’ downstream customers. I do not know if they are going to delay or not. I do not know enough about it. Certainly, if INPEX keeps going as all indications are, you then have another $500m of projects - that is not correct, $200m-worth of projects - rolling off the government production line on top of the $1bn which is going to be spent over the next few years on supporting infrastructure.
People want to come to Darwin; there is no doubt about that. However, they will be coming to a limited number of houses. Even if we rolled off Bellamack in time, Weddell would not be ready in time for this particular time frame. What happened in places like Port Hedland, as I understand it if I remember the Four Corners report correctly, a three-bedroom house was renting for $1400 a week. That is a tough situation. I am concerned that, in spite of the world being in an economic hole, we actually might continue to do well and suffer the growing pains of a healthy, vibrant economy to the extent where the pressure in other areas will drive people to come here, and we will find infrastructure which will be hard pressed to cope. When I say infrastructure, I am talking about roads, schools - all that sort of thing.
I hope that the government is turning its mind to these particular issues, because this stuff will surprise government in the speed in which it comes on. I suspect that government has been surprised to a degree already. We have seen the reluctance of government to turn off land. It was not that long ago that the Treasurer was saying that turning off land would cause a flood of housing into the market. Not a few months later, that flood of housing onto the market has now become a priority of government.
It is all of these issues that government has to be particularly concerned about. We have particular local problems that we need to turn our attention to, which will be quite unique in the Australian and, probably, the international community. Few cities in the world right now are better positioned than Darwin to deal with the economic future. However, with that will come its own particular and very grievous problems.
It will take a remarkable government to negotiate that particular future with ease, because it will not be easy. It will be very hard, and the pressures on the Territory budget particularly will be enormous. If I remember correctly, the ACIL Tasman report into the phantom gas project that happened to look like the INPEX one said it is worth about $10m-worth of income as a result of revenue to the Northern Territory government from taxes that arise from that area. If that is true, that is not a lot of dough compared to what you have to spend.
I will look with interest to see if the competitive tax environment of the fiscal strategy will be maintained by this government because, I suspect, there will be a great deal of pressure on the Northern Territory government, not only to have to borrow, but to also bump up its own source revenue, or at least protect the revenue stream that it has now. I will be willing to bet a bottle of halfway decent wine with the Treasurer - not that I would drink it if I won - that payroll tax will not be reduced in accordance with plans for this year’s budget. However, we will see.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on implementing the stimulus, the summit of industry and community leaders. It is one of the most important ministerial statements delivered during my time in this Assembly. Why? Because it is about the future of the Northern Territory regarding investment, jobs, family, and infrastructure. I am proud to support the statement as the new Minister for Business. The Henderson government is a pro-jobs, pro-business government. We want to create opportunities for Territory families, businesses, and workers. We want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the Territory’s future prosperity.
In this Assembly last week, the Chief Minister outlined the international, national and local impacts arising from the global economic crisis. It was in response to these very serious circumstances that the Prime Minister announced the Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs and invest in future economic growth. As the Chief Minister said, 2009 will be a year of immense challenges and real opportunities for our Territory community. Through measures such as sound fiscal management, investment in infrastructure and human capital, taxation reform, and industry support, we have positioned the Territory for sustained economic growth. However, we cannot avoid entirely the impact of the global financial crisis.
The position of the Henderson government is clear. We unequivocally welcome and support the Prime Minister’s nation building stimulus package, as do our federal parliamentary colleagues, Warren Snowdon, Damian Hale, and Trish Crossin. As the Treasurer outlined, this package will be worth about $500m to the Territory economy - $500 000 aimed directly at stimulating growth, developing and building infrastructure, and providing tax breaks for small business.
It is interesting to see the shift, I believe, in the position of the CLP opposite. Last week, although there was not a vote, they did oppose the package and the implementation of the package. We had a motion to that effect in this place last week. Certainly, we had Senator Nigel Scullion actually voting against this in the federal parliament, with agreed support from members opposite. It is interesting to hear what was said last week and compare it to what has been said today.
The word ‘segue’ comes to mind. It is a bit of a trendy word. It is a word with a long history in music, where there is seamless movement from one part of a musical piece to another. I will read, in terms of journalism, what the definition of ‘segue’ is: ‘In journalism, segue is a method of smoothly transitioning from one topic to another. A segue allows the host or writer to naturally proceed to another topic without jarring the audience. A good segue makes the subject change seem like a natural extension of the discussion’. That is exactly what the opposition is trying to do. Last week, in the party room, ‘Oh yes, we have to support Malcolm Turnbull and we have to support Nigel’.
Then, suddenly, over the last week, it has dawned on them. It has dawned on them through their contact with business leaders, which should really be their national constituency. The feedback is coming back, basically: ‘You have it wrong, fellahs’. So, in the party room: ‘All right, let us have a segue. How do we move from here to here? Well, we will just say that we always supported it. We did not vote against it, there was no vote, so we actually support it – all we are interested in is the details of the package’. A segue. They have tried to have a segue but it has jarred. It has jarred with me because I was here last week in this place. I heard exactly what was said. I got exactly the attitude of what was being said, and I got the new answers today.
I quote another saying in politics, from Don Watson:
- In the political culture, there are people of energy, imagination and enlightenment. Yet, more often, you hear the voice of those for whom life is a tragic negative,
an endless repetition of cynical laughs and groans, and it shows in the empty torturous language.
We had the groans and the laughter in Question Time. Often, when I close my eyes and hear the member for Fong Lim laughing, it takes me back to my childhood in front of the television set with the Three Stooges when I hear ‘yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk’. Whenever I hear that laugh from the other side, that is what I think of. Also, it showed in the language of the shadow Treasurer. There was a call from the opposition that they should have been invited to the summit yesterday. I would have liked the shadow Treasurer to get up there in front of those business leaders and mouth on with what he said in here today. It was empty, it was torturous, it was meaningless. All of those people at that summit know that. With the problems and issues we are facing in this global financial crisis, the only ones who do not seem to get it are the opposition members.
We are a government that is implementing this package for the welfare of Territorians and our economy. The sort of person who needs praise is the Prime Minister. He is someone with energy, imagination and enlightenment. He is a true leader of this country. The polls are reflecting that; the Australian public recognise that. Members opposite are being a little churlish if they cannot recognise it.
We are taking concrete steps to implement the key initiatives for the benefit of Territory families, businesses and workers. Our implementation plans were outlined by the Chief Minister to a summit of more than 130 key industry leaders, businesses, peak bodies and educators in Parliament House yesterday. The government’s focus is on speed of implementation, probity and transparency, and maximising the participation of local businesses.
The package is so important that it is worth reiterating the indicative allocations to the Territory, emphasising once again these are indicative allocations. A lot depends in some areas on uptake of the package: schools, including non-government schools, $180m to $200m; social housing, $65m; the community, $5m; roads, $4m; business tax relief subject to take-up, $27m; insulation and other measures subject to take-up, $34m; Defence housing, $76m; and direct payments $95m. That makes a total package of somewhere between, we believe, $490m to $505m …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Here we go, Curley again! Listen to him.
What does the package mean? It means jobs, jobs, jobs for Territorians. It means better infrastructure, better schools, better housing and better roads. This is a decisive and substantial plan for the Territory’s future. It is also very important to remember that the stimulus package is additional to our own $870m program for capital works, repairs and maintenance. There will be no reduction in these programs to offset increased expenditure on the stimulus package.
I have a table here that indicates the regional break-up, and I will table that. Just going over the table: Darwin, Palmerston and western Top End, $329m; Alice Springs, $80m; Katherine, $37m; Tennant Creek, $13m; Jabiru, $14m; East Arnhem, $32m; with an estimated total of somewhere in the region of $505m. The benefits of this package will flow right across the Territory. A lot of work remains to be done to implement this package. As I mentioned earlier, the government’s implementation plans for the stimulus package focus on fast implementation, transparency and probity, and maximising the participation of local Territory businesses.
The Chief Minister has already set out a number of initiatives to cut red tape and achieve the very demanding time lines required to complete construction and get the stimulus money out into our community. The Department of Business and Employment will conduct a review of procurement. That is going to be a short, sharp review. In fact, a lot of the ideas have already been floated to the summit, including proposals to lift the threshold before a tender is required. The Chief Minister detailed that today, so I will not go over that. It is about raising those thresholds, cutting red tape, and keeping transparency and probity, but also getting the work out there.
The review will be undertaken on a priority basis. The need for speedy implementation is illustrated by the following time lines for the stimulus package: Primary Schools for the 21st Century - June 2009 to December 2010; Science and Language Centres - July 2009 to December 2010; National School Pride Program - April 2009 to December 2010; social housing repairs and maintenance - March 2009 to June 2010; new social housing - April 2009 to June 2010; road maintenance - March to December 2009; black spot funding - April to December 2009; and boom gates - April 2009 to June 2010.
We will ensure there is wide consultation with business and industry during the procurement review process. The Auditor-General will also be consulted on the proposal. The ultimate objective is to make it faster and easier for businesses to obtain government contracts. Further summits of industry and community leaders will be rolled out in the next week or so, and will be held in Alice Springs and other regional centres.
My clear view is that those present at the Chief Minister’s summit appreciated the opportunity to receive further information about the stimulus package. Many of the business and community representatives asked questions and put forward very constructive proposals about how we can consolidate the implementation process and also involve business and industry. In the Northern Territory, we have very resourceful businesses which are also very innovative. I am confident that, working together, we can maximise the benefits of the package to Territory families, businesses and workers.
I congratulate our Prime Minister for his leadership in delivering the $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I congratulate the Chief Minister for his leadership in developing and implementation strategy for the Territory’s $500m share of the package. I also thank all those business and community leaders who attended yesterday’s summit. I look forward to being part of this very important era in Territory business and for the economy of the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this ministerial statement. I received it last night about 6.30 pm. I did not stand on it; I did turn the light on. My first reaction was that this goes to prove starting parliament on Monday is an absolute joke, because we debated this ad nauseum last week. We also debated it at Question Time last week. We also had a fair share of it being debated courtesy of Question Time today. That is not to say there are not some new concepts which we should talk about. However, give us a break, this honestly looks like a fill-in statement especially designed for Monday. I really have some concerns about whether we are just using Mondays as window dressing. I do not mind working the Monday if we need to, but I get the feeling today that we are doing it because that was the arrangement with government to show that we are working harder.
Be that as it may, the government has given us this statement. It is an important statement. I need to say at the beginning there has been a fair bit of criticism from the government that anyone who did not agree with the 10-minute motion or the no-warning motion last week that no one really knew was coming, was, therefore, against jobs, against growth of the Territory, and all those sorts of things. I would have thought sensible people, including all those businessmen at the forum - that was not open for many other people except invited guests - would agree there is nothing wrong with being prudent about at least asking questions about the stimulus package. That does not mean you are against the stimulus package.
The minister was just comparing some of the people on this side of the House with the Three Stooges. I could compare some of the people on that side with a load of sheep because, when the shepherd says ‘baa’ everyone else says ‘baa’. I am sure you do not believe that is the way we should be debating a really important document like this. If we believe in the stimulus package, surely we allow for other opinions. What kind of parliament is this if over this side is right, over that side is wrong?
The package that was agreed on, that we were arguing about on Thursday, was not the package that was agreed with finally in parliament. You were agreeing with something that actually never ended up being the package, because there were other people who had some concerns. The Greens had some concerns. The government said: ‘Okay’. Senator Fielding had some concerns; the government said: ‘Okay’ Senator Xenophon had some concerns; the government said: ‘Okay’. So, the package was different than the original package that was put forward to parliament on 3 February.
Why was it different? Because some of those politicians believe that we should look at what the government is doing, and they felt that that was, perhaps, heading in the wrong direction in some areas. Whether you agree or not is not what I am here to argue about. It is that - they had the gall, from the government point of view - they wanted to query where this stimulus package was going and whether it was going in the right direction. The Liberals and the Nationals in Canberra believed that it was going to create too much debt. Whether it will or not - I am not a great economist - it would have been nice to hear from the government about that issue. Surely, that is a fairly serious issue to raise?
Some people have said that we will have to pay back in the future the $900 we are going to give out to families now - about $9000 per family in debt. Whether that is correct or not, I am not the person to answer that. Surely, the debt that the country is going to have to wear and pay back is a reasonable thing to debate. It does not say you are against the stimulus package. It might say we think the stimulus package is too big for the country to pay in the future. That is not something that is bad; that is opening up the debate to give this stimulus package that the government is putting forward some critical analysis and to find out whether there are some flaws in it or not.
I will give you an example of what I think is a flaw. Open up the package and it says $4m for roads. Blow me down, I do not mind stimulus packages, but $4m for roads is not going to stimulate the economy. Litchfield Shire spends $4m on roads. It might stimulate the economy in Litchfield. I would be very happy for the Minister for Transport to allocate some of that money for the bicycle path that this government has been promising ad infinitum. Especially last year, they promised it from Palmerston to Howard Springs - and still it is not there. It might be a small thing for some people, but very important for local people. We can get excited over some things, but let us keep the lid on getting excited over some of the minor issues.
The reason I opposed this last week was not because I do not think we should have a stimulus package, but simply because we did not have the time to go and research it as well as the government members did. It was dropped on us in 10 minutes. I was expected to support everything that was in that stimulus package by the way the motion was written. There was no room to have disagreement.
I have some concerns about the package that is being given out to families, the $900 - it was $950. I know the member for Johnston said that the member for Nelson was talking about people wasting it on gambling. Well, I know not everyone is going to waste it on gambling. That was not the issue. I was saying if the government says that by giving every family $900 they are going to stimulate the economy then, surely, you would think the sensible approach is to ensure that is exactly what it does, and have a system which ensures that money can be spent, as much as possible, on stimulating the economy. If 10% of the population is putting it into the pokies, you would say, well, that has wasted 10%. If 40% of the people are putting it away in the bank, well, that is not going to help stimulate the economy either; they might just pay off some of their debt.
Surely we could have had a debate about how people really see that the $900 given to every family is actually going to do what the government wants it to do? I am not saying that, if giving people that money actually stimulates the economy, it is not worthwhile. At the same time, I do not believe we should take a blanket approach to it. We should ensure that money is targeted for what we want to achieve.
Regarding the $34m for insulation for houses, I am interested to know whether the government had much input into this, because that insulation is for the southern states, I gather. Are these categories of money the government is giving to stimulate the economy being specified by the Commonwealth government to apply all over Australia without taking into any account what the specific needs of that area would be best served by to get the economy stimulated? If I said: ‘We have a new town at Weddell. We want to get it going. We need some money for proper design, and we want the money for headworks’. That, surely, would stimulate the economy.
Maybe in Alice Springs - and I know in the Davenport Ranges it gets freezing cold - insulation might be good. I do not know. All I am saying is we have picked out these items. Are these the most appropriate items to spend the Commonwealth money on to stimulate the Northern Territory economy, which is vastly different than the Victorian and Tasmanian economy? Have we done some work with the Commonwealth to ensure this is targeted at the right areas to stimulate the Northern Territory economy?
There are a couple of things here I have some queries about. Just so people do not get excited and say, ‘Negative, negative’, they are queries that people raised during the forum. Even though the media was not allowed in this forum, there is an article in today’s paper. It said that the Territory government plans to start projects funded by the Northern Territory’s $450m slice of the Rudd government’s stimulus package within weeks. I should query this figure now. It has just dropped, in this morning’s news, down to $450m. It does say $500m in the statement, but the newspaper says $450m. I am interested to know why ...
Mr Bohlin: They said $500m.
Mr WOOD: That is right, something has moved there. While Territory industry figures support the package, there are concerns over skills shortages, the housing crisis, and fears tight deadlines could compromise transparency and quality. I raise two of those issues. Regarding skills shortages, I ask the government to ensure that working people in Australia who have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the mining industry and other industries are the people we should be looking to, to overcome our skills shortages. Although the government did send departmental people over to various countries last year, I reckon they should put on hold the importation of people from overseas to fill some of the jobs that we were having problems filling in the good times, and ensure that those people who are unemployed in Australia, because of the downturn in the mining industry and other industries, should be the people we are looking for to fill these jobs.
I say to the government, although you have been out there looking to various countries for people to come to Australia in the good times, these are not the good times any more, and we should put that idea of getting skilled migrants on hold at the moment. Not that I am against skilled migrants - in case someone takes me the wrong way, which has happened to me before – but, when unemployment of locals is involved, they should have priority.
The other concern was the possibility of tight deadlines compromising transparency and quality. We have a system for our tenders and the way government deals. The Chief Minister mentioned the Auditor-General could be involved. Something I raised last week was that we have procurement guidelines that are there for a reason. It is all very well to say we need to rush. I think the member for Fong Lim said: ‘Well, how come you did not do this when you first came to parliament?’ It is all very well to hurry things through, but we need to ensure that this money is spent properly; that the big rush does not mean that money gets lost here, sent off there, and we waste money.
There is an issue here about how much the government administration takes off. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning takes 10% off every project, or something like that. Will the government say they are not going to take that 10% this time? Will they ensure that the $50m for whatever, is $50m spent where it is meant to go? It is a bit like when people say they are giving money to the Red Cross and they say: ‘All that money will go to the victims and there will be no administration costs’. Will the government guarantee all these projects will not have the 10% removed from them, because 10% of $500m is $50m? We can build some roads with that $50m. We can start the Plenty Highway with $50m. How about, if you really want to stimulate the economy, stop taking the 10% cream off the top?
I heard what some people have said at this forum. Unions NT Secretary, Matthew Gardiner said: ‘A key concern was to ensure time pressures did not compromise safety or result in dodgy contracting’. That is what I am saying: be careful. It is all very well to say to the people we are going to push, push, push, but you still have to ensure those safety areas are not compromised and contracting is done up-front and transparently.
There were concerns about the issue of the housing. We have been down that path many times and, hopefully, in the near future we can improve that area as well.
There is no doubt, from things I am hearing of late, that we would be doing fairly well. We have a big development plan for my rural area, in Coolalinga, for a very large shopping centre. It has not been to the planning authority yet, but it has at least been planned. It needs to wait for approval. INPEX is coming, which is, I hope, is going to increase jobs to locals. I ask the minister, when she is talking to INPEX, to make sure they will encourage as many local companies to be involved in this construction of the workers’ village. This, at the moment, is being discussed amongst many rural people. Where it ends up, I will have to wait and see. One of the key concerns would be to ensure the building of this workers’ village can, where possible, use as much local content as we can. That keeps the jobs in the Territory, and that is what we need.
There is Weddell. I can probably harp on it until the cows come home, but we have to have a plan. We need to ensure it is a decent plan. We need to have a competition to design Weddell. I am not sure if I brought it here, but I noticed the new glossy brochure which I believe is overkill for this, considering the people at the NT News wrote about Weddell and put out a glossy brochure about it. Weddell is about half the size it is on the Litchfield zoning map. I do not know what happened to the original size; it has shrunk. It was much bigger than is shown on this brochure. It used to go from Cox Peninsula Road to Elizabeth River. It is now about half that size. I do not know what has happened; whether that is a bit of a softly, softly, approach, I am not sure.
If we put some money into the planning, the design, the infrastructure, or the headworks for Weddell, we could be on the way. We need a high school. I repeat now, if we had the plans done five years ago, we could have plonked a high school there now. Now, we have to wait for the plans. Be that as it may, there are lots of good things in the pipeline, even if I believe they should be done more quickly. The prison is in the wrong place. You could still build it in the right place and create jobs. That is important infrastructure that is needed.
I realise that the Territory does need to ensure that it keeps its workforce here. I have said before that we have to ensure that some of this stimulus package is not just for the bigger regions. We must be careful that, in a wealthy place like the Territory - because it has a lot of projects and there is money, especially when the mining industry is booming, although to some extent it is in a downturn at the present - those people living in the outback, in remote communities, benefit.
We talk about stimulation so that jobs can occur, but most of us talk about jobs in Alice Springs and Darwin and, maybe, the regional centres. However, if we do not create jobs in the bush, then we will continue to have the same problems where people go to school, have no jobs, get bored, and we come back here talking about social issues and problems in those communities. Whilst the government talks about the great economic stimulus for the country and the Chief Minister talked about the great economic stimulus for the Northern Territory in the statement, except for perhaps some Indigenous housing infrastructure program, we need to be ensuring that those people who are not in the mainstream when it comes to some of these projects are helped because they are, in many ways, in the areas most in need of help.
I support a stimulus package. There is nothing wrong with debating it. There is nothing wrong with saying you agree with some of it and disagree with other parts. That does not mean we should not be putting some effort into making sure our economy does not stall. At least Australia seems to be in a luckier position than a lot of other countries. At the moment, England looks like it might be heading the way of Iceland; they are certainly having some problems with their banks and their economy. Australia, I believe, is well placed to be able to work through that because we not only supply raw materials, but we supply energy. It does not matter whether industry is working, people still need the lights on in their houses and heating, and there will always be a need for that energy - whether it is LNG, uranium, or whatever. People will need that regardless of the state of the economy.
Yes, it is good that the federal government has brought through this stimulation package; it will certainly help the Territory in certain areas. In some things it has really not been targeted well. The $4m for roads - without giving chickens a bad name - is chicken feed when it comes to roads in the Territory. The insulation issue could be debated more. Is it wise to spend money on something else that would help the economy?
Good debate is what we need, and I hope the government, just because I might have some doubts about some things or I might put some other options, does not go out and say: ‘The member for Nelson opposes it’. No, he believes that we should look at these things carefully because $47bn is a lot of money, and we should spend it wisely.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement and strongly support the $42bn economic stimulus package. I know very well that we are not the parliament that decided about the allocation of the money; it was the federal parliament.
However, I was surprised and dismayed, listening to the federal opposition having a strong position on the package, demanding to debate and to do things which, to me, appear to be stalling tactics. The reality is at times talk and, at times strike and to truly see the signs in a situation of crisis. Today, we are facing an economic crisis we never, ever faced before. When you hear of 80 000 people losing their jobs in one day, things are really grim. When you hear millions of people in China have lost their jobs and they have to go back to where they came from in the provinces, we are in really deep trouble.
I recall very well in times of recession, 1982, the first time I visited Great Britain. It was in deep recession at the time. I asked my then wife: ‘Why are those people waiting around the corner?’ She said to me: ‘Oh they are waiting for the dole, the unemployment benefit’. Never before in my life had I seen hundreds of people waiting in the cold outside the office to receive the dole. I remember seeing people queuing to get concert tickets around the corner but I had never seen this before in my life. The last thing I would like to see in Australia is something like that because we are talking about people’s job, incomes, and houses. If we do not act quickly and decisively, things could happen here in Australia, and it could happen very quickly.
I am very proud of the Prime Minister, not because he is my own political side; I would be very proud if a Prime Minister on the other side had done exactly the same. There are times when, to be a true leader, you have to actually lead your nation. It is time to think about the people: Joe the plumber, the subcontractor that does the lawn mowing, the one who works in a car factory, the one who is a retailer - their jobs, their aspirations, their needs, are to bring food home. They need to provide for their families and to pay the mortgage. I have been there, as a young married man with a child who had to pay a mortgage. Of course, we were thinking every day how we were going to raise the next payment because things were tough a few years back, paying 18% interest rates. Things were not very bright here in Australia. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and his colleagues made a decision to bite the bullet and provide this $42bn for an economic stimulus package.
What is funny, though, if you look at what has happened around the world, is that the conservative parties always wanted to debate any economic stimulus package any government put in place. In America, the Republican Congress wanted to delay the passing of the economic stimulus package that the President had put in place. They wanted to debate, despite the fact that everyone was calling for something to be done quickly because America is in a real bad state. The only exception was the opposition in Great Britain which supported the Prime Minister’s economic stimulus. The nationalising of the banks is something that is unheard of, unexpected and unbelievable for conservative politics. Obviously, things happen in places for a particular reason.
Do not believe for a moment that the opposition was united in its opposition to the economic stimulus. If it was united, you would not see what we saw today: Julie Bishop lost her job as Treasurer. Julie Bishop was not the one who actually came out with the idea; it was the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. The cracks are starting to appear in the party. I bet there are a lot of backbenchers in the Liberal Party who think: ‘If we had succeeded that would mean my school would not get $200 000 for upgrades’ …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank God for us that we might have to pass it, so you can get something back in your electorates. If you really were people of principle, I would like you to put out a pamphlet that says: ‘I oppose it. I oppose you receiving $900. I oppose my electorate schools getting $200 000 for upgrades. I oppose that because I want to debate it more. I did not want it to happen. I want it to debate more’. You would be very brave. Actually, I would like to be there and see what debate your pamphlet - if you put one out - would generate.
We are not talking about $900 in somebody’s pocket. Yes, they might put it in the bank to pay their credit card, but that means they have more money in their pockets to spend, to buy the things they want, the little luxuries, the things they cannot afford such as going to a restaurant with the family. This is not only about the money that you put in your pocket, it is about things other people put in their pockets.
A $200 000 upgrade in a school means some subbie - a brickie, a guy who puts the concrete on the floor, or a guy who puts the paint on the wall - will have an income. It is not only the big companies we are supporting here; they are the small contractors, the one who works by himself and probably employs one or two people. These are the people for whom the $200 000 can be an income for the whole year. That $200 000 can pay his mortgage, provide the payment for the car, send the kids to school, buy the clothes, and he can go with his wife to the restaurant.
We are talking about a maximum injection of funds into the Territory. We talked about $505m. Somebody said: ‘Well, not really, if the business tax relief and the insulation is not taken up’. This is only $65m dollars. That means $450m can still be spent in the Territory. On top of that, you have $700m to spend in the next three years on CDEP programs. So, together, the economic stimulus program and the CDEP is $1.2bn to be spent in the Territory.
The other issue, of course, was: ‘Yes, if we give $900 today we create a debt of $9000’. If all these jobs are lost, what are the potential social costs in the future for this country? What figure do you put on a person who lost his job and stays unemployed for three years and probably will lose his house, the kids probably will not reach their potential because he will not send them to a good school, and the family breaks down? I would rather owe $9000 than have the social debt to all these people in Australia in years to come.
In addition to that, what cost do you put to the social houses that are not going to be repaired today, so people continue to live in really bad conditions? For me, that is an investment for the future. Governments have a responsibility to provide for their citizens. Yes, it is great to have surpluses in good times, but governments should have deficits in bad times to safeguard employment, education, and the health of their citizens. Yes, we might owe money; that is okay. However, at the same time, we ensure that people are healthy. We cannot put a figure on people’s health. Yes, they can be educated. What figure do you put on education and the social problems that we avoid by doing what we are doing now?
Personally, as a local member, I am thrilled. I am thrilled because my school in Alawa will get $200 000 which they need. My school in Alawa was never upgraded from the time it was built until we made a commitment to put $2m in the first term of government, and $2m in the second term of government. I am thrilled because Nakara will get $200 000 …
Mr Wood: Howard Springs need $2m.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am talking about my own electorate. I am thrilled that we get $200 000 per school. I bet you that every member in here would be very proud to go to their school and say: ‘Yes, you have $200 000 and you can do things you could not do’. I am thrilled that Dripstone school will get a science laboratory and a language centre, on top of the money we promised to actually put in place to upgrade it. For me, it is important.
There are quite a few old Housing Commission houses in Casuarina, and that will be great that there will be so much money spent to upgrade this social housing. And, yes, we have some of these new suburbs in Casuarina to be developed, where the Defence Housing Authority will build houses for Defence people here. That will be another $76m over two or three years. That means a lot of work for people in Darwin and a lot of people in Casuarina.
Of course, it was very cute to hear that Lindsay Tanner said that this money will not appear until 12 months from now. That is interesting, because the Commonwealth has put strict time lines on when the project is to commence and when the project has to finish. For example, for Primary Schools for the 21st Century, Round 1, the project has to commence in June 2009 and complete in 2010, which is great. You cannot just put the money out straightaway, but there are strict time lines on when it is to commence and when things have to actually finish. The concerns about, ‘The money is not going to appear quickly enough’, are not true. The government said: ‘Here is the money. You go out and spend it quickly. We want the money to go into the economy, to stimulate the economy’. The biggest problem we have is banks; they are very strict with credit. Banks are now not lending money. The information I have is that, when before you could build a building in Darwin and the bank would ask for 50% sales, now they ask for 75% or 80% sales before they commit the funds to finance your project.
The other thing I am thrilled with is, in my electorate, together with your electorate in Darwin, there will be people who receive in total $56m. Okay, half of it will be saved. That is still $28m to do something with. We heard the manager of Harvey Norman say: ‘In the rest of Australia they are closing shops down, but, boy, here in Darwin, we would like to open another one’. Obviously, people have faith in what is going to happen in the Territory and they will spend it. I bet you this $56m, even 50% of that, will pay the credit card debts. That is still $28m that is going to grow the economy of Darwin.
With an investment of $273m - all your schools, social housing, Defence housing - $273m; that is a hell of a lot of money. If you write it down, there are a lot of zeros, and those zeros will translate into jobs. They will translate into subbies. They will actually go and buy a car because, if you buy a car, you get a tax break, don’t you? If you buy a car for your business that costs $60 000, next year you get back on your tax return 30%, which is an excellent idea, because you can upgrade your …
A member: Ferrari.
Mr VATSKALIS: You can upgrade your Ferrari, if you need a Ferrari, because you might be in the business of taking people to weddings. That is something that you use in your business. That is a very good investment.
The other thing is that the member for Nelson said people will oppose it. Actually, the only group of people who opposed the stimulus was the Liberals. The Greens, the Family First Senator, and my compatriot, Xenophon …
[Editor’s note: Words expunged by resolution of the Assembly]
Mr Wood: Mine, too. He is an Independent, he is a sensible chap.
Mr VATSKALIS: What they did was negotiate. They did not oppose the package; they used the package to benefit their own electorate. Nick Xenophon actually said he would vote for it if they give more money for the Murray/Darling. The Family First member negotiated, getting a reduction from $950 to $900, in order to put the extra $50 towards creating jobs and opportunities for unemployed people. They did not oppose it. They found a way …
Mr Wood: But your minister complained about the $50.
Mr VATSKALIS: But the argument was: did they oppose it? No, they did not. They worked their own way to benefit their electorate, to do what they thought was right. The only people who stood fast to oppose it were those in the Liberal Party and their branches, except one branch, the Western Australian.
As Paul Keating said, you put a bucket of money in front of a Premier and there is nothing that can stop the Premier lunging for the bucket of money. That is exactly what happened. The Western Australian Liberal Premier did not oppose it. He said he thought it was good for his state to have such a massive investment of funds, despite his state having a $4bn surplus. He agreed and he took it and said: ‘Thank you very much’. He held a media conference and applauded the Rudd government for providing this economic stimulus for all states and territories.
The only people who did not oppose it were the Western Australians. As I said before, you can be true leader. Colin Barnett, to his credit, was a leader for his state. Can we say the same for Country Liberals in the Northern Territory? No, we cannot. Because, not only did they not support it, not only did they argue against it, they even failed to instruct their Senator not to go against it. The reality is, can they instruct their Senator? Is their Senator a person who will comply with their requests? Has he done it before? We have seen it before with the parks. He voted for the parks, for our parks, the way we went forward against the wish of the party. Despite the breast beating of his party that this will never happen again, and he will follow the party line, I do not think they can ensure it.
Senator Scullion voted against the economic stimulus. I would like to see him explain to his own electorate why he was against it; and why he voted for them not to receive the extra payment, for the little subbies not to have the jobs, and for the schools not to be upgraded.
This is a type of economic crisis we have seen before. I have seen one in my lifetime already. We have seen recessions, but this is an economic crisis which will affect everybody. In the Territory, we say that we are probably better equipped than other states to weather the storm but, in reality, it is going to affect us. We are a resource rich province. We are exporting a lot of our resources overseas. We have seen what happened when China decided to use their stockpiles rather than buying materials from us. We have seen what happened with China when, instead of having 12% growth rate, it went down to 6%, to such a degree that the government of China is now preparing to pour a lot of money into their economy to stabilise their growth rate at 8%.
We have problems because we are exporting live cattle to Indonesia. What if Indonesia is hit by an economic crisis tomorrow and the people cannot afford to buy meat from us? That would mean a lot of our private producers and pastoralists would not be able to export their cattle and this, in turn, would have a significant effect on our economy.
This economic stimulus at least guarantees that if there is any effect in the Territory, it will not be as severe as we thought. On top of that, this economic stimulus provides the opportunity to do the things that we could do here in the Territory: upgrade our schools, upgrade our social housing, upgrade and provide more houses for Defence, and provide a lot of money for the community. The $4m for the roads is $4m more than the previous Liberal government ever gave to the Territory. I know very well because, as a minister, I used to go down there and, when John Anderson was the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible for roads, I used to argue with him all the time. I never got any more money because the excuse at the time was: ‘Because councils are incorporated, we cannot give you money. If you are not incorporated, we can only give money to Local Government. Go away’. Even Senator Boswell from Brisbane used to defend me and ask him to consider the Territory a special case, but he was not prepared to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not only an economic stimulus that will provide relief to families in the Territory and Australia, this economic stimulus will secure jobs and ensure that jobs are not lost in the Territory and Australia. This economic stimulus will provide relief to the Territory and Australia to protect it from the economic crisis and, at the same time, build our nation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this afternoon to speak on the Chief Minister’s statement. There is one thing I think everybody in this place agrees with: when you need to bucket money out the door and go on a mad spending spree, there are no better people for it than Labor people. There is absolutely no doubt, when you need to get rid of money in a crazy, scandalous way, you elect a Labor government and they will do the job.
Contrast this federal Labor government with what we had with 13 years of Coalition government, the hallmark of which was scrimping, saving, putting away money, saving money, paying off $96bn-worth of Labor debt, putting money into future funds, putting money into higher education endowment funds and, fundamentally, setting up a strong economy. At the same time, we have had eight years of hard Labor here in the Northern Territory that has seen the Territory finances go to pot - go to absolute rack and ruin.
They are not alone in this. You only have to look at all the other Labor state governments around the country and you see how they also manage to mismanage money - and they do a very good job of it. In pretty well every state now the hospital systems are stuffed, road networks are stuffed, education systems are stuffed, and they were all constantly bleating to the Coalition government in Canberra that they were never getting enough money, despite the fact that GST revenue - something they opposed - was pouring into their Treasury coffers like never before.
Now, all of a sudden we find we have Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor government in power. The prayers of all these guys all around the country in state Labor governments have been answered, because we have another free-wheeling, free-spending comrade of the same ilk as them. He is going to come riding out on his white horse and throw money around like a drunken sailor to all these mendicant state governments - a sad situation. However, sadly, it is true.
All we hear from the other side is: ‘How can you possibly oppose this? How can you not support this $42bn stimulus package that Canberra is giving us?’ You have to actually ask who is giving us the money. Who is giving us the money? It is working Australians who are giving us the money. However, it is not only working Australians, but it will be working Australians of the future. My children are giving us this money. We are throwing our children, and probably grandchildren, into $42bn-worth of debt.
We are reliably informed by many people that this is not the only stimulus package that is coming - this is just the first of some; that there will be many more stimulus packages to come from Kevin Rudd and the Labor government in the federal parliament. This will, somehow, kick-start the economy and everything will be roses. Well, it may well be roses until the next election campaign. That is as far down the track as Labor people seem to think, because it is the only thing that ever motivates them. That dream and goal of being in power is the only thing that motivates Labor governments. There is no thought for the future; no thought for the legacy that they are going to leave the children or the grandchildren. It is all about the here and now and maintaining power. It is an absolute sorry state when we have governments of the same ilk right around the country which are all prepared to spend our children’s inheritance to meet some short-term goal now.
I am not opposed to going into debt at times of crisis - and we are in a time of crisis. I do not see that there is any harm in going into debt, but let us think about what we are going to use that debt for. It is generally believed that, if you go into debt, you use the money that you borrow - in this case we are borrowing from future generations of Australians, future generations of Territorians - to put into something that is going to grow and benefit future generations of people and produce wealth, as well as spending that wealth now creating projects that will keep the economy moving. However, at the same time, you want to have projects that will add value into the future.
What do we get? We get this mad Labor government fellow who started off – well, I do not know what he started off as but, prior to the last federal election he called himself an economic conservative. Now, he is writing books about neo-liberalism and how it has wrecked the Australian economy. He has a short memory, because it was exactly that that he supported right through the election campaign. Only a few months ago, he suddenly changed to somebody now who condemns neo-liberalism and economic conservatism. He is quite prepared to throw wads of money to Australians in the hope they run out and spend it.
What are they going to spend it on? People say: ‘Oh, it will just go into drink and drugs’. I am not as cynical as that. There will be people who use the money for that; I have no doubt. Other people may use the money to go to the casinos or the horse races. I have no doubt that that is where some of the money will go. I do not think it is a large portion at all. I tend to think Australians are much smarter than that. Most Australians, by now, recognise that we are in some sort of financial crisis. They recognise that times will get harder. Most Australians, I suggest, will save that money - they will save that money. They will not go and spend it on a brand new Sony flat screen television or some other luxury item; they will put that money in the bank and they will save it. In that regard, as far as stimulating the economy, I do not think that aspect will work too well at all.
It is interesting to hear the comrades on the other side of the Chamber talk about what it means for the Territory and how desperate they are to get their hands on this money. In that regard, they are no different from any other state Labor government around the country. They have all blown the budget; they are all in serious trouble; systems are collapsing all around them. Kevin offering up this money is like manna from heaven for them. It is no wonder that they are encouraging oppositions around the country and federally to get behind this cash splurge, this stimulus package as they call it.
The problem with the Territory government, of course, is they have not done the work. They have not got our share. The Chief Minister has trotted off to Canberra and has rolled over like a puppy. Kevin Rudd scratched his belly, the Chief Minister wagged his tail and trotted back here and he said: ‘Oh goodness me, we are getting $200m, isn’t that fantastic?’ Well, it was $200m last Monday, and we were told that we had to accept this or we would lose that $200m - $200m out of a package of $42bn. Now, it has grown and, by mid-week, it was somewhere round $300m, $350m. If I am correct, the member for Johnston is now talking of somewhere between $490m and $505m. That is supposed to satisfy us up here that we are getting our fair share.
There is a long-held practice in this country that we use to determine fairness. It is a system called horizontal fiscal equalisation. It served the country quite well for a long time. It is a principle that ensures that money goes where it is most needed and best required. It means that, in the Northern Territory, we do reasonably well and we are recognised for having to supply services to a large area with a very small population. Under that very fair system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, the Territory should be in for something like $2bn. That would go some way to what I would call fairness. However, here we are being asked to swallow a paltry amount in comparison to that - at best, a quarter of that. All through the Chief Minister’s statement, he used words such as ‘possible’ and ‘likely’. It is not ‘we will get’ or ‘we have coming into our economy’. It is none of that, it is ‘possibly we will get this’, ‘likely we will get that’ ...
Ms Carney: That is how they stand up for the Territory.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, they do not stand up for the Territory. They run down to Canberra, they roll over, and they let the Prime Minister tickle their tummies. That is what happens, and we are expected to stand in here, cop all this nonsense - listen to all this nonsense from these guys - about how we need to support this package which clearly rips off the Territory.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister, today in Question Time, was asked what he has done to support the McArthur River mining project. Here we have - here and now - 300 jobs in the balance just waiting for a sign-off from the federal Environment minister. The Chief Minister, in his own statement today, said he was in Canberra talking face-to-face with the Prime Minister - face-to-face. You have to ask the question: when he had his face-to-face meeting, did he spare a single thought for the 300 workers at McArthur River Mine? Did he put to the Prime Minister: ‘Prime Minister, it would be really nice if you could give our mate over there, Midnight Oil, a little nudge and get him to put his moniker on this piece of paper, because we are hurting in the Territory. We want this mine to stay open’. Did he say that? No, he did not. As far as the Chief Minister is concerned, he says, ‘Oh, we support the mine’, but what has he actually done? This is the here and now. This is 300 workers, sitting there on tenterhooks, waiting to see whether they have a job, while Midnight Oil is doing something else ...
Mr Elferink: Blue sky mining.
Mr TOLLNER: Blue sky mining.
This is a disgraceful situation. Meanwhile, the Chief Minister says: ‘Oh, thank you very much, Prime Minister, we will take the $200m. We will scoot back to the Territory and we will lambaste the Country Liberals up there, and we will belt them over their Senator, because he has actually seen through your cunning little stunt and he is not supporting the project. We will put a bit of pressure on Senator Scullion’. That is what it is.
This is nothing but a con job on Territorians. Discussions I have had with some industry leaders and people who turned up to the meeting yesterday show that the implementing of the stimulus package is to be applauded. I applaud the government for that. All the feedback I have received – and I would have loved to have been at the summit – is that the government does deserve some credit, irrespective of the fact that they rolled over for Kevin Rudd; that they could not get in there and negotiate a better deal for the Territory from the federal government. They have done a pretty good job in the Territory of talking to businesses about some changes that need to be made.
However, I ask the question regarding you saying you are going to make it easier for companies to get local projects. Why have you not done that already? What is to crow about? Why are we not feeding more work to our local companies? Why is the fifth floor constantly dragging in interstate consultants? Why are they constantly sending work out of the Northern Territory? This stuff should have been happening years ago.
Similarly, with the short, sharp review of procurement and red tape. Great stuff. I can imagine business would love it. I love it. I applaud you for taking that step. I would like to take some of the credit for the government decision to do that, because we still see on our Notice Paper under General Business Notice No 1, Mr Tollner to move that this Assembly establishes a regulation relief review advisory committee to cut back red tape. That has been on the Notice Paper now for goodness knows how long. It is the first thing that I put on to the Notice Paper after I was elected to this place. I am glad to see that the government has finally switched on to the fact that it is a good idea. We do need to cut red tape and get in and support business.
I understand it was a well-attended meeting, with people from all walks of life - businesses, school principals, and the non-government sector. I even note you had a group called the NT Council of Social Services. Did Clare Martin turn up? Did she front? She is probably scared of another life with the Chief Minister. Maybe that is what kept her away. They tell me she lives in Darwin. She is the national CEO of ACOSS. You would think, if the Council of Social Services was invited, they would invite Clare Martin. Maybe that might be too close to the bone for the Chief Minister.
If you listened to the Chief Minister’s comments, and look through the document, you see it is all ‘ifs’, ‘maybes’, ‘possiblys’, ‘probablys’, ‘likelys’ - nothing concrete at all. That is rather alarming.
I note the Chief Minister said that there are some pretty strict guidelines and time lines. I imagine that is what mobilised the Territory government to get out there and throw this money around a bit quicker than they normally would. The reason they are going to mobilise, as the Chief Minister said, is that the Commonwealth is not going to tolerate any feet dragging. They are not going to tolerate that at all, and they will name people. My goodness me – they are going to name people. That is a threat-and-a-half. We might find the member for Johnston being named by the Prime Minister, or the Chief Minister being named - or even the member for Barkly.
What a great fellow the member for Barkly is. The Transport Minister jumped up in Question Time today and crowed on about the wonderful relief package we are getting up here - $4m for roads. Member for Barkly, I know you are new at your job, all that sort of caper, but this is $4m. The rule of thumb up here is around $1m per kilometre. Maybe you are building 4 km of double-lane highway, maybe you are going to build 8 km of a single-lane highway. Irrespective, $4m ain’t going to go too far at all ...
Mr Conlan: Maybe it could go to the Mereenie Loop.
Mr TOLLNER: Mereenie Loop. Yes. Is that more than 4 km?
Mr Conlan: It is heaps more than 4 km.
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe they can go back with the next stimulus package and talk to Kev about the Mereenie Loop, the Outback Highway, something like that, and get some money there.
There is money in there for housing. I see my friend over here, the nodding dog, is in the Chamber. He is very happy with it - chuffed – that he is getting some money for housing. A lot of money for housing has been hanging around for a long time now. Long before the federal election, we had a lot of money sitting on the table. It is curious to know how many houses have been built from that wad of money - not too many at all. This government is a bit of a failure as far as building houses is concerned.
Footpaths, bike paths, I can just imagine now: ‘Forget the Stuart Highway, we only got $4m for bitumen but, my goodness, we got a good cycle path down for the Japanese tourists …
Dr Burns: What about mobile coverage along the Stuart Highway? What happened to that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Fong Lim be granted an extension of time for 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the members of the Chamber for that. I promise I will not speak for the whole 10 minutes. I am winding up.
You can imagine these Japanese tourists you pass along the roads, on their treadlies, peddling down the Stuart Highway; they are going to love this. We will have a brand new concrete bike path going right through Tennant Creek. This will be a boom for the tourism industry in Tennant Creek because these Japanese will be able to ride down on a brand spanking new concrete bike path, all the way down to Alice Springs and beyond. It will be a marvellous thing to see.
The Chief Minister should be corrected in relation to schools. He said Dave Tollner – me - organised a paltry few flag poles for schools. Again, members opposite know that that is errant nonsense - absolute errant nonsense. I have been with the member for Johnston at schools where we have opened particular extensions. Likewise, with you, Madam Speaker. I recall being at a couple of primary schools with you in your electorate. The Chief Minister himself has been. In actual fact, every single school in the Solomon electorate received around $150 000 under the Investing in Our Schools Program. They know that is a fact. That happened over a three-year period. Members opposite know that that is the case. That is just one program where the Commonwealth put money into our schools here in the Northern Territory. I will accept an apology, but I do not know whether I will be getting one. However, in any case, the vitriol that the government has come out with towards the opposition, I believe, is unwarranted.
Government should be taking its time on this sort of stuff. It should be sitting down and analysing things. It should be actually asking the question, ‘Are we getting our fair share?’ – not putting it on to Senator Scullion. My goodness me! This is an elected government with huge amounts of resources; the ability to get down there and talk face-to-face with the Prime Minister. It is the role and the responsibility of this government to get down there and stand up for the Territory and ask for our fair share. We deserve our fair share up here because, after all, the Northern Territory is probably the best part of Australia. I believe there is probably not a person in this Chamber, or who has ever been in this Chamber, who does not believe that this is the best part of Australia. We deserve our fair share. We have, for a long time, been treated poorly by governments in Canberra. There is a requirement that Territory governments punch above their weight, that they get down there and they demand and demand. Sadly, that has not been the case with this economic stimulus package. We have come out of this in an absolutely appalling situation.
I find it amazing that the government can even support this package - absolutely stunned that the government can support this package. It is a poor deal for the Northern Territory. I cannot say that in strong enough terms. It is a poor deal for the Northern Territory. The government would be better advised - rather than spending time belting up the opposition, who really have no capacity to do a great deal at all by reason of the fact that we are in opposition - using their time belting up the federal government and trying to get a better deal for Territorians.
That is what government is about. Government is about leadership; not expecting the opposition to lead the government of the day as I have done with my motion on regulation laws, cutting red tape. It is not incumbent on an opposition to constantly lead as we have been. They pick up our ideas on a whole range of things. I cannot think of a single project that this government, the previous Labor government, or the one before that, had the wit to come up with. There is nothing. The railway was put in place by the Country Liberals. The waterfront - the great waterfront and convention centre - was originally a plan of the Country Liberals. Even the Defence hub - the hub that I have been lambasting for quite a while - was originally called the Darwin Defence Technology Park by the former Chief Minister, Denis Burke. You would hardly call that an original idea from this government. They have not had an original idea. They have done nothing but tie up Territorians with bureaucracy and, at the same time, waste money.
The service that we get in our hospitals is an absolute disgrace for the money that we pour into them. The service that we get in most areas is an absolute disgrace for money that we pour in. I join with members from other parts of the Territory in my concern for the services, in particular, that are delivered into regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. That is seriously shambolic.
As I said, congratulations. You seem to have won some hearts in the business community by virtue of the way you have stepped up and immediately are going to spend this money. Obviously, you are being driven because you do not want to be named; that would concern you. However, as I say, all hats off to you. It looks like you have done a reasonably good job in trying to ensure that the package is implemented in a timely manner. Business seems quite happy in that regard.
It is just an awful shame; it is a crying shame that we are being ripped off the way we are by the Rudd Labor government in Canberra.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the contributions from the member for Fong Lim over the last couple of weeks. This side of the House has been concentrating on the stimulus package, and the member for Fong Lim has been very busy on his Facebook. He has bothered to join us today. Perhaps they have shut down his site on him, or he does not have any more friends to accept. It is nice of him to join us today. I know he thinks parliament is a joke.
This is very important. This is hundreds of millions of dollars coming in to the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim also alluded to his motion on the Notice Paper. It has been seven months since the election, and his party has chosen not to bring that matter forward. That is how important they think business and his matter is with respect to easing the regulations.
This initiative by the federal government certainly is welcomed. I was also at the leaders’ summit with the Chief Minister and other ministers. The business community was very impressed with the speed at which the response came from the Chief Minister, and the detail which was provided. Obviously, this is a fairly massive program being rolled out across Australia. A significant amount of work has already been done, but there is still a lot to be worked out. The Coordinator-General, Alastair Shields, is working very hard with the other coordinators from the housing area, the education area, and also the infrastructure area, so this is very significant. This stimulus package will support the growth of the Northern Territory.
Last week, I talked about our housing program making real inroads into our public housing sector through new land release, new initiatives in housing policy, and greater investment in housing maintenance and construction. This package provides the necessary capital to drive these projects and to move up a gear in delivering real results for Territorians. Providing adequate housing for all our constituents is of paramount importance for all governments. This government is committed to providing access to housing for all Territorians. Last week, the opposition called for more to be spent on public housing in the Territory, and for this government to do what it can in response to addressing housing affordability. We are, through the range of fresh ideas in housing service delivery, in rural housing growth, and through the fast-tracking of land release strategies.
However, I question the strength of the opposition’s conviction. The opposition’s comments about investment in housing are in direct contradiction to the Country Liberal Party’s stance against the federal government’s $42bn stimulus package. The CLP is opposed to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan as announced by the Prime Minister on 3 February. Senator Scullion has been actively arguing against, and voted against, the package in the Senate, turning his back on the Territory and blocking this investment. The CLP opposition is opposed to this government working in partnership with the Rudd government in driving investment in jobs, tax cuts, building better roads, improving education through better schools, improving energy efficiency, and the much-needed cash bonus to support jobs. They are focused on cheap political points instead of putting the Territory first.
We have already heard from my colleagues that the Territory is not immune from the impacts of the global financial crisis. This government is taking action to ensure that we protect Territory jobs and businesses from the full impact of the crisis, regardless of the head-in-the-sand attitude of the opposition. We must put Territory families first, and we will. We are putting our case forward to the federal government to gain as much of the stimulus package as we can for investment in the Territory. This government is focused on positioning our economy and our community for the best possible future.
We are working towards establishing a shared vision for the future for 2030. We know that we will witness significant population growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston areas, and in the bush. We will need to drive our housing market to deliver around 1700 extra houses and units a year. As the Territory grows, we know there is more to do to meet the demand for housing across the Northern Territory. The housing package alone will deliver investment of at least $65m into social housing, and $75m into Defence housing. This will deliver a real boost in the Territory’s construction industry - jobs for contractors and for subcontractors. These figures should be seen as a minimum, and we want to work in partnership with the private sector to leverage more investment, leveraging off industries’ planned investment and getting stalled development up and running. We will work in support of the non-government housing support sector, and provide organisations with the new improved housing options to assist their activities in the community where possible.
I inform the House what the stimulus package can deliver in housing for the Northern Territory. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about nation building, and we will be part of that program. The housing package is expected to deliver 20 000 social and Defence homes. We want to get that work out the door. This is a massive investment at a time when employers and employees are calling for the government to support jobs and investment in the long-term future of the Australian economy. This investment includes 802 new houses for Australian Defence Force personnel. We already know that Darwin is set to receive 185 new Defence homes - homes that are over and above the Defence Housing Authority’s planned capital investment program. This is a fantastic result for the Territory.
We will receive almost a quarter of the $252m Defence Housing investment in the Territory alone, which means jobs for the construction industry and homes for our Defence personnel. However, let us not forget the obvious flow-on effect of this investment, including the freeing up of properties on the rental market as Defence personnel move into their new homes. This historic investment is for Australians who serve and protect Australia in our Australian Defence Forces. This package is ready to go, with work on the ground set to begin in April. This package is not supported by the opposition, and this rejection must be seen as a refusal to support our forces and a slap in the face for the 1300 Defence personnel and their families living in the Northern Territory.
This stimulus package is also about urgency. The vast majority of houses built under this program will be completed by December 2010, which represents a massive and immediate support for jobs in the housing and construction industry. This program will also fund urgent maintenance to upgrade social housing that would otherwise be unusable. I am working hard in finalising my submission to ensure the federal government knows we have projects ready to go, land ready to be built on, renovations and upgrades and projects ready to be delivered, and strategies to leverage private sector investment opportunities.
The social housing component of this program will deliver 20 000 new social housing dwellings across Australia. These dwellings provide shelter to some of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; people who might be low-income Australians and Territorians who are homeless or struggling in the private rental market. The package is not supported by the CLP. We need to increase the supply of social housing and this project would deliver for homeless families and individuals.
Immediately, we will see investment in repairs and maintenance to existing public housing stock. The stimulus package includes the fast-tracking of $400m over two years on urgent maintenance. Work will begin next month. The investment will lift the quality of public housing dwellings, and upgrade about 250 000 vacant dwellings that would otherwise be unable to remain as public housing. New social housing will be delivered in two stages. The first stage of the package includes the construction program of about 2300 social housing dwellings, which are already planned and approved. They are set to begin work in April. The second stage involves new construction, including the spot purchase of houses, and loan packages for use as public and community housing. The construction and purchasing will commence later this year. We support the Rudd government’s mandate in the majority of the second stage of construction to be completed by December 2010.
We need to drive immediate market and job growth. We want this money invested in the Territory and we are ready to deliver projects immediately. I quote from a Darwin radio interview with the Housing minister, Tanya Plibersek:
- We have $400m to spend immediately on fixing public housing that is not habitable at the moment, making those homes liveable again.
We reckon we can return about 2500 homes to use in that way. Then we are going to build another 20 000 properties right around the country.
- She also said:
To get this money moving quickly, we are really going to enlist and rely on the support of many private sector developers and builders. We are expecting
a lot of work out there and for all sorts of tradies. I know Darwin is a little bit different. You still have a very strong housing demand there, but around the
rest of the country, a lot of those tradies have been starting to really sweat about whether they can keep on their apprentices and keep their staff on.
This is going to be very important in keeping that building and construction sector strong right across the country.
I have met with peak Northern Territory industry associations, the TCA and the Housing Industry Association to discuss these packages. I encourage and hope the opposition will also talk to these groups, to understand the real needs for the funding. The opposition really does need to engage with industry now so they understand that their continued failure to support the package will impact on Territorians. The opposition is rejecting Territory businesses and Territory jobs. Hundreds of homes and units are ready to be built and renovated. The Henderson government is working overtime to attract as much of the stimulus package investment as possible. We have identified a range of housing initiatives targeting those projects that can be delivered immediately. Yesterday, we put forward our first case to the Commonwealth for housing investment.
The opposition should be aware that the stimulus package which they will not support has direct impacts in their electorates. For example, the Leader of the Opposition is standing against the investment of housing in Blain. He is opposed to the stimulus package providing cash for public housing in the new Bellamack subdivision and in much-needed renovations to public housing properties within his electorate.
The member for Fong Lim has a significant Defence base in his electorate, but is rejecting almost 2000 new homes in the Territory for Defence personnel. That is tens of millions of dollars.
I put forward the upgrade of the Bloomfield Street housing complex in Araluen. The stimulus package could fund the upgrade of the 27-unit complex, which a non-government housing organisation has shown a real interest in managing. Again, a project which the CLP is putting in jeopardy. This stimulus package certainly goes to the heart of everyone’s electorate, everyone’s community, and it touches everyone - and that is the idea of it. We get to stimulate the economy so that the money trickles down, people have jobs and the confidence still exists. That is the important part of it.
In conclusion, I hope the opposition has a good think about what they have said tonight. I was a bit disappointed that the member for Fong Lim was laughing and joking about Japanese tourists. I thought, as the shadow Tourism minister, that was not in very good taste. The Japanese tourist sector in the Northern Territory is something that we, obviously, want to grow. However, the laughing and innuendo against Japanese tourists was very sad, indeed ...
Mr Mills: This is embarrassing.
Mr KNIGHT: It was very embarrassing that the member for Fong Lim was making those comments. I hope he provides a personal explanation about his laughter and insinuations against Japanese tourists.
This is the biggest project we have seen in the Territory. We have a lot to get done, and we are certainly ready to go in the housing sector. This gives us a chance to bring forward a lot of development, getting more public housing out there, getting more support for our community housing sector, to get properties back online. I saw some figures tonight that, over a 10-year period that the Howard government was in office between 1997-98 and 2007-08, the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement funds to the Territory government had, in real terms, dropped by 24%. There is little wonder that we have properties which we cannot get back into service. Over those 10 years, when the so-called economic masters of the Howard government were holding the keys to the Treasury coffers, they were starving the states, particularly in the social housing area. We now have the Rudd government providing money – much-needed money - to the social housing sector to provide for many very needy Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the stimulus package, and thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement forward.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this whole parliament and the Australian Labor Party are completed misguided if they think there should not have been any debate on this subject.
It is interesting to note that Labor, in opposition, were opposed to every single major reform of the Howard government. In the 11 years that the Howard government was in government, the federal Labor opposition opposed every single major reform from that government. Now, all of a sudden, they are outraged that Malcolm Turnbull has opposed this $42bn package before it was properly debated.
The Financial Review editorial the week before last made the point that Kevin Rudd thinks it is cheap politics by the opposition for not instantly saluting his plan and, somehow, insinuated that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals were responsible for this financial crisis. Of course, that is what he wrote in his 700-word essay in The Monthly just recently. It is Kevin Rudd who is playing cheap politics on this issue, wanting 40 bills - 40 bills - to be rammed through federal parliament without one ounce of scrutiny and, then, expects the opposition to be saluting, saying ‘Amen’ and yelling ‘Hallelujah, thank you, Kevin’.
We have had guarantees to bank deposits, guarantees to inter-bank loans, without any debate - without one single ounce of debate in federal parliament - guaranteeing bank deposits and inter-bank loans without any debate whatsoever. It is very clear, as is clearly demonstrated in this parliament, that the Labor Party is afraid and terrified of debate.
It is a case with this financial crisis - I am certainly no economist, everyone knows that, but I simply read. All you need to do is read credible journals like The Australian or The Financial Review to realise that we are in a world of pain. There is an enormous world of pain to come. $42bn will not go anywhere near rescuing the pain that this country is going to face in the future. It is a case that you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you do not, when it comes to a stimulus package. If you do, then there should be more on economic infrastructure rather than a social infrastructure package that the Prime Minister has put forward. The problem is that we do not know where we are going. We do not know how great this financial crisis, as it has been called, is going to be; what is ahead of us economically.
Malcolm Turnbull, in my opinion, was correct when he said: ‘We need to keep our powder dry. We need to have something up our sleeve for the future’. There is an interesting article in today’s The Australian by Glenn Milne. I will read some of that. It says:
- How will you feel about the government’s $900 cash bonus in a year’s time if you are unemployed and in danger of defaulting on your mortgage?
And, assuming you voted Labor in 2007, how would it affect your political allegiance to Kevin Rudd if you find yourself in that position? ‘Not much’
and ‘quite a bit’, could reasonably be expected to be the answers.
Glenn Milne went on:
- I pose that question because, if the Rudd government’s $42bn fiscal stimulus package - large as it is by international standards - fails to kick-start
the economy and jobs growth, this could conceivably be where the political future lies for Labor. Already, economic think tanks are modelling that
future. And for the government it is not pretty, either from an electoral or economic perspective.
We have not seen any details of this package, which equates to 5% of GDP. We have not seen any details of the model which Treasury has based this sum on. So, $42bn; we have not seen anything. No one has seen anything as to why they have based this model on $42bn - no knowledge why Treasury chose this particular package over other packages.
We are seeing handouts to people who do not need them or, indeed, handouts to people who do not deserve them - and they are not means tested.
The IMF has forecast economic contraction of 0.2% this financial year, and unemployment at 4.8% - an economic contraction of 0.2% and unemployment of 4.8%. Canada, for example, which the IMF forecast an economic contraction of 1.2% with unemployment over 7%, has provided an economic stimulus package of 2.5% of GDP - only 2.5% of GDP in Canada, with an economic contraction of 1.2% and unemployment over 7%. Our economic contraction is 0.2% and unemployment is 4.8%, and our stimulus package is at 5% of GDP - $42bn.
There is also further manoeuvrability for the Reserve Bank to bring interest rates down but, on all accounts and by past history, it is pretty clear that banks will not pass that cut on to customers. These are the same banks that have been receiving guaranteed deposits from the government, without any debate, and guaranteed inter-bank loans - with our money, I might add, all our money - and they are not giving anything back. Where is Mr Rudd on this?
There are many aspects of the package, of course, that need to be debated and argued. It is not just about the Murray/Darling. We have seen a lot of talk about where Senator Nigel Scullion was. The question has to be asked: where were the three Labor members in the debate on this? Where were they when it came to sticking up for and asking more for the Northern Territory?
Prime Minister Rudd is fast breeding a welfare mentality when it comes to this sort of stuff. It is interesting that the head of the Commonwealth Bank has said that, with tax cuts, lower fuel prices, and interest rate cuts in the last six months, it has resulted in an 11% boost to the average Australian’s disposable income - 11.0% to the average Australian’s disposable income in the last six months. That is equivalent to three annual wage rises, and it is the biggest increase in disposable income in the country’s history. In the last six months, when you combine tax cuts, lower fuel prices and the cut in interest rates, it is the biggest increase in disposable income in the country’s history; that is, an 11% boost to the average Australian’s disposable income. Despite the scaremongering by this government and the federal government, they conceded that, at the end of four years, there will still be 300 000 people unemployed and, at the end of four years, unemployment will hit 7%. So, at the end of four years, we will have unemployment in this country at 7%. It is worth remembering also that it is not just the $42bn that the Prime Minister has splashed around. He has already given $6bn to the car industry; $15bn to state and territory health; $10.4bn before Christmas; the $4.7bn Nation Building Package; $500m Renewable Energy Fund; and $300m in local government funding.
The country is set to go into deficit to $22bn this year; $35bn next financial year; $34bn the following year; and $24.7bn the year after that. Even Treasurer Wayne Swan has said in this story by Glenn Milne in today’s The Australian:
- ‘This plan won’t be a silver bullet ... This global recession will be long and difficult but we know the downturn will be harder on Australians without it’.
That is out of the Treasurer’s own mouth. As Glenn Milne said, we know this thing has a long way to go. When you add up all those deficits - from this year $22bn; $35bn; $34bn the following year; and $24.7bn the year after that - it is a total of $118bn by 2012. Hardly worth going to work, you would think, with all the tax that Territory and Australians workers are going to be slugged to repay this debt …
A member: And their kids.
Mr CONLAN: And their kids, of course.
It seems the Rudd government is happy to accept that. They have developed a welfare mentality. By 2012, it is estimated that close to 50% of the population will pay no tax; that is, they will be part of that middle class welfare that is ever increasing under the Labor government - 39% in 2004, 42%, 43% currently, and set to increase staggeringly after this $42bn package. The Prime Minister - with the greatest respect to him and the position - is all rhetoric and no substance.
What would have happened if, when asked about the financial tsunami - as Treasurer Costello at the time described was on our doorstep in 2007 - at the federal election Kevin Rudd’s answer to that had been: ‘Well, my answer to that is to put our country into $118bn of debt and, by 2012, unemployment will be at 7%’. He would have been run out of town - absolutely run out of town.
Malcolm Turnbull and the Territory Leader of the Opposition were right to demand more debate on this. We should not be afraid of debate. Forty bills needed to be scrutinised. This was rammed through parliament. Malcolm Turnbull and the Territory Leader of the Opposition were right, and we should be cheering them for trying to secure the future of Territorians for years to come and save them from years and years of debt - $118bn and 7% employment. Those are the facts and figures as highlighted by industry experts. You can read them. They were all in the newspapers such as The Financial Review and The Australian over the last couple of weeks while this has been talked about in parliament and the media.
I support Malcolm Turnbull and Terry Mills, the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there has to be some sort of stimulus package, but we do not know what we are going into. This is bigger than anyone can possibly imagine. Companies such as Rio Tinto in 18 months will be looking at repaying a debt of $35bn. Where is that money going to come from, because the banks are not giving it to anyone? Corporations are completely dried up giving anyone any money. The banks have stopped lending. We are in for a world of pain. Malcolm Turnbull was right. Let us keep our powder dry. Certainly, let us inject some money into this economy. However, to plunge us into such a huge, significant amount of debt at this stage is reckless and irresponsible.
Madam Speaker, I support fully the Leader of the Opposition and his stance when it comes to this issue.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I welcome this statement from the Chief Minister on the federal government’s $42bn economic stimulus package. I certainly welcome the move by our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to see the urgency and the need for this country to look into the needs of the people across this country and, in particular, in the Northern Territory.
I listened with interest to the debate across the Chamber, not only in the last few hours, but last week as we looked at the stimulus package, and the importance of having that kind of injection, particularly in the Northern Territory. As a bush member, as the member for Arnhem, I am very pleased with the outcome of this stimulus package. I want that recorded in our discussions here, and for our Labor colleagues in the federal parliament to recognise that it has been very much appreciated.
If we want to talk about the politics of the actual financial package itself, what I find interesting is the impact of one person. The one person in this debate in the federal parliament was the Independent member, Nick Xenophon. We all know what he has been able to achieve for his state by holding on to what he wanted to do in getting the Rudd government to follow through with his conditions. I ask myself what kind of impact could our Senator for the CLP, Nigel Scullion, have had in that same debate had he really looked at this package? This was one time in his political career where he could have made a tremendous difference, not only for the CLP in the Northern Territory but, in particular, the people of the Northern Territory. This was one time where one person could make a tremendous impact on where that money was going. We look at people like the Independent Senator, Nick Xenophon, and recognise that, even though we all belong to our particular beliefs and parties, there are times when those opportunities come up. It is a sad indictment on the Senator in that regard, because I do know Nigel Scullion and believe that there could have been an opportunity - a real opportunity - to push forward on some of those very issues that his own colleagues have raised in this debate, not only this afternoon, but in the previous week.
It is clear, if we want to look at the political issues of this, the toing and froing of whether the money was too much or too little, if we look again at Premier Colin Barnett of Western Australia. He is a man who has said: ‘Look, it might be just a little too much money but, hey, I will take it. I will take it because it is going to make a huge difference to my state. It is going to make an incredible difference to the livelihoods of all people across Western Australia’. I look at that kind of leadership and think: this is one opportunity where we could have had that complete bipartisan support here and, if that bipartisan support had been there, incredible pressure could have been put in the federal parliament for any kind of extras that the opposition, in particular, would have liked to have seen.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the Territory is going to benefit from this federal government’s initiative. I think of the number of schools in my own electorate of Arnhem, in particular Ramingining CEC, a school that is doing well in seeing Year 12 students graduate. Because of the Labor government, in Kalkarindji we saw our first Year 12 students graduate. I am very pleased to say that in Ramingining, Milingimbi and Ngukurr, we have seen a number of Year 12 students graduate.
I have made phone calls to schools in my electorate to ask them how this will impact on them, and what the things are that they would like to see changed and improved as a result of this stimulus package. The principals of the schools in Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, Ngukurr, and even in Numbulwar, recognise that this is an incredible opportunity for them to see some major improvements, on top of the already prepared and promised improvements for this year, and the structures that have already been built in the last few years. I think of Wugularr, formerly in my electorate, and the new school that is being built there, knowing that the member for Stuart will certainly be seeing extra facilities in that school.
Members have said to me, both in and outside the parliament: ‘Why put so much money into these schools when the issue is about getting children to school? Why not just focus on something else?’ They are valid arguments. We should always have that discussion, and I do not think there is ever a right or a wrong for these things. It is about the continuity of knowing that we have to deal with this on all levels. The level that we are dealing with this is on the economic level, recognising that this is going to have a tremendous impact on the people in the regions. It is going to have that for those members who have bush electorates. Looking at the costs here, the good news for bush members is that the impact of the Territory’s $500m share of this package will be felt right across the region.
The federal government has committed to deliver $14.7bn to boost Australia’s education system over the next three years and, as you have heard the Chief Minister say, the Territory’s share of this will be in the vicinity of $180m to $200m. This funding is available for both government and non-government schools. As this program will commence this year and roll out over the next three years, every Territory primary school will be eligible for a new library or multipurpose hall, with the amount of funding subject to school size. Schools with contemporary libraries and multipurpose halls will be able to apply for funding for refurbishment or building of other facilities. Secondary schools that can demonstrate need and readiness will be eligible to build new science laboratories and language centres. Every Territory school will receive up to $200 000, subject to the size of the school, to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor new works.
Let us not take away from the significance of this for the schools. I urge members of the Assembly to take that into consideration. While, on one hand, we want to look at the overall package - and listening to the member for Greatorex as he talked about the economic pain that is being felt and will continue to be felt over the coming months, even years - let us not lose sight of that one level. Yes, we should be looking at that but, on a very closer-to-home level for people who are struggling in their own home communities, who want to see changes within their own community; that they can see changes and activity. This is vital; we should not lose sight of that, and not think that, by rejecting the package as a whole we are doing the right thing, because we are not - most definitely not.
I am very pleased to see that the Chief Minister has called businesses here in Darwin - and immediately. It is something that our government is working on straightaway, because we know that it is one thing to have the package announced and talked about within the federal parliament, but we also need to ensure that our businesses here on the ground know how to tap into that straightaway.
Large-scale projects must provide facilities that will benefit the local community. As I said, it is important to note that this money is available for all schools, government and non-government. For instance, in my electorate, this funding will add to existing commitments already in education. I highlight that I am very passionate about education. There is more than $1m under Closing the Gap for Ngukurr Community Education Centre. Last year, we celebrated 100 years of Ngukurr as a community. I was there just a couple of weeks ago as we opened the safe house and the men’s cooling-off centre. It is extraordinary; the change in Ngukurr is quite beautiful. I urge my colleagues to have a look. It has been tremendous to see the difference for the community in what the Roper Gulf Shire is doing in that area. It has probably had a bit of an advantage in the sense that the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority in the Beswick/Barunga region has now grown and become the Roper Gulf Shire.
Seeing Ngukurr and the school where there are so many new demountables; we know that the new housing for the teachers has made a tremendous difference. It is not enough - most definitely not enough; I will be the first one to say that. The teachers and people at Ngukurr know very much that I am working on that. Yet, they can see the difference. When communities can see the difference and that activity, and they know when they have asked and lobbied for something and it is actually happening, it makes a difference. It actually makes people feel really good that there is action on the ground. However, it is a two-way street.
This is one of the things I say to not only the mob in Ngukurr, but as I travel through Arnhem Land: it is one thing for governments at either the Territory or federal level to provide that kind of support, but it has to actually be met halfway. We need the families and the people on the ground in the communities to see that there is change, and to stand up and take some more responsibility as well on what they can be doing to ensure that these changes are for the better, not only for themselves and their family, but for the children. It is always about the children as far as I am concerned.
I like talking about Ramingining, it is a wonderful community. Again, there is over $1m for classroom upgrades under Closing the Gap. Gapuwiyak is a place that I will be going to a lot more often now that I picked that up in the last redistribution. Again, there is over $1m for the Gapuwiyak school.
At Angurugu, I know that the principal of Angurugu, Maurice Higgins, will be very pleased with the stimulus package. They have a large area already for assembly, so I know they will be thinking: ‘How can we look at this funding - maybe not for multipurpose halls’. For others it will be a hall. They can consider the priority in some areas. They are already talking about what they can use it for. They are looking at the home economics room.
We have the ranger program working within the Groote area. The ranger program has a great children’s program and the youth in Angurugu are part of that. So, already there is discussion and there is some excitement. Groote is leading the way in a lot of respects, not just with the ranger programs, but the housing and the leasing that is going on there at the moment. You can ask any of the Anindilyakwa mob and they can tell you that there have been significant improvements in the last four or five years. Again, a lot of that comes back to not just governments at the Territory and federal level, but actually the people. It is the people who can see the changes and are now a part of the process to say: ‘This is how we want the change to happen. This is what we want to see happen for our kids’. Once you start including the people - any people, wherever they are - in that process and in their vision for the future, then you see the real results. It is about investing in people. The people of Angurugu know that this stimulus package is going to go a long way to contributing towards their plans for their school.
At Milingimbi, again there is $1.25m under Closing the Gap already, and they know that this is going to be an incredible assistance for them. The Numbulwar mob, $1.25m with the Closing the Gap, and again, this stimulus package - it is quite exciting for them. If we look at what we have done in education with the Remote Partnership Learning Agreement, Ngukurr and Numbulwar have signed up, Milingimbi is about to, and Gapuwiyak in my electorate. These sorts of things are all a combination of what is changing and improving for the better in people making a decision about how they want to see education in their communities. To know that they again can talk about this funding and the stimulus package as an addition to some of the other plans they have, is just really exciting - it really is.
When I hear the negativity about the package - and I know that members have argued that it is not actually about the package per se, but your opportunity to scrutinise it - I say to you: do not forget the importance of this and what it means on the ground – the small things. It makes a tremendous difference. If that is going to happen within those communities, and then, obviously, to the contractors and the businesses, it does have a flow-on effect.
I have just mentioned the $300 000 in infrastructure upgrades for Alyangula and a number of the communities. All of this under Closing the Gap, plus the stimulus package, creates some real incentives in our communities.
As you have heard from my colleague, the Housing Minister, housing in the Territory stands to benefit from the federal government’s $42bn economic stimulus package. The housing component of the package will provide capital to drive housing projects that will deliver real results for Territorians. I say real results, because I know that my colleagues, especially my bush member colleagues, want to ensure that that housing package, the stimulus package in the SIHIP program, is about real jobs on the ground. I know for a fact that, on Groote Eylandt, which has kicked off with the SIHIP program, we want to see the local people involved. In fact, we went so far as to say we know that, over the years, we have seen many contractors going to our communities. We talk about wanting to have local people involved and, then, when they get involved and the contractors leave, nothing happens. Those local people then do not have a housing program or a building company to go to. Well, we have to change that.
One of the things we did with this new incentive with the housing monies was to ensure that the contractors and the camps are set up - and I use Numbulwar as an example. If we have the contractors set up in a camp, we have to ensure that those local people can sleep in that area. They can have a demountable, airconditioning, three meals a day, just like any other contractor who comes in, because we know that our local people are starting from a disadvantage of being in already overcrowded houses. Whether there is fighting going on, arguments or disagreements, overcrowding creates all kinds of problems. We know that; everyone knows that. You know what it is like when you do not have enough space and someone is crowding you. Imagine that 20 times over.
We know that with the housing program we have made changes, so that, within that alliance program, those contractors make sure they have those local people in there; they are part of the team from the get go. They are part of the team, they are learning, they are living in the same conditions, they can have decent sleep, decent food - everything, the whole works - and still have their family down the road. However, there is the intent that, at the end of it, they can then continue on by being the repairs and maintenance group, or setting up their own construction industry if they want. It has to be about what happens after the contractors leave; what happens beyond that. This is the excitement that comes with the housing program that we are beginning to roll out.
Before we get to that, of course, we have to ensure we have the local people up to scratch, whether they need VET training, numeracy and literacy upgrades, what kind of skills we have in our communities and how we can pinpoint those particular people. We know the people in those communities. We know who would have the energy and enthusiasm to do it, but they may not be at that skills level. How can we help them get up to that skills level? These are the fantastic things I get really excited about.
Australia-wide, it is anticipated the package will deliver some 20 000 social homes. In the Territory, the stimulus package will deliver $65m for social housing. That is going to be in addition to $75m for Defence housing. We know the impact of Defence in the Northern Territory in Darwin and, most definitely, in Katherine – as the member for Katherine would know with the Tindal Air Base. I would like to think, too, that we also must consider NORFORCE, which is very much a part of Defence in the Northern Territory.
The $65m contained in the stimulus package will be ...
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arnhem be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Barkly.
The $65m contained in the package will be in addition to the $672m already committed to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, or SIHIP. It is a great record investment by both the Australian and NT governments. Improving housing, as we all know, is essential to closing the gap. We are going to see about 750 new houses, including new subdivisions, more than 230 new houses to replace houses to be demolished, and more than 2500 housing upgrades, essential infrastructure to support new houses, and improvements to living conditions in town camps.
I spoke at the beginning and said there are two ways we need to look at this; obviously, from the political level and the economic level, as a whole. Some people are arguing it is too much of a stimulus package, or it is not enough. What I am saying is: let us keep it real; let us look at it on the ground, the impact on the everyday Territorian out there. This is going to have a tremendously good impact for them. I urge members of the Assembly to get on board, to recognise the improvements that can be made with the many programs going on out in our communities, especially with the housing programs. It is to the benefit of the Northern Territory parliament that we can see these improvements for all Territorians out in those regions.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I was not going to talk on this, but I have been stimulated to do so. In all good conscience, knowing that perhaps my own children, and even their children’s children, may be affected by this, as a dad I need to say something.
The conservative side of politics, in some light, has taken a hit over this. That is just aimed at trying to get a headline in the media, and not really what is behind it. I am sure people reading history may look back and see that the conservative side of government right across this country, as leaders, stood up to see what was right; it was nothing at all like what has been demonstrated here in the last few days.
In fact, it probably demonstrated to me how dirty politics can get from time to time. The fact is, today people are smarter than the other side of the House thinks. Perhaps those kinds of stunts worked back in the days of Merlin. However, no one on this side of the House - no conservative government in this country - suggested that a stimulus package was not what was required. We even suggested that we needed to go into debt to stimulate the economy and help through this economic crisis that we face. I have a real problem when we are asked to make a decision very quickly on something as large as a $42bn stimulus package.
When I was discussing this the other night with my son and I told him that when he goes to work he will still be paying this debt back, he said: ‘Bugger off’. I had to agree that it was not the nicest thing to have to let him know.
Mr Rudd, our Prime Minister, blamed this economic crisis on greed and the wants of the here and now. In fact, the stimulus package is doing just the same; it is feeding the wants, the needs, right now. However, later on people are going to have to pay it back.
We need to have a stimulus package in this country - we certainly do. However, there is not one person in this parliament today who would sign a document for even a house without reading the fine print - putting your signature on a document that puts you into debt for many years. That is something that I can speak to from the heart, having had debt problems myself in the past, particularly with credit cards. I know the pain a single family can go through from being in debt and the need to service that debt. We are not talking about one family here, we are talking about families all over this nation.
Servicing that debt is a very hard thing to do. It is okay for those people today who are cashed up and can go and purchase something with cash. But when you are about to put something on a credit card, take a loan out for something, you really need to think hard whether you require that item. Is it a luxury item or is it an item of need?
I put to you that a plasma TV put on a credit card is just servicing a luxury. People buying a home - a big debt - in future many realise that it was the right thing to do because they have capitalised on their investment. Any money invested should be on things that you are investing into the future, which will have a real benefit for this country. I put it to this House that there is not a government in this country that would have the bajoolies to do another Snowy River Scheme.
That saddens me. At a time like this, when we should be looking at the future and doing some major infrastructure, here is the perfect chance to maybe fix up some of those big picture item issues they face down south with water - in Victoria, South Australia and southern New South Wales. I suggest, and I hope, that governments around this country spend money in planning the big ticket items. There is probably not a person in this room who has not seen a surveyor out walking through the scrub or on the side of the road. One would hope, as a normal person in the community, that person is working for a government department or a private business, out there surveying the bigger things. We say we need to stimulate the economy quickly. I hope that this and other governments of this country have plans on their desks right now so they can use the money for things that will stimulate the economy, but also provide long-term investments for this country.
I heard on the news the other day that governments all around the world agreed to packages by their respective parliaments and, in fact, Obama was mentioned. Much criticism was laid upon our own Opposition Leader in Canberra, Malcolm Turnbull, that he did not support this package. I will go back and clear the record, right here. The conservative side of government has not said that a stimulation package is not required; in fact, they agreed to it. They agree that we need to go into debt to make that happen. However, it is a debt that we need to scrutinise to ensure we are putting in place investment opportunities that are going to pay off in the future.
The difference that someone like Obama did that the Rudd government did not, was speak to members in the opposition - Congressmen in the United States - where they both agreed on a direction. I heard, time and time again, Malcolm Turnbull in Canberra saying he was prepared to work with government on this. Let us, as a nation, work together. You have some smart people on that side, we have some smart people on this side. Let us have a think tank. Let us work on this quickly and stand together in front of a nation, and say: ‘This is what is needed’. You would have bipartisan support because a deal was worked through and some real infrastructure needs and investments met into the future.
I also worry that, without scrutiny, we do not know whether one school here needs $1m, and this school only needs $100 000. Let us be true here, again. There is not a school in this country that would knock back a package of something like $200 000. Let us face it; any additional dollar is a benefit. Perhaps there are schools out there - and I can name a few just in Palmerston - that have not been touched or upgraded in many years. I am sure there are many more schools throughout the Northern Territory. Perhaps they need some more money, and some of the more affluent schools do not need so much money. This is what scrutiny can do. You can go back to these schools and have a look at their wish lists. However, none of this, of course, happened because that side of the House decided to attack us, simply because we did not agree with their point of view – and that is all it was, just to get a headline.
What if it does not work? We have seen $10m spent just before Christmas and, still today, there is no clear evidence that suggests that has stimulated the economy and saved 75 000 jobs that Mr Rudd said it would. I was told recently that, for a $1000 plasma TV where $900 goes overseas, only $100 of that money has stimulated the economy in this country. So, if you put that on to the bigger scale and look at $10bn, perhaps $10bn stimulated the economy by $1bn. That is a sad thing; to think that we have invested $10bn to stimulate the economy by a factor of only $1bn.
What if it does not work? What if we spend $42bn and send this country well into debt for many years and next quarter comes along and our Prime Minister says: ‘It did not work; we need to find some more’? He stands there and puts his hand out like Oliver: ‘Please, sir, I need some more’, and we have to go further into debt. Again, I know personally what it is like to have the pain of debt, and owing money to other people. So, what if it does not work - next quarter, next year?
I do not prescribe to the notion that we cannot do things quickly if we work together. Let us look at the environment for a minute, at the energy efficiency side of this stimulus package and the $1600 rebate and things like that. One such example is the energy efficiency rebate. Does the Henderson government know how many Territorians will be eligible for the $1600 for roofing insulation or the $1600 for solar hot water? This is means tested but, for the solar hot water rebate, you cannot double dip. It is either one or the other.
The concept is laudable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save householders’ electricity costs. I notice that you estimate $34m subject to take-up. That money is for 21 250 households to take up either the solar hot water or the insulation. Is pink batts the answer? Is that going to stimulate the economy? It will for that industry - it sure will. The federal government boasts that the stimulus package could result in almost all Australian homes winning at least two-star energy efficiency rating. The NT standard is 3.5, with plans to impose five-star standards.
Driving around the suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston, you will see most roofs have solar hot water units. As at 2004, more than half of Territory households used solar systems to heat their water. There have been ongoing solar hot water rebates since then, so it would be hard to imagine that number has not substantially increased. Due to the high dependence on solar hot water, many households got in early and installed hot water services – they are an efficient device. These households will be unable to access the rebate to replace ageing systems. They will not be able to use this rebate to replace their existing solar hot water system. This is a provision that should have rung alarm bells for the Chief Minister.
While we are on the subject, if they were really looking at finding efficiencies in hot water systems – there are heat pumps. Many may have heard of heat pump hot water systems. There are two great examples in the Northern Territory right now. Heat pumps can provide up to a 75% reduction in household energy. Crowne Plaza, across the road, has just replaced a hot water system with a heat pump hot water system – a 75% reduction in the costs of hot water. Through a heat pump system, the by-product is cold air. Guess what? They have placed the cold air ducts across their cooling towers for airconditioning. So, as a direct result of heating water, they actually have far more efficient airconditioning. Let us look at the Crowne Plaza as a wonderful example. Another one is the new Airport Hotel …
A member: The casino is doing the same.
Mr CHANDLER: Doing the same thing with these heat pumps. This type of technology is here, it is available. It has been used in other states. It is showing great reductions in energy. Unless the government’s true angle here is to ensure people are using as much electricity as possible, and money coming back in through Power and Water, they really should be looking at ways to take the heat, if you like - excuse the pun - out of the grid by looking at solutions such as heat pump hot water systems.
I want to be sure that people realise the conservative side of government knows that we need a stimulation package. The only thing we wanted was the opportunity to read the bottom line, to read between the lines and, before signing it, to know what it was about. Already in this House, we have seen in the last few days, since last week, a change in the numbers. We did not have the full numbers up-front. They have changed this week and, perhaps, they will change again by the end of this week.
What are we deciding on? What are we agreeing to? What do you think we are opposed to? We are opposed to not knowing, not understanding. Again, I am using an analogy: we would not buy a home, sign for a mortgage for 25 or 30 years, without knowing the full implications. If you want me to pay it back in all good conscience, then tell me what I am getting for my money. Even now, after days and days, more and more is flowing out. Yet, back then, you wanted us to make a decision and say that yes, we will put our hands up, support this 100%, without knowing what the full details were. That is a sad occasion. We have done this just after a $10bn stimulus package was given to us before Christmas - $10bn, with no real proof that it has worked. Yet again, here we are, a month down the track, and you want us to sign off on $42bn. It is not about the money in the end; it is about how it is used.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on the stimulus package. However, I want to talk in general up-front about some of the confusion I have in my own mind. It is federal parliament legislation that has been passed through parliament far away. I guess it is good for the Northern Territory.
I supported the Chief Minister’s summit on the weekend to allow businesses to have an input. We need a stimulus package for business, to ensure we support our Territory businesses. My biggest concern, though, is with all these buildings we are putting on remote Aboriginal communities, who is going to pick up the oncost of these communities after they are put there? That is my biggest concern, because that can be a real burden on Indigenous communities. I hold the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs and I am from a remote Aboriginal community, and that is a huge concern. For short-term gain, we need to ask ourselves about the long-term ramifications of doing something tomorrow, and what impact it will have next week.
Everything that has been factored into the housing packages is about stimulating the industry to build these infrastructures. We certainly need roads infrastructure. With the latest rains in Central Australia and in the Top End, we have huge problems having bush roads fixed. It is good to put the workers out there very early to have these roads fixed. But again, I question who picks up the tab for everything that we put in there? We could be just putting extra pressure on these communities.
I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Arnhem’s comments, regarding the building industry having huge packages for Indigenous people to train and build these houses and get their certificates. I remember in ATSIC, three years ago, we had the IHANT program, which was put together with the Territory and federal governments and ATSIC. We had the Builder Trainer program. I remember asking a question in this very House - I think I was over there - about why it was that we got rid of the Builder Trainer Program. That is only three years ago. These people in the communities with Certificate III Level Building qualifications are now unemployed. I encourage my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, to get out there while we introduce the stimulus package, to encourage all these workers to come back to the workforce to ensure they are part of the development, part of building on the communities, and part of having true stimulus employment, so the employment can be continuous.
I suppose, from my position, I get frustrated because of the stop/start, stop/start of things that happen to Indigenous people. The package is good; we welcome it, and I support the Chief Minister. I supported the summit that he held. However, when we are dealing with Indigenous communities and people, we have to be very careful in the sense that we do not give them a false hope of things happening on their community - which only happen today; it is not going to be ongoing tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. That is my biggest concern.
We have to have a holistic approach to doing things in the Northern Territory. The economy needs the stimulus package, businesses need it, and we need to kick-start the economy in order to make it survive. That is our job, as politicians. These people outside, out there, listening to us, voted us in to make decisions - and the right decisions - on behalf of Territory people.
Let us not play games, because this is not something that we determined today, in here, in this parliament. It has already been determined thousands of miles away from us in the federal parliament. I agree with the member for Nelson when he said the Greens and Independents are in an important position since it is their job to question whether something is right for their electorate or party. Other people have that right as well.
I just do not want to see us playing games in this House with people’s lives because our families are in the long queues at Centrelink; people we are related to who have mortgages are going to be homeless because they have lost their jobs, and they maybe have to get the wife to get a second job. This is where I really believe we should talk in this House with the honesty and passion that we have when we go and knock on their door and ask them for their vote to get us into this House. I know, for one, I feel really upset at the fact that there are hundreds of people who have lost their jobs in the mining industry and other areas because of what is happening to the economy. This is a global financial crisis that we have; it is not just happening in the Northern Territory, in Australia, it is happening everywhere.
Last week, we were talking about the bushfire disaster. This is a disaster. It is a disaster in the sense that people are unemployed. Parents are going to be going home and telling their children: ‘You are not going to have the things that you had last week. You cannot have it today, you will not have it next week, because mum and dad do not have jobs anymore’. What we, the members in this House, have to be are clean, conscionable politicians. I know whatever I say here tonight makes no difference, because the decision has already been made somewhere else.
However, I do support the Chief Minister’s statement. I am glad he has had an industry summit to encourage industry and let it know that government is supporting it, and talk about some of the things in this package that, obviously, affect my portfolio. We have had a look at the short-term, medium-term, and the long-term measures that have been rolled out in this package and the programs ready to be rolled out straightaway.
It is very encouraging to Territorians, and especially to Central Australia. My job as the member for McDonnell is to ensure that I fight for Central Australia and for all Territorians to ensure we are putting Territorians first. I do not ever want to get myself into a position where, after being here, I go back to Alice Springs and someone tells me: ‘What you said inside that House was not right’. I know that I go with pride and honour when I go and knock on someone’s door, whether they are Indigenous people or not - since the redistribution, I have had the rural blocks in Alice Springs - and say: ‘Vote me in because I can speak for you and I will support you’. In this, I really want to support mankind. This is not something that we play political football with.
We know that we are going to get all this infrastructure. They have already decided in Canberra that we are going to get the roads and schools infrastructure. I am really concerned about people’s pride, honour, and the fact that people are hurting and we see them every day lining up at Centrelink. I do not ever want to see or get myself into a situation where I am blaming other people and playing games with the ordinary man and woman’s life out there. That is what I stand here for, and I support the statement of the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arnhem for her comments. That is the first time that I have seen the member for Arnhem speak freely and not from a scripted speech from the fifth floor. I thought the member for Arnhem’s speech was good. I do not agree with everything, but she spoke fairly well and spoke from the heart in what she said.
I also thank the member for Macdonnell for what she said. I have been sitting here this afternoon listening to the debate about this. It is a decision that has been made federally and we cannot have any influence on that point of view right now. To see such a waste of time as we spent today on labouring the point about who could have done what and where and so forth has been a sad day for me. Two speeches from one side and two speeches from the other side would have been enough, from my point of view. It has been done, it has been said and, now, they have thrown it out.
What was done yesterday by the Chief Minister would have been good if some opposition members were there, considering we represent half the Territory. It would have been good if we were there, but the process that was taken was very good. It looks a way to be able to roll out the stimulus.
I also share the concerns that the member for Macdonnell raised. I picked up those concerns during the speech by the member for Arnhem when she was talking about the school infrastructure, and going to some of the communities that she represents. She also reflected on the housing package. She was talking about SIHIP, in particular, and some of the housing, and saying how that is so good for the communities and it builds jobs. Well, the member for Macdonnell, quite accurately, reflected that it does not build jobs; it comes, delivers a certain amount of work, and then leaves again. There is no longevity in it. There are no sustainable jobs in that process. People will argue that if you train people to get skills, people have those skills and that is really good; that is a positive. However, where are those skills utilised in the community when there is no local industry? There is no continuity of jobs in the longer term for people to have an income to buy more houses, to mortgage something, or to build. The cycle stops as soon as the end of that funding program or that grant is reached.
While there might be money out the door in the short term, it does not really represent the bush. Bush electorates are held by the people on the other side, and that is something that really needs to be reflected upon. That is why there is argument about whether Senator Scullion did the right thing or not. Members need to be reminded that there are four federal members in the Northern Territory, plus one Chief Minister. The leverage that someone such as Senator Scullion could have made also could have been made by the members for Solomon, Lingiari, or the other Senator, Trish Crossin. The same leverage could have been made. Just because Senator Scullion did not make that leverage, as government is talking about, does not mean that there is any implication taken off the Labor federal members for not doing the same thing. It also does not take from the Chief Minister not looking for that leverage when he looked the Prime Minister in the eye and signed up for the money.
My point in disagreeing with the member for Arnhem on the school and the housing package, and aligning myself with what the member for Macdonnell said, is that this process, or that localisation of the stimulus package, could have been identified by the Chief Minister or the three Labor members in federal parliament.
The position, as I understand it, that Senator Scullion was trying to take was to get greater scrutiny of the package and trying to tailor it to local needs. That is very important, and I applaud Senator Scullion for trying to do that. I spoke long and hard with him about that because I wanted better scrutiny and more to be delivered through this package. Forget that we did not receive enough money. It could have been localised. We could have received more money for roads infrastructure - and I would have supported the member for Barkly, the new Minister for Transport in getting more roads money. $4m is just an absolute joke. We could have received a lot more bang for the buck of the money we have, or we could have tried to negotiate more money.
The SIHIP program is a perfect case in point right now. The SIHIP program has not rolled out. It has been since 1997 when Mal Brough gave the GST/John Howard money to the Territory government …
Mr Tollner: In 2007.
Mr GILES: In 2007. … which was widely criticised by this government, although they now have it in their bank. Still, the houses are not being built. To take the point of the member for Arnhem, that is not helping those communities out there. It is not even helping the communities in the main cities because they are not getting the work. I am led to believe that $30m in administrative fees have already been paid to the Territory government to run this program, and houses are not being built.
Regarding the announcement by the Minister for Housing, the member for Daly, in this statement earlier that there will be 2000 Defence houses built in the electorate of Fong Lim, I am sure the member for Fong Lim will be happy to know that he is getting an extra 2000 houses. Check Hansard, that is what you said.
To me, that equates to about $600m. I welcome an extra $600m by the member for Daly, the Housing Minister, who is doing a great job in rolling out the SIHIP program ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: The whole point of the argument is that, unless we localise the way we deliver projects and industry development in small communities, but also in our larger regional centres, it is not going to have the right outcome that we want in long-term stimulus, or long-term economic development. That is where we get it wrong. The questions asked by the shadow Health minister, the member for Greatorex, today talked about handing over power – such as the Labor proposal to hand over the health system to the federal government – completely takes a centralised approach and removes specifically what I am talking about: trying to have local strategies in local areas for longevity.
Canberra bureaucrats sit in Canberra. As someone who has worked there, I know that there is absolutely no way it will meet the needs of health patients in the Northern Territory. It will not help anyone at Borroloola. It will not help the people in Alice Springs or Darwin. When you translate the proposal by Labor to take health off the Northern Territory and put it in Canberra, and correlate that directly to what is happening with housing in the Northern Territory, it is exactly the same issue and it reflects poorly on this stimulus package. Even though I do not believe in the principles or in borrowing, and I support Senator Scullion 100%, I believe we now have to move forward the stimulus package.
We need to stop bickering about it, and ensure that we do get the best bang for our buck and support those local communities, because the way it is designed at the moment, it will not. It will be just very short term, the money will leave the Territory, and we will back in the same position as we were before.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister on his statement on implementing the Commonwealth stimulus package in the Northern Territory. As I said last week, it has become painfully clear that the Northern Territory economy is going to be buffeted by the global economic downturn. As this global crisis has unfolded, we can see how entwined the world’s economies have become. The problems within the US and UK financial systems have rapidly affected the rest of the world. Countries in the Euro zone are facing the worst recession for 50 years. The current economic crisis has also been described as the worst since World War II.
To our north, our Asian neighbours have begun to suffer as well. We cannot underestimate the importance of our Asian neighbours. In particular, we see today how important they are with the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, making her first official visit to China. We hear that 20 million workers have lost their jobs In China. That is extraordinary - 20 million workers losing their jobs. In Japan, exports fell 35% in December and, in Singapore, the deepest recession in that country’s history is looming.
Anyone who believes that Australia is not going to be affected is quite simply deluded. We face a reduction in national growth, job losses and economic hardship. The challenge for all governments, whether they be federal, state or territory, is to provide leadership, economic management and clever planning, while maintaining confidence within the community.
That brings me to the Commonwealth’s $42bn economic stimulus package. It is absolutely essential that this package is quick-acting. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said during an interview recently, we have to keep our economy going. That is why, as well as the immediate cash injections, there are also strict time limits attached to many of the projects.
In the Territory, we are better placed than most to weather the coming economic storm, and are blessed with rich resources to draw upon and new opportunities to capitalise on, especially in our regions. We are fortunate that many of the minerals that are in our country are in the Northern Territory, such as gold, rare earths and phosphate, and also fortunate not to have their price value reduced by the current global economy.
There remains the potential for new mining activity, such as Minemakers near Tennant Creek, and Arafura Resources at Nolans Bore near Alice Springs in my electorate of Stuart. Our Indigenous Economic Development Strategy is due to be launched in the first half of 2009. This new strategy is founded on the work that my department has been doing to identify the aspirations of Indigenous communities and the opportunities for new business enterprises to develop.
One of our key challenges is to engage Indigenous Territorians in the economy. That is something the member for Braitling and my colleagues, the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem, spoke so well about in their contributions. Earlier today, I was very pleased to report to the House on the government’s successful partnership with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the NLC to bring high-speed broadband to eastern Arnhem Land. Some 800 km of optical fibre has been laid in record time, connecting the communities of Oenpelli, Maningrida, Ramingining, Gapuwiyak, Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala to the information superhighway. We need to capitalise on this investment in broadband, helping with the development of new Indigenous businesses which can be connected to the world in ways we have never thought about before.
We also need private enterprises to engage in business opportunities in Indigenous communities. We need partnerships built on mutual respect, in response to the aspirations of Indigenous people. We have compiled economic profiles of Alice Springs and Katherine, and we aim to do one in Tennant Creek this year. These profiles give us a good base from which to have productive conversations with the Economic Development Committees and the communities about what they need, and we need to do, to stimulate economic development, particularly in the current economic climate we find ourselves.
Meanwhile, in Katherine, we have the Growing Katherine Business Project, the Territory’s pilot Sirolli project. Ernesto Sirolli is an internationally recognised and passionate enterprise facilitator who is committed to seeing local communities become the incubator for small- to medium-sized enterprises. The Directors of Growing Katherine Businesses are supported by my department in Katherine, and we are looking forward to the appointment of an enterprise facilitator in the very near future.
The Commonwealth stimulus package will assist us as we steer our course through the difficult times which lie ahead. I listened to the figures provided by the Chief Minister and the Business Minister this afternoon, and would like to reinforce those figures. Approximately $500m for the Northern Territory is quite substantial - I support this: around $80m for the Alice Springs region; $37m for the Katherine region; $13m for Tennant Creek; $14m for Jabiru; and $32m for East Arnhem Land.
On the issues of housing, if we add funding from the Commonwealth stimulus package to the roll-out of SIHIP, the figures for our main regional centres are extraordinary: East Arnhem receives $154m; Tennant Creek $57m; Alice Springs a whopping $199m; Katherine $127m plus a further $123m from the upgrade and expansion of Tindal which is due to commence in June 2009. I support this, just as I support the Commonwealth’s $42m economic stimulus package, which is compatible with our nation’s long-term economic and social aims.
The Chief Minister has already made it clear he places an emphasis on securing jobs for Territorians. As the Minister for Regional Development and the member for Stuart, I am committed to the challenge of creating jobs in our regions.
I can make a couple of comparisons to the Commonwealth’s $42bn economic stimulus package with the Northern Territory Emergency Response and our government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. All three of these initiatives, or government policies, are very important to us in not only the dollars that they are bringing into the Territory, but of our infrastructure and social development. I share some of the concerns that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has raised, as well as the member for Arnhem, in that, with all this money coming into the Territory, we need to ensure it is spent in the right places and it gets to the people who most need it: those in businesses, the everyday person in the street, the people who lose their jobs, or the people in the remote regions and pastoral properties throughout the Territory.
I make another comparison with the Northern Territory Emergency Response. I am particularly concerned about the $900 one-off payment. We have seen improvements and, while there has been a fairly topical debate about the income management measures with the emergency response, we have seen many benefits and positive outcomes from this. I am concerned the $900 one-off payment is not spent properly, or according to how it should be by some people in our community. Also, regarding the member for Macdonnell’s comments about the impact, we put into context that whole issue not only of the measures of the emergency response and our Closing the Gap initiatives, but also this economic stimulus package. Particularly, we should not lose sight of what it is all about; that is, families.
I do not know how we would feel losing our jobs; it would be quite devastating. We all have mortgages, we all have to put food on the table week in, week out. Just imagine how hard it is on those people who have lost a job recently because of the current economic climate. We should not lose sight of those factors that we are here for; we are here to represent people in our electorates - I am certainly here to represent people in my electorate of Stuart in the hardship that people are going through out there. People are struggling, as I said, simply to make car payment or to put food on their table. While I support the stimulus package, as a member of the Northern Territory community, it is something that I will be watching closely in my role, to ensure it is spent properly.
As a government, we can do a lot, but we cannot achieve long-term sustainable development on our own. We can only achieve it in partnership with the businesses and the individual communities. I believe the Prime Minister has shown leadership in this nation-building investment package. However, as I said, it is now up to the rest of us to support it and get behind it.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Chief Minister and the Business Minister for the speed with which you have both been involved, in particular with the business community. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Daly, and getting out there to our regions to inform businesses and people throughout our regional centres about the package.
The feedback I have had from my electorate has been positive, particularly the measures for the schools in my electorate. The member for Arnhem spoke about several schools in her electorate, but I can certainly see the benefits for many of my schools in Stuart, as well, in the extra money for classrooms and the science laboratories.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement, and I stand very proud today as a Labor member for Barkly, as a member of the Labor government, and as a constituent of the Australian community with a Labor Prime Minister.
It was a great honour yesterday to be able to attend the summit of industry and community leaders held here to discuss the implementation of the Commonwealth government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan program.
What struck me very strongly in the course of the meeting was the absolute commitment by those present, many of whom would not normally see eye-to-eye on very many issues. They have committed to working together to protect their economy and working on fresh ideas to achieve that end. The discussion yesterday was robust, but it was marked by a single motivation: getting it right for the Territory. It was a very heartening sign of unity of purpose from Territorians. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who made such valuable contributions.
I have every confidence that the formation by the Chief Minister of a reference committee to maintain involvement in the coordination effort will be successful. I am sure it will lay the foundations for further future, cooperative efforts in growing the Territory, not just in the short term, but in many years to come. That is what it is about; the government is committed to growing the Territory to minimise the effect of the international economic crisis.
The Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan will support Australian jobs and help insulate the Australian economy from the global downturn. This package delivers an estimated $500m into the Territory’s economy and provides a broad spread of infrastructure projects across schools, housing and roads. As Transport Minister, I welcome this package; it is good for the Territory and will deliver an estimated $9m extra, not only for roads infrastructure, but the spin-off of road safety measures. As a bush member of this House, I also welcome the commitment to spread this spending across the Territory, including our regions.
At a national level, this package provides an extra $890m for black spots, boom gates, regional roads, and community infrastructure. The roads and road safety breakdown is as follows: black spot funding increase of $30m in 2008-09, and $60m in 2009-10; $150m for construction of rail crossing boom gates across Australia over two years; and $150m to repair regional roads across Australia in 2008-09. Only 23% of the Territory’s vast road network is sealed and, as you would expect, we welcome any extra dollars to the Territory.
The Treasurer and Infrastructure minister shares my passion to improve Territory roads, and has been continuously lobbying Canberra for more road dollars for the Territory. Those messages have been heard and, in announcing this package, the Prime Minister has indicated that the Territory will receive high priority in slicing the funding pie because of the roads maintenance backlog we face. This stimulus package for roads comes on top of $52m extra over four years delivered by the member for Solomon, Hon Damien Hale, for community, beef, and mining roads. It can clearly be demonstrated that the new era of cooperation between the Territory and Commonwealth governments under Kevin Rudd is delivering for our roads, and Territorians are the winners.
The Territory government is continuing to invest in our roads network at record levels, spending a record $271m across our roads budget this year, targeted at improving remote roads. This is the highest roads budget per taxpayer in the country. That spending will continue, and the extra $9m expected under this package is a welcome boost. Roads are the lifeblood of our bush communities, and that is why we are strategic in our roads spending in focusing on beef, mining, and tourism roads and improving access to remote communities.
The extra funding for boom gates on the rails is also welcome. The federal Minister for Infrastructure, Hon Anthony Albanese, has written to the Territory confirming the NT will receive $2.5m over two years for rail safety initiatives under the stimulus package. The Territory government has already undertaken a comprehensive audit of the Territory’s rail crossings using the Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model assessment risk tool. The Territory government has already committed $4.26m this year and $2.2m in 2009-10 for rail safety initiatives, and the federal funding will boost this program. This work has placed us well to immediately implement this spending. The first rail safety crossing upgrades will start next month at the Ilparpa Road and Bradshaw Drive crossings in Alice Springs. Ilparpa Road will receive boom gates, lights and bells, and Bradshaw Drive will receive boom gates. As part of the first phase, the following crossings will then be upgraded in a priority order: Wishart Road at Berrimah will receive advance warning lights; Fountain Head Road near Ban Ban Station will receive an upgrade to lights and bells; Leonino Road in Litchfield near Darwin River will receive lights and bells; Elizabeth River boat ramp will receive lights, bells and boom gates; the Kakadu Highway will receive an advance warning system; and Gardens Road on the Alice Springs/Tennant Creek line will have the road realigned as it approaches the crossing.
The Chief Minister outlined the Territory’s response on delivering this package, including the establishment of stimulus action squads across government. Those teams are working diligently to identify projects eligible for funding and fast-track measures to get those projects out the door. Already, Cabinet has signed off and submitted to the federal government a list of roads under the Repairing Regional Roads component of the stimulus package. These include resealing, re-gravelling, and shoulder repairs across the Territory’s Auslink roads - the Stuart, Victoria, and Barkly Highways - with the bulk of the funding proposed to be directed to the Katherine and Tennant Creek areas, and a smaller number of projects in the Darwin and Alice Springs region.
I look forward to updating the House on the details of the funding spread as they are finalised between the Territory and Commonwealth governments. This is a great package for our roads. The Territory Cattlemen’s Association welcome the infrastructure as a shot in the arm for the Territory. The Civil Contractors Federation of the Territory also welcomes the package, and will be working with government to maximise employment and training opportunities, particularly in remote areas, and the benefits of this additional spend for their members.
Territorians travel on roads; I travel on a lot of Territory roads. As a Territorian, I welcome every bit of extra spending to improve our transport network. This package is bold; it is targeted at supporting spending, jobs and building our nation and our roads. That is good news for the Territory.
A new Correctional facility is another major infrastructure project to assist construction in the Northern Territory. This will drive employment opportunities for the wider Darwin region. The regional work party roll-out will also provide direct economic and construction benefits in regional areas. The $300m facility will create 555 total new jobs, just when the Territory needs it – 375 direct jobs and 180 indirect jobs. The construction phase will last four years, and will help the Territory overcome negative national and international employment conditions. Prison officers and other current Correctional Services employees will also welcome improved working conditions, reducing turnover and keeping skilled workers in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I took time out to praise the great sense of unity and purpose that was evident at the weekend summit. We had a group of Territorians whose commitment was totally in getting it right for the Territory and growing the Territory.
Sadly, I must return to the Barkly, and let the constituents of the Barkly and the Northern Territory know that the member for Fong Lim considers me a joke. The member for Fong Lim considers the additional funding for regional roads a joke. This disappoints me. Whilst I listened with great diligence to the debate from the opposition about not politicising this debate, I am afraid it is political - and it is seriously political. The member for Fong Lim and the members opposite have opposed the spending of some $13m in the seat of Barkly. I challenge the member for Fong Lim and the members opposite to write to the communities in the Barkly - the cattle stations, the mines - and explain why they oppose the plan. Write to the parents of children in Barkly schools, and to the businesses, small and large in the Barkly, and explain why the member for Barkly is a joke. Explain, member for Fong Lim, to our earthmovers and contractors in the Barkly how much of a joke the $4m additional funding is to Tennant Creek and the Barkly where our roads are targeted. I am looking forward to that, member for Fong Lim, because I will certainly be doing some talking in the Barkly when I get home.
I am puzzled. I outline to the House how exciting and how stimulating it is for me to work with a proactive government, with academics with serious research background, to be able to provide direction under the Chief Minister’s leadership for the Northern Territory. However, I read the Northern Territory News, and I read Saturday’s paper. When I go home to the Barkly, I will be reminding people about Saturday’s Northern Territory News and the research that the member for Fong Lim conducts.
In the House, I take this job very seriously indeed. The Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan program will develop and deliver outcomes for the Territory. I challenge the member for Fong Lim to consider the United States Congress, the radical socialist Christian Democrat Union’s Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, the crazy socialist billionaire from Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, or the wicked socialists from the International Monetary Fund. No. The member for Fong Lim reckons he alone has the answer; that is, to oppose the stimulus nationally and in the Northern Territory.
The opposition and the member for Fong Lim lack credibility, and have called for not politicising this matter. However, the rest of the Territory is about moving on and getting it right to grow the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I respond to something that was said by the member for Barkly. I feel certain I heard the member for Barkly correctly. I hope I did not, and I feel equally certain that either in the Chief Minister’s response he will correct me or, perhaps, inform me the member for Barkly will correct me. I thought I heard the member for Barkly say that boom gates at Ilparpa and Bradshaw Drive in Alice Springs would be paid for by this money. That is a curious thing - a curious thing, indeed. It is curious for a number of reasons. I recall earlier today one of my colleagues - I think it was the member for Port Darwin, possibly the Leader of the Opposition - asking the question whether boom gates that had already been earmarked by the Territory government would come from this federal fiscal stimulus. If I heard correctly - and I do look forward to the Hansard - I believe I heard a member from government, possibly the Treasurer saying: ‘No mate’. It could have been the Leader of Government Business, I am not sure but, believe me, I will check. ‘No’, I believe came the reply. It is a curious thing because, of course, what the member for Barkly said was at odds with what happened earlier in the day.
However, it is a concern because, interestingly, Kevin Rudd had been quite specific when asked by press gallery journalists a week or so ago whether part of this $42bn could or would be used by the states as a form of substituted funding; that is, that the states did not need to spend their money. Most of them have next to nothing left, but the states would not be able to use money from the federal government to pay for their commitments. The Prime Minister, if memory serves me correctly, was very specific and said, ‘No’. In fact, there were some articles. One, in particular, was an editorial in The Canberra Times written by Jack Waterford talking about raising the issue of whether the federal government’s money would be used by fiscally irresponsible governments such as New South Wales. The Northern Territory even received a reference as well.
I understood it was clear. It goes back to the naming and shaming to which the member for Fong Lim referred earlier; how Kevin Rudd and his friends would name and shame those governments, those Treasurers, who sought to substitute their own state or territory spending with the money received from the Commonwealth. I have no reason to doubt the Prime Minister. I accepted as, indeed, many other Australians would have, his word that this package would not be used by states and territories - not even the really bad ones like this one - they would not be allowed to take money from the $42bn to substitute and, thereby, avoid using their own money.
Well, the boom gates of Ilparpa and Bradshaw - we might have just scratched the surface here. It is abundantly clear from what the member for Barkly said in his response to this statement that the boom gates would be paid for from the $42bn.
In 17 April 2008, when things were apparently going gangbusters globally and, in fact, economists and political commentators said Labor politicians throughout the country wore as a badge of honour how well they were doing and how well the whole world economy was going - until, of course, Kevin Rudd had his change of mind and decided to have a go at everything that he had hitherto subscribed to in his recent essay. However, I digress.
On 17 April 2008, the then minister for Transport came to Alice Springs and announced that rail crossings in Alice Springs would be upgraded. It was four years too late. Members from the Ninth Assembly, I think, would remember that I came in with photographs of the Ilparpa Road crossing. Ilparpa and Bradshaw, of course, are in the best electorate in the Northern Territory; namely, Araluen. I came in, batting away for my constituents, having surveyed them about whether they wanted an upgrade to this potentially dangerous crossing at Ilparpa. The results came in, I fed them to government, did some questions from memory - if it was not questions in Question Time, it may well have been an adjournment. We got the photos. I implored another minister - I think it was you, member for Johnston - to come with me and have a look at the Ilparpa railway crossing. Four years too late, on the 17 April 2008, the member for Karama flew into Alice Springs and said that she - or the government - would upgrade the crossing at Ilparpa Road. Although I stand to be corrected, I think on that day she may also have referred to the Bradshaw Drive crossing.
This is very interesting. For those smiling away on the other side, they might only be boom gates to you, but this is an issue of public safety, and one I have been interested in for some time. However, for the purposes of this statement, if I heard the member for Barkly correctly - and I believe that I did - then the government has been sprung. If they are not going to use Territory government money - and I do not remember seeing in the May budget an allocation for these railway crossings then, therefore, the Territory government has not made an allocation for them; I would have been looking for them in the forthcoming budget - it means, therefore, that the Territory government has been saved by the federal government’s package.
In a sense, I feel certain that my constituents, quite frankly, do not care where the money is coming from. However, I have been following various media reports over the last couple of weeks and I, along with many other people, believed that this $42bn was in addition to the spending that would be undertaken by other states and territories. It appears from what the member for Barkly has said that that is not the case. If it is only a couple of boom gates today, I cannot help but wonder what on earth it is going to be in the forthcoming weeks or months. What else?
In the core funding of the Northern Territory government, have they either committed to, indicated by way of a nudge, a wink or a nod, that they would use Territory money to pay? What else is going to come …
Mr Knight: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Ms CARNEY: … from the federal government? Well, Noddy over there, the member for Daly is saying: ‘Wrong, wrong, wrong’. Well, I am very interested to hear his comments on a subsequent occasion, because I know he has already spoken in this debate. I am very interested to hear from anyone in government as to whether the member for Barkly made an error. If he did, I look forward to hearing from him in that regard.
However, I believe I can ask - speaking on behalf of all of us on this side of the House and, indeed, the member for Nelson - what else is it that you have not been able to fund because you are financially reckless? What else is it that you will use federal government’s money for that is a core responsibility of the Northern Territory government? I look forward to someone enlightening me.
I also say in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement - and I think the point has been made, but I do this as a person representing an electorate in Alice Springs - that he said that on Sunday there were a lot of industry and business leaders and he apologised that not everyone could be included. However, I make this point: we have industry and business leaders in Alice Springs. They can catch aeroplanes too. One wonders how many of them were invited. It also ought to be said that if no one from the deep south - as it were or as I feel certain it is referred to by those opposite – in Alice Springs was invited to attend, then could the Chief Minister advise in his response what action in particular he will take so that the views of those industry and business leaders in Alice Springs will be listened to?
I am not sure that they would want much more than that. They are entitled to the same good hearing and attention from government that those in Darwin received yesterday. I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister and, indeed, anyone else in government as to the two issues I have raised, Madam Speaker.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on how the federal government’s economic stimulus package will be implemented by the Northern Territory government for the benefit of all Territorians.
Indeed, as the $42bn package has been widely welcomed across Australia and the Territory, so too, it has been welcomed and supported in my electorate of Nhulunbuy. Though I have only been home for two brief days following the announcement last Friday that the package had made its way through the Senate, I do not recall a single conversation while I was at home - in the aisles of our local supermarket or at the end of the lanes of our local town pool where my boys were having a swimming club meet Saturday afternoon, nor at the Arnhem Club on Saturday night where there were lots of people due to fundraising efforts for the bushfire victims - that I had with anyone who said that it was a bad idea, or an irresponsible act of economic management. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Not surprisingly, I know those conversations would have been very different if the package had not gone through the Senate. The blame would have been pointed, quite rightly, squarely back at the CLP whose representative in the Senate chose not to support the package and the Territorians that he represents and, in so doing, chose not to support a raft of infrastructure projects including $200 000 for every school in the Territory. Ultimately, this also means that Senator Nigel Scullion has not supported jobs for Territorians. Member for Braitling, it was not his leverage that was lacking in the Senate, it was his vote. The flow-on effect from the CLP Senator’s decision not to support the package flows right back through to the Territory CLP members, who also, to their eternal shame, have not supported this package.
As the parent of school-age children, wife of a schoolteacher and a former teacher myself, I recognise that the injection of $200m to Territory schools provides a significant boost to education for all Territory students, whether they be at government or non-government schools. This is something which I know families, educators and school support staff will welcome. In order to help our children have the best education we can possibly provide them with, with the best possible outcomes, we need to have the best educational settings in schools which are well equipped.
This is certainly at the core of the Prime Minister’s $14.7bn Building the Education Revolution strategy. It represents a long-term investment and commitment to improve the quality of facilities such as school libraries, science laboratories and multipurpose halls, including gyms. An important aspect of this strategy, apart from generating jobs for Territorians, is also the benefits for local communities. The Prime Minister’s media release on this subject on 3 February stated:
- Building the Education Revolution will also help to support local communities, as a key requirement of the package is that major facilities
in primary schools which are built or upgraded with this funding, such as halls or indoor sporting centres, are made available for community
use at no or low cost.
This is a real bonus, not only for schools but for the communities that those schools are located in. In Nhulunbuy, there is strong competition for available hall or indoor venue space for clubs like indoor soccer, indoor volleyball and hockey, karate, aerobics classes, and dance classes - and so the list goes on. I am sure other parts of the Territory face the same issue and welcome the opportunity to have access to new or improved facilities.
In the Nhulunbuy electorate, schools in recent years under the Labor government have received some significant funding boosts for upgrades to existing infrastructure, as well as new infrastructure. I moved to Nhulunbuy in 1990 to take up a teaching position at the high school, and I remained there until the end of 1996 when I resigned. The CLP government, at that time, had made some significant contributions to education infrastructure. I had taught at Driver High School, as it was then, now Palmerston High School, in 1987. At that time, the school was not even two years old. When in Katherine, I moved with staff and students to brand spanking new premises in the middle of 1988 in Katherine East.
Nhulunbuy High School was also built during the days of CLP government, in around 1980 I think it was. The old Nhulunbuy Area School, which is today Nhulunbuy Primary School, had been built by Nabalco and took students through to Year 10, but it was no longer adequate, so a new high school campus was built. Unfortunately, the CLP government never saw fit to build for Nhulunbuy High School an airconditioned multipurpose hall, in line with other secondary schools around the Territory. However, our long-serving local member, Syd Stirling, saw to that when Labor government came to power and he became Education minister. Over 2002 and 2003, this long-overdue facility was constructed at a cost of $2.5m. There is barely a lesson during the day that does not have a class of students in that gym. It provides a terrific venue for school assemblies and the facility is hired out, on average, three to four afternoons and evenings a week, as well as regularly on weekends.
If there is one thing the CLP government is well remembered for in the Nhulunbuy electorate in education, was its decision to close down Dhupuma College in 1980. During debate in the Chamber last week - I cannot remember if it was the member for Fong Lim or the member for Braitling, so forgive me - one of them had mentioned what a good idea it would be to have boarding schools for Indigenous students to facilitate their education in a school boarding facility during the week, and to be able to return to their communities on the weekends. Well, that is exactly what Dhupuma College was. It was a boarding school which was closed down at the end of the school term once students and teachers had finished for the term, and the doors never reopened.
This government has, historically, given a solid commitment to supporting education and schools’ infrastructure across the Territory since 2001. In my electorate, we have seen, in addition to the Nhulunbuy High School gymnasium - as I said, built at a cost of $2.5m - $2.5m for Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island for new secondary facilities which were opened in 2006. We have seen $1.06m at Marparu School for a new homeland learning centre and visiting teacher accommodation. We have seen $80 000 for Nhulunbuy Preschool to have a safe drop-off zone and car park. We saw $1m for Nhulunbuy High School in 2007 to prepare for the increase in student numbers with the transition to the middle years program. We have also seen $79 000 for Nhulunbuy High School towards building modifications for the annexe where students with special needs spend a big part of their school days.
Current infrastructure projects under way in schools in my electorate include: $2m towards the transition of Yilpara Homelands School to small school status, with new ablution facilities now constructed, and two three-bedroom houses to accommodate teaching staff. This will enable the school to have full-time teachers there, teaching five days a week. This is a really important part of the Closing the Gap strategy on reducing Indigenous disadvantage.
We are currently seeing a $1.55m upgrade to Yirrkala Community Education Centre, also part of the Closing the Gap strategy. Currently, $1.25m is being spent at Shepherdson College for upgrades. Nhulunbuy Primary School has recently seen the completion of a $1.142m upgrade to give the school, which is now 38 years old and home to more than 500 students, a much-needed facelift. A large part of that facelift included external painting. I remember being at the school council meeting in September when the decision around the new colour scheme was being discussed with some excitement, and colour charts pored over across a table. Red and grey was the final choice and the end product looks fantastic.
My eight-year-old was particularly thrilled when we returned to Nhulunbuy mid-January after a holiday to see bright red doors and bright red seating benches. He certainly was not alone; the kids were really excited at the prospect of their school freshly painted. Schools do need to be welcoming places for students, teachers and families. I also believe building that sense of school pride is important.
An important part of this recent work at Nhulunbuy Primary School is that fact that the contract was awarded to a local company, B.I.G. Carpentry, a business which has been run by Brett Grieve and his wife for many years in Nhulunbuy. I am certain that Brett Grieve will be absolutely delighted - without knowing his political allegiances – at the fact that this stimulus package will bring him and his employees more work. This government’s commitment to supporting local businesses is important, because we need to keep Nhulunbuy people in jobs, just as we need to keep other Territorians in jobs as well. This is exactly what this economic stimulus package will do. It will not only keep Territorians in jobs, it will create new jobs.
Schools, like hospitals, will always be happy to receive infrastructure funding. On top of all the spending on schools in my electorate, I can assure you that the additional $200 000 now headed their way is very much welcomed. I phoned each of the principals in my region last Friday and managed to speak with five of the six of them. Unfortunately, the one principal I was not able to speak with - and I missed her again this morning because she is out travelling - is the principle of Laynhapuy Homeland School. Like the member for Arnhem, I have a particular interest in seeing those schools well supported, because they are amongst the toughest and the most challenging. Having visited just about every homeland in my electorate, I can see those schools and classrooms are in need of infrastructure spending and support. As I made those phone calls on Friday afternoon, not only was it plain that a bonus of $200 000 was welcomed, but each of them had already begun consultation within their school executive about where that money might be spent. Spending ideas on Friday afternoon were around possible classroom refurbishments, improvements to upgrade the open general purpose area, an upgrade to a manual arts area, as well as an art room. For the one non-government school in Nhulunbuy, a science lab or textiles room for their middle school is on the wish list.
While I do not know the dollar details of what exactly Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem region might expect to see through the stimulus package’s social housing component, it is also welcome. This additional expenditure comes on top of significant expenditure through the SIHIP, the Strategic Indigenous Housing Improvement Program. SIHIP will deliver new houses and housing refurbishments and renovations to the tune of - and I refer to my electorate here: $16m at Yirrkala; $1.6m at Gunyangara, or Ski Beach as it is also known; and around $33m at Galiwinku. On that note, I was thrilled to see media releases last week from the NLC and minister Macklin’s office advising that traditional owners at Galiwinku, along with three other communities, have signed off on leases which now paves the way for much-needed housing and housing repairs to progress.
Whilst I note the frustration from the member for Braitling around the SIHIP program not happening fast enough and houses not up yet, projects on a scale such as this take time to scope and plan in order to deliver. A really key part of these negotiations has been the negotiations of leases with traditional owners.
Like the SIHIP program, this will generate jobs and training. The alliance contractors are obliged to provide local employment and training in these communities. So, too, will additional work through the social housing component of this package. The intention for these training and job opportunities – again, the member for Braitling expressed his frustration and doubts about the SIHIP program to deliver on outcomes like training and employment - most definitely, is a component of the program. It is not just for the benefit of the life of the SIHIP program; this is a program that we expect will deliver those benefits. Those skills are to be with people on their communities well into the future so they will be able to take on responsibility for their own repairs and maintenance program.
I welcome the Chief Minister’s advice to members in the House earlier that, following on from the summit held yesterday, there will be a series of regional summits to engage and consult with communities, businesses, and other stakeholders. I also reiterate, as a couple of my colleagues have said on this side of the House, that when we are speaking about regions, a number of us are also talking about bush electorates. The interests of bush electorates are way different to those of urban electorates. I am not always comfortable to see ‘bush’ lobbed in under the broader heading of ‘region’.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for his statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and the federal government’s stimulus package. I support our government’s efforts to get that package out as quickly as possible.
We are facing difficult times. We are all aware of the global economic crisis and implications, and we are not immune. While the Territory is better placed than other jurisdictions around the world to deal with the challenges from the global economic crisis, we are still growing. We still have important projects on the horizon ...
Mr Chandler: Are there anything original in any of this?
Mr GUNNER: I wish the member for Brennan was listening to what I was saying.
The stimulus package will have a significant impact on our economy. Like all members, I read with interest the commentary in the media, and the comment from the Reserve Bank and other financial institutions. I have had conversations with experts, briefings from officials, discussions with people at the pointy end: in small business, construction industry, retail, people in the social services sector and, perhaps closest to home, all of us - our constituents who are sitting around the kitchen table wondering what is happening next and what the future might hold. The message from all of them is pretty straightforward: act and act quickly. That is the philosophy that has been captured in the measures of the stimulus packages. Measures in the package have been built around lessons learnt from previous recessions; that the government should respond in a targeted, timely and temporary fashion to the threat of recession.
The measure I want to pay particular attention to is the infrastructure upgrade to primary schools. The comprehensive nature of the response is good news to the Territory. I believe the decision to invest in our primary schools was more than sensible; it was inspired. Schools often sit at the very heart of communities around the country. People are passionate about their schools. The fact that every primary school qualifies for a major infrastructure project upgrade means there are not going to be any fights - Alice versus Palmerston, city versus bush, Parap versus Stuart Park, private versus public. They all qualify for this investment, and that is great news.
As somebody who went to school up and down the track in the Territory, I find it welcome news. I had great experiences at different schools in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Darwin. I am sure my old stomping grounds are very happy with this package, although my old primary school in Tennant Creek, Kargaru, is now a state-of-the-art Adult Education Centre. When I was there in 1983 and 1984 they did not have a hall. It is great to know that all primary schools are going to benefit from this package.
In the Fannie Bay electorate, both Parap and Stuart Park Primary Schools are already in the planning stages for new halls. I know the member for Araluen had some concerns about these sorts of things. They are in the planning stages. These are not substitutions, they are the things that people are working towards. One reason we are already working on plans for new halls was to address an emerging need in both these schools for after-school care, as well as what they need the hall for during ordinary school hours. Both the schools are experiencing an increase in the number of students needing after-school care; both the schools use their assembly halls as part of their after-school care programs. Schools are very expensive assets and, often, are only used strictly during school hours. The assembly area is one of those parts of the school which are common exceptions to the rule. An investment in these schools with new, better halls is an investment that goes beyond school hours. The work that both of these primary schools have already undertaken places them in a good position to take quick advantage of the package.
Parap primary had its 50-year anniversary last year. Over the last five years, we have been working with the local school community on much-needed upgrades for the school. In 2002-03, we commenced Stage 1 of the Parap school upgrade, delivering over $2m to construct the new administration block, new library, and move the front entrance of the school to Urquhart Street to improve safety.
In 2004-05, we provided Stage 2 funding of $2.5m to redevelop the old library building, construct new early childhood classrooms, and construct four new general learning areas. This was completed late in 2005. Stage 2 was done in two parts. The second part was for about $3m for demolishing the remaining old classroom blocks and constructing eight new classrooms. The final stage, Stage 3, focuses on the redevelopment of the school assembly and stage area. The project has been estimated around $3.5m to redevelop the assembly area, build a new canteen and provide a general purpose area that can also benefit the school community.
The current assembly area is very old and deteriorating rapidly. For example, the school stage has had to be rebuilt about three times in 10 years, due to major termite damage. The school continues to grow. Parap is an exciting place and, with residential developments currently under way in the area, student numbers are strong, even with Grade 7s going to the new middle school. Parap school is also fortunate to have very passionate parents with the time to come along to assemblies, and the assembly area is becoming increasingly crowded, not only for students, but for parents, teachers and staff.
As I already mentioned, Parap primary holds an after-school program at the request of parents. The school also provides the assembly area as a community facility for local residents and local groups. With a very passionate local community which has been very active in supporting the school, this is evident from large amounts of money the school raises each year through fundraising. Last financial year, the school council raised over $200 000 through fundraising and community grants they won. That is a fantastic effort.
The whole school community is excited about the stimulus package and the new hall. After the Chief Minister and I went out last week to visit the school and talk to the principal and media about the package, news went round the school like wildfire. I had parents, staff and students approaching me, very excited about what was going on. They loved Hendo - big Hendo. The students, in particular, were totally rapt about the thought of a new hall.
The same is true at Stuart Park. We are very lucky to have a passionate school community at Stuart Park also. I have had some very constructive conversations with the principal at Stuart Park, Bernie Bree, who has walked me through what they would like to see at the assembly area. I now Bernie is already working with the department around the drawing up of some plans and where they can go. However, they are not as advanced in their plans as Parap, because they have had to tear up the original concept plans and start again.
Stuart Park Primary had an explosion of after-school students. In 2007, they had around 50 needing after-school care. In 2008, that went to around 100 and, this year, they are looking at 120 and growing. The school has already given over its general purpose room and sports store shed to become after-school facilities. Initially, they are looking at works around these facilities, these rooms, to increase their after-school numbers. However, now they think doing work at the assembly area and building that in will create a dual educational facility that would be much more useful for after-school care facilities. They also think they might be able to create an additional classroom by doing that.
After-school care needs to be offered by the schools, especially with the recent increase in enrolments which will only get larger when developments such as the Dinah Beach Road housing development are complete. There are also clear guidelines for running after-school care, and the space required for each child. This is very necessary, of course, when you are caring for children. The work they are looking at doing at the assembly area is a very sensible solution. It will be an asset to the school community.
Madam Speaker, the stimulus package is very exciting for both of these schools. It comes at the perfect time. It has the extra benefit of being very good for our economy, and will take a tradie and put a tool in one hand and a pay cheque in the other. This is great news, and I am very happy to support this statement and this package.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution in debate this evening. I will pick up from my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay. I like the last line - the tradies picking up the tools in one hand and a pay packet in the other - because that is exactly what this package is all about. It is about maintaining jobs right throughout the Northern Territory, and leaving a legacy of improved infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory, especially in our schools, our community housing and roads across the Territory. It really is a win/win.
There has been a lot said in debate tonight, and an attempt by members opposite to rewrite history. As my colleague, the Business Minister said, they are trying to segue from one version of history early last week into a new version this week or next week. The opposition fails to recall that everything that we say in this House is recorded for posterity in the Parliamentary Record, and they just cannot come in here and attempt to rewrite history. They tried to deny that they did not support the package; that they voted against the package. As I said in Question Time, they are all of the same colour over there. They call themselves ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Goodness, gracious me! The Chief Minister was pulled up on this very issue in Question Time on the very statement. We did not vote against the package, and he cannot come in here and assert that we did, because it is not true.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you like to reword?
Dr Burns: Come in, spinner.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As my colleague said: ‘Come in, spinner’. The CLP Senator, Nigel Scullion - and I thought they were one party here in the Northern Territory and that they take their orders from the Leader of the Opposition, who is the leader of the party - said in the Senate last week:
I do not support, and the coalition do not support, the passage of this package of bills. There are two principal reasons for that. The first is that it will not work.
We will look back historically and we will not call it a stimulus package; we will call it a spending spree. If we are going to put a bit of a badge on it, I think
that is a pretty good place to start.
That does not sound like support to me. It is very conclusive: ‘I do not support, and the coalition do not support the passage of the package of these bills’. During the debate on the motion last Tuesday, the member for Greatorex interjected and said: ‘Debt, debt for your kids, my kids’. That does not sound like support either.
However, the doozey is the member for Fong Lim. He really is getting a bit of a reputation for not putting one foot in it, but for putting both feet in it and leaving his current Leader of the Opposition totally exposed. They tried to say tonight, yes, they support the package. However, let us look at what the member for Fong Lim said in debate last week on the ministerial statement made in the House. The member for Fong Lim said:
- We are sitting here being told that we have to somehow jump in and get into contact with our federal colleagues to get this pork-barrel union pay-off,
lazy state Labor government pay-off, fiscal stimulus package …
What a mouthful:
- … that Mr Rudd is putting in. We somehow have to support this crazy notion that we are going to send Australia into debt for the next few decades.
Tell us what you really think, member for Fong Lim. He went on to say:
- You do not have to look very far. You can look just across the Tasman. Across the Tasman is a bloke called John Key. He is the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
John Key has taken a completely different approach to all these other socialist governments around the world which believe they will just spend their way out of this.
You find out you have no money, so what do you do? You spend more of it - somehow that is going to help the world. John Key has taken a completely
different approach. John Key is not throwing massive amounts of money at the problem at all.
Look at what Kevin Rudd does …
The complete opposite:
- Kevin Rudd says we are going to throw massive dollars at this problem, ‘We will throw everything but the kitchen sink’, I think I recall him saying. He is going to put
Australia in debt for decades to come.
That does not sound like support either. That sounds as though the member for Fong Lim thinks this is a crazy idea: to spend money on upgrading schools, on new community housing, on new roads and rail infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim thinks that this is all crazy stuff and we should not be doing it. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition and others tonight tried to rewrite history and segue their way through that, now that the bill has passed, somehow, they have to recover their face on this issue and say they now support the package. They do not, Madam Speaker.
In all of the school council meetings that they will be going to over the next couple of years, when the school councils are going to be talking excitedly about improvements to the schools, I am sure that members opposite are going to be sitting there saying: ‘Oh no, this is a bad thing, we should not be doing this. It is going to put Australia into debt and we do not support that’. They are well and truly on the record, and they and their electorates will be continually reminded that they did not stand up for the Territory. They did not stand up for jobs in the Northern Territory. Their one and only vote in the Senate that could have stood in support of Territorians in this package, voted against it. We will not let them forget that.
I make it absolutely clear here tonight that we will not, as a government, be substituting Territory money for federal money. I have made an absolute commitment that we will continue to spend money as we have committed to do. I reiterated that commitment at the summit yesterday. There has been a lot of follow-up and feedback today - very positive feedback - in regard to the summit that was held here yesterday. The proposed changes to procurement have been put out for public comment and, as I said, the feedback is very positive.
I can say to the member for Araluen and all regional members that there will be regional summits or information sessions held next week. My colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, and other ministers will be holding briefing sessions exactly in the same way that we held them for the business community and the community sector in Darwin yesterday. Of course, we are going to do that. However, the bill only passed the Senate on Friday. We are in a week of sittings, and it is totally appropriate to start the briefings in Darwin. They will continue around the Northern Territory at the end of these sittings and next week. We are working hard, and I will be working with the Minister for Regional Development and my colleague, the Business Minister and procurement minister, looking at how we can absolutely ensure that as much of that spending as possible that is going to occur in the regions in upgrading this infrastructure goes to local businesses in our regional communities and supports local businesses. That is a body of work that is under way.
In conclusion, $500m over the next three years is going to make a very significant difference in supporting our economy. It really does depend how you cut the numbers on this - up to 1000-odd jobs across the Northern Territory during that period. As I said last week, there has been a bit of a defining moment in the Territory’s political history when, for the first time - I do not think it has ever been in the history of the politics in the Northern Territory - an opposition member in Canberra has voted against such an enormous sum of money coming to the Northern Territory for nothing other than what is, obviously, his blatant personal political ambition in advancing up the slippery slope of either the National Party hierarchy in Canberra or the Liberal Party hierarchy; whichever particular party room he happens to sit in at any moment in time. That can be the only reason he voted against a package that will deliver some $0.5bn-worth of economic investment, and an investment in infrastructure to the Northern Territory. It cannot have been out of any commitment to the Northern Territory. It could only have been out of commitment to Malcolm Turnbull, Warren Truss, and whatever personal political ambitions he has to climb the slippery slope in opposition.
Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the House. I know when sittings conclude this week we will be back out in our electorates talking to our constituents, in our schools, amongst our business community, and to the mums and dads who will be benefiting from the direct family payments. We want to ensure our economy benefits to the best possible advantage we can from this stimulus package; our schools benefit to the maximum capacity that they can. We work hard as Territorians to see this great place come through these difficult economic times better than anywhere else in Australia. However, it is no thanks to those who sit opposite who voted against this package; who, in Canberra, voted against jobs for the Territory …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know he is being cute and deliberate and wants to rile us up. Okay, it has worked. He cannot sit here and say we voted against something when there was no vote in this House. He said the members opposite ‘voted against’. No, the members opposite did not vote for anything.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you could reword, Chief Minister?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The political party …
Mr Elferink: You just tell lies. You just cannot help yourself.
Mr HENDERSON: I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin is too cute by half. He cannot pretend that those members who sit here - those 11 members who sit here representing the Liberal Party in the Northern Territory - are, in any way, any different at all from Senator Nigel Scullion, who is the same member of the party who ran on a Country Liberal ticket at the last election ...
Dr Burns: It houses party HQ.
Mr HENDERSON: That is right. The party HQ is housed out there in the northern suburbs. He cannot pretend that, somehow, when Nigel Scullion voted against the bill, the Country Liberals who sit opposite did not also support the vote against this bill. It is an extraordinary proposition to say: ‘No, no, somehow, us here in Darwin, we support it. But the Senator is off on his own. He is some sort of a unique individual in his own right. He has nothing to do with us. Nigel who? He has nothing to do with us. He has just gone and done his own thing’. What a load of rot!
If these people opposite had any leadership …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I actually tried to ring Nigel Scullion. I put a phone call to his office in the Senate. Guess what? I am sure the lady who answered the call, a delightful receptionist, was a bit taken aback that there was a call from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, the good Senator could not be found. She did not know where he was; he could not be found. Do not ask me how I got it, but I also got hold of his mobile phone number. I will give him a call on the phone because this is very important for the Northern Territory. We wanted him, because we did not know on Friday morning when I tried to call, what the outcome of the vote was going to be, or what Nick Xenophon was going to do. I wanted an opportunity to talk to him, one-on-one, to implore him to do the right thing by the Northern Territory. But, no, he did not answer his phone. I left a message imploring him to call me back so we could talk about the importance of his vote in the Senate for Territorians. Guess what? He did not call back - could not care less.
I tried to show leadership. I tried to show bipartisanship. I would have been the first person out of the door to say: ‘Well done, Senator Nigel Scullion, thank you to the Country Liberals …’, or the Liberals, as I will call them now, ‘… for standing up for the Territory’. However, they have failed the test - they have failed the test dismally. They failed every Territorian who stands to benefit from this package, and I will continue to remind Territorians all the way up to the next election and beyond.
Madam Speaker, I thank members on this side of the House for their support of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first of all this evening, I would like to talk about Chinese New Year and a number of great functions that many members of this House have participated in over the last few weeks. The Chinese community is a very important part of our community in the Northern Territory; a great part of the wonderful cultural richness of the Northern Territory. The fact that the community celebrates Chinese New Year for two weeks leaves us all a bit partied out at the end of the two weeks - but what a fantastic two weeks it is.
I congratulate the Chung Wah Society and their Lion Dance Troupe for their fabulous Lion Dance performance and support of people in Darwin and Alice Springs, going from shop to shop, business to business, right throughout Darwin, Palmerston, the northern suburbs, Alice Springs, every year. It really is part of what makes growing up in the Territory a wonderful place to bring up children. To president, Adam Lowe, and everybody in the Chung Wah Society, it really is a defining part of every year, and I thank you very much for your continued, wonderful commitment to your culture in the Territory that we all benefit from.
The Chung Wah Society had their Chinese New Year banquet last weekend at the Chinese Temple in the city. It was a fabulous evening, although I could not stay for the whole evening. To MC, Donna Quong and everybody who organised the evening, it was a fantastic occasion, and my best wishes for the Year of the Ox.
There was a great function at the Chinese-Timorese Community Hall a couple of weeks ago, hosted by President Rui Mu. A wonderful rich culture was on display and a fantastic evening enjoyed by all. To all our Chinese community: Gong Xi Fa Cai and I hope the Year of the Ox is a good year for our community.
Very close to Christmas, I held my Wanguri electorate Christmas party at the Tracy Village Sports Club. There was a great turn-out, and it was fantastic to catch up with many of my constituents. Christmas is such a busy time, so I really appreciated that people took time out of their own schedules to catch up over a few drinks and a bite to eat. It was also great to the see the principals and staff from our local schools out in force as well. 2008 was a hectic year and much happened around the Wanguri electorate. The Christmas party always give me a chance to catch up with people, thank them for the past year and wish them all the best for the following year. I thank the staff and board at Tracy Village, especially Teena Houghton, for all their support and assistance throughout the years.
Last week, to mark the opening of parliament, I was lucky enough to have 47 students from Wanguri Primary School visit us at Parliament House. I invited them to come up to my office for a tour, and was very impressed with the way the children behaved. All the children were from Year 5 and 6, and three teachers - Mere Barlow, Donna Mincham, and Annemarie Heraud - came along as well. These children are studying politics and government. I had a chat with them all about what we do here. They stayed on to watch the formal opening of parliament and then went off on a tour of Parliament House. They also received information about the Bombing of Darwin in anticipation of this Sunday’s commemorations. The school is encouraging students to come along on Sunday to represent the school. It was fantastic to see 47 children from Wanguri Primary School here at Parliament House.
There are going to be significant upgrades at Leanyer Primary School this year. I spoke to principal, Henry Gray, last week at the school, and the school is very excited that tenders have gone out for their Stage 2 upgrades, which should start soon. Henry also mentioned they had a good start to the school year, with students getting back into full swing, and a great complement of teachers.
Both Leanyer and Wanguri Primary Schools held mufti days last Friday for the victims of the bushfires. The schools are encouraging kids to come along in normal clothes instead of their school uniforms. The SRCs will be collecting gold coin donations for kids in mufti, and will be donating it to the victims of these horrific bushfires. It is great to see the schools acting so swiftly and generously to help out others.
It is going to be a busy year in the Wanguri electorate; lots of great work to do amongst our schools and amongst our community. Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further updating the House about happenings around Wanguri.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak very quickly about something I saw on the news tonight that gives me great concern. I am sure it will give the Chief Minister and Treasurer great concern as well. It was Alan Kohler’s report on the back of the ABC news. I like to watch Alan Kohler, because he takes difficult economic issues and makes them simple. However, there was nothing he could have made more simple about the 12-month results to the end of December in Japan last year.
Japan’s economy contracted by 12.5%. That is worse than anything it achieved in the decade of depression that it underwent in the 1990s, and only was just starting to recover from now. I hope that the $42bn is going to be enough because, if that particular cancer takes hold on the rest of the world, then we are in for a very rough time, indeed. It may well be the case that any stimulus package at all will not be sufficient to fill the hole that is forming.
I note the world is full of born-again social democrats, in the ALP in particular, not least of which is the Prime Minister of this country. I want to place on the record, for what it is worth, that I continue to be a free market supporter, and support the principles of the free marketplace. The qualifications that our former Prime Minister, John Howard, used to place on the marketplace can be discovered in organisations like APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. APRA and the standards that you can find in our corporations law, as well as the Trade Practices Act, were the handbrake on the fiscal recklessness that we saw that led to this in the United States.
I agree with our Prime Minister, inasmuch as it was the unbridled greed of the United States which drove the ridiculous lending arrangements in the sub-prime environment that has not been replicated in Australia. I have watched very carefully how the two jurisdictions have unfolded around this particular area, and have looked at the legislative instruments of restraint that we operate under in this country. I have always been a person who has believed in strong, steady, careful growth. I am always nervous about things in the economic environment that move too quickly. I have been nervous for several years of China’s double digit growth. Whilst I have been looking at economics as a general issue over the last few years, but particularly more recently as the shadow Treasurer, I have become more convinced that double digit growth comes with a price tag - and the price tag or the bill is now being presented.
Whilst we stand in this place and argue about stimulus packages and those sorts of things, I suspect that, when confidence falls out of the marketplace so savagely, the effects will be profound. I will talk about this more tomorrow, of course. We have a few things coming up on the Notice Paper that will touch on these issues.
However, I want to place on the record my fear that is beginning to cloud my mind. I did not think it was within comprehension that an economy the size of Japan’s would be so savagely affected in a 12-month period.
I urge all leaders, be they at state level or national level, to continue to commit to principles of the free market. I still believe that the free market is the vehicle by which the future of growth and, therefore, the future wealth of nations, is best protected. Sticking up trade walls, protectionist walls, and those sorts of things, will only serve to isolate economies, and I suspect that what you will get are results that they are achieving in places like North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe. If you want to create isolated economies, it is not the way to go.
However, I do counsel now, and have always counselled in the past, that the process of generating growth has to be based on a couple of things. One is real productivity. You have to make stuff to make money worthwhile. You have to generate real wealth that underpins paper money and that avaricious conduct, clipping the tickets. So many people on the pipeline that are massaging these lines back and forward as they sell and trade these valuable commodities as they are, which are not that valuable, is not the way to go. Our regulatory environment in Australia has protected us. If it had been reproduced in other places, I suspect we would not be where we are now.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I join the Chief Minister wishing Gong Xi Fa Cai to the Chinese community - certainly to my constituents of Chinese descent. It was a wonderful celebration. I was privileged to attend some of the celebrations such as the Chung Wah Society banquet. My congratulations to Adam Lowe, the President of the community for many years, and Donna Quong, who was the master of ceremonies - once again, a fantastic job. My congratulations go to the young Territorians of Chinese extraction who performed admirably and fantastically, once again, the Lion Dance and the blessing of the Lion. I had the good fortune for them to visit my office in Casuarina and bless my office, together with many other shops in the Casuarina district.
This is what it is all about in Darwin. Nowhere else in Australia do people, unless they are Chinese, celebrate a Chinese New Year. Here in the Territory, it does not matter whether you are Greek, Italian, Thai, Indigenous, we all celebrate Chinese New Year because we are all sharing the experience and the culture, the same way they share our culture.
This year is the Year of the Ox, which means very hard work. I believe everybody knows that is going to be very hard work, especially when it comes to the economic problems of this world. Congratulations, once again, to the Chinese community for the fantastic organisation of the Chinese New Year celebrations.
I am always very proud of the achievements of young people within our community, especially if the young people come from Casuarina. I congratulate Simone Liddy of Nakara, who was recently awarded the NT Young Citizen of the Year. I have known Simone since she was a young girl at Dripstone High School. Simone is a lovely young lady who is going to be a wonderful young Indigenous leader in our community. I also know Simone will be completing her internship at Royal Darwin Hospital this year, after which she will become a successful young pharmacist.
I also congratulate the students who received the Students Citizen Awards 2009. I have known Emily Moo from Nakara and her family for many years now. Since 2001, when I was elected as the member for Casuarina, I regularly attended these school events at Nakara, as well as Alawa, and I know Emily and her sister. Sayed Feozkhan was the winner from Alawa. Harry Kerr, from Dripstone Middle School, was awarded the Student Citizen Award of the Year and does not know why. He is a lovely young man - a fantastic person who has leadership qualities.
I also sing the praises of the new Police Beat shopfront that is now open in Casuarina Square. Since the shopfront has opened, I have to say that the issues with antisocial behaviour, or young people doing silly things in Casuarina, has been completely eliminated. Congratulations to Sergeant Mick Read, who is in charge of that police shopfront. The shopfront is located next to the Body Shop and is manned by two police constables and police auxiliaries. Both constables are out on the beat regularly patrolling the area - I have seen them with my own eyes. While the constables are on patrol, the office is staffed with an auxiliary to answer any questions or concerns.
That was an election promise made by the Northern Territory government. The first one of these shopfronts is in Casuarina. Others are going to be rolled out. I have to say, if the others achieve what the Casuarina Police Beat shopfront has achieved currently, we are going to see a significant change in the attitude of some young people in Darwin when they realise they cannot muck around in shopping centres, or around the areas of shopping centres, because the police will be there. The fact that police are patrolling the shopping centre on foot – and not only inside the shopping centre but also the car park and the underground car park - shows that we are really keen to address some of these antisocial issues. If you are caught doing silly things, you will have the book thrown at you. I thank them very much and I pledge my full support for them, because the job they are doing is fantastic.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I place on record a dedication, and respect for a beloved Territorian who spent many years in my electorate; that is, Reverend Fr John Leary MSC AM. Sadly, he passed away in Sydney on 10 January aged 86, which is a great age. He is sadly missed.
I attended the service at St Mary’s Cathedral, which was very well attended. It was great to see members of different communities - Daly River, Tiwi and Wadeye - who came in for that service. I also attended the actual funeral at Port Keats. He was buried near the church at Port Keats next to some other missionaries’ graves, which was quite a good dedication.
Fr Leary spent many years working with Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians, guiding them through his love of God. Fr Leary helped set up the original Daly River Mission in the 1950s, and it was in 1958 that Fr Leary first came to Wadeye and lived there for 15 years. Fr Leary had kept very strong ties to the area for more than 45 years. During those years living in the community, he witnessed the critical years of change from cultural to mainstream living.
I read an article written by Fr John Leary where he wrote about how the traditional people retained their independence and their capacity to live the same as their ancestors had done over centuries with a unique independence. In later years, he witnessed a dramatic turning point in the history and that was, in his opinion, the advent of money.
When Fr Leary lived at Wadeye, his home was an unsealed Sydney Williams hut. There was no money and very little administration, which gave him time to work alongside the men on various jobs, including the airstrip. Sixty men were involved in that particular project and the work was done with picks, shovels and axes over a long period of time. During this time, the people of Wadeye and Fr Leary engaged in stories, beliefs - both spiritual and educational - while working alongside each other. They got to know each other very well.
Fr Leary said in an article:
- I truly believe I witnessed a lifestyle subverted almost overnight. The hunting and tracking skills that made them so independent were no longer needed,
nor was there need to pass their skills on to their children. The Toyota replaced the legs. They became dependent on money and the things that money
can buy. There was a sudden transfer from a nature-dependence to money-dependence, from traditional values to values that were artificial, not truly
their own. It all happened so quickly.
With respect to change, Fr Leary continued his article with
Hasten slowly, carefully, slowly ...
Fr Leary certainly made a difference to a lot of people there. There was a genuine outpouring of emotion. He did a lot of work at Daly River and helped set up the leadership centre, I understand. In the hearts of Tiwi, the Murampatha, and the Daly River people, he has a place - and that was expressed. To Fr Leary, from the people of those communities: you will be truly remembered and your lessons live on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would quickly like to report on a short trip I made to Katherine and Daly River recently. I try to get out to the national parks in the Wet Season. My point of view is that that is the best time to see them. I went to Nitmiluk and did a 8 km walk, which might not sound that far. It is further than you think when you have to walk up and down rocks and travel along stony roads. When the temperature is fairly high it is actually quite exhausting.
The walk I went on is called the Southern Rockhole Walk. The reason for the name is because, when you get to the end of it there is this beautiful rock hole that is the most glorious place to jump into. It has a waterfall and a big pool and is well above the gorge. It is a magnificent place to go.
The park is at its best. I only saw a small part of it, but I always like to tell people to go to Nitmiluk or Katherine Gorge park at the moment and you will see it at its best. So many plants are out in flower. The escarpment has green all over it which tends to soften what is a fairly harsh environment. It is just a great place.
There are some issues there. On my short walk, as I said the other day, there are quite a lot of weeds around the visitors centres and along the river bank. That is a problem with many parts of the Katherine River. You would hope there could be a bit more work done controlling those weeds within the national park, but it is a big park, so it would require a big effort.
I then drove back to Daly River, staying overnight at Pine Creek. The reason I went there was because of Fr John Leary’s funeral. I had missed the service in Darwin. I deliberately made an attempt to stop at Daly River because I knew that Fr Leary’s body was being flown there and they were going to have a short service there as well.
That was far more appropriate for me because it was Fr Leary who brought me to Daly River 39 years ago next month. He took me down in an old Toyota Land Cruiser, one of those with the big gear box in the middle. I sat in the middle over the big gear box. I had Sister Bernadetta on one side and Fr Leary on the other side. I just got off the ship that day, the P&O’s Oronsay – a beautiful ship, airconditioned which, for me, was luxurious. I had come up from Melbourne and Sydney and $95-worth of ship fare got me to Darwin. So, all of a sudden, on the same day, I had disembarked, said hello to the Bishop of Darwin, hopped into this Toyota and headed off down the track.
The highway was narrow, with spear grass, which I had never seen before, six to eight feet high on the sides - off into the unknown. We got down to the Daly River Road, which was mainly gravel in those days, which was covered in water here and water there, and the vehicle broke down. We were about 10 miles out - I can only remember it in miles - and I had no idea where I was. This was a totally new environment and I had just been dumped in it. I had Sister Bernadetta on one side, who I thought was old then, but she lived for another 35 years. Fr Leary had just had an operation on his stomach. He actually walked the 10 miles into the mission to get help to come out and fix the Toyota, which had a fuse - would you believe? - that just happened to be dirty.
That was my first encounter with Fr Leary who had founded Daly River Mission. I have many stories to tell about him. I might do that in another five minutes, when I get a chance.
I quickly say that the other reason for my trip down there was to talk to locals about local government issues. There certainly are some issues in relation to ownership of houses and leases. One thing that I was concerned about is that they call it the VD shire, which is a bit unusual - the Victoria Daly Shire. That is a local joke they have down there. It has not had a meeting outside of Katherine and that is unfortunate. Katherine is not in the shire, yet all the meetings have been held in Katherine. We have the ability to have teleconferencing, which is something special in the Local Government Act. I believe we should really be pushing that there be less meetings in Katherine and more meetings out there. Regardless of the weather, you can still get to Daly. You probably still can get to Timber Creek and you can fly to Wadeye. It is important that, if local government is going to work, it has to go out to the people it represents.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Chief Minister spruiking his political claptrap on a daily basis - and it really comes down to spruiking ad nauseum. I can cope with it, but it does get rather repetitive. What upsets me is the fact that the slurs that the Chief Minister tosses so nonchalantly across the Chamber often amount to either an insult to, or an insult to the intelligence of, many people of the Northern Territory.
Let me make a case in point. Last week, on Thursday in Question Time - and I quote from the Daily Hansard of the day - the Chief Minister referred to the opposition members as ‘spivs in suits’. He said, and I quote again: ‘They look like a bunch of North Shore Sydney bankers …’. Then, he said again: ‘The spivs in suits over here, doing the bidding of the merchant banker from the North Shore of Sydney …’. True to his form, all these references to spivs and North Shore bankers and what have you, have no relevance whatsoever to the matters that have been carried on in this House. I gather that the Chief Minister really only makes those utterances because he has nothing else to say that can possibly fill the void.
I say to the Chief Minister: did your mother not teach you that it is better to overdress than under-dress for any given occasion? That may sound a little frivolous. However, your dress sense, Chief Minister, may well have insulted a head of state towards the end of last year. I remember when the President of Timor-Leste visited this parliament and was given an official reception at the front of Parliament House. In keeping with the tradition of his country, I imagine, the President of Timor-Leste arrived in a black suit with a white shirt in a style that I imagine is traditional. You, Chief Minister, greeted the head of state from another country in a shirt and tie. I felt embarrassed for you, Chief Minister. I felt embarrassed for the people of the Northern Territory whose Chief Minister could not be bothered to dress appropriately to meet the head of state from a country with whom we have a great relationship.
I take my role here in parliament very seriously. I gather that the Chief Minister takes his role less seriously, and that is evidenced by the fact that he cannot even muster up enough integrity and dignity to dress appropriately for such an important occasion.
Regarding the fact that the opposition is now dressing appropriately for parliament, I have had a lot of feedback from people around the place. The vast majority of the feedback is that people appreciate the fact that their parliament - or at least this side of it - is now starting to look a little professional.
That is just another example that the Chief Minister’s utterances continue to denigrate the members of opposition whom, I might add - and I have said this before but I will say it again - represent at least half, and probably a little more than half, of the people of the Northern Territory. He continues to denigrate us, and it just is a prime example of how out of touch the Chief Minister is with the real people of the Territory.
Chief Minister, you need to look at your performance. You need to look at the way you treat people in the parliament, and how that will have a flow-on effect to the people of the Northern Territory half of whom are represented on this side of the Chamber.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016