2006-06-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 4 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, thank you for your forbearance in the late opening of parliament this afternoon. We are having trouble with Hansard. We are going to be using a back-up system, but I ask you to speak as clearly as you could for the record.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, good to see you back. I present a petition from 36 petitioners praying that the Commonwealth government assistance with the development of the radiation oncology service be accepted. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from another 67 petitioners praying that decision to handover the 48 Territory owned parks be rescinded.
Dr Toyne: Here we go. More of this rubbish as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. That makes a total of 4764 petitioners. Madam Speaker, the petition is in similar terms to a petition presented last week. I move that the petition be read.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Mr Deputy Clerk:
Dr Toyne: Spreading lies around the community. He should be ashamed of himself.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 20 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Continued from 15 June 2006.
Madam SPEAKER: I will be vacating the Chair and the Acting Chairman of Committees will take the Chair.
In committee:
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: I call on the member for Sanderson, Mr Kiely to present his report.
Mr KIELY : Mr Acting Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50).
I advise honourable members that any outstanding information, including answers to outstanding questions taken on notice, will be tabled during the August 2006 sittings of the Assembly. Upon receipt of outstanding answers the committee secretariat will be updating the ‘questions taken on notice’ database and, when completed, a composite set of the questions and answers will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website.
The fifth public hearing of the Estimates Committee saw a significant increase to the overall hours available for the scrutiny of Budget 2006-07. Since the estimates process last year an additional ministerial portfolio has been added by government. Rather than reallocate the individual time frame for each ministerial portfolio to accommodate the additional minister, the decision was taken to duplicate the established time frame by providing a further block of four and a half hours on the Friday morning.
This decision pushed out the total hours available for the Estimates Committee to scrutinise the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 to a total of 45 hours. Apart from the overall increase in the total hours committee members, ministers, chief executives and their support staff now appear to have settled down to working through the established protocols of the Estimates Committee public hearings.
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee who form the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these public hearings have been conducted. I would also like to place on the record a vote of appreciation from the committee to all other members who participated in the public hearing process.
Thank you also to Legislative Assembly staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the whole process ran smoothly, in particular the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the Daily Hansard rushes during the day.
There were occasions this year where the opposition members of the Estimates Committee were placed in a situation where they were not able to manage their time to allow every agency within individual ministerial portfolios to be questioned.
Despite an additional four-and-a-half hours this year there were a number of agencies which were excluded from participating in the estimates scrutiny process. I view this as an extremely important issue as I am fully aware of the hours of extra work required of public servants in the preparation of information briefs to support their ministers in public hearings.
I spoke of this issue at the conclusion of the Estimates Committee public hearing this afternoon but I feel that I should also place my concerns on the public record at this forum as well. I therefore take this opportunity to read into the Parliamentary Record within the context of the debate in this Chamber, my concerns again.
There were occasions throughout the public hearings where, for various reasons, a number of agencies were not required to appear before the committee. While it may be disappointing for the officers who had prepared the extensive briefing papers, I am aware that there is a level of professionalism within the public service which will ensure that the capture of this significant amount of data will not be lost but utilised in the compilation of the agencies’ annual reports.
Without labouring the point it might be timely to remind all participants in the Estimates public hearings that they should not lose sight of the fact that the process of accumulating information, enabling briefing papers to be prepared, can also be seen as a tool providing timely opportunity to thoroughly preview the core business and achievements of agencies as they work within budgets to set out any appropriation bill.
There were 51 questions taken on notice this year, which is slightly up on last year, but I believe it is a reflection of the level of integrity of the questions being asked. There have been 21 answers provided over the course of the four days but, with the tight time frame from the completion of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and the opening of this session of the Assembly, it means that the secretary will follow up on those remaining answers and table the composite document during the August sittings.
In addition to these questions, there were two questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this afternoon. Similarly, because of the relatively short time frame, these are still outstanding but they will also be tabled during the August sittings.
I acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee which sat for the fifth time. Power and Water Corporation officials provided to members valuable insight into the operation of the organisation. I wish to place on record and in this Chamber the committee’s appreciation for the time and effort put in by Mr Neil Philip, Chairman of the Board, Mr Kim Wood, Managing Director, and Mr Andrew Macrides, Company Secretary. I commend the report to the committee.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 15 June 2006, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50) and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50); or the activities performances, practices, and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2006-07 be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: the ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister, 20 minutes; any other member, 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours. As the time is now 4.25 pm, if the debate is not concluded before 9.25 pm, I will put the question. Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports have been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate ‘that the remainder of the bill be agreed to’. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, it is the case, obviously, that many issues arose during this Estimates Committee hearing. Many issues were covered and many issues could not be covered due to time limitations. Any independent observer this week to the Estimates Committee will see that that is clearly the case.
However, for those issues that we were able to get to, there were, in the view of the opposition, four very distinct themes. One is that this Labor government cannot manage the budget. The next one is the Labor government is more focused on re-election than on addressing the needs of Territorians. The Labor government has no vision for the Territory. Finally, this Labor government talks the talk but does not walk the walk.
My colleagues and I will talk about these themes in our contributions, and there are multiple examples from this week to illustrate those points, which includes, but are certainly not limited to, ministers attempting to bury, hide, and avoid answering the hard questions.
Labor was delivered a massive majority at the last election. However, it is a pity that, with that majority, they have not focused on delivering better outcomes for Territorians but, instead, has been focused on delivering for itself. This government has all the hallmarks of an organisation that thinks it is under siege. Governments with large majorities should feel comfortable to govern, but we continue to witness a government that is hypersensitive to criticism; so much so, that every time there is a cloud on the horizon its leader disappears.
The estimates process needs to be revised so that we can have what Labor promised: a better scrutiny of all areas of the budget, hence the motion I moved earlier.
In addition to the key themes that I identified at the outset, there was another theme that struck me and others this week. I have seen it before, but never so clearly as this week. The theme was this: there was a difference between what was the promise of Labor in 2001 to what Labor has now become. It was clear for all to see.
The majority of Territorians believed - many of whom were true believers - that Labor would transform the Territory and that it would do so in an open and transparent way. It has done neither. It has not fulfilled the hopes and expectations promised. It would appear that as the results are coming in, the promise that was Labor in 2001 has come and gone. The results are just not there. The government has a big majority, but even the most cynical among its members must surely have thought that they would achieve what they set out to achieve in 2001. Clearly, they have not.
For my part, I cannot be sure whether Labor has lost its way in the sloshes of the fifth floor since 2001 or, whether, in fact, the intention to govern for the benefit of all Territorians was actually ever there. There is a difference, as many of us know, between leadership and management. Often government’s only role is management, caring for the day-to-day affairs of the jurisdiction that is moving along without too much controversy or upheaval. This government has tried to demonstrate their capacity to manage, and on occasion it has. Then on other occasions there is a time when leadership is required.
To paint a mental picture, I ask you to think of a ship’s captain in stormy seas - standing by the helm, resolute with cold rain lashing, bringing his or her ship through a storm into calmer waters. Crews turn to their captains in situations like that, and they look for calm, wise and strong leadership to steer the course. This week, the captain deserted her post, amid grumblings that she should do so permanently. She was not anywhere to be seen while her own ship pitched and rolled in the heavy seas. Small wonder that the Fletcher Christians of her crew said that her leadership, or more to the point, lack of it, was inspiring hatred.
Last week, I am sure that some people who heard of the 20-year plan offered by the Chief Minister regarded it as a rod of inspiration, and some of those people were perhaps willing to overlook the fact that things have not improved in the last five years under the Labor Party. However, there can be no doubt that disillusion will be seated at these people’s tables when they find out, as I did, that there really is no 20-year plan. There is not even a framework for a 20-year plan. That the central agency for strategic management of indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory had not apparently been consulted about its development is, to many, strange and curious. We ask: where is the policy framework within this government. Labor has made up responses to problems and its policy on the run. We ask members to concede, if only to themselves, that they have failed and they need to start again. We ask: where is the social policy in the Australian Labor Party. We thought you had it, Territorians thought you had it; you must surely lament its passing.
After watching the Lateline program on Wednesday, I felt disappointment, among many other emotions, because I knew that the next day we would probably see the Chief Minister announcing some sort of review or inquiry. It was about the only thing left she could do, amid mounting and public criticism from so many quarters, including her own party. Like the 20-year plan, this inquiry has, at this stage at least, no details. No doubt, staffers are scoping it up as we speak. In the absence of any other information, or no other information, some will think that it is a review to be added to all others, a review that the previous minister for Family and Community Services said we had had enough and that action was required in 2004. Does the member for Arafura remember what she said, and I quote, ‘it is action not information which is needed now’?
To continue my analogy, the ship’s captain has said: ‘I have set the course now, I am off to my cabin, let me know if there is a problem’. The crew slacked off, the ship fell to half-speed, it drifted a few degrees off course and the captain did not come back on deck. Indeed, if some have their way, she will remain below permanently. If the government truly believed what it said in 2001, its leaders and its ministers would be passionate, interested, active, alert, hungry and intensely focused on making sure that their orders were being followed. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.
There are women and children being raped and abused in remote communities and, despite the rhetoric and the increase in funding, it is, as Dr Rogers said, getting worse. I raised these matters in parliament last week and, even then, after weeks and weeks, the Chief Minister was happy with things as they were, and she did not see then a need to have an inquiry. She had no plan then for action. She appears still not to have it. It appears that there will be a review; a review perhaps by a government into itself. With no details, Territorians may think that it will not be a public, independent or even a judicial style inquiry into government departments, but it may well be a government inquiry into itself. Surely that is not what Territorians want and deserve.
The current Minister for Family and Community Services said today that she would wait to see what was contained in a report about an investigation into failings of the system before deciding whether to make it public. We ask for the same approach to be taken in relation to the inquiry the Chief Minister announced yesterday. So much for the catchcry: ‘open and transparent’. It is no wonder people have cynical views of governments and their leaders. It is no wonder that backbenchers are starting to show their frustration, and it is no wonder that indigenous people are becoming suspicious and even hateful of the Chief Minister.
Mr Acting Chairman, it is probably appropriate that I dedicate these remarks to the member for Millner. This government has failed, and instead of admitting it and bringing people into the room to be part of developing a solution, it remains a game for the Chief Minister. I wrote to the Chief Minister some weeks ago in a genuine attempt to find a way forward so that we could all work together and thrash out some scenarios and hopefully come to an end point. There was no response. Yesterday, I wrote again. Surprisingly, there has been no response. It is exasperating and frustrating, not only for members of the opposition, but clearly for members of government. While women and children languish in these communities, those on the fifth floor of Parliament House continue to play games.
I have said in this Chamber before that members opposite do not have to believe what I believe, and they do not have to do everything I think they should. They also do not have to have the strength of my convictions, but I do put to them that they should at least have the strength of their own. This week we saw hypocrisy, inconsistency, arrogance and shallowness from this government and, in particular, the Chief Minister. It is, therefore, no surprise that she is under attack from within, and it is also no surprise that the promise that was Labor in 2001 has disintegrated in today’s rotting carcass of unsatisfied expectations. The results for Territorians, indigenous and non-indigenous are simply not there. The money in the budget has not been matched by better outcomes.
I started my remarks by setting out four themes that struck the opposition as highlighting other difficulties and other inefficiencies and ineptitude of this government. Those themes were the government cannot manage the budget. Despite record GST revenues, this government is taking us to unprecedented debt. The projected nett debt unfunded employee liabilities is $4bn, and that is the projections for two years’ time.
There is no doubt that government has been unable to manage the budget. We have seen, year after year, blowout upon blowout upon blowout. At the same time, we have seen government members assert that everything is just fine because extra money is being injected. It is patently the case, to use but one very obvious example, that more money into the area of child protection has not translated into better outcomes, and the government, or the senior members within it, should certainly, at least to themselves, make that concession before they can establish a plan to go forward.
The fact that there is no plan, that it is just policy on the run, it is reactive to certain circumstances, demonstrates Labor’s failures. I need only point to the comments of Rolf Gerritsen some weeks ago in relation to this government; that is that it was a very reactive one. Where is the social policy? Where is the policy framework?
Nevertheless, we have seen massive increases in funding in a number of areas. Any government would inject funds into key areas because all politicians, although we remain increasingly sceptical about the motivations of those opposite, get into politics with a view to delivering better outcomes for the people for whom they serve.
Whilst there have been massive increases in revenue, thanks to the GST that Labor so vehemently opposed, the results just are not there. It is increasingly becoming the case that Labor ministers are getting better at using weasel words instead of actually answering questions. That partly explains why it is we run out of time during estimates, because ministers gabble on, rarely specifically answering a question, although some are better than others. Then they throw the question to the public servants sitting beside them, and after that still do not answer the question.
The other thing was that there is no doubt that this Labor government is more focussed on re-election than it is on addressing the needs of Territorians. We see that in a number of areas. I have lost count of the number of media units inside government departments. Some of the government departments have between four and 12 marketing and communications people and the nature of their business is to promote this government. Obviously, that is the role those people have been asked to fulfil.
It does not come as a surprise; it is borrowed from other Labor governments. Territorians can legitimately question whether it is an abuse of taxpayers’ money. Certainly in the production of fact sheets and other information there are, in some instances, legitimate and useful publications produced, but there is a growing sense, even within these units within the public service, that they merely exist to assist this government to concentrate and position itself on re-election.
The government has significant staff on the fifth floor. Marketing and communications pervades almost every aspect of this government, from communications directors downwards. There is a propaganda machine operating within this government. Where is the promise of Labor in 2001? Neither has changed.
We have also seen Territorians’ money being used to poll Territorians on key issues. TIO, middle schools, they are good examples. The Chief Minister called it something else, but we all know what it was, it was polling. The timing was very suspicious, and that is why people are very suspicious. Middle Schools were polled early this year, as was TIO. I do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
In relation to the various publications this government produces, I note the Chief Minister, when in opposition, had a great deal to say about the glossy brochures. Even a quick search, if you hit the word ‘Martin’ and ‘glossy’ in the Eighth Assembly, reveals at least 59 entries. That gets back to the hypocrisy and inconsistency that is Labor in 2006.
The third theme that was strikingly obvious was that Labor has no vision for the Territory. I again refer to the very public and, no doubt embarrassing comments, although no doubt a little less embarrassing than the comments contained in the memorandum deliberately written, signed and leaked by the member for Millner. I understand there is a witch-hunt trying to find out who did leak it, but certainly it was not an accident to write and sign it.
It is worthwhile to revisit the comments of Mr Gerritsen This is a government that is reactive. It responds not to the needs of Territorians, it responds to itself. That is arguably best demonstrated in the way in which the member for Millner was subjected to no doubt what was an embarrassing and humiliating experience by having to …
Mrs Braham: What does this have to do with estimates?
Ms CARNEY: Everything. Here are the themes, member for Braitling. This is about the budget, member for Braitling. I am sorry you have so much difficulty with it. We have spent the last week in budget estimates. You know what the reason for the budget is? It is to pay for the promises of the Australian Labor Party, the promises they made to Territorians, and all the matters associated with it. So when you look at the policies of Labor and the great sums of money prescribed to those policies, and compare it with what is …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, I do ask that you contain the member for Braitling, she is being offensive.
Members interjecting.
Mr Acting CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Please, we only have a minute-and-a-half to go.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. No doubt the member for Braitling will desist. I cannot say I will look forward to her contribution.
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Chairman! That remark by the Leader of the Opposition was most unnecessary. She should be looking forward to my contribution.
Mr Acting CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, one need only look to the comments made by Rolf Gerritsen, which would explain why the member for Millner did what - could you please bring her into line? - why the member for Millner did what he did. It illustrates why Labor does not have any vision for the Territory and the way in which they dealt with the member for Millner illustrates that they are more concerned with themselves than the future of the Northern Territory. In that regard it was surprising that the Chief Minister was herself surprised as Minister for Indigenous Affairs about the contents of the Lateline program on Wednesday night.
This is a government, Mr Acting Chairman, which talks the talk but does not walk the walk. As we saw this week, the cracks are already starting to appear and it does have everything to do with this budget because the budget is, so Labor says, its foundation, and the fund from which all money for Labor programs for the so-called benefit of Territorians comes. There is no doubt that Labor cannot manage the incredible wealth that it has received. One need only look in most output areas and the results simply are not there. We do ask next time that more time be afforded to us. We, nevertheless, look forward to the next estimates process.
Mr WARREN: Mr Acting Chairman, I take pleasure in presenting my report to parliament on my view of estimates week. I would like to start out by thanking the Treasurer for Budget 2006-07, which clearly stood up to scrutiny - it really has. You should be very proud of the budget you have presented and how it has stood up.
This was my first year on the PAC and also I had the honour of being the deputy chairman for the past week, a position in which I actually spent some 20 hours over the four days. It was quite strenuous and challenging at times but, I tell you what, it was one of the most enjoyable things I have had in parliament so far. I really did enjoy myself. It was very much to the tutelage of the current Chairman, of course.
In regard to the particular things that I dealt with over the four days, I had the pleasure of chairing a session on Tuesday with the Treasurer, who is also the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I was very impressed with the way he handled himself and answered those questions quite appropriately. On Wednesday, I chaired a session with the Minister for Planning and Lands and Infrastructure and Transport. That also, was a very enlightening session and I learnt so much from it. I thank you for that too. On Thursday, I had the Minister for Primary, Industry and Fisheries, who has, obviously, got over the lure of the Territory, in his capacity as the Minister for Mines and Energy. There were a couple of elements that we missed out there. Anyway, it was a great session as well.
On Thursday, I also chaired the session with the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and also Parks and Wildlife. I know there were a lot of interruptions there, minister, but I believe you handled yourself quite eloquently, thank you.
Finally, today was the Minister for Family and Community Services who had a challenging day. However, she stood up very well; handled herself like all the other ministers that I had the privilege of watching, who handled themselves very well, and is a pride to this side of the House …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Honourable members, let the member finish.
Mr WARREN: I would like to concur with the comments of the Chairman who made his speech earlier. He succinctly stated the case of this side of the House, and also how he saw the estimates week. While I will not add to any of those comments other than to say that it was a pleasure to work in relay with you, Mr Chairman. I learnt so much from you.
What was disappointing, being my first true close encounter with estimates, was the lack of preparation and lack of time management by opposition members. I was a little disappointed in that. In fact, I was very disappointed in that, notwithstanding the members for Blain and Katherine did, at times, have some very valuable input into the debate. I thank them for their input.
The Independents, obviously, took the time to learn their stuff and ask in-depth questions. I enjoyed chairing their sessions as well and their questions. I did thank the member for Blain and now he has arrived. I was thanking you before.
Mr Mills: Oh, thank you. I will write you into my speech too.
Mr WARREN: Thank you very much. A lot of the opposition questions I heard, though, unfortunately, I had previously heard in parliament. They were raised, particularly in Question Time, and I felt that the opposition wasted a valuable opportunity to get stuck into the budget by asking too many questions that really did not relate. Anyway, that is the nature of the beast and you will have your chance next year.
In contrast, the ministers were all fully prepared and very much on top of their portfolios, and that showed through very clearly. I enjoyed chairing their sessions.
I would like to conclude by thanking the department staff. Obviously, they spent a lot of time and effort when questions were referred to them; they were very much on top of it. We should, as Territorians, be very proud because our public service is in very good hands if we have public servants of that calibre.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WARREN: I am disappointed that some of them, having obviously done a lot of research, did not get a chance to explain what they are doing. Anyway, hopefully, we can look at those aspects in PAC, so that all questions get covered if the opposition are prepared to have a bit more time management.
I would like to thank the Legislative Assembly staff …
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WARREN: … who ran the operation very smoothly. I must commend them for the food with the different taste, because it was absolutely delicious. The opposition will agree with me on that; the food was par excellence.
In conclusion, I thank my fellow members of the PAC. In particular, I want to mention one person who will not mind me mentioning his name, and that is the PAC and Estimates Committee Secretary, Mr Terry Hanley, who stood there through the whole sessions, as I understand it, and was up to task. When I asked him particular questions about procedures, he was right on top of it, came over straight away and gave me answers. He was very helpful to us and to the opposition, and he was still able to get the food in time and have everything running smoothly. I conclude by thanking Terry, but I also thank members of parliament for the opportunity of participating in my first estimates.
Mr NATT: Mr Acting Chairman, as the House knows, this has been my first year of membership of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee and, while it may be surprising to many, I have enjoyed the role and I have learned a lot about the public service processes and the workings of government-owned corporations.
I understand this is the fifth hearing of the Estimates Committee and a process that this government has pushed for lines of accountability and transparency to the public. Interrogation of the budget under this process, I understand, is employed under similar procedures in all Australian parliaments, and was instigated here as a result of committee work by this parliament looking at other states and the procedures they utilise.
I had the opportunity to sit in on a number of hearings as a member of the committee, and felt there was a fair scrutiny of the portfolios that appeared within the time allotted. Further to this, I have heard the opposition this evening complain about the lack of time allocated to this process. They reminded the committee on many occasions throughout the hearings and I quote: ‘In view of the time constraints I have no questions’. I know that a considerable amount of time and thought has gone into analysing the hearing process, and it has been tailored over the past couple of years to eliminate extremely lengthy sessions when MLAs and public servants were leaving Parliament House in the very early hours of the morning.
Dr Lim: You would not even know.
Mr NATT: The current process has a reasonable start time and a reasonable finish time, and has eliminated the physical and mental drain on the individuals involved in the entire process.
Dr Lim: Well your brain cannot, why, has it no capacity, is that what it is?
Mr NATT: I feel that four-and-a-half hours allotted …
Dr Lim: No capacity, that is what it is and that is his brain for you.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex, please, it has been a long four days.
Mr NATT: I feel that the four-and-a-half hours allotted to each minister is a more than adequate time slot. However, in saying this, I also feel that perhaps a preference system for portfolio outputs should be considered by the committee to ensure the important and most popular output areas are able to be addressed within the time allotted.
Dr Lim: You would not even know the significance.
Mr NATT: The Tourism portfolio was a prime example. Tourism plays an integral role in the economy of the Territory, employing about 15% of our workforce and is one of the biggest economic generators. There was not one question asked; we ran out of time. ‘Give us more time’, was the reply from the Leader of the Opposition when the Chief Minister expressed her disappointment that Tourism had not been addressed.
As I mentioned earlier, I am new to the role, and I may be a little wet behind the ears and a bit nave …
Dr Lim: Yes, I agree with you there.
Mr NATT: … but I was amazed at the unnecessary arguments, continual repetitive nature of questions, snide comments and patronising remarks by a couple of opposition members towards ministers and public servants throughout the hearing, when the nature of the process is all about effectively scrutinising the various portfolios and the budget items.
The antics of the opposition frustrated the Independent members, the ministers and their department heads, as well as the wellbeing of public servants. The corruption of proceedings on occasions by the opposition …
Dr Lim: Whoa, terrible big word, corruption.
Mr NATT: ... was disgracefully conceited.
Dr Lim: Who did you corrupt?
Mr NATT: I would have thought there would have been more …
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, please!
Mr NATT: … would have been commonsense and more economic to have questions put on notice and to have backed off their repetitious queries and, perhaps, seek a briefing with the minister’s department. This would save time during the hearings, bring opposition members up to speed with the information they require and, obviously, allow questions to be asked in other outputs that either missed out or were glossed over lightly. I guess commonsense does not come into reality when you are plainly focused on attacking members and not examining the budget.
I felt the debates, on many occasions, were based on the politics of the budget and point scoring, and not the qualities and the contents of the budget. It was clearly noted and stated at times by the Independent members that they sought briefings on several items, and I commend them for their foresight.
I honestly feel the opposition went into this process with their negative thoughts right from the outset. My thoughts are supported by several comments by opposition committee members at our PAC meetings and statements made during the last sittings. They felt the hearings did not allow enough time for each portfolio, thought the process was flawed, firmly believed in their minds that the system would not work and, thus, set out on occasions to run down the clock to support their negative feelings.
I see this procedure as an efficient and a very effective tool for opposition to review the government’s workings and its budget structure, and the Leader of the Opposition should think a little more strategically and focus on the questions of value.
In saying all of this, I do, however, congratulate the opposition for their efforts and acknowledge that it would not be easy to spread responsibilities amongst such a small group. Also, I would like to acknowledge the two Independent members and thank them for their input, patience and tolerance.
Congratulations must go to the ministers and their staff for the preparatory work leading up to the estimates week and, of course, the work they have done on the budget preparation. I feel that the wellbeing of Territorians is assured with the improving economic and social trends stemming from the processes applied within the budget by this government.
To my fellow committee members and party colleagues who supported the committee throughout the proceedings, well done. It was a tiring week and you hung in there well. I know that the public servants have put in an enormous amount of time preparing in each of the outputs. I have spoken with a few over the last couple of weeks and they have stated that they were looking forward to the week’s ending, because they had put in some long hours to bring the information up to speed for the inquiry. I thank them for their diligence and professionalism and urge them to keep up the good work.
The hard-working Assembly and Hansard staff have done a wonderful job throughout the week to ensure the debate and investigation of the government’s budget, through the estimates process, went without a hitch. Well done to them all.
Well done to our illustrious Chairman and Deputy Chairman, under the circumstances. The tests that were put before you, you handled well and fairly. To sit through such long sessions and maintain concentration and a calm head and hear the situation is a trial in itself, but you both handled it exceptionally well and you are to be commended for your efforts.
In summing up, there is some fantastic work being done out there by this government under very difficult circumstances, and there are better things coming. Sure, things do go wrong from time to time and, of all people, opposition members should realise this. Quite rightly, they have every right to question proceedings. That level of interrogation is welcome.
I would like to say, however, this is a public hearing, and a procedure to inform public servants, members of government and the wider community, of government expenditure. As soon as the opposition members realise the estimates procedure is to scrutinise appropriation expenditure, and not a court of law, or a game of character assassination, the better the hearings will run.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Chairman, first of all, because I always forget, I would like to thank all of the staff and the people who helped run the Estimates Committee. It certainly takes a lot of organisation, and a lot of time. I thank all staff in general.
I would just like to say a few things about the operations of the estimates. I did mention this before the estimates started, but I would just like to repeat it. There certainly needs to be some consideration of some departments waiting; in particular, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, as it is a big department and it has a big expenditure. From an estimates point of view it needs more hours and the waiting side of it needs to be looked at. As well, what also needs to be looked at is what agencies have not been questioned over the last five years, or they have only been questioned on the odd occasion. Can those agencies be brought to the top of the list so that at least next time we have an Estimates Committee on areas like the Port, DCIS and Tourism? They can be first cab off the rank and we can have a chance to question those various departments.
I believe the opposition and the Independents, certainly have to tighten up on the length of our questions. I know at times I can waffle, but I am not sure I quite beat the member for Greatorex who breaks all records: one question on Wildcare for 23 minutes! In fact, I checked Hansard: four-and-a-half pages! This is not a personal character assassination, but the reality is that, while we might blame the government for long-winded answers - and I do think there are answers that do go on and on and have a little politics thrown in when they are given to us. I just take that as an example; we have to tighten up on the length of our questions and be more succinct, prcis what we are trying to say and, hopefully, receive a response from that side on the House which is of similar size and not full of waffle. Both sides of the House could get a lot more achieved if we do tighten up and bring our questions to the point.
On some of the issues that were dealt with during the hearings - and I do not mean to diminish other important matters such as indigenous housing, or governance – I felt that child protection and some of those issues were very important.
The lack of funding for the Ombudsman is a crying shame. The Ombudsman has written and said they are overworked; they have a huge caseload. For me, the Ombudsman is one of our most important officers in a democracy. They are a neutral body which can assess independently complaints from local government and government departments; and they got an extra $6000. If you read the foreword of the Ombudsman’s Report, they have had a huge increase in the amount of work they are required to do. If the government really believes in the Office of the Ombudsman and why the Ombudsman exists, then it should show it by giving it financial support. I hope the words of the Ombudsman saying it would be futile to go to the Chief Minister for extra funding is not the case. I hope the Chief Minister will look at giving them increased funding.
Planning is a very important area. The NT Planning Scheme, when it comes into being, is a major overhaul of planning throughout the Northern Territory. I realise some people might be bored to death with planning, but planning affects everyone. It affects where you live, who lives next door to you, how much traffic goes down your road. It has an effect on your life and we should all take time to consider the NT Planning Scheme.
Two areas of the Planning Scheme and the Planning Act which need looking at is the issue of third party appeals. At the present time, it is restricted to those people who live on residential premises and the question is: ‘Should that be broadened so it takes in a larger group of Territorians?’ The other issue is land use objectives, which seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth in some cases. Should places like Darwin and Alice Springs retain land use objectives so that people from those areas have some certainty about the way their towns and cities are being developed?
An area which did not get as much debate as it should have is governance on Aboriginal communities. There needs to be a lot of work done to make sure people understand the difference between local government governance, which is about the provision of essential services, and indigenous governance which is about the traditional management of land. I repeat, that is part of the reason – not the only reason – why some councils are dysfunctional.
The issue of sewerage has been debated in parliament quite considerably. We had Power and Water talk about that and there was some interesting debate. Power and Water has said that even with extra money, it would be difficult to increase the time span of five years because, as they said, they have found out that Ludmilla Treatment Plant is not on solid rock. It is actually mud and there are engineering difficulties in being able to increase the size of the plant. There are also some difficulties boring under the city because there is some future development which they have to work their way around. If it can be expedited, the government should be doing everything it can to do that.
Buffalo Creek boat ramp is a disgrace. For a department to build a facility on land that it did not own and then not pay the person who had the contract to run the secure car park at that facility is just out of order. That person has been there for over a year-and-a-half if my maths are right. He has been there a considerable period of time, and he has not been able to run the kiosk which was part of the contract deal all because the department forgot to check up who owned the land they built the car park on. I ask the government to expedite the payment of compensation to that gentleman so he can get on with running something which is a very good facility. I congratulate the government for doing it, but they stuffed up and they need to fix it.
My last little thing is on the EPA. I know that the minister thinks that I cannot understand what all this fuss is about. She said recently that she had tabled a diagram to show me exactly what it was all about because she thought ‘If you cannot understand what is written, I will send you a diagram’. That is what you do for primary school students. So I thought as a primary school student I would actually write a poem as a primary student. With all apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber and to the people of Argentina
Mr Kiely: And us.
Mr WOOD: And others, yes, thank you. This is the long lost verse. It is:
Mr Kiely: No wonder you got into politics, you cannot sing.
Mr Wood: I cannot beat Jack Ah Kit.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Chairman, this is the fifth Estimates Committee we have had now, and one starts to get a little immune to the whole system. You know you are going to be there for three or four days solid from 8.30 am right through to 11.30 pm. We just keep on going. In fact, last night I was here until about 1 am working on the papers before I settled for the night.
There are, obviously, many issues that have been identified during the last four days, and the starkest issue was this government has wasted a lot of money. It has wasted a lot of money. I do not know where it has gone. Look through the budget books at the output areas and the performance measures. The performance measures are not meeting what this government has set itself to do. That is been the concern. When it does not meet the targets and still requires a lot of money to fund the programs, something is radically wrong. The only conclusion I can come to is that this government has not been able to manage - just does not know how to manage a budget. Any householder would say to you that, if you have a fixed amount of money coming in you have to live within your means. If there is an extra windfall then you use the windfall to retire any debt that you have because putting it away into recurrent just burns it all up and you have nothing to show for it. Unfortunately, that is what has happened. You have nothing to show for it. I will come to specific examples in a little while.
It is just not good enough that the government has so much money that it is just allowed to throw it around willy-nilly. At the end of the day, there has been no significant extra infrastructure provided by this government in the last five years. I suspect that a lot of the money is going into the waterfront development. It is hard to track the money and I commend the government for being able to hide it so well. Normally, once in an estimates process, you can ferret around the path where money gets channelled through and identify clearly how the money is spent. However, it has been very difficult to follow where the money has gone.
The other identifiable cause of funds going out of the budget is the inordinate number of staff that this government has put on in the public service - an inordinate number. In five short years, they have increased this public service by some 3000. It is just unbelievable numbers. While there is no infrastructure being created in the Territory with all this money, the public service has grown. You wonder what they are doing. Over the next few years, I am sure we will start to inquire even more into the government’s method of spending the Territory’s money.
In regard to some of the specifics, one of the things that is close to my heart, and that I believe the Clerk would like me to mention, is about the very great need to re-cable this building with the latest technology so that our communication system does not fall over. Without a doubt, the token ring system which was, essentially, leading-edge technology when this building was designed, was starting to lag behind technology when this building was constructed. Twelve years later, this technology is definitely dated, and elements of the circuitry within this building are falling over on a regular basis. Government must provide sufficient funding to ensure that the cabling is done properly, and then we will at least have a system that will last us into the future.
When the Chief Minister was interrogated by the Estimates Committee - first of all she carried very little portfolios of significance, apart from that of the Chief Minister. When you look at her responses and the global figures that she provided during her responses, this government is, no doubt, into micromanaging. Micromanaging what? Not government, but micromanaging their own image. That is what they are micromanaging, to ensure that they will always appear to be very presentable and re-electable, while the rest of the Territory goes to wrack and ruin. It does not matter, as long as they can micromanage itself to be re-elected the next time. I hope Territorians are not so easily fooled the next time around, and will bring this government to account.
There was a classical case - and the member for Nelson mentioned it - of the Ombudsman, who is a woman. The Office of the Ombudsman is not adequately resourced. When you have an impartial officer of the government not adequately resourced to provide all the necessary services that are required of that office, then we have a problem. To my specific question whether she had negotiated for better funding for her office with the Chief Minister, who was her direct minister responsible for her office, she said she did not, but in fact, she had negotiated with Treasury. When I further pursued the Ombudsman why she did not discuss the matter with the Chief Minister, to quote her very pointed comment: ‘It would have been a futile exercise’.
For an Ombudsman to say that with the Chief Minister sitting next to her tells me volumes. This Ombudsman is so frustrated that she cannot perform the functions that she was engaged to perform by this Legislative Assembly. That, to me, tells me that this Chief Minister is not interested in open and transparent government; she is interested in micromanaging her appearance to the electorate, and she would do anything she could to withdraw resources from the people who make her accountable in the most objective manner. Yes, members opposite can use political spin and all that, but you would expect somebody like the Ombudsman – and you can add the Auditor-General to that list – to be the people who would do these things objectively. It creates a problem.
Regarding health, obviously, the radiation oncology unit is still not committed – we do not know how far progressed the government’s negotiations with the federal government are. I am glad that, at long last, the Minister for Health has commenced negotiations with the federal government to finalise the detail of the $13m on offer. I say again that, had we commenced this two years ago when the report was first tabled, we would now have a radiation oncology unit up and running. I also come back to the point about the fact that the minister has had this report in his hands for two years. I would have assumed that he or his advisors would have read that report two years ago and would be fully across the issues detailed in the report.
One of the most significant issues, I believe, is the one about the hardship that patients with cancer suffer when they have to travel under PATS. It is two things: (1) is the level of subsidy that PATS provides, and (2) is the lack of flexibility that PATS demand of patients when they provide travel assistance. Normally, when you are told that you have to go down to Adelaide, for instance, to receive treatment, you would think that the patient needs a few days to prepare themselves, to get their family organised and leave their home, whether it be in lock-up state or to have somebody house sit. But no, PATS demand, ‘We will set the date for you and then you have to go there with very little notice’.
However, worse than that is that, having completed radiotherapy treatment - people here might not know - your body goes through a dramatic change, you suffer from intense nausea, if not vomiting, and frequently you can also get bowel disturbances, such as severe diarrhoea. They expect and insist a patient who has received the final course of radiotherapy then travel back to their home town in the Northern Territory within a day of that, which is so unreasonable. These patients are not well and they have to travel as a seated passenger in a commercial aircraft. It is very unfair to the patients.
Also to provide meagre subsistence subsidy is just not on. It costs you more than $30 to stay in a motel and to purchase a meal. While $30 does assist it does not go anywhere near paying for a quarter or half of the cost of a motel room for a night. Then, spouses who travel with the patients are not provided with any assistance whatsoever. When you are travelling down for the treatment of a life-threatening disease, you want to have at least a loved one with you to support you. To see that this is not possible because of the rigidity of PATS is just not acceptable.
I believe the minister needs to consider this closely. I also say that the minister knew about those hardships for two years. He sat back and he allowed it to happen. He allowed it to happen until the eve of this estimates, when he said: ‘Oh, I will put $0.5m into PATS and help it out a little’. What do you say of a person who knows about a particular effect on a cancer patient, and ignores it completely - I do not know for what reason? I cannot understand it, and I wish the minister would explain his thoughts, and explain clearly why he did what he did. If he could not deliver the radiation oncology unit, he could have at least put the money into PATS two years ago. He could have done that, and it would have made life a lot easier for cancer sufferers. But no, he did not.
I also remind the minister that cancer patients have limited time and the longer he delays on the original quality service the more distress you put them through.
I am going through the portfolio not in the order that they appeared in estimates but as they appear here on the sheet. One of the things that I queried the Minister for Family and Community Services about was about child protection. She has not adequately explained why there are so many children out there who suffer child abuse and have not been fully investigated and, more importantly, protected.
I raised the issued about sexually transmitted infection amongst the children as young as seven and four years of age. I mentioned sexually transmitted infection in teenagers. The minister and her officers, and even the member for Braitling, said: ‘What are you going to do about it?’ Well, it is illegal. As a father, if I found a man had done that to my underage daughter or daughters I would like to see him in gaol, and I would like to see him castrated. I am not going to put up with that. No way in the world. Ask any parent out there - that is what they want done. Not say: ‘Oh well, it does not matter’. It matters, otherwise you change the law. If it is what you are going to accept, change the law. The law is 16 years. You stick at 16 years. No ifs, no buts. You cannot tolerate it.
Mrs Braham: So what are you going to do if it is two teenagers? Put them in gaol?
Dr LIM: I am saying to you that we believe in this society that children under 16 years of age are not capable of making the right decisions. It should be an expectation by every adult and every bit of rhetoric you talk about, that you do not do it under the age of 16 or you will face the consequences of the law. Not say: ‘Oh well, we cannot do much about it. Well, never mind’. I hear the snigger over there.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Chairman! The members at the back of the Chamber are having a conversation and not even participating in this debate. It is not good enough for the member for Greatorex to say ‘I hear a snigger’ so he gets it on the paper to make it look like they are a part of this debate. Those members are having a private conversation, nothing whatsoever to do with this. Let us get it right. There are no sniggers; this is a very serious and sensitive subject. There are no sniggers. I want this on record: all the members here are listening intently to the member for Greatorex without any interjections
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you member for Sanderson. Member for Greatorex, because of the content of the serious nature of what you are saying, it is fair that the member for Sanderson has made the point. We are not sure what the members were doing, and we were not sure if they are sniggering about this particular debate. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw.
Dr LIM: I will withdraw, Mr Acting Chairman. I was not aware who was sitting at the back of the Chamber until I looked across and noticed the members sitting up there. One of the members there I have a lot of personal regard for, and I honestly believe that he would not be sniggering at my comment. I apologise.
Coming to issues of Natural Resources: I am particularly concerned when I asked the minister about Wildcare. Indeed, my question about Wildcare was long. I did not realise it took as long as the member for Nelson described it to be. There are major issues in caring for our injured wildlife. The process that is put in place by the department needs to be questioned by the minister. There are processes that have not followed due protocols, and it is important to ensure that whatever is done is done within regulations and the law. Otherwise, officers will go off and do their own thing without due regard for any of the legislation that is passed.
The tenor of the comments made by the minister and her executive officer appears to be that if the animal is wounded, do not bother us with it. Probably easiest to euthanase the wounded animal and that will be the end of that. We do not have the facilities, the time, or the resources; do not come to us’. We have a group of volunteers across the Territory who are animal lovers who would care for the wounded animals. They care for them well and bring them back to good health, then release them back in to their natural habitats. We need to do that.
Community government councils are another issue I would like to comment about but, unfortunately, I do not have time. There are a significant number of community councils that need to be supported as they are at risk of failing, and if they do fail they face huge community consequences.
Mrs MILLER: Mr Acting Chairman, I contribute to the response to the estimates debate for this week. This is the third estimates I have taken part in and I have to say I still find the process a little frustrating. I had one of out three questions about a very important area in Tourism. I would like to see the program restructured so that Tourism does get a good go because the Chief Minister, naturally, is going to have a lot of questions asked of her portfolios. I, and whoever is the Tourism shadow minister next year, I am sure, would appreciate having the opportunity to present their questions to the Chief Minister at estimates.
As it is, regarding the questions I have for the Minister for Tourism, the Chief Minister, I will be having a briefing with Tourism NT so I can get the answers. I have spoken briefly to them and they are quite happy for me to ask the same sorts of questions when I have that briefing.
I found some of the outputs were a little difficult to follow this year inasmuch as the performance measures had changed so dramatically. I understand some of the departments have changed and they have amalgamated in different areas, and I realise that is possibly why the performance measures have been changed. However, it did make it rather challenging to try to find the line items,. Naturally, estimates was drawn out a little further in some questioning because I was unable to find the line item I was looking for. Hopefully, next year the performance measures will be the same as this year, which will make it a lot easier.
I also had the spine cut off my Budget Paper No 4 because it was such a thick, cumbersome darn thing and had holes put in it …
A member: Budget Paper No 3.
Mrs MILLER: Budget Paper No 3, beg my pardon - and had it put in a two-ring binder. Could the Treasurer please consider next year having the Budget Paper No 3 put in a spiral binder; not necessarily for everybody, but members of the Legislative Assembly who are going to be reading and referring to it constantly. I doubt whether it is a huge cost factor but, gosh it will save us a lot of heartache. I encourage that and should have mentioned it before when I was replying to budgets.
The questions I had this year, as my shadow portfolios naturally were a little on the limited side, meant it was a huge burden for my colleagues. All things considered, we have done darn well this week, and there has been a lot of hours and time put into the preparation. Despite the fact the member for Drysdale, I think it was, did not think we had done any preparation at all, we had done heaps of preparation. It was very noble of him to say all those wonderful things about what government does for the estimates process and how dreadful the opposition is in not being prepared, but I would like him to walk a little in our shoes ...
Mr Stirling: He is a young pup.
Mrs MILLER: … and experience the challenges. I enjoy the challenges because it encourages us to check all portfolios, all departments and to listen to the outputs in all departments. I was a little disappointed, of course, that I did not get to ask any questions on Tourism and also in the area of Senior Territorians. Our senior Territorians are a very valuable group of people and I value them as I am sure my colleagues do. They do not have a very strong voice and this was one opportunity to be able to ask questions on behalf of senior Territorians. I am disappointed in that as well.
As for my portfolio of Regional Development the issue for me that was really important in that area was to ensure that the regional development boards that are being set up will have some clout. The regional development boards are going to play a very important role in the areas where they have been set up in being able to encourage and promote development into those areas. I will speak particularly of the regional development board that will be set up to service the Katherine region. There has not been a lot of economic development. As a matter of fact, there has been practically zero economic development in that region for some time, for quite a few years now. That is a fact. You only have to look at the population to see that that is a fact.
I believe the role of the regional development board is imperative for the development and the growth of the region, but it is not much good having a regional development board if they are not able to have some clout. By clout, I mean they need to be able to have the ear of the minister and to know that the work that they are putting in - which I believe is going to be mostly voluntarily – and their opinions are valued and that they will be taken on board and there will be some action. The previous regional development authorities that we have had in Katherine seemed to be a non-event. They had meetings but they were never given, I believe, the respect for the time and the recommendations that they put forward. The people of the community and the region had very little input and also did not receive much information back. I encourage the minister to ensure that this regional development board that is being set up does have some authority and is able to make a difference to the regional areas.
A couple of the things that I wanted to talk about actually cover Tourism, Transport and Infrastructure and Regional Development. I had a look at my reply last year to estimates on one of the areas that I addressed, and it was interesting because I could have almost said exactly the same thing again this year - just changed the date. I thought somebody would check up and say: ‘Yes, well, she said that last year’. It is almost the same.
One of the things that I talked regarding tourism last year was the lack of airline services or passenger services into rural Northern Territory and to regional areas in the Northern Territory. One of the comments that the Chief Minister made during estimates last year was that business was booming in the Northern Territory and the airlines would come because business had grown so much. I can honestly assure the Chief Minister that that has not happened in Katherine and I do not think it has happened in Tennant Creek. It may have happened a little in Alice Springs, but I do not know if the airline passenger services have increased; they may have decreased. That is a serious problem and I know it is not going to be a simple one to sort out. However, it is something that needs to be looked at more than ever. The saying that business is booming and that means the demand for airlines will be great and that they will come, has not panned out in the regional areas. I encourage that regional development board to look at things that can happen in our regions so that, maybe, there will be a demand for passenger seats back into rural NT.
During the discussion of the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio, there was some time spent on the subject of road safety. It is a very sensitive area because we have had a loss of quite a few lives through road accidents, which is extremely unfortunate. The loss of any life is very sad. Naturally, the state of our regional roads is extremely important. Any money that can be put into regional roads is of vital importance. One of the questions I did not get to ask was just how much has been put into beef roads in the Northern Territory in this last 12 months, because nowhere enough has been put in.
In that particular area, we also talked about the demerit system, what systems should be put in place - well, we did not actually talk about it, we discussed it very briefly. The demerit system is an interesting system because the states that the demerit system is operating in have not shown a significant decrease in road deaths. Those people that lose their demerit points do not really give a rip. They lose their points, and so what? A lot of them continue to drive, and do not get picked up either when they have lost their demerit points. Therefore, demerit points do not stop drunk people from getting into their vehicle and driving. The loss of demerit points do not stop people from driving recklessly. I believe that there has to be a road safety campaign far more intensive, rather than introducing a demerit system. However, I am very happy and willing to listen to any research that is carried out. That is the only way you can get a true feeling of what will work and what will not. I have always been quite against a demerit system but, as I say, you should never say never, you should always keep an open mind and look at the evidence. I am interested in seeing the evidence of how demerit systems have reduced road tolls - if they have - in other states.
I am also very keen to get the taxi licences for the MPTs sorted out, because I believe that in some areas - and I am not saying it has happened everywhere - I know that that has been abused. It is a shame because I know of instances where disabled people have rung two and three days in advance to book a disabled cab and they have been told: ‘Sorry, we are doing a bush job’ or they are doing something else. They have had to be carried out to an ordinary taxi and put in that taxi. The local cab drivers are very good; they will look after them and do the job, of course. However, they are supposed to be carried in a wheelchair inside a van that is made available for them. That is an area of concern. The area of concern is how do you police it? That is what I would like to know. How do you police that and ensure that those people do have that service available to them?
I am skipping around the place, but this another area is a regional development one again. What happens in the instance when there is a development that is proposed, for instance, to have 35 000 ha of soya beans grown in an area? What happens? Do the people on the regional development board say: ‘That is a great idea because there is a proposal to grow 35 000 ha of soya beans, but we will have to get an environmental impact study done on that’? Then they cannot get enough water to grow it, or they cannot get enough land cleared to grow it. What we have is a catch 22. Where do these people go to have a major development like that? A development of that size, that is considered and is being proposed for the Katherine region, is extremely important to regional development in that area and would provide a lot of economy for that region. What happens there? We go over two or three different areas, we cover regional development, then the environmentalists will probably say that having 35 000 ha of soya beans is a disgusting thing to do. What happens there? I believe that any opportunity that is being put forward needs to be looked at in great detail. I know a lot of detail has gone into this particular investment, so I encourage the regional development board to strongly support something like that and bring it to the minister’s attention as soon as possible.
Another area that I found of interest was housing. I have a great respect for the Minister for Housing and I believe that some of the proposals that he has brought forward are going to do some good. I believe he is a very realistic man, and that those proposals are going to make a great difference to indigenous communities. One thing of concern that I noticed during his input to the Estimates Committee was that there has been so much talk about the lack of money for Aboriginal housing, and there has been a huge call on the federal government and, of course, the Territory government to make sure that they provide as much funding as possible for indigenous housing. Then, to actually find out that some of the IHANT funding that has been put in the budget for this year actually has to be used for the town camp redevelopments in Alice Springs was a little disappointing, because IHANT needs all the money that it had in its budget. I would have thought that government would have looked at additional funding to cover the redevelopment of the town camps in Alice Springs.
I believe that IHANT does a pretty good job. I know there has been a lot of discussion by a lot of members about what sort of housing should be in these areas, but it is horses for courses and there needs to be a lot of discussion about what suits each region. The discussion needs to include the people who live there, because they are going to be the people living in them, responsible for those houses and for maintaining them. They would respect them if they have had some say in it. I was a little disappointed in that area.
In Environment and Heritage, we had very lengthy discussions, of course, about the EPA. I have introduced a motion for the next General Business Day to talk about that in great detail. The word ‘independent’ is what I find almost offensive, because independent means separate, not part of. Yet everything that is in this proposal for this EPA is exactly the opposite of that. It is the word ‘independent’ that needs to be removed from the EPA that has been proposed. I found, in this output, that the minister was terribly defensive, and I was just asking questions I expected answers to that I did not think were too difficult. I am sure we are going to have a lot more discussion about the EPA as time goes on.
We will probably be standing here next year saying pretty much the same things about the Estimates Committee as we have this year. However, I want to thank the people who did the most work. All the staff of the Legislative Assembly and other departmental staff put a heck of a lot of time into preparing for this, despite the fact some members have said they thought they had wasted their time putting all this information together for the Estimates Committee. I do not think it is ever a waste because those people know more about their department than they would if they had not had to prepare a lot of this information. It is certainly not a waste. Yes, it is a lot of hard work and a lot of time, but it is not a waste.
I definitely want to thank the staff in Hansard too. The staff in Hansard has had a few testy times in the last few days with the sound equipment and people not announcing who was speaking - so good work, well done.
I look forward to next year, although probably not with as much enthusiasm as somebody here said.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Acting Chairman, I do not have a lot to say because I it has all been said. However, there is frustration, obviously, on the part of the Independents who are sitting waiting for the shadow minister to complete his questioning. There has to be a better process than what we are doing at the moment. I also believe that we should look at the many areas that ministers do not cover. I suggest the Standing Orders Committee could look at the process again. It does not hurt to review it.
Ministers’ times need to be weighted with the minister’s responsibility. Giving all ministers equal time when they do not have greater responsibilities means you often do not get to those areas, and that has been outlined here today by many speakers. There are areas I would have liked to have gone on with, but we just ran out of time, for all sorts of reasons. I understand the opposition trying to question at length to score political points. Most of the questions from the Independents are fairly succinct because we are after information, and that is the way we tend to put our questions. If I am not there, the member for Nelson asks questions, and if he is not there I ask for him. But I can understand that just two it is difficult and I am sure everyone is rather tired and a little twitchy at the moment.
Let us reconsider the process. Why four days? Let us make it five days. Why should we going until 11:30 at night? I was talking to the Public Accounts Secretary, Terry Hanley. By the time he got home each night it was about 1:30 am, and then he had to be in again by 7:30 am the following morning, and this goes on all week. That would apply to Hansard staff, the Clerk and other members of the Legislative Assembly. It is fine for government, who have a number of members they can rotate on the quorum, but it is very difficult and you must think of the effect it has had on staff as well. Therefore, we need to think about having an extra day.
I also think some of the introductory statements by some of our ministers were rather lengthy. This one, for instance, went over two pages whereas some only go for one page. Succinct, to the point, and I just do not think it is necessary to go into so much depth and detail in opening statements when they know they are going to be questioned. You are right; there should be a time limit on questions and answers. We all know we sit there listening, waiting for someone to get to the question, and then we are waiting for the minister to get to the answer and the minister then passes over to a departmental official, who goes through the whole process again. I am quite sure we could streamline it a lot better because is it not the fact that we are going through this process to question the budget, to allow ministers to justify what they have done? Why else are we going through the process? Are we just doing an exercise for the sake of public show? If we are sincere about it then let us make the whole process work because, at the moment, I do not think it is working as well as it should be.
The process at the moment - and it is not in the terms of reference but in the way the committee has decided to allow questions to happen - is a device against Independents. Whether you like it, we are members of the parliament and we should be able to contribute. The terms of reference need to be looked at as there is nowhere in the terms of reference that says shadow ministers go first, then other committee members, and then Independents. That is a decision of the committee and needs to be reviewed. We can take it in turns or you can say to opposition: ‘Okay you have had 10 questions but let us have a break and give someone else a go as well’. We need to review the whole process and I ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee if you would take that on notice.
There were a number of areas we did not get to question. Many of the questions I was looking at were more electoral bias, whereas the opposition tend to look at them on a whole-of-government approach. There will be a number of follow-up letters to ministers as a result of not being able to ask the questions that I wanted to.
We spent a long time on child protection and I need to answer the member for Greatorex regarding him saying sex with a minor is illegal. Yes, we know that and unwanted sex with a minor is illegal; an adult having sex with a minor is illegal and there should be charges. However, we are putting our heads in the sand if we do not think there is consensual sex amongst teenagers. Go to high schools and find out how many kids are on the pill or how many go to the school nurse and ask them about it. Go to your hospitals and see how many young girls are having babies - and thanks John Howard; you offered teenagers $3000 for every baby they had. That was a great incentive for them to have babies.
I reacted to the member for Greatorex’s statement ‘It is illegal; do something about it’, because education is what you do about it. You do not go up to these teenagers who are having sex and say: ‘You are charged; you should not be doing it, you are a minor’. You talk about education and make sure high schools are educating kids well. Surely, prevention is far better than having young teenage girls with lots of babies. That is the reason why I questioned his outburst, ‘it is illegal’. You cannot take that stand in this day and age. You all have teenagers or had them, or know of them, and you would know exactly what I am talking about - even though the member for Blain is frowning at me.
I want to place on record my thanks to all the staff and public servants. It must be frustrating for them because they sat there for so long and then they did not get a chance to answer. However, I say to them that it is okay; we will be asking you some of the questions by letter.
I want to make comment to the Chief Minister regarding the handling of the idea of going to a summit, the question that has been raised continually on TV, even the handling of the member for Millner’s letter which I thought was a fair cop. Chief Minister, you have to show a little stability. I cannot let the Independent member for Nelson have it all his own way, so I remind the Chief Minister of a little song; perhaps it might help her to make up her mind. I will not sing it because you will die if I start singing but some of you will remember it.
Mr MILLS: Mr Acting Chairman, I will not be singing any songs or reading poems.
I was surprised to hear this was the fifth estimates process. These are always challenging exercises and processes we all pass through. It is always good to come to the end of a period and reflect on what we have learnt from it. As an elected representative and a member of the opposition, you do learn a lot. You have the need to take responsibility as a shadow minister to endeavour to get across a range of portfolios and, without going into it, it is a considerable responsibility for opposition to do that in a global sense. Our responsibility as the opposition, as well as assess how much you actually understand of how the system works - the public sector, how government works, how government decisions are made and how they are followed through - is to make sure that we can do our job on behalf of Territorians who are expecting this parliament to work to hold government to account so that there can be proper scrutiny and a check and balance on government. Without it, we only have to look at what can arise in other places around this world. We do have an important role to play and one that we take seriously. There are bright moments and there are not so bright moments, highs and lows. When it is all washed through and we sieve it all out, we will find that there is some considerable merit in what we have all just passed through.
Before I go any further, I am, as other members are, immensely grateful to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who supported these proceedings. They have done a wonderful job with such grace, patience and consistency. Sometimes, we reflect on how difficult it is as a member of parliament when we recognise that some of these officers were there before us and after us. Granted, in opposition, we have to prepare as ministers have to prepare, as do the members of the Legislative Assembly staff to prepare and lay the foundations.
For those in Hansard, I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to try and get the thread of argument and to string together in a sensible way the words that are batted backwards and forwards. Sometimes I wonder whether it is actually is worth it. However, it is good to have that record and I appreciate the effort that is taken to transcribe those words. It surprises me as we grow accustomed to our task in here, how seriously the public servants you meet in the street take this. There is some benefit in doing a complete assessment of your area of operation. I hope that it has lasting merit in taking that time to do an audit. I am always a little distressed when I see public servants thoroughly prepared and sitting anxiously for three-and-a-half hours, to find that they get no questions at all.
I thank the research section of the parliamentary library for the contribution that was made from that quarter as well. My daily properly-made coffee from Speaker’s Corner made all the difference. Thank you for the support that you provided, not to mention the food. To my fellow members of the PAC, it was an exercise and a journey that we went through together and I enjoyed working with each member.
To reflect in all the comings and goings, largely it has all be touched upon. It is our responsibility to see whether the budget is being managed as well as it could be. We have made our point and will restate that we do have concerns over the rising level of debt. We hold concerns about the cost of the public sector wages bill, and I know the Treasurer also does share these concerns. We can play our game across the Chamber, but they are issues that remain of interest and concern to the opposition and many members of our community. The reality that there is, at this same time, a reduction in the infrastructure spend will pose some implications into the future.
There was strengthening of the perception that the focus of this government, as other governments, can either be on a progressive and outward looking vision or a distraction and a focusing and a fixing on re-election. There were many things that reminded me that there is this bug running through this system; that is, the focus on the need to be re-elected. That promotes a government that becomes free of ideology and just driven by that simple objective: whatever it takes, let us do it so that we can maximise our political benefit.
There were a couple of things that came up through the course of the proceedings which may be small but they are disturbing, nonetheless. One was to find that it was at a cost of $14 per signature that taxpayers paid to have their names on a petition to send to Canberra.
It was disturbing also to see that, on two occasions, there was evidence of Labor backbenchers being given support over and above the Independent and opposition members.
It is also of concern, having spent a short time on the government benches as a backbencher, to weigh carefully the good intentions of the then opposition, particularly with regards to the self-indulgent nature of government to spend extraordinary amounts of money on their own presentation and perception within the community. We found that reinforced again and again at the cost that goes into publications and promotions and spin.
Those sorts of things are of concern because of the inconsistent nature of the position that was once held when they were in opposition. I say these words very mindfully, because I trust there comes a time - I hope I have an opportunity - to stand by those words and see whether I am judged by the standards that I am referring to right now.
On the issue of vision, I believe everyone, particularly in recent times, is desperate for vision and leadership. The issues that we have seen presented to us on a daily basis in recent times is causing a deeper level of concern within our community, and people are starting to ask for that vision and leadership. It has become a commodity that is desired deeply. I hope that we can throw off the shackles of seeing a vision that takes us just as far as the next election. There are several elements that I saw through these whole proceedings that will trap us into that cycle. I would like to find the way, as one member, along with members of opposition, Independent members and members on the other side of the Chamber, to find a way where we can free ourselves of that to make a noticeable difference.
The last thing I wish to say is that – I will leave it. I will come back to that. It is just in a practical sense the process is referred to at times as being a problem and the tennis game will be played. ‘Not enough time’, says the opposition, and the government members say: ‘You do not know how to manage your time’, and checkmate, whacko! There is probably somewhere in between that where we could start to think about it. What is the purpose of the proceedings? Just to say that we have this new process and tick that off, as long as it looks okay and sounds like the real thing and delivers almost what you want, then near enough is good enough. I do not think so. We actually want to make sure it is properly weighed, balanced and checked.
In spite of all the propaganda that has gone on, the process that I saw as a member of government, as a backbencher, had some merit as well. It certainly put the ministers in a very difficult position because it was the opposition standing on this side and the minister on that side. I observed from where the member for Brennan is sitting now, that the minister would stand there and the advisors were sitting over there and the questions were fired one after the other. It was the minister who had to give an account. There will be, of course, deeper memories, or longer term memories on the other side now that carry across from this side to that side, and I will say that there are flaws with that, possibly. It is not to say that there are no flaws with the current system. There are some benefits with the current system, but if we were able to have greater time to use and to spread the process out - we talked about this in the last couple of proceedings, where some practical suggestions were put forward to ensure that we do cover, or are given the opportunity to cover all areas, and not try to jam it all in four days.
There may be a process that we could put in place where we do not place such pressure on the whole exercise to try and just tick it off. There may be ways that we could creatively consider where we ensure question in areas that have been neglected time and time again. You may not appreciate it, but the fact is, some of these issues do take some time to unpack, and it takes a line of questioning to get where you are going. The truth is that the minister often knows where you are trying to get, and will be blocking cleverly all along the way. You cannot just ask a question and have an answer, and be efficient and tick that one off.
It would be nice if you could ask questions like, ‘How well are you going’, ‘Oh really well, thanks, let me tell you all about it’, and tick that off. We do not have that task. That is not our responsibility. Dorothy dixers serve that purpose. Our job is to actually ask some of the harder questions that government hopes we do not ask - the things that we may know about, that government knows about but would prefer we did not know about, but citizens demand us to be able to prosecute that particular line. Therefore, it does take some time. It is not just a clever little phrase to say, ‘Oh manage your time’. I am not saying that we are clean on this side, but there are ways that we could improve.
The final point I would wish to make is in reference to the drama that was occurring as a backdrop to estimates. It was something I will remember for as long as I am in this Chamber, to go up to my office and to turn the television on to see what was on, and to see Lateline. I saw a senior indigenous woman sitting back in the chair with tears rolling down her face. I saw the subtitles, and she said, ‘my spirit weeps’, and you felt the grief that was giving rise to tears that flowed down her face. I thought that, in the proceedings that we have just been through, that if the real purpose of this is not reflecting the pain behind those tears, and the pain behind those who have need within our community, then it is pointless. That sits as a permanent reminder to members, that that should focus our hearts and minds on what this is really about, so that if we cannot find a means to reduce that flow of tears and ease that pain ultimately, it is a pointless exercise – a shallow and an empty one at that.
I thought that was quite an amazing backdrop to these whole proceedings. To me, it underscores our role and our purpose, and it was a very potent reminder to every member here to remember that this is about something far greater than our political points that may be scored, something that transcends an electoral cycle, and something that must reach out and make a difference to someone far from this place. I hope that as we continue on as members, mature in the process, that there will come a time when we could ease that burden and to restrict that flow of tears.
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Chairman, I thank all members for their contributions. It was a pretty good four days; it was pretty intensive. All the ministers did a fabulous job making themselves available and open to all lines of questioning. I would like to pick up on some of the things that some of our members said.
First off, the Leader of Opposition, when she said that she picked up on four themes. I only picked up on one on her, and that was spite. It was just about through every piece of interrogation that she did. She got two years of sporting colloquialism, she got off playing the ball and started playing the man. It is just not the way to go. However, I will say that all of us here are here of our own free will, we are all elected members, we all stood up and we all take a bit of a slap in the public every now and then for different things.
However, our public servants are not. They are not there to be attacked. There were quite a number of occasions where I saw public servants sitting at the table, trying to assist the minister, to provide responses to the concise questions put forward by opposition, only to be attacked for their efforts. That is not the way to go. I would like to put on the record that I apologise to those public servants who suffered that embarrassment. It reflects poorly on all of us as politicians that they should have been forced into that position. I will also take a bit of a slap myself because, as Chairman, I should have been on it harder. If I am Chairman next year, I will be. This certainly will be one thing that I will not tolerate. If I am not Chairman, I ask whoever takes up the baton next year for them to not tolerate such behaviour. It does not do well for any of us in parliament as elected representatives.
The member for Goyder, I reckon, did a pretty good job. It was his first time in the seat as Acting Chairman and it is fairly daunting. It is the third time that I have been on the PAC and the Estimates Committee since its inception so I guess I am a bit of an old hand at it. However, he got in there. When elected members and ministers come together and it is on, it can be pretty hard and daunting. Under those circumstances, I believe he did a fabulous job. He engaged himself; he really got into it. He was able to recognise the preparation that the ministers did. It was not only a learning experience for him; he took away from it quite a good personal development as far as parliamentary procedures go. Good on him.
The member for Drysdale recognised that the time allocated was adequate. He provided options of how we can get the agencies that did not have the chance to be questioned, and how we can get those up at the next round of estimate hearings. I am sure that this is something that we will take into our deliberations in the PAC, as the Estimates Committee is a construct of the PAC and there is no reason why we cannot have a look at that. As long as we give agencies enough notification so that they can prepare their briefs in a logical and consequential order, I do not see too much problems in it. That is something that the PAC should turn its mind to in some sort of post implementation review. Let us have a look at these agencies that have not had a chance to be questioned in such a forum and see if we can get them up first next time. I do not see that as an insurmountable issue and it is one that we should turn our minds to.
The member for Nelson also picked up on that same issue. He picked up on the length of questions and answers. If anyone should be able to pick up on that sort of thing it should be him. He would be one of the worst time wasters that we have. I do not mind a little theatrics as some people probably agree but, when he gets in there and asks questions that he has asked in parliament before, or asked questions of correspondence that he has had with ministers, that he has the answers back for, so he can get the grab on the radio or on the TV, well, that is fine. That is part of the game; we all understand that. But then to come in and complain about the time is just not on. You cannot have it both ways. I am sure that that will come up time and again.
The member for Greatorex made admissions, finally, that he was not able to properly understand government accounting and it came through time and again. That adds to time wasting in the committee. I say go to a course, go and talk to the people in Treasury and get to understand these reports that come out, and then we will find a little timesaving. He too, played the man and not the ball. I feel that he misrepresented the Ombudsman’s comments in here. When the Ombudsman said that she thought it was futile to get more funding; the Ombudsman is a very professional person, a highly paid public servant. She is a CEO. There is one thing about all the CEOs - they are expected to come in on budget time and again. She is coming in on budget. She is coming in with the objectives met. We do not ask any more of our CEOs, the government should not either, and she is doing it. She said she has high morale in her department. She mentioned that she had a high turnover of staff but she had people coming in and putting their hand up. She had staff members leaving to higher paid jobs. That is not the sign of a poorly run and poorly organised and a suffering organisation. When you have that happening in a very small unit, I commend her. I commend her for realising why she should not go to the Chief Minister and ask for more money. She did not, because she can clearly operate within her budget and get the results. You can turn it around whatever way you like, but that is how it was.
The member for Greatorex went on about the Frommer Report. Have a look at the transcript; that is all I will say. I will not spend any more time on it. Have a look at the transcript and you be the judge as to what was going on in that part of the debate.
The member for Katherine said she found it frustrating. So did I at times. She also asked about restructuring the order and, as I acknowledged, we will have a look at that. I also acknowledge that preparation is a hard process they went through and a lot of them did put a lot of work into it. For a small team, credit to them; they did do a good job and did get in there and prepare. At times they got diverted on their own personal issues, but they had a whole range of questions and they did put the hours in. I will pat them on the back for that because they deserve it; they did work hard.
The member for Braitling has been critical of not being able to ask questions. Well, she wants to sit down and maybe caucus with the other Independent member and get that right. We do have a running order in the Estimates Committee and it is the shadow minister first, as it should be because they are across the portfolio, then we flick to the Independent. The members for Greatorex and Blain looked at me at times when I skipped over them and went straight to the Independents to let them have a say. They get a say on the outputs, a better say actually than any government member or any member of the opposition - shadow first then straight to the Independent. I do not think they have ground for complaint on that one.
Mr Acting Chairman, the member for Blain reflected on the process and he stated he understands full well the opposition’s responsibilities - and he does. It became very clear as the process went through that he is an old hand at these as well and he understands the process. He knows the complexities of it and he got in there and worked hard to extract the information he did. But I could not help thinking that, while he is being very articulate about the efforts and the trials and tribulations of what it is to be an opposition member, his contribution was still loaded with cynicism.
You did a good job and you should pat yourself on the back. Your team should go out and have a beer or chardonnay tonight. I know you are coming more over our way of thinking on a lot of things. You did well, but the estimates are not about the government hiding and saying this is all about us getting re-elected. The ministers are out there up-front with their operational lines so you can get in there and interrogate it. It is a fabulous opportunity and you should not waste it.
The member for Blain mentioned dorothy dix questions wasting time. There was none. Let me put it on the record now that we have a position on the Estimates Committee of not wanting to take up precious time. I commend the core members of the Estimates Committee and all those members of the backbench who were participating for their discipline in not throwing in dorothy dixers, and for lack of interjections. If you go through the transcripts you will find very few interjections from our team of government members the whole time. If there was any time wasting it was not with government members. Everyone else is getting thanked around here but, the work the government backbench did and the discipline they exhibited was fantastic.
In finishing, everyone else has had a bit of a sing song and there is one that came to mind about all this. I will not sing it either but it will stay in everyone’s ear
Always look on the bright side of life.
With that, thanks everyone for a fantastic estimates hearing. I enjoyed it and I am sure the ministers did. I am sure all the public servants did, and they are not all little blighters. They are paid professionals who enjoyed the whole thing.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 all the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2006-07 be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 4 May 2006.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine that anyone would be expecting me to argue that this be blocked or opposed, and urge honourable members to please support me in highlighting the deficiencies of the bill. I will not be going down that path, so I acknowledge the journey that we have travelled, the necessity of having this legislation dealt with at this sitting, so that we can all go home.
However, there is one aspect of this bill that it is the duty of opposition to draw attention to, and there will probably remain a philosophical difference between members of the Country Liberal Party and members of government on this point: the benefits that the first home owner concession receives will be eroded through the passage of this legislation. It can be explained, and it is a reasonable explanation in terms of making sense.
However, it makes sense in this context: whilst it is an arguable and logical premise that where there is the opportunity to either keep money with a first home owner and allow them to utilise it and maintain the existing benefit that there is for a first home owner who wants to pay out the equity that they have in their home with the HomeNorth scheme. If they want to pay that out, then that removes the effectiveness of the concession. There is an opportunity either to seize upon that in the interests of equity and to take it into Treasury and collect the stamp duty, or to leave it with the first home owner and allow them to use it in their own way, and to flow it into the economy through their own means. It is that point: here is an opportunity for Treasury to take it, and to argue why it should be taken, or to allow it to remain with the home owner, because the intent of this is to pass on a benefit to someone starting up. I know it is not going to be supported but, as a matter of principle, CLP or the opposition will support the notion of retaining the benefit with the citizen rather than with Treasury. It is the belief that the empowerment and the strengthening of individuals and citizens within our community is the very grassroots by which our economy and our society grows, rather than to increase the power of government and to have any benefit transferred back to Treasury and then flow out in benefits through whatever programs government runs.
It is a point of philosophical difference. I can only raise that. I do not want to put the energy into going to the barricades over it, but it is this sort of thing that we do not support. With that being said, and that concern being registered, we will not oppose this bill.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, welcome back. It is good to have you back today.
I thank the member for Blain for his comments, but I must admit to some confusion about his concern with the first home owner and principal place of residence changes under this amendment. What this amendment will do is see the original intent of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme through. The way it was first drawn up, an individual could not get first home owner stamp duty concession and principal place of residence rebate on stamp duty - the same person for the same home. That is simply the only intent here, because it was never intended that an individual could avail themselves of both concessions for the purchase of the one property. If there is a misunderstanding there - and there might be, I am not sure - I am happy for the member for Blain to arrange a further briefing or a clarification of detail around this. However, it is not taking away something that was intended.
It was never intended that a first home owner be able to avail themselves of both concessions. It is one or the other. This simply clarifies the intent of the original bill and makes sure that that will be the case into the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide a minor amendment to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 and to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 reformed the Criminal Code by enacting new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. It then applies those new principles to offences that are introduced or replaced by that act.
The government is in the process of continuing this reform. The stakeholders have been recently consulted on the potential next stage of revision. In the meantime, it is appropriate to commence the law of manslaughter, dangerous act and dangerous driving offences contained in the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 that remedy some serious defects in the Criminal Code. To commence this act, a technical amendment is required to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005.
The crime of manslaughter is of two kinds; voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. A person may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter where there is a defence of provocation, diminished responsibility or coercion and reduce the culpability of the crime from murder to manslaughter. The term ‘involuntary manslaughter’ is used to describe the other forms of manslaughter that exist at common law or under the codes that do not involve an intention to kill but some lesser fault element such as criminal negligence. Section 167 of the Criminal Code was to be repealed by section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. Section 167 provides simply that any person who commits the crime of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. It, therefore, has application as a penalty provision for both forms of manslaughter.
New section 163, enacted by section 10 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, provides for the new offences of involuntary manslaughter, filling a gap within that crime under the current code provisions. It likewise applies a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for those offences. However, to preserve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter, this bill repeals section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, effectively reinstating a single provision that applies the penalty to both forms of the crime of manslaughter to avoid any confusion that might otherwise arise.
Madam Speaker, there are often minor structural challenges encountered to take in a reform of an extensive statute such as the Criminal Code, particularly where the legislation is divided into parts and divisions, and where a different style of language is used in the old provisions than in the new provisions. Some provisions that will ultimately be placed in the act so as to have general application will presently need to be replicated to individual provisions so as to ensure their application. This bill, therefore, replicates into the new manslaughter offence, the test of causal responsibility that also appears at section 174A and which, in due course, will be applied across the relevant offences in the code as a whole.
In addition, the bill will amend section 37 of the Criminal Code which deals with the defence of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibility is a statutory defence that does not exist in all jurisdictions. It is currently the law of the Northern Territory, and there is a matter in relation to the defence that requires correction.
Madam Speaker, some years ago we removed from the Criminal Code the defence of insanity, and replaced that defence with the defence of mental impairment based on the model Criminal Code. In the process, section 6 of the Criminal Code that presumed normality of mind was repealed and a new section 43D was enacted to provide for a presumption of competence, and for the burden of proof to lie on the person raising the defence.
In a recent trial, the court held that the effective repeal in section 6 in relation to the defence of diminished responsibility was that the Crown now bore the onus of disproving diminished responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case in question, the prosecution was able to discharge this onus. However, this bill clarifies that the presumption is that an accused mind is normal and, as a consequence, reinstates the burden of proof of abnormality on the accused.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, thank you for your forbearance in the late opening of parliament this afternoon. We are having trouble with Hansard. We are going to be using a back-up system, but I ask you to speak as clearly as you could for the record.
PETITIONS
Radiation Oncology Unit for
Royal Darwin Hospital
Radiation Oncology Unit for
Royal Darwin Hospital
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, good to see you back. I present a petition from 36 petitioners praying that the Commonwealth government assistance with the development of the radiation oncology service be accepted. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- We the undersigned respectfully showeth our great sense of betrayal by the Northern Territory government that it has broken its election promise of 2001 and 2005 to develop a radiation oncology unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. Your petitioners do humbly observe that the member for Solomon, David Tollner, has secured a Commonwealth contribution of $13m and other recurrent funding for the development and operation of a radiation oncology unit at the RDH. Your petitioners further humbly observe that while the Northern Territory government continues to delay the development of the oncology unit, Territory cancer patients suffer the indignity of having to travel interstate for treatment or make the choice to stay at home in the Territory and deny themselves of radio therapy treatments.
Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory urge the Northern Territory government to accept the Commonwealth government’s offer of assistance and proceed with the development of the radiation and oncology service without any further delay. Cancer patients do not have the time to wait.
Save Our Parks Estate
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from another 67 petitioners praying that decision to handover the 48 Territory owned parks be rescinded.
Dr Toyne: Here we go. More of this rubbish as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. That makes a total of 4764 petitioners. Madam Speaker, the petition is in similar terms to a petition presented last week. I move that the petition be read.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Mr Deputy Clerk:
Dr Toyne: Spreading lies around the community. He should be ashamed of himself.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the undersigned, respectfully showeth our great sense of betrayal by the Northern Territory government in its plans to handover 48 Territory owned to a select group of people.
Your petitioners do humbly observe that the government plans to handover parks including Mary River; Gregory National Park; Gregory’s Tree Historical Reserve; Fogg Dam Nature Reserve; Harrison Dam Conservation Area; Kuyunba Conservation Reserves; Flora River Nature Park; Melacca Swamp Conservation Area; Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve.
Your petitioners do further observe that the handover is akin to asking NSW residents to handover Bondi Beach or SA residents to handover Glenelg Beach, no questions asked.
Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory take the necessary steps to make the Northern Territory government immediately rescind its decision to handover the parks estate to sectional interests and to retain ownership of the parks for all Territorians.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 20 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
- Petition No 20
Improvement of O’Loughlin Catholic
College Bus Service
Date presented: 4 May 2006
Presented by: Mr Mills
Referred to: Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
Date response due: 11 October 2006-
Date response received: 15 June 2006
Date response presented: 23 June 2006
Thank you for your letter dated 4 May 2006, forwarding Petition No 20 read in the Legislative Assembly on 4 April 2006, regarding better bus service for O’Loughlin students.
An increase of some 40% in student enrolments was experienced by O’Loughlin College in 2006 that required public transport to and from Palmerston and the rural area.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure and O’Loughlin College have worked together to meet the student transport need.
On 3 May 2006, the department engaged the services of a 21-seat bus from a local bus operator and to date this initiative has proven to be successful.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Appropriation Bill 2006-07
(Serial 50)
(Serial 50)
Continued from 15 June 2006.
Madam SPEAKER: I will be vacating the Chair and the Acting Chairman of Committees will take the Chair.
In committee:
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: I call on the member for Sanderson, Mr Kiely to present his report.
Mr KIELY : Mr Acting Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50).
I advise honourable members that any outstanding information, including answers to outstanding questions taken on notice, will be tabled during the August 2006 sittings of the Assembly. Upon receipt of outstanding answers the committee secretariat will be updating the ‘questions taken on notice’ database and, when completed, a composite set of the questions and answers will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website.
The fifth public hearing of the Estimates Committee saw a significant increase to the overall hours available for the scrutiny of Budget 2006-07. Since the estimates process last year an additional ministerial portfolio has been added by government. Rather than reallocate the individual time frame for each ministerial portfolio to accommodate the additional minister, the decision was taken to duplicate the established time frame by providing a further block of four and a half hours on the Friday morning.
This decision pushed out the total hours available for the Estimates Committee to scrutinise the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 to a total of 45 hours. Apart from the overall increase in the total hours committee members, ministers, chief executives and their support staff now appear to have settled down to working through the established protocols of the Estimates Committee public hearings.
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee who form the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these public hearings have been conducted. I would also like to place on the record a vote of appreciation from the committee to all other members who participated in the public hearing process.
Thank you also to Legislative Assembly staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the whole process ran smoothly, in particular the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the Daily Hansard rushes during the day.
There were occasions this year where the opposition members of the Estimates Committee were placed in a situation where they were not able to manage their time to allow every agency within individual ministerial portfolios to be questioned.
Despite an additional four-and-a-half hours this year there were a number of agencies which were excluded from participating in the estimates scrutiny process. I view this as an extremely important issue as I am fully aware of the hours of extra work required of public servants in the preparation of information briefs to support their ministers in public hearings.
I spoke of this issue at the conclusion of the Estimates Committee public hearing this afternoon but I feel that I should also place my concerns on the public record at this forum as well. I therefore take this opportunity to read into the Parliamentary Record within the context of the debate in this Chamber, my concerns again.
There were occasions throughout the public hearings where, for various reasons, a number of agencies were not required to appear before the committee. While it may be disappointing for the officers who had prepared the extensive briefing papers, I am aware that there is a level of professionalism within the public service which will ensure that the capture of this significant amount of data will not be lost but utilised in the compilation of the agencies’ annual reports.
Without labouring the point it might be timely to remind all participants in the Estimates public hearings that they should not lose sight of the fact that the process of accumulating information, enabling briefing papers to be prepared, can also be seen as a tool providing timely opportunity to thoroughly preview the core business and achievements of agencies as they work within budgets to set out any appropriation bill.
There were 51 questions taken on notice this year, which is slightly up on last year, but I believe it is a reflection of the level of integrity of the questions being asked. There have been 21 answers provided over the course of the four days but, with the tight time frame from the completion of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and the opening of this session of the Assembly, it means that the secretary will follow up on those remaining answers and table the composite document during the August sittings.
In addition to these questions, there were two questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this afternoon. Similarly, because of the relatively short time frame, these are still outstanding but they will also be tabled during the August sittings.
I acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee which sat for the fifth time. Power and Water Corporation officials provided to members valuable insight into the operation of the organisation. I wish to place on record and in this Chamber the committee’s appreciation for the time and effort put in by Mr Neil Philip, Chairman of the Board, Mr Kim Wood, Managing Director, and Mr Andrew Macrides, Company Secretary. I commend the report to the committee.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 15 June 2006, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50) and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 (Serial 50); or the activities performances, practices, and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2006-07 be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: the ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister, 20 minutes; any other member, 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours. As the time is now 4.25 pm, if the debate is not concluded before 9.25 pm, I will put the question. Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports have been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate ‘that the remainder of the bill be agreed to’. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, it is the case, obviously, that many issues arose during this Estimates Committee hearing. Many issues were covered and many issues could not be covered due to time limitations. Any independent observer this week to the Estimates Committee will see that that is clearly the case.
However, for those issues that we were able to get to, there were, in the view of the opposition, four very distinct themes. One is that this Labor government cannot manage the budget. The next one is the Labor government is more focused on re-election than on addressing the needs of Territorians. The Labor government has no vision for the Territory. Finally, this Labor government talks the talk but does not walk the walk.
My colleagues and I will talk about these themes in our contributions, and there are multiple examples from this week to illustrate those points, which includes, but are certainly not limited to, ministers attempting to bury, hide, and avoid answering the hard questions.
Labor was delivered a massive majority at the last election. However, it is a pity that, with that majority, they have not focused on delivering better outcomes for Territorians but, instead, has been focused on delivering for itself. This government has all the hallmarks of an organisation that thinks it is under siege. Governments with large majorities should feel comfortable to govern, but we continue to witness a government that is hypersensitive to criticism; so much so, that every time there is a cloud on the horizon its leader disappears.
The estimates process needs to be revised so that we can have what Labor promised: a better scrutiny of all areas of the budget, hence the motion I moved earlier.
In addition to the key themes that I identified at the outset, there was another theme that struck me and others this week. I have seen it before, but never so clearly as this week. The theme was this: there was a difference between what was the promise of Labor in 2001 to what Labor has now become. It was clear for all to see.
The majority of Territorians believed - many of whom were true believers - that Labor would transform the Territory and that it would do so in an open and transparent way. It has done neither. It has not fulfilled the hopes and expectations promised. It would appear that as the results are coming in, the promise that was Labor in 2001 has come and gone. The results are just not there. The government has a big majority, but even the most cynical among its members must surely have thought that they would achieve what they set out to achieve in 2001. Clearly, they have not.
For my part, I cannot be sure whether Labor has lost its way in the sloshes of the fifth floor since 2001 or, whether, in fact, the intention to govern for the benefit of all Territorians was actually ever there. There is a difference, as many of us know, between leadership and management. Often government’s only role is management, caring for the day-to-day affairs of the jurisdiction that is moving along without too much controversy or upheaval. This government has tried to demonstrate their capacity to manage, and on occasion it has. Then on other occasions there is a time when leadership is required.
To paint a mental picture, I ask you to think of a ship’s captain in stormy seas - standing by the helm, resolute with cold rain lashing, bringing his or her ship through a storm into calmer waters. Crews turn to their captains in situations like that, and they look for calm, wise and strong leadership to steer the course. This week, the captain deserted her post, amid grumblings that she should do so permanently. She was not anywhere to be seen while her own ship pitched and rolled in the heavy seas. Small wonder that the Fletcher Christians of her crew said that her leadership, or more to the point, lack of it, was inspiring hatred.
Last week, I am sure that some people who heard of the 20-year plan offered by the Chief Minister regarded it as a rod of inspiration, and some of those people were perhaps willing to overlook the fact that things have not improved in the last five years under the Labor Party. However, there can be no doubt that disillusion will be seated at these people’s tables when they find out, as I did, that there really is no 20-year plan. There is not even a framework for a 20-year plan. That the central agency for strategic management of indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory had not apparently been consulted about its development is, to many, strange and curious. We ask: where is the policy framework within this government. Labor has made up responses to problems and its policy on the run. We ask members to concede, if only to themselves, that they have failed and they need to start again. We ask: where is the social policy in the Australian Labor Party. We thought you had it, Territorians thought you had it; you must surely lament its passing.
After watching the Lateline program on Wednesday, I felt disappointment, among many other emotions, because I knew that the next day we would probably see the Chief Minister announcing some sort of review or inquiry. It was about the only thing left she could do, amid mounting and public criticism from so many quarters, including her own party. Like the 20-year plan, this inquiry has, at this stage at least, no details. No doubt, staffers are scoping it up as we speak. In the absence of any other information, or no other information, some will think that it is a review to be added to all others, a review that the previous minister for Family and Community Services said we had had enough and that action was required in 2004. Does the member for Arafura remember what she said, and I quote, ‘it is action not information which is needed now’?
To continue my analogy, the ship’s captain has said: ‘I have set the course now, I am off to my cabin, let me know if there is a problem’. The crew slacked off, the ship fell to half-speed, it drifted a few degrees off course and the captain did not come back on deck. Indeed, if some have their way, she will remain below permanently. If the government truly believed what it said in 2001, its leaders and its ministers would be passionate, interested, active, alert, hungry and intensely focused on making sure that their orders were being followed. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.
There are women and children being raped and abused in remote communities and, despite the rhetoric and the increase in funding, it is, as Dr Rogers said, getting worse. I raised these matters in parliament last week and, even then, after weeks and weeks, the Chief Minister was happy with things as they were, and she did not see then a need to have an inquiry. She had no plan then for action. She appears still not to have it. It appears that there will be a review; a review perhaps by a government into itself. With no details, Territorians may think that it will not be a public, independent or even a judicial style inquiry into government departments, but it may well be a government inquiry into itself. Surely that is not what Territorians want and deserve.
The current Minister for Family and Community Services said today that she would wait to see what was contained in a report about an investigation into failings of the system before deciding whether to make it public. We ask for the same approach to be taken in relation to the inquiry the Chief Minister announced yesterday. So much for the catchcry: ‘open and transparent’. It is no wonder people have cynical views of governments and their leaders. It is no wonder that backbenchers are starting to show their frustration, and it is no wonder that indigenous people are becoming suspicious and even hateful of the Chief Minister.
Mr Acting Chairman, it is probably appropriate that I dedicate these remarks to the member for Millner. This government has failed, and instead of admitting it and bringing people into the room to be part of developing a solution, it remains a game for the Chief Minister. I wrote to the Chief Minister some weeks ago in a genuine attempt to find a way forward so that we could all work together and thrash out some scenarios and hopefully come to an end point. There was no response. Yesterday, I wrote again. Surprisingly, there has been no response. It is exasperating and frustrating, not only for members of the opposition, but clearly for members of government. While women and children languish in these communities, those on the fifth floor of Parliament House continue to play games.
I have said in this Chamber before that members opposite do not have to believe what I believe, and they do not have to do everything I think they should. They also do not have to have the strength of my convictions, but I do put to them that they should at least have the strength of their own. This week we saw hypocrisy, inconsistency, arrogance and shallowness from this government and, in particular, the Chief Minister. It is, therefore, no surprise that she is under attack from within, and it is also no surprise that the promise that was Labor in 2001 has disintegrated in today’s rotting carcass of unsatisfied expectations. The results for Territorians, indigenous and non-indigenous are simply not there. The money in the budget has not been matched by better outcomes.
I started my remarks by setting out four themes that struck the opposition as highlighting other difficulties and other inefficiencies and ineptitude of this government. Those themes were the government cannot manage the budget. Despite record GST revenues, this government is taking us to unprecedented debt. The projected nett debt unfunded employee liabilities is $4bn, and that is the projections for two years’ time.
There is no doubt that government has been unable to manage the budget. We have seen, year after year, blowout upon blowout upon blowout. At the same time, we have seen government members assert that everything is just fine because extra money is being injected. It is patently the case, to use but one very obvious example, that more money into the area of child protection has not translated into better outcomes, and the government, or the senior members within it, should certainly, at least to themselves, make that concession before they can establish a plan to go forward.
The fact that there is no plan, that it is just policy on the run, it is reactive to certain circumstances, demonstrates Labor’s failures. I need only point to the comments of Rolf Gerritsen some weeks ago in relation to this government; that is that it was a very reactive one. Where is the social policy? Where is the policy framework?
Nevertheless, we have seen massive increases in funding in a number of areas. Any government would inject funds into key areas because all politicians, although we remain increasingly sceptical about the motivations of those opposite, get into politics with a view to delivering better outcomes for the people for whom they serve.
Whilst there have been massive increases in revenue, thanks to the GST that Labor so vehemently opposed, the results just are not there. It is increasingly becoming the case that Labor ministers are getting better at using weasel words instead of actually answering questions. That partly explains why it is we run out of time during estimates, because ministers gabble on, rarely specifically answering a question, although some are better than others. Then they throw the question to the public servants sitting beside them, and after that still do not answer the question.
The other thing was that there is no doubt that this Labor government is more focussed on re-election than it is on addressing the needs of Territorians. We see that in a number of areas. I have lost count of the number of media units inside government departments. Some of the government departments have between four and 12 marketing and communications people and the nature of their business is to promote this government. Obviously, that is the role those people have been asked to fulfil.
It does not come as a surprise; it is borrowed from other Labor governments. Territorians can legitimately question whether it is an abuse of taxpayers’ money. Certainly in the production of fact sheets and other information there are, in some instances, legitimate and useful publications produced, but there is a growing sense, even within these units within the public service, that they merely exist to assist this government to concentrate and position itself on re-election.
The government has significant staff on the fifth floor. Marketing and communications pervades almost every aspect of this government, from communications directors downwards. There is a propaganda machine operating within this government. Where is the promise of Labor in 2001? Neither has changed.
We have also seen Territorians’ money being used to poll Territorians on key issues. TIO, middle schools, they are good examples. The Chief Minister called it something else, but we all know what it was, it was polling. The timing was very suspicious, and that is why people are very suspicious. Middle Schools were polled early this year, as was TIO. I do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
In relation to the various publications this government produces, I note the Chief Minister, when in opposition, had a great deal to say about the glossy brochures. Even a quick search, if you hit the word ‘Martin’ and ‘glossy’ in the Eighth Assembly, reveals at least 59 entries. That gets back to the hypocrisy and inconsistency that is Labor in 2006.
The third theme that was strikingly obvious was that Labor has no vision for the Territory. I again refer to the very public and, no doubt embarrassing comments, although no doubt a little less embarrassing than the comments contained in the memorandum deliberately written, signed and leaked by the member for Millner. I understand there is a witch-hunt trying to find out who did leak it, but certainly it was not an accident to write and sign it.
It is worthwhile to revisit the comments of Mr Gerritsen This is a government that is reactive. It responds not to the needs of Territorians, it responds to itself. That is arguably best demonstrated in the way in which the member for Millner was subjected to no doubt what was an embarrassing and humiliating experience by having to …
Mrs Braham: What does this have to do with estimates?
Ms CARNEY: Everything. Here are the themes, member for Braitling. This is about the budget, member for Braitling. I am sorry you have so much difficulty with it. We have spent the last week in budget estimates. You know what the reason for the budget is? It is to pay for the promises of the Australian Labor Party, the promises they made to Territorians, and all the matters associated with it. So when you look at the policies of Labor and the great sums of money prescribed to those policies, and compare it with what is …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, I do ask that you contain the member for Braitling, she is being offensive.
Members interjecting.
Mr Acting CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Please, we only have a minute-and-a-half to go.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. No doubt the member for Braitling will desist. I cannot say I will look forward to her contribution.
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Chairman! That remark by the Leader of the Opposition was most unnecessary. She should be looking forward to my contribution.
Mr Acting CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Chairman, one need only look to the comments made by Rolf Gerritsen, which would explain why the member for Millner did what - could you please bring her into line? - why the member for Millner did what he did. It illustrates why Labor does not have any vision for the Territory and the way in which they dealt with the member for Millner illustrates that they are more concerned with themselves than the future of the Northern Territory. In that regard it was surprising that the Chief Minister was herself surprised as Minister for Indigenous Affairs about the contents of the Lateline program on Wednesday night.
This is a government, Mr Acting Chairman, which talks the talk but does not walk the walk. As we saw this week, the cracks are already starting to appear and it does have everything to do with this budget because the budget is, so Labor says, its foundation, and the fund from which all money for Labor programs for the so-called benefit of Territorians comes. There is no doubt that Labor cannot manage the incredible wealth that it has received. One need only look in most output areas and the results simply are not there. We do ask next time that more time be afforded to us. We, nevertheless, look forward to the next estimates process.
Mr WARREN: Mr Acting Chairman, I take pleasure in presenting my report to parliament on my view of estimates week. I would like to start out by thanking the Treasurer for Budget 2006-07, which clearly stood up to scrutiny - it really has. You should be very proud of the budget you have presented and how it has stood up.
This was my first year on the PAC and also I had the honour of being the deputy chairman for the past week, a position in which I actually spent some 20 hours over the four days. It was quite strenuous and challenging at times but, I tell you what, it was one of the most enjoyable things I have had in parliament so far. I really did enjoy myself. It was very much to the tutelage of the current Chairman, of course.
In regard to the particular things that I dealt with over the four days, I had the pleasure of chairing a session on Tuesday with the Treasurer, who is also the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I was very impressed with the way he handled himself and answered those questions quite appropriately. On Wednesday, I chaired a session with the Minister for Planning and Lands and Infrastructure and Transport. That also, was a very enlightening session and I learnt so much from it. I thank you for that too. On Thursday, I had the Minister for Primary, Industry and Fisheries, who has, obviously, got over the lure of the Territory, in his capacity as the Minister for Mines and Energy. There were a couple of elements that we missed out there. Anyway, it was a great session as well.
On Thursday, I also chaired the session with the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and also Parks and Wildlife. I know there were a lot of interruptions there, minister, but I believe you handled yourself quite eloquently, thank you.
Finally, today was the Minister for Family and Community Services who had a challenging day. However, she stood up very well; handled herself like all the other ministers that I had the privilege of watching, who handled themselves very well, and is a pride to this side of the House …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Honourable members, let the member finish.
Mr WARREN: I would like to concur with the comments of the Chairman who made his speech earlier. He succinctly stated the case of this side of the House, and also how he saw the estimates week. While I will not add to any of those comments other than to say that it was a pleasure to work in relay with you, Mr Chairman. I learnt so much from you.
What was disappointing, being my first true close encounter with estimates, was the lack of preparation and lack of time management by opposition members. I was a little disappointed in that. In fact, I was very disappointed in that, notwithstanding the members for Blain and Katherine did, at times, have some very valuable input into the debate. I thank them for their input.
The Independents, obviously, took the time to learn their stuff and ask in-depth questions. I enjoyed chairing their sessions as well and their questions. I did thank the member for Blain and now he has arrived. I was thanking you before.
Mr Mills: Oh, thank you. I will write you into my speech too.
Mr WARREN: Thank you very much. A lot of the opposition questions I heard, though, unfortunately, I had previously heard in parliament. They were raised, particularly in Question Time, and I felt that the opposition wasted a valuable opportunity to get stuck into the budget by asking too many questions that really did not relate. Anyway, that is the nature of the beast and you will have your chance next year.
In contrast, the ministers were all fully prepared and very much on top of their portfolios, and that showed through very clearly. I enjoyed chairing their sessions.
I would like to conclude by thanking the department staff. Obviously, they spent a lot of time and effort when questions were referred to them; they were very much on top of it. We should, as Territorians, be very proud because our public service is in very good hands if we have public servants of that calibre.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WARREN: I am disappointed that some of them, having obviously done a lot of research, did not get a chance to explain what they are doing. Anyway, hopefully, we can look at those aspects in PAC, so that all questions get covered if the opposition are prepared to have a bit more time management.
I would like to thank the Legislative Assembly staff …
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WARREN: … who ran the operation very smoothly. I must commend them for the food with the different taste, because it was absolutely delicious. The opposition will agree with me on that; the food was par excellence.
In conclusion, I thank my fellow members of the PAC. In particular, I want to mention one person who will not mind me mentioning his name, and that is the PAC and Estimates Committee Secretary, Mr Terry Hanley, who stood there through the whole sessions, as I understand it, and was up to task. When I asked him particular questions about procedures, he was right on top of it, came over straight away and gave me answers. He was very helpful to us and to the opposition, and he was still able to get the food in time and have everything running smoothly. I conclude by thanking Terry, but I also thank members of parliament for the opportunity of participating in my first estimates.
Mr NATT: Mr Acting Chairman, as the House knows, this has been my first year of membership of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee and, while it may be surprising to many, I have enjoyed the role and I have learned a lot about the public service processes and the workings of government-owned corporations.
I understand this is the fifth hearing of the Estimates Committee and a process that this government has pushed for lines of accountability and transparency to the public. Interrogation of the budget under this process, I understand, is employed under similar procedures in all Australian parliaments, and was instigated here as a result of committee work by this parliament looking at other states and the procedures they utilise.
I had the opportunity to sit in on a number of hearings as a member of the committee, and felt there was a fair scrutiny of the portfolios that appeared within the time allotted. Further to this, I have heard the opposition this evening complain about the lack of time allocated to this process. They reminded the committee on many occasions throughout the hearings and I quote: ‘In view of the time constraints I have no questions’. I know that a considerable amount of time and thought has gone into analysing the hearing process, and it has been tailored over the past couple of years to eliminate extremely lengthy sessions when MLAs and public servants were leaving Parliament House in the very early hours of the morning.
Dr Lim: You would not even know.
Mr NATT: The current process has a reasonable start time and a reasonable finish time, and has eliminated the physical and mental drain on the individuals involved in the entire process.
Dr Lim: Well your brain cannot, why, has it no capacity, is that what it is?
Mr NATT: I feel that four-and-a-half hours allotted …
Dr Lim: No capacity, that is what it is and that is his brain for you.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex, please, it has been a long four days.
Mr NATT: I feel that the four-and-a-half hours allotted to each minister is a more than adequate time slot. However, in saying this, I also feel that perhaps a preference system for portfolio outputs should be considered by the committee to ensure the important and most popular output areas are able to be addressed within the time allotted.
Dr Lim: You would not even know the significance.
Mr NATT: The Tourism portfolio was a prime example. Tourism plays an integral role in the economy of the Territory, employing about 15% of our workforce and is one of the biggest economic generators. There was not one question asked; we ran out of time. ‘Give us more time’, was the reply from the Leader of the Opposition when the Chief Minister expressed her disappointment that Tourism had not been addressed.
As I mentioned earlier, I am new to the role, and I may be a little wet behind the ears and a bit nave …
Dr Lim: Yes, I agree with you there.
Mr NATT: … but I was amazed at the unnecessary arguments, continual repetitive nature of questions, snide comments and patronising remarks by a couple of opposition members towards ministers and public servants throughout the hearing, when the nature of the process is all about effectively scrutinising the various portfolios and the budget items.
The antics of the opposition frustrated the Independent members, the ministers and their department heads, as well as the wellbeing of public servants. The corruption of proceedings on occasions by the opposition …
Dr Lim: Whoa, terrible big word, corruption.
Mr NATT: ... was disgracefully conceited.
Dr Lim: Who did you corrupt?
Mr NATT: I would have thought there would have been more …
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, please!
Mr NATT: … would have been commonsense and more economic to have questions put on notice and to have backed off their repetitious queries and, perhaps, seek a briefing with the minister’s department. This would save time during the hearings, bring opposition members up to speed with the information they require and, obviously, allow questions to be asked in other outputs that either missed out or were glossed over lightly. I guess commonsense does not come into reality when you are plainly focused on attacking members and not examining the budget.
I felt the debates, on many occasions, were based on the politics of the budget and point scoring, and not the qualities and the contents of the budget. It was clearly noted and stated at times by the Independent members that they sought briefings on several items, and I commend them for their foresight.
I honestly feel the opposition went into this process with their negative thoughts right from the outset. My thoughts are supported by several comments by opposition committee members at our PAC meetings and statements made during the last sittings. They felt the hearings did not allow enough time for each portfolio, thought the process was flawed, firmly believed in their minds that the system would not work and, thus, set out on occasions to run down the clock to support their negative feelings.
I see this procedure as an efficient and a very effective tool for opposition to review the government’s workings and its budget structure, and the Leader of the Opposition should think a little more strategically and focus on the questions of value.
In saying all of this, I do, however, congratulate the opposition for their efforts and acknowledge that it would not be easy to spread responsibilities amongst such a small group. Also, I would like to acknowledge the two Independent members and thank them for their input, patience and tolerance.
Congratulations must go to the ministers and their staff for the preparatory work leading up to the estimates week and, of course, the work they have done on the budget preparation. I feel that the wellbeing of Territorians is assured with the improving economic and social trends stemming from the processes applied within the budget by this government.
To my fellow committee members and party colleagues who supported the committee throughout the proceedings, well done. It was a tiring week and you hung in there well. I know that the public servants have put in an enormous amount of time preparing in each of the outputs. I have spoken with a few over the last couple of weeks and they have stated that they were looking forward to the week’s ending, because they had put in some long hours to bring the information up to speed for the inquiry. I thank them for their diligence and professionalism and urge them to keep up the good work.
The hard-working Assembly and Hansard staff have done a wonderful job throughout the week to ensure the debate and investigation of the government’s budget, through the estimates process, went without a hitch. Well done to them all.
Well done to our illustrious Chairman and Deputy Chairman, under the circumstances. The tests that were put before you, you handled well and fairly. To sit through such long sessions and maintain concentration and a calm head and hear the situation is a trial in itself, but you both handled it exceptionally well and you are to be commended for your efforts.
In summing up, there is some fantastic work being done out there by this government under very difficult circumstances, and there are better things coming. Sure, things do go wrong from time to time and, of all people, opposition members should realise this. Quite rightly, they have every right to question proceedings. That level of interrogation is welcome.
I would like to say, however, this is a public hearing, and a procedure to inform public servants, members of government and the wider community, of government expenditure. As soon as the opposition members realise the estimates procedure is to scrutinise appropriation expenditure, and not a court of law, or a game of character assassination, the better the hearings will run.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Chairman, first of all, because I always forget, I would like to thank all of the staff and the people who helped run the Estimates Committee. It certainly takes a lot of organisation, and a lot of time. I thank all staff in general.
I would just like to say a few things about the operations of the estimates. I did mention this before the estimates started, but I would just like to repeat it. There certainly needs to be some consideration of some departments waiting; in particular, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, as it is a big department and it has a big expenditure. From an estimates point of view it needs more hours and the waiting side of it needs to be looked at. As well, what also needs to be looked at is what agencies have not been questioned over the last five years, or they have only been questioned on the odd occasion. Can those agencies be brought to the top of the list so that at least next time we have an Estimates Committee on areas like the Port, DCIS and Tourism? They can be first cab off the rank and we can have a chance to question those various departments.
I believe the opposition and the Independents, certainly have to tighten up on the length of our questions. I know at times I can waffle, but I am not sure I quite beat the member for Greatorex who breaks all records: one question on Wildcare for 23 minutes! In fact, I checked Hansard: four-and-a-half pages! This is not a personal character assassination, but the reality is that, while we might blame the government for long-winded answers - and I do think there are answers that do go on and on and have a little politics thrown in when they are given to us. I just take that as an example; we have to tighten up on the length of our questions and be more succinct, prcis what we are trying to say and, hopefully, receive a response from that side on the House which is of similar size and not full of waffle. Both sides of the House could get a lot more achieved if we do tighten up and bring our questions to the point.
On some of the issues that were dealt with during the hearings - and I do not mean to diminish other important matters such as indigenous housing, or governance – I felt that child protection and some of those issues were very important.
The lack of funding for the Ombudsman is a crying shame. The Ombudsman has written and said they are overworked; they have a huge caseload. For me, the Ombudsman is one of our most important officers in a democracy. They are a neutral body which can assess independently complaints from local government and government departments; and they got an extra $6000. If you read the foreword of the Ombudsman’s Report, they have had a huge increase in the amount of work they are required to do. If the government really believes in the Office of the Ombudsman and why the Ombudsman exists, then it should show it by giving it financial support. I hope the words of the Ombudsman saying it would be futile to go to the Chief Minister for extra funding is not the case. I hope the Chief Minister will look at giving them increased funding.
Planning is a very important area. The NT Planning Scheme, when it comes into being, is a major overhaul of planning throughout the Northern Territory. I realise some people might be bored to death with planning, but planning affects everyone. It affects where you live, who lives next door to you, how much traffic goes down your road. It has an effect on your life and we should all take time to consider the NT Planning Scheme.
Two areas of the Planning Scheme and the Planning Act which need looking at is the issue of third party appeals. At the present time, it is restricted to those people who live on residential premises and the question is: ‘Should that be broadened so it takes in a larger group of Territorians?’ The other issue is land use objectives, which seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth in some cases. Should places like Darwin and Alice Springs retain land use objectives so that people from those areas have some certainty about the way their towns and cities are being developed?
An area which did not get as much debate as it should have is governance on Aboriginal communities. There needs to be a lot of work done to make sure people understand the difference between local government governance, which is about the provision of essential services, and indigenous governance which is about the traditional management of land. I repeat, that is part of the reason – not the only reason – why some councils are dysfunctional.
The issue of sewerage has been debated in parliament quite considerably. We had Power and Water talk about that and there was some interesting debate. Power and Water has said that even with extra money, it would be difficult to increase the time span of five years because, as they said, they have found out that Ludmilla Treatment Plant is not on solid rock. It is actually mud and there are engineering difficulties in being able to increase the size of the plant. There are also some difficulties boring under the city because there is some future development which they have to work their way around. If it can be expedited, the government should be doing everything it can to do that.
Buffalo Creek boat ramp is a disgrace. For a department to build a facility on land that it did not own and then not pay the person who had the contract to run the secure car park at that facility is just out of order. That person has been there for over a year-and-a-half if my maths are right. He has been there a considerable period of time, and he has not been able to run the kiosk which was part of the contract deal all because the department forgot to check up who owned the land they built the car park on. I ask the government to expedite the payment of compensation to that gentleman so he can get on with running something which is a very good facility. I congratulate the government for doing it, but they stuffed up and they need to fix it.
My last little thing is on the EPA. I know that the minister thinks that I cannot understand what all this fuss is about. She said recently that she had tabled a diagram to show me exactly what it was all about because she thought ‘If you cannot understand what is written, I will send you a diagram’. That is what you do for primary school students. So I thought as a primary school student I would actually write a poem as a primary student. With all apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber and to the people of Argentina
Mr Kiely: And us.
Mr WOOD: And others, yes, thank you. This is the long lost verse. It is:
- Don’t cry for me NRETA,
the truth is I am not confused,
you kept your promise an EPA, or is it
two?
I am now confused,
I’ll ring your office,
Thank you.
Mr Kiely: No wonder you got into politics, you cannot sing.
Mr Wood: I cannot beat Jack Ah Kit.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Chairman, this is the fifth Estimates Committee we have had now, and one starts to get a little immune to the whole system. You know you are going to be there for three or four days solid from 8.30 am right through to 11.30 pm. We just keep on going. In fact, last night I was here until about 1 am working on the papers before I settled for the night.
There are, obviously, many issues that have been identified during the last four days, and the starkest issue was this government has wasted a lot of money. It has wasted a lot of money. I do not know where it has gone. Look through the budget books at the output areas and the performance measures. The performance measures are not meeting what this government has set itself to do. That is been the concern. When it does not meet the targets and still requires a lot of money to fund the programs, something is radically wrong. The only conclusion I can come to is that this government has not been able to manage - just does not know how to manage a budget. Any householder would say to you that, if you have a fixed amount of money coming in you have to live within your means. If there is an extra windfall then you use the windfall to retire any debt that you have because putting it away into recurrent just burns it all up and you have nothing to show for it. Unfortunately, that is what has happened. You have nothing to show for it. I will come to specific examples in a little while.
It is just not good enough that the government has so much money that it is just allowed to throw it around willy-nilly. At the end of the day, there has been no significant extra infrastructure provided by this government in the last five years. I suspect that a lot of the money is going into the waterfront development. It is hard to track the money and I commend the government for being able to hide it so well. Normally, once in an estimates process, you can ferret around the path where money gets channelled through and identify clearly how the money is spent. However, it has been very difficult to follow where the money has gone.
The other identifiable cause of funds going out of the budget is the inordinate number of staff that this government has put on in the public service - an inordinate number. In five short years, they have increased this public service by some 3000. It is just unbelievable numbers. While there is no infrastructure being created in the Territory with all this money, the public service has grown. You wonder what they are doing. Over the next few years, I am sure we will start to inquire even more into the government’s method of spending the Territory’s money.
In regard to some of the specifics, one of the things that is close to my heart, and that I believe the Clerk would like me to mention, is about the very great need to re-cable this building with the latest technology so that our communication system does not fall over. Without a doubt, the token ring system which was, essentially, leading-edge technology when this building was designed, was starting to lag behind technology when this building was constructed. Twelve years later, this technology is definitely dated, and elements of the circuitry within this building are falling over on a regular basis. Government must provide sufficient funding to ensure that the cabling is done properly, and then we will at least have a system that will last us into the future.
When the Chief Minister was interrogated by the Estimates Committee - first of all she carried very little portfolios of significance, apart from that of the Chief Minister. When you look at her responses and the global figures that she provided during her responses, this government is, no doubt, into micromanaging. Micromanaging what? Not government, but micromanaging their own image. That is what they are micromanaging, to ensure that they will always appear to be very presentable and re-electable, while the rest of the Territory goes to wrack and ruin. It does not matter, as long as they can micromanage itself to be re-elected the next time. I hope Territorians are not so easily fooled the next time around, and will bring this government to account.
There was a classical case - and the member for Nelson mentioned it - of the Ombudsman, who is a woman. The Office of the Ombudsman is not adequately resourced. When you have an impartial officer of the government not adequately resourced to provide all the necessary services that are required of that office, then we have a problem. To my specific question whether she had negotiated for better funding for her office with the Chief Minister, who was her direct minister responsible for her office, she said she did not, but in fact, she had negotiated with Treasury. When I further pursued the Ombudsman why she did not discuss the matter with the Chief Minister, to quote her very pointed comment: ‘It would have been a futile exercise’.
For an Ombudsman to say that with the Chief Minister sitting next to her tells me volumes. This Ombudsman is so frustrated that she cannot perform the functions that she was engaged to perform by this Legislative Assembly. That, to me, tells me that this Chief Minister is not interested in open and transparent government; she is interested in micromanaging her appearance to the electorate, and she would do anything she could to withdraw resources from the people who make her accountable in the most objective manner. Yes, members opposite can use political spin and all that, but you would expect somebody like the Ombudsman – and you can add the Auditor-General to that list – to be the people who would do these things objectively. It creates a problem.
Regarding health, obviously, the radiation oncology unit is still not committed – we do not know how far progressed the government’s negotiations with the federal government are. I am glad that, at long last, the Minister for Health has commenced negotiations with the federal government to finalise the detail of the $13m on offer. I say again that, had we commenced this two years ago when the report was first tabled, we would now have a radiation oncology unit up and running. I also come back to the point about the fact that the minister has had this report in his hands for two years. I would have assumed that he or his advisors would have read that report two years ago and would be fully across the issues detailed in the report.
One of the most significant issues, I believe, is the one about the hardship that patients with cancer suffer when they have to travel under PATS. It is two things: (1) is the level of subsidy that PATS provides, and (2) is the lack of flexibility that PATS demand of patients when they provide travel assistance. Normally, when you are told that you have to go down to Adelaide, for instance, to receive treatment, you would think that the patient needs a few days to prepare themselves, to get their family organised and leave their home, whether it be in lock-up state or to have somebody house sit. But no, PATS demand, ‘We will set the date for you and then you have to go there with very little notice’.
However, worse than that is that, having completed radiotherapy treatment - people here might not know - your body goes through a dramatic change, you suffer from intense nausea, if not vomiting, and frequently you can also get bowel disturbances, such as severe diarrhoea. They expect and insist a patient who has received the final course of radiotherapy then travel back to their home town in the Northern Territory within a day of that, which is so unreasonable. These patients are not well and they have to travel as a seated passenger in a commercial aircraft. It is very unfair to the patients.
Also to provide meagre subsistence subsidy is just not on. It costs you more than $30 to stay in a motel and to purchase a meal. While $30 does assist it does not go anywhere near paying for a quarter or half of the cost of a motel room for a night. Then, spouses who travel with the patients are not provided with any assistance whatsoever. When you are travelling down for the treatment of a life-threatening disease, you want to have at least a loved one with you to support you. To see that this is not possible because of the rigidity of PATS is just not acceptable.
I believe the minister needs to consider this closely. I also say that the minister knew about those hardships for two years. He sat back and he allowed it to happen. He allowed it to happen until the eve of this estimates, when he said: ‘Oh, I will put $0.5m into PATS and help it out a little’. What do you say of a person who knows about a particular effect on a cancer patient, and ignores it completely - I do not know for what reason? I cannot understand it, and I wish the minister would explain his thoughts, and explain clearly why he did what he did. If he could not deliver the radiation oncology unit, he could have at least put the money into PATS two years ago. He could have done that, and it would have made life a lot easier for cancer sufferers. But no, he did not.
I also remind the minister that cancer patients have limited time and the longer he delays on the original quality service the more distress you put them through.
I am going through the portfolio not in the order that they appeared in estimates but as they appear here on the sheet. One of the things that I queried the Minister for Family and Community Services about was about child protection. She has not adequately explained why there are so many children out there who suffer child abuse and have not been fully investigated and, more importantly, protected.
I raised the issued about sexually transmitted infection amongst the children as young as seven and four years of age. I mentioned sexually transmitted infection in teenagers. The minister and her officers, and even the member for Braitling, said: ‘What are you going to do about it?’ Well, it is illegal. As a father, if I found a man had done that to my underage daughter or daughters I would like to see him in gaol, and I would like to see him castrated. I am not going to put up with that. No way in the world. Ask any parent out there - that is what they want done. Not say: ‘Oh well, it does not matter’. It matters, otherwise you change the law. If it is what you are going to accept, change the law. The law is 16 years. You stick at 16 years. No ifs, no buts. You cannot tolerate it.
Mrs Braham: So what are you going to do if it is two teenagers? Put them in gaol?
Dr LIM: I am saying to you that we believe in this society that children under 16 years of age are not capable of making the right decisions. It should be an expectation by every adult and every bit of rhetoric you talk about, that you do not do it under the age of 16 or you will face the consequences of the law. Not say: ‘Oh well, we cannot do much about it. Well, never mind’. I hear the snigger over there.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Chairman! The members at the back of the Chamber are having a conversation and not even participating in this debate. It is not good enough for the member for Greatorex to say ‘I hear a snigger’ so he gets it on the paper to make it look like they are a part of this debate. Those members are having a private conversation, nothing whatsoever to do with this. Let us get it right. There are no sniggers; this is a very serious and sensitive subject. There are no sniggers. I want this on record: all the members here are listening intently to the member for Greatorex without any interjections
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you member for Sanderson. Member for Greatorex, because of the content of the serious nature of what you are saying, it is fair that the member for Sanderson has made the point. We are not sure what the members were doing, and we were not sure if they are sniggering about this particular debate. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw.
Dr LIM: I will withdraw, Mr Acting Chairman. I was not aware who was sitting at the back of the Chamber until I looked across and noticed the members sitting up there. One of the members there I have a lot of personal regard for, and I honestly believe that he would not be sniggering at my comment. I apologise.
Coming to issues of Natural Resources: I am particularly concerned when I asked the minister about Wildcare. Indeed, my question about Wildcare was long. I did not realise it took as long as the member for Nelson described it to be. There are major issues in caring for our injured wildlife. The process that is put in place by the department needs to be questioned by the minister. There are processes that have not followed due protocols, and it is important to ensure that whatever is done is done within regulations and the law. Otherwise, officers will go off and do their own thing without due regard for any of the legislation that is passed.
The tenor of the comments made by the minister and her executive officer appears to be that if the animal is wounded, do not bother us with it. Probably easiest to euthanase the wounded animal and that will be the end of that. We do not have the facilities, the time, or the resources; do not come to us’. We have a group of volunteers across the Territory who are animal lovers who would care for the wounded animals. They care for them well and bring them back to good health, then release them back in to their natural habitats. We need to do that.
Community government councils are another issue I would like to comment about but, unfortunately, I do not have time. There are a significant number of community councils that need to be supported as they are at risk of failing, and if they do fail they face huge community consequences.
Mrs MILLER: Mr Acting Chairman, I contribute to the response to the estimates debate for this week. This is the third estimates I have taken part in and I have to say I still find the process a little frustrating. I had one of out three questions about a very important area in Tourism. I would like to see the program restructured so that Tourism does get a good go because the Chief Minister, naturally, is going to have a lot of questions asked of her portfolios. I, and whoever is the Tourism shadow minister next year, I am sure, would appreciate having the opportunity to present their questions to the Chief Minister at estimates.
As it is, regarding the questions I have for the Minister for Tourism, the Chief Minister, I will be having a briefing with Tourism NT so I can get the answers. I have spoken briefly to them and they are quite happy for me to ask the same sorts of questions when I have that briefing.
I found some of the outputs were a little difficult to follow this year inasmuch as the performance measures had changed so dramatically. I understand some of the departments have changed and they have amalgamated in different areas, and I realise that is possibly why the performance measures have been changed. However, it did make it rather challenging to try to find the line items,. Naturally, estimates was drawn out a little further in some questioning because I was unable to find the line item I was looking for. Hopefully, next year the performance measures will be the same as this year, which will make it a lot easier.
I also had the spine cut off my Budget Paper No 4 because it was such a thick, cumbersome darn thing and had holes put in it …
A member: Budget Paper No 3.
Mrs MILLER: Budget Paper No 3, beg my pardon - and had it put in a two-ring binder. Could the Treasurer please consider next year having the Budget Paper No 3 put in a spiral binder; not necessarily for everybody, but members of the Legislative Assembly who are going to be reading and referring to it constantly. I doubt whether it is a huge cost factor but, gosh it will save us a lot of heartache. I encourage that and should have mentioned it before when I was replying to budgets.
The questions I had this year, as my shadow portfolios naturally were a little on the limited side, meant it was a huge burden for my colleagues. All things considered, we have done darn well this week, and there has been a lot of hours and time put into the preparation. Despite the fact the member for Drysdale, I think it was, did not think we had done any preparation at all, we had done heaps of preparation. It was very noble of him to say all those wonderful things about what government does for the estimates process and how dreadful the opposition is in not being prepared, but I would like him to walk a little in our shoes ...
Mr Stirling: He is a young pup.
Mrs MILLER: … and experience the challenges. I enjoy the challenges because it encourages us to check all portfolios, all departments and to listen to the outputs in all departments. I was a little disappointed, of course, that I did not get to ask any questions on Tourism and also in the area of Senior Territorians. Our senior Territorians are a very valuable group of people and I value them as I am sure my colleagues do. They do not have a very strong voice and this was one opportunity to be able to ask questions on behalf of senior Territorians. I am disappointed in that as well.
As for my portfolio of Regional Development the issue for me that was really important in that area was to ensure that the regional development boards that are being set up will have some clout. The regional development boards are going to play a very important role in the areas where they have been set up in being able to encourage and promote development into those areas. I will speak particularly of the regional development board that will be set up to service the Katherine region. There has not been a lot of economic development. As a matter of fact, there has been practically zero economic development in that region for some time, for quite a few years now. That is a fact. You only have to look at the population to see that that is a fact.
I believe the role of the regional development board is imperative for the development and the growth of the region, but it is not much good having a regional development board if they are not able to have some clout. By clout, I mean they need to be able to have the ear of the minister and to know that the work that they are putting in - which I believe is going to be mostly voluntarily – and their opinions are valued and that they will be taken on board and there will be some action. The previous regional development authorities that we have had in Katherine seemed to be a non-event. They had meetings but they were never given, I believe, the respect for the time and the recommendations that they put forward. The people of the community and the region had very little input and also did not receive much information back. I encourage the minister to ensure that this regional development board that is being set up does have some authority and is able to make a difference to the regional areas.
A couple of the things that I wanted to talk about actually cover Tourism, Transport and Infrastructure and Regional Development. I had a look at my reply last year to estimates on one of the areas that I addressed, and it was interesting because I could have almost said exactly the same thing again this year - just changed the date. I thought somebody would check up and say: ‘Yes, well, she said that last year’. It is almost the same.
One of the things that I talked regarding tourism last year was the lack of airline services or passenger services into rural Northern Territory and to regional areas in the Northern Territory. One of the comments that the Chief Minister made during estimates last year was that business was booming in the Northern Territory and the airlines would come because business had grown so much. I can honestly assure the Chief Minister that that has not happened in Katherine and I do not think it has happened in Tennant Creek. It may have happened a little in Alice Springs, but I do not know if the airline passenger services have increased; they may have decreased. That is a serious problem and I know it is not going to be a simple one to sort out. However, it is something that needs to be looked at more than ever. The saying that business is booming and that means the demand for airlines will be great and that they will come, has not panned out in the regional areas. I encourage that regional development board to look at things that can happen in our regions so that, maybe, there will be a demand for passenger seats back into rural NT.
During the discussion of the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio, there was some time spent on the subject of road safety. It is a very sensitive area because we have had a loss of quite a few lives through road accidents, which is extremely unfortunate. The loss of any life is very sad. Naturally, the state of our regional roads is extremely important. Any money that can be put into regional roads is of vital importance. One of the questions I did not get to ask was just how much has been put into beef roads in the Northern Territory in this last 12 months, because nowhere enough has been put in.
In that particular area, we also talked about the demerit system, what systems should be put in place - well, we did not actually talk about it, we discussed it very briefly. The demerit system is an interesting system because the states that the demerit system is operating in have not shown a significant decrease in road deaths. Those people that lose their demerit points do not really give a rip. They lose their points, and so what? A lot of them continue to drive, and do not get picked up either when they have lost their demerit points. Therefore, demerit points do not stop drunk people from getting into their vehicle and driving. The loss of demerit points do not stop people from driving recklessly. I believe that there has to be a road safety campaign far more intensive, rather than introducing a demerit system. However, I am very happy and willing to listen to any research that is carried out. That is the only way you can get a true feeling of what will work and what will not. I have always been quite against a demerit system but, as I say, you should never say never, you should always keep an open mind and look at the evidence. I am interested in seeing the evidence of how demerit systems have reduced road tolls - if they have - in other states.
I am also very keen to get the taxi licences for the MPTs sorted out, because I believe that in some areas - and I am not saying it has happened everywhere - I know that that has been abused. It is a shame because I know of instances where disabled people have rung two and three days in advance to book a disabled cab and they have been told: ‘Sorry, we are doing a bush job’ or they are doing something else. They have had to be carried out to an ordinary taxi and put in that taxi. The local cab drivers are very good; they will look after them and do the job, of course. However, they are supposed to be carried in a wheelchair inside a van that is made available for them. That is an area of concern. The area of concern is how do you police it? That is what I would like to know. How do you police that and ensure that those people do have that service available to them?
I am skipping around the place, but this another area is a regional development one again. What happens in the instance when there is a development that is proposed, for instance, to have 35 000 ha of soya beans grown in an area? What happens? Do the people on the regional development board say: ‘That is a great idea because there is a proposal to grow 35 000 ha of soya beans, but we will have to get an environmental impact study done on that’? Then they cannot get enough water to grow it, or they cannot get enough land cleared to grow it. What we have is a catch 22. Where do these people go to have a major development like that? A development of that size, that is considered and is being proposed for the Katherine region, is extremely important to regional development in that area and would provide a lot of economy for that region. What happens there? We go over two or three different areas, we cover regional development, then the environmentalists will probably say that having 35 000 ha of soya beans is a disgusting thing to do. What happens there? I believe that any opportunity that is being put forward needs to be looked at in great detail. I know a lot of detail has gone into this particular investment, so I encourage the regional development board to strongly support something like that and bring it to the minister’s attention as soon as possible.
Another area that I found of interest was housing. I have a great respect for the Minister for Housing and I believe that some of the proposals that he has brought forward are going to do some good. I believe he is a very realistic man, and that those proposals are going to make a great difference to indigenous communities. One thing of concern that I noticed during his input to the Estimates Committee was that there has been so much talk about the lack of money for Aboriginal housing, and there has been a huge call on the federal government and, of course, the Territory government to make sure that they provide as much funding as possible for indigenous housing. Then, to actually find out that some of the IHANT funding that has been put in the budget for this year actually has to be used for the town camp redevelopments in Alice Springs was a little disappointing, because IHANT needs all the money that it had in its budget. I would have thought that government would have looked at additional funding to cover the redevelopment of the town camps in Alice Springs.
I believe that IHANT does a pretty good job. I know there has been a lot of discussion by a lot of members about what sort of housing should be in these areas, but it is horses for courses and there needs to be a lot of discussion about what suits each region. The discussion needs to include the people who live there, because they are going to be the people living in them, responsible for those houses and for maintaining them. They would respect them if they have had some say in it. I was a little disappointed in that area.
In Environment and Heritage, we had very lengthy discussions, of course, about the EPA. I have introduced a motion for the next General Business Day to talk about that in great detail. The word ‘independent’ is what I find almost offensive, because independent means separate, not part of. Yet everything that is in this proposal for this EPA is exactly the opposite of that. It is the word ‘independent’ that needs to be removed from the EPA that has been proposed. I found, in this output, that the minister was terribly defensive, and I was just asking questions I expected answers to that I did not think were too difficult. I am sure we are going to have a lot more discussion about the EPA as time goes on.
We will probably be standing here next year saying pretty much the same things about the Estimates Committee as we have this year. However, I want to thank the people who did the most work. All the staff of the Legislative Assembly and other departmental staff put a heck of a lot of time into preparing for this, despite the fact some members have said they thought they had wasted their time putting all this information together for the Estimates Committee. I do not think it is ever a waste because those people know more about their department than they would if they had not had to prepare a lot of this information. It is certainly not a waste. Yes, it is a lot of hard work and a lot of time, but it is not a waste.
I definitely want to thank the staff in Hansard too. The staff in Hansard has had a few testy times in the last few days with the sound equipment and people not announcing who was speaking - so good work, well done.
I look forward to next year, although probably not with as much enthusiasm as somebody here said.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Acting Chairman, I do not have a lot to say because I it has all been said. However, there is frustration, obviously, on the part of the Independents who are sitting waiting for the shadow minister to complete his questioning. There has to be a better process than what we are doing at the moment. I also believe that we should look at the many areas that ministers do not cover. I suggest the Standing Orders Committee could look at the process again. It does not hurt to review it.
Ministers’ times need to be weighted with the minister’s responsibility. Giving all ministers equal time when they do not have greater responsibilities means you often do not get to those areas, and that has been outlined here today by many speakers. There are areas I would have liked to have gone on with, but we just ran out of time, for all sorts of reasons. I understand the opposition trying to question at length to score political points. Most of the questions from the Independents are fairly succinct because we are after information, and that is the way we tend to put our questions. If I am not there, the member for Nelson asks questions, and if he is not there I ask for him. But I can understand that just two it is difficult and I am sure everyone is rather tired and a little twitchy at the moment.
Let us reconsider the process. Why four days? Let us make it five days. Why should we going until 11:30 at night? I was talking to the Public Accounts Secretary, Terry Hanley. By the time he got home each night it was about 1:30 am, and then he had to be in again by 7:30 am the following morning, and this goes on all week. That would apply to Hansard staff, the Clerk and other members of the Legislative Assembly. It is fine for government, who have a number of members they can rotate on the quorum, but it is very difficult and you must think of the effect it has had on staff as well. Therefore, we need to think about having an extra day.
I also think some of the introductory statements by some of our ministers were rather lengthy. This one, for instance, went over two pages whereas some only go for one page. Succinct, to the point, and I just do not think it is necessary to go into so much depth and detail in opening statements when they know they are going to be questioned. You are right; there should be a time limit on questions and answers. We all know we sit there listening, waiting for someone to get to the question, and then we are waiting for the minister to get to the answer and the minister then passes over to a departmental official, who goes through the whole process again. I am quite sure we could streamline it a lot better because is it not the fact that we are going through this process to question the budget, to allow ministers to justify what they have done? Why else are we going through the process? Are we just doing an exercise for the sake of public show? If we are sincere about it then let us make the whole process work because, at the moment, I do not think it is working as well as it should be.
The process at the moment - and it is not in the terms of reference but in the way the committee has decided to allow questions to happen - is a device against Independents. Whether you like it, we are members of the parliament and we should be able to contribute. The terms of reference need to be looked at as there is nowhere in the terms of reference that says shadow ministers go first, then other committee members, and then Independents. That is a decision of the committee and needs to be reviewed. We can take it in turns or you can say to opposition: ‘Okay you have had 10 questions but let us have a break and give someone else a go as well’. We need to review the whole process and I ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee if you would take that on notice.
There were a number of areas we did not get to question. Many of the questions I was looking at were more electoral bias, whereas the opposition tend to look at them on a whole-of-government approach. There will be a number of follow-up letters to ministers as a result of not being able to ask the questions that I wanted to.
We spent a long time on child protection and I need to answer the member for Greatorex regarding him saying sex with a minor is illegal. Yes, we know that and unwanted sex with a minor is illegal; an adult having sex with a minor is illegal and there should be charges. However, we are putting our heads in the sand if we do not think there is consensual sex amongst teenagers. Go to high schools and find out how many kids are on the pill or how many go to the school nurse and ask them about it. Go to your hospitals and see how many young girls are having babies - and thanks John Howard; you offered teenagers $3000 for every baby they had. That was a great incentive for them to have babies.
I reacted to the member for Greatorex’s statement ‘It is illegal; do something about it’, because education is what you do about it. You do not go up to these teenagers who are having sex and say: ‘You are charged; you should not be doing it, you are a minor’. You talk about education and make sure high schools are educating kids well. Surely, prevention is far better than having young teenage girls with lots of babies. That is the reason why I questioned his outburst, ‘it is illegal’. You cannot take that stand in this day and age. You all have teenagers or had them, or know of them, and you would know exactly what I am talking about - even though the member for Blain is frowning at me.
I want to place on record my thanks to all the staff and public servants. It must be frustrating for them because they sat there for so long and then they did not get a chance to answer. However, I say to them that it is okay; we will be asking you some of the questions by letter.
I want to make comment to the Chief Minister regarding the handling of the idea of going to a summit, the question that has been raised continually on TV, even the handling of the member for Millner’s letter which I thought was a fair cop. Chief Minister, you have to show a little stability. I cannot let the Independent member for Nelson have it all his own way, so I remind the Chief Minister of a little song; perhaps it might help her to make up her mind. I will not sing it because you will die if I start singing but some of you will remember it.
- First you say you do, and then you don’t
Then you say you will, and then you won’t
You are undecided now, so tell us what
you are going to do.
Mr MILLS: Mr Acting Chairman, I will not be singing any songs or reading poems.
I was surprised to hear this was the fifth estimates process. These are always challenging exercises and processes we all pass through. It is always good to come to the end of a period and reflect on what we have learnt from it. As an elected representative and a member of the opposition, you do learn a lot. You have the need to take responsibility as a shadow minister to endeavour to get across a range of portfolios and, without going into it, it is a considerable responsibility for opposition to do that in a global sense. Our responsibility as the opposition, as well as assess how much you actually understand of how the system works - the public sector, how government works, how government decisions are made and how they are followed through - is to make sure that we can do our job on behalf of Territorians who are expecting this parliament to work to hold government to account so that there can be proper scrutiny and a check and balance on government. Without it, we only have to look at what can arise in other places around this world. We do have an important role to play and one that we take seriously. There are bright moments and there are not so bright moments, highs and lows. When it is all washed through and we sieve it all out, we will find that there is some considerable merit in what we have all just passed through.
Before I go any further, I am, as other members are, immensely grateful to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who supported these proceedings. They have done a wonderful job with such grace, patience and consistency. Sometimes, we reflect on how difficult it is as a member of parliament when we recognise that some of these officers were there before us and after us. Granted, in opposition, we have to prepare as ministers have to prepare, as do the members of the Legislative Assembly staff to prepare and lay the foundations.
For those in Hansard, I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to try and get the thread of argument and to string together in a sensible way the words that are batted backwards and forwards. Sometimes I wonder whether it is actually is worth it. However, it is good to have that record and I appreciate the effort that is taken to transcribe those words. It surprises me as we grow accustomed to our task in here, how seriously the public servants you meet in the street take this. There is some benefit in doing a complete assessment of your area of operation. I hope that it has lasting merit in taking that time to do an audit. I am always a little distressed when I see public servants thoroughly prepared and sitting anxiously for three-and-a-half hours, to find that they get no questions at all.
I thank the research section of the parliamentary library for the contribution that was made from that quarter as well. My daily properly-made coffee from Speaker’s Corner made all the difference. Thank you for the support that you provided, not to mention the food. To my fellow members of the PAC, it was an exercise and a journey that we went through together and I enjoyed working with each member.
To reflect in all the comings and goings, largely it has all be touched upon. It is our responsibility to see whether the budget is being managed as well as it could be. We have made our point and will restate that we do have concerns over the rising level of debt. We hold concerns about the cost of the public sector wages bill, and I know the Treasurer also does share these concerns. We can play our game across the Chamber, but they are issues that remain of interest and concern to the opposition and many members of our community. The reality that there is, at this same time, a reduction in the infrastructure spend will pose some implications into the future.
There was strengthening of the perception that the focus of this government, as other governments, can either be on a progressive and outward looking vision or a distraction and a focusing and a fixing on re-election. There were many things that reminded me that there is this bug running through this system; that is, the focus on the need to be re-elected. That promotes a government that becomes free of ideology and just driven by that simple objective: whatever it takes, let us do it so that we can maximise our political benefit.
There were a couple of things that came up through the course of the proceedings which may be small but they are disturbing, nonetheless. One was to find that it was at a cost of $14 per signature that taxpayers paid to have their names on a petition to send to Canberra.
It was disturbing also to see that, on two occasions, there was evidence of Labor backbenchers being given support over and above the Independent and opposition members.
It is also of concern, having spent a short time on the government benches as a backbencher, to weigh carefully the good intentions of the then opposition, particularly with regards to the self-indulgent nature of government to spend extraordinary amounts of money on their own presentation and perception within the community. We found that reinforced again and again at the cost that goes into publications and promotions and spin.
Those sorts of things are of concern because of the inconsistent nature of the position that was once held when they were in opposition. I say these words very mindfully, because I trust there comes a time - I hope I have an opportunity - to stand by those words and see whether I am judged by the standards that I am referring to right now.
On the issue of vision, I believe everyone, particularly in recent times, is desperate for vision and leadership. The issues that we have seen presented to us on a daily basis in recent times is causing a deeper level of concern within our community, and people are starting to ask for that vision and leadership. It has become a commodity that is desired deeply. I hope that we can throw off the shackles of seeing a vision that takes us just as far as the next election. There are several elements that I saw through these whole proceedings that will trap us into that cycle. I would like to find the way, as one member, along with members of opposition, Independent members and members on the other side of the Chamber, to find a way where we can free ourselves of that to make a noticeable difference.
The last thing I wish to say is that – I will leave it. I will come back to that. It is just in a practical sense the process is referred to at times as being a problem and the tennis game will be played. ‘Not enough time’, says the opposition, and the government members say: ‘You do not know how to manage your time’, and checkmate, whacko! There is probably somewhere in between that where we could start to think about it. What is the purpose of the proceedings? Just to say that we have this new process and tick that off, as long as it looks okay and sounds like the real thing and delivers almost what you want, then near enough is good enough. I do not think so. We actually want to make sure it is properly weighed, balanced and checked.
In spite of all the propaganda that has gone on, the process that I saw as a member of government, as a backbencher, had some merit as well. It certainly put the ministers in a very difficult position because it was the opposition standing on this side and the minister on that side. I observed from where the member for Brennan is sitting now, that the minister would stand there and the advisors were sitting over there and the questions were fired one after the other. It was the minister who had to give an account. There will be, of course, deeper memories, or longer term memories on the other side now that carry across from this side to that side, and I will say that there are flaws with that, possibly. It is not to say that there are no flaws with the current system. There are some benefits with the current system, but if we were able to have greater time to use and to spread the process out - we talked about this in the last couple of proceedings, where some practical suggestions were put forward to ensure that we do cover, or are given the opportunity to cover all areas, and not try to jam it all in four days.
There may be a process that we could put in place where we do not place such pressure on the whole exercise to try and just tick it off. There may be ways that we could creatively consider where we ensure question in areas that have been neglected time and time again. You may not appreciate it, but the fact is, some of these issues do take some time to unpack, and it takes a line of questioning to get where you are going. The truth is that the minister often knows where you are trying to get, and will be blocking cleverly all along the way. You cannot just ask a question and have an answer, and be efficient and tick that one off.
It would be nice if you could ask questions like, ‘How well are you going’, ‘Oh really well, thanks, let me tell you all about it’, and tick that off. We do not have that task. That is not our responsibility. Dorothy dixers serve that purpose. Our job is to actually ask some of the harder questions that government hopes we do not ask - the things that we may know about, that government knows about but would prefer we did not know about, but citizens demand us to be able to prosecute that particular line. Therefore, it does take some time. It is not just a clever little phrase to say, ‘Oh manage your time’. I am not saying that we are clean on this side, but there are ways that we could improve.
The final point I would wish to make is in reference to the drama that was occurring as a backdrop to estimates. It was something I will remember for as long as I am in this Chamber, to go up to my office and to turn the television on to see what was on, and to see Lateline. I saw a senior indigenous woman sitting back in the chair with tears rolling down her face. I saw the subtitles, and she said, ‘my spirit weeps’, and you felt the grief that was giving rise to tears that flowed down her face. I thought that, in the proceedings that we have just been through, that if the real purpose of this is not reflecting the pain behind those tears, and the pain behind those who have need within our community, then it is pointless. That sits as a permanent reminder to members, that that should focus our hearts and minds on what this is really about, so that if we cannot find a means to reduce that flow of tears and ease that pain ultimately, it is a pointless exercise – a shallow and an empty one at that.
I thought that was quite an amazing backdrop to these whole proceedings. To me, it underscores our role and our purpose, and it was a very potent reminder to every member here to remember that this is about something far greater than our political points that may be scored, something that transcends an electoral cycle, and something that must reach out and make a difference to someone far from this place. I hope that as we continue on as members, mature in the process, that there will come a time when we could ease that burden and to restrict that flow of tears.
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Chairman, I thank all members for their contributions. It was a pretty good four days; it was pretty intensive. All the ministers did a fabulous job making themselves available and open to all lines of questioning. I would like to pick up on some of the things that some of our members said.
First off, the Leader of Opposition, when she said that she picked up on four themes. I only picked up on one on her, and that was spite. It was just about through every piece of interrogation that she did. She got two years of sporting colloquialism, she got off playing the ball and started playing the man. It is just not the way to go. However, I will say that all of us here are here of our own free will, we are all elected members, we all stood up and we all take a bit of a slap in the public every now and then for different things.
However, our public servants are not. They are not there to be attacked. There were quite a number of occasions where I saw public servants sitting at the table, trying to assist the minister, to provide responses to the concise questions put forward by opposition, only to be attacked for their efforts. That is not the way to go. I would like to put on the record that I apologise to those public servants who suffered that embarrassment. It reflects poorly on all of us as politicians that they should have been forced into that position. I will also take a bit of a slap myself because, as Chairman, I should have been on it harder. If I am Chairman next year, I will be. This certainly will be one thing that I will not tolerate. If I am not Chairman, I ask whoever takes up the baton next year for them to not tolerate such behaviour. It does not do well for any of us in parliament as elected representatives.
The member for Goyder, I reckon, did a pretty good job. It was his first time in the seat as Acting Chairman and it is fairly daunting. It is the third time that I have been on the PAC and the Estimates Committee since its inception so I guess I am a bit of an old hand at it. However, he got in there. When elected members and ministers come together and it is on, it can be pretty hard and daunting. Under those circumstances, I believe he did a fabulous job. He engaged himself; he really got into it. He was able to recognise the preparation that the ministers did. It was not only a learning experience for him; he took away from it quite a good personal development as far as parliamentary procedures go. Good on him.
The member for Drysdale recognised that the time allocated was adequate. He provided options of how we can get the agencies that did not have the chance to be questioned, and how we can get those up at the next round of estimate hearings. I am sure that this is something that we will take into our deliberations in the PAC, as the Estimates Committee is a construct of the PAC and there is no reason why we cannot have a look at that. As long as we give agencies enough notification so that they can prepare their briefs in a logical and consequential order, I do not see too much problems in it. That is something that the PAC should turn its mind to in some sort of post implementation review. Let us have a look at these agencies that have not had a chance to be questioned in such a forum and see if we can get them up first next time. I do not see that as an insurmountable issue and it is one that we should turn our minds to.
The member for Nelson also picked up on that same issue. He picked up on the length of questions and answers. If anyone should be able to pick up on that sort of thing it should be him. He would be one of the worst time wasters that we have. I do not mind a little theatrics as some people probably agree but, when he gets in there and asks questions that he has asked in parliament before, or asked questions of correspondence that he has had with ministers, that he has the answers back for, so he can get the grab on the radio or on the TV, well, that is fine. That is part of the game; we all understand that. But then to come in and complain about the time is just not on. You cannot have it both ways. I am sure that that will come up time and again.
The member for Greatorex made admissions, finally, that he was not able to properly understand government accounting and it came through time and again. That adds to time wasting in the committee. I say go to a course, go and talk to the people in Treasury and get to understand these reports that come out, and then we will find a little timesaving. He too, played the man and not the ball. I feel that he misrepresented the Ombudsman’s comments in here. When the Ombudsman said that she thought it was futile to get more funding; the Ombudsman is a very professional person, a highly paid public servant. She is a CEO. There is one thing about all the CEOs - they are expected to come in on budget time and again. She is coming in on budget. She is coming in with the objectives met. We do not ask any more of our CEOs, the government should not either, and she is doing it. She said she has high morale in her department. She mentioned that she had a high turnover of staff but she had people coming in and putting their hand up. She had staff members leaving to higher paid jobs. That is not the sign of a poorly run and poorly organised and a suffering organisation. When you have that happening in a very small unit, I commend her. I commend her for realising why she should not go to the Chief Minister and ask for more money. She did not, because she can clearly operate within her budget and get the results. You can turn it around whatever way you like, but that is how it was.
The member for Greatorex went on about the Frommer Report. Have a look at the transcript; that is all I will say. I will not spend any more time on it. Have a look at the transcript and you be the judge as to what was going on in that part of the debate.
The member for Katherine said she found it frustrating. So did I at times. She also asked about restructuring the order and, as I acknowledged, we will have a look at that. I also acknowledge that preparation is a hard process they went through and a lot of them did put a lot of work into it. For a small team, credit to them; they did do a good job and did get in there and prepare. At times they got diverted on their own personal issues, but they had a whole range of questions and they did put the hours in. I will pat them on the back for that because they deserve it; they did work hard.
The member for Braitling has been critical of not being able to ask questions. Well, she wants to sit down and maybe caucus with the other Independent member and get that right. We do have a running order in the Estimates Committee and it is the shadow minister first, as it should be because they are across the portfolio, then we flick to the Independent. The members for Greatorex and Blain looked at me at times when I skipped over them and went straight to the Independents to let them have a say. They get a say on the outputs, a better say actually than any government member or any member of the opposition - shadow first then straight to the Independent. I do not think they have ground for complaint on that one.
Mr Acting Chairman, the member for Blain reflected on the process and he stated he understands full well the opposition’s responsibilities - and he does. It became very clear as the process went through that he is an old hand at these as well and he understands the process. He knows the complexities of it and he got in there and worked hard to extract the information he did. But I could not help thinking that, while he is being very articulate about the efforts and the trials and tribulations of what it is to be an opposition member, his contribution was still loaded with cynicism.
You did a good job and you should pat yourself on the back. Your team should go out and have a beer or chardonnay tonight. I know you are coming more over our way of thinking on a lot of things. You did well, but the estimates are not about the government hiding and saying this is all about us getting re-elected. The ministers are out there up-front with their operational lines so you can get in there and interrogate it. It is a fabulous opportunity and you should not waste it.
The member for Blain mentioned dorothy dix questions wasting time. There was none. Let me put it on the record now that we have a position on the Estimates Committee of not wanting to take up precious time. I commend the core members of the Estimates Committee and all those members of the backbench who were participating for their discipline in not throwing in dorothy dixers, and for lack of interjections. If you go through the transcripts you will find very few interjections from our team of government members the whole time. If there was any time wasting it was not with government members. Everyone else is getting thanked around here but, the work the government backbench did and the discipline they exhibited was fantastic.
In finishing, everyone else has had a bit of a sing song and there is one that came to mind about all this. I will not sing it either but it will stay in everyone’s ear
Always look on the bright side of life.
With that, thanks everyone for a fantastic estimates hearing. I enjoyed it and I am sure the ministers did. I am sure all the public servants did, and they are not all little blighters. They are paid professionals who enjoyed the whole thing.
Mr ACTING CHAIRMAN: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2006-07 all the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2006-07 be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Treasury Legislation and Consequential Amendment Bill
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Continued from 4 May 2006.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine that anyone would be expecting me to argue that this be blocked or opposed, and urge honourable members to please support me in highlighting the deficiencies of the bill. I will not be going down that path, so I acknowledge the journey that we have travelled, the necessity of having this legislation dealt with at this sitting, so that we can all go home.
However, there is one aspect of this bill that it is the duty of opposition to draw attention to, and there will probably remain a philosophical difference between members of the Country Liberal Party and members of government on this point: the benefits that the first home owner concession receives will be eroded through the passage of this legislation. It can be explained, and it is a reasonable explanation in terms of making sense.
However, it makes sense in this context: whilst it is an arguable and logical premise that where there is the opportunity to either keep money with a first home owner and allow them to utilise it and maintain the existing benefit that there is for a first home owner who wants to pay out the equity that they have in their home with the HomeNorth scheme. If they want to pay that out, then that removes the effectiveness of the concession. There is an opportunity either to seize upon that in the interests of equity and to take it into Treasury and collect the stamp duty, or to leave it with the first home owner and allow them to use it in their own way, and to flow it into the economy through their own means. It is that point: here is an opportunity for Treasury to take it, and to argue why it should be taken, or to allow it to remain with the home owner, because the intent of this is to pass on a benefit to someone starting up. I know it is not going to be supported but, as a matter of principle, CLP or the opposition will support the notion of retaining the benefit with the citizen rather than with Treasury. It is the belief that the empowerment and the strengthening of individuals and citizens within our community is the very grassroots by which our economy and our society grows, rather than to increase the power of government and to have any benefit transferred back to Treasury and then flow out in benefits through whatever programs government runs.
It is a point of philosophical difference. I can only raise that. I do not want to put the energy into going to the barricades over it, but it is this sort of thing that we do not support. With that being said, and that concern being registered, we will not oppose this bill.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, welcome back. It is good to have you back today.
I thank the member for Blain for his comments, but I must admit to some confusion about his concern with the first home owner and principal place of residence changes under this amendment. What this amendment will do is see the original intent of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme through. The way it was first drawn up, an individual could not get first home owner stamp duty concession and principal place of residence rebate on stamp duty - the same person for the same home. That is simply the only intent here, because it was never intended that an individual could avail themselves of both concessions for the purchase of the one property. If there is a misunderstanding there - and there might be, I am not sure - I am happy for the member for Blain to arrange a further briefing or a clarification of detail around this. However, it is not taking away something that was intended.
It was never intended that a first home owner be able to avail themselves of both concessions. It is one or the other. This simply clarifies the intent of the original bill and makes sure that that will be the case into the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 61)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide a minor amendment to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 and to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 reformed the Criminal Code by enacting new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. It then applies those new principles to offences that are introduced or replaced by that act.
The government is in the process of continuing this reform. The stakeholders have been recently consulted on the potential next stage of revision. In the meantime, it is appropriate to commence the law of manslaughter, dangerous act and dangerous driving offences contained in the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 that remedy some serious defects in the Criminal Code. To commence this act, a technical amendment is required to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005.
The crime of manslaughter is of two kinds; voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. A person may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter where there is a defence of provocation, diminished responsibility or coercion and reduce the culpability of the crime from murder to manslaughter. The term ‘involuntary manslaughter’ is used to describe the other forms of manslaughter that exist at common law or under the codes that do not involve an intention to kill but some lesser fault element such as criminal negligence. Section 167 of the Criminal Code was to be repealed by section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. Section 167 provides simply that any person who commits the crime of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. It, therefore, has application as a penalty provision for both forms of manslaughter.
New section 163, enacted by section 10 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, provides for the new offences of involuntary manslaughter, filling a gap within that crime under the current code provisions. It likewise applies a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for those offences. However, to preserve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter, this bill repeals section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, effectively reinstating a single provision that applies the penalty to both forms of the crime of manslaughter to avoid any confusion that might otherwise arise.
Madam Speaker, there are often minor structural challenges encountered to take in a reform of an extensive statute such as the Criminal Code, particularly where the legislation is divided into parts and divisions, and where a different style of language is used in the old provisions than in the new provisions. Some provisions that will ultimately be placed in the act so as to have general application will presently need to be replicated to individual provisions so as to ensure their application. This bill, therefore, replicates into the new manslaughter offence, the test of causal responsibility that also appears at section 174A and which, in due course, will be applied across the relevant offences in the code as a whole.
In addition, the bill will amend section 37 of the Criminal Code which deals with the defence of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibility is a statutory defence that does not exist in all jurisdictions. It is currently the law of the Northern Territory, and there is a matter in relation to the defence that requires correction.
Madam Speaker, some years ago we removed from the Criminal Code the defence of insanity, and replaced that defence with the defence of mental impairment based on the model Criminal Code. In the process, section 6 of the Criminal Code that presumed normality of mind was repealed and a new section 43D was enacted to provide for a presumption of competence, and for the burden of proof to lie on the person raising the defence.
In a recent trial, the court held that the effective repeal in section 6 in relation to the defence of diminished responsibility was that the Crown now bore the onus of disproving diminished responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case in question, the prosecution was able to discharge this onus. However, this bill clarifies that the presumption is that an accused mind is normal and, as a consequence, reinstates the burden of proof of abnormality on the accused.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016