2002-05-22
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Arts and Museums): The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is participating in an exciting new research and bioprospecting program in Territory waters in partnership with the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the United States National Cancer Institute.
The museum is the principal Australian partner in this very important initiative which involves the collection of samples of marine animals such as soft corals, sponges and other marine organisms for screening for new pharmaceutical compounds to assist in the fight against cancer and AIDS.
Territory waters boast a diversity of marine organisms sought after for the high number of new and unique bioactive compounds they contain. The museum has been subcontracted to provide 250 samples of these organisms every year for screening. Samples will be frozen and shipped to the United States National Cancer Institute in Maryland for testing. The contract will enable the museum to significantly increase its capacity in marine research and the project has the potential to attract future royalties if extracted compounds from Territory samples are licensed to a pharmaceutical company for production and marketing.
Other Territory institutions may also benefit from this project. Under a benefit sharing agreement which the Territory has entered into with the National Cancer Institute, researchers at the Northern Territory University, Menzies School of Health Research and the soon to be established Arafura Timor Research Facility could be provided with complementary opportunities in the area of biotechnology research and development.
Another significant benefit will be an increased knowledge of the marine biodiversity of our northern waters. Because of the strategic location of Darwin, close to the highest area of tropical marine biodiversity in the world, and because of the expertise that we have in the museum, the Territory is well positioned to become a centre for bioprospecting in our region. Dr Barry Russell, who is Assistant Director of Natural Sciences at the museum, has recently returned from a trip to Dili with the president of the Coral Reef Research Foundation to meet with East Timor fisheries officials to extend the project to East Timor with benefits to that country as well.
Collecting work in the Territory has already commenced, with the first samples being obtained from Darwin Harbour. A small team of museum divers led by Dr Belinda Glasby, a marine sponge expert, has already photographed and collected more than 50 samples. These samples will be processed and identified at the museum and then prepared for shipment to the United States later this year.
Bioprospecting is a very low impact activity that is ecologically sustainable and will have little or no effect on the ecology and natural environment of the harbour or elsewhere along our coast. The samples required for testing by the National Cancer Institute are quite small. Less than one kilogram of each species was required and, because an attempt is made to artificially synthesise any pharmaceutical compounds that are discovered, there is no need for ongoing harvesting of large quantities of marine products.
The museum’s principal role in this significant project is testimony to its international reputation for scientific excellence in natural sciences research and its particular expertise in taxonomy and systematics of marine organisms. It is a significant project in terms of its contribution to world health issues, to international partnerships and scientific research, and in developing the research capacity of the Territory.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the expertise and professionalism of the staff of the Museum and Art Gallery and to congratulate them on the significant contribution they are making to international scientific research and biotechnology. I also take this opportunity to reaffirm my government’s commitment to supporting the Territory’s development through continued support for initiatives such as this which encourages linkages between our regional neighbours and international partners.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the former Northern Territory government over its time in office spent a great deal of effort and money making certain that the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory were properly funded despite the complaints of the then opposition and the member for Fannie Bay. However, it was properly funded and the former government did a great job. The museums at Bullocky Point and down in Araluen as well as all of other services that the department provides have served Territorians well. As a consequence of that, the Territory is well position to enter into what sounds like a great project.
However, I urge the Chief Minister not to allow the tentacles of her slash and burn approach, the tentacles that have reached throughout the public service, to go into this department to threaten projects like this. I am glad to hear that she is making that commitment.
I hear the members opposite laugh, but how much was the cut to the Hidden Valley V8 Supercars? $200 000? A little bit more? They sit there and they claim to be the great champions of research and the great champions of the Northern Territory as they cut and slash their way through spending here in the Northern Territory. I put the Chief Minister on notice that I will keep a very close eye on this project and make sure that they do not touch it.
Ms MARTIN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, talking about such a wonderful project that enhances our capacity in research, in the scientific area generally, and taking great advantage of our position here on the edge of the Timor Sea, it is really disappointing to have the shadow minister for Arts, which I assume you are, talk in such a negative way about this proposal.
We are thoroughly supporting it. We are hoping for bipartisan support on this. This is an opportunity for the museum to use its expertise, to expand on its expertise and to receive some financial reward for that. It’s a great opportunity and I really wish the opposition would join in celebrating this; it’s an important move forward for the Territory. All we hear from the opposition is whingeing and whining and carping. Very, very disappointing
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, let’s hope there’s less whingeing and whining here.
I rise to give a ministerial report on the progress of the premier event of the Year of the Outback, Outback Central 2002. On 9 May, I opened the Outback Central 2002 office in a prominent location in Alice Springs. For much of this year, this office will be the nerve centre of the Year of the Outback. At that opening, I officially announced that Wana Ungkunytja, a local Aboriginal-owned business management company, are the project managers for this event, spearheaded by the inimitable Clive Scollay, fresh from his experience organising the Yeperenye Festival last year.
Outback Central will run from 23 August to 1 September. The draft program has four main themes. The first is the Desert Knowledge conference which has international and national speakers lined up to share and develop the skills and knowledge of desert living. The second theme is the Outback Expo, a showcase of outback innovation not just from the Centre, but from the 80% of Australia that makes up our outback. The third theme is the Alice Springs Festival, a vibrant and popular cultural event which aims to double its numbers this year. Finally, we’ll have the community focus, the events which engage and enthral local residents and ensure that they, too, are part of the Year of the Outback celebrations.
I am sure that all Central Australians are proud that Alice Springs has won the right to host this feature event of the Year of the Outback. It consolidates our international and national positioning as the real outback, and it gives us another opportunity to show the world that outback and in-front are not contradictory descriptions of the region.
This is why my government has been delighted to provide $200 000 for the Outback Central Expo, plus a further $50 000 for the Desert Knowledge summit. We also put $50 000 into staging a government display as part of that expo. I am delighted that Alice Springs Town Council is also a partner in the event, having contributed $100 000 in cash and kind. Of course, our thanks must go to the federal government for their major sponsorship of $600 000.
To me, the Year of the Outback is about celebrating our history but also about changing perceptions of what the outback is. The outback is about ancient culture and pioneers, cattle and windmills, mateship and endurance. But it is also about technological breakthroughs, about answering social challenges, about creating a future for ourselves rather than following in the footsteps of urban areas.
This is why the program is not heavy on heritage, much as we prize our history and traditions. Rather, it emphasises the future, the innovations that are unique to the outback: desert knowledge and how it will contribute to our lives in the 21st century. It will showcase the cultural richness of the outback beyond the bush ballads to the amazing depth of talent we have in visual and performing arts here in the Territory. Aboriginal arts must be one of our most famous exports, but there is much, much more to the cultural landscape of the outback.
There have been so many people involved in the development of Outback Central 2002 to date, and I congratulate them for their creativity and hard work. I will be making further announcements on the program and Outback Central 2002 at a later date.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report. The opposition agrees entirely with the sentiments expressed. We agree that the Year of the Outback is to be celebrated. Those of us from Central Australia are particularly proud that national focus will be on Central Australia. We are pleased that, at last - and I’m sure the Chief Minister would be inclined to agree - the likes of Clive Scollay have been appointed. There was some risk that the event might be slipping a bit, but under the stewardship of Clive Scollay, I’m sure that he will produce a marvellous result.
On a less positive note, however, I am obliged to comment on the failure of the government to secure Virgin Blue into Central Australia. Whilst we applaud the national, and probably international, focus on Central Australia as a result of the activities for Year of the Outback, the problem is we need people there. We only have one airline, and that will be an indictment on this government that it will need to live with forever and a day.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): I thank the member for her comments and, again, I say it is disappointing to have the negative whinge about this. On the specific point of services into the Central Australian region, we congratulate Qantas for their additional flights in. It will make a difference. A second airline is something that is still very high on our agenda. We have not failed, as the member for Araluen suggested. This is an ongoing effort and I am confident that it will be achieved in the long run. It is constantly in our minds and in the time frames we are setting that we need a second airline for Central Australia. We are working towards it.
To cope with the kind of impact we saw with the collapse of Ansett is something that is engaging every government around Australia and certainly has been a focus for this new government as we are now almost nine months in office. So we feel no sense of failure here; just an achievement to come.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide information to the Assembly on the progress of discussions on the possible introduction of container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory.
As you would be aware, prior to the election, the previous government gave a $100 000 grant to Keep Australia Beautiful and Katherine Landcare to study container deposit legislation. They undertook surveys and tested the issue throughout the Territory. On taking government, and in conjunction with Keep Australia Beautiful, I decided that a review of the material available on this matter needed to be done by a committee that reflected a number of interests.
The committee was chaired by Ken Copeland, a respected Darwin businessman. Keep Australia Beautiful and Landcare are represented through Mr Geoff Finch and Mr Jim Furwood. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, Mr Richard Sullivan, Mr Mike Burgess from my department, and Ms Carol Frost from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry were also members of the review committee.
The committee called for public submissions, and I extended the time for these submissions when it became clear that more members of the community wished to comment. The report has now been presented to me. The report does not recommend a government position on container deposit legislation one way or the other. It canvasses much of the recent work done on the issue. It points government in the direction of recycling and litter control programs that should be considered in addition to any action the government may or may not take on this particular issue.
It evaluates the cost of the program and it evaluates its advantages and disadvantages. It recommends to government the following:
This report has given government much to think about. I am asking my department to investigate the issues raised and to present an options paper to Cabinet that fleshes those issues out. I am not putting a timeline on this at this stage as I want the investigation to be thorough. I am aware there will be a level of disappointment in the community that this report has not made a solid recommendation one way or the other, but I am grateful to the committee for focussing for government the issues to be examined whichever way we ultimately decide to go.
I will not table the report for all members of the Assembly; I do not want to create an excessive workload for the staff. I have already handed a report to the member for Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition and yourself, Madam Speaker, and I will present a copy of the report to all MLAs.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, if ever there was an issue that a decision could be made on, this would have to be it. It has been investigated to the enth degree.
The group that looked into this matter did it very thoroughly. They conducted, through the course of the show circuit last year, a public survey which had enormously strong support and that should be demonstrated in the report. The Keep Australia Beautiful Committee have canvassed the community very broadly in relation to this. We demonstrated, as a government, our commitment to it in terms of providing $100 000 to determine once and for all what the community’s views were; they are very positive. For the minister to stand up and say: ‘We don’t want to put anyone to a lot of trouble to produce a report’.
You won’t be putting agencies to trouble; you can just get this printed. If you are ashamed of distributing it and informing the Territory as to what the outcome of the report was, just as you’re prepared to conceal figures in relation to crime activity in the Northern Territory, what have you got, as a government, against people determining whether they can make up their mind in relation to a report and what their views are? So much for a secretive government as opposed to one that was going to be informative.
We’ve heard nothing from the minister in terms of what he’s going to do - apart from a bit of navel gazing in relation to this. It is an issue that has strong community support. It came out of the fact that the packaging industry was refusing to further support, through financial contributions, Keep Australia Beautiful activities and from that point of view, this government took the action to move toward container deposit legislation. That was our clear intention and it’s something that the government can now do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to put it bluntly, I think the government has to introduce it. Forget the recommendations. The proof of the pudding is in South Australia. It is known to be the most popular legislation they have ever introduced; they’ve had surveys on it. It works in South Australia. South Australia has the same conditions as the Northern Territory; it has long distances to travel, it has outback communities. It can be done. I think the time has come to introduce it. If the national associations are not willing to put their reports directly to this group of people, they’ve got something to hide. Therefore they should not be part of this.
They were given the opportunity to put their reports here, they’ve put it straight to government. They just put themselves out of the equation. The government should act straight away; they should make sure that local government is included because they are the key - they’re the ones that look at land fill, litter and recycling. They should do it now. I am surprised at one thing: there was $100 000 spent on this report. Why weren’t the relevant features of the South Australian system looked at? Why weren’t the legal matters looked at? Why weren’t the financial implications looked at?
But all said and done, it works in South Australia. It can work in the Northern Territory. The proof is in the pudding.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, as Sir Humphrey Appleby said: ‘You get the answers you want depending on the questions you ask.’ Keep Australia Beautiful came to me with a set of answers from their research. Industry came to me with a set of answers from their research. Each contradicted the other. The difference with the new government is that this minister is going to make a decision and is prepared to wear any political costs. I am personally in favour of recycling, however I have to look at the special conditions of the Territory, and that’s what I’m going to do.
It might have worked in South Australia. Rest assured, member for Nelson, it did not work in Western Australia. I worked in Port Hedland and we couldn’t do it. It was impossible.
We considered the same conditions here, but I’m telling you, and I repeat: this minister is going to make a decision. As for the report, it will be handed out to the community so they know what the report contains.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to report that earlier this morning I was out at Football Park to commence the excavation work which is the first stage of the re-surfacing project. As we know, reticulation and drainage will happen in the next stage, also re-turfing. This first contract was let last week to local company, Ostojic Pty Limited, and work is now well underway with about 8200 m of soil to be removed.
Other contracts yet to be awarded are the supply of graded material for construction of the new field, quality control services, surface reconstruction, turf supply and maintenance. These works will provide work for local companies and contractors and will result in a shot in the arm for local business. Resurfacing is the critical part of the upgrade to the Football Park stadium which will not only ensure the return of AFL football, but has also allowed us to pursue and secure international cricket matches. I remind members of the Assembly that Tony Ware, the curator of the MCG, is heavily involved in providing advice.
I should also point out that we are very pleased with the assistance and cooperation that we have received from the South Darwin Sporting League who are accommodated across the road from Footy Park. They have agreed to allow us to use areas of Warren Park which is, as I said, across the road from the oval, for stock piling measures and materials. This will assist the government and the contractors and will also provide benefits to the South Darwin Sporting League whose facility will receive some spin-off improvements in the process.
It is a win-win situation which is something this Martin Labor government is on about. It is not a slash and burn exercise, as the member for Macdonnell stated this morning. In fact, since the change of government I have noticed especially in my department that public servants are on a high. We have gone through most of the settling down period and there is this belief that they are now working with a government that is very proactive and positive.
This development is exciting and it was great to see the first signs of physical work taking place today. I am advised that our scheduling requirements are being met and that we are on track to have the installation of the turf on the newly constructed oval taking place in August. This means that the oval will be ready for play in January 2003 and that we will be primed for the return of AFL football on the Australia Day Weekend. We know how many people were disappointed last year, so the Carlton v Aboriginal All Stars match is on and the Wizard Cup Preseason Match is being sought. We will then have six months of count down for our first international test cricket match.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, that is all good news. However, last time such a statement was made I did ask some specific questions and I believe they were not directly responded to. Rather, you like the opportunity for big-noting, but you do not respond to a specific question. It was a general question and a genuine question with regards to cricket being played at Football Park. I asked a question about the negotiations in making sure that things were squared away with the AFLNT. I understand that there was commercial-in-confidence status in the lead up to this, but I am really interested in how things are going now. I am also interested in who is paying the water bill. The AFLNT has an imposition to pay the water bill which they had not been able to absorb in previous times. It is a great financial burden on them. With cricket coming, who is paying the water?
Second, the experience we have secured from the MCG differs vastly from conditions in Darwin. I just want some assurance that the experience from Melbourne is going to give us the right sort of turf here in the tropics.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, in response to the last question from the shadow minister, the expertise is there. The proof is in the pudding. This gentleman is one of the best if not the best in the country in terms of preparing these types of turf. He looks after the MCG. The MCG in Melbourne is a holy shrine to the Melbourne sporting community. So you need to understand that we are getting the best involved.
In regards to the AFLNT, we have to have confidential discussions and I will seek out a response as to who is going to be paying the water bill. But I will make it very clear, if the members opposite want to listen, that there will be benefits for the AFLNT - there will be benefits. They have a lease and we will honour our commitment to supporting them so that there are spin-offs for the AFLNT also.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly, I table the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with Respect to Both the Estimated Outcome for 2000-01 and the Budget for 2001-02; the volume of transcripts of public hearings; and the volume of media releases.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report and associated papers be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the committee’s report.
In rising to speak to the report, I also wish to table additional documents that have been placed before the committee throughout the duration of the inquiry and that should be made available for public scrutiny.
This inquiry is the first major public inquiry carried out by the Northern Territory Public Accounts Committee for a considerable time. Furthermore, it was public in the sense that the media had complete access to record hearings under the same conditions which they can record Question Time. Before speaking about the specifics of the inquiry, I would like to give a general background to the inquiry for the benefit of the House. I would also direct members to the Foreword on page IX of the report. The inquiry resulted from serious allegations made in a memorandum from the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services, Mr Paul Bartholomew, to the incoming health minister in September 2001.
In relation to these allegations, I would like to quote directly from my Foreword on page IX of the report, as follows:
In the public hearings, the committee heard evidence from the CEOs and finance officers of six agencies, three ministers of the former government and the current health minister. Apart from the reduction of $8m in the Health Department estimates, the committee also heard disturbing evidence that there had been similar reductions in the budget estimates of the Education Department - some $6m; and the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Department - some $2m.
After careful consideration of the evidence, the committee has published its findings and recommendations within this report. Not surprisingly, I note that there is a dissenting report submitted by members opposite which dissents in many important areas with the majority report and I believe does not really address the issues at hand. In addition, I note a dissenting report on one specific matter from the member for Nelson; namely the committee’s findings in relation to the former Education Minister, Mr Chris Lugg. I intend to address this specific issues within my speech.
Nevertheless, it is important to realise that within the approximately 70 pages of the body of the report, this is the only matter in the report that the member for Nelson has disagreed with. I would emphasise that, this single matter aside, the remainder of the report contains a large number of very substantial comments, findings and recommendations that the three members from this side and the member for Nelson are in complete agreement on. Where does this leave the minority report submitted by the members opposite?
There are many negatives in this report for the former Treasurer, the former Health Minister, the former Education Minister and, ultimately, the former Chief Minister. More importantly, I believe our recommendations, which are found between pages 68 to 69, have positively addressed the issues raised and substantially reduced the likelihood of similar interference in budget processes in the future. To this end, the committee believes that parliament and the people have the right to trust the figures that are published in the budget papers, something sadly lacking in the previous government.
This wasn’t an exercise, as some might contend, of a committee having a trial after they’ve hanged someone. This was an inquiry that was all about findings about the processes and the environment that gave rise the these deceptions, and making positive recommendations so that they don’t occur again.
In particular, we have recommended the establishment of an Estimates Committee within the Northern Territory parliament. Indeed, the Northern Territory parliament is the only parliament in Australia not to have an Estimates Committee to scrutinise the budget estimates process. An Estimates Committee was part of Labor’s election platform. We are a party that is committed to delivering on our promises for open and accountable government.
I will move through the highlights - in some cases I think better described as the lowlights - of the findings and recommendations of this report to be found on pages 65 to 69. I purposely resisted the temptation to revisit the report and evidence in detail. This would be an impossibility. I have already outlined the magnitude of this inquiry. However, I would emphasise that this majority report is based on the evidence given. As any reader can plainly see, chapter by chapter, quote by quote, document by document, transcript by transcript; it is all there.
In the relatively limited time I have available, I therefore propose to go directly to the findings and recommendations chapter. The committee relied heavily on the written and oral evidence of Mr Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer. Substantial amounts of his evidence were in conflict with that given by the member for Katherine and the former Treasurer. I will quote the committee’s comments from page 59 regarding this conflict in evidence:
I quote again from page 43:
and approved Mike Reed, 17 May 2001. Clearly, here on the back page - and I seek leave to table this - is a reduction in the estimates for Territory Health, minus $8m. Minus $8m signed off by the former Treasurer. I seek leave to table this Under Treasurer’s Minute.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Now, if we turn to the interview that the former Treasurer had with Fred McCue:
referring to the $8m reduction in health estimates,
In the same interview in relation to whether he directed Mr Clarke to reduce the estimates, McCue says:
He’s talking about the $8m reduction in the health estimates.
In the face of such apparent untruthfulness, little wonder the committee has chosen not to believe the former Treasurer. He is someone who devalues the word ‘deception’ by his constant use of it. I issue a challenge to the former Treasurer and member for Katherine: if he stands behind his words to Mr Fred McCue, I challenge him to repeat them and tell the House tomorrow when he speaks that he knew nothing about the $8m in reduction to health estimates and that he did not direct Ken Clarke to reduce them. So there’s a challenge for the former Treasurer.
Returning to the findings and recommendations, Mr Clarke gave evidence that the process was started and driven by political rationale. I am quoting from Mr Clarke now:
This is a very important aspect. It demonstrates the lack of transparency and accountability by the previous government. I direct members present and the public to the recommendation on page 68 that sets out in detail how budget documentation can be improved.
It’s patently obvious why the then Treasurer was desperately concerned about having budget figures that showed growth. As we all know, 2001 was an election year. Mr Clarke said in evidence that he gave the former Treasurer so-called defendable means of showing growth by reducing the estimates of expenditure for the current year, and I would like to quote from page 60 of our report:
Moreover, Mr Clarke backed away from fully endorsing the method used by the former Treasurer to show growth, and I quote from Mr Clarke in evidence:
Of course it wasn’t a question that would have been asked of him. Bearing in mind that it was an election year and Mr Clarke said that it wasn’t the best thing or the right thing, I came across a quote by Josef Goebbels. I think it could be a CLP credo:
So it was win at all costs. Slate what’s right; win at all cost. Josef Goebbels said it. 1940.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We also heard evidence from Mr Clarke that he pleaded with the former Treasurer that an $8m reduction in the health estimates would be difficult to justify. Mr Clarke - and I am quoting from his evidence:
Here is the Under Treasurer saying that looks suss! Mr Clarke reported that he raised these concerns with Mr Reed, and I quote again from his evidence:
And again just carrying on from Mr Clarke:
Well, carry the can, he does. I think the member for Drysdale has got one hand on one of the lids as well.
I would like to read from page 61 of our findings in relation to the former Treasurer, and I quote:
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The interjection about lying has not been demonstrated in this. It was used in the censure motion that preceded it and cannot be used, I would suggest, in this debate either.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, withdraw that comment across the floor. You know you cannot use that.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw lies and replace it with untruths.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I think using similes is an offence to your position, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You were asked to withdraw the comment. Do so without reservation.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS:
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, could I just interrupt for one moment? I know there are some people who feel passionate about this debate but you must temper your remarks and not use unparliamentary comments in your speech or in your interjections. That is a reminder for all members at this stage.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Whilst there is no evidence that Mr Reed acted illegally under the Financial Management Act, the committee
believes that the benchmark for ministerial behaviour is much higher than legal compliance. The committee is
also of the view that to interfere with the budgetary processes and budget figures in the manner described above
amounts to improper political manipulation of the budgetary process and is a deception on the parliament and
the people.
Similarly, I would like to read our findings in relation to the member for Drysdale. This is on pages 61 and 62:
That is a direct quote from the member for Drysdale. It encapsulates exactly how he side-stepped his own personal and ethical responsibility in this matter.
Mr Henderson: Fraud!
Dr BURNS: From the evidence given to the inquiry, it appears that Mr Dunham was not …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The word ‘fraud’ likewise was used in the censure motion …
Madam SPEAKER: Is unparliamentary, yes.
Mr DUNHAM: … and I point out that the exact question was posed on a number of occasions. This report does not find any fraud.
Madam SPEAKER: You have raised your point of order! Minister, ‘fraud’ is unparliamentary. It has been deemed so in the past.
Mr HENDERSON: Could I just seek a ruling? Going to the Oxford Dictionary, Madam Speaker, ‘fraud’ is ‘the quality of being deceitful’. Certainly, are you implying that ‘deceit’ is also unparliamentary?
Madam SPEAKER: We have allowed ‘deceit’ in the past, but we have not allowed ‘lies’ or ‘fraud’. So, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. And let’s not interrupt the member’s flow by interjections, particularly from his own side of the House.
Dr BURNS:
In regard to Mr Lugg, the former Education Minister, I direct people to page 62:
that is, the members on this side, and I have already noted that the member for Nelson has dissented on this particular – this is the only issue that the member for Nelson has dissented on.
This is the single area where the member for Nelson has dissented from our report. I understand the sensitivities around this, as Mr Lugg was his political opponent in the last election. Nevertheless, we on this side stand by our conclusions in this matter. In evidence, through his evidence for a variety of reasons, Mr Lugg demonstrated he did not appear to fully understand what was occurring and therefore did not deliberately mislead parliament.
This is in stark contrast to the former Treasurer, and former Health minister. In essence, their censure was wholly justified simply on the basis of the Bartholomew memo alone. New evidence brought to light in our inquiry further highlights their arrogant disregard for the parliament and the people.
There are a number of other matters raised in the report, namely the sale of Northern Territory Fleet on page 63, and I quote:
I believe this proposed sale of NT Fleet for $50m was included to try and make the former Treasurer’s 2001-02 budget line look a lot better.
The next matter: under-estimation of final consumption expenditure. The committee heard evidence that there were blow outs in the bottom line in successive CLP budgets of between $65-70m. Much of this was caused by unrealistically low estimates of growth which forced departments to continually request supplementation during the year.
Education and Health were two examples. Education had a starting allocation for 2000-01 of $335.5m and ended up spending close to $351m. They successfully applied for further supplementation of $5.3m in June 2001, just before the close of the financial year. Most of this latter amount remained unspent. Such repeated supplementation indicates poor budgetary processes and management.
Indeed, the Auditor-General commented on the non inclusion of $6m in the estimated expenditure for 2000-01. These funds were approved by the Burke Cabinet for Education personnel costs in March 2001.
While the committee received evidence from a variety of sources on this particular matter, given the complexities of the matter, we were unable to reach a conclusion on the specific issue within this report. However, we intend to revisit it and take further specific evidence. We will report back when we have done so.
I emphasise that this matter does not affect our overall findings in relation to budget blowouts under the previous government, and the need to change budgeting culture. I direct people to recommendation two on page 68.
Although there are a number of other matters, the one I would like to close on relates to the mini-budget. I know this is really going to upset members opposite, but I quote from page 65 of the report. I might just add that this particular section remains unaltered. It was submitted to the committee by our fiercely independent consultant, who is very experienced in Treasury matters, who looked in detail at this issue. I know it doesn’t suit the purposes of the members opposite to hear this, but I’ll say it:
I might add that was mainly by the opposition members trying to derail our inquiry, just the same as they’re going to try and sidetrack our findings and recommendations, bring up a big cloud because they don’t want us to go to the heart of the matter, which is the conduct of the former Health minister and the former Treasurer.
I will say it again:
I would like to go through the recommendations in the time that I have left.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just as a point of clarification, I am trying to find my name in this report. I mean, I was the subject of a censure motion, and I assume the recommendations will flow and carry some context with the censure motion. Could you refer me to the pages where I am specifically referred to?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, that is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader is correct. Apart from references to decisions made by his Cabinet, like the one that the Auditor-General drew attention to, yes, he isn’t specifically mentioned within this report. However, I am coming to comments which I believe I should have the freedom to make, and observations about his leadership during this period.
Before I do that I’d just like to go through the recommendations. This is on page 68:
There are some very specific recommendations in the report about the types of annotation, the types of tables that should appear in budget papers, particularly that allocations to departments should appear, and if they had have appeared within the budget papers drawn up by the previous Treasurer, there would have been a point of comparison and some of these anomalies would have become obvious.
In addition, treatment such as the reduction for presentational purposes, the former Treasurer made it very clear to his Under Treasurer that basically he didn’t want any mention of reductions within the budget papers or the budget speech. So recommendation 1 goes to deal with those sorts of issues about annotations, about narratives within budgets, about making the whole issue of budget numbers more accessible.
Recommendation 2 - Improving budgeting culture, and this goes back to this repeated supplementation that was forced on departments by unrealistically low estimates of growth.
So we’re recommending it. I hope that the government takes this issue up and an Estimates Committee is established. It is in stark contrast …
Mr Burke: It’s an election promise. What’s wrong with you?
Dr BURNS: 27 years you had to establish one. We’re the only parliament in Australia that doesn’t have one, and I would be proud if this Labor government establishes an Estimates Committee within this parliament.
Recommendation 4 - Agency Record Keeping
This is on page 69.
Mr Burke: interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you will get your chance.
Dr BURNS: Now, Mr Dunham continued to serve as a committee member of this Public Accounts Committee despite the fact that much of the inquiry focussed on his conduct when he was Health Minister in the previous government. He also appeared as a witness before the committee.
In October 2001, I wrote to Mr Dunham asking him to consider his position on the committee during the term of this inquiry, particularly in relation to Standing Order 263 which states:
I will reflect on that a little bit because I reckon the Opposition Leader should have really put the weights on the member for Drysdale and said: ‘Look, I think it is appropriate given these circumstances that you step aside,’ but he did not. It would not happen anywhere else in Australia. So really, you have not learned a lot.
Finally, I would like to comment on the performance, or lack of it, by the former Chief Minister. Once again, I believe the censure motion was entirely justified. Here was a leader with a Treasurer who was firstly reducing the budget estimates in an artificial…
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand the member is speaking to the report which is entirely silent on this matter and he is digressing from the subject.
Madam SPEAKER: I have not heard what the member is saying yet. We will wait until we hear what he says.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I am making a comment on this whole scenario. This is my comment on the scenario. Once again, I believe the censure motion was entirely justified. Here was a leader with a Treasurer who was firstly, reducing the budget estimates in an artificial and deceptive manner; secondly, delivering successive budget blowouts of between $65-70m a year, a Treasurer who included the sale of NT Fleet for $50m in haste and without adequate contemporary analysis.
Here is a leader who also had a Health Minister complicit in the artificial and deceptive reduction of health estimates and, as I have just pointed out, now a Shadow Health Minister and a member with an obvious conflict of interest sitting on a committee determining a matter which intimately concerns him.
He also had an Education Minister who was disinterested and not adequately engaged in his portfolio responsibility.
I believe the Opposition Leader was worthy of censure. Indeed, the current challenge for the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe to be an honest man with a great deal of integrity, is now what to do with his shadow ministers. If he was re-elected, would he keep them in those positions? Would he keep the member for Katherine as Treasurer and keep the member for Drysdale as Health Minister?
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe that a serious misjustice has occurred with regards to not only this report, but the comments from the Chairman.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Just hear me out. Madam Speaker, I simply say that there have been serious allegations laid in a censure motion in this House. I have listened to the Chairman’s report. I have tried to make reference to where that report coincides with the allegations that were made in the censure motion and the actual report. There is no correlation. I am not even mentioned in this report.
The recommendations in this report the opposition would probably cheerfully accept. But the substance of the whole inquiry should logically have led to a reference to the Privileges Committee and that has not occurred.
I ask for some guidance because members have been censured in this parliament, the result of that censure was an inquiry to deliberate on and confirm the censure, and in the recommendations of this report - which I have read very quickly - no such substantiation has occurred.
I believe that the members involved - myself, the former Treasurer and the former Health Minister - have been the subject of a serious misjustice in this parliament.
Madam Speaker, as the leader in this House I ask you to give some ruling as to where we go from here.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to point to an injustice rather than a misjustice. But whether he is mentioned in the final report or not, as Chief Minister of the day the buck stops with him.
The end responsibility was with him as Chief Minister to know what was going on in his budget preparation and, whether he is in there or not, he gets his opportunity later in debate to put these points. But, of course, the ultimate judgement about his correctness in all this was visited on him in the August election.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease for a moment and let me ask the Clerk. It is as I assumed, members. The Leader of the Opposition was the Chief Minister at the time; it’s his government, in a way, that is being looked at, and their actions, in this report. I think we cannot revisit the censure motion; that’s over and done with, that’s already a decision of the parliament. That’s not what we are debating today. We’re debating the PAC report and the Leader of the Opposition will have his chance to reply to the findings as he sees fit, when he has his chance to respond. So I am ruling at the moment that, because the Leader of the Opposition was the leader of government at the time, it is fair that he be cited in the discussion. That is also on the advice of the Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, how, in all honesty, can the Leader of the Opposition leave the shadow Treasurer in his current position after all the damning evidence in this report? Similarly, with the shadow Health minister, particularly after this NT News editorial on his poor performance earlier this week. He must reallocate responsibilities.
In closing, I know I did gallop through some of it, but basically yes, there was a censure motion, but I will repeat what I said earlier: I saw this inquiry as an opportunity to come forward with some positive recommendations for the parliament, and I believe they’re there. There are recommendations for an Estimates Committee; there are recommendations about improving the way the budget figures are presented; there are recommendations about the budgeting culture; and there is a series of very positive recommendations.
I think we should leave the past behind, let’s move on into the future into an Estimates Committee. This inquiry wasn’t about banging people up; it was about coming forward with positive recommendations. Madam Speaker, I think we’ve done that, and I commend this report to honourable members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, gee, I’ve looked forward to today. Today is the opportunity for us to put to bed some of the myths and legends that have been running since this government was elected.
The point I make at the outset is that we have a report here that’s partially irrelevant to the comments that have just been made. We have a report here that’s entirely irrelevant to the censure motion. I suggest, for the edification of other members who may wish to contribute, that we now have the scope to talk about pretty much anything we like in terms of finances because the only way we can put to bed some of the irrelevant comments that were made is by rebutting them in an also irrelevant debate.
I hope members take the opportunity to speak to those issues that have been allowed. For my part, I will speak to the dissenting report, which is a very small, readable document – unfortunately, tucked right up the back of this report and very difficult for people to find. I have made a point for readers, researchers, media and others, that we’ll make this not only available, but we’ll make the two members, Dr Lim and myself, available to speak to anybody who wants some more education on this because some of this is fairly complex.
In fact, in one chapter it was so complex the committee was unable to digest it in turn to prepare this report. I speak now about the Education chapter. The committee had so much evidence in such a complex way that it was of a mind to make a recommendation that the education answers were confusing. They weren’t confusing; they were confusing to the reader. They were quite full. They were quite full.
We could say is that some of the things in here - surprise, surprise - have been written in a very biased fashion that goes to the partiality at least of the government members. That’s understood; I’m not going to whinge about that. That’s how politics works. But what this morning gives me is the opportunity to put the picture in a much fuller light.
At the start, I was pleased that this parliament passed this reference to the PAC. I am a previous Chairman of the PAC. I thought this was an entirely good body to look at it. It was an entirely appropriate thing to look at whether the memo that preceded this was widely supported by the CEOs in the public sector, and have them give evidence to us. I was pleased, too, with the wording of it that enabled us to look at the budget for 2001-02. 2001-02 is the current year. The former government’s financial control over the budget during this year lapsed in about August and it definitely lapsed with the presentation of the so called mini-budget. So essentially we are in a year under review by the PAC where we could ask questions about process.
The previous speaker, the Chairman of the PAC, gave it away a little bit when he said the heart of the matter was to look at the conduct of the ministers. Then he went on to say no, I didn’t want to look backwards; I really wanted to look at how we could make it better. One of the tests for governments, one of the tests for parliament, one of the tests for the PAC, is to say: ‘We have found a problem. We’ve found a sin. Now what we think we should do is describe how that sin, problem, whatever, occurred and look at remediation. Look at action that will fix it’.
This report is silent on that. Not only is it silent on that, but we as a parliament don’t know whether the matters which so offended those opposite that they had to censure three members on this side, we do not know whether those matters are on foot or whether there are contemporary arrangements in the current government. During the censure motion, and during my evidence, I was able to show the budget documents for this financial year, for which we only had a couple of months of control, and they stack about this high - for the interests of Hansard, say 6 or 7 inches. The mini-budget is about half that size, and the critical issue is the capacity to look at the mini-budget.
Mr Henderson: It’s twice as truthful.
Mr DUNHAM: It’s twice as truthful is the interjection.
Mr Henderson: Absolutely.
Mr DUNHAM: The test for truth is whether you can question elements of the mini-budget, have an answer that stands up to scrutiny, and have an answer that is true in fact.
The difficulty we had with the mini-budget was that it was seen as a no-go area, and I believe that that goes to our first recommendation, that the PAC is in contempt of this parliament. The PAC was sent off to do a job and it refused to do that job. It is not the prerogative of the Chairman; it’s not a prerogative of saying: ‘Okay, we’ll put this to a vote. There’s three of us, there’s only two of you and there’s an independent – nah, nah - that’s what we’re going to do’. These terms of reference …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I refer to the standing orders. I refer particularly to …
Mr DUNHAM: I believe this is a stalling technique, Madam Speaker.
Mr KIELY: I refer to the procedural orders of continuing effect, where it says:
Madam Speaker, item 1 of the dissenting report, that the PAC is in contempt, clearly states:
No vote was ever taken in a public hearing, any votes that were ever taken were in deliberative, therefore, Madam Speaker, I say that this first point breaches that particular point that I mention. That is the point of order that he’s raising now and that’s the one that I challenge.
Mr DUNHAM: Unless you write it in a report and debate it in parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk and I discussed this earlier. Clerk, would you like to discuss it again with me?
Standing Order 274 deals with evidence that was taken that should not be reported to the Assembly unless its authorised by the Committee. It is very difficult. We’re in a difficult position because we have just had the report tabled today and we have to refer to it. So I think the member, in speaking to your dissenting report which has been tabled in this House, can refer to matters of deliberative sessions, but be careful that you don’t contravene Standing Order 274 which does say it shouldn’t be disclosed or published by a member unless it has been authorised by the Committee.
It is very difficult because that’s already been tabled and printed, that dissenting report that you are referring to, and perhaps that should have been picked up by the Committee if that was so. At this stage I’ll allow the member to continue but you must do so in accordance with Standing Order 274. You must make your comments very general and not specific. Unfortunately, that report has been printed so we cannot undo that at the moment.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the dissenting report was received I think late yesterday so the Committee didn’t have a chance to….
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t care when, what time or how or when, but if there is something in it that contravenes Standing Orders, it should have been picked up at that stage by members of the Committee or the Secretary of the Committee. But it has been reported as such.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I will adhere to your ruling. I would say that matters have already been raised by the previous speaker where he talked about matters relating to the previous Chief Minister that were discussed also in the Committee and were not voted on.
Nonetheless, it is sufficient to say - and I can understand their difficulty with this - that the terms of reference are public and evident to everybody. My own oral transcript is available in here in one of these documents where you can see that there was a lot of effort to keep this evidence suppressed. That is the evidence about the current year’s budget.
It is interesting that those who held the view that we shouldn’t be looking at the mini-budget can see some confusion in the minds of members. The Chairman asked some questions relating to the mini-budget of the Health Minister, and to add further to this confusion while that was allowed and seemingly kosher, I guess on the basis that she had some expectation of those questions, when we asked some quite reasonable questions of the type you’d expect the minister to be able to answer, she was unable to do so.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): A point of order, Madam Speaker! In these sessions, the conditions under which the Minister for Health and Community Services was to appear were clearly stated. What he is stating here is not how it was said.
Mr Dunham: You’ll get a chance, mate. Stop trying to gag it.
Mr KIELY: No, you’re fabricating. You’re fabricating a myth. You know quite well the instructions under which the minister appeared. They are not those. You are very close to putting misleading information to this Parliament.
Mr Dunham: Give up. You’ll get a chance.
Mr KIELY: Yes, well stick to the truth. Stick to the truth and we’ll all be happy.
Madam SPEAKER: These matters of dispute are matters that occurred in the deliberative sessions or in the committee hearings. I think you need to steer clear of it. You will get your chance to reply. As a member of the committee, you have your chance to bring this up. You are raising points that are disrupting the member’s time to give his answer to the report. I say to the member again: be cautious and aware of Standing Order 274 which says you shouldn’t be quoting things from deliberative sessions. You know that.
Mr DUNHAM: That’s correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I suggest that you write these things down so you can bring them up when you report back.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: You will get a chance. The idea that the modus operandi this gentleman employed of continuously interrupting us and it is in the Parliamentary Record, the PAC records, is a tactic that he is employing again. That tactic is to make noisy, angry interjections and to try and stop other speakers. Now there has been 10 minutes come off the clock and this gentleman has plenty of opportunity to make another comment. It goes, though, to the outlandish statements about openness and honesty and transparency and we let the media in – whoops! Don’t go there.
Now, I think the media would be very interested in these closed sessions. It is all very well to talk about: ‘Well, we brought them in; we have transcribed it; we have all the letters here’. All the letters are not here. One has been abridged. The committee has a letter, a foundation letter, it is a letter that goes to the very core of evidence in Education. We received it in our second last meeting. It was to be included, as I understand it, and has now been abridged from this report. It is a salient letter.
I noted its omission in one of my recommendations, that the committee had several options open to it: the option of saying to this parliament ‘Notwithstanding we received a term of reference to come back to this session of parliament, we cannot do it because we cannot digest this information. This information is too complex for us’.
We had another option and that was not to talk about matters relating to Education which the previous speaker has done. So he has talked about things in the Education area without divulging to this parliament the full evidence, the full contemporary evidence, that is available to the committee.
He had option three and he has used a hybrid of that, which is to say we hold our ground on education and we will have a continuing term of reference on election issues. What he said is that at some future time we will look at it.
The Education evidence is compelling. It is complex and it is hard to digest but nonetheless, it puts a different perspective to that which is held not only by the committee, not only by CEO Bartholomew but by others, and I would suggest that during the course of this debate that memo be tabled because it is critical.
Mr Burke: Where is it?
Mr DUNHAM: I have a copy here. A copy was provided to me. I am interested that, of all the other correspondence that is in these documents, this most critical piece of evidence has been expunged. It has been expunged from the record; the open, wholesome, transparent record of this committee when…
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would refer the member again to Standing Order 274: a member shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless so authorised by the committee. He is waving this thing around!
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he has actually disclosed what is in it.
Mr DUNHAM: I haven’t disclosed what’s in it.
Mr Henderson: You’re getting very close.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I have spoken three times.
Mr DUNHAM: I am pointing out, Madam Speaker, that I have significant evidence….
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The member is speaking.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not going to disclose the 23 pages from Education that I received last week. I am not going to disclose it. What I am going to disclose is the fact that it is not available to this parliament and it is critical to one of the core chapters in here. That is what I am disclosing.
Madam SPEAKER: That is quite legitimate.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member table the document that he is waving around this House.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is quite outside standing orders for a call to be made to table a document that he simply cannot without breaking standing orders and being immediately referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, for the information of…
Mr STIRLING: It is a contempt of the parliamentary process to even move such a motion.
Mr BURKE: The PAC report has been tabled. One member is now waving around documentation which he believes goes to the heart of this report and has been expunged. Now, the members of parliament - this is our report, this is a report to the members of parliament. It is not a report for just two or three people to play around and argue about.
I am the subject of serious allegation. There is a piece of information the member has held up in his hand, referred to in his speech, says it is serious and goes to the heart of the investigation. I move and ask, Madam Speaker, that you have the member table that documentation.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Because it is a document that is covered within the deliberative sessions of the PAC, it is a document that has to be released by the PAC. Second, this document relates to matters raised by the Auditor-General which the committee has the right - and I’ve already flagged it up – to appropriate it into an inquiry. And it all will be made public in terms of the findings of that inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: If I could just…
Mr DUNHAM: I haven’t divulged what was in the letter, but I notice the Chairman has, Madam Speaker. He has divulged the content of it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, are you seeking leave to table it?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I’m in the hands of the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s exactly right.
Mr DUNHAM: I would seek leave to have this parliament allow this letter, which was provided to the Public Accounts Committee to be made available by way of tabling.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, what you need to seek leave to do is to suspend standing orders to allow you to table that document.
Mr DUNHAM: I seek leave to suspend so much of standing orders as would allow me to table a letter addressed to Dr Burns, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which I believe is critical to the matter under discussion.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to table the document. Is leave granted?
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to suspend standing orders. Remember, we have to have an absolute majority to suspend standing orders. So, we need a motion to suspend standing orders.
Leave has not been granted to table the document. The only way you can do it - and remember we have a question before the Chair - is to suspend standing orders to table that document. So you need to move a motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr DUNHAM: I have moved that motion, Madam Speaker.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, we have just witnessed an exact …
Madam SPEAKER: I advise the member for Drysdale that we did stop the clock while the division was on. Can I also clarify that leave was sought to table that document, leave was refused. The motion to move to suspend standing orders was also knocked on the head.
Let’s go back to the fact that you cannot refer to evidence in a deliberative committee meeting. We have had this out now. Let’s not have repeats of it throughout this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I will talk about the circumstance rather than the letter. The circumstance we have is the Public Accounts Committee being tasked with gathering evidence. The Chairman quite proudly proclaimed how they did a trawl through 35 agencies, took copious notes and transcripts and received letters, some of which have been included and one of which has not. That is the point I make.
If we are on an information gathering exercise, surely it is better to get more information than less information. It could well be the committee decides that we put more weight in this evidence - and they have done that - or that letter, and you can discuss it.
What we have been told here is this is a no-go area. We cannot discuss it. It is not on the table; it is evidence that cannot be provided for members, some of whom have a very strong part in this debate. It is therefore a reflection on the entire process of the committee.
I only got to recommendation one, and I think it has been demonstrated to us that the terms of reference that we were charged with, that we were sent out to gather information on the budget, was seriously abridged, and we have just seen a demonstration of it.
The second was that the PAC was biased. That is a terrible thing to say, and I regret to say it. But there is no doubt by anybody that reads the evidence that some witnesses were treated differently from others. I know in my own case, I came fresh and happy to give evidence and was greeted by newscasts saying that Dunham is going to give evidence, it could go to the Privileges Committee and it might end up with him in gaol.
We did not say that of any other witness. There were some comments made that were noted by all witnesses. A question was put to them: ‘Have you heard public commentary on this?’ and they did say yes, they had. We did not want to embarrass them by saying to them: ‘Do you believe that the Chairman of the committee may have indicated to you his mind being made up?’ But impartial commentators from outside would believe that to be the case.
There is other evidence of bias in there, too, but I think anybody who has had a look at this or turned up to a hearing or even sits through this debate will see that that is self evident. The processes are flawed, and this goes to a fairly serious issue of a censure motion in this House. Censure motions allow us a lot of latitude with language. The ex-Chief Minister quite rightly points out that he was a part of that censure motion. He was censured. The debate has been included in its entirety for people who want to have a look at this motion. The words of the Chief Minister in describing him, myself and the member for Katherine are such that it could not be demonstrated in evidence.
What we found was the Chief Minister was using a variety of words that could not be substantiated in the thousands of words of transcript, in the letters and all the rest of it. That is tantamount to a misleading of this House. It is the sort of thing that you take the risk for. You take a risk when you judge and make a call about outcomes, and then you garner evidence, you take the risk that they might not …
Mr Henderson: So Ken Clarke’s a liar?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, there’s been an interjection that Ken Clarke is a liar.
Mr Henderson: That is what you are implying
Mr DUNHAM: It was made. Hansard will bear me out. The Minister for Business has called Ken Clarke a liar, and I would ask him to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I am afraid I did miss that, but if you did say that, you should withdraw it.
Ms Scrymgour: No, he didn’t say…
Mr Dunham: His exact words were: ‘Ken Clarke’s a liar’.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I am asking the Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the honourable member was on his feet saying that the inquiry was not able to prove any of the allegations that were made in the censure debate. Now, the record that has been provided us to this House is full of evidence from Ken Clarke the Under Treasurer which directly contradicts what the Treasurer had said in that debate and outside the House. So the words that I used were: ‘So Ken Clarke is a liar, then?’, then putting the question to the member opposite.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you should phrase a question in that way and I ask you to withdraw it. It is a reflection on the public servant that you’re speaking about and it does use the word ‘liar’ which we don’t accept. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a rhetorical question, but I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr DUNHAM: Withdraw, yes. I am not talking about Ken Clarke. I am talking about the Chief Minister and the words she used which were unable to be proved. She used words in this parliament to describe people, one of whom is her predecessor, the former Chief Minister, and the report is totally silent on that man.
So if you just want to go to the first basic test: were the words used to describe the previous Chief Minister correct? They have not been vindicated in any way by this report. She may well still hold them. She may still not want to apologise. Nonetheless this report cannot substantiate those words and there are some of us who have been involved in the exercise who would believe the words were used wrongly. This goes to the next one:
The PAC’s silence on the matter of Denis Burke means that he should be given an immediate public apology.
The PAC obtained evidence that the Chief Minister either deliberately or ignorantly misled parliament, and
she should make a personal explanation to this effect and tell us why that was so.
We saw many issues where, despite the lack of a necessity for intimate knowledge of budgets, there were many occasions when the committee was fumbling around primarily due to the behaviour of the member for Sanderson and his outlandish behaviour, and I think that that goes to chairmanship of our current Chairman.
Without referring to the letter that parliament does not allow me to refer to, I would say it would be very salient information that goes exactly to this report and should be made available to parliament.
Now, the Chairman was happy to point out that we got fearless advice from our financial advisor. I can tell you that some of the advice that we got from our financial officer related to descriptors of problems and what we could do about recommendations that would fix those problems.
If it is so sinful, the actions that the previous Treasurer employed, one would think that the first recommendation in this report would be: ‘This is a way of abolishing, stopping, outlawing actions of that type’. This does nothing of the kind. There is no way that - even if we found it to be a problem, which we didn’t; even if we found it to be illegal, which we didn’t - we would be able to say this is now verboten. We are not going to go there ever again. The report doesn’t say that.
So the first test of the Public Accounts Committee is to say: define the problem, tell us where it is, and then give us some solution methods, give us some paths where we can remediate this terrible issue. We have been unable to do that as a committee primarily because the problem has not been defined.
The PAC was discriminating the weight of evidence given on differing points of view. Often there were points of view that could be reconciled if you looked at them from a particular perspective. It was seen that that was not the case. It was definitely a wild goose chase, and I think the only geese that were caught were those Labor members that were on the committee. If they believe that they have been able to demonstrate, in these terms of reference, that someone is more credible than someone else, then good on them.
The point is that notwithstanding the trawl through 35 agencies, through extensive interviews and questions, we were unable to find any commentator that had the same point of view as CEO Paul Bartholomew. I will say that again. Thirty five agencies, many witnesses, hundreds of pages of transcript and we were unable to find any commentator who had the same point of view as CEO Paul Bartholomew. That would tell you that if you have a report that is very persuasive about his evidence and very dismissive of other people’s evidence, it goes to the judgement of credibility and bias.
I know there is a school of thought that says if I say anything nasty about this minister, it is through vindictiveness, jealousy, whatever. But even yesterday, we had a question to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Now, this is a very interesting question in the context of our inquiry because the question was - we have three-quarters published budget documents signed Clare Martin down the bottom, Treasurer’s Quarterly Financial Statements for nine months. It is a reasonable thing for political commentators, and we did it in the Public Accounts Committee, this is not an unusual set of mathematical circumstances …
Mr Henderson: I asked you the same question last year.
Mr DUNHAM: Ah! I pick up the interjection: I asked you last year. Yes, he asked us last year because we allowed it. We allowed a debate; we had a debate in this parliament about it. They were matters that were interrogated significantly. That is not an opportunity available to this opposition. That is not an opportunity that we have had. We have not been able to stand up and ask a series of questions of the Minister for Health and Community Services about her budget. Indeed, the only opportunities we have are through Question Time …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The member is misleading the House in terms of responding to the interjection that I asked him the same question at the same time last year and he was saying that the opposition today does not have the opportunity to debate this. Now, they put the question to the minister yesterday in the same way that I put the question to the minister last year. So he cannot stand here and mislead the parliament in saying that they have not had the opportunity to debate this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a very broad statement, member for Drysdale, when you know that you already have questioned the minister on a number of occasions. Perhaps you meant that it was not in a formal …
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, Madam Speaker, if you check Hansard I think you will find I said we haven’t had the same opportunities as those opposite. Yes we have, the PAC, capacities to ask the minister questions and we chose to use that, unsuccessfully as it transpires.
We have Question Time and we have used that, unsuccessfully as it transpires. What this member, in his little, quaint interjection to try and rob me of some of the time, is saying that they are the same. They are not.
We had a full appropriation debate, some hundreds and hundreds of questions were asked. That has not been an opportunity provided to us. Now, the question is: ‘Three-quarters of the way through the year, if you wanted to use the quick and dirty maths that people have used for Mike Reed and others and in the terms of this inquiry, you are sitting here, how much money will you need to get at the end of the year?’ It was put on many occasions during the inquiry that this is a very difficult thing to assess, what the end of the year figure might be.
We asked the minister. Well, if that was a big sin on behalf of the previous Treasurer, if his guesstimate for the end of the year was so bad, and yours was $11m out on the same basis, can you tell us whether there’s going to be cuts, can you tell us whether they will come in on target? ‘They’ll come in on target’.
Now, that is a pretty deficient answer. She talked variously about Victoria and other places, but the issue for governments, whether it was the previous government or this government, is estimating what the end of the financial year figure is going to be. In the case of Health, and in the dissenting report you will find it at page eight, there is some discussion about what the correct figure should be. There are some commentators who believe that if the department said: ‘Look, we think that is the number and you must adhere to it’, that that number is carved in stone. Not the case. Treasury, Cabinet, ministers and others may have a very different view of the world and, in my evidence, I gave reasons why that might be so. In fact, there was a lack of confidence in the CEO, particularly with issues relating to finance and budgets that was given to us in public evidence. So, before people start trying to run my time out with that, the Under Treasurer’s submission to us was very clear on that point. He also gave that in his oral evidence.
So, what is the right figure? The right figure could be anywhere from $432m - which was the appropriation - right through to the current appropriation which is 481. If you look at the Under Treasurer’s financial statements, this year’s budget on pro rata is heading to some $491m. We have nearly $60m difference in the budget over a period of 18 months, two years.
The relativity of the pursuit of $8m when you are looking at plus or minus factors of that scale is a matter for us to talk about here. It is a matter for us to say: ‘Okay, Minister Reed, as Treasurer, had a target $8m below the end of the year actual. This minister has a target that is $34m above’. Now, we think both of those should be looked at: $8m below, which turned out not to be so correct; $34m above or $32m above, we should look at that.
If we go to the various matters that have been brought up by the Public Accounts Committee, there is only one issue: there is Paul Bartholomew’s memo. That is the issue.
The issue in Education, which is a little bit of a no-go area, but if you go to the area of Education you will find …
Mr Kiely: That’s not the issue. You know it’s not the issue. You know it’s not the issue. You know what the issue is! You know what the issue is. You know what it is!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the member for Sanderson has to just plug it for a while. It is very difficult for even me to listen to what the member for Drysdale is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Sanderson knows that constant interjections that stop the flow of the speaker is not on. You have done a fair bit this morning.
Mr DUNHAM: He has been doing it for months, Madam Speaker, and that goes to my question about the Chairmanship. I am glad you are in the Chair, Madam Speaker, because at least it will keep him quiet when he starts to run this interference.
If you go to the other areas - and don’t forget we have trawled right through the public service; we have gone everywhere; left no stone unturned - who agrees with Paul Bartholomew? There were a couple of little glimmers of hope - Education might be similar; Education was reduced by $6m. In evidence, one of the witnesses said:
You must remember that in the evidence given by Mr Clarke, he said that the Treasurer was looking for a way of making the figures ‘more comparable, more accurate’. In the case of Education, he was pretty much spot on. In the case of Police, with the aid of Treasury, again pretty close to the target. He said you would underspend by about $2m and when it was described to Police, they said that is a pretty fair assessment. Now, the issue then is strike out Education for a couple of reasons: first is we can’t fulsomely look at it; second is that the $6m reduction was pretty much spot on. Strike out coppers; do not worry about the police.
The Department of Communication and Information Services: we had some issues there relating to how much was known and how complex it was. It was very complex; there were significant briefings to Cabinet and, at the end of the day, it was best estimates of the day which, I think, were pursued by all the players with proper economic and budgetary rigour.
Department of the Treasury: I think we should continue to look at this area. There were some significant variations in the budget there that seemed not to be of great consequence to the committee, but I think we should continue to look at that area. Then there were another series of figures run in - and the Chairman used this as a quaint little summing up where he said: ‘Well, there is NT Fleet’. Well, technically we could not look at that because it was in the mini-budget. But, we were happy to go there, so we were happy for him to breach that protocol.
The final assumption: that is Professor Percy Allan, who I note - unbeknownst to me - has been included. Professor Percy Allan is among our papers now, though I don’t know why.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: He sits in a proud position in the document. So while in the censure motion I passed a motion, an amendment, seeking to actually include those papers, they now sit within the documents, so there’s some schizophrenia about this. Likewise, matters relating to the Conditions of Service Trust account. They were answered fully and completely.
My time is limited and I regret that because there are many, many issues that could be discussed here that all go to how this Kangaroo Court was cobbled together. It was sent out on a wild goose chase and came back with three geese and they are all government members of the committee.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Norma (Auntie Billie) Pitscheneder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with regret that I advise of the death on Sunday, 19 May 2002, of Norma (Billie) Pitscheneder BEM.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
It came as something of a surprise to me to learn that the woman that I and so many others knew as Auntie Billie actually had a real first name, and that was Norma. I have never heard this remarkable woman referred to as anything other than Auntie Billie.
Auntie Billie had already retired when I came to the Territory. She officially retired in 1983, but it was said that she had as many comebacks as Dame Nellie Melba. As the NT News of yesterday rightly pointed out, Auntie Billie was a tireless community worker and a Territory charity legend.
She was born in Fremantle in Western Australia in 1916 and first came to Darwin in 1941, only to be advised to leave just ahead of the bombing of Darwin. She returned after the war in 1948, taking up various cooking jobs before establishing a successful catering business. In addition to running this business, she began to take on community activities and, particularly, fundraising.
It set a pattern she followed diligently for almost 40 years. Groups she raised funds for included: Darwin Primary School, Country Women’s Association, Red Cross, Lions and Lionesses Association, Pensioner’s Association, Salvation Army and the Girl Guides. Among the beneficiaries of her special fundraising efforts were the Chinese Temple, badly damaged in Cyclone Tracy, and Vietnam Veterans.
Auntie Billie married twice. Her second marriage came relatively late in life and she was devoted to her second husband, Peter. His death in 1977 was a huge blow to her but, if anything, stimulated her fund raising activities. A woman of considerable physical substance, Auntie Billie also had a huge heart. She had a hearty laugh which shook her whole body. That laugh, combined with her apparent knowledge of everyone in Darwin, was among the reasons why Auntie Billie was so universally well liked.
For many years, she was a familiar sight seated at a card table outside what was then the main entrance to Woolworths store on the corner of Smith and Knuckey Streets, where she kept up a constant stream of conversation while relieving passers by - most of whom she knew - of their loose change.
As I mentioned, Auntie Billie officially retired in 1983, but for several more years special fund raising events drew her out of retirement and she would set up her stall again, outside Woolies, usually enjoying the benefits of the airconditioning which spilled out when the doors opened.
The breadth of her charitable activities is best exemplified in the number of life memberships she was awarded. She had life memberships of the Braille Society, the Country Women’s Association, the Legion of Ex-Servicemen and Women, the German Club, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RSPCA.
Auntie Billie was recognised for her charity works with the awarding of the British Empire Medal and the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal. She was also named Northern Territory Citizen of the Year in 1980.
However, it was not just her charitable activities which endeared her to people; it was sundry little kindnesses that she performed. Former colleagues at the ABC reminded me that for many years, Auntie Billie remembered the birth date of ABC television in August 1971, and on the anniversary would religiously deliver a birthday cake to the ABC’s offices in Cavanagh Street.
She also delivered an annual birthday cake to the NT News where the former editor, the late Jim Bowditch, was a favourite of hers. In the process she always, curiously enough, managed to get her photo in the newspaper.
My friend, historian Barbara James, reminded me of a story Auntie Billie told of her first days in tropical Darwin. In need of some appropriate lightweight dresses, she bought a light frock from what was probably the only dress shop in town. Soon afterwards, in her new frock, she was caught in a tropical downpour and had the discomforting experience of having the dress shrink almost immediately. It was a story she often told against herself with a characteristic big laugh.
Madam Speaker, it is often said of Auntie Billie Pitscheneder that she was larger than life. She will be sadly missed by those many people who were privileged to know her, to love her and certainly to all of us who called her Auntie Billie.
Mr REED (Katherine): It is nice to be able to join in this condolence motion, Madam Speaker. It is quite appropriate that this lady be recognised. She typifies, I suppose, the character and the individualism of Territorians.
She was a lady that I first met not long after coming to the Northern Territory in the early 1970s and as I guess many others have experienced, it was at a little table where she was selling raffle tickets for some community based organisation - as the Chief Minister had just alluded to - at Knuckey Street and Smith Street, out the front of Woolworths.
I stopped to buy a raffle ticket and was asked by Auntie Billie where I lived, and I explained to her Katherine, just for a short time, had not been there for very long and her amazing ability to remember people, and to capture them - if you thought that you were going to get past Auntie Billie, especially if you knew her, when she was sitting there selling raffle tickets or lottery tickets, you were very misguided in terms of what the achievement might be because you were going to end up sitting down there writing out some raffle tickets or lottery tickets and contributing to the charity that she so dutifully and so continually supported.
You did not just part with a few dollars and buy a lottery ticket; you also had the opportunity to sit down and have a chat. It would have been in those types of experiences that one would have appreciated that Auntie Billie had a great sense of humour. Also, the number of people that she knew, because there would be very few people who would be walking by who were not captured, just as you had been, to come and buy a ticket.
I daresay that Auntie Billie not only made many friends and acquaintances in that regard, but I know a few people that I met over the years just by sitting having a talk to Auntie Billie. So she was really a meeting place, as it were, in terms of coming to know what the Territory was all about, who some of the people were and, of course, many of the experiences that she’d undertaken and the people that she’d met through the activities that she had undertaken.
I daresay that it was a huge loss for those charitable organisations for which she worked so hard; a lady who demonstrated a high level of devotion and commitment to the community through the charitable work that she did, and that is a big commitment. It is a big commitment when you just think of it, for days on end sitting on a chair at a fold up table out the front of Woolworths to work most of that day, in and out, for the benefit of a charity. I think that’s a great sign of the nature of this lady; her persona and her desire to be able to help the community, which she did over very, very many years.
It is nice, though, looking at that commitment that she gave to the community, to be able to take note of the extent of recognition that she achieved such as the Citizen of the Year and other awards from the community that were conferred on her by the community in due recognition of all that hard work she did.
Over the years, both directly and indirectly, Auntie Billie was one who improved the lot of Territorians either by selling lottery tickets for a community based organisation which duly raised funds to be able to extend their services to the Territory or, more directly, in assisting people herself.
It is very sad to note her passing, but appropriate that we recognise the commitment that she gave to the community of the Northern Territory and the friendship that she extended to those people who she very capably enticed to her table, sold raffle tickets to and, in turn, provided us the opportunity to contribute to the work that she did for the community of the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin. We note her passing with sadness.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Auntie Billie. She is a woman of whom I have many very fond memories.
I knew her quite well from 1970 and spent a good part of a decade being taken into Auntie Billie’s arm as she sat at the card table. Whenever she saw me approaching she would give me one of her enormous smiles and extend one arm and I would duck in under the wing of Auntie Billie and wile away quite some time at the card table with her, watching her chat and talk to many members of our community.
While she was well known for her card table outside Woolies, she was also just as well known for taking that card table and moving it to any school fete, any community function throughout Darwin in those days. She never missed an opportunity to work hard for charity.
Auntie Billie instilled in me an awareness that there is great honour in giving your time to the community and there is even greater honour in being generous of heart and giving of your time. She always had a terrific sense of humour. It could be a stinking hot day - and Auntie Billie was a very large lady - and she’d be sitting there on a stinking hot day in the tropics of Darwin at the card table, hours on end, and she always had that sense of humour; she was always cracking jokes with people. As both the Chief Minister and member for Katherine have pointed out, managed with great success to fleece people of money for the charities who benefitted greatly from her years of tireless work.
I had occasion a couple of years ago to see Auntie Billie at the Salvation Army Nursing Home and commented to her how she was looking trim and terrific. She had lost a substantial amount of weight in her old age and her face lit up as I spoke to her about the fond memories of the times when she was very much in the public eye, daily in the public eye and, as the Chief Minister pointed out, she knew how to work the media as well to bring attention to the charities that she was busy collecting for.
She is very much a part of what many of us refer to as ‘old Darwin’. She was a pillar of old Darwin. It is sad with the passing of the years that we also lose the pillars of that old society. I would like to place on record that the love and generosity she showed to the children of Darwin at the time was certainly very well regarded by all of us.
We all referred to her as Auntie Billie; we all enjoyed our time with her. We ran to her arms. Her arms were always open for us. She taught us a great deal of important aspects in our life which was to give to others, to understand others need your help, to be friendly and open and honest in how you deal with other people, and to have an incredible amount of endurance in your pursuits.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their comments. I now ask that honourable members observe one minute’s silence. I thank honourable members.
Continued from 7 March 2002.
Mr Dunham: Aren’t we continuing with the PAC?
Madam SPEAKER: I presume the Whips have conferred and that we are going to complete Business of the Day, Order No 1, before we were going on to the PAC resumption of debate. There seems to be a bit of a break down in communication here.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): I certainly was not aware of that. I did think we were going on with the PAC. However, we will find the appropriate person.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you adjourn it then, member for Drysdale?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I shall speak shortly to this bill, Madam Speaker.
The First Home Owners scheme is a great scheme, and it has its foundations readily evident for all in the actions of not only the previous government, but the man who has been talked about in terms of the censure motion and the PAC report before this House, and that is the member for Katherine.
I can recall there was some predictability about the downturn in the building industry. I was fortunate enough to have an electorate with a fairly high level of building activity taking place and there was some concern when one did the rounds about the drop off in construction, particularly associated with the Army presence in the north, and a down scaling of quite high levels of building activity.
This government was innovative. In fact, it was innovative to the extent that we beat the Commonwealth to a similar decision it made in a similar area in that we moved quickly to make sure that those Territorians who by dint of being just short of a deposit, had that threshhold decision of whether to build or not absolutely pulling up whether they would build here in the Territory. We had no doubt that many young people wanted to stay here. We had no doubt that our policy of turning off land at the appropriate time was working and we needed to make sure that the trades kept working.
I pay tribute to Mr Reed, the member for Katherine, who was pretty much the sole author of this idea. He took it through Cabinet. We worked out the sums and went for it and, fortuitously, the Commonwealth was like-minded and the two schemes together broke the back of that very important decision for first home buyers, and that is whether one jumps into the business of owning one’s own home.
I think its success was marked, and I congratulate the government for continuing it. It should be stated from the outset, though, that they have merely plagiarised an idea and continued it. That is probably good business and probably good government.
But credit should go where credit is due, and that credit goes to the member for Katherine who took this thing to Cabinet, had the courage to work out the actuarial and other issues attending on it. While it is all very well to talk about other debates in this House, about what those figures should be and how accurate they should be, I think he was spot on with this. I applaud him as the Treasurer for the Northern Territory.
I think his vision was remarkable; his capacity to look at where some of those holes were in the economy and to provide policies that provided a fill-up were good. It is an accolade to this man, that the greatest flattery is emulation. The government, in emulating his policies, is flattering this man’s capabilities and I applaud them for doing that.
Mr REED (Katherine): What, no speakers on such an important thing from the government benches, in terms of putting a roof - or helping Territorians put a roof - over their heads? That is a surprising lack of interest from a government that purports to be so supportive of legislation of this kind.
This legislation, of course, reflects the Commonwealth’s program and is to enable payment by the Territory of the Commonwealth First Home Buyer Grant. I humbly accept the comments made by the previous speaker. It is important that governments are innovative. A bit over a year ago, it was evident that there were people who, whilst they had an intent at some time to move to purchasing their own home, they were holding back from doing so for many reasons. On one of my many trips between Katherine and Darwin, often behind the wheel of a car that I was driving, you would think of different things. On one occasion, I’d been giving some thought to how we might get the home ownership issue on the go, and give people some encouragement to make the decision, make a commitment, buy their own home and end up with a situation where Territorians might be moved to do so.
It was then that it hit upon me that perhaps a grant scheme might be the means of doing that. I had a talk to Treasury in relation to that. I then went and passed it by my colleagues who said: ‘Yes, it’s worth investigating’. Then to the Territory Construction Association in relation to what did they think of the idea? From an industry point of view, did they see value in it? Also, importantly, to find out what level of grant - that is, the financial amount - might be appropriate to make such a scheme work. It was then that we decided on the amount of $5000.
Ironically, the day after an announcement was made that the Territory QuickStart Home Grant would be put in place, the Commonwealth came along with the $14 000 grant. Our grant being $5000, and the Commonwealth maximum grant being $14 000, meant that, unlike anywhere else in Australia, Territorians wanting to proceed to purchase their first home could get up to $19 000 in the form of assistance from the Commonwealth and the Territory governments.
That, of course, is a very substantial grant in a combined sense. It was that fortunate occasion when those two grant programs came together that contributed so much to the success of the Territory’s scheme, QuickStart, and saw so many Territorians take it up.
Whilst that isn’t directly related to this legislation, because of circumstances and the way that it did work together, it is appropriate that those matters be mentioned in relation to my contribution to this debate. Given that there is some relationship between the two schemes, the minister, in response, might explain to us what the level of success has been in relation to the QuickStart II program that the current government put in place, the number of responses that they have had and the number of new homes that will be built as a result of the QuickStart II program. There is a direct relevance in relation to that initial program, the other one the subject of this legislation and what is happening in the field, as it were, in the Northern Territory as far as the number of people taking it up.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this legislation. It is appropriate in terms of a mechanism to administer the First Home Owner Grant and we will be supporting its passage.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members on the whole for their comments. I cannot support the member for Drysdale in singing the praises of the former Treasurer in either policy or practice. Certainly in light of events over the last 12 months, it really casts aspersions on the judgement of the member for Drysdale in singing praises in that way.
Schemes to help first home owners access their first house is something that has our support. In reference to the QuickStart program introduced by the member for Katherine, we have said it was a good program and that is why we as a government introduced QuickStart II. Churlish remarks from the other side are unnecessary. We give praise where it is due. It was a good program, one that certainly gave a stimulus over the Christmas period to Territory construction when we introduced it for a second time.
This is a straightforward bill. It puts in place a Commonwealth program which only goes until the end of next month, but it certainly has given, over time, $14 000 to those who met its criteria. From January 1, $10 000 towards their first home, and once we get past the 30 June it will be back to $7000. Not as much as it was, but it is certainly a real incentive for people looking at building their first home. Madam Speaker, I am glad for the support of this Assembly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read third time.
Continued from earlier this day
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Report of the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with respect to Both the Estimated Outcomes for 2001 and for the Budget 2001-02.
Members will recall the censure motions moved against the former Country Liberal Party Treasurer, the member for Katherine, for deliberately misleading the House in respect of including false information in the Northern Territory 2001-02 budget and that false figures were included in the Northern Territory budget.
On the same day and as part of the same motion, it was moved to censure the former Country Liberal Party Health minister, the member for Drysdale, for being complicit with the member for Katherine for deliberately and knowingly including false information in the 2001-02 budget papers, and for being complicit, in tandem with the former Treasurer, that false figures be included in that same budget.
At that time, 25 October last year, I felt a great sense of betrayal and anger that responsible members of parliament, let alone ministers, would wittingly and knowingly embark on a trail of misinformation to the parliament of the Northern Territory, and more importantly …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! While the censure motion did talk about misinformation to the Assembly, that was not found in the censure motion and it has not been found in the report, and the member should not allude to that.
Madam SPEAKER: The censure motion is actually included in the report and as such, members may refer to it, but I do just caution members that Standing Order 60 refers to the fact that you cannot reflect upon the vote of this parliament.
Mr McADAM: I will continue, Madam Speaker. More importantly, to treat the people of the Northern Territory with contempt in a petty attempt to save their collective political hides.
At this same time, this same party, the Country Liberal Party, was espousing their credentials as good economic managers. Indeed, during the campaign leading up to the 18 August election, it was this message that had a degree of credibility to people in the Barkly and possibly elsewhere in the Territory.
I now wonder what the people will say. I suspect that decent people in the Territory will feel let down and bitterly disappointed, betrayed by the Country Liberal Party who conspired to hoodwink them. Well, those days are over. The people of the Territory have caught the Country Liberal Party out full and proper.
The Country Liberal Party regime of governance was spend, spend and spend - and damn the consequences. In other words, they were born to govern with a silver spoon in their mouth. Well, the old, rusty spoon fell out just like the people of the Northern Territory did with the Country Liberal Party on 18 August last year.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr McADAM: Just listen. You might learn something before the next election on this.
I also recall last year the half-smart comments by the member for Drysdale on ABC Radio referring to committee members on our side of the House as being inexperienced and not having a grasp of the task before us, perhaps even inferring that we were politically nave.
I guess the member for Drysdale was right in part, but also very wrong because we are also representatives of thousands of ordinary Territorians who wanted the truth out in the open. I believe that we have done just that.
During the course of the Public Accounts Committee deliberations, the member for Drysdale wanted two bites of the cherry: one as being a member of the committee, deliberating on his own evidence and most certainly when his own evidence was in direct conflict with other parties’ evidence; and two, the member for Drysdale sought to elaborate on his own evidence during deliberative sessions. No other witness was afforded this treatment.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is talking about deliberative sessions and I believe you’ve already ruled on this. He’s talking about things that took place in deliberative session, and I suggest he desists from doing so.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the members does know that you cannot report on what happened in deliberative sessions, but you can make comments that don’t betray the confidence of that session.
Mr McADAM: I believe I was doing that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be very careful what you’re saying.
Mr McADAM: I’ll continue on, Madam Speaker. And in accordance with recommendation (7), I believe that this matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further clarification.
Another issue of concern to me and, indeed, the committee, were receipts from the sale of NT Fleet being included in the 2001-02 budget. Whilst it is a legitimate inclusion, clearly concerns must be raised that a proper, independent and contemporary analysis of its sale was not carried out. The inclusion of the sale was in haste and the financial benefits may not have been advantageous to the people of the Northern Territory.
In respect of this matter, the member for Katherine needs to explain his analysis for this inclusion as they vary markedly from the position put by the Under Treasurer, Mr Clarke. It is incumbent upon governments of whatever political persuasion to ensure that appropriate, comprehensive and independent evaluations be developed before inclusion in any further budgets.
The other important recommendations and the ramifications of the Public Accounts Committee report have already been discussed, and I am certain will be debated in full today, tomorrow and well into the future.
Previously I referred to the censure motion that gave rise to this inquiry, and I would like to quote from pages 61 and 62 of the report of the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with Respect to Both the Estimated Outcome for 2000-01 and the Budget for 2001-02, Report No. 38. I quote:
Mike Reed, MLA
Mr Dunham: Put it in the recommendations then, mate.
Mr McADAM: Just listen.
…is also of the view that to interfere with the budgetary processes and budget figures in the manner described
are above amounts to improper political manipulation of the budgetary process and a deception on the parliament
and the people.
As Treasurer, Mr Reed also abused the trust put in him by parliament and the people that ministers should be honest
and truthful when delivering budget information to parliament.
It appears that a lack of transparency in budget processes under the previous government largely contributed to the
events that occurred.
Madam Speaker, I now refer you to page 61 in respect of Mr Stephen Dunham MLA, and I quote:
Mr Dunham: Side stepping. Good word for …
Mr McADAM: Listen to this.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to emphasise my view of the process that started this inquiry was fundamentally flawed. The process, as stated in the report, was initiated by a censure motion on 25 October last year against Ministers Reed, Burke and Dunham.
The debate condemned ministers for improper manipulation of the figures presented to the parliament in the previous budget. Certainly, on the face of it, the document presented to parliament - that is, the memo from Mr Bartholomew - appeared to support the assertion that the budgetary figures had been improperly manipulated for political purposes.
At the end of a lively debate, the censure motion was then passed. Following that debate, a motion was passed which set up terms of reference by which the Public Accounts Committee would investigate the accuracy of last year’s budget figures and, logically, if the figures had been improperly manipulated, who was to blame for this manipulation. This process seemed to be equivalent to hanging someone before there was a trial.
Because the PAC is made up of three ALP members - and, naturally, supporters of their own party’s censure motion - it would have been nigh on impossible for those members - if the PAC inquiry found that no one had manipulated the budget figures - to bring down a report which recommended that the censure motion be rescinded. If a similar censure motion is to be brought to parliament to be voted on, then I recommend that it be referred to a parliamentary committee first, and then brought back to parliament for a thorough and reasoned debate based on all the evidence.
Regardless, the PAC was still required to report back to parliament with findings and recommendations relating to the terms of reference it had been given. I support the recommendations of the PAC, but have made a small change to the report on Mr Lugg. I would, though, like to add some other comments about those involved in the improper manipulation of the budget figures.
Mr Reed: I believe that the then Treasurer did deliberately, improperly manipulate the budget figures for the Departments of Health, Education and Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The evidence given by Treasury and the affected departments does not support his evidence that these changes were done to send a signal to departments to tighten their belts. His speech during the censure debate mentioned none of this, and his comments about ‘sending a signal’ appear to have been thought up after the event. There certainly was no written documentation which corroborated his arguments. In fact I believe that Mr Reed’s evidence was deliberately evasive and contradictory, and I refer to the ABC interview with Mr Fred McCue.
There was also no mention in the budget as to why the figures had been adjusted. This, in itself, is compelling evidence, bearing in mind this was the first time figures had been shown for presentation purposes only, and one would have expected some annotation to explain why this was so. The changes only occurred for the three departments that would have been the most politically sensitive budgets, especially around election time, the excuse being: ‘Well, they’re the biggest spending departments’ which in itself was not true.
Mr Dunham: I believe Mr Dunham did not instigate the idea of manipulating the budget, and seemed to be quite surprised when his CEO, Mr Bartholomew, told him about the falsely presented figures. Sadly, I feel Mr Dunham still went along with the scheme. He used the reasoning that the figures were correct. That is, that they were in the budget, therefore that made them correct. But like Mr Reed, there was no mention of the $8m adjustment and the reasons for it in the budget speech. Mr Dunham failed to let the public know the true figures although, in budget terms, he gave the correct ones.
Mr Lugg: Here I believe was someone who believed that it was the CEO’s job to worry about the intricacies of the budget. He seemed to have little concern when told about the possible reduction of $6m in the budget. Although one could say the figures used in his budget speech, which showed an increase in the education budget, were correct, they were not the true figures.
Mr Burke was implicated in this affair through the censure motion. Although one might presume that he knew of the scheme through Cabinet discussions, there is no proof of that. The PAC did not question Mr Burke, and any condemnation would be based on either presumption or a belief that, as head of the party in government, he should have known about everything that was going on in Mr Reed’s Treasury. As Chief Minister, it certainly was his job to make sure his ministers were running their departments in both a professional and ethical manner; but did he know about the deceptive bookkeeping? Who knows? As mentioned in Hansard at that time, he certainly had other pressing legal matters on his mind. As Mr Burke was not called as a witness, in the interests of natural justice, I believe no judgment should be made.
There are a number of other issues that arise from this whole sorry affair. To me, this inquiry highlights the blurred line between politics and ethics. In the case of the manipulated figures, it was a great political move. The Treasurer did not want to spend too much money in the budget, as I believe he knew already that the Territory was deeply in debt. At the same time, he wanted to show the people that the government had still increased spending in a number of key departments.
With the sleight of the hand he took $8m, $6m and $2m away, and with that same hand five minutes later gave it back. A political master stroke. The question is: was it proper? Was it honest? Was it right? Was it ethical? Technically, from an economic rationale perspective, it was right. From a political rationale, it was a great move; nearly good enough to convince people to vote for them again. But from a moral rationale, it was simply untruthful.
One has to ask how can people have faith in their government if they manipulate the books? What example is that to all the struggling small businesses who make sure they declare all their income and do the right thing by the tax department? If it is good enough for the government to cook the books, why not for those who are trying to make an honest living?
What this highlights to me is that governments will do anything for the sake of holding on to power. If that means blurring the truth, then as long as it can be politically justified and victory is the only goal, who cares? One may argue: ‘Well, what will this inquiry do to stop the bending of the rules?’ It won’t do anything because when it comes to the crunch, when it gets to the top of the pile, when it gets to those who have the ultimate power, then it is about ethics, it’s about trust and it’s about responsibility. Those at the top are presumed to do the right thing. They lead by example. They are looked up to, and that’s all it should be. Simply put, what is right or wrong: no blurred edges; just right or wrong.
That is the answer to Point 8 of the Minority Report, and I quote Point 8 of the Minority Report:
The solution is about the honesty of us as politicians.
At this stage. Madam Speaker, I will comment on other aspects of the Minority Report.
1. The PAC is in contempt of Parliament.
The PAC did adhere to its terms of reference. The authors of the Minority Report continually tried to ask questions about the mini-budget which was not the basis of the censure motion, as the censure motion was passed on 25 October 2001, and the budget on 27 November 2001. The defeat of a motion by Mr Dunham to include the mini-budget in the PAC inquiry was further evidence that the mini-budget was not to be discussed. The idea that the PAC was contemptuous of the parliament was a red herring and was used as a diversionary tactic throughout the proceedings.
2. The PAC is biased.
It is difficult to get away from the fact that at times party politics in our system of government can make it difficult to have a good and fair debate. No more clearly was this seen than in the PAC public hearings. The Labor side certainly started off poorly with decidedly ill-chosen public statements that gave the perception of bias. Some of the questioning was at times aggressive to the point of being rude, and I felt at times the fifth floor was running the show, not the PAC.
This line of questioning seemed to do a total reverse when the Minister for Health was called. Her colleagues either shielded her from answering the questions or they asked questions with a built in answer. On the other hand, the CLP team used every possible diversionary tactic to shift the inquiry to the mini-budget instead of the budget we were meant to look at. They were trying to divert attention by attacking the new budget and Percy Allan’s report.
Questions of bias could be levelled at both sides. As for the so called attacks on Mr Dunham’s involvement on the committee being an indication of bias, that is simply not true. Even though there may have been Queen’s Counsel, federal parliament and NT parliamentary officers’ support for his right to stay on the committee, I don’t believe that in the public’s eyes it was seen as the right thing. I felt it defied common sense, but as the parliament appointed him to the PAC there was little that could be done.
I have already addressed that question.
I have spoken of my thoughts on that issue.
I regard that as political rhetoric.
I do not believe the Chairman is incompetent. I have no doubt that there were inappropriate statements by the Chairman at the beginning which could be construed to have shown some bias. But from then on, I believe the Chairman was competent in dealing with what were long and complex hearings. Yes, his line of questioning may have been leading at times, but I don’t think the other side was any better. Dr Burns, I believe, overall did a good job, bearing in mind most of us were not only new to parliament, but the PAC as well.
This section is true, but I don’t think it is necessarily a big issue. I believe that the article referred to in point 7 about some information from Employment, Education and Training was the document that the member for Drysdale was trying to table today, and although I supported the opposition in making that document available, I would have used that moment to tell people that because of its complexity - and they would have been able to see that - we did not have time to analyse that document. It was a fairly complex document which I think we received at our second last meeting and it certainly required a lot more time than we had available. I don’t believe it makes any difference to the report and its inclusion is intended to make it a big fat and impressive minority report.
I have already mentioned that.
One has to make a judgement on the evidence provided. That is not discrimination.
Point 10 is about Minister Aagaard’s statements. I made some comments on that a moment ago. I again say that these questions about the mini-budget were an attempt to throw the dogs off the scent.
I believe that this is another attempt at diversionary tactics. Conspiracy theories are simply that and I don’t believe they were relevant to the inquiry.
This inquiry was not supposed to look at the mini-budget, but it could at another inquiry if members wanted it to. I would rather look at some other important issues which I will highlight later.
Certainly, some language was improper but I believe the Chairman did try to curtail the offender. The Chairman is not a person who would approve of unparliamentary language. There were certainly times when questioning of witnesses was over the top, but I feel the Chairman did rein the offender in towards the latter part of proceedings.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is a good topic of debate but in this report, I don’t believe it needs comment.
Madam Speaker, for me, the hardest part of this inquiry is the requirement to judge my parliamentary colleagues. No one here can say they have never made mistakes. Probably no one can say they haven’t crossed the blurry line of politics and ethics. I’ve not come to the conclusions arrived at out of this inquiry without a lot of thought and concern, but as this parliament appointed me to the PAC, then it is beholden on me to make a judgement to the best of my ability, and I have in general supported the findings of the report.
But is this really end? If you believe the government should do the right thing, should lead the way, and should be principled in carrying out their duties and their responsibilities; if you believe that the only way that people will stop regarding us as bloody mongrel politicians is to show that we will govern without fear or favour, show leadership and run an open and transparent government, then we have to show them that we’re fair dinkum.
I would therefore like to ask this parliament to support an investigation by the PAC into a number of matters which were raised by the Auditor-General in his February report. I know the PAC can recommend to itself any tasks it wishes, but it would be good if parliament supported it as well. The issues raised by the Auditor-General were the inhouse photocopying by the then Leader of the Opposition, the early termination payments to Chief Executive Officers and executive contract officers and the $1.5m Community Benefit Fund that was spent just prior to the last election.
The PAC would come back to the government with findings and recommendations as has been required of this inquiry.
If the government is willing to do this, then it will be a great step forward. If it does not, then it will only prove to the public that this inquiry was political, regardless of how well the investigation was carried out, because the government was not willing to look at those matters which might cause it some embarrassment. When you look at words used in the censure debate like, on the one hand ‘lies, fraud, rubbery, tampering, cooking the books, deception, deceit, manipulation, mislead, dodgy practices’ and, on the other hand, ‘truth, trust, ethical standards, conscience and integrity’, I hope and pray that the government will show that all this rhetoric was more than political flatulence.
Earlier today, I was asked by the media whether I would support matters raised today going to the Privileges Committee. I would only support it if the government said it would look at those matters, that is the matters of the photocopying, the matters of the voluntary redundancy and the matters of the Community Benefit Fund. Otherwise, I believe that this would just be seen as a political witch hunt.
By taking up these issues, the government can show the public that it is an honest, open and transparent government. This is a great opportunity to make some constructive changes which would help restore some public faith in politicians. It will take a brave government to act, but what better time than now?
Madam Speaker, with that, I would like to say a few thank yous, and I hope I don’t miss anyone. I would like to thank Mrs Jane Large who has been a tireless worker throughout these long deliberations. It is because of her that we have a concise set of recommendations drawn from all the meetings and briefings and public hearings that we’ve been through; Mr Terry Hanley for his advice and composure and organisational skills in getting all the documents together and then checking and cross checking the lot; Ms Ros Vogeli, for her long hours of typing the many transcripts, a massive job; and to all the Hansard staff who helped in typing the transcripts as well.
I would also like to thank the Chairman for his work in assisting Mrs Jane Large with the findings and recommendations.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I was a bit out of sync there.
Mr Dunham: It’s been happening for months, mate.
Mr KIELY: I look forward to your contributions during the debate, member for Drysdale.
As the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my colleague the member for Johnston, advised this is the first major public inquiry carried out by the PAC for a considerable time. The inquiry into the accuracy of the budget data published in 2001-02 budget papers with respect to both the estimated outcomes for 2000-01 and the budget for 2001-02 resulted from serious allegations made in a memorandum from the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services to the incoming Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, the Honourable Mrs Jane Aagaard, in September 2001.
Four members of the Public Accounts Committee had previously not had any exposure to such a committee. It has been at times a challenging experience for me. It has also been a learning experience, and I would like to place on record my thanks to other members of the committee for their support through the process. I would also like to acknowledge at the outset the work and support provided by the committee secretariat and the consultant to the inquiry, Mrs Jane Large.
As I said, at times the work was challenging and, for a variety of reasons, at times the relationships between members was strained. Indeed, I believe if one has a quick look at the opposition members’ dissenting report, my observations are easily substantiated. It is to the dissenting report I will now pay a little attention.
With regard to Point 1, the opposition members assert that the PAC did not adhere to the terms of reference set for it. We had many a deliberative session on this subject and sought expert advice and were provided with a number of comprehensive briefing from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
The PAC listened to and acted upon this advice and, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms of reference set out by this parliament. On quite a number of occasions the opposition members tried vainly to inappropriately widen the terms of reference and on each occasion they were unsuccessful. Once again, the opposition tries to muddy the waters with half truths and misinformation. Indeed, if this is not the case, where is the Independent member’s support for this blatantly half truthful and calculatingly wrong statement?
Point 2 is another rewrite of history. I say: have a look at the transcripts. In them you will find the truth. Have a look at the latitude the Chairman gave to all witnesses in their answers; have a look at your own measurements of interchanges between the committee and witnesses. Don’t restrict yourself to qualitative calculations the opposition members have used; have a look at the qualitative percentages; have a look at the actual responses to questions; have a look at the way the member for Katherine avoided answering questions, ably supported by the members for Drysdale and Greatorex; have a look at the latitude provided to the ex-member for Nelson, and the fulsome support provided to him by the members for Drysdale and Greatorex.
If there was any bias, which I contend there was not by the greater number of members of the PAC, then that bias falls squarely on the opposition members’ shoulders.
I will also address the further claim under Point 2 that the member for Drysdale suffered a continuous assault while a committee member of the PAC as a result of his involvement notwithstanding his interpretation of advice from a number of learned sources which he claimed had a precedent for him remaining as a member of the PAC.
I have had a good look at the case he has quoted from as setting a precedent for his continuous presence on the committee. I seek approval to table these documents.
Madam SPEAKER: These documents are not deliberative documents?
Mr KIELY: They are not deliberative, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: What a lovely smoke screen he’s put up. This inquiry was never about pecuniary interests, and we all knew that by its terms of reference. This inquiry was about who fiddled the forward estimates and why.
The member for Drysdale was right in the frame, as a result of the memo from the CEO of the then Territory Health Services. That memo has been quoted so often I need not restate it any further.
Mr Dunham claimed the ruling by the Chair of the Australian Senate Committee of Privileges provided him with a precedent. Good try, member for Drysdale! But you failed to inform the PAC that the case related to a Senator who, as a committee member, participated in questioning a witness against whom he had some litigation. The ruling that the Senate Chair of Privileges made was in relation to the Senator’s ability to be impartial and that the senator was expected to know when to stand down from certain parts of the inquiry.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the matters being referred to come from deliberative session? If so, I wonder if the member has sought your leave to venture there?
Mr KIELY: They do not, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I didn’t think they did. I thought they were fairly generalised comments he was making, not anything specific.
Mr KIELY: These are my own observations, member for Drysdale, observations you should have been able to make yourself.
The big difference between this cited example and the situation the member for Drysdale was placed in was that the senator was never going to be a witness before his own committee and was never going to sit in judgment of his own testament. The senator was never going to be in a position of interrogating another witness on the basis of evidence he himself had given.
If good members don’t believe this happened, let me quote you a typical interchange. This one occurred during questioning by the member for Drysdale to the current Minister for Health and Community Services:
I said:
He said:
This is background …
I said:
Have a look at what you just said there.
He said:
I said:
He said:
Let me say, I certainly concur with witness Dunham; he did do a lot of that. That being he represented his own evidence while in the role of a committee member on a number of occasions.
This circumstance, one where a committee member would also provide evidence as a witness and then sit in judgment of his evidence against others who gave a contrary account of events, is not the same circumstance he cited as his precedent. It is my belief that he understood the situation his action of refusing to stand down from the committee would place him in, and the committee as a whole. He flagged quite early in the process that a dissenting report would be forthcoming and so he full well and actively set about constructing a cunning subterfuge for his own cynical political lifeline.
Members of the Legislative Assembly have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law, particularly where a conflict of interest may be perceived.
Generally, a conflict of interest arises where members of the Legislative Assembly, acting in their official capacity, participate in matters involving their private interests. Clearly, to sit as a committee member on an investigation into your own actions, hear evidence and interrogate others who have participated in the same event, and then to take part in giving your own evidence, providing extra clarification when it is being considered by the committee in the context of other conflicting evidence by other witnesses, and then deliberating on the findings of the report is a conflict of interest.
I contend the member for Drysdale knew this, or should have known this and should have acted ethically by standing down from his duty. I further contend that the opposition benches have enough legally trained members that they should have been forthcoming with their advice to the member for Drysdale to stand aside. I further contend that the Leader of the Opposition should have directed the member for Drysdale to stand aside and he should have appointed a member of his team who had not previously been implicated.
The member for Drysdale stands condemned for his cynical and unethical actions in regard to his participation to sit as judge and jury on his own actions. You know it.
Mr Dunham: Get angry! Do what you used to do in Committee. Wind it up, big fella. Get the red face going. Come on. This is soft. You don’t even believe this. Even you do not believe it. You had a lot more passion in session.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Could I just make comment at this stage, member for Sanderson. The members of the PAC are appointed by this parliament, and it is up to this parliament to decide whether they should be relieved of their duties on that particular committee, but it is also up to the member to decide whether he should withdraw from the committee. So just remember that: they are appointed by the parliament.
Mr KIELY: Moving onto point three, Madam Speaker. The censure motion was not part of the reference to the PAC. The member for Drysdale continually stated to witnesses before the committee, and to the committee members themselves that the PAC was a recommendatory body only. The term ‘valiantly’ is just one more example of the opposition members’ attempts at patronising other members of the committee. The Independent member agrees with all of the findings of the committee except for those outlined in his minority report. This is a far step from what these leaders of deception would have people believe.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity, because it was raised earlier, the reference between the censure motion and the actual PAC inquiry, and I just ask you again because I do believe you were wrong when you ruled before because the censure motion essentially forms the first words of the PAC report, and the whole of the censure debate is fully appended in the PAC report itself. So to suggest somehow that the censure motion has no relevance to the PAC inquiry I believe is quite wrong and I made that point earlier today.
Madam SPEAKER: I have actually discussed that with the Clerk and because the censure motion is actually contained within the report as an appendix, and because in the introduction it also refers to that motion, it is acceptable for members to refer to the censure motion but they should also be mindful of Standing Order 60 which says they should not comment on the decision of that motion. You cannot reflect on that at all. Because it is included in the report, you may refer to it.
Mr KIELY: I am mindful of that, Madam Speaker, and any vexatious points of order are greatly acknowledged. Point 4. All of the CEOs questioned by the committee either advised …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston!
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, I get tired of the back handed smart comments that the member for Sanderson makes, particularly when you have made the ruling, Madam Speaker, on a serious question I raised. The member should withdraw the fact that because a point of order was raised which you considered serious enough that somehow it was vexatious.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member for Sanderson, your remarks do tend to reflect on the decision of the Speaker. I do not know whether you intended it to do so, but I ask you to withdraw those remarks, and when the Speaker makes a ruling, please accept it.
Mr BURKE: Show some respect for the Chair.
Mr KIELY: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I have full respect for the Chair.
As I was saying about point 4, all of the CEOs questioned by the committee either advised that they had discussed the reduction with the relevant minister or, in the case of Police, there was no need to as the minister of Police and the Treasurer, one and the same, and he made the decisions to write down the department’s own estimates.
The committee thoroughly discussed the evidence and while it appears the Leader of the Opposition did not personally know about the proposed deception, he should have. The Opposition Leader should have known what his Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister implemented, and that it was his plan to deceive the people of the Territory by the publishing of fabricated estimates of expenditure in order to show growth in three of the most politically sensitive departments. It was therefore reasonable not to call the Opposition Leader, however it does raise matters outside of the terms of reference, matters which will be better canvassed on the floor of the Chamber.
Point 5. Here we go again. The member for Katherine asked the Under Treasurer for options to show growth in next year’s budget for Health, Police and Education. His problem was that agencies had presented, through their ministers to Cabinet, accurate estimates of expenditure based on the agencies’ knowledge of the current levels of commitment and expenditure. The member for Katherine was provided two choices by the Under Treasurer in order to meet his request: go with the actual estimates provided by the agency and increase next year’s allocation, or falsify the estimates provided by …
Mr DUNHAM: No! A point of order, Madam Speaker! He was not given advice by the Under Treasurer to falsify. That is verballing the Under Treasurer. He was given two pieces of information and he chose one. Both were valid.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you quoting from actual evidence given or are you ad libbing?
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘falsify’. He was given the option of manipulating, of changing the figures from those that were put in by the agencies, of writing them down. The publishing of fabricated estimates - I don’t think that’s anything new to you lot - of expenditure in order to show growth in three of the most politically sensitive departments. It was therefore reasonable not to call the Opposition Leader, however it does raise matters outside of the terms of reference, matters that will be canvassed on the floor of the Chamber.
Point 5. Here we go again.
Mr Burke: What a gutless comment that is. It was reasonable not to call me, but you’ll discuss it on the floor of the Chamber. What a cowardly lot you are.
Mr KIELY: We shall see who laughs last, Leader of the Opposition. Here we go again. I think we have already been there, haven’t we? Okay, so he’s been provided two choices, and we know what those choices were. But, you know, the member for Katherine had a third choice: he could have been honest. I’ll bet that one never occurred to him. He could have been honest and shown no growth and worn the political consequences. That was a third choice open to the member for Katherine. He chose, and this is the nub of it, and directed the Under Treasurer to write down the estimates submitted by the budget teams and the CEOs of Health, Education and Police.
There is no doubt that the member for Katherine unilaterally ordered the falsification of the estimates and there is no doubt that the member for Drysdale knew the estimates had been falsified, and so did the member for Nelson.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The word ‘falsification’ is attributed to the Under Treasurer and the Treasurer. It did not come out in evidence nor is it recorded in here.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, this is all in the evidence. This is all in the evidence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, are you quoting from the report?
Mr KIELY: Not verbatim.
Madam SPEAKER: So you are …
Mr KIELY: I will change the word ‘falsification’. I will look up my thesaurus.
Mr Baldwin: Withdraw it.
Mr KIELY: I haven’t been ordered to withdraw it. Now, point 6. Oh, yes. The opposition shows its true colours and attacks the Chairman. Yes. This point is so pathetic, to argue against it is to give it some form of credibility. Suffice to say it is a good sign post that the sad, bucolic frame of mind of the opposition members.
Point 7. The committee in the course of its inquiry had cause to note and seek further advice on the matter of the treatment of a Cabinet approved increase to the personnel budget of approximately $6m. The information provided by DEET indicates a different treatment of the internal distribution of this allocation to that understood by Treasury. However, it is an aside and should not be considered as unfinished business in the context of the findings of the inquiry and to the overall writing down of the agency’s estimates as presented to Cabinet and Treasury for inclusion in the appropriation speech.
Point 8: the opposition members appear to have difficulty in describing the problem. Let’s get it out in the open. The problem was the direction of the Treasurer to write down, manipulate, otherwise show as not the ones that were put in the estimates provided by Health, Education and Police to reflect growth to the tune of $8m in Health, $6m in Education and $2m in Police in an election year budget. The problem is the member for Drysdale and the ex-member for Nelson went along with it.
The Under Treasurer provides a reason why this was done. That it was done is substantiated by all the CEOs, budget teams and serving ministers at the time including the member for Drysdale. Wrongdoing can be found, illegality can not. There is a convention, however, the public office holders should at all times be truthful in their communication with the public, particularly when charged with the management of the public purse. When people are entrusted with public monies, an issue of ethics, of public trust, is always paramount. As a result of this inquiry, strong recommendations to the government have been made to, in the words of the opposition members, fix the problem.
Finally - the real problem is they all got caught. Point 9: this is another twisting of the truth, a skill practised and highly valued by some members of the opposition. The findings and recommendations are from the majority of PAC members. It is only the opposition members who found it impossible to fairly balance the weight of evidence, particularly evidence given by the Under Treasurer which strongly contradicted the assertion made by the member for Drysdale that he met formally with Treasury officials to discuss the fiddling of the estimates. He did not.
Not even the member for Katherine or the former member for Nelson could remember actually specifically meeting with the member for Drysdale to discuss the issue of the write down of his agency’s end of year estimates. In this matter, the member for Drysdale’s evidence to the committee was tested and found to be highly inaccurate and perhaps somewhat fanciful.
The member for Drysdale’s interpretations of what the CEO of Territory Health Services said has to be called into question when you look at his assertion that the CEO meant ‘target’ when he used the word ‘proposed deception’. To the member…
Mr Dunham: What? That does not even make sense.
Mr KIELY: Yes, well that is what you said. You said that the…
Mr Dunham: Read the sentence out. Nobody understands it.
Mr KIELY: You said that the CEO meant ‘target’ when he used the words ‘proposed deception’ in his memo. It is in there, you read the transcript. To the member for Drysdale, these are not irreconcilable concepts. That is what you said. That is the strangest thing about you, you are coming up with some really weird stuff.
This PAC’s terms of reference were not about whether the concerns of Mr Bartholomew were shared with others. The terms of reference were based on the accuracy of budget data published in the 2001-02 budget. To this end the PAC acquitted itself quite well on its findings.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Points 10 to 14. I found it better to compress all these, this whole lot. Points 10 to 14. Well, the opposition members have really lost the plot here. The ramblings that they put up as a cogent argument is hogwash. The points raised are outside the terms of reference and are therefore rightly not part of this inquiry. In particular, the opposition report seeks to mislead people with its assertions about hiding the cost of domestic electricity tariffs and underfunding HIH liabilities. These are matters that were covered in deliberative session and red herring allegations put forward by the opposition members that were found to be unsubstantiated.
Suffice to say we once again see here elements of the personal, spiteful vendetta waged by the member for Drysdale against the Minister for Health and Community Services. His attacks are now bordering on harassment.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: He should consider starting to do his homework and challenging the minister on points of fact or he should consider seeking counselling to overcome what looks like severe paranoia. It is a great shame that he appears to drag along other gullible members of the CLP team on his quest to prove he is a better man than the minister.
There are other parts of the Dissenting Report that are in the same vein as points 10 to 14. They, too, are the ramblings of a discontented and embittered individual or individuals, whatever the case. Their comments lend nothing to a meaningful debate and will be seen by the public as a shabby attempt to confuse. It is a case of yet another serious cynical charade on the people of the Territory.
Both of these were considered by the PAC and advice sought in deliberative sessions…
Mr Dunham: Which part don’t you understand? What don’t you understand?
Mr KIELY: You should listen to this, I think - it will do you good - instead of sitting there chuckling.
What is of great concern to me is the play made by the Leader of the Opposition in this entire torrid, sorry affair. That he wasn’t part of the conspiracy of silence is clear: he was not informed by the member for Katherine that the estimates he had agreed to in Cabinet were to be changed; he was not informed that the Health CEO made representation to the member for Drysdale that the changing of the estimates was a deception; he was not informed by the then member for Nelson that the Department of Education’s agency estimates had been changed. And why not? Did they not trust him? Was he too busy to be advised? Did he not care what his ministers did in regard to the public purse?
Mr Burke: Why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you call me and ask me questions? You’re cowards, that’s why.
Mr KIELY: It means he wasn’t leading them and he isn’t leading them now.
Mr Burke: Cowards! You should have called me. No sense doing it now.
Mr KIELY: He would similarly have no control if they got back in. The fact that he didn’t know is appalling. What is truly dismaying in all of this turgid affair is that the members who perpetuated this lie - that is, the changing of the Education, Health and Police estimates in a budget year …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr KIELY: … are now the shadow ministers for the same portfolios.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you know you cannot use ‘lie’.
Mr DUNHAM: He has used the word ‘lie’ again and while it might be typed in there, as he goes through his brain should edit it and say: ‘This is a naughty word’. I suggest if he keeps doing it, he’s offending your ruling, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘lie’, thank you. You know you cannot use it.
Mr KIELY: What word?
Madam SPEAKER: ‘Lie’!
Mr DUNHAM: Withdraw the word ‘lie’.
Mr KIELY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I wasn’t calling anyone a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw it.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw. I unreservedly withdraw it.
Mr Burke: Tell them not to write ‘lie’ when they write your speeches for you, Len.
Mr KIELY: This does not auger well for Territory politics, nor does it auger well for the CLP. If the Leader of the Opposition will not act to remove these manipulators and tamperers from these portfolios, the executive and rank and file of the CLP must act. There are others who have not been tainted by this deception, and they must do all in their power to ensure that those who played a part are removed from ever being given the temptation to present a false picture of their fiscal management abilities ever again.
I do not believe it is to any member of the committee’s benefit, or to the benefit of this Assembly to dwell on these matters any further. Rather, acknowledge that they exist and move on. I think that the work of this committee is served best when we focus on the recommendations, and it is to these that I now turn.
Unlike the dissenting report of the opposition members, the actual report from the PAC contains seven recommendations for ensuring a manipulation of estimates as we have seen perpetrated by the CLP can never happen again. The recommendations are far reaching and substantial. I urge the government to consider these recommendations in light of what we have uncovered in the course of this inquiry.
Briefly, the recommendations are: improvement of budget documentation; improvement of budgeting culture; establishing an Estimates Committee; good agency record keeping; adequate evaluation of budgets; estimates of land sales; and the third recommendation is review of conflict of interest in committee. Six of these recommendations deal specifically with budget-related initiatives. Recommendation 7 deals with the matter of addressing a committee member’s conflict of interest. Given the destructive and self-serving nature of the dissenting report by members of the committee who clearly had a conflict of interest, this recommendation might best be considered in isolation and acted upon in the near future.
I believe here on the floor, we’ve seen a classic example of what we’ve had to put up with in the PAC for the last number of …
Dr Lim: That would be right.
Mr KIELY: There you go. There you go. I can honestly say I’m glad that the PAC has finalised its report. I look forward to my ongoing relationship with the other members of the PAC, and I’m sure that under other circumstances, a more bipartisan approach will be effected.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to join this debate on PAC Report No 38. This matter arose following Territory Health CEO Bartholomew’s memo to the Minister for Health and Community Services.
She said that she first met Mr Bartholomew on the 26 August and, it was at that date that he informed her that his health budget was underfunded by $14m. At the hearing with the Minister for Health and Community Services, she advised the committee that at every meeting subsequent to that first meeting, her CEO would discuss underfunding of the budget for 2001-02. While he started his briefing with the $14m shortfall, by the end of the first week of briefings, he had advised her that the underfunding had gone up to $20m. Is this a manager who adds on the run? In one week, the underfunding had gone up by $6m. At this stage, the minister sought a written briefing from her CEO.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex knows full well that those extra sums came from Treasury, not the CEO of Health.
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: What? This came directly from the minister.
Dr Burns: I will demonstrate it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, continue.
Dr LIM: Is this a manager - no, I’ve said that. I will come back to the memo from Mr Bartholomew to his minister later. Let’s now deal with the report chapter by chapter, starting with the simpler issues first. The committee trawled across all departments of the public service and found only five agencies they considered worthy of scrutiny. The rest were in order. As far as the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment was concerned, there was no real issue. The agency allocated a notional figure of $9m as an estimate for land sales. It was a convention using a five year rolling average. The fact that this government used the same notional figure indicates that indeed there was and is no problem.
As for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, the matter was about outsourcing of government IT services. The department advised that it had kept the former Cabinet fully briefed on issues relating to outsourcing and had to wait for Cabinet decisions. The only criticism we had was that DCIS did not develop any benchmarks with which it can provide an ongoing measure of its success in this exercise.
The Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ final expenditure came in very close to the adjusted estimates. In fact, documents tabled by the agency showed that during the last five years, the known carryover of allocation had been approximately $1.5m.
The two agencies which required substantial work from the committee were Education and Health. Where Education was concerned, the CEO himself, like his colleagues in LPE, DCIS and Police, Fire and Emergency Services, was not concerned about the adjustment in his budget. Mr Bartholomew is on his own on this matter. No other CEO was concerned about the adjustments.
In my opinion, the CEO of Education and his officers gave fulsome answers to all the questions posed to them by the committee. The specialist financial advisor to the committee wrote to us, very late in the deliberations of the committee, a memo in relation to the $6m adjustment to the estimates for Education.
The Chairman of the committee and I discussed the memo, and I recommended it be sent to the CEO of Education, asking him to provide the committee with a response. When a thorough response was received from the department, it was clear enough to me that the department had managed the adjustment appropriately. However, some other members of the committee were not able to understand the explanation that was provided. Indeed, instead of putting in advice from the Education with the rest of the documentation provided today so that anyone reading the report and all its attachments can have the chance to analyse the material …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is talking about events within deliberative sessions. Also I would suggest that he is misrepresenting them by saying that other members of the committee did not understand it. I am not going to go into it further, but I fully understood what was going on, and I urge the member for Greatorex to be very cautious in what he says here.
Dr LIM: It is my opinion, Madam …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you understand that you cannot comment on deliberative sessions.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I understand my position. It was my opinion that some members of the committee did not understand the report. They tried to bury it, and they buried it this morning. This morning’s actions by the government buried the document whereas I thought it would be better had people had a chance to read it and make up their minds for themselves.
This dastardly deed committed by the majority of the committee flies in the face of the government’s mantra of open and honest government. People need to ask why the government members are so desperate to bury the documents. In my mind, there was nothing untoward about the document. So much for honest and open government. Government members want to portray that CEO Bartholomew was the only honest whistleblower in the whole public service. That belief impugns the high ethical standards of all members of the public service. All members of the public service who presented evidence to the committee, either in writing, or orally, were and are honest, hard working people.
What should be noted about CEO Bartholomew’s action is that he is on his own in his opinion. No other person believed as he did, and I wonder why. The committee put to the Under Treasurer a question about the Bartholomew memo. The question was:
There is no doubt here that Mr Bartholomew, the CEO of the then Territory Health Services, was on his own - out on a limb, so to speak. The Under Treasurer, in his written response of 22 January 2002 to specific questions from the committee, said this of the figures produced by Territory Health, and I quote again:
What the Under Treasurer was saying is that Health’s figures were suspect and some rigour needed to be put into place. The government portrays that there was wrongdoing in the adjustments to the estimates. In total, the adjustments to the estimates to the three agencies, which were questioned at length, that is the Departments of Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Education and Health, came to only $16m. I repeat: $16m worth of final estimates. The end of year actual expenditure for the whole of the public service came to $26m underspent for that same year. The words of the Under Treasurer were, and I quote:
Dr Burns interjecting.
Wait for it:
Dr Burns interjecting.
Dr LIM: I repeat: the underexpenditure for the year 2000-01 was $26m. Compare that to the adjusted estimates, which were $16m, which was not missing. Not missing. Across the board, in all agencies, there was always an underspend each year. In fact, evidence was provided by Treasury and THS, and I quote:
It was this anomaly that caused the issue. As I said earlier, in Police, Fire and Emergency Services and in Education, the adjustments were fairly accurate. The former Treasurer should be well satisfied that after what the Chairman would describe as a rigorous enquiry by the PAC, he is completely exonerated of any wrong doing. What he did was use his ability to put pressure on THS to contain its ever growing expenditure. I will deal with that in greater detail shortly.
Coming now to the hearings of the Minister for Health and Community Services. I was very particular in my questions to the minister during the PAC hearings. She repeated that at every briefing that she had with her CEO, all he spoke about was the underfunding of his health budget. By that, I take it that she understood that he had a budget shortfall for the year 2001-02. So when the minister asked her CEO for a briefing on the shortfall, one would assume that he would provide details as to where his shortfall will be for this financial year. The minister was also at pains to tell us, at the committee, that she did not prompt her CEO for any particular slant in the information that he should provide.
The minister then described that she was absolutely shocked by the content of the memo, a memo that she also called political; a memo that she received some three weeks after she expressed her desire to her CEO to provide her with a written briefing. Three weeks. It was a memo that both the minister and the CEO thought was very important but was also described by the CEO as a confidential memo from him to his minister. The minister was shocked. ‘It was an absolute shock,’ she said ‘when I received it on 27 September’. Those were her exact words.
On receiving the memo the minister took it through what she called, and I quote: ‘Due process’. She said that 27 times in fact and when asked to describe what she meant so that we could all be on the same understanding of her words ‘due process’ she described it thus:
Mind you, the minister’s due process did not include her testing the document she received from her CEO which absolutely shocked her, nor did she test it with her CEO, nor did she test it with the then Under Treasurer. We heard earlier that no official Treasury explanation was requested. These were the two people most critical to her and her understanding of the problems associated with the budget. Yet she failed to test the document. She did not question her CEO about the content. Instead, she took it through due process and tabled it in parliament during her response to the question from the member for Sanderson who, according to the minister, did not know anything about the memo until it was tabled.
Now I find it curious that three days after she received the memo from her CEO, the minister received a copy of the annual report for Territory Health Services. Included in it was a transmitted letter which stated in part that there was:
and further it also stated:
So let me repeat the points I have made here. The CEO was satisfied with his end of year expenditure and signed off on the 2000-01 budget in his annual report. He had been briefing his minister on the budget shortfalls for 2001-02. The minister told us they never discussed the 2000-01 budget yet, for some inexplicable reason, the CEO wrote a memo pertaining to the budget he never discussed with his minister, a memo that he considered was a confidential memo from him to her.
The minister then decided that she would not discuss the memo with her CEO despite the fact that she felt it was a shocking and political document. Instead, she chose to use due process in consultation with her Chief Minister and her Cabinet colleagues. Is it a wonder that any bystander would look at this sequence of events suspiciously and believe that there might have been some collusion and conspiracy in this?
When I tried to clear my doubts with the minister, I could hardly get her to respond to my questions directly. I did not ask that many questions of the minister but of those that I asked, on 39 separate occasions, government members answered or ran interference for the minister by way of fulsome interjections.
The Chairman was as poorly behaved as his colleague, the member for Sanderson. All anyone has to do is to go to the transcripts of the hearings which we all received today and find out for themselves. The whole process conducted by a biased Chairman was a mockery of any fair minded inquiry. As the member for Nelson often said, this is a case of a government judging as guilty the members for Brennan, Katherine and Drysdale through a censure motion, then sending the Public Accounts Committee to find the evidence. I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this not a travesty of justice?
That the Chairman was biased is irrefutable in any fair minded person’s mind. When I wanted the matter of the Chairman’s bias to be objectively examined by the independent Privileges Committee, I was prevented from doing so. There was much evidence that could not be put to parliament as some of that evidence was from deliberative sessions of the committee. But the Privileges Committee could have obtained that information for itself and considered it in camera, but that was not to be.
Now, coming to the right of the former Treasurer to use his authority to put pressure on THS. The member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale, in evidence to the committee, explained that the estimates adjustments for Territory Health Services was to send a message to the department that their funding was under scrutiny. The government members mistakingly continued to believe that the motive for the $8m adjustment to Health was to juggle the end of year estimates. No, it was not.
The adjustment was to send a signal to the department that it could not operate under the premise that their starting point for 2001-02 would be the final expenditure for the previous year. The signal was sent to remind Health that their budget figure for 2001-02 was under pressure. ‘Did the message get through?’, I asked. Not one witness claimed that the message was not heard loud and clear. All that was said by the public service witnesses was that, as far as they were concerned, they were allowed to spend the 2000-01 budget to allocation. That response is not the same as: ‘No, we don’t believe that we were under pressure for 2001-02 budget’. Be that as it may, the message, as desired by the member for Katherine and supported in evidence by the member for Drysdale, was indeed heard.
A memo was sent by the then Acting Assistant Secretary (Business and Organisational Support) to her senior managers regarding budget restrictions on 30 May 2001 withdrawing delegations. While that direction was withdrawn the next day, the e-mail of 30 May 2001, I suggest to you, went right through the whole of THS. The fact that it was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure what particular standing order applies but when the member makes allegations which are patently false - I have the document here to prove it; I will table it. I will table this document …
Mr Dunham: Do it in debate; it’s a debate.
Mr KIELY: Well, you can’t just go making these false accusations that you know are false.
Dr Lim: I hope the clock’s on hold.
Mr Dunham: You’ve been doing it all through your contribution. Do it in debate.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, we have just heard the member for Sanderson at length making the most scurrilous comments and quoting from his own imagination rather than from any transcript. I simply say that the same rules should be afforded to the member for Greatorex. The rules have already been set by the member for Sanderson.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. We have had far reaching comments and allegations made by both sides in this debate and, as long as people have made sure that they have kept well away from the deliberative …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I have been here in this Chamber long enough to understand standing orders, and I am abiding very tightly by them.
The fact that it was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message: staff of THS were advised and were to be greatly concerned about the adjustment notwithstanding that the CEO knew his department could spend to allocation …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have a document that specifically refutes that claim. I wish to table it.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, that is not the right time …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, perhaps you can do that at the end of this speech. You can ask for an explanation.
Mr Dunham: Yes, because there are some people who might not agree, and then we have debate. So let’s do it like this.
Madam SPEAKER: You’re not in debate now.
Mr Dunham: That’s right!
Mr Kiely: A little bit of truth wouldn’t hurt.
Mr DUNHAM: That interjection, Madam Speaker, is just offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: I didn’t hear it, unfortunately.
Mr DUNHAM: I think he said: ‘A little bit of truth wouldn’t hurt’. It should be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, why do you do this; get yourself into such fixes? You know your off-the-cuff comments are completely out of order. Now, withdraw that.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I am losing time here. The fact that this e-mail was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message: staff of THS were advised and were to be greatly concerned about the adjustment notwithstanding that the CEO knew that his department could spend to allocation. The message from the then Treasurer got through to the people whom he wanted it to affect, the cost generators within the department and undoubtedly, it would have modified behaviour.
When you turn to the findings and recommendations of the report, a quick read will tell you that there is no bearing between the findings and the recommendations. The findings of the majority report were poor attempts by government members to take a swipe at the former ministers. I repeat: no wrong doing was found. It was entirely silent on the former Chief Minister. Not one word was written about the member for Brennan. There was no issue in the committee about the Leader of the Opposition. For the Chairman to then raise it in his tabling speech is nothing but absolutely cowardly.
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Greatorex to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: As for the former Treasurer, in the words of the PAC report, it said and I quote:
Hence, there is no wrong doing by the former Treasurer. With accrual accounting, a new set of rules will have to be introduced and this will be the outcome of the current review of the Financial Management Act. It is here that I am interested to see if, under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, this government will practice what its PAC members preach. There are already concerns expressed that there are holes in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which will allow the government to hide its budget figures.
Readers should ask what documents have not been included in the report. I suggest that those documents which add some weight to government members’ arguments have been included but those that may be critical have been suppressed - another example of how this open and honest government is misbehaving. The Chairman of the committee, in his tabling speech, spoke disparagingly about the former Minister for Education. My findings refute the Chairman’s words. As expected, his words were included in the report but mine were not. The Chairman reported that:
So is the Minister for Health and Community Services, Mrs Aagaard. He also reported:
So is the Minister for Health and Community Services, Mrs Aagaard. And finally, the Chairman said:
I could say here just as easily, and more accurately that the Minister for Health and Community Services did not fully understand or actively question the nature of the Bartholomew memo.
I said earlier that the findings showed no relationship to the recommendations. The findings have indeed exonerated the former Chief Minister, the former Treasurer, the former Minister for Health, and the former Minister for Education. Anyone reading the recommendations will see that. If the committee did have serious findings, it would have made recommendations that address these findings. They did not do so. The committee, in Recommendation 1, sought better documentation and annotation of budget figures. I do not have a problem with that.
Recommendation 2 says that there should be an improvement in the budget culture. This is based entirely on whether one accepts the concept that at the start of the budget year, allocations should be tightly confined and any further growth had to be justified to Cabinet on a case by case basis, or whether an allocation to be made with fat built in, and the departments are not to return to government for further allocation. Either method is possible and correct, and the right to judge which is better to use is within the province of government.
Recommendation 3: to establish an Estimates Committee was the Labor government’s pre-election promise and is proposed as a Private Member’s Bill of this House. It would have been untenable for the government members of the committee not to include this recommendation.
I look forward to the implementation of Recommendations 4 and 5, and promise that I will be keeping a close watch on how keenly the government will take them on board.
As for Recommendation 6, that the notional figures for land sales are best estimates by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Development. They are the experts and any advice that I can give on my own or as part of the committee would be at best gratuitous.
My colleague, the member for Drysdale, has spoken at length about Recommendation 7, and I support his position. As much as the member for Sanderson is determined to develop his reputation of being the spoiler in this Chamber, he fails to make any case against the member for Drysdale. The PAC report does little to progress the operations of this parliament. Its biased Chairman and the unbalanced portrayal of information, burying what is not in favour of the government’s position mocks the whole committee process.
The government stands accused of:
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Assembly with a ministerial statement on the achievements and opportunities of the primary industry sector of the Northern Territory.
The estimated gross value of production of the Northern Territory’s primary and fishing industries for the year 2000 was $439m, a 4.5% increase on 1999. Early figures for 2001 show that the industry has grown even further by 6% to approximately $466m.
Primary industry is the third largest industry in the Territory behind mining and tourism. Direct employment in the primary and fishing industries is estimated at 5600 people. The industry also provides significant indirect employment in the transport and support industries and is a major employer in the rural areas of the Territory.
Today I will speak on the achievements and opportunities in the primary industry sector, namely the pastoral, agricultural and horticultural industries. I would like to address the achievements and potential opportunities of the commercial and recreational fishing industries in a separate statement to this Assembly at a later date.
While so much debate in this House and throughout the Northern Territory recently has been focussed on Timor Sea gas, primary industry forms an integral part of the government’s economic development strategy. The economic development strategy will be released in the next month and has been produced in partnership with all industry sectors. It will lay the ground for planned and sustained growth in all of our vital industry sectors such as primary industries. Today I will provide some specifics on the key strategic approaches within the economic development strategy that applies to primary industry.
Regional economic growth is vital not only for the economic future of the Territory, but it is also vital to ensure better social outcomes in our regional centres. The government will work with the primary industry sectors to ensure we capitalise on the potential before us.
Through time, the industries have consolidated and grown with the close support of my department. The estimated gross value of production of the pastoral industry in the year 2000 was $190m, up from $109m in 1988. The estimated gross value of production of horticulture was $92m, up $17m in 1988. Through consultation and in partnership with the industry sectors, we will continue, if not accelerate, this growth into the future.
After being allocated this portfolio, I was staggered by the previous government’s lack of sectoral development plans for the individual industry sectors. The Martin government is committed to working in partnership with business and industry to drive our economic development. A key strategy is to encourage all stakeholders to work in partnership to create a framework of investment certainty for developing the Territory’s primary industry potential.
We are consulting with industry in order to develop industry sectoral development plans that ensure the resources of my department are focussed on priority area needs for future development. My department is busy working with the industry sectors in developing these industry development plans. These plans will allow government and industry to move forward and to understand and exploit the competitive advantages we have here in the Territory.
Collectively, these industry development plans will form a framework for the future direction of primary industry in the Territory. The government is taking a strategic approach to consulting and working with the industry sectors. We are forming partnership groups with industry peak bodies to formalise communication between government and industry. I have been delighted by the response from industry to this approach. The partnership approach will allow the industries themselves to be united.
Today I also want to focus on the opportunities for increased involvement in primary production by the indigenous communities of the Territory, and to increase production on Aboriginal land. One of the key priorities to come out of the Economic Development Summit last year was the importance of the indigenous community in our collective economic development. The indigenous community expressed a real desire for their communities and their lands to be included in the economic development strategies of the Northern Territory.
A quick flick through previous statements made in this House on primary industry showed that virtually the only reference to the indigenous community was in relation to how land rights issues were holding up the development of the primary industries. Whether land is under pastoral lease, freehold title or native title, the potential of production on that land is not affected. In much the same way that this government has been able to open up vast tracts of land for exploration, we intend to work with indigenous people in our community to realise the opportunities to increase primary production on Aboriginal land.
This government will not use Aboriginal land ownership issues as an excuse for inaction as the previous government did, but will work with the indigenous community in order to develop real opportunities. The government will work with land councils to develop collaborative programs with Aboriginal land owners. These collaborative programs will aim to increase the value of production, increase opportunities for employment and increase returns to Aboriginal people from primary production on Aboriginal land. There is perhaps no other industry with such potential for indigenous involvement. It will be ignored no longer.
There are two sides to growth: increasing supply and increasing demand. Whilst there are numerous opportunities for increases in production and increases in quality, there is little point unless there is a market to absorb such an increase. Key to this, my department is developing an international trade strategy that will include sectoral trade strategies. Primary industry trade development proposals include: strengthening of existing and encouragement of new freight services; utilising government links to further expand international air services to and from the Northern Territory for air freight cargo; identifying, promoting and facilitating new infrastructure and venture investment opportunities to provide a more competitive position for Territory exporters; assisting with the strategic targetting of key international source markets and identification of new and emerging markets; government assistance to producers through the provision of timely export information, market entry assistance and facilitation of two-way freight trials; tailoring enterprise export development initiatives to assist the strengthening and internationalisation of agribusiness enterprises; coordinating the development of export trade skills through the use of targetted training and education programs; continuing to evaluate performance of key international source markets and identify opportunities for new and emerging markets; identifying and developing export action initiatives for export of agricultural-related services with a focus on markets and opportunities complementary to the Northern Territory; and incorporating trade strategies into individual sectoral development strategies.
I will now turn to some of the individual primary industry sectors. The Northern Territory cattle herd has increased from approximately 1.3m 10 years ago to approximately 1.6m today. It is predicted to increase to 1.8m in the next five years. My department’s extension and research officers will continue to work with the industry to promote and refine breeding herd efficiency programs.
Research conducted by my department in collaboration with industry at Mt Sanford on Victoria River Downs Station has demonstrated that cattle numbers and production can be sustainably increased by providing more watering points and fencing. This results in more even herd distribution, better spread of grazing and prevents concentrations of cattle at water points. Heytesbury Pastoral Company will now extend this research to conduct a full scale commercial trial on Pigeon Hole Station.
This work is relevant to more intensive development of pastoral properties on the VRD, Sturt Plateau and Barkly Tablelands, and this government does acknowledge and appreciate the great contribution that the cattle industry makes to the Northern Territory economy.
I spoke earlier of the priority this government places on increasing the involvement of the indigenous community in our rural and primary industries. Cattle production stands out as an area of obvious potential. Officers of my department are working in close collaboration with the Indigenous Land Corporation to bring Aboriginal properties back into production. The concept of using the expertise of the existing industry to develop cattle production projects on Aboriginal land through short-term leases is being progressed with the land councils and the Cattlemen’s Association.
The leases provide immediate return to Aboriginal land owners and give them the option at the end of the lease of either renewing, joint venturing or running the project themselves. Other projects are aimed at developing Aboriginal pastoral enterprises and these include the Oenpelli Flood Plains and the Roper Valley. The training program for increasing involvement of Aboriginal people in the pastoral industry will be developed in parallel with this. Assistance has been provided to the Jawoyn Association to investigate agricultural and pastoral opportunities on Jawoyn land.
The Territory buffalo industry is also healthy but with a shortage of supply. The live export market to Brunei dominates the trade with over 2500 buffalo exported last year, and similar numbers expected this year.
The camel industry, after struggling for many years, is now starting to make progress. Live camel exports are anticipated to reach 5000 head in the period 2002-03 with Malaysia being the largest market. Regular live exports are occurring to Brunei and Malaysia with a successful trial shipment to Jordan in the Middle East. Repeat orders are expected from Jordan, and the first trial shipment to Thailand is pending. Currently my department’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs is used as a depot for receiving and consigning camel shipments.
Feral harvesting of camels for live export is viable, estimated to be worth approximately $2.5m this year and anticipated to double in the period 2002-03. By comparison, the cost of feral animal culling programs would be in excess of $5m. An abattoir in Queensland has started purchasing camels from Central Australia for export to Europe, and certainly there is significant interest in Central Australia for the establishment of an abattoir.
Turning now to the horticulture industry which has gone through a period of very rapid growth over the last decade, the industry is now poised to be a major employer and export income earner for the Territory. The government’s strategy is to encourage horticulture industry development through management of knowledge, improved industry skills, and land, water and infrastructure availability.
The Northern Territory government has committed $2m to capital infrastructure to support the development of an export oriented horticulture industry. The advice I have received is that packaging and cold storage facilities in the Darwin region are being effectively addressed by private enterprise. I am seeking advice from industry on what other export oriented facilities are critical to the future industry development in the Darwin, Katherine and other regions. This $2m is a commitment to facilitate further development of supply chains that will include storage, processing, freight and handling.
The breakdown of the former Horticultural Advisory Committee was symbolic of the failure of the previous government to properly consult with industry. My department is preparing a proposal for a partnership group with the responsibility to coordinate industry and departmental programs. The industry scenario I referred to earlier, in the case of the horticultural industry, will be supported by development plans for individual sectors. Joint programs between industry and my department will implement these plans.
An agreement to coordinate research, extension, training and industry development between the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, the Northern Territory University, my department and the Northern Territory Horticultural Industry has been prepared. This is aimed at positioning the Northern Territory as a centre of excellence in tropical horticulture with ramifications for research, higher education, industry development and industry training. It is proposed that the agreement will be signed in July together with the opening of the new CSIRO controlled environment laboratory at McMillans Road. The Northern Territory government has contributed $1m to the development of this laboratory.
The mango industry with probably close to a million trees in the ground produced some $36m worth of product in 2000-01 from approximately 1.6 million trays, with less than 50% of trees at production age. My department advises that productivity levels, as an industry average, are less than 50% of what they should be and significantly lower than the industry best. Increased profitability through improved productivity, management of production, and through chain quality, together with consolidation of existing markets and development of new markets including both export markets and markets for produce other than fresh fruit, are essential if the industry is to achieve its full potential.
The current industry has the ability to put between 5 and 10 million trays in the market in the next five years but, if productivity and quality through chain management and market development are not addressed, the industry will suffer. The workforce needed during the harvesting period will be critical, with some industry estimates projecting the need for between 8000 and 10 000 seasonal workers during the harvest season.
I am pleased to advise that the mango industry is starting to develop an effective organisation to target and plan for the needs of their industry. My department has seconded an officer to the industry, as an industry development officer, and it has doubled the number of staff in its extension group. For its part, the industry has voted to accept a national levy and, in the interim, is seeking to collect a voluntary Northern Territory levy to fund industry development priorities.
Training and extension programs are being jointly developed by the industry, my department and the Northern Territory University. A total of 11 workshops, seminars and field training days have been developed for delivery in both Darwin and Katherine. Subjects to be covered include: nutrition, canopy management, and other production issues. The first of these workshops was held on 26 April to cover the area of integrated pest management.
Six new varieties of ornamental gingers have been developed by my department through breeding work and released to industry for appraisal under protection of provisional Plant Breeders Rights. This follows on from the successful release of the Darwin collection of gingers to the cut flowers industry some nine years ago, and the release of Federation Lady as the Centenary of Federation floral emblem for the Territory.
I would also like to make particular mention of Territory horticulturist Ben Hoffman, last year’s Livewire winner. I had the pleasure of visiting Ben’s premises in the rural area last month when I launched the 2002 Shell Livewire program. It is clear that Ben’s doing very well in this cut flower business - so well, in fact, that he was flying out the following week to visit London to open up new markets for his business over there. He is an example of a Territory exporter with a can-do attitude making real inroads in a competitive international market.
A collaborative program has been implemented with the Asian vegetable sector, and the sector is continuing to develop strongly. Work is continuing on integrated pest management. A poster showing the main diseases of Asian vegetables has been developed. This will assist industry to correctly identify diseases and will provide information on their management. My department will work with the Department of Ethnic Affairs to help distribute this information in the appropriate languages.
Talking about bananas now, the purpose built Banana Quarantine Station at Coastal Plains has attracted significant interest within Australia and overseas. There is already a clear indication of resistance and susceptibility across the 14 banana varieties tested. Related to this area of research, an Honours student is being jointly funded by CSIRO and my department to investigate aspects of Panama Disease in bananas.
A major program of research is continuing on table grape production at Ti Tree. Management of crop water use, salinity problems caused by over or under irrigation and nutrition levels in grape vines is underway. With industry support, two outbreaks of Queensland Fruit Fly have been detected and eradicated from the Ti Tree area.
Another important initiative that my department is involved with is the work it is doing with the Power and Water Authority to examine a proposal to pipe treated effluent to facilitate commercial horticulture development on land near Alice Springs including an area held by the Northern Territory Airports Corporation. Treated effluent from the Alice Springs sewerage ponds is an unutilised resource which has potential to irrigate more than 100 hectares of horticultural crop.
The grape industry is also expanding in Alice Springs, with some 40 hectares currently under development at Undoolya. My department is working with the Central Land Council to establish an entity called Centrefarm, aimed at promoting commercial scale horticulture development at a number of different sites in Central Australia. It is intended that the development will be market driven, supported by the commercial horticulture industry and provide a return to Aboriginal land owners. Training programs for Aboriginal people will provide opportunity for employment in the industries.
Developments in the peanut industry are also very exciting with the Peanut Company of Australia making a significant establishment in the Katherine region. Their purchase of Hickey’s Farm in Katherine demonstrates their commitment to production in the Territory. My department’s research programs, including commercial scale research in peanuts and sesame, are producing results. The first trial shipment of sesame has been sent to Japan. The presence of the Peanut Company of Australia will bring to the Territory a significant commercial industry partner with knowhow and established markets. I look forward to advising the Assembly of further developments in this area later this year.
Maintaining market access is a key function of our animal and agricultural export program. Since becoming minister for primary industry, I have been amazed at the number and variety of pests and diseases that we are constantly on the lookout for. My department does a great job in this difficult and very important area.
I am pleased to advise that the Northern Territory is a signatory to the National Agreement on Cost Sharing for Exotic Animal Disease which addresses disease response mechanisms and cost sharing for some 63 potentially significant diseases of livestock.
Foot and Mouth Disease and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or Mad Cow Disease are two diseases of immediate concern. The government is working with the Commonwealth and the other states and territories to ensure that the whole country is ready to act as one if an outbreak should occur. In the Northern Territory, government agencies and industry are prepared to meet any outbreaks of these diseases and a lot of work has been done in this area.
The horticulture industry is also susceptible to disease and pests. I spoke earlier of moves we have made to support the banana industry following the problems they have encountered in recent years. In the last month, an outbreak of Potato Spindle Tuber Virus has affected several tomato growers. The disease outbreak is being eradicated by the department to ensure that it is contained.
The government is working with the Commonwealth and other states, along with industry, to make sure that better support structures exist for producers affected by diseases or pests. The government continues to maintain its vigilant approach to pests and disease and maintains strong international and interstate quarantine protection by recognising standards and improving surveillance and quarantine measures.
I am pleased to report to this Assembly that the Northern Territory’s primary industries are healthy and growing. There are several emerging and potentially developing industries that I have not been able to mention in detail today, such as rambutans and dragon fruit. This is perhaps a good illustration of how vibrant and varied the growth in primary industries in the Territory has become. Continued growth in the economies of our Asian neighbours and their increasing affluence will lead to a growing demand for quality food which few countries to the north of us have the capacity to supply.
The Northern Territory is ideally situated to take advantage of niche market opportunities where our comparative advantages make us efficient and effective competitors. Our comparative advantage includes our proximity to Asia, including both north and Southeast Asia, our ability to produce a range of temperate to tropical quality products, our ability to produce out of season to the southern Australian suppliers, our ability to produce counter seasonal to the Northern hemisphere, and our relatively disease free environment.
Our industries exporting to domestic markets target high value niche opportunities where we can supply tropical produce, produce out of season and quality and disease free produce which attract a premium.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our opportunities are immense. I look forward to continuing working with the various primary industries to develop these opportunities further. I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing in this statement to the Assembly today. It’s a very succinct statement on the current status of a lot of the primary industry sectors and it is great to have an update such as this. It is obviously not the first statement in this House on primary industries. There have been numerous statements over the years - and so there should be. It is a very important section in our economy in the Northern Territory. In fact, it is pertinent to the development of the Territory over its history. As stated in the statement, it is the third largest sector in terms of our economy in the Northern Territory with a vast number of employees that rely on that sector for their futures.
I note that there will be a fishing statement coming up later on some time. I look forward to that. That will be very interesting, particularly in light of the world fishing conference that is going on at the moment and what can be derived out of that in terms of what’s happening elsewhere in the world. Obviously you will be bringing in something to do with the 10 year strategy that we have been looking for for a long time and it will be great to see progress on that. Likewise the economic development strategy that you have mentioned. It will be very interesting to see what the primary industry sector has prioritised in that development strategy.
The minister makes a fair bit of comment, apart from the succinct work the department is doing, a fair bit of comment on the lack of partnership arrangements that have been in place. I can only say that through my own personal experience in a few sectors of this industry - and certainly during my time as a member of this House - there has been a very strong partnership and relationship between government through the departments, through the many agencies, the department of the day and all the sectors of agriculture in the Northern Territory.
The minister mentions somewhere in his statement the fact that we have a very healthy agricultural area in terms of pastoral and horticultural sectors, the mango sector, the cut flowers and all of the things that have been mentioned in here, grapes and peanuts and so on. The fact that we have a very healthy economy in that area speaks loud words for the work that the previous government, through its agencies - those very hard working agencies, many of which are involved across all of these sectors, whether they are Department of Lands or Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in the old days and those sorts of areas - have achieved with all of the people that work in these private sector areas. It is because of that hard work that we have a healthy economy.
Sure, I don’t decry that more should be done. When you are looking at forward strategies and planning, there is always lots more to be done, there is no doubt about it. But I think it ill behoves the minister to come in here and say that we didn’t have good partnership relations in place with those sectors like the Cattleman’s Association or the Horticultural Association or any of the peak bodies or any of the individuals in any of those sectors. We could go through and talk about those one by one.
But, as I say, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do more. In terms of the off-shore strategy, there was always more work to be done there. I have no doubt about the good work that has been done in that area, particularly in terms of some of our produce; live cattle exports of course. Very good work was done there over many years - 20 to 30 years that we have been exporting and it goes back to 100 years in fact out of the Territory - certainly in the last 20 years - and work done by ministers such as Minister Palmer should be acknowledged. He is personally responsible for opening up new markets in Southeast Asia and Asia in conjunction with industry, taking industry visits in a partnership arrangement with department officials of course, working hand in hand with all of those sectors to open up new places like Vietnam, certainly new areas in the Philippines, certainly the ongoing work that was done in Indonesia and so forth.
We should not forget the work done by those who went before us. Great partnerships between the private sector and government of the day including, of course, agency staff.
If we go to the cattle and buffalo heading here, I would like to provide an example of the good work that has been done by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries over many years in terms of focussing on export markets overseas. At the annual conference of the Cattlemen’s Association this year they had a guest speaker, Dr Hank Fitzhugh. He is an American guy and was very interesting. He had been in the Northern Territory for about two days and had been visiting a cattle property, I believe. He works for an organisation that does global work with underdeveloped countries in terms of increasing their output from the live animal sector, whether it is cattle or pigs or any of those sorts of areas.
What he was saying is that over the last 20 years, meat consumption in Southeast Asia and the Asian region has increased fairly dramatically. On their predictions - and they have done a lot of work on this and I won’t go into all the details and bore you with it - over the next 18 years, they have predicted out to 2020, so in the next 18 years beef consumption in those regions will be in the order of a 50% increase on what it is today. The increase in consumption is directly related to some of the underdeveloped countries in those areas having an increase in their economy and therefore flow-ons to individuals who can then afford higher beef consumption.
He said that Darwin, and the Northern Territory, was well placed in the fastest growing region in the world in terms of beef consumption. Basically, cutting a long story short, he congratulated the department and the private sector on their work in developing the strategy that they have undertaken over the last 20 years. If you had to write a strategy 20 years ago, the Northern Territory has probably written or practised the best strategy you could have followed to place itself in the world beef market to maximise its position in developing new strains of cattle in to those markets. I thought that was very interesting and it points to the good relationship that has been going on for a long time between the industry and government and all the agencies here in the Northern Territory, the Australian agencies, and also those people involved off-shore and the exporters who get those cattle there. That was something worth noting.
In terms of my experience in this House and particularly in government, I am very proud of the support we gave to all of these industry sectors, but particularly a couple of the newer ones like the camel industry. We provided funding through the Department of Industries and Business to support that industry. That has now taken off and the export of live camels has been fantastic over the last year or two. I believe that demand will certainly outstrip supply at the end of the day if we’re not careful.
In terms of the Buffalo Industry Association, the former CLP government gave funding for an Executive Officer for that. Neil Ross has done a fantastic job in opening up and determining where to best place buffalo in terms of overseas markets. That’s going very, very well. This comes on the back of an industry that has a long history, obviously; buffalo in the Northern Territory, an industry that I have personal experience in. In the days after BTEC, there weren’t a lot of buffalo left around. It was something we had to do for the sake of the meat industry not only in the Territory, but in Australia.
After BTEC was over, the buffalo industry was very, very small. In fact, there were a few people with a couple of small herds who were predominantly shipping them south to little niche markets that were down there, or to boutique breeders who wanted to have a few buffalo. I am glad to see that they are an organised association, and an organised sector of the industry now, which has found their markets and are trying with all best endeavours to supply those markets. They’re doing well and I see a small mention of them here. I think they got about a paragraph or something - yes:
The minister made no mention here, obviously, of some of the other issues in the industry. There are quite a number, not all in his portfolio area of course. There are a lot of issues relating to land and land availability. You have talked about Aboriginal land and I think that’s a great thing, and I’ll come back to that. Certainly, there is a need to keep exploring new opportunities for opening up new areas of land. We did that at Douglas-Daly through the Stray Creek blocks and they were very successfully sold. They are all but developed now, those blocks. They’re quite well into production already, even though the last of them were only sold last year. This development has been very successful.
We have to look at providing more opportunities for more new growers, whether it’s in the pastoral industry or the horticultural industry. The concept of the Katherine/Daly basin is something that I would urge the government not to lose. It is a concept to open up land progressively between Katherine and the Douglas-Daly basin, and it involves Stage 1 being Stray Creek which we’ve done - as I mentioned - and then the intervening stations between Douglas-Daly and Katherine being progressively opened up for new opportunities for new people to come in. There is, of course, Douglas Station, which has the potential to provide a lot of horticultural land and mixed farming land. I hope the new Labor government proceeds with continuing to exercise some pressure on the owners to ensure the land comes on the market to allow people to develop opportunities in horticulture and mixed farming.
Still on the issue of land, I should mention Owen Springs Station. This is something that is in the realm of the lands minister, of course. There is the opportunity there for some horticultural land to be turned off for Alice Springs. The minister has made mention of the grape industry at Ti Tree. Ti Tree is very successful. It grows very good table grapes, probably the best in Australia and there is an opportunity to turn off more land there with the purchase of Pine Hill Station. You have mentioned, minister, about the work that is being done at Undoolya Station on grapes and so forth. There is also opportunity within the Owen Springs land purchase for horticulture, and some of that land to go back - the unrequired pieces of land in terms of Alice Springs’ expansion and so forth - into the pastoral estate to the surrounding stations and therefore increase their capacity to turn off cattle.
I notice in the PAC report that there was some mention of Owen Springs, and the CEO of lands at the time mentioned that the plans for development of Owen Springs were before the minister back when he was interviewed. I know from my time in dealing with Owen Springs that we were just about ready to announce the allocation of land towards those who had expressed interest, and it would be great to see that exercise sped up so that everybody has some certainty as to where they are going.
The minister didn’t make any mention of the training required. There was some small mention of some training, particularly in terms of Aboriginal Territorians. The Northern Territory Rural College plays a significant role in developing agriculture in the Northern Territory, particularly, of course, the pastoral industry but also the horticultural industry. They have some funding issues right now which the government needs to get across, and I would urge them to do that. I was going to have a talk to the minister for Education and Training, but I will mention here that they do have some funding issues that really do need to be sorted out, and I would urge government to have a look at those because they are very important.
We undertook a review of the Northern Territory Rural College a few years ago which I was involved in because the industry - and this goes back to partnership with industry - wanted something better, something more relevant to their needs. The outcome of the review, of course, as everybody knows is that the NTU was given carriage of the Northern Territory Rural College along with Mataranka Station, an operating station which they use as their practical campus. They have done great things, I have got to say, the Northern Territory University. I take my hat off to them, particularly for the new corporate image that they have instilled within their students and within their whole corporate style at the Northern Territory Rural College. It can be seen by just looking at the students and seeing them in Katherine as they get around.
It is a really important area - not to be overlooked - and I know it doesn’t come into this minister’s jurisdiction so much, but it crosses over, obviously, between Education and Primary Industry. The college is certainly a great foundation for training in the whole agricultural sector, particularly in the pastoral industry. I would like to congratulate - and perhaps the member for Blain is going to talk a little bit on it - the Rural College for the great cattle drive that they are undertaking, as we speak, driving a 1000 head of cattle as a Year of the Outback event from Mataranka, from where I saw them off last Sunday, getting into Katherine hopefully on time tomorrow night with a cattle sale, another Year of the Outback event, on Monday night in Katherine. I congratulate them for doing that. It certainly is something about which they can hold their heads high about in terms of their professionalism and corporate image.
Likewise, we talked of unions earlier today. There is some concern in the whole agricultural sector about industrial relations. Industrial relations applies right across the board; it doesn’t matter where you work. Perhaps some of these sectors haven’t been the best in times gone by. They try, of course. But industrial relations is an issue and in terms of the new Labor government in the Northern Territory, some are wondering whether or not we will see a creep, in terms of union involvement, in to the agricultural sectors. Perhaps the minister might like to comment on that. We saw it quite some time ago with disputes in the buffalo and cattle industries, particularly in relation to abattoirs and killing sheds, back in the 1980s. I think the minister had an involvement in the Mudginberri dispute that he might like to elaborate on. My understanding is that it is quite well known that the minister had some involvement in that dispute, and perhaps he would like to comment with his industrial relations experience as to where that might head in the future and if he has any ideas on these matters.
Mr Henderson: I wasn’t involved in the dispute. I worked there.
Mr BALDWIN: Cropping. We go into cropping of all sorts, whether it is peanuts or cotton or grain crops. They are all doing very well. Ups and downs in all those sectors, that’s for sure. The Northern Territory Irrigators, Grain and Fodder Association is doing a fantastic job in terms of grain production and getting people interested once again.
We have been through some cycles in the Northern Territory with grain crops, and Stuart Kenny, as the Executive Officer, and the executive of that association are doing a fantastic job in getting people back into that industry, showing that there are markets out there that are looking for constant supply and that the demand at the right price could be achieved in the Northern Territory. It is good to see that in terms of peanuts, the Australian Peanut Company has actually put their money where their mouth is and purchased a property just across from where I live - part of Hickey’s Farm, not all of it - to undertake peanut production.
There is, not far from that area, some vast areas of land that were in peanut production up until only a year or two ago. There is opportunity there, of course, to continue with that. There are people in the Douglas-Daly, particularly Geoff and Melissa Plant, who grow peanuts and they look like having a very successful crop this year. Touch wood! I don’t want to put the mokkers on them because they have had a couple of hard seasons. Peanuts have great potential here in the Northern Territory, particularly because of our clean disease status. There is a lot more room for further production in that area.
Cotton. Did cotton get a mention?
Mr Henderson: No, it didn’t get a mention. It’s work in progress.
Mr BALDWIN: It’s work in progress. It is something that everybody is keeping an eye on. I have to confess I’m not a big cotton supporter, but the department has trials underway, particularly in Katherine. We have legislation in place that won’t allow anyone to grow cotton up here unless it is two-gene cotton, and that is the way it should stay. We have to be very, very careful about the future of cotton in the Northern Territory. Although it has potential for great economic benefits in terms of jobs and income, it has to be done in the right place and at the right time.
The minister talked about providing further opportunities for Aboriginal development of their assets, the land, and of course training. There are some good examples where Aboriginal organisations and individuals have had some great successes developing their land, particularly in the pastoral industry. Cattle Creek is one of those. They are doing very well. Fitzroy is an operating example, and I am only going on my electorate here, of course.
Palumpa Station is an enterprise that is undersold and probably undermentioned for their success. It is a fantastic story. I think it is up to about its 20th year as a proprietory limited company. They run about 7000 head of good Brahman-cross stock. They have their own Australian accredited abattoirs where they sell meat to communities in that area and have the right to sell and a licence to sell anywhere in Australia in fact. They do a great job. They employ their own local people. They have kept the stockman and woman training going with their own people. It is a really great enterprise. I think it is worth looking at how they have done this over the years and expanding on it. They even have their own rodeo grounds to make sure their fellows, ringers and what have you, are well versed in rodeo events and bareback horse riding.
On the rodeo ground, perhaps I should remind the government that they made a promise for some funding in the election for that and it has not been forthcoming yet. So if anyone is listening over there, $15 000 for Palumpa rodeo grounds is your promise. Perhaps you could get on to them. They are half way - in fact they have nearly completed building that but the $15 000 would be quite handy.
There are some problem areas when it comes to Aboriginal land and developing their own agricultural enterprises. Amanbidji would have to be a good example of that. The people there have been trying for years and years and years, and I have been personally involved in trying to get some joint venture type interest in the area. I have to say frankly, one of the issues down there is the NLC and perhaps that is an area that, as the minister has already said, some movement can be made. I know that the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association is very keen to do whatever they have to do to help joint venture arrangements, to open up Aboriginal land, where the people want it of course. Amanbidji is a good example of work that could be done to satisfy the needs and the aspirations of the people down there. I see that as a good thing; I see that we have a lot of potential, particularly in joint venture arrangements.
There are always the issues of leases and what have you and obviously with the minister and the federal minister currently talking about the Land Rights Act there are some openings there to do some work. I do not mean change the world; I just mean that everyone seems to be in a position where they want to do something positive and perhaps there have to be a few little technical changes in some of those areas so that the land which is inalienable freehold in most circumstances can be leased for long periods - I know it can be with the minister’s consent and all of that, but we need to make it easier for people to get in to those joint venture arrangements.
I thank the minister for this. I hope he comes back to me on some of the things I have asked for. I haven’t had time to go through anything. I had a lot to say on mangoes. He mentioned $2m for infrastructure. The Katherine mango growers are looking for a portion of that. In fact, I know they have a bid in to the minister for quite a considerable portion of that, and I believe it should be supported - something in the order of $600 000.
Mr Deputy Speaker, because my time has run short, can I say in closing that the department has done a great job over the last 20 years. We had good relationships between the CLP and the …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr BALDWIN: If I could just have an extension of two minutes?
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standings orders be suspended as would allow the member for Daly to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN: In closing, we have, obviously - and I have demonstrated - very good relationships between the government of the day and the private sector and the department. I congratulate the department on the work they have done. The things mentioned by the minister here haven’t appeared overnight. We know that. They are the result of long and hard work by lots of people in both the private and public area. I look forward to following the development all of these sectors of the industry over the next few years.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am always delighted to rise on one of my favourite subjects which is primary industry. I enjoyed my time both as shadow minister and minister in that portfolio. The reason I enjoyed it is to see such enthusiasm and diversity of effort out there by the growers and the pastoralists and, as the member for Daly pointed out, the fantastic work being done by our primary industry department’s sections.
In the short time I was minister, I had the great pleasure of visiting the research facility for primary industry in Alice Springs and Katherine and some of their work being done up the track. We have some incredibly good quality people in the department doing unique and valuable work for this area of our economy.
I would like to confine most of my more detailed comments to the Central Australian area. Taking first the areas of agriculture and horticulture, some of the key projects that are currently either consolidating or being initiated - it is common knowledge in Alice Springs that our government has called for expressions of interest for the use of the treated water from the Alice Springs sewage ponds. That water is an ideal resource for horticulture or aquaculture in that it is not only water, but it contains a nutrient soup as the broken down residue of the sewage which is ideal for growing plants.
We have some encouraging responses to the expression of interest round that was circulated and we are seriously exploring that now as a way of alleviating the overflow of that water into what became the Ilparpa Other Swamp, the swamp that shouldn’t be there. That has now been drained completely and, once the reeds are burnt off - once they are fully dry - that area can be returned back to a coolibah claypan area and it will be a much healthier environment for the local residents and for the old people’s home nearby.
Water is still being produced, obviously, from the treatment ponds and we need to find a better solution than just simply seeing it overflow into the surrounding area. So we will be proceeding with that. We will see what we can do to get some additional horticulture using that quite valuable resource.
Jimmy Hayes out at Undoolya is setting up a new horticultural development at Rocky Hill. That has been in the concept stage for quite some time. Jimmy is now moving ahead to some serious implementation. I am hearing that he is swinging towards growing table grapes. That will be a very interesting experiment in Alice Springs given that we do have frosts there. It will be interesting to see whether he gets a good growing season in each of those seasons. He has certainly done his homework and believes that grapes are a viable proposition.
Ti Tree and Pine Hill are mentioned in the statement. They are already significant developments. There are three main growing areas just south of Ti Tree, and Pine Hill has its own additional aquifers there to allow further land to be put under horticulture. The table grapes have been a spectacular success there. We are also looking at seeing a late ripening mango crop there which can extend the productive season for the Northern Territory.
There are other crops such as asparagus and various melon varieties that have been successfully grown and merchandised from that area.
Alongside the existing Ti Tree developments, we have several areas of Aboriginal land. I was very interested to see the minister’s statement raising the possibility, and certainly emphasising our commitment to putting Aboriginal land into the productive capacity of primary industry in the Northern Territory. No one would dispute the logic of doing that given that Aboriginal land now constitutes a very significant part of the total Territory land mass. We have to use every means to encourage indigenous groups to join in with primary industry wherever it is possible.
The work that the Central Land Council is doing on this is based around Utopia, Ali Curung, further areas around Ti Tree and the Willowra area. They all have quite significant aquifers to the point where the total carrying capacity of those aquifers is estimated to be probably 1000 hectares of horticultural production. The Utopia area in particular is advanced in its preparations for putting one square kilometre of land under horticulture. Four bores have already been drilled and proved out at the corners of the square kilometre. We have seen the land council now move to provide a head lease arrangement to get the freehold Aboriginal land to a point where it can be used for commercial production. In other words, the joint venture partner that would come in and capitalise that horticultural development has the security of a very long term head lease, perhaps a 100 years, to place their investment in.
The enterprise structure that will carry all four of those developments has now been completed, and it is now an incorporated body that can receive commercial grants or loans from the government and enter into binding contractual agreements with the joint venture partner.
Mr Elferink: Hallelujah!
Dr TOYNE: Yes, there is always progress if you wait long enough, member for Macdonnell.
Horticultural developments in the Central Australian area brings into focus the need for improved vigilance and effort in disease control and pest control. It is very well known that there is a significant fruit fly population in Alice Springs. It has been there for many years. It was nearly eradicated in a previous attempt by a combination of mobilising the townspeople and a spraying and trapping program. The Department of Primary Industry in Alice Springs is currently working on a series of measures that will be used to curtail the continued presence of the fruit fly in Alice Springs. Clearly, because of the outbreak that we had in the last growing season at Ti Tree, it poses a continuing threat to any horticultural development within reach of the town. It only needs someone to go on a picnic or go up and buy some fruit at the farms to import the fly into unaffected areas. We do need to do something about that as well as increasing the vigilance against all exotic diseases and pests coming in to Central Australia.
It is very easy there to feel that because we’re in the middle of an arid zone and well away from the coast where normally incursions come from overseas that we are in some way immune from all this, but there’s no doubt that we need to be very vigilant about monitoring vehicles and aeroplanes. Luckily, we don’t have to worry about ships; there aren’t too many down there.
Mr McAdam: Camels!
Dr TOYNE: The other initiative of the Department of Primary Industries is using sniffer dogs, particularly at the Alice Springs airport where they are monitoring on a rostered basis what is coming off aeroplanes. That is part of the overall vigilance that we have to maintain down there.
Passing now to the pastoral industry, camels are an increasingly important issue in terms of industry development in Central Australia not because someone’s suddenly woken up and said: ‘Oh, let’s do something about camels’. It is because the camels have done something about it themselves. They’ve actually bred prolifically, particularly in the last few years during which we have seen very good growing conditions and breeding conditions. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of camels now. If you drive through country, say, around Docker River and north of there up through to Kintore around Tjukurla, you’ll see a mob of camels in every valley between the sand dunes and there are a lot of valleys. There are hundreds of thousands of animals, and they’re spilling out into more and more country; they’ve now reached the Tanami Road on the eastern side and they’re right throughout the Western Desert both on the Western Australian and the Northern Territory sides.
The camel population is reaching proportions where it is having an impact on the environment in areas that they’ve overrun to the extent that even the most ardent fans of the camel are starting to say yes, something has to be done about the sheer numbers that have appeared there. Camel Australia is an organisation based in Alice Springs which, for several years now, has been promoting camel exports. As the minister’s statement reports, there have been significant shipments to the Middle East and to Southeast Asia. To stabilise the numbers of camels in that area of the Northern Territory, we would need to be exporting about 40 000 a year or disposing of them in other ways.
Presently the export shipments go out through the Department of Primary Industry Research Farm. Primary Industry have a whole section of their research effort devoted to the camels and the development of that industry. Camels Australia has also looked at value-added use of camel products such as different ways of presenting it as a food, tanning hides and looking at other things you can do with a camel some of which I don’t want to mention in the House.
New regulations announced by AQIS just yesterday mean that you now have to have 15 cm between the top of the camel’s head and the roof of the container. I don’t know who is going to go around and measure it, but it could be a very dangerous task. That could have quite an impact on these emerging attempts to develop this export market in that if you’re going to limit particularly the larger, taller animals, they are the breeding animals that are going to increase the herd size. I am sure if these height limits start to impact on which animals are shipped off, we are probably going to be ending up with lighter, smaller and more immature animals going and the more mature ones being retained. I hope that can be sorted through, and I am sure of the minister’s keen interest in camels - I might say he is a born again camel lover or camel industry lover because a few months ago, when he got into the portfolio, I had to give him a cap and a T-shirt just to convince him it was an important topic.
The cattle industry: we have had very good seasons in the last few years where the amount of feed available on pastoral properties in Central Australia has been exceptional and the prices in the market have been exceptional. Most pastoralists, although they have been smiling broadly over the last couple of seasons, wish they had higher stocking rates because prior to those good seasons, we had some pretty hard times. A lot of the properties had run down their numbers and were not able to take full advantage of this amazing combination of terrific feed and good prices in the market place.
Bush fire management has become a major issue in the last couple of seasons because of the sheer volume of fuel on these pastoral leases. Fires that used to be mosaic fires - they would leave good feed in patches and other areas would be cleared by the fire - are now going through very large tracts of country often taking all available feed well away from watering points so that the cattle can’t get to and from the feed and the water. It is becoming a critical issue. I have been working with both the Bush Fire Council and the fire services down in Central Australia to try to keep the effort going on that. I pay tribute to the member for Braitling in initiating some of those meetings that we had to get that structure together. The process is still going on. We are in regular contact with the organisations to continue the effort to curtail at least the really destructive bush fires that can make major inroads into the productive capacity of some of the pastoral leases.
Buffle grass is the main difference. Buffle grass is excellent food and it certainly proved out in research at the Primary Industry research facility as being one of the best feeds around. That is why it has become very popular with the pastoralists. But it is also extremely good fuel because it burns. It is a massive plant and it grows very thick together and it creates a very inflammable carpet. That is causing quite a lot of damage to the country and to quite large plants that are growing with buffle around them.
I met with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association some time earlier this year - I think it was; everything has been a bit of a blur lately - and I had a very good day with the pastoralists. They were wanting to see what our government was going to do in terms of their industry and we were able to reassure them of the importance we place on pastoralism. It is still the core business in our primary industry sector and it is still a growing part of that sector. It is not a case of taking it for granted. We still have to put the same amount of effort into supporting and growing that part of our primary industry sector as has been done in previous times under the previous government.
We are here to work with the pastoral industry. We want to see the industry provided with a strong strategic plan for industry development which was missing from that sector. I know the current minister is actively promoting that process at the moment with some pretty tight deadlines on getting a strategic plan in place. We want to see if we can value-add. We want to see some flexibility in how pastoral operations can be carried out. We want to see the possibilities for mixed enterprises being explored where there is a situation where some other commercial activity can be added into a pastoral lease to make the whole business plan stronger. We also look forward to working with the pastoralists there to grow the live cattle trade and the other new markets that they may want to explore and penetrate.
In summary, the outlook for primary industry in Central Australia is extremely bright. We have some good, staple products there in place that we can continue to consolidate and develop. There are a lot of more speculative products being explored like olives and dates. We can look forward not only to seeing an increased level of activity over time but a more diverse industry down there. But we have to keep the disciplines there; we have to keep the research going; the support for the industry; and look after the quarantine issues to protect production.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, to put the member for Nelson’s mind at ease, I shan’t be on my feet for long. I know he is itching to get up. However, I listened to the Minister Central Australia …
Dr Toyne: Member for Stuart.
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, talking about a few issues in relation to what is happening in Central Australia. Some of it is quite good, especially what the CLC is doing in terms of proving up some commercial projects. Although long overdue, I can but wholeheartedly support these projects because they are excellent things to see happening. However, I would like to see a lot more of it and I would like to see the control of the land in question of course rest entirely with the traditional owners who have actual traditional control of the land in question. That is an issue for the Central Land Council and traditional owners on those land trusts. I am delighted to hear that we are finally moving in the right direction with some of this stuff. As I said, it is well overdue.
However, I do have to raise a couple of issues. The first issue is the reassuring and wonderful words that we heard from the Minister for Central Australia about what wonderful work they are doing with the pastoral industry. There are a couple of questions which rise out of this, and perhaps the minister who delivered this statement to the House could respond to these issues. First, expanding commercial activity on existing pastoral leases. This is actually something I am quite attracted to and I can imagine any number of ways that a pastoral lessee may choose to expand his commercial activity, either by value-adding his own product or by introducing a new product with a new technology. Where they currently run beasts, they may choose to follow horticultural or agricultural endeavours. Once again, I would support that.
We should hear unequivocally from the minister today that the minister is going to turn attention to issues such as native title and get through those problems as quickly as possible so that these sorts of expansions can occur. If that means excising sections off pastoral leases for the purposes of rezoning them for other sorts of productivity, then so be it. I know there are limitations placed on commercial activity on pastoral leases. That has happened for a number of reasons. Any further development on pastoral leases would require some adjustment to leases.
The final issue that I raise in response to the Minister for Central Australia is what wonderful jobs they are doing for the pastoral industry, encouraging them to keep working in that field. The truth of the mater is, however, that there is very little evidence of this actually occurring. In fact, quite the opposite. Bearing in mind that this is the highest taxing government in the history of the Northern Territory - the highest taxing government in the history of the Northern Territory - the minister has to remember that it is the $90 levy which hurts pastoralists because they run numerous vehicles.
I would like to know why the minister seems to think that doubling the leases - doubling the taxation on pastoralists for having a pastoral lease - is helpful for pastoralists. It is all very well to come in here and champion the cause of pastoralists; let’s see it on the ground. Let’s see a halving rather than a doubling of those lease expenses because pastoralists, albeit having a couple of good years, have come off a seven year drought prior to that. They struggled and they fought and they battled. And now that they are just getting their head above water, and probably only just paying off the banks which have extended them credit during the hard times, they are now being slugged by increased tax rates on their leases and on their vehicles.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that the minister is claiming such laudable outcomes. The fact of the matter is that what is said in this place and what occurs in reality are two different things.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s statement today on primary industry. It is an important document. I have had an interest in this ever since I came to the Territory. My background has been either in growing fruit and vegetables or poultry. I might get on to poultry a bit later. I make a note that the rural area, the Litchfield Shire and its surrounds, is probably one of the biggest horticultural areas in the Territory with ever increasing planting of mangos, cut flowers, Asian vegetables.
The return to vegetable growing at the present time is because of the banana industry’s demise - one of our largest banana growers is now returning to growing rockmelons. Live cattle, although not necessarily grown in the rural area, we do have the holding areas. There is quite significant hay production and that serves an industry which you could either call sporting and recreation or primary industry, and that is the horse recreation industry – polocrosse, pony clubs - which does require all the normal things for primary industry like grooming, feeding, watering and fencing. So it’s an industry that sometimes is not recognised as much as it should be.
On that note, I should tell people that coming up very soon is the Australian Polocrosse Championships, which I invite everyone to come to at Fred’s Pass, which is attracting a large number of people from down south.
We also have the nursery industry. Again, a very important industry and sometimes an industry we forget. There are quite a large number of nurseries in the rural area. Not only are they nurseries; in some cases they help the tourism industry – for example Majestic Orchids and Jenny’s Orchids which provide tours of their operations.
There is another industry sometimes forgotten which I have brought up in parliament before: bee keepers. Not only do they produce honey but they are a very valuable asset to the horticultural industry for cross-pollination of crops.
As well as all that, we should remember all the associated industries that go with these industries, for example the fertilizer industry, the chemical industry, irrigation suppliers and the people who put in bores, fencing, clearing and ploughing and all those associated industries.
I will move on to another aspect the government needs to look at. The government may not be able to address it today, but should address it in a future statement: what is the role and how does the government see its future role from the department’s point of view? For instance, research and development. There seems to be a move away from the government initiating research and development, or paying for research and development. The mood today is that the user pays. Whilst that may be good for some industries that are large, there is a role for the government to promote and pay for research, especially for the smaller crops. Otherwise we are likely to have research and development for the big crops, and the little crops will just have to struggle on by themselves.
Another issue that has been raised by some constituents is the outsourcing of what used to be departmental responsibilities, things like soil testing, laboratories that look at various pests and insects. So I would be interested to know what the government’s policy is on privatisation and outsourcing of the department’s functions. Even matters like weed control - is that still an issue that the department takes on?
Another issue is the future of research stations, and while the minister has said many good things about agriculture and horticulture - and I know that there has been a banana research station begun because of the problems with Panama disease - I hope that the Coastal Plains Research Station is not in jeopardy. I have heard rumours that the cut flower research area that was at Coastal Plains has now been moved back to Berrimah. I hope that hasn’t been done just because people find it a bit difficult to drive out to the Coastal Plains. Coastal Plains is where I think that research should happen.
I ask the government what are the plans for the Berrimah Research Station? Does it have a future where it is, considering that we have East Arm Port just below it? We are looking at expanding residential areas in Darwin and Palmerston. Is its present siting the ideal place for such a research station? Many years ago, I supported it being there because it gave us a green belt between Darwin and Palmerston, but today, when land is at a premium, perhaps we should at least question whether that should stay as a research station. I would like to find out what the government’s position is.
With horticulture, the government has to be aware of issues of planning, especially in the rural area. We have to continue to keep residential and horticultural land separate to reduce the issues that have occurred in the rural area, especially from spraying. The planning department is working in that area although there have been movements in the latest Land Use Objectives to allow land in the Elizabeth Valley, where there is quite a bit of horticultural land, to be subdivided. That is just going to create issues for people who move in there because they will start complaining about spraying and the growers will say: ‘We were here first’.
The move by the government through the Litchfield Land Use Objectives to have areas set aside for organic farming is a positive one. Organic fruit and vegetables certainly do hold a high price in the market, but we have to make sure that the organic farming areas stay that way. There are going to be issues about how do you maintain and police an area that is zoned organic; how do you actually keep it organic? Who keeps an eye on whether a certain person uses a certain chemical? You only need to use a chemical that is not approved next to another farm, and that farm is also declared not organic any more. So we have to be careful.
We have to make sure there is adequate water. We certainly don’t want to develop a horticultural industry to discover later on that we have extended the capacity of the aquifers to cover production we are trying to achieve. With crops like mangos, certainly there is a danger of overproduction. It would be wise of the government to make sure that no more land was opened up until we made sure there are markets for increased production otherwise we end up with basically good land going to waste. So I ask the government to ensure that we don’t go overboard subdividing land.
The minister spoke about the Potato Spindle Tuber Virus. That is of concern to me because I know that in the rural area a shop - and I won’t say what particular shop - lost all their tomatoes and petunias and whatever was related to the solanacious group of plants. I would be interested in- if the minister can’t do it today, at some future time - a more detailed statement to the parliament on issues related to the Potato Spindle Tuber Virus.
An issue that was not mentioned - and it is one thing that might make horticulture continue to grow - is the railway. That will give great opportunities for produce to be delivered south as well as north, and perhaps we have not mentioned that enough. But we do send a lot of Asian vegetables to the southern markets and the opportunity of the railway coming this far north will help those crops.
Aboriginal enterprises, yes. In many cases even if Aboriginal enterprises are established just to maintain good nutrition in their own areas would be a great thing whether it is meat, whether it is fruit and vegetables. As I said before, the other day when we were talking about the health issue, it is all right to have skilled Aboriginal workers but if we are to advance and we are to have long-term sustainable development in horticulture and agriculture in Aboriginal areas, we have to get Aboriginal people skilled to the scientific level as well. We need both: both the workers and we need those people who can do the management and can understand scientifically the problems that are associated with growing these crops. It isn’t just a simple matter of putting the seed in the ground. It is understanding what happens when that seed grows, understanding the diseases the plant is prone to, understanding the nutritional requirements, understanding the complexities of irrigation which are not just a matter of putting water on. All these matters require sound horticultural and agricultural knowledge. If we are going to get somewhere, that is what we have to do.
I agree with the member for Daly - I believe places like the Katherine Rural College are extremely important. My daughter went through the Katherine Rural College via the Mataranka Station. I believe she is one of the first Aboriginal ringers or jackeroos…
Ms Scrymgour: Jilleroo.
Mr WOOD: Jilleroo. Maybe we should just call them ‘jackas’ then we don’t get accused of anything untoward. She, I think, was the first jilleroo to work on Wave Hill Station.
Ms Scrymgour: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: So I have a bit of a soft spot for the Katherine Rural College.
I have another issue today which is not mentioned in the minister’s statement and that is the poultry industry. I believe the poultry industry – I am talking about the egg side of the poultry industry - is in a state of absolute disaster at the present time. It is in dire straits. I would just like to table the Litchfield Times print out from today, this is this morning’s issue.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: It says, ‘Eight hundred chooks killed every day’. I rang the Litchfield Times today. I was actually out at the farm Monday with the Litchfield Times. I might just read the article. I spoke with the author. It will put into context what I am talking about and I will add some things afterwards:
and I will have to change this because this is not quite accurate:
I will refer members back to the newspaper article that has been tabled. You will see a small trailer filled with good laying hens that have had to be destroyed because there is now no market.
I should mention that just recently, Landel would sell 190 cartons, which is 2850 dozen eggs per day. They now sell 60 cartons per day, which is 900 dozen. That has happened just in the last few months to a company that has existed for 26 years.
in fact, it’s $1.60 on large eggs
The other major local egg producer which I haven’t mentioned, is Fresha Eggs. I should explain that Landel’s is a family farm and Fresha Eggs, which is a combination of two older farms, is run by Henry and Walker, and their Manager is Mark Trehair.
I mentioned Woolworths and Coles before. They also have a generic brand of eggs. Fresha have actually been able to win that contract, although I gather they lost it and, after much debate, they got it back. But the price they are getting for those eggs is so low, I doubt if they are making any money at all. The price of generic eggs, large size, is $2.17. The price that Landel’s are marked at is something like $3.84. That’s $1.64 difference.
Not only do egg producers have a freight problem - although you can get food up by ship from Perth - but the feed has to have a higher protein content because in a hot climate, a bird will not eat as much feed. So you have to get that protein into it in a smaller amount; so you have to pay a lot more to have protein in your feed.
I know I am now running out of time, Madam Speaker, and I am just wondering, because this is an important thing because someone’s livelihood is at stake. May I seek an extension of time, please?
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Nelson to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I would like to highlight some of the difficulties this farm has. This is an idea of the costs that they have to put up with now.
They have $800 a day of feed. If they don’t sell the eggs, these chooks are eating the feed regardless. They were recently charged $350 by one of the supermarket chains because rats in that store ate their cartons. That wasn’t their fault. There were rats in the store. They were charged $350 for the loss of that. When there is a promotion on, they pay $300 to promote their own products. When there are specials on, they lose 20 per dozen eggs and they have no comeback; they just lose it automatically.
They must stock the shelves six days a week. You will go into a supermarket and you will see Heinz Baked Beans and Aeroplane Jelly or whatever you want. The people in the store restock and set the shelves up. In this case, this company has to go in there six days a week and restock the shelves. There is no notification of any price changes. If people like Landel would like their bill paid in 14 days, they will lose 9% of the total price just because they need payment in 14 days. Companies like Landel, with an $800 a day of feed, need cash flow. There was an example where they were required to get their water tested for Ecoli and other bacteria. They did that. When they had done that, which cost quite a bit of money, they were then told that they had to go back and get the same water tested for heavy metals.
One supermarket chain requires the growers to come under what is called a HACCP scheme, which stands for hazard, analysis and critical control points. This means that the supermarket wants to know what happens all along the chain from when the egg is produced to when it is delivered. To do that, they send up a gentleman from HACCP from Adelaide to come and inspect their cool room. This farm pays $1000 to get their cool rooms and their packing areas inspected, that $1000 goes to the airfare, the accommodation, the hire car and the wages because five other people have to do it. He just comes out for one day and inspects the cool room.
They have to fill out reports every day. For instance, if they drop an egg on the floor it has to be reported. They have got to explain what happened to the egg and how they cleaned it up. So they have got all these extra things that they didn’t have to do.
Madam Speaker, the reason I am raising this issue is because I believe this company is being squeezed out slowly. They are selling eggs and they will probably get down to selling a few. It will come to a stage where this farm won’t be worth a penny. He will not be able to sell the farm. He will have put his life into it. The owner of the farm is 60. He was probably hoping that one day his retirement would be the sale of his farm. And this won’t happen.
Why is this situation happening? I believe it is because of artificial competition from down south. It is the big companies that use their buying power and, in fact, sometimes I think they sell eggs under the cost of production not only to get people into their store, but to wipe out competition.
I know the government has been looking at inquiries into why the cost of fruit and vegetables is higher than down south, and they will probably find it difficult to go out and say: ‘We should promote local produce at a higher price than we can get it down south’. But is this really what it is all about? I mean, is this globalisation on a small scale?
Are we allowing those companies which have huge buying power to annihilate the family farms and small businesses? Because that is what is going to happen. And while we might cheer for cheaper egg prices, I will guarantee that when Fresha and Landel do not exist those egg prices will go up. There may be some competition between them both, but it is funny, at the present time, both major supermarkets are selling their large eggs at the same price. So I would be asking whether there is any real competition between the two.
There are a couple of things that can be done, and I believe they have to be done urgently. One may not be possible to get done straight away. I understand that under the ACCC, there is nothing to say it is unfair to sell the cost of, say, eggs so low that you can wipe out your competitors. I believe that is unfair. You should have to at least sell your eggs at the cost of production and with some profit margin. It’s simply a method - and I’m told it’s happened in Asia where people like some of our big soft drink companies walk in, cut the price of their soft drinks so low that the little soft drink people just go out of business and then of course they have the whole market share.
I believe the government has to say it does support our local producers whether it is in this industry - I’ve heard of other problems, for instance, in Katherine, with the mango industry because the national policies of supermarket chains. I was told that there were ripe mangoes in Katherine that could be sold to the Katherine people through the local supermarkets at a very cheap price. But the immediate answer was: ‘Well, these have to go south and they will be marketed at the national price’. So here’s a case of what would have been thrown out and what was grown just down the road couldn’t be sold because we are being dictated to by the managers of these huge supermarket chains and we are dictated to by not what is good for the country, but by what is good for the shareholders.
I don’t believe it is right that companies can cut the price of their produce so much that either people will go out business or they will work for a pittance just to stay alive. That is what is happening. We have another form of industrial revolution where the supermarket chain will still get its margin, but to look competitive, it does not care what happens to the people who produce that profit. Those people are growers. For many years, vegetables were the one item that kept inflation down, and I know from being in the vegetable business that the wholesale price of vegetables would stay the same. The cost of fertilizer, the cost of irrigation equipment, the cost of fencing, the cost of fuel would continue to rise, yet the price would be kept the same because the supermarkets had such a stranglehold on the market.
What I am asking the minister to do urgently - because I believe this business, this family business, it might only be one business, it might be small in the big picture - is to immediately convene a meeting between the national supermarket chain managers in Darwin, the distributors, Landel and Fresha Eggs, and I would like to attend that if possible, to see what could be done now. It will be too late in a few weeks. I know this farm will just be basically out of production.
We have to stick up for these people. This owner of the land - who has had a meeting with the minister’s advisors and I thank the minister for that - said to me: ‘What are politicians for?’ I said: ‘Well, you know, these big supermarket chains can tell this government to get stuffed if they want to because they’re that big, the Northern Territory is just a drop in the bucket’. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. These supermarket chains have a responsibility. Years ago, they would promote our produce up there with the rest as Territory produce. I think they have to do that now. They have to price their eggs at a price at least comparable to the price of local stuff. I don’t think they should be marking goods down - like Fresha Eggs’ eggs are now marked. So they have the generic brand, and they must be making nothing just simply so they’ve got a market for those chooks. I really feel for these people at the moment, and we have to do something.
The other area I’d like the government to look at is to initiate some ministerial meeting on competition policy. There has to be someone who says that competition has to be fair. The idea of the bottom line being the lowest is not necessarily good for the country. If we are just going to have huge farms, huge enterprises, I think the country will find we will have lots of people living in the cities, the family farm will die all together - and I’m saying it is dying to some extent already.
Just look at the number of pastoral stations in the Northern Territory not run by families. They are run by big companies. So I urge the government to convene this meeting as soon as possible because in this case I believe it is extremely important that the poultry industry, and not so much even the poultry industry and the people who are employed who put their livelihoods in it, know that the government at least will get out there and try to save their livelihoods.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s statement entitled Primary Industry’s Achievements and Opportunities.
The minister spoke extensively in respect of the pastoral, horticultural and agricultural industries and our capacity to export to markets in Asia and the Middle East, and of course to grow our base to supply markets within Australia. I congratulate the minister for that and the Martin government for its commitment to support economic growth in partnership with the business, industry sectors and the indigenous sector in the Northern Territory.
I would like to inform the House of the emergence of a new industry with enormous potential for the regions of the Northern Territory, particularly the northern part of the Northern Territory. I refer to the emerging Red Claw aquaculture industry. Most members would be aware of Red Claw, a species of freshwater crayfish native to the rivers of northern Australia. Red Claw has a taste very similar to prawn and lobster. Approximately 90 tonnes was produced last year, most of it in Queensland, of which about 30% was exported. The remainder is obviously sold from Queensland into markets throughout Australia.
Red Claw is a very tough and robust species of crayfish and is ideally suited for aquaculture production in my electorate of Barkly and indeed in the electorates of Arafura, Arnhem, Nhulunbuy and Daly and other parts of the Northern Territory perhaps even north of Elliott subject to a whole lot of other conditions. Red Claw aquaculture has immense potential for expansion given our available land and water resources. It is an ideal industry for cooperative partnership arrangements between the indigenous landholders, pastoralists, the private sector and of course government.
Already in Queensland, production technologies are quite advanced and best practice models in place. Briefly, Red Claw are farmed in earthen ponds or dams and water can be obtained from bores or rivers which have compliance with a range of water standards developed within the Red Claw industry. Because the dams require in and out plumbing, other horticultural products may be grown as a by-product. As mentioned previously, best practice models are already in place to the extent that a managed selection program for increased growth was instituted in 1993 by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and thus far has increased growth rates by about 9.5%. The industry is confronted with many challenges, being so small, although of late several cooperative growers have got together and established quality standards including brand names and promotional material for their production in a more coordinated fashion.
An experimental and/or demonstration farm for Red Claw could be established in a place like Borroloola, for instance, or indeed any other place, incorporating about 10 ponds for a start-off cost of approximately $100 000. There may be circumstances where the operational costs could be shared between private sector investors, and I refer to those people already operating in Queensland, and say for an example the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola. As I said, the operational costs will probably be between $70 000 and $80 000 per year.
The potential of the Red Claw industry is substantial for export purposes. It is important that in the short term we develop this industry in the Northern Territory and that in the long term maintain a production advantage based on our access to the broad genetic pool of native stocks, our sustainability due to strict and thorough environmental compliances, and our being isolated from diseases which have restricted offshore industries.
It is worth noting that the Red Claw itself is now being exported to most countries throughout Asia and, indeed, into places as far away as Africa and into North and South America. As I mentioned, our Red Claw aquaculture industry has the potential to be enormous, due to already well-established and proven production technology and significant growth potential. It is an industry worth having a look at in the Territory, now and for the future.
I would like to acknowledge Mr Clive Jones from the Department of Primary Industry in Queensland, who I have been speaking to in regards to this matter. I would encourage the Department of Primary Industry here in the Northern Territory, or even the minister, to have discussions with the good people involved in Queensland because I think it has some real potential.
Latest advice indicates that the farm gate price is something like $13 a kilogram and, as I mentioned, the capital start-up costs and the operational costs are something which we should be promoting here in the Territory.
The Central Land Council convened a meeting in Alice Springs in March 1999, and a further workshop was held in 2000 in Tennant Creek. The purpose of these meetings was to assist indigenous landholders to compile resource information which would assist in assessing their potential for horticultural development. The overall objective was to identify possible commercial horticultural applications subject to water, soil and infrastructure considerations such as power and roads. Incorporated into the above tasks was the immediate need to gather water resource information, particularly in respect of those areas which were designated as having some potential.
Specifically, I refer to Ali Curung, some 180 km south of Tennant Creek. Back in the 1960s, Ali Curung grew a variety of vegetable products which supplied the community of Tennant Creek, many pastoral properties and, as I understand it, two shops in Alice Springs as well. Ali Curung has all-weather road access and very soon will be able to access the railway in Tennant Creek for distribution of their products to southern and northern markets. Ali Curung is provided with power from Tennant Creek. My advice is that the power supply is under-utilised so it could be an advantage in having a look at Ali Curung as being a potential site.
The water supply in the vicinity is huge in volume, and is a renewable resource. I would urge the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development to look at further research which may lead to the establishment of a horticultural industry at Ali Curung. Obviously, in the long term, it would grow the local region and the community and provide indigenous people and other members of the private sector opportunities to develop small enterprises and, of course, provide vital job opportunities for people in that region - indeed, throughout my region.
It is also well worth noting that the entire Barkly Basin has an untapped groundwater potential to irrigate some 25 000 ha of product per year at 10 megaLitres per hectare per year. Calculations show that this could be sustainable for at least 100 years without impacting on the groundwater dependent ecosystems and would not exceed 80% of the aquifer storage as assessed at the start of the extraction.
I commend the minister for his department’s initiative in developing strategies to bring Aboriginal-owned cattle properties back into full production. My electorate of Barkly contains properties and communities that are all well placed to take advantage of short-term lease arrangements as a way to lead them into joint ventures and eventually running properties for themselves. I commend the Northern and Central Land Councils and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association for their valuable lead work in this important area of economic development for our regions. Clearly, for these types of strategies to work for the benefit of all, the critical factor is training and jobs.
I refer now to training. I note the minister has outlined an important pastoral training initiative involving the Jawoyn people, and I look forward to seeing the results with a view to expanding similar training programs to the vast pastoral regions in my electorate. The opportunity is there and I am sure that this government has a will to extend important economic development of this nature to all Territorians. I know the old Aboriginal ringers of the Barkly and the pastoral owners - the mainstay of the Territory pastoral industry for decades - will be delighted to see their children and grandchildren take up the opportunity to work in an industry very fondly regarded by them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the honourable minister’s statement to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add comments in support of the statement made by the minister about primary industry achievements and opportunities.
I wish to comment on the contribution of the member for Nelson in terms of reminding me of the difficulties of life in primary industry. As members would know, my father and brothers are still in primary industry in Western Australia, wheat and sheep. The message from the point of view of the poultry industry and the difficulties for individual operators was very well articulated by the member for Nelson identifying just how difficult it is for those who do work on the land.
Not only is it difficult for those who face those immense challenges with huge investments, it is coupled with a sense of isolation at many times where the nature of the task requires it to be completely on task, but at many times geographically isolated. Coupled with the geographic isolation, with the urban-centric psyche that we have, there is a difficulty even to understand the real experience of those who work on the land and take risks on the land. So I commend you, member for Nelson, for those words.
I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Mr Antoine Barnaardt, the Pro Vice Chancellor at NTU and to compliment you, sir, on the fine and important work of the Northern Territory University, particularly in reference - I am sure it would have heartened you to hear the Katherine Rural College being mentioned.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: I would like to start on a similar theme that was touched on by the member for Nelson. First, I commend the statement without reserve and I note the outline of the current situation with regards to primary industries, recognising the achievements and acknowledging the opportunities. What we have in statements such as this is setting the scene - and I mean this in a genuine way - raising the expectations, as anyone in ministerial responsibility leading an important industry, or representing the aspirations of those in the industry, to set the expectations.
My role will simply be to add another stream to this and to reflect on the importance of primary industry in the development and the future of the Northern Territory. It sounds almost cliched to say that we are in a unique place, but most rural land in our nation is very well developed. Generation upon generation have worked, have made mistakes, have experimented, and they have generally narrowed down their scale of operation.
The Northern Territory is probably the last bastion of those who really want to have a go, and I would like to pay particular respect to those who currently work in the pastoral industry, in the grazing industry and in cereal crop development for the huge risks that they face. As a young farmer, I never really appreciated the role of the research farms. Why? Because my father knew how to grow crops on the land that we had which was his grandfather’s land. We didn’t really need the research farms; we knew what the markets wanted, we knew what crops would grow, we could almost tell – well, we couldn’t; we thought we could - how much rain we were going to get.
So the research farms were in existence, but we thought that they weren’t particularly necessary and they were just for those sort of experimental type farmers who like to take risks and have a lot of money to burn and are a bit reckless.
In the environment we have in the Northern Territory, the role of the research farm is absolutely critical. It has a position and a place that is like no other in our nation. I put on the record the critical importance of research and the work that is taken on by the different research farms and the Department of Primary Industries. The support they give to those who are going out, without a safety net in many respects, to trial new products and to work in a new environment. The fertiliser demands of this soil is absolutely colossal and that is still being refined, with the deluge of rain in the Top End, any fertiliser you put in there, which is incredibly expensive, is just leached out. There are colossal risks.
My interest was attracted to the development of sesame seed in the Northern Territory. It is a little seed that we are all aware of, but I was surprised to find that we import, as a country, 6 000 tonnes of this seed annually. I was surprised to find that a particular strain was developed a few years back in the Northern Territory at the department of Primary Industry. It was called Edith and trialled out at Katherine. It was exceptionally high yielding and the conditions up here, in the Top End particularly, are ideally suited to sesame seed. It’s been trialled. I’m not quite sure how it has gone this season or last season, but it has a substantial potential.
In saying that, I took my brother out to Stray Creek area - I was trying to tempt my brother to take the challenge and move to the Northern Territory and endeavouring to sell him on the prospects of such innovative crops as sesame seed. He was unprepared, unfortunately, to take the risk, but that brought home to me the challenge that faces primary industry in the Northern Territory. We are right at the frontier stage still, and I offer genuine support to the minister in recognising that aspect.
Primary industry is at a delicate stage. I will transfer across in terms of my responsibilities as the shadow for Employment, Education and Training and my interest in youth. It has come to my attention that though the pastoral industry – you know, as that old song says, there is a lot more of Australia out the back - we who live in towns often are blind to the fact of the enterprising activities and the needs of those who are working in a rural environment.
My figures might not be correct here, but I understand the employment need of primary industry is - there is a dramatic shortfall in terms of how many they can take and how many they are actually getting. It is a cultural problem that our urban schools, our teachers don’t understand or perhaps identify the kids that could perhaps flourish in a rural environment. If you don’t have that knowledge, you certainly can’t recognise the need and perhaps make those prompts. There is a current deficit in the employment needs being met in primary industries, Northern Territory and nationally, and it is forecast to be a looming crisis.
I do not vouch at this point of my shadow responsibility to be an expert on training, but it is an area I am taking an acute interest in. One is to try to bridge that gap in terms of not understanding the needs of the rural industry and finding a way where we can articulate our current aspirations and perhaps those who might be wandering our streets. I know in Palmerston there are young lads of whom I think I wish we could find a way for them to work in a rural environment. It would be a perfect opportunity for some of these young lads to find a more secure path to walk on and to challenge them personally. That is an area of particular interest.
Moving now to a couple of people with whom I have spent some time. Luke Marshall and his wife, Tracey Marshall, represent a group called Rural Skills Australia and they play a critical role. In fact Luke works very hard trying to bridge that particular problem of those educators who may not understand the opportunities there are in the primary industries and the fact that there is a whole range of pathways open to our young people. I would just love to see those doors open more and more so that people could actually have some sort of hope that there is more than working at McDonalds or Woolworths or things that you see immediately around you. A lot of our young people need a sense of vision that there are other places you can go; there are alternatives. There is a colossal range of options, particularly in the primary industries, which many are not exposed to.
A CD was recently launched which I have had a little look at. The sound has been turned down, but it looks like a great product. It is called Real Skills Rural Feature. It is a Commonwealth-funded initiative through the Department of Education, Science and Training. This CD is being circulated to careers advisors in secondary schools specifically to allow young people to see that there is a range of exciting possibilities in a rural environment and to try to destroy that stigma or that image of country hicks and an unattractive step backwards career wise.
I can say that I, as a father working in education having come from the land, had that initial understanding but I have been challenged by some of the new prospects that were available. My own son left school last year at Year 11 and is now in the hands of a pastoral company, Stanbroke Pastoral Company. I am not really aware of the role of these major pastoral companies and the training that they offer and the career paths that are available to young people. The interesting thing I have found - in fact, I will just mention - is Heightsbury Holdings, Consolidated Pastoral Company, North Australia Pastoral Company, Colonial Agricultural Company and Stanbroke. All are self-accredited trainers to my knowledge.
I did not know that they even existed, nor the care they are taking with these young people. In researching and guiding my son on his path, I was concerned to find that though many of these large pastoral companies have their properties within the Northern Territory, an applicant from the Northern Territory, a young person desiring a life on the land is a rarity and they are sought after. I wander around Palmerston and I think I could pick quite a few who would benefit from an opportunity on the land.
We have a key agent in our community, one that gave my son his start - and a number of young lads that I have now become aware of - and that is the Rural College at Katherine. That really gave me but more particularly my son and a number of young lads and families that I have met the confidence to embark on this path. He received his initial training at the NT Rural College. Once again, it was an institution I knew of. I was able to make brief comment about it. Now I have gotten to know, rather than it, a college, I have met some of the people there. I know some of the struggles they go through. I know their aspirations and the very important role that they play in this issue that I have been outlining, in terms of opening doors, creating pathways and filling some of those gaps in terms of employment opportunities as well as the knowledge deficit from urban to pastoral. They play an absolutely critical role. The more that I have learnt, the more impressed I have become, and more concerned about ensuring that this key institution is protected, recognised and respected for the role that it plays.
As has already been mentioned, it has come to my attention also that there is at the moment a financial difficulty facing the Rural College. Specifically in the context of this statement, and in the context of the need in the pastoral industry, and in the context of the strategic place and point in time we are in the Northern Territory in terms of the opportunities that lie before us, the role of that rural college is absolutely critical. Whatever consideration is given to the need that is currently being considered, it must be in that context. It can’t be diminished; it has to be held up against the opportunities, the challenges that we currently face here in the Territory. As I said at the beginning - it sounds like a clich - but there is colossal - I have used that word probably too many times - but there are very significant pastoral opportunities here. Those who were once pioneers and who have made their name in other places generations ago, those who are now working on the land can look back and say: ‘If only I was here at this time’.
My father says if only he had the courage to go to the Ord River when he was a young man, but he had a young family. Now he looks and still, in his mid 60s, wishes that he had gone to the Ord River. I reckon we have young farmers in other places around Australia who are almost at the point of being encouraged to take the risk and come to the Territory. The role of the Rural College and the role of the research farms plays a very important role to make sure that that occurs.
I was particularly taken by the Rural College’s initiative to embark on this cattle drive because it addresses the very thing that I talked about at the outset. That is, often people don’t understand the rural sector. This cattle drive in the Year of the Outback captured the imaginations of people. People have to have that point of entry, that point of contact. I commend the Rural College for choosing that opportunity to attract attention to their existence and role in our community. So, they are to be commended, and Mick Donnelly, I am sure, would pass that on to his staff.
I would also like to mention those who were supporters of that cattle drive: ADrail, the Alawa Aboriginal Corporation, Austock, Australian Fuel Distributors, Bridge Autos, Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd, Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, Department of Transport and Works, Ilanka, Elsey Station, Four Seasons, Gary Station, Harry McNaught, Heli-Muster, Newton’s Saddlery, Northern Machinery Hire, Northern Territory Police, RAAF Base Tindal, Stuart Downs, Tejas Land and Cattle Company, Top End Rural and Wesfarmers Landmark. Each one of those names represents people who have come in to support something of vital importance for now, and with a commitment and an investment in the future.
With that, I commend the Rural College for taking that initiative and assisting in the cause of bridging that gap between those who can be closed off in an urban context to the needs of those in a rural environment in our pastoral industries which are there being served currently by the department and the minister. I wish you all the very best. It is an area I am, as you would be well aware, acutely interested in and I wish you all the best and commend you on your statement.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate this evening. I think everyone agrees wholeheartedly that - as my colleague, the member for Barkly said; I remember this from his first speech in this place: ‘the push for the bush is on’.
We, as a new government, recognise that we can capitalise on the good work that has gone before us and really stride out and develop the opportunities for our primary industry sector. We have all of the fundamental requirements to further develop those opportunities. We have the land, we have access to the markets in Asia. We have access to water. We are investing in the science and technology areas, and really what we need to do - and the point that I was trying to make in my statement - is to really commit to industry partnerships and form those partnerships between government and industry, because government does have a role to play in terms of infrastructure, in terms of the research and the training issues. We have to be in sync with those industry sectors, working together to realise the opportunities that are available.
The point that I was trying to make in response to the member for Daly’s comments was, whilst acknowledging the work that had gone before, I was surprised that I did not inherit formalised industry development plans that were committed with those industry sectors. What I did inherit were great working relationships between individuals within my departments and with those industry associations, but a lot of these plans hadn’t been formalised. I believe that now is the time to do that. That is what we are committing to do.
Like the member for Daly, I acknowledge that the live cattle export industry has been magnificent work done over many years with a great deal of foresight. I have met a number of those officers of my department. I have been to Indonesia with a couple of them, through the wet markets and the supermarkets and the slaughter facilities, and I have seen the work that those people have done over many, many years, totally proficient in the language, dedicated to the industry.
Those officers not only from my department, but also of the industry associations really do have to be commended. They were well ahead of their game and they were supported by the government of the day. Great people in the industry with that vision and within the department at officer level who went in and really opened up those opportunities.
Picking up the member’s comments about land issues, yes, they are the next significant strategic issue we have to address in terms of realising the potential of the horticultural industry. I can acknowledge that the issues in terms of releasing further land in the Douglas-Daly area is progressing. Compulsory acquisition was advertised for the new township of Fleming only last week and we are working with the CLC in Central Australia to resolve some of the issues in the Ti Tree area to open up further land. So we do recognise that it is a very strategic, very important issue. We are moving on that.
In terms of the industrial relations issues, it came a bit from left field from the member for Daly. Apart from going back 15-odd years to problems in the beef processing industry up here, what other industrial relations issues he could possibly be talking about. But just to put on the record for the honourable member for Daly and for honourable members: yes, I did work out at Mudginberri Abattoir but I wasn’t a meat worker. I was actually working out there as a fitter at the time and I was not involved in the dispute. I actually left Mudginberri before the dispute commenced. I would like to put on the record that I did not have any role in that dispute nor was I a member of the Meat Workers Union at the time.
However, I am proud to stand on this side of the House and say that we do live in a free, open and democratic society with freedom of association and if people, at whatever industry level, choose to join a union, that is purely an issue for them.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: It is not something that the government is going to be forcing on people or running a campaign on, but certainly supporting the notion of freedom of association and people to join whatever institutions they may want to join...
Dr Burns: A proud tradition in rural Australia, especially the AWU.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a proud tradition and if it is approached in the right way, there is nothing to be afraid of. One of the issues - and it was one of the key issues that came up structurally across the debate - is the rising need for people to work in these industries and given the urbanisation of our society and declining numbers of people moving to them, obviously we live in a market economy and improved wages and conditions are going to be one of the ways to attract people to work in these industries. I certainly think that unions have a role to play in working with business and industry to achieve those outcomes.
In terms of cotton, yes, cotton was missed from the statement because it is not a strategic crop that government is pursuing at the moment. We have a CRC project at the Katherine Research Station. I agree with the member for Daly that we will go nowhere with the further development of that industry without being very, very careful about it, and certainly with wide community consultation. The reason that it wasn’t in the speech wasn’t because we are trying to hide something, but it is not a strategy, it is not a strategic crop that government is pursuing.
The issues in terms of Katherine Rural College - a number of members spoke very passionately about those. I’m not across the issues that members have raised in terms of the funding problems that institution has, and I will follow those up with my colleague the Minister for Education. So I’d like to thank the shadow minister for his support in the debate.
My colleague, the member for - Toyney’s electorate, whatever it is…
Dr Burns: Stuart!
Mr HENDERSON: Stuart! The member for Stuart. Yes, we have had numerous debates about the camel industry. When I came to the portfolio, it was raised very quickly as being a strategic industry for me to keep an eye on. I couldn’t believe the potential of the industry, but the member for Stuart is passionate and a significant amount of government money has gone over the years to developing that industry. We are now starting to see a return on that investment, and I am following that very carefully. The issues of further developing those markets and the processing of camels in Central Australia is something that the government is investigating at the moment, particularly Halal processing to open up that market. So the member for Stuart is a passionate supporter of the camel industry. It is a pity the shirt that he gave me was a couple of sizes too small, but one of my kids is wearing it with pride.
Picking up on the comments from the member for Macdonnell who raised the issue of the pastoral levy, well, if we hadn’t inherited such a disastrous budget situation we wouldn’t have had to impose an increase in those pastoral fees. But it is true, it is the first time that they have gone up in over 10 years. The pastoral industry is at peak production levels after a number of very good Wet Seasons. Government has to do as much as it can on the revenue side of the budget and be responsible with that as well as on the spending side of the budget. We think that the extra charges were, at this point in time, something that the industry could sustain. I must say I haven’t been inundated with protests from the industry on that, and we have made the industry aware that if hardship can be proven, then we will make case by case considerations in relation to that levy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, moving to your comments in the debate, in the first instance, I will go to the eggs issue. You spoke very passionately about that. There is a lot of emotion around globalisation, market economies and what that means for family businesses, for small businesses. National competition policy is another one where all of the states have agreed to national competition policy, a review of all government legislation and regulation in terms of subsidies, whether they be overt or covert and the requirement to reduce those subsidies with the theory that we need to make Australia more competitive to survive in a globalised economy and as a trading nation, so goes the theory, and small business is being hurt by this.
I can confirm to the honourable member and people following the debate that we have met with the producers. We are meeting with the supermarket chains – it is not only the egg industry; there are a number of other food producers, I won’t name them here this evening. I have been working through these issues for the last couple of months with these producers in terms of how we can get our local food industry represented on the Coles, Woolworths, BiLo shelves. A lot of work has been done in that area. I am happy to convene a meeting between the egg farmers and the supermarkets if people will attend.
At the end of the day, we have to again balance, and is it an issue for government; is it an issue for government subsidies? I don’t think it is. The needs of the producers in terms of being able to sustain a livelihood and a business versus the consumers who obviously at every point are going to choose to purchase on price and quality. There has to be a differentiation in the product. People will pay for quality. I am not sure how far away it is, but it is a priority in terms of the Buy Territorian campaign, and I am astounded that the supermarkets do not badge Territory produce as Territory produce, because I think Territorians will support Territory products.
I was in Central Australia in Alice Springs a few weeks ago and I forget the guy’s second name, but a charming fellow called Mo down there, who has a lettuce farm with the backdrop of the Macdonnell Ranges, exports his entire crop up here. I am not sure whether it is to Coles or Woolworths, but essentially all of the lettuce you buy at one of those institutions up here at Casuarina is grown hydroponically in Central Australia and nobody knows about it. I certainly think that the supermarkets should be badging that product and people really would support it – and, I think, pay a bit more for it. So I am committed to making that pitch very strongly. It is a hearts and minds pitch to Territorians to support our local producers, as the member for Nelson mentioned. However there are some real issues in terms of the cost of production, the structured costs inherent with those businesses in terms of the feed costs, the general costs of production which the big growers interstate can obviously undercut.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of the need for federal or Territory legislation to stop companies selling goods at lower than the cost of production in order to stifle competition, my belief is that that is particularly prohibited. It is known as ‘predatory pricing’. The ACCC certainly does have powers to come down very heavily on companies that adopt that practice. We can look at a particular issue at the moment where the ACCC are looking at Qantas for allegedly dumping seats on a particular route to stop the admission of Virgin Airlines into that market place. That is just an example where the ACCC can come in and intervene.
What I would encourage any Territory company which believes that there is an unfair competitive advantage being impacted on their business and stifling their business opportunity and it is predatory to make a complaint to the ACCC. Fiona McRae is the Northern Territory officer of the ACCC, and I will be in touch with Fiona tomorrow and put her in touch with Landel and Fresha Eggs and see what can be done if this allegation is true. It is certainly something that should not be countenanced. For major companies to sell at under the cost of production and to force people out of business is certainly not on.
I agree with the honourable member; we should be doing everything we can to support our local industry. I don’t think that government subsidies are the way to go. As soon as you start subsidising companies, it’s a never ending cycle. As soon as you take the subsidies off, the companies tend to go under anyway. It is the same with the argument with the airlines: you introduce subsidies and other people retaliate against that and withdraw services. We have to do everything we can in terms of the cost of production; look at product differentiation in terms of quality; run a real hearts and minds argument; and do everything we can to get the supermarkets to badge Territory product as Territory product, so at least people have the choice and, hopefully, these companies will survive.
Another cost of the production here would obviously be power costs. It’s not going to help Landel Eggs, because we are talking a few years away. But, structurally, for our economy, the best thing we can do for local producers is to bring down the cost of electricity which, as we know, is the highest in the nation.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. We will get back to him tomorrow and convene that meeting. Officers of my department were already scheduled to meet the supermarkets. I don’t have any problems in inviting the producers into that. I will be present and the member will be there. But at the end of the day, it is a market economy and producers and consumers are both part of that economy, and we have to be competitive. We will do everything we can, and I can certainly give the honourable member that assurance.
My colleague, the member for Barkly had some great suggestions. I can say to the member for Barkly we will be following that up. I will get people in the department to talk. I would urge all honourable members in these types of debates - we did it with the Litchfield Shire tourism issues that the member for Nelson raised last time - we will be proactive, regardless of which side of politics it comes from. If people on the other side of the House think that there is a particular industry niche that we could look at that does have opportunity, well, we will go and have a look at it. We are not the font of all wisdom just because we are on the fifth floor of the building.
I urge members on all sides of the parliament that if there are potential opportunities for growing our economy here in the Northern Territory - whether it is in our urban or regional centres - and people do have ideas, well, either bring them into the parliament through debate or write to myself as minister, or send us an e-mail and we will track them down and try and realise those opportunities if they are there.
The member for Blain, thank you for your support. I know that you do have a background in the rural sector. It obviously came through in your comments here tonight. We do tend to forget, representing urban electorates in particular, that there is more to the Northern Territory than our urban centres. That is why I am very pleased to bring this statement in here tonight because the pastoral and primary industry sector is a sector that this government is very interested in, totally committed to, and believe it will provide the springboard for future economic growth in our rural and regional economies. In those areas of the economy, we do have social problems and we certainly believe on this side of the House that one way of addressing those social problems is to provide and to work with the private sector, those communities, to get investment into economies in those regions and provide jobs for people in the regions. We will certainly do that through the development of those industry plans.
I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. I would also say thank you and well done and keep up the good work to the great staff in my department. We really do have a lot of people who have been there for many years and who are, in a large part, responsible for the growing nature of our industry at the moment. We have a lot more work to do and I look forward to working with not only the people in my department, but those great people out in the industry sectors themselves.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of some local builders and developers in Alice Springs to discuss the action undertaken by the government in relation to the sale of the Cawood Court flats in Gillen which is in the heart of my electorate.
The minister gave what amounted to a statement yesterday afternoon in Question Time but in fact he didn’t do anything to address the concerns of residents in my electorate nor indeed others in Alice Springs, in particular developers and builders who put in proposals for this project. Since I talked about Cawood Court in my maiden speech, I thought that it would be appropriate to place on the Parliamentary Record what has in fact happened to Cawood Court since then, especially since the story is a fairly incredible one.
By way of background, Cawood Court is a complex of 58 units which the previous government undertook to demolish and sell off for the development of private housing. With the election of the new government, this decision was reviewed and, ignoring the wishes of local residents, and more importantly without consulting them, this Labor government chose not to follow through with the previous government’s plans. I was asked by residents to present a petition in this House urging government to adhere to the plans of the previous administration which I did at the last sittings.
However, the government overturned the previous government’s decision, so the presentation of the petition was unsuccessful. In my maiden speech, I commented on the shortage of land in Alice Springs and in relation to Cawood Court I said:
But government ignored this fact, as well as the wishes of local residents. What this government did shortly after coming to office was to turn the previous government’s decisions and its commitment on its head. One constituent has told me - indeed, he followed it up with a letter to me - confirming that the ALP’s candidate in the electorate of Araluen gave him an assurance that Cawood Court would be demolished in the event that the ALP won the election. The ALP did in fact win the election. Its candidate obviously made a flippant promise, but I suppose none of us would be too surprised about that.
Earlier this year, the government sought expressions of interest in relation to what was called, on the documents provided to those people who submitted expressions of interest, but the document was called the ‘demolition and redevelopment’ of Cawood Court. Regardless of what the minister said in the House yesterday, there was no attempt to correct the documentation that went out to builders and developers. At all times, those involved saw or understood that there was an opportunity to either demolish or to redevelop Cawood Court. More importantly, that was the understanding of residents in the area. In any event, the result was, in hindsight, I guess, not surprising given the indications made by ministers over time. A developer in fact got the job, and the units would not be demolished.
The effect of all of this is that in an area that has prime residential value, especially to first home buyers, they will not be able to avail themselves of this marvellous opportunity that would have been provided to them under the previous administration. The effect of the decision is that there will be the release of 51 units on to the property market in Alice Springs which, in my view, is one of the most stupid and short sighted decisions this government has made since it has come to office.
The company that was selected is going to essentially tart up and flog off the 51 units. Real estate agents tell me that there is a glut of units on the market in Alice Springs, so where the logic is in this decision, no one seems to know. The government may, but they certainly haven’t told the people of Alice Springs and in particular, residents near the units and furthermore the developers and builders who thought that they had a chance of developing the property or, alternatively, residents who thought that the whole lot might be cleared and prime residential land might be able to be purchased by first home buyers.
Interestingly, at a time when local builders are having to lay off staff, the Labor government gave the work to what could loosely be described as a Darwin firm which in fact is headquartered interstate. It was a severe blow to local industry. I was contacted by several firms who showed me their innovative plans for development of the site. Not one local firm was chosen.
The most significant concern about this saga, however, is not only that local firms were ignored, but this block of units in a prime residential area was sold to the interstate developer for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the highest offer. I will repeat that: it was sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the highest price offered. I know of two local builders who offered significantly more than the $742 000 the units sold for. One was $900 000 and the other one was $1.2m. I am told that another company offered $1.2m as well. This fact just has not been addressed by the minister. It certainly wasn’t addressed by him in his answer yesterday and it wasn’t addressed by him in his mutterings last evening. The people of Alice Springs have not been provided with a satisfactory explanation about why it is that government sold these units for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than what local firms offered.
One resident in particular approached me and asked the question: ‘Why would a government that constantly whinges about money do itself out of hundreds of thousands of dollars?’ That person actually went through the process of calculating what each unit sold for, given the sale price for the entire 58 units of $742 000, and that person calculated that each of these units sold for $14 000. Cheap in anyone’s language. There are a number of questions that the government, and in particular the minister, has not even gone near. That is just one of them.
When I was looking through Hansard trying to find what had been said in relation to Cawood Court since the Labor government came to office, I noticed on 24 October in the House, the member for Casuarina and former Minister for Housing said in relation to the proposed sale of the Cawood Court flats:
That begs the question: why, then, did the government accept an offer from a developer for an amount significantly less than the amount predicted by the department and the previous minister in October last year by accepting the offer at $742 000? Further, what was the basis upon which the government ignored offers of local companies, two of which, possibly three, offered hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the successful developer?
In addition, many people would be wondering what role the Minister for Central Australia played in all of this. Does the Minister for Central Australia support a decision by government to award this substantial project to an interstate company, thereby ignoring many local builders? Can he assure the people of Central Australia that he argued strongly to award the contract to a local company? If so, why was he unsuccessful and why was he rolled in Cabinet? So the challenge for the minister is to explain to the residents and the companies in Alice Springs what his role was and why, on the face of it, he did absolutely nothing to fly the flag for local business and building companies in Central Australia.
The challenge for the Minister for Housing is to simply explain to the residents of Alice Springs why on earth the government did what it did. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation - and there has not been one; there hasn’t even been one that has gone close to being satisfactory - the people of Alice Springs will continue to ask these questions. I will certainly continue to ask them in this House and anywhere else on their behalf.
With those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will close this sorry chapter.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the remarkable occasion which occurred here in the forecourt of Parliament House on Sunday 19 May going into Monday 20 May. That was the flag raising ceremony hosted by the Northern Territory government to recognise the proclamation of the independent nation of East Timor Lorosa’e. It was my pleasure to be the Master of Ceremonies at this occasion. Festivities commenced at about 9 pm on Sunday evening. We had somewhere in the vicinity of 800 people gathered in the forecourt of Parliament House and many people could not recall another occasion of such magnitude outside Parliament House. It became an incredibly moving and special experience for everyone who participated.
A large number of the Darwin-based East Timorese community was present. There were also substantial numbers of supporters, people who for many years had put their hearts, souls, energies, efforts into arguing and advocating for an independent nation of East Timor. Among the gathered crowd were dignitaries who included the Ambassador of Portugal, Jose Vierra Branco, a man of great charm and wit whom I had the good fortune of meeting and talking to at the Portuguese Club on the subsequent Monday when he made a special speech to another gathering of the East Timorese community at that club.
Also among the crowd was a representative of the Indonesian Consulate, Mr Yusef. We had people there who really did their community proud in terms of representing them. I make particular note of Jacinto dos Reis, an elder of the East Timorese community who gave a very moving speech about the struggles of his people since occupation in 1975 by Indonesia and the loss of life that had occurred in the struggle for freedom by East Timorese people. In our local way, his speech truly reflected the magnificence and great generosity of the new President, Xanana Gusmao, whose swearing in was the highlight of the live telecast via satellite from Dili.
The evening was a celebratory event. We had a speech from Mr Egas Alves who is also a representative of the East Timorese community. He embraced the crowd and spoke to them and certainly ignited the passion and people were shouting out Viva Timor Lorosa’e! It was a wonderful speech. We had music, traditional music from the Koremetan Band.
We had a very moving flag raising ceremony which occurred around midnight. There was a large screen provided by the hard work of the Protocol staff. I pay tribute tonight in the Assembly to the work of the staff both of Protocol and the Assembly: Sean O’Sullivan, Lynette Maloney, Tony Hibberd. They were all there working right through until about 2 o’clock, 2.30, three in the morning ensuring that everything ran smoothly for the East Timorese community and that things were provided for them to meet their needs. I acknowledge the efforts over and above their duties in that respect.
The crowd was also entertained by Jeff’s Band, a local ensemble which was very funky and enjoyable, and were greeted with applause by the crowd even though they were a move away from the traditional aspects of the evening.
There was great anticipation in the air. We had a crowd of 800 gathered in the forecourt outside Parliament House and the anticipation was really focussed on the flag raising ceremony, the investiture of Xanana Gusmao as President. Watching the big screen, for a crowd of 800 there was silence as everyone watched the investiture of Xanana Gusmao by Kofi Annan, and then moved to the flag raising ceremony.
We had the good fortune of watching a procession of East Timorese people in our community, led by an elder woman in the community followed by men, women and children. They processed in traditional East Timorese costume. They walked to the flag poles outside of Parliament House, across the forecourt, and handed over a flag to three male members of the East Timorese community who then proceeded to hoist the East Timor Lorosa’e flag.
I have to say that sometimes these occasions are difficult in terms of timing, but their timing was perfect. We were raising the flag here in Darwin in unison with the flag raising ceremony that was occurring in Dili. As the flag was rising for the first time to mark independence of the nation, the birth of the nation in Timor, so too was the flag rising outside Parliament House.
It brought home to many of us who were there a great flood of relief, a feeling of joy. It was one of those occasions where you feel like pinching yourself; it’s unbelievable that it occurred. There were many people there who, for two decades plus, have strived for, dreamt for, hoped for just that event: the proclamation of a nation of East Timor. The families gathered outside included freedom fighters who had, for many years, hidden in the mountains of East Timor and risked lives daily to fight for freedom. They included the sons, the daughters, the wives, the children of the freedom fighters who were lost. It was a poignant and moving occasion but fundamentally an occasion of great celebration. I felt very honoured to be able to play a small part in this ceremony.
The speech provided by the Deputy Chief Minister, Honourable Syd Stirling, was met with great applause. Representation of the government there included Minister Jack Ah Kit and his family, my colleague, the member for Johnston. Federal representatives were there - Senator Trish Crossin and Senator Nigel Scullion. I am pleased to say I noticed the member for Port Darwin amongst the crowd as well and the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood.
I also want to acknowledge the assistance provided to the community on the evening by East Timorese who are very proud to call Darwin home, Pedro Yap and George Mu. They are successful business people who fled Timor with their families in the 1970s; established their lives again from scratch in Darwin and have gone on to become extremely successful business people in the Northern Territory. They provided very generously in terms of donations for food. There was enough food to feed the 800 people gathered in the forecourt. I have to say I tasted most of the dishes and they were delicious.
This was a one-off. We won’t see it again in our lifetimes. The birth of a nation occurred; we celebrated it in a very appropriate way in Darwin. We recognised the struggles of our community here. Some struggles still continue in the East Timorese community in terms of obtaining the right of citizenship in Australia. Some have been in never-never land for 10 years now. I hope that the federal Minister for Immigration finds it within his heart and within his soul to make ministerial intervention and to grant them permanent residency. It’s an issue that I, for one, will not forsake. I know I have the full support of my Cabinet in pursuing that, and I acknowledge the efforts to date by our Chief Minister, by our Minister for Ethnic Affairs, by our Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. We are all working in there together to try and ensure that these people who have called the Northern Territory home for many years can stay here and their children continue to grow up here and, indeed, enjoy the benefits of our multicultural society. And these are people who, I don’t doubt, in time will go to their motherland, East Timor, and will put in the efforts and the energy that is needed over there to help rebuild that nation.
We know that it has been devastated as a result of the massacres in 1999. However, there isn’t the infrastructure there to support the populous that we have here of East Timorese. There isn’t the education in place, there isn’t the health, there isn’t the housing, there aren’t the jobs. That nation has all of those challenges before it. I am so pleased to know that in the Northern Territory we have a government that will be there every step of the way, right alongside the new nation of East Timor, assisting them in whatever way we can. I know that it is a bipartisan approach. I feel great about the fact that we as the Northern Territory, as a people, as a government of the people, will move very strongly in the future towards ensuring that our near neighbours, our dear friends, people who in our hearts we have hoped for many decades now would be free, and who are now finally free, can go on and meet and then conquer the challenges that lay before them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – Nil; New South Wales - Nil.
Mr Baldwin: That’s not quite right, that score, by the way.
A member: What’s the score, Tim?
Mr Baldwin: New South Wales – 6; Queensland - Nil.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Anyway, who cares? Following on from that comment made by the member for Karama, in reference to East Timor it really is quite sobering to reflect again and again that this nation was born and how infrequently nations are born and what a wonderful occasion it is. It captures the imaginations of all those around the world when they come to witness the event. We saw shots of the people, unexpected to me, in the crowd there, from all around the world. I saw Bill Clinton on television and I thought: ‘My goodness this really is a very, very special thing’.
I have had an historical interest in East Timor in terms of what happened there in World War II and it was largely a chapter of our conflict that was closed because at that point in time it was information that was not really good, that was judged to be inappropriate perhaps to trouble the citizens of Australia with the closeness of invasion. Yet the relationship between East Timor and Australia was born in a very special way right back then.
All of that said and done, it just dawned on me the other night that we have a critical part to play. Even though the world pays attention and it captures people’s imagination, we are their neighbour and we will remain their neighbour forever. And we are also caught up in this and have a very important role to play.
I had the good fortune, two weeks, ago to meet with three senior representatives of the National University of East Timor out at the Palmerston campus at Karawa. Mr Benjamin Martins, Vice Rector of Finance and Administration, Mr Manual Bucar, Dean of the Faculty of Economics, and Dr Helda da Costa, Director of the National Research Centre. We had a meal together and we spent time looking then through the facilities at the Palmerston campus particularly in terms of the hospitality and tourism area. You could see that as a neighbour, we do have an obligation and we can play a part as a good neighbour in assisting our friends in East Timor in a very practical way.
I met these three gentlemen - there were a number of other meetings that I was not involved in - but I do understand that they are working towards a stronger link between the Northern Territory University and the University of East Timor. For that I wish Mr Antoine Barnaardt and those at the NTU all the very best in the negotiations for that very important link between the Northern Territory and East Timor.
On a university theme, too, I would like to make a passing reference to a launch that I went to a couple of weeks ago for Accelerate, the alumni magazine. The alumni of the University encompasses 20 000 graduates of the Northern Territory University. I was surprised to hear that the University currently has 15 000 students. The role of this magazine is to strengthen the contribution that graduates of the University can play. Once again, a newer university, a small and regional university, but we have just begun a journey and the role that graduates of that institution play will be critical. We are at the early stages of it and I commend the editor and the staff behind the production of the alumni magazine. For those graduates of the NTU, I encourage you to contact Fiona Collins - she can be contacted on 8946 6554 - so that you can become a formal member of the alumni. There are a whole lot of benefits and so on that will be available to you.
The important thing with the magazine is it ties all this together and allows a sustained development and nurturing of the culture of the Northern Territory University, very critical to the development of our community.
Moving on to a couple of matters great fury. I received a fax today from a constituent and I think it is very important that this actually be read because it is the voice of a citizen who is in distress out in our suburbs and it may offer some comfort that her voice is being heard here in this Chamber because if this Chamber doesn't attend to issues which are referred to in this fax I received, then we are not honouring the words that are spoken at the very start of each one of our sittings where we are hear to advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians.
I hope that by this coming to my attention and the work that I can do as a parliamentarian with my colleagues on either side, that we can actually make a difference to this lady. I will leave out some names to protect people I don’t know about, so I don’t want to mention their names at this point:
I read those words because that is a sharp reminder of the reality of the task that we actually have. I appreciate the Attorney-General being able to hear those words. That really forms a genuine voice of many people through our urban areas, and particularly in my case from Palmerston, and I am very aware of the northern suburbs as well. I let it stand there. I will do whatever I can to see that due attention is given to the plight of that lady. I, of course, would be expecting the support of members opposite.
Another related issue on a more positive note is the Palmerston Gymnastics Club which has been in operation for 14 years in Palmerston. It established itself as a responsible and credible sporting organisation of a local region and the NT. They have 140 gymnasts. I make particular reference to the president, Mark Nolan, because clubs and the positive endeavours of clubs do not happen without the goodwill and the generous time that these people spend: Mark Nolan; vice-president, Dixie Blake; treasurer, Shirley Banks; secretary, Jane Poole, and public officer, Pam Cunnington.
This club has run successfully and continuously, as I said, for 14 years. They currently operate within the Palmerston High School’s gymnasium. The Palmerston High School’s gymnasium is really the centre of activity in Palmerston. We have outgrown it as a community. When I moved to Palmerston there were just over 6000 people there, and that was the place that we would meet for major events. The town is now in excess of 24 000 people, and we are still as a community waiting for the multi-purpose indoor recreation facility, but at this point the gym group are in the gymnasium.
They have to set up and pack up and move out of the way of other groups. They have all their gym equipment, and it is a colossal impost on the volunteer workers and the parents to support their kids in gymnastics three nights a week. I know how difficult it is because I have had other groups trying to get in there and we have had to facilitate the speedy change, get out there and actually move some of these mats and equipment which is very heavy and cumbersome, and it is done three times a week.
They have repeatedly requested - and I put this on the record - a permanent facility because they want to provide more classes to the higher level gymnasts. They want to provide classes during the day to schools and preschool children. They want to be able to provide a permanent, suitable facility so that they can have their equipment set up and permanently installed. They want to be able to permanently install a fully sprung floor which is necessary for injury prevention and competition. They are not the sort of group that I can turn away from because they have consistently and genuinely made positive contributions, and what I am about to tell you speaks volumes.
The president, Mark Nolan, has worked with me in the Crime Forum in Palmerston. He had become aware that there were a number of young lads that were hanging around the gymnasium, the Palmerston High School gym on the weekend, looking in the windows, banging on the windows and causing a bit of a nuisance. One of the positive results of the Crime Forum is that we’ve gained a greater understanding of what is actually driving some of these antisocial behaviours that we are experiencing. Rather than go out there and give them a rev up and perhaps call the police, he actually engaged them - to his credit - and with some compassion discovered that these kids really wanted attention. They really were pretty interested in what was going on in the gym. But they didn’t have any ability or way in, in a sense.
He discerned that, and invited them to come in - sought the consent of a couple of the coaches and brought them into the gym. It costs money to pay coaches and to pay for the equipment. These kids didn’t have any money – they were demonstrating antisocial behaviour were actually young primary school kids - and were pretty keen to have a try of this gear. They even admitted that they have tried the gear. ‘How did you try the gear?’ ‘Oh, we know how to break into this place’. So we’ll put that aside. They were put under the care of a couple of coaches who were happy to take the responsibility for that session and Lo! and behold, they absolutely enjoyed themselves. The parents came along and were really appreciative of the support that they had been given and by the positive outreach of the Palmerston gym club. More importantly, these kids had exceptional talent.
In the following week or two - I’m not sure of the time frame on this – it didn’t take too long before there were 10 young lads waiting there on the Saturday to have a go at gymnastics with some of their parents. We saw in this, when Mark and I were talking, that here is a great opportunity: if you can get clubs such as this to be able to take a load - just a bit of a load - to bring some of these kids into a positive sporting culture under the direct supervision of coaches and so on. But the problem is that some of these kids just can’t pay the full amount. What the club is actually calling for is assistance in respect of being able to offer this kind of program. I am aware, too, of other clubs that would probably be interested in taking on a managed portion of this kind of responsibility and make a similar contribution to the wider community. With the issues that concern all of us - the antisocial youth issues primarily - they are the sort of clubs where it costs a bit of money to join such as swimming, for one. I am going to speak to the swimming club in a little while about that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I close my comments. I will resume them at a later stage because there is more I can tell you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – 4; New South Wales - 6.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak about cord blood banking. I note the presence of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. He may recall that, at an earlier time in this Chamber, I spoke about cord blood banking during a debate on health. Several members of the back bench on the government’s side chose to boo my description of this wonderful new process. I thank the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, who approached me a few days later, apologising on behalf of his ill-informed back bench members and sought input from me about this procedure which may be introduced in the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to say that I have lobbied the federal Minister for Health and Family Services fairly intensively on this matter and I look forward to her very positive support for funding for this in the Territory.
You may recall that about two years ago, the former Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, did announce $9m in funding for this process. There are now three cord blood banks in Australia: one in Brisbane, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. These are the repositories of cord blood samples that have been collected around the country. Most of the samples are, in fact, Caucasian samples and are not particularly useful where Aboriginal people are concerned.
If I can come to the background about cord blood banking, the current debate on stem cell research has a direct bearing on the proposal for cord blood banking in the Northern Territory. In terms of stem cell, the more rudimentary the stem cell, the greater potential it has to be directed into forming the required tissue. Stem cells from embryos are the most rudimentary of all stem cells. But stem cells can also be found in just about every very rapidly developing tissue such as the gut or bone marrow, and can therefore be obtained from any person, no matter how old you are.
If the most rudimentary stem cells cannot be harvested, if I can use that word, from embryos for bioethical or availability reasons, the source of the next most rudimentary stem cell will be those from placental cord blood of new born babies. I am talking about the placental cord blood, not blood from the baby itself. Placentas are considered ‘waste’ and therefore are disposed of after birth by one means or another. Some groups culturally will take the placenta home to dispose of in their own culturally appropriate manner, and others are literally just disposed of by the hospitals where the babies are born.
Hence, the collection of blood from the placental cord will not suffer from any significant bioethical considerations other than requiring the personal consent of the parents.
For a range of cancers and non-cancer diseases of the bone marrow, marrow transplantation is curative. Of related bone marrow donors, only about 30% are suitable. Of unrelated bone marrow donors, only about 20-25% are suitable.
When it comes to Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people suffer from the same frequency of cancers and non-cancers, but have a higher rate of mortality presumably due in part to the non access to marrow transplantation. Compound that with the lack of donor compatibility with Aboriginal recipients and the mortality rate is further increased. Matched donors are easy to find within the same racial group.
Harvesting of bone marrow from a donor is an invasive procedure. It is a very painful procedure, and ask anybody, including the former member for Arafura, who was one of the donors. He will tell you what it is like. This matter of bone marrow donation poses a significant deterrent because of the pain and the invasive procedure. On the other hand, cord blood harvesting, being from a detached placenta, is not invasive and poses no harm to either the baby or the mother from a physical point of view.
Let me come now to the considerations of the matter. With any marrow transplantation, compatibility issues, as I said earlier, limit the number of useful donations. A successful bone marrow transplant requires a match of six out of six of the six HLA antigens. Now that is a bit complicated and technical, but bear with me. On the other hand, a successful cord blood marrow transplantation is possible with a match of only four of the six HLA antigens. Hence a small bank of cord blood is as likely, if not more likely, to find a compatible donor than a larger bone marrow bank.
Other advantages of using cord blood are: the unrelated cord blood donor can be more easily found and less contamination of cord blood with viruses because the placenta was grown in a sterile environment and the baby or the placenta would not have been infected by any significant exposure to outside biological agents other than the diseases that a mother might suffer from.
There is a smaller percentage of rejection because of low cell dose when you give a cord blood donation to a patient because it’s a small dose only. This indicates that cord blood harvesting and banking can produce a sufficient number of stem cells to bring about a successful transplant with minimal or reduced rejection.
Currently, most bone marrow banks are predominantly of Caucasian donors of west European origin. Furthermore, on a worldwide basis, there is a large pool of Caucasian people, or can I use the word ‘genotype,’ a Caucasian genotype for, say, east Europeans, Asians such as Indians and Chinese, thus increasing the likely access to a compatible donor in a large population concentration of the same racial type. On the other hand, some racial groups have very limited gene pools. For instance, Australian Aborigines are estimated currently to be about 300 000. Remember, these 300 000 Aboriginal people include those who are normally classified as Aborigines but do not have any Aboriginal genotype so access to a suitable marrow donor for an Aboriginal person is thus limited by the size of the gene pool and the number of donors.
In addition to the limiting factors mentioned, the HLA antigens and haplotypes of the Aboriginal population are unique. None of the common haplotypes in Aborigines are common in Caucasians. It is thus almost impossible for an Aborigine to access marrow banks constituted of Caucasian donors. Thus the success of a cord blood bank is measured by its ability to provide a suitable donor and its ability is dependent on the size of its stored donor units. A successful Caucasian blood bank holds a minimum of about 5000 donor units. With a smaller HLA variation in Aboriginal people, a smaller bank is considered sufficient. The Australian cord blood bank specialists stated that Australia needs 20 000 cord blood units for the general population and 2000 cord blood units for the Aboriginal population.
Why is it relevant in the Northern Territory? According to the 1991 Census, there were almost 7000 births of Aboriginal babies in Australia. Most of the births were in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and in the Northern Territory. In the states, the births occurred in small numbers scattered among small suburban and country hospitals. However in the Northern Territory, most deliveries are concentrated at the Royal Darwin and at the Alice Springs Hospitals, these two performing almost 70 % of total deliveries. With the concentration of deliveries, cord blood harvesting at these two hospitals would be very cost effective.
Let’s talk about what we need in the Northern Territory, whether we need harvesting only or do we need harvesting as well as a banking process? Harvesting of cord blood is essentially the removing of blood from the cord of the placenta. This can be done using no more than the skill of the obstetrics staff. Some training would obviously be required to ensure that collected cord blood is treated appropriately before transfer to the blood bank. The process of cord blood banking is very specialised. After initial preparation for transport of the cord blood to the blood bank, the blood is further processed at a central blood bank to conform to standards and then stored in liquid nitrogen.
Cord blood units may be stored in liquid nitrogen in a re-useable state for up to 20 years. So over the next 20 years, if we keep collecting cord blood from placentas, we can actually build up such a large bank that it will be accessible to everybody in Australia.
Other considerations include application to the respective hospital’s Ethics Committee, that the harvesting of cord blood is approved. That has already been done at both the Royal Darwin Hospital and at the Alice Springs Hospital. Staff training was also done because a pilot trial has already been done in the Northern Territory and found to be particularly successful. Recruitment of donors across all ethnic groups is a major job to be done by somebody specified to do it - I think one for the Top End and one for Central Australia.
Obtaining informed consent from parents for cord blood harvesting and cost and method of transfer of cord blood to the blood bank. I believe in the Northern Territory we should concentrate on the harvesting or the collection of the blood samples and then transport that to the Australian cord blood bank which is based in Sydney where the samples can be processed and stored for future use.
The establishment of the full cord blood bank will not be to the interest of the Northern Territory because of the relatively small number of obstetric deliveries, first of all. Besides, the demand for the very specialised facility is small, and will make it cost prohibitive per transplant if ever a Northern Territorian needs to have a cord blood transplant. So any person requiring marrow transplantation at the moment would need to travel interstate because we do not have the technical expertise in the Northern Territory to provide transplantation of cord blood.
So it will be more cost effective to confine the Territory’s contribution to harvesting of cord blood and leave storage to centres such as the Australian Cord Blood Bank. The Northern Territory should concentrate on the collection of Aboriginal cord blood in particular, although the inclusion of collection of non-indigenous cord blood would add little to the cost but would greatly reduce the cost per unit of cord blood collected in the Territory. Full costing to establish collecting centres for cord blood in Darwin and Alice Springs can be sought from the Australian Cord Blood Bank in Sydney, but an estimated figure of some $270 000 is suggested. Approximately $85 000 up to $100 000 will be required for the Territory component of staff coordinator for training, cord blood collection, preparation and courier service. The balance will be required at the Australian Cord Blood Bank to process, bank and tissue type the units of blood for use later on.
So the main cost, which may vary, will be for the employment of a Midwife Coordinator, one in the Top End, one in Central Australia, and a transport system that can deliver the cord blood within 36 hours of collection and maintained within a temperature range of less than 25C. Those things are pretty critical.
I hope the federal minister is very supportive of this. I spoke to her at length a few weeks ago when she was here in Darwin, and I have been in communication with her office via e-mail since that time. She appears to be very interested in this and is also very conscious of the fact that Aborigines in the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia would benefit from Aboriginal cord blood banking.
I seek leave to table this paper, and I look forward to our Northern Territory Minister for Health and Community Services taking this on board and introducing this into the Territory as soon as the federal funding comes through.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – 4; New South Wales – 18.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to congratulate the Alice Springs Cycling Club which hosted, over the Easter weekend, the Australian Junior Track and Masters Cycling Championships.
It was a great honour that Alice Springs was chosen to host these events. I was very pleased that the Minister for Central Australia was there to make presentations, as I did on another day. I wish the Minister for Sport and Recreation could have been there also because it was a long time in the making. I don’t know if many people realise that in 1983 the government of the day built the Alice Springs Velodrome. It is considered to be the fastest and best outdoor velodrome in Australia now. Except for Queensland and Tasmania, each other state now has top indoor velodromes, so the chances of attracting top quality championships to regional centres is probably gone forever but Alice Springs Cycling Association had a chance to host the up and coming young juniors and the masters and of course, this was a great opportunity for them to do so.
The Vice President of Cycling Australia, Jim Nevin, said the velodrome in Alice Springs was among the best outdoor tracks in the world for elite competition, but he also said that it was the best outdoor veledrome in Australia. He put it down to the fact that the thin air from the heat and the lack of wind makes the track conducive to fast times. That happened at this competition: we had many records broken - even a world record.
We were very lucky to have 110 junior grade riders come to Alice Springs for the championships, along with the managers, coaches, parents and supporters. There were a considerable number of people in Alice for this event. The largest team was from Victoria with 19 riders and six support staff, while the smallest was five riders and two staff from the ACT.
In the masters field, which was 35 plus, 71 riders were registered. The youngest group was from 35 to 39 in what they call Masters One, and the eldest group was 70-plus. It is quite amazing that people continue to ride at such advanced age. There were a number of champions, both past and present, from all state levels of championships. There were even some world championships such as Geoff Stoker from New South Wales. Of course, our local lad Kim Hansen was there as well.
We have some up and coming young riders in Alice Springs in the junior area: Adam Davis and Matt Stevens. They managed to get silver last year and they were keen to give the other states a bit of a shake-up this year. They were coached by a young Alice Springs lad called John Pyper. John did a lot of riding in Alice Springs in his younger days and he has now been appointed as the National Coach of Thailand so John is over there coaching in Thailand. We wish him all the best and we hope that it succeeds and that he is getting a lot of satisfaction from helping the Thai people with their cycling.
There are another couple of Territorians I should mention. One to watch is perhaps Corey Heath from Katherine who was posting faster times up here in Darwin - which is considered to have a sub-standard velodrome - than many of the riders from down south were achieving at indoor velodromes.
The velodrome we have there is under-utilised; it is not promoted; people just don’t know about it. It is one sport that perhaps the Minister for Sport and Recreation can have a look at.
I congratulate the organising committee: Ken Aldridge, Phil Davis, John Dermoudy, Paul Herrick, Andrew Koop, Tony Muscat, Paul Pearson and Jack Spears.
They worked very hard. Many positive comments came from all quarters of the cycling community. There were many from Cycling Australia present at these championships. They were very lucky to have the sponsorship of the Aurora Resorts and Hotel Group. They had the backing of the Alice Springs Town Council, Transport and Infrastructure, the Fire and Rescue Services. There was the police help, students from the Alice Springs High School, many businesses and individuals who donated time, money and equipment.
The event was probably one of the best organised I have seen. When you walked into the velodrome and see all the tents around the side for the competitors from interstate; the shadecloth; the timekeepers; everything computerised - it was a great credit to them. One of the little things they did that was different from other places was when the winners on the stand, instead of getting flowers as you’ve seen presented many times, they presented them with a hat. What a sensible and good idea. Cycling Australia said that they would take that on as an innovation and they will probably do that from now on because it is far better to present these guys from interstate – I mean, what are they going to do with a bunch of flowers when they are just visiting Alice Springs? So, it was a very sensible thing.
Alice Springs has a facility there that obviously will attract Australia and worldwide interest. We just need to promote it and work at it more. When we hear all this about participation in sport, perhaps that is a sport that we can encourage more young people to take on.
I also want to speak very briefly about the Alice Springs Netball Association. I am patron of that association. Their season started early this year for some very good reasons. The courts at the Pat Gallagher Netball Centre need resurfacing, and this task needs to be done by August of this year for the simple reason that the Northern Territory Championships will be held in Alice Springs during the Picnic Day long weekend.
This is great news, as the championships have not been held in Alice Springs for over 10 years. But, might I add, we have produced many top line players who have represented the Northern Territory at state level. We have a very enthusiastic regional committee. Everyone is endeavouring to improve this sport. There are lots of players, volunteers and officials, and we have some very good coaches. Might I say Heather Parkinson is the President of the association and Dave Yeman is the Coaching Co-ordinator. He has done tremendous work.
We have some representatives in the Territory team. In the 17 and under we have Lauren Mengel, Katie Pickett, Lisa Braedon, Amy Rodda, and in the 19 and under Sonia Burnnard, Amanda Leane and Kelsey Rodda.
The Alice Springs Association is genuinely excited about hosting the TIO Netball Championships in the southern region, and to this end a dedicated fund raising effort is also happening to make sure that it will be a memorable occasion for everyone who is there. Registration for netball in Alice Springs continues to be one of the highest in the Northern Territory, and it certainly makes netball one of the highest participation team sports in Alice.
Registrations have been maintained at approximately 400 for seniors and 600 for junior players for the last few seasons. So when you are talking about a 1000 people involved in netball, that is a lot of participation.
I am pleased to say the Alice Springs Town Council has agreed to part fund the re-surfacing upgrade through the Sports Development Trust Fund, and this will ensure the courts are in top condition for the championships when they are held in August, but even more importantly, for Masters Games in October. We always have a great range of visitors who come to Alice Springs to participate in netball. It seems to be one of the sports that people play for many, many years.
The Alice Springs Town Council is also considering the upgrade and maintenance of court lighting which will entail some realignment and light globe replacements to bring them up to standard. We really need them for the Masters Games because come October, it is beginning to get hot and most of our games are played later in the evening.
The NT Open Team recently travelled to Adelaide and they were represented by these Alice Springs girls: Rachael Curtin who was the Captain, Tiffany Forbes, Michelle Brereton, Helen Brown, Louise Simonetto, Lorna Walker, Julie Phillips and Heather Parkinson who was the Team Manager.
You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Alice Springs representation in Territory teams is quite substantial. It is a credit - and reflects the fact that they have such a strong competition, nurturing young players from such a very young age right through to the senior level. I want to congratulate all the committee, and all the players, coaches and umpires for their continued commitment to the sport of netball, not just in Alice Springs, but in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday while I was in the Chair, and therefore not in a position to interject, the Minister for Community Development who entered this Chamber and made certain comments about things I had to say in the past. I make no apologies for things I have had to say in the past in this Chamber because it is my job to represent the interests of my electorate.
However, I have noticed that the minister for Community Development seems to be a little bit more than slightly prickly about the issues I have raised, specifically the decision to spend millions upon millions of dollars on sporting facilities and institutions here in Darwin, and in remote communities, has chosen not to support those communities really in terms of their sporting events. However, he claims and insists the whole way through this that it is not his job as a minister to dictate to departments how to deal with issues inside departments on an administrative level.
Well that is interesting because if that is the approach that the minister chooses to take in relation to how departments or ministerial officers operate - and there’s a clear separation between the two - I am curious as to why I have yet to receive a reply to a letter I sent to the minister back on 22 April this year on an issue about which I complained. I pointed out in this letter that he was possibly unaware of what was happening, and I would accept that if he said so.
I was approached by a member of the Central Australian Drag Racing Association to come along to a meeting that association and a couple of other associations were having with the Department of Lands in relation to some prospective land being set aside for a motor sports complex. I know that a representative from CADRA, Mr Alan Stainer, knows about my interest in a motor sports complex because I am well on the record as being a great supporter of a motor sports complex in Alice Springs. Indeed, I have even formed a committee of my own, which is now being run Alan Stainer, called ASMAG which is the Alice Springs Motor Sports Action Group. So I have some credentials in this area.
But Mr Stainer quite properly took time to contact the department and spoke to a member of the public service in that department who said: ‘Oh, hang on, I have to check with the minister’s office as to whether or not I can have an MLA along’. To my dismay, it got back to me that from the minister’s office, Mr Peter Brooke, who was organising the meeting - at an administrative level, mind you - is a ministerial officer based in the Office in Central Australia. So somewhat surprised or taken aback by this approach and this level of interference, I thought: ‘Oh well, I will telephone the Office of Central Australia and see what is happening,’ and in that instance I spoke to Andrea Martin.
I have known Andrea for some time. She is a pleasant enough lady…
Ms Martin: Pleasant enough lady?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. To my surprise, I was told that I was not welcome at such a meeting on the grounds that I was going to make political mileage out of being there and that my presence could serve no useful purpose.
I take no issue with the government and their plans and I intend to make no political mileage whatsoever out of the idea of establishing a motor sports complex in Alice Springs. I hope that there is a drag strip built; I hope that there is a speedway built; I hope that a whole motor sports complex grows out of this process. I have no problem with that. It has been something I have been fighting for with the former government and will continue to do so with the current government for some time, and will continue to do so for some time.
However, as a consequence of this rather surprising level of interference in the administration of the Department of Lands, I decided to say, ‘Wow! That’s quite something.’ So I decided to write to the Minister for Community Development, the Honourable Jack Ah Kit and say, ‘Do you realise that this is happening? Gee whiz, Jack, because if this is something that is of concern to you, this is something that you have got to be aware of’. I would have expected that the minister, after a month, would have replied to my letter and at least told me what he was intending to do about it in relation to that sort of level of ministerial interference inside the public service in Alice Springs.
I have had no reply. I find it surprising that he is being so churlish and so precious about saying: ‘Well, I am not going to get involved in departments at a particular level. It is my job merely to set policy and how they run those departments is entirely up to them’ and then to remain silent on an issue when it has been clearly demonstrated to the minister that such interference is occurring.
I invite the minister to explain to this House and members of the public service as to why he is remaining silent when he has quite deliberately and explicitly stated in the past that he would not tolerate such behaviour. I seek leave to table a copy of the letter for the minister.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope to hear from the minister sometime soon about that letter.
I also rise to comment on the adjournment by the member for Sanderson last night in relation to the handback of land in the Roper area. I was curious to hear during his adjournment comments in relation to the nature of inalienable title and that during the process of negotiation between the land council and the former Northern Territory government there was an offer made to freehold the land in question, and that offer was knocked back, and they insisted on inalienable title and no other form of title.
I am personally a great believer in people having power to make decisions for themselves. I believe that that power should be extended to all adults who own property or live in families or whatever - that is just a general statement of belief - until such time as that adult can be demonstrated to be not capable of making those decisions. It has been, in my experience, made clear to me that traditional people who own land are entirely capable of making decisions for that land for themselves. This is one of the things that frustrates me through this whole process, that when we suggest that inalienable freehold is better than normal freehold or is stronger, what it actually does is remove the ability for people to make decisions for their own land.
In my experience when I have travelled around my electorate and other electorates in the bush and spoken to the traditional people, they seem very, very keen to have the powers to make decisions for their own land. I hope that there is over time a greater relaxation of the frustratingly binding way in which inalienable freehold works. Yes, it is strong title in terms of the fact that it cannot be taken away from the title holders, but it is weak in terms of its ability to provide for the people who own it. How often have we heard comments about these people being asset rich and dirt poor?
I also heard the Minister for Central Australia make several comments today in relation to certain improvements that are happening on Aboriginal land. I am glad to hear that because it is long overdue, but it is a good step in the right direction. I remember the Minister for Central Australia saying: ‘Good things come to those who wait,’ but the waiting game has been very, very long. I continue to urge in this House, and publicly, the land councils and the people who own that land to turn to that land as a source of their own salvation.
I will continue to pursue all of these topics over time in this House. I will continue to champion the rights of people to make their own decisions. Adults are adults and I think that adults should be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, we did hear yesterday in this parliament that the Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development had not read the report into the complaints against Pam Fitton. I urge him to do so because I think it makes pretty good reading for someone who was complicit in commencing this matter and in taking such strong, strident and destructive actions in the early part of it. He should look at where those actions left the people who were the recipients of them because they certainly caused harm.
Tonight in the time I have I hope to read into Hansard some of the observations of the Professional Review Tribunal. I hope that any listeners to it would appreciate just what it is we can do in this House when we stand up and talk about people and then completely wash our hands of the outcome. I start at Clause 11 of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision on Penalty dated 7 May 2002:
Remember, this is Tracy Lodge.
Dr David Meadows. Dr Meadows has been a visiting medical practitioner of the facility since 1987. From in
or about 1989 he has been the medical practitioner for the vast majority of the residents at the facility, and in
that capacity has visited the facility on a weekly basis. He has also been a member of the Board of Management
for the facility and held the position of Chairman for approximately two years. Dr Meadows was able to confirm
the fact that the difficulties identified by the tribunal in relation to the storage and administration of medication
arose from the underfunding of aged care and the chronic shortage of nursing home beds during the material times.
Proper inquiry and consideration.
I think that is a pretty open and shut case. For a parliamentarian coming in here making allegations, a long time ago, prior to them being adequately investigated and having been adequately investigated, they were found to be untrue - and I go back to my adjournment speech last night where I quoted some of the words from the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development where he said on 24 October 2001, page 276:
I ask the member, Mr Deputy Speaker, to do that, to do the right and mature thing. I ask him to do it with courage and principle, with empathy and understanding.
This political witch hunt was something I have not seen the like of before and I hope I never will again. For some reason this person was chosen as a target. They were targeted in federal parliament, and they were targeted in this parliament. As I said last night, we politicians can stand up here, we have the capacity to rebut, we can say things in this House, also covered by parliamentary privilege, in our rebuttal. However, we are talking about a nurse running a nursing home. This is a home where frail and aged Territorians live. It is a place where their family have often reluctantly located them to live out their remaining years of their life, and it is a place where they are sometimes distressed by the circumstances of their loved ones living there because they would prefer them to be in the bosom of their family.
The allegations that were made in this parliament cross into that realm. They cross into the realm of injuring the carers, the family, the staff, the good name of this institution, the good name of the people who were working there. I have doorknocked a couple of them, and I can tell you it was a pretty distressing time for them.
We have an historical run here that can be easily analysed. Allegations made, investigation on foot. A bit like the PAC really. Allegations made, investigation on foot. Investigation comes to a conclusion, finds the allegations unproven. I think that if you were a party to ventilating those allegations in this place with the coverage of parliamentary privilege - and I did media as the responsible minister after that and they were pretty significant allegations. The media was in a fair lather about the kerosene bath type allegations occurring here in Darwin. It was a very difficult thing to react to because it had been made on a very authoritative basis and had come from two houses of parliament. I think the action that is available now is available to two members of this House.
In the first place, I believe that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development should apologise. It is not a hard thing to do. It is not hard to say: ‘Look, I was given really good advice. I had documents. I took stat decs’ whatever it was. He was obviously convinced in his own head that the vindictive actions of others were something that he could carry through with goodwill. The down side of that is perhaps he was party to it. I don’t really want to go there. I would like to say that the best spin on it is that he did it ignorantly. That could happen to any of us. Having done it ignorantly, I think he should apologise and he should do so fulsomely to those people that I have mentioned and that particular institution.
The second action open to a member of this House, and I did speak about this last night also, is where the Chief Minister chose to admonish the then opposition spokesman on mining, then Mr Ah Kit, the member for Arnhem, because he said what she construed to be defamatory comments about miners. Miners are like politicians, I suppose, or used car salesman. They are used to getting kicked around a bit, including by politicians. But so incensed was the then Leader of the Opposition that she came to this parliament and withdrew those inaccurate comments. She sacked him, essentially, and redistributed his portfolio responsibilities and she said that the opposition viewed the remarks seriously and they valued our miners.
The Chief Minister is also the Minister for Seniors, and I hope that she values our seniors. I hope that the Chief Minister can convince this member that it is in the best interests of the good name of this parliament and his good name as a politician to make an apology of that type. It is probably not going to cost him a cent. It can come straight from his heart. I don’t think it has to be drafted or anything silly like that. In the interests of some sort of closure and reconciling this matter, I don’t think that it would hurt for him to also make some sort of contact with the people on the board, some of them I would guess would be known to him.
The letters to the editor, I am sure, would carry some names of people who are not known as supporters of the CLP. It would be a fairly easy thing to do some soundings totally divorced from the tribunal or anything else of people who are connected with this fine institution. There are some remediation actions he could take, but the first is to address the tarnished reputation of this good facility, of its former Executive Officer, of the people who are associated with it and those Territorians who call it their home, those senior Territorians who live in this place.
Some of these stories went national, and there were occasions, I’m told, where loved ones from down south rang in a state of panic because these things were carried on the wire. As we know, much, much later, in May of 2002 are proved to be untrue. But that is not very helpful when you’re a long way away and your loved one’s here and there is a contemporary and offensive nature about the complaint.
I did ask the question yesterday, but I have chosen to use this route of speaking twice in adjournment about this because I believe it will be clear to everybody what the circumstances are. I don’t think it is personally up to me to demonstrate the hurt that has been caused and the damage because I think that can be done readily by government. It can be done readily by people with connections with this institution and it can be readily done by people who have some access to knowledge about nursing homes, how they are run and the difficulties of that particular climate.
I prevail on those two ministers to apologise, and I prevail on the Chief Minister to show to Territorians that while this government values miners, it also values seniors and it believes that frail, elderly citizens, sometimes with mental and other ailments, should not be treated in such a cavalier fashion where they are used as pawns in some sort of political game. That would offend most commentators and would offend most of us in the House.
I seek some considered discussion from those opposite so that they can find a way through this and the way through is to do what you have said in parliament: be courageous, be brave, stand up and say sorry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s New South Wales – 21; Queensland - 4.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): 21-4 to New South Wales?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: Go, the good guys!
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to acknowledge in this evening’s adjournment the outstanding achievements of two former students of Parap Primary School. Geraldine Chin and Ingrid Barnesly were students in the special class at Parap Primary School for gifted children from 1985 to 1987. It was a combined class for students selected from Years 4, 5, 6 and 7 and in those years, the teacher was Robyn Cooper and the principal was Wally Mauger.
Geraldine, who is 26, is a member of Darwin’s Chin family of Cavenagh Street. She is the granddaughter of Sue Wah Chin who died two years ago in her 100th year. Geraldine attended Parap Primary from 1985 to 1987. At the ANU’s graduation ceremony in April 2001, Geraldine was conferred with a Bachelor of Laws degree with First Class Honours with a thesis on Commonwealth Constitutional Law and a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Genetics.
Geraldine was awarded the University Medal in Law and she was also awarded the Tillyard Prize, the ANU’s oldest and most prestigious award for a graduating student which is awarded to the student whose personal qualities and contribution to university life are outstanding.
The Australian-American Fullbright Foundation awarded Geraldine a Fullbright Scholarship to commence the Master of Law program at Harvard Law School in August of last year. Harvard University awarded Geraldine a Frank Knox Fellowship which provides full funding for post-graduate study at Harvard and which she can hold in conjunction with her Fullbright scholarship. So a young girl from Parap Primary doing extraordinarily brilliantly both in Australia and overseas.
On 6 December 2001, the Rhodes Scholarship Foundation awarded Ingrid Barnsley, who is 23, an Australian At Large Rhodes Scholarship. Ingrid was a student at Parap Primary from those same years, 1985 to 1987, while her mother, Jenny, was a teacher at the school. After the Barnsley family moved back to Sydney, Ingrid attended Abbottsley School at Baroonga. Ingrid completed an Arts Law degree at the University of New South Wales with Honours in Political Science. Ingrid will take up the Rhodes Scholarship in September 2002 when she will commence a Masters Degree in International Relations at Oxford University.
The achievements of Geraldine and Ingrid highlight how important it is to provide educational opportunities for young Territorians. I congratulate them both, and I am sure this House does, and their families and most importantly Parap Primary School which is still doing an excellent job with our young people.
I had the great pleasure recently of approving a grant of $2000 to support the Australian Navy Cadets with their impending 10 day trek on the Kokoda Trail. The Australian Navy Cadets are a community-based youth training organisation. The Darwin unit, Training Ship Darwin, is situated at HMAS Coonawarra and has been operational for 14 years. The Australian Navy Cadets is an organisation committed to providing youth training for young Australians aged between 12 and 20 years. The aims and objectives of the organisation are to foster leadership, self-reliance, initiative and discipline, character, community spirit and good citizenship in the wider sense, skills useful to the individual and the community in general, knowledge and interest in the defence forces, and knowledge, interest and skills in seamanship, the sea environs and maritime affairs.
When we speak of the Kokoda Trail, we speak of the bravest of the brave. The Kokoda Trail is a place filled with Australian military history and it is important that our youth remember the sacrifices made by the brave men and women who defended our nation. The cadets and staff will depart Darwin in October to walk the 93 km trail, and I certainly want to congratulate Commanding Officer Gillian McKay, the cadets and all the local businesses who support the expedition.
I had the honour this week of welcoming delegates to the Third World Recreational Fishing Conference. Delegates from 17 different nations, other Australian states and a formidable contingent of Territorians are attending the conference. My government acknowledges how important recreational fishing is to the Territory. It enhances our lifestyle, it is great for tourism, and it is the quintessential Territory past-time - as well as watching football on the telly, of course - and playing. My government is very keen to promote and enhance the recreational fishing industry. We want to ensure the pristine conditions we have here are maintained for this generation and for generations to come.
This commitment was demonstrated by our recent closing of the McArthur River to commercial fishing. The McArthur River is the second most popular recreational fishing spot in the Territory after Darwin Harbour and we are proud to have done this for our recreational fishing men and women who add so much to the Territory’s economy. We have committed substantial funds to improving fishing and you will soon see better boat ramps and better security, very importantly, at those boat ramps.
The government is committed to working with indigenous communities and pastoralists to open up new areas to recreational fishing. We are talking to the fishing community on their priorities, and will be working through a process with Aboriginal land councils and pastoralists.
On the night before the conference, I had the great pleasure of hosting a reception on the lawns of Parliament House for conference delegates. The sun was setting on our magnificent harbour and our guests were entertained by the Tiwi Island Dancers and the Galiwinku Dancers. I want to pay tribute to the dancers; they did a great job. The Tiwi dancers were Eucharia, Eleanor, Mabel, Sally and Brenda, and the Galiwinku dancers, Malengim, Mathew, Luke, Ezra and Eugene.
An enormous amount of effort has gone into the organisation of the conference and I thank the Fisheries Division of our Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development as well as the Amateur Fishing Association of the NT, both of whom put enormous effort into organising the conference. AFANT brought the conference to Darwin; a great achievement, I’m sure all honourable members will agree. My government recognises what a great job they do for recreational fishing in the Territory and that’s why we’ve been delighted to increase their annual base funding to $140 000 a year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few comments tonight on the DARE program which, as we know, is currently being reviewed both by the police and by the Education Department. I attended a public meeting held at Darwin High School, probably about six weeks ago, hosted by the police, looking into the issue of the DARE program. I know there have been a number of these meetings held throughout the Northern Territory. What struck me was the level of support for this program coming from the community represented at that meeting.
As honourable members know, the DARE program was instituted and initiated by the CLP government quite a few years ago now in response to concerns about youth and their use of drugs. I gather it commenced at Casuarina Secondary College and developed as a result of the learning that the police had when they went to America and saw a similar program in operation in the United States. This program was brought back to the Northern Territory and slowly grew into the DARE program that we see today. It is a comprehensive program that focusses on having police present in the primary schools, with the key role of delivering drug education to the young students.
The key factors in the DARE program are that it gives a valid reason for the police to be present in a primary school. The police meet the young children in the transition and early grades and they establish what I gather are quite wonderful relationships with the students. Some of the police involved in the DARE program have been with the program for many years and have seen the young students grow up and become young adults with whom they still interact, usually in a positive manner.
When I went to the Darwin High School meeting, I was sitting next to a young fellow from Timor. He told the group during the night that when he came from Timor he was very frightened of the police. He was a high school student here, and when he went to the high school and saw police, he was frightened by and worried about the police. It was through the relationship that that police person in his high school had with the students and with him that he learnt a different way of dealing with police. He learnt to trust them. He took the trouble to come to this meeting to offer his support to the DARE program because of the value that he felt that the program had generally and for him in particular in breaking down the fear and the barriers that he had towards authority when he came here to Australia.
What I learnt at the meeting was how valued the DARE program is. The students go through their life, when the come into perhaps a bit of trouble in their teenage and early adult years, they still have relationships with police who they can go and talk to, and that they may interact with on an official basis. I understand that it is working very well.
One of the problems the program has faced is that it does not have empirical evaluation programs done on it. It’s been a very difficult program to develop some form of evaluation as to how you judge whether or not students who have been exposed to the DARE program are less likely to interact with drugs, for example. That sort of an evaluation tool has not been developed nor implemented. So a quantitative evaluation of the DARE program has been very difficult however the public meetings that have been held in the Northern Territory over the last few months will have demonstrated that in a qualitative way, the evaluation is extremely positive for the retention of the DARE program.
We heard from teachers, students, parents and from those of us who are just community observers, noting the value of the DARE program and concerned that we are going to lose this valuable tool.
My understanding is that at the time of the review, part of the motivation for reviewing the DARE program was that, in the new government’s promises for the election, there has been a promise for increased police presence and numbers and it has been put that by reducing the numbers of police involved in school programs, that will free up police to go on to the streets or into other areas for different work.
Obviously it is difficult to find police numbers at the drop of a hat, however, I would urge the government to think very carefully about the program. When I went to the meeting at Darwin High School, we were asked by the police who were facilitating the meeting to come up with some valid reason, apart from the DARE program, for the presence of police in a primary school. No-one could think of any other reason why you could have police in a primary school for anything other than trouble. What else would they do there? In a high school, they might do something to do with traffic safety and driving, those sorts of programs, perhaps even legal studies, whatever it might be. But in that crucial primary school period, it was very hard - in fact, impossible for our group - to come up with any idea as to why you would have police present and attached to a primary school except for some negative reason such as if someone is sprung with some marijuana in their backpack when they are in Grade 7.
We couldn’t come up with any valid reason to have the police there yet we heard from teachers what an impact it has on the very young children to have a friend in a police uniform.
It has been proposed that the education on drugs would move from the police into the realm of teachers, that it would just become a normal part of the curriculum. To my mind, what that loses is the impact of having someone in a police uniform explaining to young people what some of the implications are from the use of drugs, for example. I understand the DARE program is broader than that, but I’ll just stick to the issue of drugs.
You would dilute the impact of the program if you lost that impact of the police uniform and, I guess, the authority that the position holds. Young children, it is argued, may come from dysfunctional homes, perhaps homes that don’t have a male adult in them, and at a time now when we recognise in our community the unfortunate situation that very few men are being attracted to the education system to become teachers, it is often fairly rare to see a male in a classroom.
One of the other aspects that the DARE program brought was the presence of an authoritative male, in many cases - I know there are females who are DARE police officers and, in fact, the schools in my electorate have a female DARE officer. However, one of the advantages, as I say, has been for many schools is that it puts a male role model in to a classroom in a position of authority. I understand from teachers who have been involved in this that the young children look up to that person with wide eyes and a fascination in the stories that they have to tell them.
This has been a wonderful program here in the Northern Territory, something we can be very proud of. I know that reviews are always useful in any program and need to be conducted, but I certainly urge the minister involved to think very carefully about this, and I would urge him to retain the DARE program as it is.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a couple of schools in my electorate tonight. The recent NT News competition, Win a Croc for a Year, drew national and international press. The winner of the competition was a Year 4 class at Holy Spirit Primary School within my electorate. The NT News competition was held in conjunction with Crocodylus Park and Hibiscus Pet and Aquarium Centre. I thank and congratulate all of those parties for their generosity. This is an excellent initiative and will only be of benefit to the Year 4 class at Holy Spirit School.
Ms Mohr and her Year 4 class had the best prepared and most thorough submission as judged by Dr Adam Britton from Crocodlyus Park. The crocodile has been named Crunch at the school but currently there is a school-wide competition to rename it. Quite honestly, I like the name Crunch. I know my kids have a book about Crunch the crocodile so hopefully it will keep its name.
I assure all animal lovers that this crocodile will have the best attention and Dr Britton from Crocodlyus Park will provide careful supervision to ensure that no crocodiles or children are harmed in the production of this education experience.
I congratulate Ms Mohr and her Year 4 class for winning the competition. It is a unique educational tool for the classroom, even for a Darwin one, and will no doubt stay with the kids for the rest of their lives. It provides a unique learning opportunity and will actively engage the children to learn by interacting with the crocodile rather than just a photo in the book.
Thanks also to Steve Jennings of the Hibiscus Pet and Aquarium Centre for providing the equipment necessary to cater for the needs of the crocodile. I look forward to getting into the classroom and seeing Crunch for myself and catching up with the kids.
Currently at Holy Spirit we have a Japanese intern working with the school for the next two terms. Ms Keiko Yokoi from Nagoya will be a valuable addition in the class rooms. Her presence in class rooms will provide for a valuable cultural exchange with the children.
Whilst learning about our culture from Holy Spirit, students and staff she will also be informing the school about her culture. Ms Yokoi’s internship is the product of an excellent exchange program called Japanese School Teaching Assistants Program which is part of an international program called School Language Assistants Program. It is great to have Holy Spirit participating in innovative programs like this. They ensure that school children have an enriching school life and it further builds on the multicultural aspect of our community.
Wanguri School has continued its participation in Adopt-a-Vet whereby schools ‘adopt’ a World War II veteran. Adopt-a-Vet was an initiative of the Northern Territory Committee of the federal government’s Australia Remembers: 1945-1995 commemorative program to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.
This is an excellent initiative which helps keep alive in our community the spirit of Anzac Day and World War II. It reminds us of the lessons we have learnt from war and allows for valuable interaction between different generations. It is appropriate for a program such as this to be run in Darwin. Darwin obviously as all members of this House would know had a prominent role in Australia’s involvement in the Second World War and the Adopt-a-Vet program works to improve the understanding of Wanguri Primary School students on the importance of the Second World War. Hopefully, they will never forget the participation of Australians within that war, particularly here in Darwin.
Mr Merv Ogram served in Darwin as a Gunner with the 70th Mobile Searchlight Battery. He currently resides in Sydney. That has not prevented him from being involved with Wanguri Primary. Mr Ogram was assigned to Wanguri School during the Australia Remembers year and has continued his involvement with the school at the school’s request. I’m told that other schools in the Territory have also maintained contact with their adopted veterans since 1995.
Mr Ogram has created a hand-crafted Lest we Forget wooden cross which was presented to Wanguri Primary as a gesture from Mr Ogram by military historian Bob Alford on 10 May. I was present for the presentation which was during the school assembly and it was a moving occasion. The interest, respect and admiration that the primary school students held for both of these men was obvious. Mr Ogram is the author of Searchlights, an account of his war years published an NT Australia Remembers publication The Territory at War – memories of the men and women of Australia’s Armed Forces who played a vital role in Australia’s defence during World War II.
Students of Wanguri Primary will correspond over the course of 2002 with Mr Ogram and, hopefully, some will even continue that correspondence past this year.
I have a copy of the first letter sent to Mr Ogram by Master Josh Roach who is 7 years old. It is very touching. I seek leave to incorporate Josh’s letter into the Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: I congratulate Wanguri Primary School for participating in this great program. I thank Mr Ogram and Mr Alford for taking the time to help and talk to the children. I also extend a special thanks to Mrs Susan Neil, the teacher from Wanguri Primary School who is organising the program.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Northern Territory Museum - Marine Research Project
Northern Territory Museum - Marine Research Project
Ms MARTIN (Arts and Museums): The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is participating in an exciting new research and bioprospecting program in Territory waters in partnership with the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the United States National Cancer Institute.
The museum is the principal Australian partner in this very important initiative which involves the collection of samples of marine animals such as soft corals, sponges and other marine organisms for screening for new pharmaceutical compounds to assist in the fight against cancer and AIDS.
Territory waters boast a diversity of marine organisms sought after for the high number of new and unique bioactive compounds they contain. The museum has been subcontracted to provide 250 samples of these organisms every year for screening. Samples will be frozen and shipped to the United States National Cancer Institute in Maryland for testing. The contract will enable the museum to significantly increase its capacity in marine research and the project has the potential to attract future royalties if extracted compounds from Territory samples are licensed to a pharmaceutical company for production and marketing.
Other Territory institutions may also benefit from this project. Under a benefit sharing agreement which the Territory has entered into with the National Cancer Institute, researchers at the Northern Territory University, Menzies School of Health Research and the soon to be established Arafura Timor Research Facility could be provided with complementary opportunities in the area of biotechnology research and development.
Another significant benefit will be an increased knowledge of the marine biodiversity of our northern waters. Because of the strategic location of Darwin, close to the highest area of tropical marine biodiversity in the world, and because of the expertise that we have in the museum, the Territory is well positioned to become a centre for bioprospecting in our region. Dr Barry Russell, who is Assistant Director of Natural Sciences at the museum, has recently returned from a trip to Dili with the president of the Coral Reef Research Foundation to meet with East Timor fisheries officials to extend the project to East Timor with benefits to that country as well.
Collecting work in the Territory has already commenced, with the first samples being obtained from Darwin Harbour. A small team of museum divers led by Dr Belinda Glasby, a marine sponge expert, has already photographed and collected more than 50 samples. These samples will be processed and identified at the museum and then prepared for shipment to the United States later this year.
Bioprospecting is a very low impact activity that is ecologically sustainable and will have little or no effect on the ecology and natural environment of the harbour or elsewhere along our coast. The samples required for testing by the National Cancer Institute are quite small. Less than one kilogram of each species was required and, because an attempt is made to artificially synthesise any pharmaceutical compounds that are discovered, there is no need for ongoing harvesting of large quantities of marine products.
The museum’s principal role in this significant project is testimony to its international reputation for scientific excellence in natural sciences research and its particular expertise in taxonomy and systematics of marine organisms. It is a significant project in terms of its contribution to world health issues, to international partnerships and scientific research, and in developing the research capacity of the Territory.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the expertise and professionalism of the staff of the Museum and Art Gallery and to congratulate them on the significant contribution they are making to international scientific research and biotechnology. I also take this opportunity to reaffirm my government’s commitment to supporting the Territory’s development through continued support for initiatives such as this which encourages linkages between our regional neighbours and international partners.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the former Northern Territory government over its time in office spent a great deal of effort and money making certain that the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory were properly funded despite the complaints of the then opposition and the member for Fannie Bay. However, it was properly funded and the former government did a great job. The museums at Bullocky Point and down in Araluen as well as all of other services that the department provides have served Territorians well. As a consequence of that, the Territory is well position to enter into what sounds like a great project.
However, I urge the Chief Minister not to allow the tentacles of her slash and burn approach, the tentacles that have reached throughout the public service, to go into this department to threaten projects like this. I am glad to hear that she is making that commitment.
I hear the members opposite laugh, but how much was the cut to the Hidden Valley V8 Supercars? $200 000? A little bit more? They sit there and they claim to be the great champions of research and the great champions of the Northern Territory as they cut and slash their way through spending here in the Northern Territory. I put the Chief Minister on notice that I will keep a very close eye on this project and make sure that they do not touch it.
Ms MARTIN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, talking about such a wonderful project that enhances our capacity in research, in the scientific area generally, and taking great advantage of our position here on the edge of the Timor Sea, it is really disappointing to have the shadow minister for Arts, which I assume you are, talk in such a negative way about this proposal.
We are thoroughly supporting it. We are hoping for bipartisan support on this. This is an opportunity for the museum to use its expertise, to expand on its expertise and to receive some financial reward for that. It’s a great opportunity and I really wish the opposition would join in celebrating this; it’s an important move forward for the Territory. All we hear from the opposition is whingeing and whining and carping. Very, very disappointing
Outback Central 2002 – Year of the Outback
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, let’s hope there’s less whingeing and whining here.
I rise to give a ministerial report on the progress of the premier event of the Year of the Outback, Outback Central 2002. On 9 May, I opened the Outback Central 2002 office in a prominent location in Alice Springs. For much of this year, this office will be the nerve centre of the Year of the Outback. At that opening, I officially announced that Wana Ungkunytja, a local Aboriginal-owned business management company, are the project managers for this event, spearheaded by the inimitable Clive Scollay, fresh from his experience organising the Yeperenye Festival last year.
Outback Central will run from 23 August to 1 September. The draft program has four main themes. The first is the Desert Knowledge conference which has international and national speakers lined up to share and develop the skills and knowledge of desert living. The second theme is the Outback Expo, a showcase of outback innovation not just from the Centre, but from the 80% of Australia that makes up our outback. The third theme is the Alice Springs Festival, a vibrant and popular cultural event which aims to double its numbers this year. Finally, we’ll have the community focus, the events which engage and enthral local residents and ensure that they, too, are part of the Year of the Outback celebrations.
I am sure that all Central Australians are proud that Alice Springs has won the right to host this feature event of the Year of the Outback. It consolidates our international and national positioning as the real outback, and it gives us another opportunity to show the world that outback and in-front are not contradictory descriptions of the region.
This is why my government has been delighted to provide $200 000 for the Outback Central Expo, plus a further $50 000 for the Desert Knowledge summit. We also put $50 000 into staging a government display as part of that expo. I am delighted that Alice Springs Town Council is also a partner in the event, having contributed $100 000 in cash and kind. Of course, our thanks must go to the federal government for their major sponsorship of $600 000.
To me, the Year of the Outback is about celebrating our history but also about changing perceptions of what the outback is. The outback is about ancient culture and pioneers, cattle and windmills, mateship and endurance. But it is also about technological breakthroughs, about answering social challenges, about creating a future for ourselves rather than following in the footsteps of urban areas.
This is why the program is not heavy on heritage, much as we prize our history and traditions. Rather, it emphasises the future, the innovations that are unique to the outback: desert knowledge and how it will contribute to our lives in the 21st century. It will showcase the cultural richness of the outback beyond the bush ballads to the amazing depth of talent we have in visual and performing arts here in the Territory. Aboriginal arts must be one of our most famous exports, but there is much, much more to the cultural landscape of the outback.
There have been so many people involved in the development of Outback Central 2002 to date, and I congratulate them for their creativity and hard work. I will be making further announcements on the program and Outback Central 2002 at a later date.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report. The opposition agrees entirely with the sentiments expressed. We agree that the Year of the Outback is to be celebrated. Those of us from Central Australia are particularly proud that national focus will be on Central Australia. We are pleased that, at last - and I’m sure the Chief Minister would be inclined to agree - the likes of Clive Scollay have been appointed. There was some risk that the event might be slipping a bit, but under the stewardship of Clive Scollay, I’m sure that he will produce a marvellous result.
On a less positive note, however, I am obliged to comment on the failure of the government to secure Virgin Blue into Central Australia. Whilst we applaud the national, and probably international, focus on Central Australia as a result of the activities for Year of the Outback, the problem is we need people there. We only have one airline, and that will be an indictment on this government that it will need to live with forever and a day.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): I thank the member for her comments and, again, I say it is disappointing to have the negative whinge about this. On the specific point of services into the Central Australian region, we congratulate Qantas for their additional flights in. It will make a difference. A second airline is something that is still very high on our agenda. We have not failed, as the member for Araluen suggested. This is an ongoing effort and I am confident that it will be achieved in the long run. It is constantly in our minds and in the time frames we are setting that we need a second airline for Central Australia. We are working towards it.
To cope with the kind of impact we saw with the collapse of Ansett is something that is engaging every government around Australia and certainly has been a focus for this new government as we are now almost nine months in office. So we feel no sense of failure here; just an achievement to come.
Container Deposit Legislation
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide information to the Assembly on the progress of discussions on the possible introduction of container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory.
As you would be aware, prior to the election, the previous government gave a $100 000 grant to Keep Australia Beautiful and Katherine Landcare to study container deposit legislation. They undertook surveys and tested the issue throughout the Territory. On taking government, and in conjunction with Keep Australia Beautiful, I decided that a review of the material available on this matter needed to be done by a committee that reflected a number of interests.
The committee was chaired by Ken Copeland, a respected Darwin businessman. Keep Australia Beautiful and Landcare are represented through Mr Geoff Finch and Mr Jim Furwood. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, Mr Richard Sullivan, Mr Mike Burgess from my department, and Ms Carol Frost from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry were also members of the review committee.
The committee called for public submissions, and I extended the time for these submissions when it became clear that more members of the community wished to comment. The report has now been presented to me. The report does not recommend a government position on container deposit legislation one way or the other. It canvasses much of the recent work done on the issue. It points government in the direction of recycling and litter control programs that should be considered in addition to any action the government may or may not take on this particular issue.
It evaluates the cost of the program and it evaluates its advantages and disadvantages. It recommends to government the following:
- if container deposit legislation is to be introduced, further information needs to be sought on the legal
implications, the financial implications in both establishment and operation, regional issues, operational
issues and relevant features of the South Australian model;
current legislation needs to be reviewed and appropriate enforcement applied to breaches of CDL;
expansion of curbside collection needs to be encouraged;
if CDL is not to be introduced, it is recommended that government review the effectiveness, participant
compliance and performance of the national packaging covenant;
government will discuss with manufacturers and their associations performance targets for the recovery of
containers and ways to achieve it;
additional funds to be allocated to recognised organisations to educate the public and for clean up programs.
This report has given government much to think about. I am asking my department to investigate the issues raised and to present an options paper to Cabinet that fleshes those issues out. I am not putting a timeline on this at this stage as I want the investigation to be thorough. I am aware there will be a level of disappointment in the community that this report has not made a solid recommendation one way or the other, but I am grateful to the committee for focussing for government the issues to be examined whichever way we ultimately decide to go.
I will not table the report for all members of the Assembly; I do not want to create an excessive workload for the staff. I have already handed a report to the member for Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition and yourself, Madam Speaker, and I will present a copy of the report to all MLAs.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, if ever there was an issue that a decision could be made on, this would have to be it. It has been investigated to the enth degree.
The group that looked into this matter did it very thoroughly. They conducted, through the course of the show circuit last year, a public survey which had enormously strong support and that should be demonstrated in the report. The Keep Australia Beautiful Committee have canvassed the community very broadly in relation to this. We demonstrated, as a government, our commitment to it in terms of providing $100 000 to determine once and for all what the community’s views were; they are very positive. For the minister to stand up and say: ‘We don’t want to put anyone to a lot of trouble to produce a report’.
You won’t be putting agencies to trouble; you can just get this printed. If you are ashamed of distributing it and informing the Territory as to what the outcome of the report was, just as you’re prepared to conceal figures in relation to crime activity in the Northern Territory, what have you got, as a government, against people determining whether they can make up their mind in relation to a report and what their views are? So much for a secretive government as opposed to one that was going to be informative.
We’ve heard nothing from the minister in terms of what he’s going to do - apart from a bit of navel gazing in relation to this. It is an issue that has strong community support. It came out of the fact that the packaging industry was refusing to further support, through financial contributions, Keep Australia Beautiful activities and from that point of view, this government took the action to move toward container deposit legislation. That was our clear intention and it’s something that the government can now do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to put it bluntly, I think the government has to introduce it. Forget the recommendations. The proof of the pudding is in South Australia. It is known to be the most popular legislation they have ever introduced; they’ve had surveys on it. It works in South Australia. South Australia has the same conditions as the Northern Territory; it has long distances to travel, it has outback communities. It can be done. I think the time has come to introduce it. If the national associations are not willing to put their reports directly to this group of people, they’ve got something to hide. Therefore they should not be part of this.
They were given the opportunity to put their reports here, they’ve put it straight to government. They just put themselves out of the equation. The government should act straight away; they should make sure that local government is included because they are the key - they’re the ones that look at land fill, litter and recycling. They should do it now. I am surprised at one thing: there was $100 000 spent on this report. Why weren’t the relevant features of the South Australian system looked at? Why weren’t the legal matters looked at? Why weren’t the financial implications looked at?
But all said and done, it works in South Australia. It can work in the Northern Territory. The proof is in the pudding.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, as Sir Humphrey Appleby said: ‘You get the answers you want depending on the questions you ask.’ Keep Australia Beautiful came to me with a set of answers from their research. Industry came to me with a set of answers from their research. Each contradicted the other. The difference with the new government is that this minister is going to make a decision and is prepared to wear any political costs. I am personally in favour of recycling, however I have to look at the special conditions of the Territory, and that’s what I’m going to do.
It might have worked in South Australia. Rest assured, member for Nelson, it did not work in Western Australia. I worked in Port Hedland and we couldn’t do it. It was impossible.
We considered the same conditions here, but I’m telling you, and I repeat: this minister is going to make a decision. As for the report, it will be handed out to the community so they know what the report contains.
Football Park Redevelopment
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to report that earlier this morning I was out at Football Park to commence the excavation work which is the first stage of the re-surfacing project. As we know, reticulation and drainage will happen in the next stage, also re-turfing. This first contract was let last week to local company, Ostojic Pty Limited, and work is now well underway with about 8200 m of soil to be removed.
Other contracts yet to be awarded are the supply of graded material for construction of the new field, quality control services, surface reconstruction, turf supply and maintenance. These works will provide work for local companies and contractors and will result in a shot in the arm for local business. Resurfacing is the critical part of the upgrade to the Football Park stadium which will not only ensure the return of AFL football, but has also allowed us to pursue and secure international cricket matches. I remind members of the Assembly that Tony Ware, the curator of the MCG, is heavily involved in providing advice.
I should also point out that we are very pleased with the assistance and cooperation that we have received from the South Darwin Sporting League who are accommodated across the road from Footy Park. They have agreed to allow us to use areas of Warren Park which is, as I said, across the road from the oval, for stock piling measures and materials. This will assist the government and the contractors and will also provide benefits to the South Darwin Sporting League whose facility will receive some spin-off improvements in the process.
It is a win-win situation which is something this Martin Labor government is on about. It is not a slash and burn exercise, as the member for Macdonnell stated this morning. In fact, since the change of government I have noticed especially in my department that public servants are on a high. We have gone through most of the settling down period and there is this belief that they are now working with a government that is very proactive and positive.
This development is exciting and it was great to see the first signs of physical work taking place today. I am advised that our scheduling requirements are being met and that we are on track to have the installation of the turf on the newly constructed oval taking place in August. This means that the oval will be ready for play in January 2003 and that we will be primed for the return of AFL football on the Australia Day Weekend. We know how many people were disappointed last year, so the Carlton v Aboriginal All Stars match is on and the Wizard Cup Preseason Match is being sought. We will then have six months of count down for our first international test cricket match.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, that is all good news. However, last time such a statement was made I did ask some specific questions and I believe they were not directly responded to. Rather, you like the opportunity for big-noting, but you do not respond to a specific question. It was a general question and a genuine question with regards to cricket being played at Football Park. I asked a question about the negotiations in making sure that things were squared away with the AFLNT. I understand that there was commercial-in-confidence status in the lead up to this, but I am really interested in how things are going now. I am also interested in who is paying the water bill. The AFLNT has an imposition to pay the water bill which they had not been able to absorb in previous times. It is a great financial burden on them. With cricket coming, who is paying the water?
Second, the experience we have secured from the MCG differs vastly from conditions in Darwin. I just want some assurance that the experience from Melbourne is going to give us the right sort of turf here in the tropics.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, in response to the last question from the shadow minister, the expertise is there. The proof is in the pudding. This gentleman is one of the best if not the best in the country in terms of preparing these types of turf. He looks after the MCG. The MCG in Melbourne is a holy shrine to the Melbourne sporting community. So you need to understand that we are getting the best involved.
In regards to the AFLNT, we have to have confidential discussions and I will seek out a response as to who is going to be paying the water bill. But I will make it very clear, if the members opposite want to listen, that there will be benefits for the AFLNT - there will be benefits. They have a lease and we will honour our commitment to supporting them so that there are spin-offs for the AFLNT also.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Print Paper - Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Print Paper - Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly, I table the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with Respect to Both the Estimated Outcome for 2000-01 and the Budget for 2001-02; the volume of transcripts of public hearings; and the volume of media releases.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report and associated papers be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the committee’s report.
In rising to speak to the report, I also wish to table additional documents that have been placed before the committee throughout the duration of the inquiry and that should be made available for public scrutiny.
This inquiry is the first major public inquiry carried out by the Northern Territory Public Accounts Committee for a considerable time. Furthermore, it was public in the sense that the media had complete access to record hearings under the same conditions which they can record Question Time. Before speaking about the specifics of the inquiry, I would like to give a general background to the inquiry for the benefit of the House. I would also direct members to the Foreword on page IX of the report. The inquiry resulted from serious allegations made in a memorandum from the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services, Mr Paul Bartholomew, to the incoming health minister in September 2001.
In relation to these allegations, I would like to quote directly from my Foreword on page IX of the report, as follows:
- These allegations related to the veracity and accuracy of budget data presented by the former Treasurer,
Mr Mike Reed, to parliament and the people of the Northern Territory in May 2001.
Mr Bartholomew specifically alleged that the estimated expenditure of the Health Department for 2000-01
was artificially reduced so as to show increased expenditure equivalent to the CPI in 2001-02. He also alleged
that he informed his then minister, Mr Stephen Dunham, of this proposed deception.
After receiving the terms of reference for the inquiry on 25 October 2001, the Public Accounts Committee then
proceeded to gather evidence over the next six months including:
written responses from 35 agencies;
a total of 10 public hearings which included a total of 32 hours of verbal evidence and 486 pages
of transcripts.
In the public hearings, the committee heard evidence from the CEOs and finance officers of six agencies, three ministers of the former government and the current health minister. Apart from the reduction of $8m in the Health Department estimates, the committee also heard disturbing evidence that there had been similar reductions in the budget estimates of the Education Department - some $6m; and the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Department - some $2m.
After careful consideration of the evidence, the committee has published its findings and recommendations within this report. Not surprisingly, I note that there is a dissenting report submitted by members opposite which dissents in many important areas with the majority report and I believe does not really address the issues at hand. In addition, I note a dissenting report on one specific matter from the member for Nelson; namely the committee’s findings in relation to the former Education Minister, Mr Chris Lugg. I intend to address this specific issues within my speech.
Nevertheless, it is important to realise that within the approximately 70 pages of the body of the report, this is the only matter in the report that the member for Nelson has disagreed with. I would emphasise that, this single matter aside, the remainder of the report contains a large number of very substantial comments, findings and recommendations that the three members from this side and the member for Nelson are in complete agreement on. Where does this leave the minority report submitted by the members opposite?
There are many negatives in this report for the former Treasurer, the former Health Minister, the former Education Minister and, ultimately, the former Chief Minister. More importantly, I believe our recommendations, which are found between pages 68 to 69, have positively addressed the issues raised and substantially reduced the likelihood of similar interference in budget processes in the future. To this end, the committee believes that parliament and the people have the right to trust the figures that are published in the budget papers, something sadly lacking in the previous government.
This wasn’t an exercise, as some might contend, of a committee having a trial after they’ve hanged someone. This was an inquiry that was all about findings about the processes and the environment that gave rise the these deceptions, and making positive recommendations so that they don’t occur again.
In particular, we have recommended the establishment of an Estimates Committee within the Northern Territory parliament. Indeed, the Northern Territory parliament is the only parliament in Australia not to have an Estimates Committee to scrutinise the budget estimates process. An Estimates Committee was part of Labor’s election platform. We are a party that is committed to delivering on our promises for open and accountable government.
I will move through the highlights - in some cases I think better described as the lowlights - of the findings and recommendations of this report to be found on pages 65 to 69. I purposely resisted the temptation to revisit the report and evidence in detail. This would be an impossibility. I have already outlined the magnitude of this inquiry. However, I would emphasise that this majority report is based on the evidence given. As any reader can plainly see, chapter by chapter, quote by quote, document by document, transcript by transcript; it is all there.
In the relatively limited time I have available, I therefore propose to go directly to the findings and recommendations chapter. The committee relied heavily on the written and oral evidence of Mr Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer. Substantial amounts of his evidence were in conflict with that given by the member for Katherine and the former Treasurer. I will quote the committee’s comments from page 59 regarding this conflict in evidence:
- The committee found that Mr Clarke had a clear recollection of the events and discussions regarding the
realignment of the 2000-01 estimates. He presented his evidence honestly and with candour, and openly
stated when he was interpreting Mr Reed’s directions, or when he was giving his opinion, whereas Mr Reed’s
recall of the meetings with Mr Clarke was limited.
I quote again from page 43:
- The committee found that a number of Mr Reed’s answers were convoluted and often did not adequately
address the substance of the question asked of him. By comparison, Mr Clarke’s evidence left little doubt
as to the circumstances surrounding the reductions in the 2000-01 figures for Health, Education and Police
as reported in the 2001-02 budget. Mr Clarke also believed that this was done for political purposes,
something Mr Reed denied.
- Variations to the 2000-01 estimated actual and 2001-02 budget and the recommendation that you approve
these variations as outlined in Attachment A. KD Clarke
and approved Mike Reed, 17 May 2001. Clearly, here on the back page - and I seek leave to table this - is a reduction in the estimates for Territory Health, minus $8m. Minus $8m signed off by the former Treasurer. I seek leave to table this Under Treasurer’s Minute.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Now, if we turn to the interview that the former Treasurer had with Fred McCue:
- Okay, just a simple question, though: Are you saying that you knew about it…
referring to the $8m reduction in health estimates,
- …or you didn’t know about it?
Reed: Fred, I don’t recall anything about this because it’s an issue that clearly, as indicated in the
Minute by Mr Bartholomew, that was a matter between Mr Clarke and Mr Bartholomew.
In the same interview in relation to whether he directed Mr Clarke to reduce the estimates, McCue says:
- But were you not ultimately responsible?
He’s talking about the $8m reduction in the health estimates.
- I ask you this question: Did you direct Ken Clark to do this?
Reed: I don’t recall making any direction in relation to that, and that’s something that Mr Bartholomew is
going to have to determine.
In the face of such apparent untruthfulness, little wonder the committee has chosen not to believe the former Treasurer. He is someone who devalues the word ‘deception’ by his constant use of it. I issue a challenge to the former Treasurer and member for Katherine: if he stands behind his words to Mr Fred McCue, I challenge him to repeat them and tell the House tomorrow when he speaks that he knew nothing about the $8m in reduction to health estimates and that he did not direct Ken Clarke to reduce them. So there’s a challenge for the former Treasurer.
Returning to the findings and recommendations, Mr Clarke gave evidence that the process was started and driven by political rationale. I am quoting from Mr Clarke now:
- …a political rationale. There’s no question that, in my mind, that’s what he was being driven by that. I gave
him, if you like, an accounting rationale but it was the political rationale, no question, that started the process …
- The committee also accepted the fact that the main purpose of the realignment to the 2000-2001 estimates was
to show growth in the funding between the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in the 2001-02 budget papers.
Predominantly, this decision had a political rationale. In addition…
- In addition, without Mr Reed’s intervention, the budget estimates would have been published unchanged
and without reduction. What Mr Clarke provided to the then Treasurer was an accounting rationale,
should it be needed. However, the then Treasurer also made it clear to Mr Clarke that there would be
no discussion of the matter within the budget papers or the budget speech.
This is a very important aspect. It demonstrates the lack of transparency and accountability by the previous government. I direct members present and the public to the recommendation on page 68 that sets out in detail how budget documentation can be improved.
It’s patently obvious why the then Treasurer was desperately concerned about having budget figures that showed growth. As we all know, 2001 was an election year. Mr Clarke said in evidence that he gave the former Treasurer so-called defendable means of showing growth by reducing the estimates of expenditure for the current year, and I would like to quote from page 60 of our report:
- The committee believes that the only valid way to show increased growth between one year and another is to do
just that: to increase expenditure for the following year rather than artificially reduce expenditure estimates for
the current year. In this respect, the committee agrees with Mr Bartholomew’s description of the reductions as
being artificial and the process as being deceptive.
Moreover, Mr Clarke backed away from fully endorsing the method used by the former Treasurer to show growth, and I quote from Mr Clarke in evidence:
- I presented to the Treasurer a logic for him to - to give him a reason, if you like, to reduce the figures for 2000-01.
I wasn’t saying that it was the best thing or the right thing. That wasn’t the question that was asked of me.
Of course it wasn’t a question that would have been asked of him. Bearing in mind that it was an election year and Mr Clarke said that it wasn’t the best thing or the right thing, I came across a quote by Josef Goebbels. I think it could be a CLP credo:
- The important is not what is right, but what wins.
So it was win at all costs. Slate what’s right; win at all cost. Josef Goebbels said it. 1940.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We also heard evidence from Mr Clarke that he pleaded with the former Treasurer that an $8m reduction in the health estimates would be difficult to justify. Mr Clarke - and I am quoting from his evidence:
- After the adjustment, the estimated actual would have been only $4m more than the original budget. Now I
was aware that there had been some increases in the health budget, like the carry forward from the previous
year, for example, so I thought, ‘Gee whiz, you know, that looks to me a bit suss’.
Here is the Under Treasurer saying that looks suss! Mr Clarke reported that he raised these concerns with Mr Reed, and I quote again from his evidence:
- The reason why this came up was because I rang the Treasurer and said, ‘Gee whiz, I am not sure this is the right
thing to do for health,’ and so he went through a process of trying to satisfy himself, I presume, that he could
answer in the parliament, that he could explain it.
And again just carrying on from Mr Clarke:
- He had to come to that judgement himself because he is the one that carries the can.
Well, carry the can, he does. I think the member for Drysdale has got one hand on one of the lids as well.
I would like to read from page 61 of our findings in relation to the former Treasurer, and I quote:
- Mr Mike Reed, MLA:
Mr Reed was the instigator of the process that led to this deception. He approached the then Under Treasurer,
Mr Clarke, for advice and directed him to reduce the estimates in order to show growth in health, education and
police. Mr Clarke has given evident that without Mr Reed’s intervention the estimates would have been
published unchanged and without reduction. It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that Mr Reed’s
motivation for interfering with the budget in this deceptive manner was political.
- Mr Reed selected one of the Under Treasurer’s options to show growth. This option was to artificially reduce the
estimates in health, education and police so that he could show growth in these crucial areas during an election
year. Whilst there is no evidence that Mr Reed acted illegally under the Financial Management Act, the committee
believes that the benchmark for ministerial behaviour is much higher than legal compliance.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS:
The committee is also of the view that to interfere with the budgetary processes and budget figures…
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The interjection about lying has not been demonstrated in this. It was used in the censure motion that preceded it and cannot be used, I would suggest, in this debate either.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, withdraw that comment across the floor. You know you cannot use that.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw lies and replace it with untruths.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I think using similes is an offence to your position, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You were asked to withdraw the comment. Do so without reservation.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS:
- Whilst there was no evidence that Mr Reed acted …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, could I just interrupt for one moment? I know there are some people who feel passionate about this debate but you must temper your remarks and not use unparliamentary comments in your speech or in your interjections. That is a reminder for all members at this stage.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Whilst there is no evidence that Mr Reed acted illegally under the Financial Management Act, the committee
believes that the benchmark for ministerial behaviour is much higher than legal compliance. The committee is
also of the view that to interfere with the budgetary processes and budget figures in the manner described above
amounts to improper political manipulation of the budgetary process and is a deception on the parliament and
the people.
- As Treasurer, Mr Reed also abused the trust put in him by parliament and the people that ministers should be
honest and truthful when delivering budget information to parliament. It appears that a lack of transparency
in budget processes under the previous government largely contributed to the events that occurred.
Similarly, I would like to read our findings in relation to the member for Drysdale. This is on pages 61 and 62:
- Mr Stephen Dunham, MLA
In his May budget appropriation speech to parliament, Budget Paper No 2, Mr Dunham presented an estimated
expenditure of $436m for 2000-01 THS budget. Whilst he presented the published figures to parliament, it
cannot be considered as completely truthful. It appears from the evidence, including his own, he knew full well
that the department was likely to spend to its full Cabinet approved allocation of $444m. He had been informed
by Mr Bartholomew that this was the likely outcome and by Mr Clarke that the department was able to spend to
its full allocation of $444m. Moreover it is a side-stepping of personal responsibility to use the defence that:
- …Correct is what is published, correct is not a judgement that comes from your heart or your attitude.
That is a direct quote from the member for Drysdale. It encapsulates exactly how he side-stepped his own personal and ethical responsibility in this matter.
- In so doing, Mr Dunham chose to endorse the artificially reduced figure of $436m, chosen by the former Treasurer
Reed, in order to show growth in the 2001-02 health budget.
By not challenging the deception which had been brought to his attention by his CEO Mr Bartholomew, Mr Dunham
was complicit in allowing an artificially reduced and false estimate to be published and presented to the parliament
and the people of the Northern Territory.
This figure misrepresented the budgetary position his department was working to, and gave the misleading impression
to the people of the Northern Territory in an election year that there had been a 2.5% increase for health expenditure
in the 2001-02 year.
Mr Henderson: Fraud!
Dr BURNS: From the evidence given to the inquiry, it appears that Mr Dunham was not …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The word ‘fraud’ likewise was used in the censure motion …
Madam SPEAKER: Is unparliamentary, yes.
Mr DUNHAM: … and I point out that the exact question was posed on a number of occasions. This report does not find any fraud.
Madam SPEAKER: You have raised your point of order! Minister, ‘fraud’ is unparliamentary. It has been deemed so in the past.
Mr HENDERSON: Could I just seek a ruling? Going to the Oxford Dictionary, Madam Speaker, ‘fraud’ is ‘the quality of being deceitful’. Certainly, are you implying that ‘deceit’ is also unparliamentary?
Madam SPEAKER: We have allowed ‘deceit’ in the past, but we have not allowed ‘lies’ or ‘fraud’. So, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. And let’s not interrupt the member’s flow by interjections, particularly from his own side of the House.
Dr BURNS:
- The committee believes that the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory have the right to expect
that published budget figures are the same as those that agencies themselves are working to at that point in time.
In turn, ministers should be truthful and forthright when presenting such figures to parliament. In this context,
Mr Dunham fell short of these expectations.
In regard to Mr Lugg, the former Education Minister, I direct people to page 62:
- Mr Chris Lugg
The assertion by Minister Lugg in his May appropriation speech that there was to be a $9.4m increase in education
spending in 2001-02 was incorrect and deceptive. It led the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory to
falsely believe that there was a significant increase in education funding in an election year.
While Mr Lugg was the only minister who actually quantified the increase in his appropriation speech, the majority
of the committee members …
that is, the members on this side, and I have already noted that the member for Nelson has dissented on this particular – this is the only issue that the member for Nelson has dissented on.
- … Mr Lugg was the only minister who actually quantified the increase in his appropriation speech. The majority of the committee members felt there was insufficient evidence that he deliberately misled parliament for the following reasons:
Mr Lugg appeared to exhibit a significant lack of interest in and knowledge of the budgetary situation
of his department.
own judgments. It also appears he did not exercise sufficient vigilance in these matters.
budget.
Nevertheless, this negligence should not exclude Mr Lugg for his inability to exercise due diligence, in exercising his
duties to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory to prevent such deceptions occurring.
This is the single area where the member for Nelson has dissented from our report. I understand the sensitivities around this, as Mr Lugg was his political opponent in the last election. Nevertheless, we on this side stand by our conclusions in this matter. In evidence, through his evidence for a variety of reasons, Mr Lugg demonstrated he did not appear to fully understand what was occurring and therefore did not deliberately mislead parliament.
This is in stark contrast to the former Treasurer, and former Health minister. In essence, their censure was wholly justified simply on the basis of the Bartholomew memo alone. New evidence brought to light in our inquiry further highlights their arrogant disregard for the parliament and the people.
There are a number of other matters raised in the report, namely the sale of Northern Territory Fleet on page 63, and I quote:
- …the committee found that the decision to include the sale of NT Fleet in the 2001-02 budget was made without
a proper contemporary analysis of the overall implications of the sale.
Evidence was also given that inclusion of the sale in the budget was made in haste and very late in the process
when the budget was being finalised. There was further evidence from the former Under Treasurer that he had
advised Mr Reed that it may not be a financially sensible decision to proceed with the sale.
I believe this proposed sale of NT Fleet for $50m was included to try and make the former Treasurer’s 2001-02 budget line look a lot better.
The next matter: under-estimation of final consumption expenditure. The committee heard evidence that there were blow outs in the bottom line in successive CLP budgets of between $65-70m. Much of this was caused by unrealistically low estimates of growth which forced departments to continually request supplementation during the year.
Education and Health were two examples. Education had a starting allocation for 2000-01 of $335.5m and ended up spending close to $351m. They successfully applied for further supplementation of $5.3m in June 2001, just before the close of the financial year. Most of this latter amount remained unspent. Such repeated supplementation indicates poor budgetary processes and management.
Indeed, the Auditor-General commented on the non inclusion of $6m in the estimated expenditure for 2000-01. These funds were approved by the Burke Cabinet for Education personnel costs in March 2001.
While the committee received evidence from a variety of sources on this particular matter, given the complexities of the matter, we were unable to reach a conclusion on the specific issue within this report. However, we intend to revisit it and take further specific evidence. We will report back when we have done so.
I emphasise that this matter does not affect our overall findings in relation to budget blowouts under the previous government, and the need to change budgeting culture. I direct people to recommendation two on page 68.
Although there are a number of other matters, the one I would like to close on relates to the mini-budget. I know this is really going to upset members opposite, but I quote from page 65 of the report. I might just add that this particular section remains unaltered. It was submitted to the committee by our fiercely independent consultant, who is very experienced in Treasury matters, who looked in detail at this issue. I know it doesn’t suit the purposes of the members opposite to hear this, but I’ll say it:
- 2001-02 Mini-budget
Several items within the 2001-02 mini-budget were raised during the inquiry…
I might add that was mainly by the opposition members trying to derail our inquiry, just the same as they’re going to try and sidetrack our findings and recommendations, bring up a big cloud because they don’t want us to go to the heart of the matter, which is the conduct of the former Health minister and the former Treasurer.
- …in particular the electricity tariff, the provision for liabilities arising from the demise of HIH as well as
health related expenditures. In each case, the committee found that no evidence had been provided which
could substantiate any inaccuracies in the 2001-02 mini-budget data.
I will say it again:
- In each case, the committee found that no evidence had been provided which could substantiate any inaccuracies
in the 2001-02 mini-budget data.
I would like to go through the recommendations in the time that I have left.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just as a point of clarification, I am trying to find my name in this report. I mean, I was the subject of a censure motion, and I assume the recommendations will flow and carry some context with the censure motion. Could you refer me to the pages where I am specifically referred to?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, that is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader is correct. Apart from references to decisions made by his Cabinet, like the one that the Auditor-General drew attention to, yes, he isn’t specifically mentioned within this report. However, I am coming to comments which I believe I should have the freedom to make, and observations about his leadership during this period.
Before I do that I’d just like to go through the recommendations. This is on page 68:
- Recommendation 1 – Improve Budget Documentation
There are some very specific recommendations in the report about the types of annotation, the types of tables that should appear in budget papers, particularly that allocations to departments should appear, and if they had have appeared within the budget papers drawn up by the previous Treasurer, there would have been a point of comparison and some of these anomalies would have become obvious.
In addition, treatment such as the reduction for presentational purposes, the former Treasurer made it very clear to his Under Treasurer that basically he didn’t want any mention of reductions within the budget papers or the budget speech. So recommendation 1 goes to deal with those sorts of issues about annotations, about narratives within budgets, about making the whole issue of budget numbers more accessible.
Recommendation 2 - Improving budgeting culture, and this goes back to this repeated supplementation that was forced on departments by unrealistically low estimates of growth.
- The committee recommends that the government addresses the budgeting culture throughout all areas of
the NT budget whereby funding levels approved in the annual budget are substantially supplemented
throughout the year.
- Recommendation 3 - Establish an Estimates Committee
- The committee recommends that following a review of practices used by other jurisdictions, an adequately
resourced estimates committee be established appropriate to the needs of the Northern Territory prior to
the tabling of the 2002-03 Appropriation.
So we’re recommending it. I hope that the government takes this issue up and an Estimates Committee is established. It is in stark contrast …
Mr Burke: It’s an election promise. What’s wrong with you?
Dr BURNS: 27 years you had to establish one. We’re the only parliament in Australia that doesn’t have one, and I would be proud if this Labor government establishes an Estimates Committee within this parliament.
Recommendation 4 - Agency Record Keeping
- The committee recommends that all agencies be made aware of their responsibilities regarding the proper record
keeping of minutes of meetings and discussions, in particular those which have major resource implications.
This is on page 69.
- The committee recommends that the decisions to develop, outsource or sell such major government operations
should include:
Appropriate and comprehensive evaluation for cabinet before inclusion in the budget,
data collection, and
- Vigilance should be exercised when including notional figures within the budget to ensure that
the basis of the trend is not changed and the best estimate for the year is provided.
- Recommendation 7 - Review of Conflict of Interest in Committee
Following concerns with having a committee member who was also a witness, and the subject of the inquiry,
the committee recommends that the Standing Orders committee investigate whether changes to standing
order 263 would be appropriate.
Mr Burke: interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you will get your chance.
Dr BURNS: Now, Mr Dunham continued to serve as a committee member of this Public Accounts Committee despite the fact that much of the inquiry focussed on his conduct when he was Health Minister in the previous government. He also appeared as a witness before the committee.
In October 2001, I wrote to Mr Dunham asking him to consider his position on the committee during the term of this inquiry, particularly in relation to Standing Order 263 which states:
- No member may sit on a committee if he is personally interested in the inquiry before such a committee.’
I will reflect on that a little bit because I reckon the Opposition Leader should have really put the weights on the member for Drysdale and said: ‘Look, I think it is appropriate given these circumstances that you step aside,’ but he did not. It would not happen anywhere else in Australia. So really, you have not learned a lot.
Finally, I would like to comment on the performance, or lack of it, by the former Chief Minister. Once again, I believe the censure motion was entirely justified. Here was a leader with a Treasurer who was firstly reducing the budget estimates in an artificial…
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand the member is speaking to the report which is entirely silent on this matter and he is digressing from the subject.
Madam SPEAKER: I have not heard what the member is saying yet. We will wait until we hear what he says.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I am making a comment on this whole scenario. This is my comment on the scenario. Once again, I believe the censure motion was entirely justified. Here was a leader with a Treasurer who was firstly, reducing the budget estimates in an artificial and deceptive manner; secondly, delivering successive budget blowouts of between $65-70m a year, a Treasurer who included the sale of NT Fleet for $50m in haste and without adequate contemporary analysis.
Here is a leader who also had a Health Minister complicit in the artificial and deceptive reduction of health estimates and, as I have just pointed out, now a Shadow Health Minister and a member with an obvious conflict of interest sitting on a committee determining a matter which intimately concerns him.
He also had an Education Minister who was disinterested and not adequately engaged in his portfolio responsibility.
I believe the Opposition Leader was worthy of censure. Indeed, the current challenge for the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe to be an honest man with a great deal of integrity, is now what to do with his shadow ministers. If he was re-elected, would he keep them in those positions? Would he keep the member for Katherine as Treasurer and keep the member for Drysdale as Health Minister?
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe that a serious misjustice has occurred with regards to not only this report, but the comments from the Chairman.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Just hear me out. Madam Speaker, I simply say that there have been serious allegations laid in a censure motion in this House. I have listened to the Chairman’s report. I have tried to make reference to where that report coincides with the allegations that were made in the censure motion and the actual report. There is no correlation. I am not even mentioned in this report.
The recommendations in this report the opposition would probably cheerfully accept. But the substance of the whole inquiry should logically have led to a reference to the Privileges Committee and that has not occurred.
I ask for some guidance because members have been censured in this parliament, the result of that censure was an inquiry to deliberate on and confirm the censure, and in the recommendations of this report - which I have read very quickly - no such substantiation has occurred.
I believe that the members involved - myself, the former Treasurer and the former Health Minister - have been the subject of a serious misjustice in this parliament.
Madam Speaker, as the leader in this House I ask you to give some ruling as to where we go from here.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to point to an injustice rather than a misjustice. But whether he is mentioned in the final report or not, as Chief Minister of the day the buck stops with him.
The end responsibility was with him as Chief Minister to know what was going on in his budget preparation and, whether he is in there or not, he gets his opportunity later in debate to put these points. But, of course, the ultimate judgement about his correctness in all this was visited on him in the August election.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease for a moment and let me ask the Clerk. It is as I assumed, members. The Leader of the Opposition was the Chief Minister at the time; it’s his government, in a way, that is being looked at, and their actions, in this report. I think we cannot revisit the censure motion; that’s over and done with, that’s already a decision of the parliament. That’s not what we are debating today. We’re debating the PAC report and the Leader of the Opposition will have his chance to reply to the findings as he sees fit, when he has his chance to respond. So I am ruling at the moment that, because the Leader of the Opposition was the leader of government at the time, it is fair that he be cited in the discussion. That is also on the advice of the Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, how, in all honesty, can the Leader of the Opposition leave the shadow Treasurer in his current position after all the damning evidence in this report? Similarly, with the shadow Health minister, particularly after this NT News editorial on his poor performance earlier this week. He must reallocate responsibilities.
In closing, I know I did gallop through some of it, but basically yes, there was a censure motion, but I will repeat what I said earlier: I saw this inquiry as an opportunity to come forward with some positive recommendations for the parliament, and I believe they’re there. There are recommendations for an Estimates Committee; there are recommendations about improving the way the budget figures are presented; there are recommendations about the budgeting culture; and there is a series of very positive recommendations.
I think we should leave the past behind, let’s move on into the future into an Estimates Committee. This inquiry wasn’t about banging people up; it was about coming forward with positive recommendations. Madam Speaker, I think we’ve done that, and I commend this report to honourable members.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, gee, I’ve looked forward to today. Today is the opportunity for us to put to bed some of the myths and legends that have been running since this government was elected.
The point I make at the outset is that we have a report here that’s partially irrelevant to the comments that have just been made. We have a report here that’s entirely irrelevant to the censure motion. I suggest, for the edification of other members who may wish to contribute, that we now have the scope to talk about pretty much anything we like in terms of finances because the only way we can put to bed some of the irrelevant comments that were made is by rebutting them in an also irrelevant debate.
I hope members take the opportunity to speak to those issues that have been allowed. For my part, I will speak to the dissenting report, which is a very small, readable document – unfortunately, tucked right up the back of this report and very difficult for people to find. I have made a point for readers, researchers, media and others, that we’ll make this not only available, but we’ll make the two members, Dr Lim and myself, available to speak to anybody who wants some more education on this because some of this is fairly complex.
In fact, in one chapter it was so complex the committee was unable to digest it in turn to prepare this report. I speak now about the Education chapter. The committee had so much evidence in such a complex way that it was of a mind to make a recommendation that the education answers were confusing. They weren’t confusing; they were confusing to the reader. They were quite full. They were quite full.
We could say is that some of the things in here - surprise, surprise - have been written in a very biased fashion that goes to the partiality at least of the government members. That’s understood; I’m not going to whinge about that. That’s how politics works. But what this morning gives me is the opportunity to put the picture in a much fuller light.
At the start, I was pleased that this parliament passed this reference to the PAC. I am a previous Chairman of the PAC. I thought this was an entirely good body to look at it. It was an entirely appropriate thing to look at whether the memo that preceded this was widely supported by the CEOs in the public sector, and have them give evidence to us. I was pleased, too, with the wording of it that enabled us to look at the budget for 2001-02. 2001-02 is the current year. The former government’s financial control over the budget during this year lapsed in about August and it definitely lapsed with the presentation of the so called mini-budget. So essentially we are in a year under review by the PAC where we could ask questions about process.
The previous speaker, the Chairman of the PAC, gave it away a little bit when he said the heart of the matter was to look at the conduct of the ministers. Then he went on to say no, I didn’t want to look backwards; I really wanted to look at how we could make it better. One of the tests for governments, one of the tests for parliament, one of the tests for the PAC, is to say: ‘We have found a problem. We’ve found a sin. Now what we think we should do is describe how that sin, problem, whatever, occurred and look at remediation. Look at action that will fix it’.
This report is silent on that. Not only is it silent on that, but we as a parliament don’t know whether the matters which so offended those opposite that they had to censure three members on this side, we do not know whether those matters are on foot or whether there are contemporary arrangements in the current government. During the censure motion, and during my evidence, I was able to show the budget documents for this financial year, for which we only had a couple of months of control, and they stack about this high - for the interests of Hansard, say 6 or 7 inches. The mini-budget is about half that size, and the critical issue is the capacity to look at the mini-budget.
Mr Henderson: It’s twice as truthful.
Mr DUNHAM: It’s twice as truthful is the interjection.
Mr Henderson: Absolutely.
Mr DUNHAM: The test for truth is whether you can question elements of the mini-budget, have an answer that stands up to scrutiny, and have an answer that is true in fact.
The difficulty we had with the mini-budget was that it was seen as a no-go area, and I believe that that goes to our first recommendation, that the PAC is in contempt of this parliament. The PAC was sent off to do a job and it refused to do that job. It is not the prerogative of the Chairman; it’s not a prerogative of saying: ‘Okay, we’ll put this to a vote. There’s three of us, there’s only two of you and there’s an independent – nah, nah - that’s what we’re going to do’. These terms of reference …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I refer to the standing orders. I refer particularly to …
Mr DUNHAM: I believe this is a stalling technique, Madam Speaker.
Mr KIELY: I refer to the procedural orders of continuing effect, where it says:
- 9. A member, in a protest or dissent added to a report, shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless
so authorised by the committee.
Madam Speaker, item 1 of the dissenting report, that the PAC is in contempt, clearly states:
- At one stage a motion put in committee to ask questions in accordance with the parliament’s terms of reference
to the Public Accounts Committee was defeated.
No vote was ever taken in a public hearing, any votes that were ever taken were in deliberative, therefore, Madam Speaker, I say that this first point breaches that particular point that I mention. That is the point of order that he’s raising now and that’s the one that I challenge.
Mr DUNHAM: Unless you write it in a report and debate it in parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk and I discussed this earlier. Clerk, would you like to discuss it again with me?
Standing Order 274 deals with evidence that was taken that should not be reported to the Assembly unless its authorised by the Committee. It is very difficult. We’re in a difficult position because we have just had the report tabled today and we have to refer to it. So I think the member, in speaking to your dissenting report which has been tabled in this House, can refer to matters of deliberative sessions, but be careful that you don’t contravene Standing Order 274 which does say it shouldn’t be disclosed or published by a member unless it has been authorised by the Committee.
It is very difficult because that’s already been tabled and printed, that dissenting report that you are referring to, and perhaps that should have been picked up by the Committee if that was so. At this stage I’ll allow the member to continue but you must do so in accordance with Standing Order 274. You must make your comments very general and not specific. Unfortunately, that report has been printed so we cannot undo that at the moment.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the dissenting report was received I think late yesterday so the Committee didn’t have a chance to….
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t care when, what time or how or when, but if there is something in it that contravenes Standing Orders, it should have been picked up at that stage by members of the Committee or the Secretary of the Committee. But it has been reported as such.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I will adhere to your ruling. I would say that matters have already been raised by the previous speaker where he talked about matters relating to the previous Chief Minister that were discussed also in the Committee and were not voted on.
Nonetheless, it is sufficient to say - and I can understand their difficulty with this - that the terms of reference are public and evident to everybody. My own oral transcript is available in here in one of these documents where you can see that there was a lot of effort to keep this evidence suppressed. That is the evidence about the current year’s budget.
It is interesting that those who held the view that we shouldn’t be looking at the mini-budget can see some confusion in the minds of members. The Chairman asked some questions relating to the mini-budget of the Health Minister, and to add further to this confusion while that was allowed and seemingly kosher, I guess on the basis that she had some expectation of those questions, when we asked some quite reasonable questions of the type you’d expect the minister to be able to answer, she was unable to do so.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): A point of order, Madam Speaker! In these sessions, the conditions under which the Minister for Health and Community Services was to appear were clearly stated. What he is stating here is not how it was said.
Mr Dunham: You’ll get a chance, mate. Stop trying to gag it.
Mr KIELY: No, you’re fabricating. You’re fabricating a myth. You know quite well the instructions under which the minister appeared. They are not those. You are very close to putting misleading information to this Parliament.
Mr Dunham: Give up. You’ll get a chance.
Mr KIELY: Yes, well stick to the truth. Stick to the truth and we’ll all be happy.
Madam SPEAKER: These matters of dispute are matters that occurred in the deliberative sessions or in the committee hearings. I think you need to steer clear of it. You will get your chance to reply. As a member of the committee, you have your chance to bring this up. You are raising points that are disrupting the member’s time to give his answer to the report. I say to the member again: be cautious and aware of Standing Order 274 which says you shouldn’t be quoting things from deliberative sessions. You know that.
Mr DUNHAM: That’s correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I suggest that you write these things down so you can bring them up when you report back.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: You will get a chance. The idea that the modus operandi this gentleman employed of continuously interrupting us and it is in the Parliamentary Record, the PAC records, is a tactic that he is employing again. That tactic is to make noisy, angry interjections and to try and stop other speakers. Now there has been 10 minutes come off the clock and this gentleman has plenty of opportunity to make another comment. It goes, though, to the outlandish statements about openness and honesty and transparency and we let the media in – whoops! Don’t go there.
Now, I think the media would be very interested in these closed sessions. It is all very well to talk about: ‘Well, we brought them in; we have transcribed it; we have all the letters here’. All the letters are not here. One has been abridged. The committee has a letter, a foundation letter, it is a letter that goes to the very core of evidence in Education. We received it in our second last meeting. It was to be included, as I understand it, and has now been abridged from this report. It is a salient letter.
I noted its omission in one of my recommendations, that the committee had several options open to it: the option of saying to this parliament ‘Notwithstanding we received a term of reference to come back to this session of parliament, we cannot do it because we cannot digest this information. This information is too complex for us’.
We had another option and that was not to talk about matters relating to Education which the previous speaker has done. So he has talked about things in the Education area without divulging to this parliament the full evidence, the full contemporary evidence, that is available to the committee.
He had option three and he has used a hybrid of that, which is to say we hold our ground on education and we will have a continuing term of reference on election issues. What he said is that at some future time we will look at it.
The Education evidence is compelling. It is complex and it is hard to digest but nonetheless, it puts a different perspective to that which is held not only by the committee, not only by CEO Bartholomew but by others, and I would suggest that during the course of this debate that memo be tabled because it is critical.
Mr Burke: Where is it?
Mr DUNHAM: I have a copy here. A copy was provided to me. I am interested that, of all the other correspondence that is in these documents, this most critical piece of evidence has been expunged. It has been expunged from the record; the open, wholesome, transparent record of this committee when…
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would refer the member again to Standing Order 274: a member shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless so authorised by the committee. He is waving this thing around!
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he has actually disclosed what is in it.
Mr DUNHAM: I haven’t disclosed what’s in it.
Mr Henderson: You’re getting very close.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I have spoken three times.
Mr DUNHAM: I am pointing out, Madam Speaker, that I have significant evidence….
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The member is speaking.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not going to disclose the 23 pages from Education that I received last week. I am not going to disclose it. What I am going to disclose is the fact that it is not available to this parliament and it is critical to one of the core chapters in here. That is what I am disclosing.
Madam SPEAKER: That is quite legitimate.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member table the document that he is waving around this House.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is quite outside standing orders for a call to be made to table a document that he simply cannot without breaking standing orders and being immediately referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, for the information of…
Mr STIRLING: It is a contempt of the parliamentary process to even move such a motion.
Mr BURKE: The PAC report has been tabled. One member is now waving around documentation which he believes goes to the heart of this report and has been expunged. Now, the members of parliament - this is our report, this is a report to the members of parliament. It is not a report for just two or three people to play around and argue about.
I am the subject of serious allegation. There is a piece of information the member has held up in his hand, referred to in his speech, says it is serious and goes to the heart of the investigation. I move and ask, Madam Speaker, that you have the member table that documentation.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Because it is a document that is covered within the deliberative sessions of the PAC, it is a document that has to be released by the PAC. Second, this document relates to matters raised by the Auditor-General which the committee has the right - and I’ve already flagged it up – to appropriate it into an inquiry. And it all will be made public in terms of the findings of that inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: If I could just…
Mr DUNHAM: I haven’t divulged what was in the letter, but I notice the Chairman has, Madam Speaker. He has divulged the content of it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, are you seeking leave to table it?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I’m in the hands of the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s exactly right.
Mr DUNHAM: I would seek leave to have this parliament allow this letter, which was provided to the Public Accounts Committee to be made available by way of tabling.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, what you need to seek leave to do is to suspend standing orders to allow you to table that document.
Mr DUNHAM: I seek leave to suspend so much of standing orders as would allow me to table a letter addressed to Dr Burns, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which I believe is critical to the matter under discussion.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to table the document. Is leave granted?
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to suspend standing orders. Remember, we have to have an absolute majority to suspend standing orders. So, we need a motion to suspend standing orders.
Leave has not been granted to table the document. The only way you can do it - and remember we have a question before the Chair - is to suspend standing orders to table that document. So you need to move a motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr DUNHAM: I have moved that motion, Madam Speaker.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, we have just witnessed an exact …
Madam SPEAKER: I advise the member for Drysdale that we did stop the clock while the division was on. Can I also clarify that leave was sought to table that document, leave was refused. The motion to move to suspend standing orders was also knocked on the head.
Let’s go back to the fact that you cannot refer to evidence in a deliberative committee meeting. We have had this out now. Let’s not have repeats of it throughout this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I will talk about the circumstance rather than the letter. The circumstance we have is the Public Accounts Committee being tasked with gathering evidence. The Chairman quite proudly proclaimed how they did a trawl through 35 agencies, took copious notes and transcripts and received letters, some of which have been included and one of which has not. That is the point I make.
If we are on an information gathering exercise, surely it is better to get more information than less information. It could well be the committee decides that we put more weight in this evidence - and they have done that - or that letter, and you can discuss it.
What we have been told here is this is a no-go area. We cannot discuss it. It is not on the table; it is evidence that cannot be provided for members, some of whom have a very strong part in this debate. It is therefore a reflection on the entire process of the committee.
I only got to recommendation one, and I think it has been demonstrated to us that the terms of reference that we were charged with, that we were sent out to gather information on the budget, was seriously abridged, and we have just seen a demonstration of it.
The second was that the PAC was biased. That is a terrible thing to say, and I regret to say it. But there is no doubt by anybody that reads the evidence that some witnesses were treated differently from others. I know in my own case, I came fresh and happy to give evidence and was greeted by newscasts saying that Dunham is going to give evidence, it could go to the Privileges Committee and it might end up with him in gaol.
We did not say that of any other witness. There were some comments made that were noted by all witnesses. A question was put to them: ‘Have you heard public commentary on this?’ and they did say yes, they had. We did not want to embarrass them by saying to them: ‘Do you believe that the Chairman of the committee may have indicated to you his mind being made up?’ But impartial commentators from outside would believe that to be the case.
There is other evidence of bias in there, too, but I think anybody who has had a look at this or turned up to a hearing or even sits through this debate will see that that is self evident. The processes are flawed, and this goes to a fairly serious issue of a censure motion in this House. Censure motions allow us a lot of latitude with language. The ex-Chief Minister quite rightly points out that he was a part of that censure motion. He was censured. The debate has been included in its entirety for people who want to have a look at this motion. The words of the Chief Minister in describing him, myself and the member for Katherine are such that it could not be demonstrated in evidence.
What we found was the Chief Minister was using a variety of words that could not be substantiated in the thousands of words of transcript, in the letters and all the rest of it. That is tantamount to a misleading of this House. It is the sort of thing that you take the risk for. You take a risk when you judge and make a call about outcomes, and then you garner evidence, you take the risk that they might not …
Mr Henderson: So Ken Clarke’s a liar?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, there’s been an interjection that Ken Clarke is a liar.
Mr Henderson: That is what you are implying
Mr DUNHAM: It was made. Hansard will bear me out. The Minister for Business has called Ken Clarke a liar, and I would ask him to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I am afraid I did miss that, but if you did say that, you should withdraw it.
Ms Scrymgour: No, he didn’t say…
Mr Dunham: His exact words were: ‘Ken Clarke’s a liar’.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I am asking the Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the honourable member was on his feet saying that the inquiry was not able to prove any of the allegations that were made in the censure debate. Now, the record that has been provided us to this House is full of evidence from Ken Clarke the Under Treasurer which directly contradicts what the Treasurer had said in that debate and outside the House. So the words that I used were: ‘So Ken Clarke is a liar, then?’, then putting the question to the member opposite.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you should phrase a question in that way and I ask you to withdraw it. It is a reflection on the public servant that you’re speaking about and it does use the word ‘liar’ which we don’t accept. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a rhetorical question, but I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr DUNHAM: Withdraw, yes. I am not talking about Ken Clarke. I am talking about the Chief Minister and the words she used which were unable to be proved. She used words in this parliament to describe people, one of whom is her predecessor, the former Chief Minister, and the report is totally silent on that man.
So if you just want to go to the first basic test: were the words used to describe the previous Chief Minister correct? They have not been vindicated in any way by this report. She may well still hold them. She may still not want to apologise. Nonetheless this report cannot substantiate those words and there are some of us who have been involved in the exercise who would believe the words were used wrongly. This goes to the next one:
The PAC’s silence on the matter of Denis Burke means that he should be given an immediate public apology.
The PAC obtained evidence that the Chief Minister either deliberately or ignorantly misled parliament, and
she should make a personal explanation to this effect and tell us why that was so.
- The Chairman, Dr Burns, is incompetent.
We saw many issues where, despite the lack of a necessity for intimate knowledge of budgets, there were many occasions when the committee was fumbling around primarily due to the behaviour of the member for Sanderson and his outlandish behaviour, and I think that that goes to chairmanship of our current Chairman.
- The PAC’s critical work in the area of education is unfinished.
Without referring to the letter that parliament does not allow me to refer to, I would say it would be very salient information that goes exactly to this report and should be made available to parliament.
- 8. The PAC cannot describe a foolproof means to ‘fix’ the problem which was the subject of the censure motion.
Now, the Chairman was happy to point out that we got fearless advice from our financial advisor. I can tell you that some of the advice that we got from our financial officer related to descriptors of problems and what we could do about recommendations that would fix those problems.
If it is so sinful, the actions that the previous Treasurer employed, one would think that the first recommendation in this report would be: ‘This is a way of abolishing, stopping, outlawing actions of that type’. This does nothing of the kind. There is no way that - even if we found it to be a problem, which we didn’t; even if we found it to be illegal, which we didn’t - we would be able to say this is now verboten. We are not going to go there ever again. The report doesn’t say that.
So the first test of the Public Accounts Committee is to say: define the problem, tell us where it is, and then give us some solution methods, give us some paths where we can remediate this terrible issue. We have been unable to do that as a committee primarily because the problem has not been defined.
The PAC was discriminating the weight of evidence given on differing points of view. Often there were points of view that could be reconciled if you looked at them from a particular perspective. It was seen that that was not the case. It was definitely a wild goose chase, and I think the only geese that were caught were those Labor members that were on the committee. If they believe that they have been able to demonstrate, in these terms of reference, that someone is more credible than someone else, then good on them.
The point is that notwithstanding the trawl through 35 agencies, through extensive interviews and questions, we were unable to find any commentator that had the same point of view as CEO Paul Bartholomew. I will say that again. Thirty five agencies, many witnesses, hundreds of pages of transcript and we were unable to find any commentator who had the same point of view as CEO Paul Bartholomew. That would tell you that if you have a report that is very persuasive about his evidence and very dismissive of other people’s evidence, it goes to the judgement of credibility and bias.
- 10. The PAC’s difficulties in trying to obtain data from Minister Aagaard must be viewed as either
recalcitrance or ignorance.
I know there is a school of thought that says if I say anything nasty about this minister, it is through vindictiveness, jealousy, whatever. But even yesterday, we had a question to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Now, this is a very interesting question in the context of our inquiry because the question was - we have three-quarters published budget documents signed Clare Martin down the bottom, Treasurer’s Quarterly Financial Statements for nine months. It is a reasonable thing for political commentators, and we did it in the Public Accounts Committee, this is not an unusual set of mathematical circumstances …
Mr Henderson: I asked you the same question last year.
Mr DUNHAM: Ah! I pick up the interjection: I asked you last year. Yes, he asked us last year because we allowed it. We allowed a debate; we had a debate in this parliament about it. They were matters that were interrogated significantly. That is not an opportunity available to this opposition. That is not an opportunity that we have had. We have not been able to stand up and ask a series of questions of the Minister for Health and Community Services about her budget. Indeed, the only opportunities we have are through Question Time …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The member is misleading the House in terms of responding to the interjection that I asked him the same question at the same time last year and he was saying that the opposition today does not have the opportunity to debate this. Now, they put the question to the minister yesterday in the same way that I put the question to the minister last year. So he cannot stand here and mislead the parliament in saying that they have not had the opportunity to debate this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a very broad statement, member for Drysdale, when you know that you already have questioned the minister on a number of occasions. Perhaps you meant that it was not in a formal …
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, Madam Speaker, if you check Hansard I think you will find I said we haven’t had the same opportunities as those opposite. Yes we have, the PAC, capacities to ask the minister questions and we chose to use that, unsuccessfully as it transpires.
We have Question Time and we have used that, unsuccessfully as it transpires. What this member, in his little, quaint interjection to try and rob me of some of the time, is saying that they are the same. They are not.
We had a full appropriation debate, some hundreds and hundreds of questions were asked. That has not been an opportunity provided to us. Now, the question is: ‘Three-quarters of the way through the year, if you wanted to use the quick and dirty maths that people have used for Mike Reed and others and in the terms of this inquiry, you are sitting here, how much money will you need to get at the end of the year?’ It was put on many occasions during the inquiry that this is a very difficult thing to assess, what the end of the year figure might be.
We asked the minister. Well, if that was a big sin on behalf of the previous Treasurer, if his guesstimate for the end of the year was so bad, and yours was $11m out on the same basis, can you tell us whether there’s going to be cuts, can you tell us whether they will come in on target? ‘They’ll come in on target’.
Now, that is a pretty deficient answer. She talked variously about Victoria and other places, but the issue for governments, whether it was the previous government or this government, is estimating what the end of the financial year figure is going to be. In the case of Health, and in the dissenting report you will find it at page eight, there is some discussion about what the correct figure should be. There are some commentators who believe that if the department said: ‘Look, we think that is the number and you must adhere to it’, that that number is carved in stone. Not the case. Treasury, Cabinet, ministers and others may have a very different view of the world and, in my evidence, I gave reasons why that might be so. In fact, there was a lack of confidence in the CEO, particularly with issues relating to finance and budgets that was given to us in public evidence. So, before people start trying to run my time out with that, the Under Treasurer’s submission to us was very clear on that point. He also gave that in his oral evidence.
So, what is the right figure? The right figure could be anywhere from $432m - which was the appropriation - right through to the current appropriation which is 481. If you look at the Under Treasurer’s financial statements, this year’s budget on pro rata is heading to some $491m. We have nearly $60m difference in the budget over a period of 18 months, two years.
The relativity of the pursuit of $8m when you are looking at plus or minus factors of that scale is a matter for us to talk about here. It is a matter for us to say: ‘Okay, Minister Reed, as Treasurer, had a target $8m below the end of the year actual. This minister has a target that is $34m above’. Now, we think both of those should be looked at: $8m below, which turned out not to be so correct; $34m above or $32m above, we should look at that.
If we go to the various matters that have been brought up by the Public Accounts Committee, there is only one issue: there is Paul Bartholomew’s memo. That is the issue.
The issue in Education, which is a little bit of a no-go area, but if you go to the area of Education you will find …
Mr Kiely: That’s not the issue. You know it’s not the issue. You know it’s not the issue. You know what the issue is! You know what the issue is. You know what it is!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the member for Sanderson has to just plug it for a while. It is very difficult for even me to listen to what the member for Drysdale is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Sanderson knows that constant interjections that stop the flow of the speaker is not on. You have done a fair bit this morning.
Mr DUNHAM: He has been doing it for months, Madam Speaker, and that goes to my question about the Chairmanship. I am glad you are in the Chair, Madam Speaker, because at least it will keep him quiet when he starts to run this interference.
If you go to the other areas - and don’t forget we have trawled right through the public service; we have gone everywhere; left no stone unturned - who agrees with Paul Bartholomew? There were a couple of little glimmers of hope - Education might be similar; Education was reduced by $6m. In evidence, one of the witnesses said:
- We weren’t unhappy with the $6m figure. As it turns out, it’s very accurate.
You must remember that in the evidence given by Mr Clarke, he said that the Treasurer was looking for a way of making the figures ‘more comparable, more accurate’. In the case of Education, he was pretty much spot on. In the case of Police, with the aid of Treasury, again pretty close to the target. He said you would underspend by about $2m and when it was described to Police, they said that is a pretty fair assessment. Now, the issue then is strike out Education for a couple of reasons: first is we can’t fulsomely look at it; second is that the $6m reduction was pretty much spot on. Strike out coppers; do not worry about the police.
The Department of Communication and Information Services: we had some issues there relating to how much was known and how complex it was. It was very complex; there were significant briefings to Cabinet and, at the end of the day, it was best estimates of the day which, I think, were pursued by all the players with proper economic and budgetary rigour.
Department of the Treasury: I think we should continue to look at this area. There were some significant variations in the budget there that seemed not to be of great consequence to the committee, but I think we should continue to look at that area. Then there were another series of figures run in - and the Chairman used this as a quaint little summing up where he said: ‘Well, there is NT Fleet’. Well, technically we could not look at that because it was in the mini-budget. But, we were happy to go there, so we were happy for him to breach that protocol.
The final assumption: that is Professor Percy Allan, who I note - unbeknownst to me - has been included. Professor Percy Allan is among our papers now, though I don’t know why.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: He sits in a proud position in the document. So while in the censure motion I passed a motion, an amendment, seeking to actually include those papers, they now sit within the documents, so there’s some schizophrenia about this. Likewise, matters relating to the Conditions of Service Trust account. They were answered fully and completely.
My time is limited and I regret that because there are many, many issues that could be discussed here that all go to how this Kangaroo Court was cobbled together. It was sent out on a wild goose chase and came back with three geese and they are all government members of the committee.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Norma (Auntie Billie) Pitscheneder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with regret that I advise of the death on Sunday, 19 May 2002, of Norma (Billie) Pitscheneder BEM.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
- (a) express deep regret of the death of Norma (Billie) Pitscheneder BEM, a distinguished Territorian who
made a significant contribution in community service, and as a fundraiser for a range of charities and
community organisations; and was the Northern Territory’s Citizen of the Year in 1980; and
(b) tender its profound sympathy to her family and friends.
It came as something of a surprise to me to learn that the woman that I and so many others knew as Auntie Billie actually had a real first name, and that was Norma. I have never heard this remarkable woman referred to as anything other than Auntie Billie.
Auntie Billie had already retired when I came to the Territory. She officially retired in 1983, but it was said that she had as many comebacks as Dame Nellie Melba. As the NT News of yesterday rightly pointed out, Auntie Billie was a tireless community worker and a Territory charity legend.
She was born in Fremantle in Western Australia in 1916 and first came to Darwin in 1941, only to be advised to leave just ahead of the bombing of Darwin. She returned after the war in 1948, taking up various cooking jobs before establishing a successful catering business. In addition to running this business, she began to take on community activities and, particularly, fundraising.
It set a pattern she followed diligently for almost 40 years. Groups she raised funds for included: Darwin Primary School, Country Women’s Association, Red Cross, Lions and Lionesses Association, Pensioner’s Association, Salvation Army and the Girl Guides. Among the beneficiaries of her special fundraising efforts were the Chinese Temple, badly damaged in Cyclone Tracy, and Vietnam Veterans.
Auntie Billie married twice. Her second marriage came relatively late in life and she was devoted to her second husband, Peter. His death in 1977 was a huge blow to her but, if anything, stimulated her fund raising activities. A woman of considerable physical substance, Auntie Billie also had a huge heart. She had a hearty laugh which shook her whole body. That laugh, combined with her apparent knowledge of everyone in Darwin, was among the reasons why Auntie Billie was so universally well liked.
For many years, she was a familiar sight seated at a card table outside what was then the main entrance to Woolworths store on the corner of Smith and Knuckey Streets, where she kept up a constant stream of conversation while relieving passers by - most of whom she knew - of their loose change.
As I mentioned, Auntie Billie officially retired in 1983, but for several more years special fund raising events drew her out of retirement and she would set up her stall again, outside Woolies, usually enjoying the benefits of the airconditioning which spilled out when the doors opened.
The breadth of her charitable activities is best exemplified in the number of life memberships she was awarded. She had life memberships of the Braille Society, the Country Women’s Association, the Legion of Ex-Servicemen and Women, the German Club, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RSPCA.
Auntie Billie was recognised for her charity works with the awarding of the British Empire Medal and the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal. She was also named Northern Territory Citizen of the Year in 1980.
However, it was not just her charitable activities which endeared her to people; it was sundry little kindnesses that she performed. Former colleagues at the ABC reminded me that for many years, Auntie Billie remembered the birth date of ABC television in August 1971, and on the anniversary would religiously deliver a birthday cake to the ABC’s offices in Cavanagh Street.
She also delivered an annual birthday cake to the NT News where the former editor, the late Jim Bowditch, was a favourite of hers. In the process she always, curiously enough, managed to get her photo in the newspaper.
My friend, historian Barbara James, reminded me of a story Auntie Billie told of her first days in tropical Darwin. In need of some appropriate lightweight dresses, she bought a light frock from what was probably the only dress shop in town. Soon afterwards, in her new frock, she was caught in a tropical downpour and had the discomforting experience of having the dress shrink almost immediately. It was a story she often told against herself with a characteristic big laugh.
Madam Speaker, it is often said of Auntie Billie Pitscheneder that she was larger than life. She will be sadly missed by those many people who were privileged to know her, to love her and certainly to all of us who called her Auntie Billie.
Mr REED (Katherine): It is nice to be able to join in this condolence motion, Madam Speaker. It is quite appropriate that this lady be recognised. She typifies, I suppose, the character and the individualism of Territorians.
She was a lady that I first met not long after coming to the Northern Territory in the early 1970s and as I guess many others have experienced, it was at a little table where she was selling raffle tickets for some community based organisation - as the Chief Minister had just alluded to - at Knuckey Street and Smith Street, out the front of Woolworths.
I stopped to buy a raffle ticket and was asked by Auntie Billie where I lived, and I explained to her Katherine, just for a short time, had not been there for very long and her amazing ability to remember people, and to capture them - if you thought that you were going to get past Auntie Billie, especially if you knew her, when she was sitting there selling raffle tickets or lottery tickets, you were very misguided in terms of what the achievement might be because you were going to end up sitting down there writing out some raffle tickets or lottery tickets and contributing to the charity that she so dutifully and so continually supported.
You did not just part with a few dollars and buy a lottery ticket; you also had the opportunity to sit down and have a chat. It would have been in those types of experiences that one would have appreciated that Auntie Billie had a great sense of humour. Also, the number of people that she knew, because there would be very few people who would be walking by who were not captured, just as you had been, to come and buy a ticket.
I daresay that Auntie Billie not only made many friends and acquaintances in that regard, but I know a few people that I met over the years just by sitting having a talk to Auntie Billie. So she was really a meeting place, as it were, in terms of coming to know what the Territory was all about, who some of the people were and, of course, many of the experiences that she’d undertaken and the people that she’d met through the activities that she had undertaken.
I daresay that it was a huge loss for those charitable organisations for which she worked so hard; a lady who demonstrated a high level of devotion and commitment to the community through the charitable work that she did, and that is a big commitment. It is a big commitment when you just think of it, for days on end sitting on a chair at a fold up table out the front of Woolworths to work most of that day, in and out, for the benefit of a charity. I think that’s a great sign of the nature of this lady; her persona and her desire to be able to help the community, which she did over very, very many years.
It is nice, though, looking at that commitment that she gave to the community, to be able to take note of the extent of recognition that she achieved such as the Citizen of the Year and other awards from the community that were conferred on her by the community in due recognition of all that hard work she did.
Over the years, both directly and indirectly, Auntie Billie was one who improved the lot of Territorians either by selling lottery tickets for a community based organisation which duly raised funds to be able to extend their services to the Territory or, more directly, in assisting people herself.
It is very sad to note her passing, but appropriate that we recognise the commitment that she gave to the community of the Northern Territory and the friendship that she extended to those people who she very capably enticed to her table, sold raffle tickets to and, in turn, provided us the opportunity to contribute to the work that she did for the community of the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin. We note her passing with sadness.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of Auntie Billie. She is a woman of whom I have many very fond memories.
I knew her quite well from 1970 and spent a good part of a decade being taken into Auntie Billie’s arm as she sat at the card table. Whenever she saw me approaching she would give me one of her enormous smiles and extend one arm and I would duck in under the wing of Auntie Billie and wile away quite some time at the card table with her, watching her chat and talk to many members of our community.
While she was well known for her card table outside Woolies, she was also just as well known for taking that card table and moving it to any school fete, any community function throughout Darwin in those days. She never missed an opportunity to work hard for charity.
Auntie Billie instilled in me an awareness that there is great honour in giving your time to the community and there is even greater honour in being generous of heart and giving of your time. She always had a terrific sense of humour. It could be a stinking hot day - and Auntie Billie was a very large lady - and she’d be sitting there on a stinking hot day in the tropics of Darwin at the card table, hours on end, and she always had that sense of humour; she was always cracking jokes with people. As both the Chief Minister and member for Katherine have pointed out, managed with great success to fleece people of money for the charities who benefitted greatly from her years of tireless work.
I had occasion a couple of years ago to see Auntie Billie at the Salvation Army Nursing Home and commented to her how she was looking trim and terrific. She had lost a substantial amount of weight in her old age and her face lit up as I spoke to her about the fond memories of the times when she was very much in the public eye, daily in the public eye and, as the Chief Minister pointed out, she knew how to work the media as well to bring attention to the charities that she was busy collecting for.
She is very much a part of what many of us refer to as ‘old Darwin’. She was a pillar of old Darwin. It is sad with the passing of the years that we also lose the pillars of that old society. I would like to place on record that the love and generosity she showed to the children of Darwin at the time was certainly very well regarded by all of us.
We all referred to her as Auntie Billie; we all enjoyed our time with her. We ran to her arms. Her arms were always open for us. She taught us a great deal of important aspects in our life which was to give to others, to understand others need your help, to be friendly and open and honest in how you deal with other people, and to have an incredible amount of endurance in your pursuits.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their comments. I now ask that honourable members observe one minute’s silence. I thank honourable members.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 41)
(Serial 41)
Continued from 7 March 2002.
Mr Dunham: Aren’t we continuing with the PAC?
Madam SPEAKER: I presume the Whips have conferred and that we are going to complete Business of the Day, Order No 1, before we were going on to the PAC resumption of debate. There seems to be a bit of a break down in communication here.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): I certainly was not aware of that. I did think we were going on with the PAC. However, we will find the appropriate person.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you adjourn it then, member for Drysdale?
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I shall speak shortly to this bill, Madam Speaker.
The First Home Owners scheme is a great scheme, and it has its foundations readily evident for all in the actions of not only the previous government, but the man who has been talked about in terms of the censure motion and the PAC report before this House, and that is the member for Katherine.
I can recall there was some predictability about the downturn in the building industry. I was fortunate enough to have an electorate with a fairly high level of building activity taking place and there was some concern when one did the rounds about the drop off in construction, particularly associated with the Army presence in the north, and a down scaling of quite high levels of building activity.
This government was innovative. In fact, it was innovative to the extent that we beat the Commonwealth to a similar decision it made in a similar area in that we moved quickly to make sure that those Territorians who by dint of being just short of a deposit, had that threshhold decision of whether to build or not absolutely pulling up whether they would build here in the Territory. We had no doubt that many young people wanted to stay here. We had no doubt that our policy of turning off land at the appropriate time was working and we needed to make sure that the trades kept working.
I pay tribute to Mr Reed, the member for Katherine, who was pretty much the sole author of this idea. He took it through Cabinet. We worked out the sums and went for it and, fortuitously, the Commonwealth was like-minded and the two schemes together broke the back of that very important decision for first home buyers, and that is whether one jumps into the business of owning one’s own home.
I think its success was marked, and I congratulate the government for continuing it. It should be stated from the outset, though, that they have merely plagiarised an idea and continued it. That is probably good business and probably good government.
But credit should go where credit is due, and that credit goes to the member for Katherine who took this thing to Cabinet, had the courage to work out the actuarial and other issues attending on it. While it is all very well to talk about other debates in this House, about what those figures should be and how accurate they should be, I think he was spot on with this. I applaud him as the Treasurer for the Northern Territory.
I think his vision was remarkable; his capacity to look at where some of those holes were in the economy and to provide policies that provided a fill-up were good. It is an accolade to this man, that the greatest flattery is emulation. The government, in emulating his policies, is flattering this man’s capabilities and I applaud them for doing that.
Mr REED (Katherine): What, no speakers on such an important thing from the government benches, in terms of putting a roof - or helping Territorians put a roof - over their heads? That is a surprising lack of interest from a government that purports to be so supportive of legislation of this kind.
This legislation, of course, reflects the Commonwealth’s program and is to enable payment by the Territory of the Commonwealth First Home Buyer Grant. I humbly accept the comments made by the previous speaker. It is important that governments are innovative. A bit over a year ago, it was evident that there were people who, whilst they had an intent at some time to move to purchasing their own home, they were holding back from doing so for many reasons. On one of my many trips between Katherine and Darwin, often behind the wheel of a car that I was driving, you would think of different things. On one occasion, I’d been giving some thought to how we might get the home ownership issue on the go, and give people some encouragement to make the decision, make a commitment, buy their own home and end up with a situation where Territorians might be moved to do so.
It was then that it hit upon me that perhaps a grant scheme might be the means of doing that. I had a talk to Treasury in relation to that. I then went and passed it by my colleagues who said: ‘Yes, it’s worth investigating’. Then to the Territory Construction Association in relation to what did they think of the idea? From an industry point of view, did they see value in it? Also, importantly, to find out what level of grant - that is, the financial amount - might be appropriate to make such a scheme work. It was then that we decided on the amount of $5000.
Ironically, the day after an announcement was made that the Territory QuickStart Home Grant would be put in place, the Commonwealth came along with the $14 000 grant. Our grant being $5000, and the Commonwealth maximum grant being $14 000, meant that, unlike anywhere else in Australia, Territorians wanting to proceed to purchase their first home could get up to $19 000 in the form of assistance from the Commonwealth and the Territory governments.
That, of course, is a very substantial grant in a combined sense. It was that fortunate occasion when those two grant programs came together that contributed so much to the success of the Territory’s scheme, QuickStart, and saw so many Territorians take it up.
Whilst that isn’t directly related to this legislation, because of circumstances and the way that it did work together, it is appropriate that those matters be mentioned in relation to my contribution to this debate. Given that there is some relationship between the two schemes, the minister, in response, might explain to us what the level of success has been in relation to the QuickStart II program that the current government put in place, the number of responses that they have had and the number of new homes that will be built as a result of the QuickStart II program. There is a direct relevance in relation to that initial program, the other one the subject of this legislation and what is happening in the field, as it were, in the Northern Territory as far as the number of people taking it up.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this legislation. It is appropriate in terms of a mechanism to administer the First Home Owner Grant and we will be supporting its passage.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members on the whole for their comments. I cannot support the member for Drysdale in singing the praises of the former Treasurer in either policy or practice. Certainly in light of events over the last 12 months, it really casts aspersions on the judgement of the member for Drysdale in singing praises in that way.
Schemes to help first home owners access their first house is something that has our support. In reference to the QuickStart program introduced by the member for Katherine, we have said it was a good program and that is why we as a government introduced QuickStart II. Churlish remarks from the other side are unnecessary. We give praise where it is due. It was a good program, one that certainly gave a stimulus over the Christmas period to Territory construction when we introduced it for a second time.
This is a straightforward bill. It puts in place a Commonwealth program which only goes until the end of next month, but it certainly has given, over time, $14 000 to those who met its criteria. From January 1, $10 000 towards their first home, and once we get past the 30 June it will be back to $7000. Not as much as it was, but it is certainly a real incentive for people looking at building their first home. Madam Speaker, I am glad for the support of this Assembly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee, Budget Inquiry Report 2002
Continued from earlier this day
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Report of the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with respect to Both the Estimated Outcomes for 2001 and for the Budget 2001-02.
Members will recall the censure motions moved against the former Country Liberal Party Treasurer, the member for Katherine, for deliberately misleading the House in respect of including false information in the Northern Territory 2001-02 budget and that false figures were included in the Northern Territory budget.
On the same day and as part of the same motion, it was moved to censure the former Country Liberal Party Health minister, the member for Drysdale, for being complicit with the member for Katherine for deliberately and knowingly including false information in the 2001-02 budget papers, and for being complicit, in tandem with the former Treasurer, that false figures be included in that same budget.
At that time, 25 October last year, I felt a great sense of betrayal and anger that responsible members of parliament, let alone ministers, would wittingly and knowingly embark on a trail of misinformation to the parliament of the Northern Territory, and more importantly …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! While the censure motion did talk about misinformation to the Assembly, that was not found in the censure motion and it has not been found in the report, and the member should not allude to that.
Madam SPEAKER: The censure motion is actually included in the report and as such, members may refer to it, but I do just caution members that Standing Order 60 refers to the fact that you cannot reflect upon the vote of this parliament.
Mr McADAM: I will continue, Madam Speaker. More importantly, to treat the people of the Northern Territory with contempt in a petty attempt to save their collective political hides.
At this same time, this same party, the Country Liberal Party, was espousing their credentials as good economic managers. Indeed, during the campaign leading up to the 18 August election, it was this message that had a degree of credibility to people in the Barkly and possibly elsewhere in the Territory.
I now wonder what the people will say. I suspect that decent people in the Territory will feel let down and bitterly disappointed, betrayed by the Country Liberal Party who conspired to hoodwink them. Well, those days are over. The people of the Territory have caught the Country Liberal Party out full and proper.
The Country Liberal Party regime of governance was spend, spend and spend - and damn the consequences. In other words, they were born to govern with a silver spoon in their mouth. Well, the old, rusty spoon fell out just like the people of the Northern Territory did with the Country Liberal Party on 18 August last year.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr McADAM: Just listen. You might learn something before the next election on this.
I also recall last year the half-smart comments by the member for Drysdale on ABC Radio referring to committee members on our side of the House as being inexperienced and not having a grasp of the task before us, perhaps even inferring that we were politically nave.
I guess the member for Drysdale was right in part, but also very wrong because we are also representatives of thousands of ordinary Territorians who wanted the truth out in the open. I believe that we have done just that.
During the course of the Public Accounts Committee deliberations, the member for Drysdale wanted two bites of the cherry: one as being a member of the committee, deliberating on his own evidence and most certainly when his own evidence was in direct conflict with other parties’ evidence; and two, the member for Drysdale sought to elaborate on his own evidence during deliberative sessions. No other witness was afforded this treatment.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is talking about deliberative sessions and I believe you’ve already ruled on this. He’s talking about things that took place in deliberative session, and I suggest he desists from doing so.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the members does know that you cannot report on what happened in deliberative sessions, but you can make comments that don’t betray the confidence of that session.
Mr McADAM: I believe I was doing that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be very careful what you’re saying.
Mr McADAM: I’ll continue on, Madam Speaker. And in accordance with recommendation (7), I believe that this matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further clarification.
Another issue of concern to me and, indeed, the committee, were receipts from the sale of NT Fleet being included in the 2001-02 budget. Whilst it is a legitimate inclusion, clearly concerns must be raised that a proper, independent and contemporary analysis of its sale was not carried out. The inclusion of the sale was in haste and the financial benefits may not have been advantageous to the people of the Northern Territory.
In respect of this matter, the member for Katherine needs to explain his analysis for this inclusion as they vary markedly from the position put by the Under Treasurer, Mr Clarke. It is incumbent upon governments of whatever political persuasion to ensure that appropriate, comprehensive and independent evaluations be developed before inclusion in any further budgets.
The other important recommendations and the ramifications of the Public Accounts Committee report have already been discussed, and I am certain will be debated in full today, tomorrow and well into the future.
Previously I referred to the censure motion that gave rise to this inquiry, and I would like to quote from pages 61 and 62 of the report of the Inquiry into the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget Papers with Respect to Both the Estimated Outcome for 2000-01 and the Budget for 2001-02, Report No. 38. I quote:
Mike Reed, MLA
Mr Reed was the instigator of the process that led to this deception. He approached the then Under Treasurer
Mr Clarke for advice and directed him to reduce the estimates in order to show growth in Health, Education and
Police. Mr Clarke has given evidence that without Mr Reed’s intervention the estimates would have been
published unchanged and without reduction. It is reasonable to conclude on the evidence that Mr Reed’s
motivation for interfering with the budget in this deceptive manner was political.
Mr Reed selected one of the Under Treasurer’s options to show growth. This option was to artificially reduce
the estimates in Health, Education and Police so that he could show growth in these crucial areas during an
election year.
Whilst there is no evidence that Mr Reed acted illegally under the Financial Management Act the committee believes
that the benchmark for ministerial behaviour is much higher than the legal compliance. The committee is also of
the view …
Mr Dunham: Put it in the recommendations then, mate.
Mr McADAM: Just listen.
…is also of the view that to interfere with the budgetary processes and budget figures in the manner described
are above amounts to improper political manipulation of the budgetary process and a deception on the parliament
and the people.
As Treasurer, Mr Reed also abused the trust put in him by parliament and the people that ministers should be honest
and truthful when delivering budget information to parliament.
It appears that a lack of transparency in budget processes under the previous government largely contributed to the
events that occurred.
Madam Speaker, I now refer you to page 61 in respect of Mr Stephen Dunham MLA, and I quote:
- In his May budget appropriation speech to parliament (Budget Paper No.2), Mr Dunham presented an estimated
expenditure of $436.0m for 2000-01 THS budget. Whilst he presented the published figures to parliament it
cannot be considered as completely truthful. It appears from the evidence, including his own, he new full well
that the department was likely to spend its full Cabinet approved allocation of $444.0m. He had been informed
by Mr Bartholomew that this was the likely outcome and by Mr Clarke that the department was able to spend
to its full allocation of $440.0m. Moreover it is side-stepping personal responsibility to use the defence that …
Mr Dunham: Side stepping. Good word for …
Mr McADAM: Listen to this.
- … Correct is what is published, correct is not a judgement that comes from your heart or your attitude.
In doing so, Mr Dunham chose to endorse the artificially reduced figure of $436.0m chosen by former Treasurer
Reed, in order to show growth in the 2001-02 Health budget.
- By not challenging the deception which had been brought to his attention by the CEO, Mr Bartholomew,
Mr Dunham was complicit in allowing an artificially reduced and false estimate to be published and
presented to parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
This figure misrepresented the budgetary position his department was working to and gave the misleading
impression to the people of the Northern Territory in an election year that there had been a 2.5% increase
for Health expenditure for the 2001-02 year.
- From the evidence given to the inquiry it appears that Mr Dunham was not involved in the request made
by the former Treasurer Mr Reed to the Under Treasurer to reduce the estimates of expenditure by the
Health department for 2000-01.
The committee believes that the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory have the right to expect
that published budget figures are the same as those that agencies themselves are working to at that point in
time. In turn, ministers should be truthful and forthright when presenting such figures to parliament. In this
context Mr Dunham fell short of these expectations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to emphasise my view of the process that started this inquiry was fundamentally flawed. The process, as stated in the report, was initiated by a censure motion on 25 October last year against Ministers Reed, Burke and Dunham.
The debate condemned ministers for improper manipulation of the figures presented to the parliament in the previous budget. Certainly, on the face of it, the document presented to parliament - that is, the memo from Mr Bartholomew - appeared to support the assertion that the budgetary figures had been improperly manipulated for political purposes.
At the end of a lively debate, the censure motion was then passed. Following that debate, a motion was passed which set up terms of reference by which the Public Accounts Committee would investigate the accuracy of last year’s budget figures and, logically, if the figures had been improperly manipulated, who was to blame for this manipulation. This process seemed to be equivalent to hanging someone before there was a trial.
Because the PAC is made up of three ALP members - and, naturally, supporters of their own party’s censure motion - it would have been nigh on impossible for those members - if the PAC inquiry found that no one had manipulated the budget figures - to bring down a report which recommended that the censure motion be rescinded. If a similar censure motion is to be brought to parliament to be voted on, then I recommend that it be referred to a parliamentary committee first, and then brought back to parliament for a thorough and reasoned debate based on all the evidence.
Regardless, the PAC was still required to report back to parliament with findings and recommendations relating to the terms of reference it had been given. I support the recommendations of the PAC, but have made a small change to the report on Mr Lugg. I would, though, like to add some other comments about those involved in the improper manipulation of the budget figures.
Mr Reed: I believe that the then Treasurer did deliberately, improperly manipulate the budget figures for the Departments of Health, Education and Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The evidence given by Treasury and the affected departments does not support his evidence that these changes were done to send a signal to departments to tighten their belts. His speech during the censure debate mentioned none of this, and his comments about ‘sending a signal’ appear to have been thought up after the event. There certainly was no written documentation which corroborated his arguments. In fact I believe that Mr Reed’s evidence was deliberately evasive and contradictory, and I refer to the ABC interview with Mr Fred McCue.
There was also no mention in the budget as to why the figures had been adjusted. This, in itself, is compelling evidence, bearing in mind this was the first time figures had been shown for presentation purposes only, and one would have expected some annotation to explain why this was so. The changes only occurred for the three departments that would have been the most politically sensitive budgets, especially around election time, the excuse being: ‘Well, they’re the biggest spending departments’ which in itself was not true.
Mr Dunham: I believe Mr Dunham did not instigate the idea of manipulating the budget, and seemed to be quite surprised when his CEO, Mr Bartholomew, told him about the falsely presented figures. Sadly, I feel Mr Dunham still went along with the scheme. He used the reasoning that the figures were correct. That is, that they were in the budget, therefore that made them correct. But like Mr Reed, there was no mention of the $8m adjustment and the reasons for it in the budget speech. Mr Dunham failed to let the public know the true figures although, in budget terms, he gave the correct ones.
Mr Lugg: Here I believe was someone who believed that it was the CEO’s job to worry about the intricacies of the budget. He seemed to have little concern when told about the possible reduction of $6m in the budget. Although one could say the figures used in his budget speech, which showed an increase in the education budget, were correct, they were not the true figures.
Mr Burke was implicated in this affair through the censure motion. Although one might presume that he knew of the scheme through Cabinet discussions, there is no proof of that. The PAC did not question Mr Burke, and any condemnation would be based on either presumption or a belief that, as head of the party in government, he should have known about everything that was going on in Mr Reed’s Treasury. As Chief Minister, it certainly was his job to make sure his ministers were running their departments in both a professional and ethical manner; but did he know about the deceptive bookkeeping? Who knows? As mentioned in Hansard at that time, he certainly had other pressing legal matters on his mind. As Mr Burke was not called as a witness, in the interests of natural justice, I believe no judgment should be made.
There are a number of other issues that arise from this whole sorry affair. To me, this inquiry highlights the blurred line between politics and ethics. In the case of the manipulated figures, it was a great political move. The Treasurer did not want to spend too much money in the budget, as I believe he knew already that the Territory was deeply in debt. At the same time, he wanted to show the people that the government had still increased spending in a number of key departments.
With the sleight of the hand he took $8m, $6m and $2m away, and with that same hand five minutes later gave it back. A political master stroke. The question is: was it proper? Was it honest? Was it right? Was it ethical? Technically, from an economic rationale perspective, it was right. From a political rationale, it was a great move; nearly good enough to convince people to vote for them again. But from a moral rationale, it was simply untruthful.
One has to ask how can people have faith in their government if they manipulate the books? What example is that to all the struggling small businesses who make sure they declare all their income and do the right thing by the tax department? If it is good enough for the government to cook the books, why not for those who are trying to make an honest living?
What this highlights to me is that governments will do anything for the sake of holding on to power. If that means blurring the truth, then as long as it can be politically justified and victory is the only goal, who cares? One may argue: ‘Well, what will this inquiry do to stop the bending of the rules?’ It won’t do anything because when it comes to the crunch, when it gets to the top of the pile, when it gets to those who have the ultimate power, then it is about ethics, it’s about trust and it’s about responsibility. Those at the top are presumed to do the right thing. They lead by example. They are looked up to, and that’s all it should be. Simply put, what is right or wrong: no blurred edges; just right or wrong.
That is the answer to Point 8 of the Minority Report, and I quote Point 8 of the Minority Report:
- The PAC cannot describe fool proof means to ‘fix’ the problem which was the subject of the censure motion.
The solution is about the honesty of us as politicians.
At this stage. Madam Speaker, I will comment on other aspects of the Minority Report.
1. The PAC is in contempt of Parliament.
The PAC did adhere to its terms of reference. The authors of the Minority Report continually tried to ask questions about the mini-budget which was not the basis of the censure motion, as the censure motion was passed on 25 October 2001, and the budget on 27 November 2001. The defeat of a motion by Mr Dunham to include the mini-budget in the PAC inquiry was further evidence that the mini-budget was not to be discussed. The idea that the PAC was contemptuous of the parliament was a red herring and was used as a diversionary tactic throughout the proceedings.
2. The PAC is biased.
It is difficult to get away from the fact that at times party politics in our system of government can make it difficult to have a good and fair debate. No more clearly was this seen than in the PAC public hearings. The Labor side certainly started off poorly with decidedly ill-chosen public statements that gave the perception of bias. Some of the questioning was at times aggressive to the point of being rude, and I felt at times the fifth floor was running the show, not the PAC.
This line of questioning seemed to do a total reverse when the Minister for Health was called. Her colleagues either shielded her from answering the questions or they asked questions with a built in answer. On the other hand, the CLP team used every possible diversionary tactic to shift the inquiry to the mini-budget instead of the budget we were meant to look at. They were trying to divert attention by attacking the new budget and Percy Allan’s report.
Questions of bias could be levelled at both sides. As for the so called attacks on Mr Dunham’s involvement on the committee being an indication of bias, that is simply not true. Even though there may have been Queen’s Counsel, federal parliament and NT parliamentary officers’ support for his right to stay on the committee, I don’t believe that in the public’s eyes it was seen as the right thing. I felt it defied common sense, but as the parliament appointed him to the PAC there was little that could be done.
- 3. The PAC’s processes are flawed in that parliament has already decided this matter without sufficient
information.
I have already addressed that question.
- 4. The PAC’s silence on this matter should be construed as a complete exoneration of Mr Burke who
should be given an apology by government immediately this report becomes public.
I have spoken of my thoughts on that issue.
- 5. The PAC has obtained evidence to the effect that the Chief Minister either deliberately or ignorantly
has misled parliament. She should make a personal explanation accompanied by a full apology to
ex-Ministers Reed and Dunham immediately this report becomes public.
I regard that as political rhetoric.
- 6. The Chairman, Dr Burns, is incompetent.
I do not believe the Chairman is incompetent. I have no doubt that there were inappropriate statements by the Chairman at the beginning which could be construed to have shown some bias. But from then on, I believe the Chairman was competent in dealing with what were long and complex hearings. Yes, his line of questioning may have been leading at times, but I don’t think the other side was any better. Dr Burns, I believe, overall did a good job, bearing in mind most of us were not only new to parliament, but the PAC as well.
- 7. The PAC’s work in the critical area of education is unfinished.
This section is true, but I don’t think it is necessarily a big issue. I believe that the article referred to in point 7 about some information from Employment, Education and Training was the document that the member for Drysdale was trying to table today, and although I supported the opposition in making that document available, I would have used that moment to tell people that because of its complexity - and they would have been able to see that - we did not have time to analyse that document. It was a fairly complex document which I think we received at our second last meeting and it certainly required a lot more time than we had available. I don’t believe it makes any difference to the report and its inclusion is intended to make it a big fat and impressive minority report.
- 8. The PAC cannot describe fool proof means to ‘fix’ the problem which was the subject of the censure motion.
I have already mentioned that.
- 9. The PAC is discriminating in the weight of credibility given to differing points of view.
One has to make a judgement on the evidence provided. That is not discrimination.
Point 10 is about Minister Aagaard’s statements. I made some comments on that a moment ago. I again say that these questions about the mini-budget were an attempt to throw the dogs off the scent.
- 11. The PAC is unable to determine if the current Chief Minister exerted undue pressure on Paul Bartholomew
in order to politicise this matter.
I believe that this is another attempt at diversionary tactics. Conspiracy theories are simply that and I don’t believe they were relevant to the inquiry.
- 12A The PAC found that there are grounds to question the veracity of the current government’s mini-budget.
12B The PAC, parliament and the public have experienced difficulty in questioning the current government’s mini-budget. The Treasurer should outline the method, timing and means for this public process to take place.
This inquiry was not supposed to look at the mini-budget, but it could at another inquiry if members wanted it to. I would rather look at some other important issues which I will highlight later.
- 13 The PAC should conduct itself in a way which accords with parliamentary traditions, and should afford some
degree of natural justice for citizens of the Territory who are unfairly accused.
Certainly, some language was improper but I believe the Chairman did try to curtail the offender. The Chairman is not a person who would approve of unparliamentary language. There were certainly times when questioning of witnesses was over the top, but I feel the Chairman did rein the offender in towards the latter part of proceedings.
- 14. The PAC has received evidence that the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is unable to fulfil the role described
for it by the government.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is a good topic of debate but in this report, I don’t believe it needs comment.
Madam Speaker, for me, the hardest part of this inquiry is the requirement to judge my parliamentary colleagues. No one here can say they have never made mistakes. Probably no one can say they haven’t crossed the blurry line of politics and ethics. I’ve not come to the conclusions arrived at out of this inquiry without a lot of thought and concern, but as this parliament appointed me to the PAC, then it is beholden on me to make a judgement to the best of my ability, and I have in general supported the findings of the report.
But is this really end? If you believe the government should do the right thing, should lead the way, and should be principled in carrying out their duties and their responsibilities; if you believe that the only way that people will stop regarding us as bloody mongrel politicians is to show that we will govern without fear or favour, show leadership and run an open and transparent government, then we have to show them that we’re fair dinkum.
I would therefore like to ask this parliament to support an investigation by the PAC into a number of matters which were raised by the Auditor-General in his February report. I know the PAC can recommend to itself any tasks it wishes, but it would be good if parliament supported it as well. The issues raised by the Auditor-General were the inhouse photocopying by the then Leader of the Opposition, the early termination payments to Chief Executive Officers and executive contract officers and the $1.5m Community Benefit Fund that was spent just prior to the last election.
The PAC would come back to the government with findings and recommendations as has been required of this inquiry.
If the government is willing to do this, then it will be a great step forward. If it does not, then it will only prove to the public that this inquiry was political, regardless of how well the investigation was carried out, because the government was not willing to look at those matters which might cause it some embarrassment. When you look at words used in the censure debate like, on the one hand ‘lies, fraud, rubbery, tampering, cooking the books, deception, deceit, manipulation, mislead, dodgy practices’ and, on the other hand, ‘truth, trust, ethical standards, conscience and integrity’, I hope and pray that the government will show that all this rhetoric was more than political flatulence.
Earlier today, I was asked by the media whether I would support matters raised today going to the Privileges Committee. I would only support it if the government said it would look at those matters, that is the matters of the photocopying, the matters of the voluntary redundancy and the matters of the Community Benefit Fund. Otherwise, I believe that this would just be seen as a political witch hunt.
By taking up these issues, the government can show the public that it is an honest, open and transparent government. This is a great opportunity to make some constructive changes which would help restore some public faith in politicians. It will take a brave government to act, but what better time than now?
Madam Speaker, with that, I would like to say a few thank yous, and I hope I don’t miss anyone. I would like to thank Mrs Jane Large who has been a tireless worker throughout these long deliberations. It is because of her that we have a concise set of recommendations drawn from all the meetings and briefings and public hearings that we’ve been through; Mr Terry Hanley for his advice and composure and organisational skills in getting all the documents together and then checking and cross checking the lot; Ms Ros Vogeli, for her long hours of typing the many transcripts, a massive job; and to all the Hansard staff who helped in typing the transcripts as well.
I would also like to thank the Chairman for his work in assisting Mrs Jane Large with the findings and recommendations.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I was a bit out of sync there.
Mr Dunham: It’s been happening for months, mate.
Mr KIELY: I look forward to your contributions during the debate, member for Drysdale.
As the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my colleague the member for Johnston, advised this is the first major public inquiry carried out by the PAC for a considerable time. The inquiry into the accuracy of the budget data published in 2001-02 budget papers with respect to both the estimated outcomes for 2000-01 and the budget for 2001-02 resulted from serious allegations made in a memorandum from the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services to the incoming Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, the Honourable Mrs Jane Aagaard, in September 2001.
Four members of the Public Accounts Committee had previously not had any exposure to such a committee. It has been at times a challenging experience for me. It has also been a learning experience, and I would like to place on record my thanks to other members of the committee for their support through the process. I would also like to acknowledge at the outset the work and support provided by the committee secretariat and the consultant to the inquiry, Mrs Jane Large.
As I said, at times the work was challenging and, for a variety of reasons, at times the relationships between members was strained. Indeed, I believe if one has a quick look at the opposition members’ dissenting report, my observations are easily substantiated. It is to the dissenting report I will now pay a little attention.
With regard to Point 1, the opposition members assert that the PAC did not adhere to the terms of reference set for it. We had many a deliberative session on this subject and sought expert advice and were provided with a number of comprehensive briefing from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
The PAC listened to and acted upon this advice and, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms of reference set out by this parliament. On quite a number of occasions the opposition members tried vainly to inappropriately widen the terms of reference and on each occasion they were unsuccessful. Once again, the opposition tries to muddy the waters with half truths and misinformation. Indeed, if this is not the case, where is the Independent member’s support for this blatantly half truthful and calculatingly wrong statement?
Point 2 is another rewrite of history. I say: have a look at the transcripts. In them you will find the truth. Have a look at the latitude the Chairman gave to all witnesses in their answers; have a look at your own measurements of interchanges between the committee and witnesses. Don’t restrict yourself to qualitative calculations the opposition members have used; have a look at the qualitative percentages; have a look at the actual responses to questions; have a look at the way the member for Katherine avoided answering questions, ably supported by the members for Drysdale and Greatorex; have a look at the latitude provided to the ex-member for Nelson, and the fulsome support provided to him by the members for Drysdale and Greatorex.
If there was any bias, which I contend there was not by the greater number of members of the PAC, then that bias falls squarely on the opposition members’ shoulders.
I will also address the further claim under Point 2 that the member for Drysdale suffered a continuous assault while a committee member of the PAC as a result of his involvement notwithstanding his interpretation of advice from a number of learned sources which he claimed had a precedent for him remaining as a member of the PAC.
I have had a good look at the case he has quoted from as setting a precedent for his continuous presence on the committee. I seek approval to table these documents.
Madam SPEAKER: These documents are not deliberative documents?
Mr KIELY: They are not deliberative, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: What a lovely smoke screen he’s put up. This inquiry was never about pecuniary interests, and we all knew that by its terms of reference. This inquiry was about who fiddled the forward estimates and why.
The member for Drysdale was right in the frame, as a result of the memo from the CEO of the then Territory Health Services. That memo has been quoted so often I need not restate it any further.
Mr Dunham claimed the ruling by the Chair of the Australian Senate Committee of Privileges provided him with a precedent. Good try, member for Drysdale! But you failed to inform the PAC that the case related to a Senator who, as a committee member, participated in questioning a witness against whom he had some litigation. The ruling that the Senate Chair of Privileges made was in relation to the Senator’s ability to be impartial and that the senator was expected to know when to stand down from certain parts of the inquiry.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the matters being referred to come from deliberative session? If so, I wonder if the member has sought your leave to venture there?
Mr KIELY: They do not, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I didn’t think they did. I thought they were fairly generalised comments he was making, not anything specific.
Mr KIELY: These are my own observations, member for Drysdale, observations you should have been able to make yourself.
The big difference between this cited example and the situation the member for Drysdale was placed in was that the senator was never going to be a witness before his own committee and was never going to sit in judgment of his own testament. The senator was never going to be in a position of interrogating another witness on the basis of evidence he himself had given.
If good members don’t believe this happened, let me quote you a typical interchange. This one occurred during questioning by the member for Drysdale to the current Minister for Health and Community Services:
- Mr Dunham: Well, some of the generic questions go to whether the process has so offended you of changing
budgets are processes that are still embedded in the system today. So what is part of our defence - or my
defence in particular - is …
I said:
- Hang on. Are you talking as part of the PAC or as a witness here, Mr Dunham? I have real problems now.
What is it? Are you talking as a witness, as being out there before, or are you talking as a member of the PAC?
He said:
This is background …
I said:
Have a look at what you just said there.
He said:
- What we have – okay, my defence. My defence. Stephen Dunham’s defence.
I said:
- So you’re talking – you are interrogating the Minister as a witness.
He said:
- No, no, I’m not. I’m going over old evidence, which is what we do a lot of.
Let me say, I certainly concur with witness Dunham; he did do a lot of that. That being he represented his own evidence while in the role of a committee member on a number of occasions.
This circumstance, one where a committee member would also provide evidence as a witness and then sit in judgment of his evidence against others who gave a contrary account of events, is not the same circumstance he cited as his precedent. It is my belief that he understood the situation his action of refusing to stand down from the committee would place him in, and the committee as a whole. He flagged quite early in the process that a dissenting report would be forthcoming and so he full well and actively set about constructing a cunning subterfuge for his own cynical political lifeline.
Members of the Legislative Assembly have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law, particularly where a conflict of interest may be perceived.
Generally, a conflict of interest arises where members of the Legislative Assembly, acting in their official capacity, participate in matters involving their private interests. Clearly, to sit as a committee member on an investigation into your own actions, hear evidence and interrogate others who have participated in the same event, and then to take part in giving your own evidence, providing extra clarification when it is being considered by the committee in the context of other conflicting evidence by other witnesses, and then deliberating on the findings of the report is a conflict of interest.
I contend the member for Drysdale knew this, or should have known this and should have acted ethically by standing down from his duty. I further contend that the opposition benches have enough legally trained members that they should have been forthcoming with their advice to the member for Drysdale to stand aside. I further contend that the Leader of the Opposition should have directed the member for Drysdale to stand aside and he should have appointed a member of his team who had not previously been implicated.
The member for Drysdale stands condemned for his cynical and unethical actions in regard to his participation to sit as judge and jury on his own actions. You know it.
Mr Dunham: Get angry! Do what you used to do in Committee. Wind it up, big fella. Get the red face going. Come on. This is soft. You don’t even believe this. Even you do not believe it. You had a lot more passion in session.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Could I just make comment at this stage, member for Sanderson. The members of the PAC are appointed by this parliament, and it is up to this parliament to decide whether they should be relieved of their duties on that particular committee, but it is also up to the member to decide whether he should withdraw from the committee. So just remember that: they are appointed by the parliament.
Mr KIELY: Moving onto point three, Madam Speaker. The censure motion was not part of the reference to the PAC. The member for Drysdale continually stated to witnesses before the committee, and to the committee members themselves that the PAC was a recommendatory body only. The term ‘valiantly’ is just one more example of the opposition members’ attempts at patronising other members of the committee. The Independent member agrees with all of the findings of the committee except for those outlined in his minority report. This is a far step from what these leaders of deception would have people believe.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity, because it was raised earlier, the reference between the censure motion and the actual PAC inquiry, and I just ask you again because I do believe you were wrong when you ruled before because the censure motion essentially forms the first words of the PAC report, and the whole of the censure debate is fully appended in the PAC report itself. So to suggest somehow that the censure motion has no relevance to the PAC inquiry I believe is quite wrong and I made that point earlier today.
Madam SPEAKER: I have actually discussed that with the Clerk and because the censure motion is actually contained within the report as an appendix, and because in the introduction it also refers to that motion, it is acceptable for members to refer to the censure motion but they should also be mindful of Standing Order 60 which says they should not comment on the decision of that motion. You cannot reflect on that at all. Because it is included in the report, you may refer to it.
Mr KIELY: I am mindful of that, Madam Speaker, and any vexatious points of order are greatly acknowledged. Point 4. All of the CEOs questioned by the committee either advised …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston!
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, I get tired of the back handed smart comments that the member for Sanderson makes, particularly when you have made the ruling, Madam Speaker, on a serious question I raised. The member should withdraw the fact that because a point of order was raised which you considered serious enough that somehow it was vexatious.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member for Sanderson, your remarks do tend to reflect on the decision of the Speaker. I do not know whether you intended it to do so, but I ask you to withdraw those remarks, and when the Speaker makes a ruling, please accept it.
Mr BURKE: Show some respect for the Chair.
Mr KIELY: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I have full respect for the Chair.
As I was saying about point 4, all of the CEOs questioned by the committee either advised that they had discussed the reduction with the relevant minister or, in the case of Police, there was no need to as the minister of Police and the Treasurer, one and the same, and he made the decisions to write down the department’s own estimates.
The committee thoroughly discussed the evidence and while it appears the Leader of the Opposition did not personally know about the proposed deception, he should have. The Opposition Leader should have known what his Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister implemented, and that it was his plan to deceive the people of the Territory by the publishing of fabricated estimates of expenditure in order to show growth in three of the most politically sensitive departments. It was therefore reasonable not to call the Opposition Leader, however it does raise matters outside of the terms of reference, matters which will be better canvassed on the floor of the Chamber.
Point 5. Here we go again. The member for Katherine asked the Under Treasurer for options to show growth in next year’s budget for Health, Police and Education. His problem was that agencies had presented, through their ministers to Cabinet, accurate estimates of expenditure based on the agencies’ knowledge of the current levels of commitment and expenditure. The member for Katherine was provided two choices by the Under Treasurer in order to meet his request: go with the actual estimates provided by the agency and increase next year’s allocation, or falsify the estimates provided by …
Mr DUNHAM: No! A point of order, Madam Speaker! He was not given advice by the Under Treasurer to falsify. That is verballing the Under Treasurer. He was given two pieces of information and he chose one. Both were valid.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you quoting from actual evidence given or are you ad libbing?
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘falsify’. He was given the option of manipulating, of changing the figures from those that were put in by the agencies, of writing them down. The publishing of fabricated estimates - I don’t think that’s anything new to you lot - of expenditure in order to show growth in three of the most politically sensitive departments. It was therefore reasonable not to call the Opposition Leader, however it does raise matters outside of the terms of reference, matters that will be canvassed on the floor of the Chamber.
Point 5. Here we go again.
Mr Burke: What a gutless comment that is. It was reasonable not to call me, but you’ll discuss it on the floor of the Chamber. What a cowardly lot you are.
Mr KIELY: We shall see who laughs last, Leader of the Opposition. Here we go again. I think we have already been there, haven’t we? Okay, so he’s been provided two choices, and we know what those choices were. But, you know, the member for Katherine had a third choice: he could have been honest. I’ll bet that one never occurred to him. He could have been honest and shown no growth and worn the political consequences. That was a third choice open to the member for Katherine. He chose, and this is the nub of it, and directed the Under Treasurer to write down the estimates submitted by the budget teams and the CEOs of Health, Education and Police.
There is no doubt that the member for Katherine unilaterally ordered the falsification of the estimates and there is no doubt that the member for Drysdale knew the estimates had been falsified, and so did the member for Nelson.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The word ‘falsification’ is attributed to the Under Treasurer and the Treasurer. It did not come out in evidence nor is it recorded in here.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, this is all in the evidence. This is all in the evidence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, are you quoting from the report?
Mr KIELY: Not verbatim.
Madam SPEAKER: So you are …
Mr KIELY: I will change the word ‘falsification’. I will look up my thesaurus.
Mr Baldwin: Withdraw it.
Mr KIELY: I haven’t been ordered to withdraw it. Now, point 6. Oh, yes. The opposition shows its true colours and attacks the Chairman. Yes. This point is so pathetic, to argue against it is to give it some form of credibility. Suffice to say it is a good sign post that the sad, bucolic frame of mind of the opposition members.
Point 7. The committee in the course of its inquiry had cause to note and seek further advice on the matter of the treatment of a Cabinet approved increase to the personnel budget of approximately $6m. The information provided by DEET indicates a different treatment of the internal distribution of this allocation to that understood by Treasury. However, it is an aside and should not be considered as unfinished business in the context of the findings of the inquiry and to the overall writing down of the agency’s estimates as presented to Cabinet and Treasury for inclusion in the appropriation speech.
Point 8: the opposition members appear to have difficulty in describing the problem. Let’s get it out in the open. The problem was the direction of the Treasurer to write down, manipulate, otherwise show as not the ones that were put in the estimates provided by Health, Education and Police to reflect growth to the tune of $8m in Health, $6m in Education and $2m in Police in an election year budget. The problem is the member for Drysdale and the ex-member for Nelson went along with it.
The Under Treasurer provides a reason why this was done. That it was done is substantiated by all the CEOs, budget teams and serving ministers at the time including the member for Drysdale. Wrongdoing can be found, illegality can not. There is a convention, however, the public office holders should at all times be truthful in their communication with the public, particularly when charged with the management of the public purse. When people are entrusted with public monies, an issue of ethics, of public trust, is always paramount. As a result of this inquiry, strong recommendations to the government have been made to, in the words of the opposition members, fix the problem.
Finally - the real problem is they all got caught. Point 9: this is another twisting of the truth, a skill practised and highly valued by some members of the opposition. The findings and recommendations are from the majority of PAC members. It is only the opposition members who found it impossible to fairly balance the weight of evidence, particularly evidence given by the Under Treasurer which strongly contradicted the assertion made by the member for Drysdale that he met formally with Treasury officials to discuss the fiddling of the estimates. He did not.
Not even the member for Katherine or the former member for Nelson could remember actually specifically meeting with the member for Drysdale to discuss the issue of the write down of his agency’s end of year estimates. In this matter, the member for Drysdale’s evidence to the committee was tested and found to be highly inaccurate and perhaps somewhat fanciful.
The member for Drysdale’s interpretations of what the CEO of Territory Health Services said has to be called into question when you look at his assertion that the CEO meant ‘target’ when he used the word ‘proposed deception’. To the member…
Mr Dunham: What? That does not even make sense.
Mr KIELY: Yes, well that is what you said. You said that the…
Mr Dunham: Read the sentence out. Nobody understands it.
Mr KIELY: You said that the CEO meant ‘target’ when he used the words ‘proposed deception’ in his memo. It is in there, you read the transcript. To the member for Drysdale, these are not irreconcilable concepts. That is what you said. That is the strangest thing about you, you are coming up with some really weird stuff.
This PAC’s terms of reference were not about whether the concerns of Mr Bartholomew were shared with others. The terms of reference were based on the accuracy of budget data published in the 2001-02 budget. To this end the PAC acquitted itself quite well on its findings.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Points 10 to 14. I found it better to compress all these, this whole lot. Points 10 to 14. Well, the opposition members have really lost the plot here. The ramblings that they put up as a cogent argument is hogwash. The points raised are outside the terms of reference and are therefore rightly not part of this inquiry. In particular, the opposition report seeks to mislead people with its assertions about hiding the cost of domestic electricity tariffs and underfunding HIH liabilities. These are matters that were covered in deliberative session and red herring allegations put forward by the opposition members that were found to be unsubstantiated.
Suffice to say we once again see here elements of the personal, spiteful vendetta waged by the member for Drysdale against the Minister for Health and Community Services. His attacks are now bordering on harassment.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: He should consider starting to do his homework and challenging the minister on points of fact or he should consider seeking counselling to overcome what looks like severe paranoia. It is a great shame that he appears to drag along other gullible members of the CLP team on his quest to prove he is a better man than the minister.
There are other parts of the Dissenting Report that are in the same vein as points 10 to 14. They, too, are the ramblings of a discontented and embittered individual or individuals, whatever the case. Their comments lend nothing to a meaningful debate and will be seen by the public as a shabby attempt to confuse. It is a case of yet another serious cynical charade on the people of the Territory.
Both of these were considered by the PAC and advice sought in deliberative sessions…
Mr Dunham: Which part don’t you understand? What don’t you understand?
Mr KIELY: You should listen to this, I think - it will do you good - instead of sitting there chuckling.
What is of great concern to me is the play made by the Leader of the Opposition in this entire torrid, sorry affair. That he wasn’t part of the conspiracy of silence is clear: he was not informed by the member for Katherine that the estimates he had agreed to in Cabinet were to be changed; he was not informed that the Health CEO made representation to the member for Drysdale that the changing of the estimates was a deception; he was not informed by the then member for Nelson that the Department of Education’s agency estimates had been changed. And why not? Did they not trust him? Was he too busy to be advised? Did he not care what his ministers did in regard to the public purse?
Mr Burke: Why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you call me and ask me questions? You’re cowards, that’s why.
Mr KIELY: It means he wasn’t leading them and he isn’t leading them now.
Mr Burke: Cowards! You should have called me. No sense doing it now.
Mr KIELY: He would similarly have no control if they got back in. The fact that he didn’t know is appalling. What is truly dismaying in all of this turgid affair is that the members who perpetuated this lie - that is, the changing of the Education, Health and Police estimates in a budget year …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr KIELY: … are now the shadow ministers for the same portfolios.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you know you cannot use ‘lie’.
Mr DUNHAM: He has used the word ‘lie’ again and while it might be typed in there, as he goes through his brain should edit it and say: ‘This is a naughty word’. I suggest if he keeps doing it, he’s offending your ruling, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘lie’, thank you. You know you cannot use it.
Mr KIELY: What word?
Madam SPEAKER: ‘Lie’!
Mr DUNHAM: Withdraw the word ‘lie’.
Mr KIELY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I wasn’t calling anyone a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw it.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw. I unreservedly withdraw it.
Mr Burke: Tell them not to write ‘lie’ when they write your speeches for you, Len.
Mr KIELY: This does not auger well for Territory politics, nor does it auger well for the CLP. If the Leader of the Opposition will not act to remove these manipulators and tamperers from these portfolios, the executive and rank and file of the CLP must act. There are others who have not been tainted by this deception, and they must do all in their power to ensure that those who played a part are removed from ever being given the temptation to present a false picture of their fiscal management abilities ever again.
I do not believe it is to any member of the committee’s benefit, or to the benefit of this Assembly to dwell on these matters any further. Rather, acknowledge that they exist and move on. I think that the work of this committee is served best when we focus on the recommendations, and it is to these that I now turn.
Unlike the dissenting report of the opposition members, the actual report from the PAC contains seven recommendations for ensuring a manipulation of estimates as we have seen perpetrated by the CLP can never happen again. The recommendations are far reaching and substantial. I urge the government to consider these recommendations in light of what we have uncovered in the course of this inquiry.
Briefly, the recommendations are: improvement of budget documentation; improvement of budgeting culture; establishing an Estimates Committee; good agency record keeping; adequate evaluation of budgets; estimates of land sales; and the third recommendation is review of conflict of interest in committee. Six of these recommendations deal specifically with budget-related initiatives. Recommendation 7 deals with the matter of addressing a committee member’s conflict of interest. Given the destructive and self-serving nature of the dissenting report by members of the committee who clearly had a conflict of interest, this recommendation might best be considered in isolation and acted upon in the near future.
I believe here on the floor, we’ve seen a classic example of what we’ve had to put up with in the PAC for the last number of …
Dr Lim: That would be right.
Mr KIELY: There you go. There you go. I can honestly say I’m glad that the PAC has finalised its report. I look forward to my ongoing relationship with the other members of the PAC, and I’m sure that under other circumstances, a more bipartisan approach will be effected.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to join this debate on PAC Report No 38. This matter arose following Territory Health CEO Bartholomew’s memo to the Minister for Health and Community Services.
She said that she first met Mr Bartholomew on the 26 August and, it was at that date that he informed her that his health budget was underfunded by $14m. At the hearing with the Minister for Health and Community Services, she advised the committee that at every meeting subsequent to that first meeting, her CEO would discuss underfunding of the budget for 2001-02. While he started his briefing with the $14m shortfall, by the end of the first week of briefings, he had advised her that the underfunding had gone up to $20m. Is this a manager who adds on the run? In one week, the underfunding had gone up by $6m. At this stage, the minister sought a written briefing from her CEO.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex knows full well that those extra sums came from Treasury, not the CEO of Health.
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: What? This came directly from the minister.
Dr Burns: I will demonstrate it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, continue.
Dr LIM: Is this a manager - no, I’ve said that. I will come back to the memo from Mr Bartholomew to his minister later. Let’s now deal with the report chapter by chapter, starting with the simpler issues first. The committee trawled across all departments of the public service and found only five agencies they considered worthy of scrutiny. The rest were in order. As far as the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment was concerned, there was no real issue. The agency allocated a notional figure of $9m as an estimate for land sales. It was a convention using a five year rolling average. The fact that this government used the same notional figure indicates that indeed there was and is no problem.
As for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, the matter was about outsourcing of government IT services. The department advised that it had kept the former Cabinet fully briefed on issues relating to outsourcing and had to wait for Cabinet decisions. The only criticism we had was that DCIS did not develop any benchmarks with which it can provide an ongoing measure of its success in this exercise.
The Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ final expenditure came in very close to the adjusted estimates. In fact, documents tabled by the agency showed that during the last five years, the known carryover of allocation had been approximately $1.5m.
The two agencies which required substantial work from the committee were Education and Health. Where Education was concerned, the CEO himself, like his colleagues in LPE, DCIS and Police, Fire and Emergency Services, was not concerned about the adjustment in his budget. Mr Bartholomew is on his own on this matter. No other CEO was concerned about the adjustments.
In my opinion, the CEO of Education and his officers gave fulsome answers to all the questions posed to them by the committee. The specialist financial advisor to the committee wrote to us, very late in the deliberations of the committee, a memo in relation to the $6m adjustment to the estimates for Education.
The Chairman of the committee and I discussed the memo, and I recommended it be sent to the CEO of Education, asking him to provide the committee with a response. When a thorough response was received from the department, it was clear enough to me that the department had managed the adjustment appropriately. However, some other members of the committee were not able to understand the explanation that was provided. Indeed, instead of putting in advice from the Education with the rest of the documentation provided today so that anyone reading the report and all its attachments can have the chance to analyse the material …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is talking about events within deliberative sessions. Also I would suggest that he is misrepresenting them by saying that other members of the committee did not understand it. I am not going to go into it further, but I fully understood what was going on, and I urge the member for Greatorex to be very cautious in what he says here.
Dr LIM: It is my opinion, Madam …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you understand that you cannot comment on deliberative sessions.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I understand my position. It was my opinion that some members of the committee did not understand the report. They tried to bury it, and they buried it this morning. This morning’s actions by the government buried the document whereas I thought it would be better had people had a chance to read it and make up their minds for themselves.
This dastardly deed committed by the majority of the committee flies in the face of the government’s mantra of open and honest government. People need to ask why the government members are so desperate to bury the documents. In my mind, there was nothing untoward about the document. So much for honest and open government. Government members want to portray that CEO Bartholomew was the only honest whistleblower in the whole public service. That belief impugns the high ethical standards of all members of the public service. All members of the public service who presented evidence to the committee, either in writing, or orally, were and are honest, hard working people.
What should be noted about CEO Bartholomew’s action is that he is on his own in his opinion. No other person believed as he did, and I wonder why. The committee put to the Under Treasurer a question about the Bartholomew memo. The question was:
- The Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services has described the realignment as artificial and deceptive.
Can you comment on this description in relation to the realignment to the Territory Health Services 2000-01
estimate as shown in the 2001-02 budget papers?
- The description provided by THS seeks to place one interpretation on the events and this differs to the interpretation
of other agencies. In doing so, the rationale for the adjustment was not explained to the new minister and selective
advice from Treasury was provided to the new government. The official Treasury advice was not provided.
- The bottom line is that there was a logic in reducing the Health estimate actual expenditure in 2000-01, particularly
given the history of carryovers for Health.
There is no doubt here that Mr Bartholomew, the CEO of the then Territory Health Services, was on his own - out on a limb, so to speak. The Under Treasurer, in his written response of 22 January 2002 to specific questions from the committee, said this of the figures produced by Territory Health, and I quote again:
- The high level discussion involved concern about the quality of health budget management and its reluctance to be
as open and frank as the previous management. The position, as stated by Health at budget Cabinet was not
considered to be reliable because the underlying growth position was not explained and we suspected there
was significant negative growth in hospitals and renal services and that should have been producing savings
in 2000-01.
What the Under Treasurer was saying is that Health’s figures were suspect and some rigour needed to be put into place. The government portrays that there was wrongdoing in the adjustments to the estimates. In total, the adjustments to the estimates to the three agencies, which were questioned at length, that is the Departments of Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Education and Health, came to only $16m. I repeat: $16m worth of final estimates. The end of year actual expenditure for the whole of the public service came to $26m underspent for that same year. The words of the Under Treasurer were, and I quote:
- The waive was $44m at the start of 2000-01 and was expected to be at least a similar amount at the end of the year …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Wait for it:
- …By removing some of the waive from the 2000-01 estimate actual, which included adjustments for Health,
Education and Police and $24m for Treasurer’s advance, a more accurate comparison of the two years
from a whole-of-government perspective was published. What actually occurred at the end of 2000-01 was
a further underexpenditure of $26m.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Dr LIM: I repeat: the underexpenditure for the year 2000-01 was $26m. Compare that to the adjusted estimates, which were $16m, which was not missing. Not missing. Across the board, in all agencies, there was always an underspend each year. In fact, evidence was provided by Treasury and THS, and I quote:
- This was the first time that this has occurred over the last five years.
It was this anomaly that caused the issue. As I said earlier, in Police, Fire and Emergency Services and in Education, the adjustments were fairly accurate. The former Treasurer should be well satisfied that after what the Chairman would describe as a rigorous enquiry by the PAC, he is completely exonerated of any wrong doing. What he did was use his ability to put pressure on THS to contain its ever growing expenditure. I will deal with that in greater detail shortly.
Coming now to the hearings of the Minister for Health and Community Services. I was very particular in my questions to the minister during the PAC hearings. She repeated that at every briefing that she had with her CEO, all he spoke about was the underfunding of his health budget. By that, I take it that she understood that he had a budget shortfall for the year 2001-02. So when the minister asked her CEO for a briefing on the shortfall, one would assume that he would provide details as to where his shortfall will be for this financial year. The minister was also at pains to tell us, at the committee, that she did not prompt her CEO for any particular slant in the information that he should provide.
The minister then described that she was absolutely shocked by the content of the memo, a memo that she also called political; a memo that she received some three weeks after she expressed her desire to her CEO to provide her with a written briefing. Three weeks. It was a memo that both the minister and the CEO thought was very important but was also described by the CEO as a confidential memo from him to his minister. The minister was shocked. ‘It was an absolute shock,’ she said ‘when I received it on 27 September’. Those were her exact words.
On receiving the memo the minister took it through what she called, and I quote: ‘Due process’. She said that 27 times in fact and when asked to describe what she meant so that we could all be on the same understanding of her words ‘due process’ she described it thus:
- I think due process has a fairly common understanding amongst most people and is to ensure that the matter is
considered properly or adequately. That is how I understand due process.
Mind you, the minister’s due process did not include her testing the document she received from her CEO which absolutely shocked her, nor did she test it with her CEO, nor did she test it with the then Under Treasurer. We heard earlier that no official Treasury explanation was requested. These were the two people most critical to her and her understanding of the problems associated with the budget. Yet she failed to test the document. She did not question her CEO about the content. Instead, she took it through due process and tabled it in parliament during her response to the question from the member for Sanderson who, according to the minister, did not know anything about the memo until it was tabled.
Now I find it curious that three days after she received the memo from her CEO, the minister received a copy of the annual report for Territory Health Services. Included in it was a transmitted letter which stated in part that there was:
- …no indication of malpractice, major breach of legislation or delegation, major error in or omission from the
accounts and records existed…
and further it also stated:
- …financial statements included in the annual report were prepared from proper accounts and records and were in accordance with Part 2, Section 5 of the Treasurer’s Directions where appropriate. All financial statements prepared
by DCIS on behalf of THS were prepared from proper accounts and records…
So let me repeat the points I have made here. The CEO was satisfied with his end of year expenditure and signed off on the 2000-01 budget in his annual report. He had been briefing his minister on the budget shortfalls for 2001-02. The minister told us they never discussed the 2000-01 budget yet, for some inexplicable reason, the CEO wrote a memo pertaining to the budget he never discussed with his minister, a memo that he considered was a confidential memo from him to her.
The minister then decided that she would not discuss the memo with her CEO despite the fact that she felt it was a shocking and political document. Instead, she chose to use due process in consultation with her Chief Minister and her Cabinet colleagues. Is it a wonder that any bystander would look at this sequence of events suspiciously and believe that there might have been some collusion and conspiracy in this?
When I tried to clear my doubts with the minister, I could hardly get her to respond to my questions directly. I did not ask that many questions of the minister but of those that I asked, on 39 separate occasions, government members answered or ran interference for the minister by way of fulsome interjections.
The Chairman was as poorly behaved as his colleague, the member for Sanderson. All anyone has to do is to go to the transcripts of the hearings which we all received today and find out for themselves. The whole process conducted by a biased Chairman was a mockery of any fair minded inquiry. As the member for Nelson often said, this is a case of a government judging as guilty the members for Brennan, Katherine and Drysdale through a censure motion, then sending the Public Accounts Committee to find the evidence. I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this not a travesty of justice?
That the Chairman was biased is irrefutable in any fair minded person’s mind. When I wanted the matter of the Chairman’s bias to be objectively examined by the independent Privileges Committee, I was prevented from doing so. There was much evidence that could not be put to parliament as some of that evidence was from deliberative sessions of the committee. But the Privileges Committee could have obtained that information for itself and considered it in camera, but that was not to be.
Now, coming to the right of the former Treasurer to use his authority to put pressure on THS. The member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale, in evidence to the committee, explained that the estimates adjustments for Territory Health Services was to send a message to the department that their funding was under scrutiny. The government members mistakingly continued to believe that the motive for the $8m adjustment to Health was to juggle the end of year estimates. No, it was not.
The adjustment was to send a signal to the department that it could not operate under the premise that their starting point for 2001-02 would be the final expenditure for the previous year. The signal was sent to remind Health that their budget figure for 2001-02 was under pressure. ‘Did the message get through?’, I asked. Not one witness claimed that the message was not heard loud and clear. All that was said by the public service witnesses was that, as far as they were concerned, they were allowed to spend the 2000-01 budget to allocation. That response is not the same as: ‘No, we don’t believe that we were under pressure for 2001-02 budget’. Be that as it may, the message, as desired by the member for Katherine and supported in evidence by the member for Drysdale, was indeed heard.
A memo was sent by the then Acting Assistant Secretary (Business and Organisational Support) to her senior managers regarding budget restrictions on 30 May 2001 withdrawing delegations. While that direction was withdrawn the next day, the e-mail of 30 May 2001, I suggest to you, went right through the whole of THS. The fact that it was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure what particular standing order applies but when the member makes allegations which are patently false - I have the document here to prove it; I will table it. I will table this document …
Mr Dunham: Do it in debate; it’s a debate.
Mr KIELY: Well, you can’t just go making these false accusations that you know are false.
Dr Lim: I hope the clock’s on hold.
Mr Dunham: You’ve been doing it all through your contribution. Do it in debate.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, we have just heard the member for Sanderson at length making the most scurrilous comments and quoting from his own imagination rather than from any transcript. I simply say that the same rules should be afforded to the member for Greatorex. The rules have already been set by the member for Sanderson.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. We have had far reaching comments and allegations made by both sides in this debate and, as long as people have made sure that they have kept well away from the deliberative …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I have been here in this Chamber long enough to understand standing orders, and I am abiding very tightly by them.
The fact that it was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message: staff of THS were advised and were to be greatly concerned about the adjustment notwithstanding that the CEO knew his department could spend to allocation …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have a document that specifically refutes that claim. I wish to table it.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, that is not the right time …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, perhaps you can do that at the end of this speech. You can ask for an explanation.
Mr Dunham: Yes, because there are some people who might not agree, and then we have debate. So let’s do it like this.
Madam SPEAKER: You’re not in debate now.
Mr Dunham: That’s right!
Mr Kiely: A little bit of truth wouldn’t hurt.
Mr DUNHAM: That interjection, Madam Speaker, is just offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: I didn’t hear it, unfortunately.
Mr DUNHAM: I think he said: ‘A little bit of truth wouldn’t hurt’. It should be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, why do you do this; get yourself into such fixes? You know your off-the-cuff comments are completely out of order. Now, withdraw that.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I am losing time here. The fact that this e-mail was spread widely throughout THS gives this simple message: staff of THS were advised and were to be greatly concerned about the adjustment notwithstanding that the CEO knew that his department could spend to allocation. The message from the then Treasurer got through to the people whom he wanted it to affect, the cost generators within the department and undoubtedly, it would have modified behaviour.
When you turn to the findings and recommendations of the report, a quick read will tell you that there is no bearing between the findings and the recommendations. The findings of the majority report were poor attempts by government members to take a swipe at the former ministers. I repeat: no wrong doing was found. It was entirely silent on the former Chief Minister. Not one word was written about the member for Brennan. There was no issue in the committee about the Leader of the Opposition. For the Chairman to then raise it in his tabling speech is nothing but absolutely cowardly.
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Greatorex to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: As for the former Treasurer, in the words of the PAC report, it said and I quote:
- The committee found that the action taken in itself was not in breach of any Territory financial legislation;
namely, the Financial Management Act, Regulations, or Treasurer’s Directions. The Treasurer had approval
from Cabinet to process the amendments which affected the figures contained in the 2001-02 budget.
Hence, there is no wrong doing by the former Treasurer. With accrual accounting, a new set of rules will have to be introduced and this will be the outcome of the current review of the Financial Management Act. It is here that I am interested to see if, under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, this government will practice what its PAC members preach. There are already concerns expressed that there are holes in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which will allow the government to hide its budget figures.
Readers should ask what documents have not been included in the report. I suggest that those documents which add some weight to government members’ arguments have been included but those that may be critical have been suppressed - another example of how this open and honest government is misbehaving. The Chairman of the committee, in his tabling speech, spoke disparagingly about the former Minister for Education. My findings refute the Chairman’s words. As expected, his words were included in the report but mine were not. The Chairman reported that:
- Mr Lugg appeared to exhibit a significant lack of interest in and knowledge of the budgetary situation
of his department.
So is the Minister for Health and Community Services, Mrs Aagaard. He also reported:
- Mr Lugg appeared to have shifted a significant amount of his responsibility as a minister for making his own
judgements. It also appears that he did not exercise sufficient vigilance in these matters.
So is the Minister for Health and Community Services, Mrs Aagaard. And finally, the Chairman said:
- Mr Lugg did not fully understand or actively question the nature of Mr Reed’s reduction to the Education budget.
I could say here just as easily, and more accurately that the Minister for Health and Community Services did not fully understand or actively question the nature of the Bartholomew memo.
I said earlier that the findings showed no relationship to the recommendations. The findings have indeed exonerated the former Chief Minister, the former Treasurer, the former Minister for Health, and the former Minister for Education. Anyone reading the recommendations will see that. If the committee did have serious findings, it would have made recommendations that address these findings. They did not do so. The committee, in Recommendation 1, sought better documentation and annotation of budget figures. I do not have a problem with that.
Recommendation 2 says that there should be an improvement in the budget culture. This is based entirely on whether one accepts the concept that at the start of the budget year, allocations should be tightly confined and any further growth had to be justified to Cabinet on a case by case basis, or whether an allocation to be made with fat built in, and the departments are not to return to government for further allocation. Either method is possible and correct, and the right to judge which is better to use is within the province of government.
Recommendation 3: to establish an Estimates Committee was the Labor government’s pre-election promise and is proposed as a Private Member’s Bill of this House. It would have been untenable for the government members of the committee not to include this recommendation.
I look forward to the implementation of Recommendations 4 and 5, and promise that I will be keeping a close watch on how keenly the government will take them on board.
As for Recommendation 6, that the notional figures for land sales are best estimates by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Development. They are the experts and any advice that I can give on my own or as part of the committee would be at best gratuitous.
My colleague, the member for Drysdale, has spoken at length about Recommendation 7, and I support his position. As much as the member for Sanderson is determined to develop his reputation of being the spoiler in this Chamber, he fails to make any case against the member for Drysdale. The PAC report does little to progress the operations of this parliament. Its biased Chairman and the unbalanced portrayal of information, burying what is not in favour of the government’s position mocks the whole committee process.
The government stands accused of:
- (1) bastardising the parliamentary process in moving a censure motion prior to seeking evidence; and
(2) allowing the PAC to table a report which found, after six months of deliberations, no wrong doing by the
former ministers and that has a substantial minority report which outlines significant problems with the
proceedings.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Northern Territory Primary Industry Sector
Northern Territory Primary Industry Sector
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Assembly with a ministerial statement on the achievements and opportunities of the primary industry sector of the Northern Territory.
The estimated gross value of production of the Northern Territory’s primary and fishing industries for the year 2000 was $439m, a 4.5% increase on 1999. Early figures for 2001 show that the industry has grown even further by 6% to approximately $466m.
Primary industry is the third largest industry in the Territory behind mining and tourism. Direct employment in the primary and fishing industries is estimated at 5600 people. The industry also provides significant indirect employment in the transport and support industries and is a major employer in the rural areas of the Territory.
Today I will speak on the achievements and opportunities in the primary industry sector, namely the pastoral, agricultural and horticultural industries. I would like to address the achievements and potential opportunities of the commercial and recreational fishing industries in a separate statement to this Assembly at a later date.
While so much debate in this House and throughout the Northern Territory recently has been focussed on Timor Sea gas, primary industry forms an integral part of the government’s economic development strategy. The economic development strategy will be released in the next month and has been produced in partnership with all industry sectors. It will lay the ground for planned and sustained growth in all of our vital industry sectors such as primary industries. Today I will provide some specifics on the key strategic approaches within the economic development strategy that applies to primary industry.
Regional economic growth is vital not only for the economic future of the Territory, but it is also vital to ensure better social outcomes in our regional centres. The government will work with the primary industry sectors to ensure we capitalise on the potential before us.
Through time, the industries have consolidated and grown with the close support of my department. The estimated gross value of production of the pastoral industry in the year 2000 was $190m, up from $109m in 1988. The estimated gross value of production of horticulture was $92m, up $17m in 1988. Through consultation and in partnership with the industry sectors, we will continue, if not accelerate, this growth into the future.
After being allocated this portfolio, I was staggered by the previous government’s lack of sectoral development plans for the individual industry sectors. The Martin government is committed to working in partnership with business and industry to drive our economic development. A key strategy is to encourage all stakeholders to work in partnership to create a framework of investment certainty for developing the Territory’s primary industry potential.
We are consulting with industry in order to develop industry sectoral development plans that ensure the resources of my department are focussed on priority area needs for future development. My department is busy working with the industry sectors in developing these industry development plans. These plans will allow government and industry to move forward and to understand and exploit the competitive advantages we have here in the Territory.
Collectively, these industry development plans will form a framework for the future direction of primary industry in the Territory. The government is taking a strategic approach to consulting and working with the industry sectors. We are forming partnership groups with industry peak bodies to formalise communication between government and industry. I have been delighted by the response from industry to this approach. The partnership approach will allow the industries themselves to be united.
Today I also want to focus on the opportunities for increased involvement in primary production by the indigenous communities of the Territory, and to increase production on Aboriginal land. One of the key priorities to come out of the Economic Development Summit last year was the importance of the indigenous community in our collective economic development. The indigenous community expressed a real desire for their communities and their lands to be included in the economic development strategies of the Northern Territory.
A quick flick through previous statements made in this House on primary industry showed that virtually the only reference to the indigenous community was in relation to how land rights issues were holding up the development of the primary industries. Whether land is under pastoral lease, freehold title or native title, the potential of production on that land is not affected. In much the same way that this government has been able to open up vast tracts of land for exploration, we intend to work with indigenous people in our community to realise the opportunities to increase primary production on Aboriginal land.
This government will not use Aboriginal land ownership issues as an excuse for inaction as the previous government did, but will work with the indigenous community in order to develop real opportunities. The government will work with land councils to develop collaborative programs with Aboriginal land owners. These collaborative programs will aim to increase the value of production, increase opportunities for employment and increase returns to Aboriginal people from primary production on Aboriginal land. There is perhaps no other industry with such potential for indigenous involvement. It will be ignored no longer.
There are two sides to growth: increasing supply and increasing demand. Whilst there are numerous opportunities for increases in production and increases in quality, there is little point unless there is a market to absorb such an increase. Key to this, my department is developing an international trade strategy that will include sectoral trade strategies. Primary industry trade development proposals include: strengthening of existing and encouragement of new freight services; utilising government links to further expand international air services to and from the Northern Territory for air freight cargo; identifying, promoting and facilitating new infrastructure and venture investment opportunities to provide a more competitive position for Territory exporters; assisting with the strategic targetting of key international source markets and identification of new and emerging markets; government assistance to producers through the provision of timely export information, market entry assistance and facilitation of two-way freight trials; tailoring enterprise export development initiatives to assist the strengthening and internationalisation of agribusiness enterprises; coordinating the development of export trade skills through the use of targetted training and education programs; continuing to evaluate performance of key international source markets and identify opportunities for new and emerging markets; identifying and developing export action initiatives for export of agricultural-related services with a focus on markets and opportunities complementary to the Northern Territory; and incorporating trade strategies into individual sectoral development strategies.
I will now turn to some of the individual primary industry sectors. The Northern Territory cattle herd has increased from approximately 1.3m 10 years ago to approximately 1.6m today. It is predicted to increase to 1.8m in the next five years. My department’s extension and research officers will continue to work with the industry to promote and refine breeding herd efficiency programs.
Research conducted by my department in collaboration with industry at Mt Sanford on Victoria River Downs Station has demonstrated that cattle numbers and production can be sustainably increased by providing more watering points and fencing. This results in more even herd distribution, better spread of grazing and prevents concentrations of cattle at water points. Heytesbury Pastoral Company will now extend this research to conduct a full scale commercial trial on Pigeon Hole Station.
This work is relevant to more intensive development of pastoral properties on the VRD, Sturt Plateau and Barkly Tablelands, and this government does acknowledge and appreciate the great contribution that the cattle industry makes to the Northern Territory economy.
I spoke earlier of the priority this government places on increasing the involvement of the indigenous community in our rural and primary industries. Cattle production stands out as an area of obvious potential. Officers of my department are working in close collaboration with the Indigenous Land Corporation to bring Aboriginal properties back into production. The concept of using the expertise of the existing industry to develop cattle production projects on Aboriginal land through short-term leases is being progressed with the land councils and the Cattlemen’s Association.
The leases provide immediate return to Aboriginal land owners and give them the option at the end of the lease of either renewing, joint venturing or running the project themselves. Other projects are aimed at developing Aboriginal pastoral enterprises and these include the Oenpelli Flood Plains and the Roper Valley. The training program for increasing involvement of Aboriginal people in the pastoral industry will be developed in parallel with this. Assistance has been provided to the Jawoyn Association to investigate agricultural and pastoral opportunities on Jawoyn land.
The Territory buffalo industry is also healthy but with a shortage of supply. The live export market to Brunei dominates the trade with over 2500 buffalo exported last year, and similar numbers expected this year.
The camel industry, after struggling for many years, is now starting to make progress. Live camel exports are anticipated to reach 5000 head in the period 2002-03 with Malaysia being the largest market. Regular live exports are occurring to Brunei and Malaysia with a successful trial shipment to Jordan in the Middle East. Repeat orders are expected from Jordan, and the first trial shipment to Thailand is pending. Currently my department’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs is used as a depot for receiving and consigning camel shipments.
Feral harvesting of camels for live export is viable, estimated to be worth approximately $2.5m this year and anticipated to double in the period 2002-03. By comparison, the cost of feral animal culling programs would be in excess of $5m. An abattoir in Queensland has started purchasing camels from Central Australia for export to Europe, and certainly there is significant interest in Central Australia for the establishment of an abattoir.
Turning now to the horticulture industry which has gone through a period of very rapid growth over the last decade, the industry is now poised to be a major employer and export income earner for the Territory. The government’s strategy is to encourage horticulture industry development through management of knowledge, improved industry skills, and land, water and infrastructure availability.
The Northern Territory government has committed $2m to capital infrastructure to support the development of an export oriented horticulture industry. The advice I have received is that packaging and cold storage facilities in the Darwin region are being effectively addressed by private enterprise. I am seeking advice from industry on what other export oriented facilities are critical to the future industry development in the Darwin, Katherine and other regions. This $2m is a commitment to facilitate further development of supply chains that will include storage, processing, freight and handling.
The breakdown of the former Horticultural Advisory Committee was symbolic of the failure of the previous government to properly consult with industry. My department is preparing a proposal for a partnership group with the responsibility to coordinate industry and departmental programs. The industry scenario I referred to earlier, in the case of the horticultural industry, will be supported by development plans for individual sectors. Joint programs between industry and my department will implement these plans.
An agreement to coordinate research, extension, training and industry development between the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, the Northern Territory University, my department and the Northern Territory Horticultural Industry has been prepared. This is aimed at positioning the Northern Territory as a centre of excellence in tropical horticulture with ramifications for research, higher education, industry development and industry training. It is proposed that the agreement will be signed in July together with the opening of the new CSIRO controlled environment laboratory at McMillans Road. The Northern Territory government has contributed $1m to the development of this laboratory.
The mango industry with probably close to a million trees in the ground produced some $36m worth of product in 2000-01 from approximately 1.6 million trays, with less than 50% of trees at production age. My department advises that productivity levels, as an industry average, are less than 50% of what they should be and significantly lower than the industry best. Increased profitability through improved productivity, management of production, and through chain quality, together with consolidation of existing markets and development of new markets including both export markets and markets for produce other than fresh fruit, are essential if the industry is to achieve its full potential.
The current industry has the ability to put between 5 and 10 million trays in the market in the next five years but, if productivity and quality through chain management and market development are not addressed, the industry will suffer. The workforce needed during the harvesting period will be critical, with some industry estimates projecting the need for between 8000 and 10 000 seasonal workers during the harvest season.
I am pleased to advise that the mango industry is starting to develop an effective organisation to target and plan for the needs of their industry. My department has seconded an officer to the industry, as an industry development officer, and it has doubled the number of staff in its extension group. For its part, the industry has voted to accept a national levy and, in the interim, is seeking to collect a voluntary Northern Territory levy to fund industry development priorities.
Training and extension programs are being jointly developed by the industry, my department and the Northern Territory University. A total of 11 workshops, seminars and field training days have been developed for delivery in both Darwin and Katherine. Subjects to be covered include: nutrition, canopy management, and other production issues. The first of these workshops was held on 26 April to cover the area of integrated pest management.
Six new varieties of ornamental gingers have been developed by my department through breeding work and released to industry for appraisal under protection of provisional Plant Breeders Rights. This follows on from the successful release of the Darwin collection of gingers to the cut flowers industry some nine years ago, and the release of Federation Lady as the Centenary of Federation floral emblem for the Territory.
I would also like to make particular mention of Territory horticulturist Ben Hoffman, last year’s Livewire winner. I had the pleasure of visiting Ben’s premises in the rural area last month when I launched the 2002 Shell Livewire program. It is clear that Ben’s doing very well in this cut flower business - so well, in fact, that he was flying out the following week to visit London to open up new markets for his business over there. He is an example of a Territory exporter with a can-do attitude making real inroads in a competitive international market.
A collaborative program has been implemented with the Asian vegetable sector, and the sector is continuing to develop strongly. Work is continuing on integrated pest management. A poster showing the main diseases of Asian vegetables has been developed. This will assist industry to correctly identify diseases and will provide information on their management. My department will work with the Department of Ethnic Affairs to help distribute this information in the appropriate languages.
Talking about bananas now, the purpose built Banana Quarantine Station at Coastal Plains has attracted significant interest within Australia and overseas. There is already a clear indication of resistance and susceptibility across the 14 banana varieties tested. Related to this area of research, an Honours student is being jointly funded by CSIRO and my department to investigate aspects of Panama Disease in bananas.
A major program of research is continuing on table grape production at Ti Tree. Management of crop water use, salinity problems caused by over or under irrigation and nutrition levels in grape vines is underway. With industry support, two outbreaks of Queensland Fruit Fly have been detected and eradicated from the Ti Tree area.
Another important initiative that my department is involved with is the work it is doing with the Power and Water Authority to examine a proposal to pipe treated effluent to facilitate commercial horticulture development on land near Alice Springs including an area held by the Northern Territory Airports Corporation. Treated effluent from the Alice Springs sewerage ponds is an unutilised resource which has potential to irrigate more than 100 hectares of horticultural crop.
The grape industry is also expanding in Alice Springs, with some 40 hectares currently under development at Undoolya. My department is working with the Central Land Council to establish an entity called Centrefarm, aimed at promoting commercial scale horticulture development at a number of different sites in Central Australia. It is intended that the development will be market driven, supported by the commercial horticulture industry and provide a return to Aboriginal land owners. Training programs for Aboriginal people will provide opportunity for employment in the industries.
Developments in the peanut industry are also very exciting with the Peanut Company of Australia making a significant establishment in the Katherine region. Their purchase of Hickey’s Farm in Katherine demonstrates their commitment to production in the Territory. My department’s research programs, including commercial scale research in peanuts and sesame, are producing results. The first trial shipment of sesame has been sent to Japan. The presence of the Peanut Company of Australia will bring to the Territory a significant commercial industry partner with knowhow and established markets. I look forward to advising the Assembly of further developments in this area later this year.
Maintaining market access is a key function of our animal and agricultural export program. Since becoming minister for primary industry, I have been amazed at the number and variety of pests and diseases that we are constantly on the lookout for. My department does a great job in this difficult and very important area.
I am pleased to advise that the Northern Territory is a signatory to the National Agreement on Cost Sharing for Exotic Animal Disease which addresses disease response mechanisms and cost sharing for some 63 potentially significant diseases of livestock.
Foot and Mouth Disease and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or Mad Cow Disease are two diseases of immediate concern. The government is working with the Commonwealth and the other states and territories to ensure that the whole country is ready to act as one if an outbreak should occur. In the Northern Territory, government agencies and industry are prepared to meet any outbreaks of these diseases and a lot of work has been done in this area.
The horticulture industry is also susceptible to disease and pests. I spoke earlier of moves we have made to support the banana industry following the problems they have encountered in recent years. In the last month, an outbreak of Potato Spindle Tuber Virus has affected several tomato growers. The disease outbreak is being eradicated by the department to ensure that it is contained.
The government is working with the Commonwealth and other states, along with industry, to make sure that better support structures exist for producers affected by diseases or pests. The government continues to maintain its vigilant approach to pests and disease and maintains strong international and interstate quarantine protection by recognising standards and improving surveillance and quarantine measures.
I am pleased to report to this Assembly that the Northern Territory’s primary industries are healthy and growing. There are several emerging and potentially developing industries that I have not been able to mention in detail today, such as rambutans and dragon fruit. This is perhaps a good illustration of how vibrant and varied the growth in primary industries in the Territory has become. Continued growth in the economies of our Asian neighbours and their increasing affluence will lead to a growing demand for quality food which few countries to the north of us have the capacity to supply.
The Northern Territory is ideally situated to take advantage of niche market opportunities where our comparative advantages make us efficient and effective competitors. Our comparative advantage includes our proximity to Asia, including both north and Southeast Asia, our ability to produce a range of temperate to tropical quality products, our ability to produce out of season to the southern Australian suppliers, our ability to produce counter seasonal to the Northern hemisphere, and our relatively disease free environment.
Our industries exporting to domestic markets target high value niche opportunities where we can supply tropical produce, produce out of season and quality and disease free produce which attract a premium.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our opportunities are immense. I look forward to continuing working with the various primary industries to develop these opportunities further. I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing in this statement to the Assembly today. It’s a very succinct statement on the current status of a lot of the primary industry sectors and it is great to have an update such as this. It is obviously not the first statement in this House on primary industries. There have been numerous statements over the years - and so there should be. It is a very important section in our economy in the Northern Territory. In fact, it is pertinent to the development of the Territory over its history. As stated in the statement, it is the third largest sector in terms of our economy in the Northern Territory with a vast number of employees that rely on that sector for their futures.
I note that there will be a fishing statement coming up later on some time. I look forward to that. That will be very interesting, particularly in light of the world fishing conference that is going on at the moment and what can be derived out of that in terms of what’s happening elsewhere in the world. Obviously you will be bringing in something to do with the 10 year strategy that we have been looking for for a long time and it will be great to see progress on that. Likewise the economic development strategy that you have mentioned. It will be very interesting to see what the primary industry sector has prioritised in that development strategy.
The minister makes a fair bit of comment, apart from the succinct work the department is doing, a fair bit of comment on the lack of partnership arrangements that have been in place. I can only say that through my own personal experience in a few sectors of this industry - and certainly during my time as a member of this House - there has been a very strong partnership and relationship between government through the departments, through the many agencies, the department of the day and all the sectors of agriculture in the Northern Territory.
The minister mentions somewhere in his statement the fact that we have a very healthy agricultural area in terms of pastoral and horticultural sectors, the mango sector, the cut flowers and all of the things that have been mentioned in here, grapes and peanuts and so on. The fact that we have a very healthy economy in that area speaks loud words for the work that the previous government, through its agencies - those very hard working agencies, many of which are involved across all of these sectors, whether they are Department of Lands or Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in the old days and those sorts of areas - have achieved with all of the people that work in these private sector areas. It is because of that hard work that we have a healthy economy.
Sure, I don’t decry that more should be done. When you are looking at forward strategies and planning, there is always lots more to be done, there is no doubt about it. But I think it ill behoves the minister to come in here and say that we didn’t have good partnership relations in place with those sectors like the Cattleman’s Association or the Horticultural Association or any of the peak bodies or any of the individuals in any of those sectors. We could go through and talk about those one by one.
But, as I say, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do more. In terms of the off-shore strategy, there was always more work to be done there. I have no doubt about the good work that has been done in that area, particularly in terms of some of our produce; live cattle exports of course. Very good work was done there over many years - 20 to 30 years that we have been exporting and it goes back to 100 years in fact out of the Territory - certainly in the last 20 years - and work done by ministers such as Minister Palmer should be acknowledged. He is personally responsible for opening up new markets in Southeast Asia and Asia in conjunction with industry, taking industry visits in a partnership arrangement with department officials of course, working hand in hand with all of those sectors to open up new places like Vietnam, certainly new areas in the Philippines, certainly the ongoing work that was done in Indonesia and so forth.
We should not forget the work done by those who went before us. Great partnerships between the private sector and government of the day including, of course, agency staff.
If we go to the cattle and buffalo heading here, I would like to provide an example of the good work that has been done by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries over many years in terms of focussing on export markets overseas. At the annual conference of the Cattlemen’s Association this year they had a guest speaker, Dr Hank Fitzhugh. He is an American guy and was very interesting. He had been in the Northern Territory for about two days and had been visiting a cattle property, I believe. He works for an organisation that does global work with underdeveloped countries in terms of increasing their output from the live animal sector, whether it is cattle or pigs or any of those sorts of areas.
What he was saying is that over the last 20 years, meat consumption in Southeast Asia and the Asian region has increased fairly dramatically. On their predictions - and they have done a lot of work on this and I won’t go into all the details and bore you with it - over the next 18 years, they have predicted out to 2020, so in the next 18 years beef consumption in those regions will be in the order of a 50% increase on what it is today. The increase in consumption is directly related to some of the underdeveloped countries in those areas having an increase in their economy and therefore flow-ons to individuals who can then afford higher beef consumption.
He said that Darwin, and the Northern Territory, was well placed in the fastest growing region in the world in terms of beef consumption. Basically, cutting a long story short, he congratulated the department and the private sector on their work in developing the strategy that they have undertaken over the last 20 years. If you had to write a strategy 20 years ago, the Northern Territory has probably written or practised the best strategy you could have followed to place itself in the world beef market to maximise its position in developing new strains of cattle in to those markets. I thought that was very interesting and it points to the good relationship that has been going on for a long time between the industry and government and all the agencies here in the Northern Territory, the Australian agencies, and also those people involved off-shore and the exporters who get those cattle there. That was something worth noting.
In terms of my experience in this House and particularly in government, I am very proud of the support we gave to all of these industry sectors, but particularly a couple of the newer ones like the camel industry. We provided funding through the Department of Industries and Business to support that industry. That has now taken off and the export of live camels has been fantastic over the last year or two. I believe that demand will certainly outstrip supply at the end of the day if we’re not careful.
In terms of the Buffalo Industry Association, the former CLP government gave funding for an Executive Officer for that. Neil Ross has done a fantastic job in opening up and determining where to best place buffalo in terms of overseas markets. That’s going very, very well. This comes on the back of an industry that has a long history, obviously; buffalo in the Northern Territory, an industry that I have personal experience in. In the days after BTEC, there weren’t a lot of buffalo left around. It was something we had to do for the sake of the meat industry not only in the Territory, but in Australia.
After BTEC was over, the buffalo industry was very, very small. In fact, there were a few people with a couple of small herds who were predominantly shipping them south to little niche markets that were down there, or to boutique breeders who wanted to have a few buffalo. I am glad to see that they are an organised association, and an organised sector of the industry now, which has found their markets and are trying with all best endeavours to supply those markets. They’re doing well and I see a small mention of them here. I think they got about a paragraph or something - yes:
- Live export market to Brunei dominates the trade with over 2500 buffalo exported last year …
The minister made no mention here, obviously, of some of the other issues in the industry. There are quite a number, not all in his portfolio area of course. There are a lot of issues relating to land and land availability. You have talked about Aboriginal land and I think that’s a great thing, and I’ll come back to that. Certainly, there is a need to keep exploring new opportunities for opening up new areas of land. We did that at Douglas-Daly through the Stray Creek blocks and they were very successfully sold. They are all but developed now, those blocks. They’re quite well into production already, even though the last of them were only sold last year. This development has been very successful.
We have to look at providing more opportunities for more new growers, whether it’s in the pastoral industry or the horticultural industry. The concept of the Katherine/Daly basin is something that I would urge the government not to lose. It is a concept to open up land progressively between Katherine and the Douglas-Daly basin, and it involves Stage 1 being Stray Creek which we’ve done - as I mentioned - and then the intervening stations between Douglas-Daly and Katherine being progressively opened up for new opportunities for new people to come in. There is, of course, Douglas Station, which has the potential to provide a lot of horticultural land and mixed farming land. I hope the new Labor government proceeds with continuing to exercise some pressure on the owners to ensure the land comes on the market to allow people to develop opportunities in horticulture and mixed farming.
Still on the issue of land, I should mention Owen Springs Station. This is something that is in the realm of the lands minister, of course. There is the opportunity there for some horticultural land to be turned off for Alice Springs. The minister has made mention of the grape industry at Ti Tree. Ti Tree is very successful. It grows very good table grapes, probably the best in Australia and there is an opportunity to turn off more land there with the purchase of Pine Hill Station. You have mentioned, minister, about the work that is being done at Undoolya Station on grapes and so forth. There is also opportunity within the Owen Springs land purchase for horticulture, and some of that land to go back - the unrequired pieces of land in terms of Alice Springs’ expansion and so forth - into the pastoral estate to the surrounding stations and therefore increase their capacity to turn off cattle.
I notice in the PAC report that there was some mention of Owen Springs, and the CEO of lands at the time mentioned that the plans for development of Owen Springs were before the minister back when he was interviewed. I know from my time in dealing with Owen Springs that we were just about ready to announce the allocation of land towards those who had expressed interest, and it would be great to see that exercise sped up so that everybody has some certainty as to where they are going.
The minister didn’t make any mention of the training required. There was some small mention of some training, particularly in terms of Aboriginal Territorians. The Northern Territory Rural College plays a significant role in developing agriculture in the Northern Territory, particularly, of course, the pastoral industry but also the horticultural industry. They have some funding issues right now which the government needs to get across, and I would urge them to do that. I was going to have a talk to the minister for Education and Training, but I will mention here that they do have some funding issues that really do need to be sorted out, and I would urge government to have a look at those because they are very important.
We undertook a review of the Northern Territory Rural College a few years ago which I was involved in because the industry - and this goes back to partnership with industry - wanted something better, something more relevant to their needs. The outcome of the review, of course, as everybody knows is that the NTU was given carriage of the Northern Territory Rural College along with Mataranka Station, an operating station which they use as their practical campus. They have done great things, I have got to say, the Northern Territory University. I take my hat off to them, particularly for the new corporate image that they have instilled within their students and within their whole corporate style at the Northern Territory Rural College. It can be seen by just looking at the students and seeing them in Katherine as they get around.
It is a really important area - not to be overlooked - and I know it doesn’t come into this minister’s jurisdiction so much, but it crosses over, obviously, between Education and Primary Industry. The college is certainly a great foundation for training in the whole agricultural sector, particularly in the pastoral industry. I would like to congratulate - and perhaps the member for Blain is going to talk a little bit on it - the Rural College for the great cattle drive that they are undertaking, as we speak, driving a 1000 head of cattle as a Year of the Outback event from Mataranka, from where I saw them off last Sunday, getting into Katherine hopefully on time tomorrow night with a cattle sale, another Year of the Outback event, on Monday night in Katherine. I congratulate them for doing that. It certainly is something about which they can hold their heads high about in terms of their professionalism and corporate image.
Likewise, we talked of unions earlier today. There is some concern in the whole agricultural sector about industrial relations. Industrial relations applies right across the board; it doesn’t matter where you work. Perhaps some of these sectors haven’t been the best in times gone by. They try, of course. But industrial relations is an issue and in terms of the new Labor government in the Northern Territory, some are wondering whether or not we will see a creep, in terms of union involvement, in to the agricultural sectors. Perhaps the minister might like to comment on that. We saw it quite some time ago with disputes in the buffalo and cattle industries, particularly in relation to abattoirs and killing sheds, back in the 1980s. I think the minister had an involvement in the Mudginberri dispute that he might like to elaborate on. My understanding is that it is quite well known that the minister had some involvement in that dispute, and perhaps he would like to comment with his industrial relations experience as to where that might head in the future and if he has any ideas on these matters.
Mr Henderson: I wasn’t involved in the dispute. I worked there.
Mr BALDWIN: Cropping. We go into cropping of all sorts, whether it is peanuts or cotton or grain crops. They are all doing very well. Ups and downs in all those sectors, that’s for sure. The Northern Territory Irrigators, Grain and Fodder Association is doing a fantastic job in terms of grain production and getting people interested once again.
We have been through some cycles in the Northern Territory with grain crops, and Stuart Kenny, as the Executive Officer, and the executive of that association are doing a fantastic job in getting people back into that industry, showing that there are markets out there that are looking for constant supply and that the demand at the right price could be achieved in the Northern Territory. It is good to see that in terms of peanuts, the Australian Peanut Company has actually put their money where their mouth is and purchased a property just across from where I live - part of Hickey’s Farm, not all of it - to undertake peanut production.
There is, not far from that area, some vast areas of land that were in peanut production up until only a year or two ago. There is opportunity there, of course, to continue with that. There are people in the Douglas-Daly, particularly Geoff and Melissa Plant, who grow peanuts and they look like having a very successful crop this year. Touch wood! I don’t want to put the mokkers on them because they have had a couple of hard seasons. Peanuts have great potential here in the Northern Territory, particularly because of our clean disease status. There is a lot more room for further production in that area.
Cotton. Did cotton get a mention?
Mr Henderson: No, it didn’t get a mention. It’s work in progress.
Mr BALDWIN: It’s work in progress. It is something that everybody is keeping an eye on. I have to confess I’m not a big cotton supporter, but the department has trials underway, particularly in Katherine. We have legislation in place that won’t allow anyone to grow cotton up here unless it is two-gene cotton, and that is the way it should stay. We have to be very, very careful about the future of cotton in the Northern Territory. Although it has potential for great economic benefits in terms of jobs and income, it has to be done in the right place and at the right time.
The minister talked about providing further opportunities for Aboriginal development of their assets, the land, and of course training. There are some good examples where Aboriginal organisations and individuals have had some great successes developing their land, particularly in the pastoral industry. Cattle Creek is one of those. They are doing very well. Fitzroy is an operating example, and I am only going on my electorate here, of course.
Palumpa Station is an enterprise that is undersold and probably undermentioned for their success. It is a fantastic story. I think it is up to about its 20th year as a proprietory limited company. They run about 7000 head of good Brahman-cross stock. They have their own Australian accredited abattoirs where they sell meat to communities in that area and have the right to sell and a licence to sell anywhere in Australia in fact. They do a great job. They employ their own local people. They have kept the stockman and woman training going with their own people. It is a really great enterprise. I think it is worth looking at how they have done this over the years and expanding on it. They even have their own rodeo grounds to make sure their fellows, ringers and what have you, are well versed in rodeo events and bareback horse riding.
On the rodeo ground, perhaps I should remind the government that they made a promise for some funding in the election for that and it has not been forthcoming yet. So if anyone is listening over there, $15 000 for Palumpa rodeo grounds is your promise. Perhaps you could get on to them. They are half way - in fact they have nearly completed building that but the $15 000 would be quite handy.
There are some problem areas when it comes to Aboriginal land and developing their own agricultural enterprises. Amanbidji would have to be a good example of that. The people there have been trying for years and years and years, and I have been personally involved in trying to get some joint venture type interest in the area. I have to say frankly, one of the issues down there is the NLC and perhaps that is an area that, as the minister has already said, some movement can be made. I know that the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association is very keen to do whatever they have to do to help joint venture arrangements, to open up Aboriginal land, where the people want it of course. Amanbidji is a good example of work that could be done to satisfy the needs and the aspirations of the people down there. I see that as a good thing; I see that we have a lot of potential, particularly in joint venture arrangements.
There are always the issues of leases and what have you and obviously with the minister and the federal minister currently talking about the Land Rights Act there are some openings there to do some work. I do not mean change the world; I just mean that everyone seems to be in a position where they want to do something positive and perhaps there have to be a few little technical changes in some of those areas so that the land which is inalienable freehold in most circumstances can be leased for long periods - I know it can be with the minister’s consent and all of that, but we need to make it easier for people to get in to those joint venture arrangements.
I thank the minister for this. I hope he comes back to me on some of the things I have asked for. I haven’t had time to go through anything. I had a lot to say on mangoes. He mentioned $2m for infrastructure. The Katherine mango growers are looking for a portion of that. In fact, I know they have a bid in to the minister for quite a considerable portion of that, and I believe it should be supported - something in the order of $600 000.
Mr Deputy Speaker, because my time has run short, can I say in closing that the department has done a great job over the last 20 years. We had good relationships between the CLP and the …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr BALDWIN: If I could just have an extension of two minutes?
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standings orders be suspended as would allow the member for Daly to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN: In closing, we have, obviously - and I have demonstrated - very good relationships between the government of the day and the private sector and the department. I congratulate the department on the work they have done. The things mentioned by the minister here haven’t appeared overnight. We know that. They are the result of long and hard work by lots of people in both the private and public area. I look forward to following the development all of these sectors of the industry over the next few years.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am always delighted to rise on one of my favourite subjects which is primary industry. I enjoyed my time both as shadow minister and minister in that portfolio. The reason I enjoyed it is to see such enthusiasm and diversity of effort out there by the growers and the pastoralists and, as the member for Daly pointed out, the fantastic work being done by our primary industry department’s sections.
In the short time I was minister, I had the great pleasure of visiting the research facility for primary industry in Alice Springs and Katherine and some of their work being done up the track. We have some incredibly good quality people in the department doing unique and valuable work for this area of our economy.
I would like to confine most of my more detailed comments to the Central Australian area. Taking first the areas of agriculture and horticulture, some of the key projects that are currently either consolidating or being initiated - it is common knowledge in Alice Springs that our government has called for expressions of interest for the use of the treated water from the Alice Springs sewage ponds. That water is an ideal resource for horticulture or aquaculture in that it is not only water, but it contains a nutrient soup as the broken down residue of the sewage which is ideal for growing plants.
We have some encouraging responses to the expression of interest round that was circulated and we are seriously exploring that now as a way of alleviating the overflow of that water into what became the Ilparpa Other Swamp, the swamp that shouldn’t be there. That has now been drained completely and, once the reeds are burnt off - once they are fully dry - that area can be returned back to a coolibah claypan area and it will be a much healthier environment for the local residents and for the old people’s home nearby.
Water is still being produced, obviously, from the treatment ponds and we need to find a better solution than just simply seeing it overflow into the surrounding area. So we will be proceeding with that. We will see what we can do to get some additional horticulture using that quite valuable resource.
Jimmy Hayes out at Undoolya is setting up a new horticultural development at Rocky Hill. That has been in the concept stage for quite some time. Jimmy is now moving ahead to some serious implementation. I am hearing that he is swinging towards growing table grapes. That will be a very interesting experiment in Alice Springs given that we do have frosts there. It will be interesting to see whether he gets a good growing season in each of those seasons. He has certainly done his homework and believes that grapes are a viable proposition.
Ti Tree and Pine Hill are mentioned in the statement. They are already significant developments. There are three main growing areas just south of Ti Tree, and Pine Hill has its own additional aquifers there to allow further land to be put under horticulture. The table grapes have been a spectacular success there. We are also looking at seeing a late ripening mango crop there which can extend the productive season for the Northern Territory.
There are other crops such as asparagus and various melon varieties that have been successfully grown and merchandised from that area.
Alongside the existing Ti Tree developments, we have several areas of Aboriginal land. I was very interested to see the minister’s statement raising the possibility, and certainly emphasising our commitment to putting Aboriginal land into the productive capacity of primary industry in the Northern Territory. No one would dispute the logic of doing that given that Aboriginal land now constitutes a very significant part of the total Territory land mass. We have to use every means to encourage indigenous groups to join in with primary industry wherever it is possible.
The work that the Central Land Council is doing on this is based around Utopia, Ali Curung, further areas around Ti Tree and the Willowra area. They all have quite significant aquifers to the point where the total carrying capacity of those aquifers is estimated to be probably 1000 hectares of horticultural production. The Utopia area in particular is advanced in its preparations for putting one square kilometre of land under horticulture. Four bores have already been drilled and proved out at the corners of the square kilometre. We have seen the land council now move to provide a head lease arrangement to get the freehold Aboriginal land to a point where it can be used for commercial production. In other words, the joint venture partner that would come in and capitalise that horticultural development has the security of a very long term head lease, perhaps a 100 years, to place their investment in.
The enterprise structure that will carry all four of those developments has now been completed, and it is now an incorporated body that can receive commercial grants or loans from the government and enter into binding contractual agreements with the joint venture partner.
Mr Elferink: Hallelujah!
Dr TOYNE: Yes, there is always progress if you wait long enough, member for Macdonnell.
Horticultural developments in the Central Australian area brings into focus the need for improved vigilance and effort in disease control and pest control. It is very well known that there is a significant fruit fly population in Alice Springs. It has been there for many years. It was nearly eradicated in a previous attempt by a combination of mobilising the townspeople and a spraying and trapping program. The Department of Primary Industry in Alice Springs is currently working on a series of measures that will be used to curtail the continued presence of the fruit fly in Alice Springs. Clearly, because of the outbreak that we had in the last growing season at Ti Tree, it poses a continuing threat to any horticultural development within reach of the town. It only needs someone to go on a picnic or go up and buy some fruit at the farms to import the fly into unaffected areas. We do need to do something about that as well as increasing the vigilance against all exotic diseases and pests coming in to Central Australia.
It is very easy there to feel that because we’re in the middle of an arid zone and well away from the coast where normally incursions come from overseas that we are in some way immune from all this, but there’s no doubt that we need to be very vigilant about monitoring vehicles and aeroplanes. Luckily, we don’t have to worry about ships; there aren’t too many down there.
Mr McAdam: Camels!
Dr TOYNE: The other initiative of the Department of Primary Industries is using sniffer dogs, particularly at the Alice Springs airport where they are monitoring on a rostered basis what is coming off aeroplanes. That is part of the overall vigilance that we have to maintain down there.
Passing now to the pastoral industry, camels are an increasingly important issue in terms of industry development in Central Australia not because someone’s suddenly woken up and said: ‘Oh, let’s do something about camels’. It is because the camels have done something about it themselves. They’ve actually bred prolifically, particularly in the last few years during which we have seen very good growing conditions and breeding conditions. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of camels now. If you drive through country, say, around Docker River and north of there up through to Kintore around Tjukurla, you’ll see a mob of camels in every valley between the sand dunes and there are a lot of valleys. There are hundreds of thousands of animals, and they’re spilling out into more and more country; they’ve now reached the Tanami Road on the eastern side and they’re right throughout the Western Desert both on the Western Australian and the Northern Territory sides.
The camel population is reaching proportions where it is having an impact on the environment in areas that they’ve overrun to the extent that even the most ardent fans of the camel are starting to say yes, something has to be done about the sheer numbers that have appeared there. Camel Australia is an organisation based in Alice Springs which, for several years now, has been promoting camel exports. As the minister’s statement reports, there have been significant shipments to the Middle East and to Southeast Asia. To stabilise the numbers of camels in that area of the Northern Territory, we would need to be exporting about 40 000 a year or disposing of them in other ways.
Presently the export shipments go out through the Department of Primary Industry Research Farm. Primary Industry have a whole section of their research effort devoted to the camels and the development of that industry. Camels Australia has also looked at value-added use of camel products such as different ways of presenting it as a food, tanning hides and looking at other things you can do with a camel some of which I don’t want to mention in the House.
New regulations announced by AQIS just yesterday mean that you now have to have 15 cm between the top of the camel’s head and the roof of the container. I don’t know who is going to go around and measure it, but it could be a very dangerous task. That could have quite an impact on these emerging attempts to develop this export market in that if you’re going to limit particularly the larger, taller animals, they are the breeding animals that are going to increase the herd size. I am sure if these height limits start to impact on which animals are shipped off, we are probably going to be ending up with lighter, smaller and more immature animals going and the more mature ones being retained. I hope that can be sorted through, and I am sure of the minister’s keen interest in camels - I might say he is a born again camel lover or camel industry lover because a few months ago, when he got into the portfolio, I had to give him a cap and a T-shirt just to convince him it was an important topic.
The cattle industry: we have had very good seasons in the last few years where the amount of feed available on pastoral properties in Central Australia has been exceptional and the prices in the market have been exceptional. Most pastoralists, although they have been smiling broadly over the last couple of seasons, wish they had higher stocking rates because prior to those good seasons, we had some pretty hard times. A lot of the properties had run down their numbers and were not able to take full advantage of this amazing combination of terrific feed and good prices in the market place.
Bush fire management has become a major issue in the last couple of seasons because of the sheer volume of fuel on these pastoral leases. Fires that used to be mosaic fires - they would leave good feed in patches and other areas would be cleared by the fire - are now going through very large tracts of country often taking all available feed well away from watering points so that the cattle can’t get to and from the feed and the water. It is becoming a critical issue. I have been working with both the Bush Fire Council and the fire services down in Central Australia to try to keep the effort going on that. I pay tribute to the member for Braitling in initiating some of those meetings that we had to get that structure together. The process is still going on. We are in regular contact with the organisations to continue the effort to curtail at least the really destructive bush fires that can make major inroads into the productive capacity of some of the pastoral leases.
Buffle grass is the main difference. Buffle grass is excellent food and it certainly proved out in research at the Primary Industry research facility as being one of the best feeds around. That is why it has become very popular with the pastoralists. But it is also extremely good fuel because it burns. It is a massive plant and it grows very thick together and it creates a very inflammable carpet. That is causing quite a lot of damage to the country and to quite large plants that are growing with buffle around them.
I met with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association some time earlier this year - I think it was; everything has been a bit of a blur lately - and I had a very good day with the pastoralists. They were wanting to see what our government was going to do in terms of their industry and we were able to reassure them of the importance we place on pastoralism. It is still the core business in our primary industry sector and it is still a growing part of that sector. It is not a case of taking it for granted. We still have to put the same amount of effort into supporting and growing that part of our primary industry sector as has been done in previous times under the previous government.
We are here to work with the pastoral industry. We want to see the industry provided with a strong strategic plan for industry development which was missing from that sector. I know the current minister is actively promoting that process at the moment with some pretty tight deadlines on getting a strategic plan in place. We want to see if we can value-add. We want to see some flexibility in how pastoral operations can be carried out. We want to see the possibilities for mixed enterprises being explored where there is a situation where some other commercial activity can be added into a pastoral lease to make the whole business plan stronger. We also look forward to working with the pastoralists there to grow the live cattle trade and the other new markets that they may want to explore and penetrate.
In summary, the outlook for primary industry in Central Australia is extremely bright. We have some good, staple products there in place that we can continue to consolidate and develop. There are a lot of more speculative products being explored like olives and dates. We can look forward not only to seeing an increased level of activity over time but a more diverse industry down there. But we have to keep the disciplines there; we have to keep the research going; the support for the industry; and look after the quarantine issues to protect production.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, to put the member for Nelson’s mind at ease, I shan’t be on my feet for long. I know he is itching to get up. However, I listened to the Minister Central Australia …
Dr Toyne: Member for Stuart.
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, talking about a few issues in relation to what is happening in Central Australia. Some of it is quite good, especially what the CLC is doing in terms of proving up some commercial projects. Although long overdue, I can but wholeheartedly support these projects because they are excellent things to see happening. However, I would like to see a lot more of it and I would like to see the control of the land in question of course rest entirely with the traditional owners who have actual traditional control of the land in question. That is an issue for the Central Land Council and traditional owners on those land trusts. I am delighted to hear that we are finally moving in the right direction with some of this stuff. As I said, it is well overdue.
However, I do have to raise a couple of issues. The first issue is the reassuring and wonderful words that we heard from the Minister for Central Australia about what wonderful work they are doing with the pastoral industry. There are a couple of questions which rise out of this, and perhaps the minister who delivered this statement to the House could respond to these issues. First, expanding commercial activity on existing pastoral leases. This is actually something I am quite attracted to and I can imagine any number of ways that a pastoral lessee may choose to expand his commercial activity, either by value-adding his own product or by introducing a new product with a new technology. Where they currently run beasts, they may choose to follow horticultural or agricultural endeavours. Once again, I would support that.
We should hear unequivocally from the minister today that the minister is going to turn attention to issues such as native title and get through those problems as quickly as possible so that these sorts of expansions can occur. If that means excising sections off pastoral leases for the purposes of rezoning them for other sorts of productivity, then so be it. I know there are limitations placed on commercial activity on pastoral leases. That has happened for a number of reasons. Any further development on pastoral leases would require some adjustment to leases.
The final issue that I raise in response to the Minister for Central Australia is what wonderful jobs they are doing for the pastoral industry, encouraging them to keep working in that field. The truth of the mater is, however, that there is very little evidence of this actually occurring. In fact, quite the opposite. Bearing in mind that this is the highest taxing government in the history of the Northern Territory - the highest taxing government in the history of the Northern Territory - the minister has to remember that it is the $90 levy which hurts pastoralists because they run numerous vehicles.
I would like to know why the minister seems to think that doubling the leases - doubling the taxation on pastoralists for having a pastoral lease - is helpful for pastoralists. It is all very well to come in here and champion the cause of pastoralists; let’s see it on the ground. Let’s see a halving rather than a doubling of those lease expenses because pastoralists, albeit having a couple of good years, have come off a seven year drought prior to that. They struggled and they fought and they battled. And now that they are just getting their head above water, and probably only just paying off the banks which have extended them credit during the hard times, they are now being slugged by increased tax rates on their leases and on their vehicles.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that the minister is claiming such laudable outcomes. The fact of the matter is that what is said in this place and what occurs in reality are two different things.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s statement today on primary industry. It is an important document. I have had an interest in this ever since I came to the Territory. My background has been either in growing fruit and vegetables or poultry. I might get on to poultry a bit later. I make a note that the rural area, the Litchfield Shire and its surrounds, is probably one of the biggest horticultural areas in the Territory with ever increasing planting of mangos, cut flowers, Asian vegetables.
The return to vegetable growing at the present time is because of the banana industry’s demise - one of our largest banana growers is now returning to growing rockmelons. Live cattle, although not necessarily grown in the rural area, we do have the holding areas. There is quite significant hay production and that serves an industry which you could either call sporting and recreation or primary industry, and that is the horse recreation industry – polocrosse, pony clubs - which does require all the normal things for primary industry like grooming, feeding, watering and fencing. So it’s an industry that sometimes is not recognised as much as it should be.
On that note, I should tell people that coming up very soon is the Australian Polocrosse Championships, which I invite everyone to come to at Fred’s Pass, which is attracting a large number of people from down south.
We also have the nursery industry. Again, a very important industry and sometimes an industry we forget. There are quite a large number of nurseries in the rural area. Not only are they nurseries; in some cases they help the tourism industry – for example Majestic Orchids and Jenny’s Orchids which provide tours of their operations.
There is another industry sometimes forgotten which I have brought up in parliament before: bee keepers. Not only do they produce honey but they are a very valuable asset to the horticultural industry for cross-pollination of crops.
As well as all that, we should remember all the associated industries that go with these industries, for example the fertilizer industry, the chemical industry, irrigation suppliers and the people who put in bores, fencing, clearing and ploughing and all those associated industries.
I will move on to another aspect the government needs to look at. The government may not be able to address it today, but should address it in a future statement: what is the role and how does the government see its future role from the department’s point of view? For instance, research and development. There seems to be a move away from the government initiating research and development, or paying for research and development. The mood today is that the user pays. Whilst that may be good for some industries that are large, there is a role for the government to promote and pay for research, especially for the smaller crops. Otherwise we are likely to have research and development for the big crops, and the little crops will just have to struggle on by themselves.
Another issue that has been raised by some constituents is the outsourcing of what used to be departmental responsibilities, things like soil testing, laboratories that look at various pests and insects. So I would be interested to know what the government’s policy is on privatisation and outsourcing of the department’s functions. Even matters like weed control - is that still an issue that the department takes on?
Another issue is the future of research stations, and while the minister has said many good things about agriculture and horticulture - and I know that there has been a banana research station begun because of the problems with Panama disease - I hope that the Coastal Plains Research Station is not in jeopardy. I have heard rumours that the cut flower research area that was at Coastal Plains has now been moved back to Berrimah. I hope that hasn’t been done just because people find it a bit difficult to drive out to the Coastal Plains. Coastal Plains is where I think that research should happen.
I ask the government what are the plans for the Berrimah Research Station? Does it have a future where it is, considering that we have East Arm Port just below it? We are looking at expanding residential areas in Darwin and Palmerston. Is its present siting the ideal place for such a research station? Many years ago, I supported it being there because it gave us a green belt between Darwin and Palmerston, but today, when land is at a premium, perhaps we should at least question whether that should stay as a research station. I would like to find out what the government’s position is.
With horticulture, the government has to be aware of issues of planning, especially in the rural area. We have to continue to keep residential and horticultural land separate to reduce the issues that have occurred in the rural area, especially from spraying. The planning department is working in that area although there have been movements in the latest Land Use Objectives to allow land in the Elizabeth Valley, where there is quite a bit of horticultural land, to be subdivided. That is just going to create issues for people who move in there because they will start complaining about spraying and the growers will say: ‘We were here first’.
The move by the government through the Litchfield Land Use Objectives to have areas set aside for organic farming is a positive one. Organic fruit and vegetables certainly do hold a high price in the market, but we have to make sure that the organic farming areas stay that way. There are going to be issues about how do you maintain and police an area that is zoned organic; how do you actually keep it organic? Who keeps an eye on whether a certain person uses a certain chemical? You only need to use a chemical that is not approved next to another farm, and that farm is also declared not organic any more. So we have to be careful.
We have to make sure there is adequate water. We certainly don’t want to develop a horticultural industry to discover later on that we have extended the capacity of the aquifers to cover production we are trying to achieve. With crops like mangos, certainly there is a danger of overproduction. It would be wise of the government to make sure that no more land was opened up until we made sure there are markets for increased production otherwise we end up with basically good land going to waste. So I ask the government to ensure that we don’t go overboard subdividing land.
The minister spoke about the Potato Spindle Tuber Virus. That is of concern to me because I know that in the rural area a shop - and I won’t say what particular shop - lost all their tomatoes and petunias and whatever was related to the solanacious group of plants. I would be interested in- if the minister can’t do it today, at some future time - a more detailed statement to the parliament on issues related to the Potato Spindle Tuber Virus.
An issue that was not mentioned - and it is one thing that might make horticulture continue to grow - is the railway. That will give great opportunities for produce to be delivered south as well as north, and perhaps we have not mentioned that enough. But we do send a lot of Asian vegetables to the southern markets and the opportunity of the railway coming this far north will help those crops.
Aboriginal enterprises, yes. In many cases even if Aboriginal enterprises are established just to maintain good nutrition in their own areas would be a great thing whether it is meat, whether it is fruit and vegetables. As I said before, the other day when we were talking about the health issue, it is all right to have skilled Aboriginal workers but if we are to advance and we are to have long-term sustainable development in horticulture and agriculture in Aboriginal areas, we have to get Aboriginal people skilled to the scientific level as well. We need both: both the workers and we need those people who can do the management and can understand scientifically the problems that are associated with growing these crops. It isn’t just a simple matter of putting the seed in the ground. It is understanding what happens when that seed grows, understanding the diseases the plant is prone to, understanding the nutritional requirements, understanding the complexities of irrigation which are not just a matter of putting water on. All these matters require sound horticultural and agricultural knowledge. If we are going to get somewhere, that is what we have to do.
I agree with the member for Daly - I believe places like the Katherine Rural College are extremely important. My daughter went through the Katherine Rural College via the Mataranka Station. I believe she is one of the first Aboriginal ringers or jackeroos…
Ms Scrymgour: Jilleroo.
Mr WOOD: Jilleroo. Maybe we should just call them ‘jackas’ then we don’t get accused of anything untoward. She, I think, was the first jilleroo to work on Wave Hill Station.
Ms Scrymgour: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: So I have a bit of a soft spot for the Katherine Rural College.
I have another issue today which is not mentioned in the minister’s statement and that is the poultry industry. I believe the poultry industry – I am talking about the egg side of the poultry industry - is in a state of absolute disaster at the present time. It is in dire straits. I would just like to table the Litchfield Times print out from today, this is this morning’s issue.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: It says, ‘Eight hundred chooks killed every day’. I rang the Litchfield Times today. I was actually out at the farm Monday with the Litchfield Times. I might just read the article. I spoke with the author. It will put into context what I am talking about and I will add some things afterwards:
- Local egg producers, Landel Eggs are being forced to kill off large numbers of their laying hens due to the
loss of a large section of their local market.
The farm at Pioneer Drive in Humpty Doo is capable of producing up to 10 000 eggs per day from its maximum
population of 15 000 laying hens, but sales have dropped so dramatically that they cannot afford to feed all the
hens, and also face the prospect of throwing away large numbers of eggs that cannot be sold.
The drop in sales has come about due to intense competition from southern egg suppliers who have won tenders …
and I will have to change this because this is not quite accurate:
- …but who have won tenders to Bi-Lo at a cost the local growers cannot match.
- The Landel eggs business, started by Lance Martell in 1976, and now run with the help of son Lee, has operated
continuously since then, and Lance estimates that he has around $1m invested in the property, plus the value of
the hens - a day old chicken now sells for up to $3.
And Lance is understandably upset at the prospect of losing his life’s work in a short space of time.
‘I’ve put half of my life into the egg industry, and within one month my whole life and livelihood can go down the
drain,’ he said.
He believes that the only thing he can do is reduce the number of hens on the farm to lower the food bill - at
present it amounts to approximately $800 per day to feed the hens a quality commercial grain product,
trucked up from Brisbane is at a landed cost of $556 per tonne.
- The farm managed to sell 600 hens, as crocodile food, to the Janamba Croc Farm last week, but in the last
three weeks they have had to kill and dump large numbers of hens.
I will refer members back to the newspaper article that has been tabled. You will see a small trailer filled with good laying hens that have had to be destroyed because there is now no market.
- They expect to have to kill at least 800 hens a day - worth at least $10 each - until the number of remaining
birds is 4000-5000, a level at which they can satisfy the reduced demand.
I should mention that just recently, Landel would sell 190 cartons, which is 2850 dozen eggs per day. They now sell 60 cartons per day, which is 900 dozen. That has happened just in the last few months to a company that has existed for 26 years.
- Lee said that he has attempted to persuade the commercial supermarket chains to stock and promote locally
produced eggs, but due to their national buying policy they buy large quantities of eggs from southern
producers, giving prominent displays to generic or own brand eggs.
Meanwhile, the shelf space allocated to Landel eggs has been reduced, and Landel eggs are priced at more
than $1…
in fact, it’s $1.60 on large eggs
- …per dozen higher than the store’s own brands.
- The Martells have had a meeting with the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in an
attempt to get some form of government assistance, and were told that the department would look into the
matter, but they fear that if any assistance is offered, it will come too late.
The other major local egg producer which I haven’t mentioned, is Fresha Eggs. I should explain that Landel’s is a family farm and Fresha Eggs, which is a combination of two older farms, is run by Henry and Walker, and their Manager is Mark Trehair.
- Fresha Eggs’ Mark Trehair, said things looked ‘pretty bleak’ for his company last week, but the company
managed to win contracts with Woolworths and Coles recently, so the company’s future is secure, at least
in the short term.
I mentioned Woolworths and Coles before. They also have a generic brand of eggs. Fresha have actually been able to win that contract, although I gather they lost it and, after much debate, they got it back. But the price they are getting for those eggs is so low, I doubt if they are making any money at all. The price of generic eggs, large size, is $2.17. The price that Landel’s are marked at is something like $3.84. That’s $1.64 difference.
- Mr Trehair said that even though his company has around 100 000 hens in production, compared to large
producers down south the company was a relatively small player in the market.
He said the biggest problem for local producers was the cost of feed for hens, and estimated that ‘we pay up
to 50% more for feed here than do our competitors down south’.
Not only do egg producers have a freight problem - although you can get food up by ship from Perth - but the feed has to have a higher protein content because in a hot climate, a bird will not eat as much feed. So you have to get that protein into it in a smaller amount; so you have to pay a lot more to have protein in your feed.
- He said it was common for there to be short-term fluctuations in the market place, citing a recent outbreak
of the poultry disease, Newcastle disease, in Victoria, which affected the market.
But he said that, as was the trend in many rural industries, ‘you either have to get big, or get out’.
He said that the market for eggs was getting harder, with big sheds coming on line and competing aggressively
for market share. And because of the scale of production and automation and new sheds, production costs were
lower than locals could achieve.
To illustrate the scale of southern operations, he said he knew of one southern producer who had recently
purchased one million hens, and companies such as this would compete very aggressively for market share.
He said Fresha and Landel Eggs were ‘very minor players, so we don’t get to dictate terms to major chain stores’.
He said that large-scale producers were more likely to be able to survive market fluctuations and said he anticipated
that while times were tough at the moment, his company would manage to survive in the long term.
I know I am now running out of time, Madam Speaker, and I am just wondering, because this is an important thing because someone’s livelihood is at stake. May I seek an extension of time, please?
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Nelson to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I would like to highlight some of the difficulties this farm has. This is an idea of the costs that they have to put up with now.
They have $800 a day of feed. If they don’t sell the eggs, these chooks are eating the feed regardless. They were recently charged $350 by one of the supermarket chains because rats in that store ate their cartons. That wasn’t their fault. There were rats in the store. They were charged $350 for the loss of that. When there is a promotion on, they pay $300 to promote their own products. When there are specials on, they lose 20 per dozen eggs and they have no comeback; they just lose it automatically.
They must stock the shelves six days a week. You will go into a supermarket and you will see Heinz Baked Beans and Aeroplane Jelly or whatever you want. The people in the store restock and set the shelves up. In this case, this company has to go in there six days a week and restock the shelves. There is no notification of any price changes. If people like Landel would like their bill paid in 14 days, they will lose 9% of the total price just because they need payment in 14 days. Companies like Landel, with an $800 a day of feed, need cash flow. There was an example where they were required to get their water tested for Ecoli and other bacteria. They did that. When they had done that, which cost quite a bit of money, they were then told that they had to go back and get the same water tested for heavy metals.
One supermarket chain requires the growers to come under what is called a HACCP scheme, which stands for hazard, analysis and critical control points. This means that the supermarket wants to know what happens all along the chain from when the egg is produced to when it is delivered. To do that, they send up a gentleman from HACCP from Adelaide to come and inspect their cool room. This farm pays $1000 to get their cool rooms and their packing areas inspected, that $1000 goes to the airfare, the accommodation, the hire car and the wages because five other people have to do it. He just comes out for one day and inspects the cool room.
They have to fill out reports every day. For instance, if they drop an egg on the floor it has to be reported. They have got to explain what happened to the egg and how they cleaned it up. So they have got all these extra things that they didn’t have to do.
Madam Speaker, the reason I am raising this issue is because I believe this company is being squeezed out slowly. They are selling eggs and they will probably get down to selling a few. It will come to a stage where this farm won’t be worth a penny. He will not be able to sell the farm. He will have put his life into it. The owner of the farm is 60. He was probably hoping that one day his retirement would be the sale of his farm. And this won’t happen.
Why is this situation happening? I believe it is because of artificial competition from down south. It is the big companies that use their buying power and, in fact, sometimes I think they sell eggs under the cost of production not only to get people into their store, but to wipe out competition.
I know the government has been looking at inquiries into why the cost of fruit and vegetables is higher than down south, and they will probably find it difficult to go out and say: ‘We should promote local produce at a higher price than we can get it down south’. But is this really what it is all about? I mean, is this globalisation on a small scale?
Are we allowing those companies which have huge buying power to annihilate the family farms and small businesses? Because that is what is going to happen. And while we might cheer for cheaper egg prices, I will guarantee that when Fresha and Landel do not exist those egg prices will go up. There may be some competition between them both, but it is funny, at the present time, both major supermarkets are selling their large eggs at the same price. So I would be asking whether there is any real competition between the two.
There are a couple of things that can be done, and I believe they have to be done urgently. One may not be possible to get done straight away. I understand that under the ACCC, there is nothing to say it is unfair to sell the cost of, say, eggs so low that you can wipe out your competitors. I believe that is unfair. You should have to at least sell your eggs at the cost of production and with some profit margin. It’s simply a method - and I’m told it’s happened in Asia where people like some of our big soft drink companies walk in, cut the price of their soft drinks so low that the little soft drink people just go out of business and then of course they have the whole market share.
I believe the government has to say it does support our local producers whether it is in this industry - I’ve heard of other problems, for instance, in Katherine, with the mango industry because the national policies of supermarket chains. I was told that there were ripe mangoes in Katherine that could be sold to the Katherine people through the local supermarkets at a very cheap price. But the immediate answer was: ‘Well, these have to go south and they will be marketed at the national price’. So here’s a case of what would have been thrown out and what was grown just down the road couldn’t be sold because we are being dictated to by the managers of these huge supermarket chains and we are dictated to by not what is good for the country, but by what is good for the shareholders.
I don’t believe it is right that companies can cut the price of their produce so much that either people will go out business or they will work for a pittance just to stay alive. That is what is happening. We have another form of industrial revolution where the supermarket chain will still get its margin, but to look competitive, it does not care what happens to the people who produce that profit. Those people are growers. For many years, vegetables were the one item that kept inflation down, and I know from being in the vegetable business that the wholesale price of vegetables would stay the same. The cost of fertilizer, the cost of irrigation equipment, the cost of fencing, the cost of fuel would continue to rise, yet the price would be kept the same because the supermarkets had such a stranglehold on the market.
What I am asking the minister to do urgently - because I believe this business, this family business, it might only be one business, it might be small in the big picture - is to immediately convene a meeting between the national supermarket chain managers in Darwin, the distributors, Landel and Fresha Eggs, and I would like to attend that if possible, to see what could be done now. It will be too late in a few weeks. I know this farm will just be basically out of production.
We have to stick up for these people. This owner of the land - who has had a meeting with the minister’s advisors and I thank the minister for that - said to me: ‘What are politicians for?’ I said: ‘Well, you know, these big supermarket chains can tell this government to get stuffed if they want to because they’re that big, the Northern Territory is just a drop in the bucket’. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. These supermarket chains have a responsibility. Years ago, they would promote our produce up there with the rest as Territory produce. I think they have to do that now. They have to price their eggs at a price at least comparable to the price of local stuff. I don’t think they should be marking goods down - like Fresha Eggs’ eggs are now marked. So they have the generic brand, and they must be making nothing just simply so they’ve got a market for those chooks. I really feel for these people at the moment, and we have to do something.
The other area I’d like the government to look at is to initiate some ministerial meeting on competition policy. There has to be someone who says that competition has to be fair. The idea of the bottom line being the lowest is not necessarily good for the country. If we are just going to have huge farms, huge enterprises, I think the country will find we will have lots of people living in the cities, the family farm will die all together - and I’m saying it is dying to some extent already.
Just look at the number of pastoral stations in the Northern Territory not run by families. They are run by big companies. So I urge the government to convene this meeting as soon as possible because in this case I believe it is extremely important that the poultry industry, and not so much even the poultry industry and the people who are employed who put their livelihoods in it, know that the government at least will get out there and try to save their livelihoods.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s statement entitled Primary Industry’s Achievements and Opportunities.
The minister spoke extensively in respect of the pastoral, horticultural and agricultural industries and our capacity to export to markets in Asia and the Middle East, and of course to grow our base to supply markets within Australia. I congratulate the minister for that and the Martin government for its commitment to support economic growth in partnership with the business, industry sectors and the indigenous sector in the Northern Territory.
I would like to inform the House of the emergence of a new industry with enormous potential for the regions of the Northern Territory, particularly the northern part of the Northern Territory. I refer to the emerging Red Claw aquaculture industry. Most members would be aware of Red Claw, a species of freshwater crayfish native to the rivers of northern Australia. Red Claw has a taste very similar to prawn and lobster. Approximately 90 tonnes was produced last year, most of it in Queensland, of which about 30% was exported. The remainder is obviously sold from Queensland into markets throughout Australia.
Red Claw is a very tough and robust species of crayfish and is ideally suited for aquaculture production in my electorate of Barkly and indeed in the electorates of Arafura, Arnhem, Nhulunbuy and Daly and other parts of the Northern Territory perhaps even north of Elliott subject to a whole lot of other conditions. Red Claw aquaculture has immense potential for expansion given our available land and water resources. It is an ideal industry for cooperative partnership arrangements between the indigenous landholders, pastoralists, the private sector and of course government.
Already in Queensland, production technologies are quite advanced and best practice models in place. Briefly, Red Claw are farmed in earthen ponds or dams and water can be obtained from bores or rivers which have compliance with a range of water standards developed within the Red Claw industry. Because the dams require in and out plumbing, other horticultural products may be grown as a by-product. As mentioned previously, best practice models are already in place to the extent that a managed selection program for increased growth was instituted in 1993 by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and thus far has increased growth rates by about 9.5%. The industry is confronted with many challenges, being so small, although of late several cooperative growers have got together and established quality standards including brand names and promotional material for their production in a more coordinated fashion.
An experimental and/or demonstration farm for Red Claw could be established in a place like Borroloola, for instance, or indeed any other place, incorporating about 10 ponds for a start-off cost of approximately $100 000. There may be circumstances where the operational costs could be shared between private sector investors, and I refer to those people already operating in Queensland, and say for an example the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola. As I said, the operational costs will probably be between $70 000 and $80 000 per year.
The potential of the Red Claw industry is substantial for export purposes. It is important that in the short term we develop this industry in the Northern Territory and that in the long term maintain a production advantage based on our access to the broad genetic pool of native stocks, our sustainability due to strict and thorough environmental compliances, and our being isolated from diseases which have restricted offshore industries.
It is worth noting that the Red Claw itself is now being exported to most countries throughout Asia and, indeed, into places as far away as Africa and into North and South America. As I mentioned, our Red Claw aquaculture industry has the potential to be enormous, due to already well-established and proven production technology and significant growth potential. It is an industry worth having a look at in the Territory, now and for the future.
I would like to acknowledge Mr Clive Jones from the Department of Primary Industry in Queensland, who I have been speaking to in regards to this matter. I would encourage the Department of Primary Industry here in the Northern Territory, or even the minister, to have discussions with the good people involved in Queensland because I think it has some real potential.
Latest advice indicates that the farm gate price is something like $13 a kilogram and, as I mentioned, the capital start-up costs and the operational costs are something which we should be promoting here in the Territory.
The Central Land Council convened a meeting in Alice Springs in March 1999, and a further workshop was held in 2000 in Tennant Creek. The purpose of these meetings was to assist indigenous landholders to compile resource information which would assist in assessing their potential for horticultural development. The overall objective was to identify possible commercial horticultural applications subject to water, soil and infrastructure considerations such as power and roads. Incorporated into the above tasks was the immediate need to gather water resource information, particularly in respect of those areas which were designated as having some potential.
Specifically, I refer to Ali Curung, some 180 km south of Tennant Creek. Back in the 1960s, Ali Curung grew a variety of vegetable products which supplied the community of Tennant Creek, many pastoral properties and, as I understand it, two shops in Alice Springs as well. Ali Curung has all-weather road access and very soon will be able to access the railway in Tennant Creek for distribution of their products to southern and northern markets. Ali Curung is provided with power from Tennant Creek. My advice is that the power supply is under-utilised so it could be an advantage in having a look at Ali Curung as being a potential site.
The water supply in the vicinity is huge in volume, and is a renewable resource. I would urge the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development to look at further research which may lead to the establishment of a horticultural industry at Ali Curung. Obviously, in the long term, it would grow the local region and the community and provide indigenous people and other members of the private sector opportunities to develop small enterprises and, of course, provide vital job opportunities for people in that region - indeed, throughout my region.
It is also well worth noting that the entire Barkly Basin has an untapped groundwater potential to irrigate some 25 000 ha of product per year at 10 megaLitres per hectare per year. Calculations show that this could be sustainable for at least 100 years without impacting on the groundwater dependent ecosystems and would not exceed 80% of the aquifer storage as assessed at the start of the extraction.
I commend the minister for his department’s initiative in developing strategies to bring Aboriginal-owned cattle properties back into full production. My electorate of Barkly contains properties and communities that are all well placed to take advantage of short-term lease arrangements as a way to lead them into joint ventures and eventually running properties for themselves. I commend the Northern and Central Land Councils and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association for their valuable lead work in this important area of economic development for our regions. Clearly, for these types of strategies to work for the benefit of all, the critical factor is training and jobs.
I refer now to training. I note the minister has outlined an important pastoral training initiative involving the Jawoyn people, and I look forward to seeing the results with a view to expanding similar training programs to the vast pastoral regions in my electorate. The opportunity is there and I am sure that this government has a will to extend important economic development of this nature to all Territorians. I know the old Aboriginal ringers of the Barkly and the pastoral owners - the mainstay of the Territory pastoral industry for decades - will be delighted to see their children and grandchildren take up the opportunity to work in an industry very fondly regarded by them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the honourable minister’s statement to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add comments in support of the statement made by the minister about primary industry achievements and opportunities.
I wish to comment on the contribution of the member for Nelson in terms of reminding me of the difficulties of life in primary industry. As members would know, my father and brothers are still in primary industry in Western Australia, wheat and sheep. The message from the point of view of the poultry industry and the difficulties for individual operators was very well articulated by the member for Nelson identifying just how difficult it is for those who do work on the land.
Not only is it difficult for those who face those immense challenges with huge investments, it is coupled with a sense of isolation at many times where the nature of the task requires it to be completely on task, but at many times geographically isolated. Coupled with the geographic isolation, with the urban-centric psyche that we have, there is a difficulty even to understand the real experience of those who work on the land and take risks on the land. So I commend you, member for Nelson, for those words.
I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Mr Antoine Barnaardt, the Pro Vice Chancellor at NTU and to compliment you, sir, on the fine and important work of the Northern Territory University, particularly in reference - I am sure it would have heartened you to hear the Katherine Rural College being mentioned.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: I would like to start on a similar theme that was touched on by the member for Nelson. First, I commend the statement without reserve and I note the outline of the current situation with regards to primary industries, recognising the achievements and acknowledging the opportunities. What we have in statements such as this is setting the scene - and I mean this in a genuine way - raising the expectations, as anyone in ministerial responsibility leading an important industry, or representing the aspirations of those in the industry, to set the expectations.
My role will simply be to add another stream to this and to reflect on the importance of primary industry in the development and the future of the Northern Territory. It sounds almost cliched to say that we are in a unique place, but most rural land in our nation is very well developed. Generation upon generation have worked, have made mistakes, have experimented, and they have generally narrowed down their scale of operation.
The Northern Territory is probably the last bastion of those who really want to have a go, and I would like to pay particular respect to those who currently work in the pastoral industry, in the grazing industry and in cereal crop development for the huge risks that they face. As a young farmer, I never really appreciated the role of the research farms. Why? Because my father knew how to grow crops on the land that we had which was his grandfather’s land. We didn’t really need the research farms; we knew what the markets wanted, we knew what crops would grow, we could almost tell – well, we couldn’t; we thought we could - how much rain we were going to get.
So the research farms were in existence, but we thought that they weren’t particularly necessary and they were just for those sort of experimental type farmers who like to take risks and have a lot of money to burn and are a bit reckless.
In the environment we have in the Northern Territory, the role of the research farm is absolutely critical. It has a position and a place that is like no other in our nation. I put on the record the critical importance of research and the work that is taken on by the different research farms and the Department of Primary Industries. The support they give to those who are going out, without a safety net in many respects, to trial new products and to work in a new environment. The fertiliser demands of this soil is absolutely colossal and that is still being refined, with the deluge of rain in the Top End, any fertiliser you put in there, which is incredibly expensive, is just leached out. There are colossal risks.
My interest was attracted to the development of sesame seed in the Northern Territory. It is a little seed that we are all aware of, but I was surprised to find that we import, as a country, 6 000 tonnes of this seed annually. I was surprised to find that a particular strain was developed a few years back in the Northern Territory at the department of Primary Industry. It was called Edith and trialled out at Katherine. It was exceptionally high yielding and the conditions up here, in the Top End particularly, are ideally suited to sesame seed. It’s been trialled. I’m not quite sure how it has gone this season or last season, but it has a substantial potential.
In saying that, I took my brother out to Stray Creek area - I was trying to tempt my brother to take the challenge and move to the Northern Territory and endeavouring to sell him on the prospects of such innovative crops as sesame seed. He was unprepared, unfortunately, to take the risk, but that brought home to me the challenge that faces primary industry in the Northern Territory. We are right at the frontier stage still, and I offer genuine support to the minister in recognising that aspect.
Primary industry is at a delicate stage. I will transfer across in terms of my responsibilities as the shadow for Employment, Education and Training and my interest in youth. It has come to my attention that though the pastoral industry – you know, as that old song says, there is a lot more of Australia out the back - we who live in towns often are blind to the fact of the enterprising activities and the needs of those who are working in a rural environment.
My figures might not be correct here, but I understand the employment need of primary industry is - there is a dramatic shortfall in terms of how many they can take and how many they are actually getting. It is a cultural problem that our urban schools, our teachers don’t understand or perhaps identify the kids that could perhaps flourish in a rural environment. If you don’t have that knowledge, you certainly can’t recognise the need and perhaps make those prompts. There is a current deficit in the employment needs being met in primary industries, Northern Territory and nationally, and it is forecast to be a looming crisis.
I do not vouch at this point of my shadow responsibility to be an expert on training, but it is an area I am taking an acute interest in. One is to try to bridge that gap in terms of not understanding the needs of the rural industry and finding a way where we can articulate our current aspirations and perhaps those who might be wandering our streets. I know in Palmerston there are young lads of whom I think I wish we could find a way for them to work in a rural environment. It would be a perfect opportunity for some of these young lads to find a more secure path to walk on and to challenge them personally. That is an area of particular interest.
Moving now to a couple of people with whom I have spent some time. Luke Marshall and his wife, Tracey Marshall, represent a group called Rural Skills Australia and they play a critical role. In fact Luke works very hard trying to bridge that particular problem of those educators who may not understand the opportunities there are in the primary industries and the fact that there is a whole range of pathways open to our young people. I would just love to see those doors open more and more so that people could actually have some sort of hope that there is more than working at McDonalds or Woolworths or things that you see immediately around you. A lot of our young people need a sense of vision that there are other places you can go; there are alternatives. There is a colossal range of options, particularly in the primary industries, which many are not exposed to.
A CD was recently launched which I have had a little look at. The sound has been turned down, but it looks like a great product. It is called Real Skills Rural Feature. It is a Commonwealth-funded initiative through the Department of Education, Science and Training. This CD is being circulated to careers advisors in secondary schools specifically to allow young people to see that there is a range of exciting possibilities in a rural environment and to try to destroy that stigma or that image of country hicks and an unattractive step backwards career wise.
I can say that I, as a father working in education having come from the land, had that initial understanding but I have been challenged by some of the new prospects that were available. My own son left school last year at Year 11 and is now in the hands of a pastoral company, Stanbroke Pastoral Company. I am not really aware of the role of these major pastoral companies and the training that they offer and the career paths that are available to young people. The interesting thing I have found - in fact, I will just mention - is Heightsbury Holdings, Consolidated Pastoral Company, North Australia Pastoral Company, Colonial Agricultural Company and Stanbroke. All are self-accredited trainers to my knowledge.
I did not know that they even existed, nor the care they are taking with these young people. In researching and guiding my son on his path, I was concerned to find that though many of these large pastoral companies have their properties within the Northern Territory, an applicant from the Northern Territory, a young person desiring a life on the land is a rarity and they are sought after. I wander around Palmerston and I think I could pick quite a few who would benefit from an opportunity on the land.
We have a key agent in our community, one that gave my son his start - and a number of young lads that I have now become aware of - and that is the Rural College at Katherine. That really gave me but more particularly my son and a number of young lads and families that I have met the confidence to embark on this path. He received his initial training at the NT Rural College. Once again, it was an institution I knew of. I was able to make brief comment about it. Now I have gotten to know, rather than it, a college, I have met some of the people there. I know some of the struggles they go through. I know their aspirations and the very important role that they play in this issue that I have been outlining, in terms of opening doors, creating pathways and filling some of those gaps in terms of employment opportunities as well as the knowledge deficit from urban to pastoral. They play an absolutely critical role. The more that I have learnt, the more impressed I have become, and more concerned about ensuring that this key institution is protected, recognised and respected for the role that it plays.
As has already been mentioned, it has come to my attention also that there is at the moment a financial difficulty facing the Rural College. Specifically in the context of this statement, and in the context of the need in the pastoral industry, and in the context of the strategic place and point in time we are in the Northern Territory in terms of the opportunities that lie before us, the role of that rural college is absolutely critical. Whatever consideration is given to the need that is currently being considered, it must be in that context. It can’t be diminished; it has to be held up against the opportunities, the challenges that we currently face here in the Territory. As I said at the beginning - it sounds like a clich - but there is colossal - I have used that word probably too many times - but there are very significant pastoral opportunities here. Those who were once pioneers and who have made their name in other places generations ago, those who are now working on the land can look back and say: ‘If only I was here at this time’.
My father says if only he had the courage to go to the Ord River when he was a young man, but he had a young family. Now he looks and still, in his mid 60s, wishes that he had gone to the Ord River. I reckon we have young farmers in other places around Australia who are almost at the point of being encouraged to take the risk and come to the Territory. The role of the Rural College and the role of the research farms plays a very important role to make sure that that occurs.
I was particularly taken by the Rural College’s initiative to embark on this cattle drive because it addresses the very thing that I talked about at the outset. That is, often people don’t understand the rural sector. This cattle drive in the Year of the Outback captured the imaginations of people. People have to have that point of entry, that point of contact. I commend the Rural College for choosing that opportunity to attract attention to their existence and role in our community. So, they are to be commended, and Mick Donnelly, I am sure, would pass that on to his staff.
I would also like to mention those who were supporters of that cattle drive: ADrail, the Alawa Aboriginal Corporation, Austock, Australian Fuel Distributors, Bridge Autos, Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd, Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, Department of Transport and Works, Ilanka, Elsey Station, Four Seasons, Gary Station, Harry McNaught, Heli-Muster, Newton’s Saddlery, Northern Machinery Hire, Northern Territory Police, RAAF Base Tindal, Stuart Downs, Tejas Land and Cattle Company, Top End Rural and Wesfarmers Landmark. Each one of those names represents people who have come in to support something of vital importance for now, and with a commitment and an investment in the future.
With that, I commend the Rural College for taking that initiative and assisting in the cause of bridging that gap between those who can be closed off in an urban context to the needs of those in a rural environment in our pastoral industries which are there being served currently by the department and the minister. I wish you all the very best. It is an area I am, as you would be well aware, acutely interested in and I wish you all the best and commend you on your statement.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate this evening. I think everyone agrees wholeheartedly that - as my colleague, the member for Barkly said; I remember this from his first speech in this place: ‘the push for the bush is on’.
We, as a new government, recognise that we can capitalise on the good work that has gone before us and really stride out and develop the opportunities for our primary industry sector. We have all of the fundamental requirements to further develop those opportunities. We have the land, we have access to the markets in Asia. We have access to water. We are investing in the science and technology areas, and really what we need to do - and the point that I was trying to make in my statement - is to really commit to industry partnerships and form those partnerships between government and industry, because government does have a role to play in terms of infrastructure, in terms of the research and the training issues. We have to be in sync with those industry sectors, working together to realise the opportunities that are available.
The point that I was trying to make in response to the member for Daly’s comments was, whilst acknowledging the work that had gone before, I was surprised that I did not inherit formalised industry development plans that were committed with those industry sectors. What I did inherit were great working relationships between individuals within my departments and with those industry associations, but a lot of these plans hadn’t been formalised. I believe that now is the time to do that. That is what we are committing to do.
Like the member for Daly, I acknowledge that the live cattle export industry has been magnificent work done over many years with a great deal of foresight. I have met a number of those officers of my department. I have been to Indonesia with a couple of them, through the wet markets and the supermarkets and the slaughter facilities, and I have seen the work that those people have done over many, many years, totally proficient in the language, dedicated to the industry.
Those officers not only from my department, but also of the industry associations really do have to be commended. They were well ahead of their game and they were supported by the government of the day. Great people in the industry with that vision and within the department at officer level who went in and really opened up those opportunities.
Picking up the member’s comments about land issues, yes, they are the next significant strategic issue we have to address in terms of realising the potential of the horticultural industry. I can acknowledge that the issues in terms of releasing further land in the Douglas-Daly area is progressing. Compulsory acquisition was advertised for the new township of Fleming only last week and we are working with the CLC in Central Australia to resolve some of the issues in the Ti Tree area to open up further land. So we do recognise that it is a very strategic, very important issue. We are moving on that.
In terms of the industrial relations issues, it came a bit from left field from the member for Daly. Apart from going back 15-odd years to problems in the beef processing industry up here, what other industrial relations issues he could possibly be talking about. But just to put on the record for the honourable member for Daly and for honourable members: yes, I did work out at Mudginberri Abattoir but I wasn’t a meat worker. I was actually working out there as a fitter at the time and I was not involved in the dispute. I actually left Mudginberri before the dispute commenced. I would like to put on the record that I did not have any role in that dispute nor was I a member of the Meat Workers Union at the time.
However, I am proud to stand on this side of the House and say that we do live in a free, open and democratic society with freedom of association and if people, at whatever industry level, choose to join a union, that is purely an issue for them.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: It is not something that the government is going to be forcing on people or running a campaign on, but certainly supporting the notion of freedom of association and people to join whatever institutions they may want to join...
Dr Burns: A proud tradition in rural Australia, especially the AWU.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a proud tradition and if it is approached in the right way, there is nothing to be afraid of. One of the issues - and it was one of the key issues that came up structurally across the debate - is the rising need for people to work in these industries and given the urbanisation of our society and declining numbers of people moving to them, obviously we live in a market economy and improved wages and conditions are going to be one of the ways to attract people to work in these industries. I certainly think that unions have a role to play in working with business and industry to achieve those outcomes.
In terms of cotton, yes, cotton was missed from the statement because it is not a strategic crop that government is pursuing at the moment. We have a CRC project at the Katherine Research Station. I agree with the member for Daly that we will go nowhere with the further development of that industry without being very, very careful about it, and certainly with wide community consultation. The reason that it wasn’t in the speech wasn’t because we are trying to hide something, but it is not a strategy, it is not a strategic crop that government is pursuing.
The issues in terms of Katherine Rural College - a number of members spoke very passionately about those. I’m not across the issues that members have raised in terms of the funding problems that institution has, and I will follow those up with my colleague the Minister for Education. So I’d like to thank the shadow minister for his support in the debate.
My colleague, the member for - Toyney’s electorate, whatever it is…
Dr Burns: Stuart!
Mr HENDERSON: Stuart! The member for Stuart. Yes, we have had numerous debates about the camel industry. When I came to the portfolio, it was raised very quickly as being a strategic industry for me to keep an eye on. I couldn’t believe the potential of the industry, but the member for Stuart is passionate and a significant amount of government money has gone over the years to developing that industry. We are now starting to see a return on that investment, and I am following that very carefully. The issues of further developing those markets and the processing of camels in Central Australia is something that the government is investigating at the moment, particularly Halal processing to open up that market. So the member for Stuart is a passionate supporter of the camel industry. It is a pity the shirt that he gave me was a couple of sizes too small, but one of my kids is wearing it with pride.
Picking up on the comments from the member for Macdonnell who raised the issue of the pastoral levy, well, if we hadn’t inherited such a disastrous budget situation we wouldn’t have had to impose an increase in those pastoral fees. But it is true, it is the first time that they have gone up in over 10 years. The pastoral industry is at peak production levels after a number of very good Wet Seasons. Government has to do as much as it can on the revenue side of the budget and be responsible with that as well as on the spending side of the budget. We think that the extra charges were, at this point in time, something that the industry could sustain. I must say I haven’t been inundated with protests from the industry on that, and we have made the industry aware that if hardship can be proven, then we will make case by case considerations in relation to that levy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, moving to your comments in the debate, in the first instance, I will go to the eggs issue. You spoke very passionately about that. There is a lot of emotion around globalisation, market economies and what that means for family businesses, for small businesses. National competition policy is another one where all of the states have agreed to national competition policy, a review of all government legislation and regulation in terms of subsidies, whether they be overt or covert and the requirement to reduce those subsidies with the theory that we need to make Australia more competitive to survive in a globalised economy and as a trading nation, so goes the theory, and small business is being hurt by this.
I can confirm to the honourable member and people following the debate that we have met with the producers. We are meeting with the supermarket chains – it is not only the egg industry; there are a number of other food producers, I won’t name them here this evening. I have been working through these issues for the last couple of months with these producers in terms of how we can get our local food industry represented on the Coles, Woolworths, BiLo shelves. A lot of work has been done in that area. I am happy to convene a meeting between the egg farmers and the supermarkets if people will attend.
At the end of the day, we have to again balance, and is it an issue for government; is it an issue for government subsidies? I don’t think it is. The needs of the producers in terms of being able to sustain a livelihood and a business versus the consumers who obviously at every point are going to choose to purchase on price and quality. There has to be a differentiation in the product. People will pay for quality. I am not sure how far away it is, but it is a priority in terms of the Buy Territorian campaign, and I am astounded that the supermarkets do not badge Territory produce as Territory produce, because I think Territorians will support Territory products.
I was in Central Australia in Alice Springs a few weeks ago and I forget the guy’s second name, but a charming fellow called Mo down there, who has a lettuce farm with the backdrop of the Macdonnell Ranges, exports his entire crop up here. I am not sure whether it is to Coles or Woolworths, but essentially all of the lettuce you buy at one of those institutions up here at Casuarina is grown hydroponically in Central Australia and nobody knows about it. I certainly think that the supermarkets should be badging that product and people really would support it – and, I think, pay a bit more for it. So I am committed to making that pitch very strongly. It is a hearts and minds pitch to Territorians to support our local producers, as the member for Nelson mentioned. However there are some real issues in terms of the cost of production, the structured costs inherent with those businesses in terms of the feed costs, the general costs of production which the big growers interstate can obviously undercut.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of the need for federal or Territory legislation to stop companies selling goods at lower than the cost of production in order to stifle competition, my belief is that that is particularly prohibited. It is known as ‘predatory pricing’. The ACCC certainly does have powers to come down very heavily on companies that adopt that practice. We can look at a particular issue at the moment where the ACCC are looking at Qantas for allegedly dumping seats on a particular route to stop the admission of Virgin Airlines into that market place. That is just an example where the ACCC can come in and intervene.
What I would encourage any Territory company which believes that there is an unfair competitive advantage being impacted on their business and stifling their business opportunity and it is predatory to make a complaint to the ACCC. Fiona McRae is the Northern Territory officer of the ACCC, and I will be in touch with Fiona tomorrow and put her in touch with Landel and Fresha Eggs and see what can be done if this allegation is true. It is certainly something that should not be countenanced. For major companies to sell at under the cost of production and to force people out of business is certainly not on.
I agree with the honourable member; we should be doing everything we can to support our local industry. I don’t think that government subsidies are the way to go. As soon as you start subsidising companies, it’s a never ending cycle. As soon as you take the subsidies off, the companies tend to go under anyway. It is the same with the argument with the airlines: you introduce subsidies and other people retaliate against that and withdraw services. We have to do everything we can in terms of the cost of production; look at product differentiation in terms of quality; run a real hearts and minds argument; and do everything we can to get the supermarkets to badge Territory product as Territory product, so at least people have the choice and, hopefully, these companies will survive.
Another cost of the production here would obviously be power costs. It’s not going to help Landel Eggs, because we are talking a few years away. But, structurally, for our economy, the best thing we can do for local producers is to bring down the cost of electricity which, as we know, is the highest in the nation.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. We will get back to him tomorrow and convene that meeting. Officers of my department were already scheduled to meet the supermarkets. I don’t have any problems in inviting the producers into that. I will be present and the member will be there. But at the end of the day, it is a market economy and producers and consumers are both part of that economy, and we have to be competitive. We will do everything we can, and I can certainly give the honourable member that assurance.
My colleague, the member for Barkly had some great suggestions. I can say to the member for Barkly we will be following that up. I will get people in the department to talk. I would urge all honourable members in these types of debates - we did it with the Litchfield Shire tourism issues that the member for Nelson raised last time - we will be proactive, regardless of which side of politics it comes from. If people on the other side of the House think that there is a particular industry niche that we could look at that does have opportunity, well, we will go and have a look at it. We are not the font of all wisdom just because we are on the fifth floor of the building.
I urge members on all sides of the parliament that if there are potential opportunities for growing our economy here in the Northern Territory - whether it is in our urban or regional centres - and people do have ideas, well, either bring them into the parliament through debate or write to myself as minister, or send us an e-mail and we will track them down and try and realise those opportunities if they are there.
The member for Blain, thank you for your support. I know that you do have a background in the rural sector. It obviously came through in your comments here tonight. We do tend to forget, representing urban electorates in particular, that there is more to the Northern Territory than our urban centres. That is why I am very pleased to bring this statement in here tonight because the pastoral and primary industry sector is a sector that this government is very interested in, totally committed to, and believe it will provide the springboard for future economic growth in our rural and regional economies. In those areas of the economy, we do have social problems and we certainly believe on this side of the House that one way of addressing those social problems is to provide and to work with the private sector, those communities, to get investment into economies in those regions and provide jobs for people in the regions. We will certainly do that through the development of those industry plans.
I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. I would also say thank you and well done and keep up the good work to the great staff in my department. We really do have a lot of people who have been there for many years and who are, in a large part, responsible for the growing nature of our industry at the moment. We have a lot more work to do and I look forward to working with not only the people in my department, but those great people out in the industry sectors themselves.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of some local builders and developers in Alice Springs to discuss the action undertaken by the government in relation to the sale of the Cawood Court flats in Gillen which is in the heart of my electorate.
The minister gave what amounted to a statement yesterday afternoon in Question Time but in fact he didn’t do anything to address the concerns of residents in my electorate nor indeed others in Alice Springs, in particular developers and builders who put in proposals for this project. Since I talked about Cawood Court in my maiden speech, I thought that it would be appropriate to place on the Parliamentary Record what has in fact happened to Cawood Court since then, especially since the story is a fairly incredible one.
By way of background, Cawood Court is a complex of 58 units which the previous government undertook to demolish and sell off for the development of private housing. With the election of the new government, this decision was reviewed and, ignoring the wishes of local residents, and more importantly without consulting them, this Labor government chose not to follow through with the previous government’s plans. I was asked by residents to present a petition in this House urging government to adhere to the plans of the previous administration which I did at the last sittings.
However, the government overturned the previous government’s decision, so the presentation of the petition was unsuccessful. In my maiden speech, I commented on the shortage of land in Alice Springs and in relation to Cawood Court I said:
- There is a shortage of affordable land in Alice Springs, especially for first home buyers, and this must be a
factor in government decisions about land in places such as Alice Springs.
But government ignored this fact, as well as the wishes of local residents. What this government did shortly after coming to office was to turn the previous government’s decisions and its commitment on its head. One constituent has told me - indeed, he followed it up with a letter to me - confirming that the ALP’s candidate in the electorate of Araluen gave him an assurance that Cawood Court would be demolished in the event that the ALP won the election. The ALP did in fact win the election. Its candidate obviously made a flippant promise, but I suppose none of us would be too surprised about that.
Earlier this year, the government sought expressions of interest in relation to what was called, on the documents provided to those people who submitted expressions of interest, but the document was called the ‘demolition and redevelopment’ of Cawood Court. Regardless of what the minister said in the House yesterday, there was no attempt to correct the documentation that went out to builders and developers. At all times, those involved saw or understood that there was an opportunity to either demolish or to redevelop Cawood Court. More importantly, that was the understanding of residents in the area. In any event, the result was, in hindsight, I guess, not surprising given the indications made by ministers over time. A developer in fact got the job, and the units would not be demolished.
The effect of all of this is that in an area that has prime residential value, especially to first home buyers, they will not be able to avail themselves of this marvellous opportunity that would have been provided to them under the previous administration. The effect of the decision is that there will be the release of 51 units on to the property market in Alice Springs which, in my view, is one of the most stupid and short sighted decisions this government has made since it has come to office.
The company that was selected is going to essentially tart up and flog off the 51 units. Real estate agents tell me that there is a glut of units on the market in Alice Springs, so where the logic is in this decision, no one seems to know. The government may, but they certainly haven’t told the people of Alice Springs and in particular, residents near the units and furthermore the developers and builders who thought that they had a chance of developing the property or, alternatively, residents who thought that the whole lot might be cleared and prime residential land might be able to be purchased by first home buyers.
Interestingly, at a time when local builders are having to lay off staff, the Labor government gave the work to what could loosely be described as a Darwin firm which in fact is headquartered interstate. It was a severe blow to local industry. I was contacted by several firms who showed me their innovative plans for development of the site. Not one local firm was chosen.
The most significant concern about this saga, however, is not only that local firms were ignored, but this block of units in a prime residential area was sold to the interstate developer for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the highest offer. I will repeat that: it was sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the highest price offered. I know of two local builders who offered significantly more than the $742 000 the units sold for. One was $900 000 and the other one was $1.2m. I am told that another company offered $1.2m as well. This fact just has not been addressed by the minister. It certainly wasn’t addressed by him in his answer yesterday and it wasn’t addressed by him in his mutterings last evening. The people of Alice Springs have not been provided with a satisfactory explanation about why it is that government sold these units for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than what local firms offered.
One resident in particular approached me and asked the question: ‘Why would a government that constantly whinges about money do itself out of hundreds of thousands of dollars?’ That person actually went through the process of calculating what each unit sold for, given the sale price for the entire 58 units of $742 000, and that person calculated that each of these units sold for $14 000. Cheap in anyone’s language. There are a number of questions that the government, and in particular the minister, has not even gone near. That is just one of them.
When I was looking through Hansard trying to find what had been said in relation to Cawood Court since the Labor government came to office, I noticed on 24 October in the House, the member for Casuarina and former Minister for Housing said in relation to the proposed sale of the Cawood Court flats:
- What we decided to do, was to put it out to a private developer, and we can sell it for $1m to $1.3m. That will
come into the housing budget.
That begs the question: why, then, did the government accept an offer from a developer for an amount significantly less than the amount predicted by the department and the previous minister in October last year by accepting the offer at $742 000? Further, what was the basis upon which the government ignored offers of local companies, two of which, possibly three, offered hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the successful developer?
In addition, many people would be wondering what role the Minister for Central Australia played in all of this. Does the Minister for Central Australia support a decision by government to award this substantial project to an interstate company, thereby ignoring many local builders? Can he assure the people of Central Australia that he argued strongly to award the contract to a local company? If so, why was he unsuccessful and why was he rolled in Cabinet? So the challenge for the minister is to explain to the residents and the companies in Alice Springs what his role was and why, on the face of it, he did absolutely nothing to fly the flag for local business and building companies in Central Australia.
The challenge for the Minister for Housing is to simply explain to the residents of Alice Springs why on earth the government did what it did. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation - and there has not been one; there hasn’t even been one that has gone close to being satisfactory - the people of Alice Springs will continue to ask these questions. I will certainly continue to ask them in this House and anywhere else on their behalf.
With those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will close this sorry chapter.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the remarkable occasion which occurred here in the forecourt of Parliament House on Sunday 19 May going into Monday 20 May. That was the flag raising ceremony hosted by the Northern Territory government to recognise the proclamation of the independent nation of East Timor Lorosa’e. It was my pleasure to be the Master of Ceremonies at this occasion. Festivities commenced at about 9 pm on Sunday evening. We had somewhere in the vicinity of 800 people gathered in the forecourt of Parliament House and many people could not recall another occasion of such magnitude outside Parliament House. It became an incredibly moving and special experience for everyone who participated.
A large number of the Darwin-based East Timorese community was present. There were also substantial numbers of supporters, people who for many years had put their hearts, souls, energies, efforts into arguing and advocating for an independent nation of East Timor. Among the gathered crowd were dignitaries who included the Ambassador of Portugal, Jose Vierra Branco, a man of great charm and wit whom I had the good fortune of meeting and talking to at the Portuguese Club on the subsequent Monday when he made a special speech to another gathering of the East Timorese community at that club.
Also among the crowd was a representative of the Indonesian Consulate, Mr Yusef. We had people there who really did their community proud in terms of representing them. I make particular note of Jacinto dos Reis, an elder of the East Timorese community who gave a very moving speech about the struggles of his people since occupation in 1975 by Indonesia and the loss of life that had occurred in the struggle for freedom by East Timorese people. In our local way, his speech truly reflected the magnificence and great generosity of the new President, Xanana Gusmao, whose swearing in was the highlight of the live telecast via satellite from Dili.
The evening was a celebratory event. We had a speech from Mr Egas Alves who is also a representative of the East Timorese community. He embraced the crowd and spoke to them and certainly ignited the passion and people were shouting out Viva Timor Lorosa’e! It was a wonderful speech. We had music, traditional music from the Koremetan Band.
We had a very moving flag raising ceremony which occurred around midnight. There was a large screen provided by the hard work of the Protocol staff. I pay tribute tonight in the Assembly to the work of the staff both of Protocol and the Assembly: Sean O’Sullivan, Lynette Maloney, Tony Hibberd. They were all there working right through until about 2 o’clock, 2.30, three in the morning ensuring that everything ran smoothly for the East Timorese community and that things were provided for them to meet their needs. I acknowledge the efforts over and above their duties in that respect.
The crowd was also entertained by Jeff’s Band, a local ensemble which was very funky and enjoyable, and were greeted with applause by the crowd even though they were a move away from the traditional aspects of the evening.
There was great anticipation in the air. We had a crowd of 800 gathered in the forecourt outside Parliament House and the anticipation was really focussed on the flag raising ceremony, the investiture of Xanana Gusmao as President. Watching the big screen, for a crowd of 800 there was silence as everyone watched the investiture of Xanana Gusmao by Kofi Annan, and then moved to the flag raising ceremony.
We had the good fortune of watching a procession of East Timorese people in our community, led by an elder woman in the community followed by men, women and children. They processed in traditional East Timorese costume. They walked to the flag poles outside of Parliament House, across the forecourt, and handed over a flag to three male members of the East Timorese community who then proceeded to hoist the East Timor Lorosa’e flag.
I have to say that sometimes these occasions are difficult in terms of timing, but their timing was perfect. We were raising the flag here in Darwin in unison with the flag raising ceremony that was occurring in Dili. As the flag was rising for the first time to mark independence of the nation, the birth of the nation in Timor, so too was the flag rising outside Parliament House.
It brought home to many of us who were there a great flood of relief, a feeling of joy. It was one of those occasions where you feel like pinching yourself; it’s unbelievable that it occurred. There were many people there who, for two decades plus, have strived for, dreamt for, hoped for just that event: the proclamation of a nation of East Timor. The families gathered outside included freedom fighters who had, for many years, hidden in the mountains of East Timor and risked lives daily to fight for freedom. They included the sons, the daughters, the wives, the children of the freedom fighters who were lost. It was a poignant and moving occasion but fundamentally an occasion of great celebration. I felt very honoured to be able to play a small part in this ceremony.
The speech provided by the Deputy Chief Minister, Honourable Syd Stirling, was met with great applause. Representation of the government there included Minister Jack Ah Kit and his family, my colleague, the member for Johnston. Federal representatives were there - Senator Trish Crossin and Senator Nigel Scullion. I am pleased to say I noticed the member for Port Darwin amongst the crowd as well and the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood.
I also want to acknowledge the assistance provided to the community on the evening by East Timorese who are very proud to call Darwin home, Pedro Yap and George Mu. They are successful business people who fled Timor with their families in the 1970s; established their lives again from scratch in Darwin and have gone on to become extremely successful business people in the Northern Territory. They provided very generously in terms of donations for food. There was enough food to feed the 800 people gathered in the forecourt. I have to say I tasted most of the dishes and they were delicious.
This was a one-off. We won’t see it again in our lifetimes. The birth of a nation occurred; we celebrated it in a very appropriate way in Darwin. We recognised the struggles of our community here. Some struggles still continue in the East Timorese community in terms of obtaining the right of citizenship in Australia. Some have been in never-never land for 10 years now. I hope that the federal Minister for Immigration finds it within his heart and within his soul to make ministerial intervention and to grant them permanent residency. It’s an issue that I, for one, will not forsake. I know I have the full support of my Cabinet in pursuing that, and I acknowledge the efforts to date by our Chief Minister, by our Minister for Ethnic Affairs, by our Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. We are all working in there together to try and ensure that these people who have called the Northern Territory home for many years can stay here and their children continue to grow up here and, indeed, enjoy the benefits of our multicultural society. And these are people who, I don’t doubt, in time will go to their motherland, East Timor, and will put in the efforts and the energy that is needed over there to help rebuild that nation.
We know that it has been devastated as a result of the massacres in 1999. However, there isn’t the infrastructure there to support the populous that we have here of East Timorese. There isn’t the education in place, there isn’t the health, there isn’t the housing, there aren’t the jobs. That nation has all of those challenges before it. I am so pleased to know that in the Northern Territory we have a government that will be there every step of the way, right alongside the new nation of East Timor, assisting them in whatever way we can. I know that it is a bipartisan approach. I feel great about the fact that we as the Northern Territory, as a people, as a government of the people, will move very strongly in the future towards ensuring that our near neighbours, our dear friends, people who in our hearts we have hoped for many decades now would be free, and who are now finally free, can go on and meet and then conquer the challenges that lay before them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – Nil; New South Wales - Nil.
Mr Baldwin: That’s not quite right, that score, by the way.
A member: What’s the score, Tim?
Mr Baldwin: New South Wales – 6; Queensland - Nil.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Anyway, who cares? Following on from that comment made by the member for Karama, in reference to East Timor it really is quite sobering to reflect again and again that this nation was born and how infrequently nations are born and what a wonderful occasion it is. It captures the imaginations of all those around the world when they come to witness the event. We saw shots of the people, unexpected to me, in the crowd there, from all around the world. I saw Bill Clinton on television and I thought: ‘My goodness this really is a very, very special thing’.
I have had an historical interest in East Timor in terms of what happened there in World War II and it was largely a chapter of our conflict that was closed because at that point in time it was information that was not really good, that was judged to be inappropriate perhaps to trouble the citizens of Australia with the closeness of invasion. Yet the relationship between East Timor and Australia was born in a very special way right back then.
All of that said and done, it just dawned on me the other night that we have a critical part to play. Even though the world pays attention and it captures people’s imagination, we are their neighbour and we will remain their neighbour forever. And we are also caught up in this and have a very important role to play.
I had the good fortune, two weeks, ago to meet with three senior representatives of the National University of East Timor out at the Palmerston campus at Karawa. Mr Benjamin Martins, Vice Rector of Finance and Administration, Mr Manual Bucar, Dean of the Faculty of Economics, and Dr Helda da Costa, Director of the National Research Centre. We had a meal together and we spent time looking then through the facilities at the Palmerston campus particularly in terms of the hospitality and tourism area. You could see that as a neighbour, we do have an obligation and we can play a part as a good neighbour in assisting our friends in East Timor in a very practical way.
I met these three gentlemen - there were a number of other meetings that I was not involved in - but I do understand that they are working towards a stronger link between the Northern Territory University and the University of East Timor. For that I wish Mr Antoine Barnaardt and those at the NTU all the very best in the negotiations for that very important link between the Northern Territory and East Timor.
On a university theme, too, I would like to make a passing reference to a launch that I went to a couple of weeks ago for Accelerate, the alumni magazine. The alumni of the University encompasses 20 000 graduates of the Northern Territory University. I was surprised to hear that the University currently has 15 000 students. The role of this magazine is to strengthen the contribution that graduates of the University can play. Once again, a newer university, a small and regional university, but we have just begun a journey and the role that graduates of that institution play will be critical. We are at the early stages of it and I commend the editor and the staff behind the production of the alumni magazine. For those graduates of the NTU, I encourage you to contact Fiona Collins - she can be contacted on 8946 6554 - so that you can become a formal member of the alumni. There are a whole lot of benefits and so on that will be available to you.
The important thing with the magazine is it ties all this together and allows a sustained development and nurturing of the culture of the Northern Territory University, very critical to the development of our community.
Moving on to a couple of matters great fury. I received a fax today from a constituent and I think it is very important that this actually be read because it is the voice of a citizen who is in distress out in our suburbs and it may offer some comfort that her voice is being heard here in this Chamber because if this Chamber doesn't attend to issues which are referred to in this fax I received, then we are not honouring the words that are spoken at the very start of each one of our sittings where we are hear to advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians.
I hope that by this coming to my attention and the work that I can do as a parliamentarian with my colleagues on either side, that we can actually make a difference to this lady. I will leave out some names to protect people I don’t know about, so I don’t want to mention their names at this point:
- My name is [name provided] and I live in Gray. On 12 May, Mothers Day, I got broken into twice in one day.
I left the house a 10 o’clock in the morning and came back at 11.30. They had climbed up on my roof and got in
through my daughter’s window. They stole all my jewellery, a set of silver spoons and my kids’ money boxes. They
also raided my fridge and freezer.
I left the house for 30 minutes in the afternoon and when I came back, my kids’ play station was gone. The police
caught one offender and they know the three others. It is a group of teenagers who don’t live on this street but they
all come and visit their friend who lives close by. This person lives with his mother and he is 13 years old. He never
goes to school and the police are there almost every day. He and his friends get locked up by the police for a day or
so. They have a curfew from 7 pm to 7 am, but they are still breaking into people’s houses during the day. They have
made the Joy Anderson Centre …
- … which is close to my house their place day and night. They jump the fence into my yard. Now I have to close the
windows and lock my doors just to have a shower or if I go upstairs. I can’t leave my house because they all hang
around the street watching everything and everyone’s movement.
The whole street is fed up and many are moving out or want to. The police are doing their best, but it is such a waste
of their time when it always is the same kids doing the same crime. Their parents know what’s happening, and they
don’t care. I’m doing everything I can to protect my kids and my property. Now it’s your turn. Thank you.
I read those words because that is a sharp reminder of the reality of the task that we actually have. I appreciate the Attorney-General being able to hear those words. That really forms a genuine voice of many people through our urban areas, and particularly in my case from Palmerston, and I am very aware of the northern suburbs as well. I let it stand there. I will do whatever I can to see that due attention is given to the plight of that lady. I, of course, would be expecting the support of members opposite.
Another related issue on a more positive note is the Palmerston Gymnastics Club which has been in operation for 14 years in Palmerston. It established itself as a responsible and credible sporting organisation of a local region and the NT. They have 140 gymnasts. I make particular reference to the president, Mark Nolan, because clubs and the positive endeavours of clubs do not happen without the goodwill and the generous time that these people spend: Mark Nolan; vice-president, Dixie Blake; treasurer, Shirley Banks; secretary, Jane Poole, and public officer, Pam Cunnington.
This club has run successfully and continuously, as I said, for 14 years. They currently operate within the Palmerston High School’s gymnasium. The Palmerston High School’s gymnasium is really the centre of activity in Palmerston. We have outgrown it as a community. When I moved to Palmerston there were just over 6000 people there, and that was the place that we would meet for major events. The town is now in excess of 24 000 people, and we are still as a community waiting for the multi-purpose indoor recreation facility, but at this point the gym group are in the gymnasium.
They have to set up and pack up and move out of the way of other groups. They have all their gym equipment, and it is a colossal impost on the volunteer workers and the parents to support their kids in gymnastics three nights a week. I know how difficult it is because I have had other groups trying to get in there and we have had to facilitate the speedy change, get out there and actually move some of these mats and equipment which is very heavy and cumbersome, and it is done three times a week.
They have repeatedly requested - and I put this on the record - a permanent facility because they want to provide more classes to the higher level gymnasts. They want to provide classes during the day to schools and preschool children. They want to be able to provide a permanent, suitable facility so that they can have their equipment set up and permanently installed. They want to be able to permanently install a fully sprung floor which is necessary for injury prevention and competition. They are not the sort of group that I can turn away from because they have consistently and genuinely made positive contributions, and what I am about to tell you speaks volumes.
The president, Mark Nolan, has worked with me in the Crime Forum in Palmerston. He had become aware that there were a number of young lads that were hanging around the gymnasium, the Palmerston High School gym on the weekend, looking in the windows, banging on the windows and causing a bit of a nuisance. One of the positive results of the Crime Forum is that we’ve gained a greater understanding of what is actually driving some of these antisocial behaviours that we are experiencing. Rather than go out there and give them a rev up and perhaps call the police, he actually engaged them - to his credit - and with some compassion discovered that these kids really wanted attention. They really were pretty interested in what was going on in the gym. But they didn’t have any ability or way in, in a sense.
He discerned that, and invited them to come in - sought the consent of a couple of the coaches and brought them into the gym. It costs money to pay coaches and to pay for the equipment. These kids didn’t have any money – they were demonstrating antisocial behaviour were actually young primary school kids - and were pretty keen to have a try of this gear. They even admitted that they have tried the gear. ‘How did you try the gear?’ ‘Oh, we know how to break into this place’. So we’ll put that aside. They were put under the care of a couple of coaches who were happy to take the responsibility for that session and Lo! and behold, they absolutely enjoyed themselves. The parents came along and were really appreciative of the support that they had been given and by the positive outreach of the Palmerston gym club. More importantly, these kids had exceptional talent.
In the following week or two - I’m not sure of the time frame on this – it didn’t take too long before there were 10 young lads waiting there on the Saturday to have a go at gymnastics with some of their parents. We saw in this, when Mark and I were talking, that here is a great opportunity: if you can get clubs such as this to be able to take a load - just a bit of a load - to bring some of these kids into a positive sporting culture under the direct supervision of coaches and so on. But the problem is that some of these kids just can’t pay the full amount. What the club is actually calling for is assistance in respect of being able to offer this kind of program. I am aware, too, of other clubs that would probably be interested in taking on a managed portion of this kind of responsibility and make a similar contribution to the wider community. With the issues that concern all of us - the antisocial youth issues primarily - they are the sort of clubs where it costs a bit of money to join such as swimming, for one. I am going to speak to the swimming club in a little while about that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I close my comments. I will resume them at a later stage because there is more I can tell you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – 4; New South Wales - 6.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak about cord blood banking. I note the presence of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. He may recall that, at an earlier time in this Chamber, I spoke about cord blood banking during a debate on health. Several members of the back bench on the government’s side chose to boo my description of this wonderful new process. I thank the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, who approached me a few days later, apologising on behalf of his ill-informed back bench members and sought input from me about this procedure which may be introduced in the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to say that I have lobbied the federal Minister for Health and Family Services fairly intensively on this matter and I look forward to her very positive support for funding for this in the Territory.
You may recall that about two years ago, the former Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, did announce $9m in funding for this process. There are now three cord blood banks in Australia: one in Brisbane, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. These are the repositories of cord blood samples that have been collected around the country. Most of the samples are, in fact, Caucasian samples and are not particularly useful where Aboriginal people are concerned.
If I can come to the background about cord blood banking, the current debate on stem cell research has a direct bearing on the proposal for cord blood banking in the Northern Territory. In terms of stem cell, the more rudimentary the stem cell, the greater potential it has to be directed into forming the required tissue. Stem cells from embryos are the most rudimentary of all stem cells. But stem cells can also be found in just about every very rapidly developing tissue such as the gut or bone marrow, and can therefore be obtained from any person, no matter how old you are.
If the most rudimentary stem cells cannot be harvested, if I can use that word, from embryos for bioethical or availability reasons, the source of the next most rudimentary stem cell will be those from placental cord blood of new born babies. I am talking about the placental cord blood, not blood from the baby itself. Placentas are considered ‘waste’ and therefore are disposed of after birth by one means or another. Some groups culturally will take the placenta home to dispose of in their own culturally appropriate manner, and others are literally just disposed of by the hospitals where the babies are born.
Hence, the collection of blood from the placental cord will not suffer from any significant bioethical considerations other than requiring the personal consent of the parents.
For a range of cancers and non-cancer diseases of the bone marrow, marrow transplantation is curative. Of related bone marrow donors, only about 30% are suitable. Of unrelated bone marrow donors, only about 20-25% are suitable.
When it comes to Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people suffer from the same frequency of cancers and non-cancers, but have a higher rate of mortality presumably due in part to the non access to marrow transplantation. Compound that with the lack of donor compatibility with Aboriginal recipients and the mortality rate is further increased. Matched donors are easy to find within the same racial group.
Harvesting of bone marrow from a donor is an invasive procedure. It is a very painful procedure, and ask anybody, including the former member for Arafura, who was one of the donors. He will tell you what it is like. This matter of bone marrow donation poses a significant deterrent because of the pain and the invasive procedure. On the other hand, cord blood harvesting, being from a detached placenta, is not invasive and poses no harm to either the baby or the mother from a physical point of view.
Let me come now to the considerations of the matter. With any marrow transplantation, compatibility issues, as I said earlier, limit the number of useful donations. A successful bone marrow transplant requires a match of six out of six of the six HLA antigens. Now that is a bit complicated and technical, but bear with me. On the other hand, a successful cord blood marrow transplantation is possible with a match of only four of the six HLA antigens. Hence a small bank of cord blood is as likely, if not more likely, to find a compatible donor than a larger bone marrow bank.
Other advantages of using cord blood are: the unrelated cord blood donor can be more easily found and less contamination of cord blood with viruses because the placenta was grown in a sterile environment and the baby or the placenta would not have been infected by any significant exposure to outside biological agents other than the diseases that a mother might suffer from.
There is a smaller percentage of rejection because of low cell dose when you give a cord blood donation to a patient because it’s a small dose only. This indicates that cord blood harvesting and banking can produce a sufficient number of stem cells to bring about a successful transplant with minimal or reduced rejection.
Currently, most bone marrow banks are predominantly of Caucasian donors of west European origin. Furthermore, on a worldwide basis, there is a large pool of Caucasian people, or can I use the word ‘genotype,’ a Caucasian genotype for, say, east Europeans, Asians such as Indians and Chinese, thus increasing the likely access to a compatible donor in a large population concentration of the same racial type. On the other hand, some racial groups have very limited gene pools. For instance, Australian Aborigines are estimated currently to be about 300 000. Remember, these 300 000 Aboriginal people include those who are normally classified as Aborigines but do not have any Aboriginal genotype so access to a suitable marrow donor for an Aboriginal person is thus limited by the size of the gene pool and the number of donors.
In addition to the limiting factors mentioned, the HLA antigens and haplotypes of the Aboriginal population are unique. None of the common haplotypes in Aborigines are common in Caucasians. It is thus almost impossible for an Aborigine to access marrow banks constituted of Caucasian donors. Thus the success of a cord blood bank is measured by its ability to provide a suitable donor and its ability is dependent on the size of its stored donor units. A successful Caucasian blood bank holds a minimum of about 5000 donor units. With a smaller HLA variation in Aboriginal people, a smaller bank is considered sufficient. The Australian cord blood bank specialists stated that Australia needs 20 000 cord blood units for the general population and 2000 cord blood units for the Aboriginal population.
Why is it relevant in the Northern Territory? According to the 1991 Census, there were almost 7000 births of Aboriginal babies in Australia. Most of the births were in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and in the Northern Territory. In the states, the births occurred in small numbers scattered among small suburban and country hospitals. However in the Northern Territory, most deliveries are concentrated at the Royal Darwin and at the Alice Springs Hospitals, these two performing almost 70 % of total deliveries. With the concentration of deliveries, cord blood harvesting at these two hospitals would be very cost effective.
Let’s talk about what we need in the Northern Territory, whether we need harvesting only or do we need harvesting as well as a banking process? Harvesting of cord blood is essentially the removing of blood from the cord of the placenta. This can be done using no more than the skill of the obstetrics staff. Some training would obviously be required to ensure that collected cord blood is treated appropriately before transfer to the blood bank. The process of cord blood banking is very specialised. After initial preparation for transport of the cord blood to the blood bank, the blood is further processed at a central blood bank to conform to standards and then stored in liquid nitrogen.
Cord blood units may be stored in liquid nitrogen in a re-useable state for up to 20 years. So over the next 20 years, if we keep collecting cord blood from placentas, we can actually build up such a large bank that it will be accessible to everybody in Australia.
Other considerations include application to the respective hospital’s Ethics Committee, that the harvesting of cord blood is approved. That has already been done at both the Royal Darwin Hospital and at the Alice Springs Hospital. Staff training was also done because a pilot trial has already been done in the Northern Territory and found to be particularly successful. Recruitment of donors across all ethnic groups is a major job to be done by somebody specified to do it - I think one for the Top End and one for Central Australia.
Obtaining informed consent from parents for cord blood harvesting and cost and method of transfer of cord blood to the blood bank. I believe in the Northern Territory we should concentrate on the harvesting or the collection of the blood samples and then transport that to the Australian cord blood bank which is based in Sydney where the samples can be processed and stored for future use.
The establishment of the full cord blood bank will not be to the interest of the Northern Territory because of the relatively small number of obstetric deliveries, first of all. Besides, the demand for the very specialised facility is small, and will make it cost prohibitive per transplant if ever a Northern Territorian needs to have a cord blood transplant. So any person requiring marrow transplantation at the moment would need to travel interstate because we do not have the technical expertise in the Northern Territory to provide transplantation of cord blood.
So it will be more cost effective to confine the Territory’s contribution to harvesting of cord blood and leave storage to centres such as the Australian Cord Blood Bank. The Northern Territory should concentrate on the collection of Aboriginal cord blood in particular, although the inclusion of collection of non-indigenous cord blood would add little to the cost but would greatly reduce the cost per unit of cord blood collected in the Territory. Full costing to establish collecting centres for cord blood in Darwin and Alice Springs can be sought from the Australian Cord Blood Bank in Sydney, but an estimated figure of some $270 000 is suggested. Approximately $85 000 up to $100 000 will be required for the Territory component of staff coordinator for training, cord blood collection, preparation and courier service. The balance will be required at the Australian Cord Blood Bank to process, bank and tissue type the units of blood for use later on.
So the main cost, which may vary, will be for the employment of a Midwife Coordinator, one in the Top End, one in Central Australia, and a transport system that can deliver the cord blood within 36 hours of collection and maintained within a temperature range of less than 25C. Those things are pretty critical.
I hope the federal minister is very supportive of this. I spoke to her at length a few weeks ago when she was here in Darwin, and I have been in communication with her office via e-mail since that time. She appears to be very interested in this and is also very conscious of the fact that Aborigines in the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia would benefit from Aboriginal cord blood banking.
I seek leave to table this paper, and I look forward to our Northern Territory Minister for Health and Community Services taking this on board and introducing this into the Territory as soon as the federal funding comes through.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Queensland – 4; New South Wales – 18.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to congratulate the Alice Springs Cycling Club which hosted, over the Easter weekend, the Australian Junior Track and Masters Cycling Championships.
It was a great honour that Alice Springs was chosen to host these events. I was very pleased that the Minister for Central Australia was there to make presentations, as I did on another day. I wish the Minister for Sport and Recreation could have been there also because it was a long time in the making. I don’t know if many people realise that in 1983 the government of the day built the Alice Springs Velodrome. It is considered to be the fastest and best outdoor velodrome in Australia now. Except for Queensland and Tasmania, each other state now has top indoor velodromes, so the chances of attracting top quality championships to regional centres is probably gone forever but Alice Springs Cycling Association had a chance to host the up and coming young juniors and the masters and of course, this was a great opportunity for them to do so.
The Vice President of Cycling Australia, Jim Nevin, said the velodrome in Alice Springs was among the best outdoor tracks in the world for elite competition, but he also said that it was the best outdoor veledrome in Australia. He put it down to the fact that the thin air from the heat and the lack of wind makes the track conducive to fast times. That happened at this competition: we had many records broken - even a world record.
We were very lucky to have 110 junior grade riders come to Alice Springs for the championships, along with the managers, coaches, parents and supporters. There were a considerable number of people in Alice for this event. The largest team was from Victoria with 19 riders and six support staff, while the smallest was five riders and two staff from the ACT.
In the masters field, which was 35 plus, 71 riders were registered. The youngest group was from 35 to 39 in what they call Masters One, and the eldest group was 70-plus. It is quite amazing that people continue to ride at such advanced age. There were a number of champions, both past and present, from all state levels of championships. There were even some world championships such as Geoff Stoker from New South Wales. Of course, our local lad Kim Hansen was there as well.
We have some up and coming young riders in Alice Springs in the junior area: Adam Davis and Matt Stevens. They managed to get silver last year and they were keen to give the other states a bit of a shake-up this year. They were coached by a young Alice Springs lad called John Pyper. John did a lot of riding in Alice Springs in his younger days and he has now been appointed as the National Coach of Thailand so John is over there coaching in Thailand. We wish him all the best and we hope that it succeeds and that he is getting a lot of satisfaction from helping the Thai people with their cycling.
There are another couple of Territorians I should mention. One to watch is perhaps Corey Heath from Katherine who was posting faster times up here in Darwin - which is considered to have a sub-standard velodrome - than many of the riders from down south were achieving at indoor velodromes.
The velodrome we have there is under-utilised; it is not promoted; people just don’t know about it. It is one sport that perhaps the Minister for Sport and Recreation can have a look at.
I congratulate the organising committee: Ken Aldridge, Phil Davis, John Dermoudy, Paul Herrick, Andrew Koop, Tony Muscat, Paul Pearson and Jack Spears.
They worked very hard. Many positive comments came from all quarters of the cycling community. There were many from Cycling Australia present at these championships. They were very lucky to have the sponsorship of the Aurora Resorts and Hotel Group. They had the backing of the Alice Springs Town Council, Transport and Infrastructure, the Fire and Rescue Services. There was the police help, students from the Alice Springs High School, many businesses and individuals who donated time, money and equipment.
The event was probably one of the best organised I have seen. When you walked into the velodrome and see all the tents around the side for the competitors from interstate; the shadecloth; the timekeepers; everything computerised - it was a great credit to them. One of the little things they did that was different from other places was when the winners on the stand, instead of getting flowers as you’ve seen presented many times, they presented them with a hat. What a sensible and good idea. Cycling Australia said that they would take that on as an innovation and they will probably do that from now on because it is far better to present these guys from interstate – I mean, what are they going to do with a bunch of flowers when they are just visiting Alice Springs? So, it was a very sensible thing.
Alice Springs has a facility there that obviously will attract Australia and worldwide interest. We just need to promote it and work at it more. When we hear all this about participation in sport, perhaps that is a sport that we can encourage more young people to take on.
I also want to speak very briefly about the Alice Springs Netball Association. I am patron of that association. Their season started early this year for some very good reasons. The courts at the Pat Gallagher Netball Centre need resurfacing, and this task needs to be done by August of this year for the simple reason that the Northern Territory Championships will be held in Alice Springs during the Picnic Day long weekend.
This is great news, as the championships have not been held in Alice Springs for over 10 years. But, might I add, we have produced many top line players who have represented the Northern Territory at state level. We have a very enthusiastic regional committee. Everyone is endeavouring to improve this sport. There are lots of players, volunteers and officials, and we have some very good coaches. Might I say Heather Parkinson is the President of the association and Dave Yeman is the Coaching Co-ordinator. He has done tremendous work.
We have some representatives in the Territory team. In the 17 and under we have Lauren Mengel, Katie Pickett, Lisa Braedon, Amy Rodda, and in the 19 and under Sonia Burnnard, Amanda Leane and Kelsey Rodda.
The Alice Springs Association is genuinely excited about hosting the TIO Netball Championships in the southern region, and to this end a dedicated fund raising effort is also happening to make sure that it will be a memorable occasion for everyone who is there. Registration for netball in Alice Springs continues to be one of the highest in the Northern Territory, and it certainly makes netball one of the highest participation team sports in Alice.
Registrations have been maintained at approximately 400 for seniors and 600 for junior players for the last few seasons. So when you are talking about a 1000 people involved in netball, that is a lot of participation.
I am pleased to say the Alice Springs Town Council has agreed to part fund the re-surfacing upgrade through the Sports Development Trust Fund, and this will ensure the courts are in top condition for the championships when they are held in August, but even more importantly, for Masters Games in October. We always have a great range of visitors who come to Alice Springs to participate in netball. It seems to be one of the sports that people play for many, many years.
The Alice Springs Town Council is also considering the upgrade and maintenance of court lighting which will entail some realignment and light globe replacements to bring them up to standard. We really need them for the Masters Games because come October, it is beginning to get hot and most of our games are played later in the evening.
The NT Open Team recently travelled to Adelaide and they were represented by these Alice Springs girls: Rachael Curtin who was the Captain, Tiffany Forbes, Michelle Brereton, Helen Brown, Louise Simonetto, Lorna Walker, Julie Phillips and Heather Parkinson who was the Team Manager.
You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Alice Springs representation in Territory teams is quite substantial. It is a credit - and reflects the fact that they have such a strong competition, nurturing young players from such a very young age right through to the senior level. I want to congratulate all the committee, and all the players, coaches and umpires for their continued commitment to the sport of netball, not just in Alice Springs, but in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday while I was in the Chair, and therefore not in a position to interject, the Minister for Community Development who entered this Chamber and made certain comments about things I had to say in the past. I make no apologies for things I have had to say in the past in this Chamber because it is my job to represent the interests of my electorate.
However, I have noticed that the minister for Community Development seems to be a little bit more than slightly prickly about the issues I have raised, specifically the decision to spend millions upon millions of dollars on sporting facilities and institutions here in Darwin, and in remote communities, has chosen not to support those communities really in terms of their sporting events. However, he claims and insists the whole way through this that it is not his job as a minister to dictate to departments how to deal with issues inside departments on an administrative level.
Well that is interesting because if that is the approach that the minister chooses to take in relation to how departments or ministerial officers operate - and there’s a clear separation between the two - I am curious as to why I have yet to receive a reply to a letter I sent to the minister back on 22 April this year on an issue about which I complained. I pointed out in this letter that he was possibly unaware of what was happening, and I would accept that if he said so.
I was approached by a member of the Central Australian Drag Racing Association to come along to a meeting that association and a couple of other associations were having with the Department of Lands in relation to some prospective land being set aside for a motor sports complex. I know that a representative from CADRA, Mr Alan Stainer, knows about my interest in a motor sports complex because I am well on the record as being a great supporter of a motor sports complex in Alice Springs. Indeed, I have even formed a committee of my own, which is now being run Alan Stainer, called ASMAG which is the Alice Springs Motor Sports Action Group. So I have some credentials in this area.
But Mr Stainer quite properly took time to contact the department and spoke to a member of the public service in that department who said: ‘Oh, hang on, I have to check with the minister’s office as to whether or not I can have an MLA along’. To my dismay, it got back to me that from the minister’s office, Mr Peter Brooke, who was organising the meeting - at an administrative level, mind you - is a ministerial officer based in the Office in Central Australia. So somewhat surprised or taken aback by this approach and this level of interference, I thought: ‘Oh well, I will telephone the Office of Central Australia and see what is happening,’ and in that instance I spoke to Andrea Martin.
I have known Andrea for some time. She is a pleasant enough lady…
Ms Martin: Pleasant enough lady?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. To my surprise, I was told that I was not welcome at such a meeting on the grounds that I was going to make political mileage out of being there and that my presence could serve no useful purpose.
I take no issue with the government and their plans and I intend to make no political mileage whatsoever out of the idea of establishing a motor sports complex in Alice Springs. I hope that there is a drag strip built; I hope that there is a speedway built; I hope that a whole motor sports complex grows out of this process. I have no problem with that. It has been something I have been fighting for with the former government and will continue to do so with the current government for some time, and will continue to do so for some time.
However, as a consequence of this rather surprising level of interference in the administration of the Department of Lands, I decided to say, ‘Wow! That’s quite something.’ So I decided to write to the Minister for Community Development, the Honourable Jack Ah Kit and say, ‘Do you realise that this is happening? Gee whiz, Jack, because if this is something that is of concern to you, this is something that you have got to be aware of’. I would have expected that the minister, after a month, would have replied to my letter and at least told me what he was intending to do about it in relation to that sort of level of ministerial interference inside the public service in Alice Springs.
I have had no reply. I find it surprising that he is being so churlish and so precious about saying: ‘Well, I am not going to get involved in departments at a particular level. It is my job merely to set policy and how they run those departments is entirely up to them’ and then to remain silent on an issue when it has been clearly demonstrated to the minister that such interference is occurring.
I invite the minister to explain to this House and members of the public service as to why he is remaining silent when he has quite deliberately and explicitly stated in the past that he would not tolerate such behaviour. I seek leave to table a copy of the letter for the minister.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope to hear from the minister sometime soon about that letter.
I also rise to comment on the adjournment by the member for Sanderson last night in relation to the handback of land in the Roper area. I was curious to hear during his adjournment comments in relation to the nature of inalienable title and that during the process of negotiation between the land council and the former Northern Territory government there was an offer made to freehold the land in question, and that offer was knocked back, and they insisted on inalienable title and no other form of title.
I am personally a great believer in people having power to make decisions for themselves. I believe that that power should be extended to all adults who own property or live in families or whatever - that is just a general statement of belief - until such time as that adult can be demonstrated to be not capable of making those decisions. It has been, in my experience, made clear to me that traditional people who own land are entirely capable of making decisions for that land for themselves. This is one of the things that frustrates me through this whole process, that when we suggest that inalienable freehold is better than normal freehold or is stronger, what it actually does is remove the ability for people to make decisions for their own land.
In my experience when I have travelled around my electorate and other electorates in the bush and spoken to the traditional people, they seem very, very keen to have the powers to make decisions for their own land. I hope that there is over time a greater relaxation of the frustratingly binding way in which inalienable freehold works. Yes, it is strong title in terms of the fact that it cannot be taken away from the title holders, but it is weak in terms of its ability to provide for the people who own it. How often have we heard comments about these people being asset rich and dirt poor?
I also heard the Minister for Central Australia make several comments today in relation to certain improvements that are happening on Aboriginal land. I am glad to hear that because it is long overdue, but it is a good step in the right direction. I remember the Minister for Central Australia saying: ‘Good things come to those who wait,’ but the waiting game has been very, very long. I continue to urge in this House, and publicly, the land councils and the people who own that land to turn to that land as a source of their own salvation.
I will continue to pursue all of these topics over time in this House. I will continue to champion the rights of people to make their own decisions. Adults are adults and I think that adults should be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, we did hear yesterday in this parliament that the Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development had not read the report into the complaints against Pam Fitton. I urge him to do so because I think it makes pretty good reading for someone who was complicit in commencing this matter and in taking such strong, strident and destructive actions in the early part of it. He should look at where those actions left the people who were the recipients of them because they certainly caused harm.
Tonight in the time I have I hope to read into Hansard some of the observations of the Professional Review Tribunal. I hope that any listeners to it would appreciate just what it is we can do in this House when we stand up and talk about people and then completely wash our hands of the outcome. I start at Clause 11 of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision on Penalty dated 7 May 2002:
- 11. Certain of the observations made by counsel for Ms Fitton during the course of submissions on penalty
are also apposite. Ms Fitton qualified as a nurse in 1971. She has never been the subject of any
complaint or adverse finding prior to this time. It is clear that during her time as Nurse Manager for the
facility, and subsequently as Executive Director, there have been substantial refurbishment, development
and extension activities undertaken. At the commencement of Ms Fitton’s tenure, the facility had
approximately 18 staff. By the time of the hearing, the facility had developed such that it employed 55 full-time
or part-time staff. The special members of the tribunal had the opportunity to visit the facility during the course
of the hearing. Their informal and cursory assessment of the facility was that it was a good quality institution.
Remember, this is Tracy Lodge.
- In addition to that, the tribunal was informed that over many years Ms Fitton had been an active member of
community groups with a focus on aged care.
Dr David Meadows. Dr Meadows has been a visiting medical practitioner of the facility since 1987. From in
or about 1989 he has been the medical practitioner for the vast majority of the residents at the facility, and in
that capacity has visited the facility on a weekly basis. He has also been a member of the Board of Management
for the facility and held the position of Chairman for approximately two years. Dr Meadows was able to confirm
the fact that the difficulties identified by the tribunal in relation to the storage and administration of medication
arose from the underfunding of aged care and the chronic shortage of nursing home beds during the material times.
13. He states that Ms Fitton had the difficult bureaucratic and clinical burdens of attempting to secure further funding
and attending to the implementation of new procedures appropriate to the changing care requirements of the
residents in the facility. He considered that Ms Fitton performed well in that capacity and was competent in the discharge of her duties.
- 14. There is a further matter addressed during the course of submissions which the tribunal considers is appropriately taken into account for the purpose of determining what action should be taken in relation to the findings. The complaints were first made in or about August and September 2000. They were the subject of much publicity in print and electronic media. They were also the subject of attention by politicians in both the Territory and Commonwealth spheres. Certain of those politicians made statements in relation to the circumstances of the complaints under parliamentary privilege.
- 15. Those reports and statements included suggestions that Ms Fitton was under investigation for, variously, abuse and intimidation of residents, fraud on the Commonwealth, misuse of petty cash and maladministration of funds. It appears to the tribunal that the board conducted an extensive investigation into the circumstances of the complaint prior to the formulation of the 13 matters that were subsequently referred to the tribunal. It is of note that none of those matters referred falls within those categories of heinous wrongdoing adverted to in the various reports and statements made in the public domain. It is also of note that the breaches found to be made out by the tribunal are, in the main, technical breaches in relation to the administration and storage of medication and are largely of historical interest only. This is not to diminish the importance of maintaining appropriate standards in the profession, or the importance of those standards of which Ms Fitton was found to be in breach. It is only to say that there is a vast gulf between the conduct reported on the part of Ms Fitton, and what was eventually established as the default of her part after proper inquiry and consideration.
Proper inquiry and consideration.
- 16. It is submitted on behalf of Ms Fitton, and the tribunal accepts, that this sensationalist and inaccurate reporting of
and commentary on the circumstances of the matter have permanently diminished Ms Fitton’s reputation without proper ground. That Ms Fitton’s reputation and character did suffer damage in that fashion is confirmed in
Dr Meadows’ testimonial.
17. It must also be borne in mind that at or about the time these matters were subject to public scrutiny, there was much discussion in the Commonwealth sphere of standards in aged care facilities, together with various allegations of kerosene baths and other maltreatment of residents (which subsequent inquiry in that jurisdiction has found to be
made out). It is no doubt an unfortunate corollary of those circumstances that upon hearing of similar complaints
in the Northern Territory, members of the public assumed that the conduct under investigation here was of a similar nature to the allegations ventilated in the Commonwealth arena. As stated, this was not the case.
- 18. During the time the complaints have remained unresolved, Ms Fitton has collapsed at work and has been unable to discharge the duties of her position since in or about July 2001. She has experienced a significant degree of stress
and suffering; her position at the facility has been made redundant; she has been offered a position at a subordinate level and, not surprisingly, has indicated unwillingness to continue at the facility in that capacity. The process has had a significant and negative impact on both her health and career. The tribunal notes that Ms Fitton has already been the subject of a five-week suspension imposed by the board during the course of its investigations.
I think that is a pretty open and shut case. For a parliamentarian coming in here making allegations, a long time ago, prior to them being adequately investigated and having been adequately investigated, they were found to be untrue - and I go back to my adjournment speech last night where I quoted some of the words from the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development where he said on 24 October 2001, page 276:
- Madam Speaker, to say sorry is difficult. It requires courage, principle, empathy and understanding. We usually
say sorry with the benefit of hindsight. It is not often that we deliberately make mistakes. To know that you have
made a mistake, to admit it to yourself and to others and to offer an apology is the right thing to do. It is the mature
thing to do.
I ask the member, Mr Deputy Speaker, to do that, to do the right and mature thing. I ask him to do it with courage and principle, with empathy and understanding.
This political witch hunt was something I have not seen the like of before and I hope I never will again. For some reason this person was chosen as a target. They were targeted in federal parliament, and they were targeted in this parliament. As I said last night, we politicians can stand up here, we have the capacity to rebut, we can say things in this House, also covered by parliamentary privilege, in our rebuttal. However, we are talking about a nurse running a nursing home. This is a home where frail and aged Territorians live. It is a place where their family have often reluctantly located them to live out their remaining years of their life, and it is a place where they are sometimes distressed by the circumstances of their loved ones living there because they would prefer them to be in the bosom of their family.
The allegations that were made in this parliament cross into that realm. They cross into the realm of injuring the carers, the family, the staff, the good name of this institution, the good name of the people who were working there. I have doorknocked a couple of them, and I can tell you it was a pretty distressing time for them.
We have an historical run here that can be easily analysed. Allegations made, investigation on foot. A bit like the PAC really. Allegations made, investigation on foot. Investigation comes to a conclusion, finds the allegations unproven. I think that if you were a party to ventilating those allegations in this place with the coverage of parliamentary privilege - and I did media as the responsible minister after that and they were pretty significant allegations. The media was in a fair lather about the kerosene bath type allegations occurring here in Darwin. It was a very difficult thing to react to because it had been made on a very authoritative basis and had come from two houses of parliament. I think the action that is available now is available to two members of this House.
In the first place, I believe that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development should apologise. It is not a hard thing to do. It is not hard to say: ‘Look, I was given really good advice. I had documents. I took stat decs’ whatever it was. He was obviously convinced in his own head that the vindictive actions of others were something that he could carry through with goodwill. The down side of that is perhaps he was party to it. I don’t really want to go there. I would like to say that the best spin on it is that he did it ignorantly. That could happen to any of us. Having done it ignorantly, I think he should apologise and he should do so fulsomely to those people that I have mentioned and that particular institution.
The second action open to a member of this House, and I did speak about this last night also, is where the Chief Minister chose to admonish the then opposition spokesman on mining, then Mr Ah Kit, the member for Arnhem, because he said what she construed to be defamatory comments about miners. Miners are like politicians, I suppose, or used car salesman. They are used to getting kicked around a bit, including by politicians. But so incensed was the then Leader of the Opposition that she came to this parliament and withdrew those inaccurate comments. She sacked him, essentially, and redistributed his portfolio responsibilities and she said that the opposition viewed the remarks seriously and they valued our miners.
The Chief Minister is also the Minister for Seniors, and I hope that she values our seniors. I hope that the Chief Minister can convince this member that it is in the best interests of the good name of this parliament and his good name as a politician to make an apology of that type. It is probably not going to cost him a cent. It can come straight from his heart. I don’t think it has to be drafted or anything silly like that. In the interests of some sort of closure and reconciling this matter, I don’t think that it would hurt for him to also make some sort of contact with the people on the board, some of them I would guess would be known to him.
The letters to the editor, I am sure, would carry some names of people who are not known as supporters of the CLP. It would be a fairly easy thing to do some soundings totally divorced from the tribunal or anything else of people who are connected with this fine institution. There are some remediation actions he could take, but the first is to address the tarnished reputation of this good facility, of its former Executive Officer, of the people who are associated with it and those Territorians who call it their home, those senior Territorians who live in this place.
Some of these stories went national, and there were occasions, I’m told, where loved ones from down south rang in a state of panic because these things were carried on the wire. As we know, much, much later, in May of 2002 are proved to be untrue. But that is not very helpful when you’re a long way away and your loved one’s here and there is a contemporary and offensive nature about the complaint.
I did ask the question yesterday, but I have chosen to use this route of speaking twice in adjournment about this because I believe it will be clear to everybody what the circumstances are. I don’t think it is personally up to me to demonstrate the hurt that has been caused and the damage because I think that can be done readily by government. It can be done readily by people with connections with this institution and it can be readily done by people who have some access to knowledge about nursing homes, how they are run and the difficulties of that particular climate.
I prevail on those two ministers to apologise, and I prevail on the Chief Minister to show to Territorians that while this government values miners, it also values seniors and it believes that frail, elderly citizens, sometimes with mental and other ailments, should not be treated in such a cavalier fashion where they are used as pawns in some sort of political game. That would offend most commentators and would offend most of us in the House.
I seek some considered discussion from those opposite so that they can find a way through this and the way through is to do what you have said in parliament: be courageous, be brave, stand up and say sorry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s New South Wales – 21; Queensland - 4.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): 21-4 to New South Wales?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: Go, the good guys!
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to acknowledge in this evening’s adjournment the outstanding achievements of two former students of Parap Primary School. Geraldine Chin and Ingrid Barnesly were students in the special class at Parap Primary School for gifted children from 1985 to 1987. It was a combined class for students selected from Years 4, 5, 6 and 7 and in those years, the teacher was Robyn Cooper and the principal was Wally Mauger.
Geraldine, who is 26, is a member of Darwin’s Chin family of Cavenagh Street. She is the granddaughter of Sue Wah Chin who died two years ago in her 100th year. Geraldine attended Parap Primary from 1985 to 1987. At the ANU’s graduation ceremony in April 2001, Geraldine was conferred with a Bachelor of Laws degree with First Class Honours with a thesis on Commonwealth Constitutional Law and a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Genetics.
Geraldine was awarded the University Medal in Law and she was also awarded the Tillyard Prize, the ANU’s oldest and most prestigious award for a graduating student which is awarded to the student whose personal qualities and contribution to university life are outstanding.
The Australian-American Fullbright Foundation awarded Geraldine a Fullbright Scholarship to commence the Master of Law program at Harvard Law School in August of last year. Harvard University awarded Geraldine a Frank Knox Fellowship which provides full funding for post-graduate study at Harvard and which she can hold in conjunction with her Fullbright scholarship. So a young girl from Parap Primary doing extraordinarily brilliantly both in Australia and overseas.
On 6 December 2001, the Rhodes Scholarship Foundation awarded Ingrid Barnsley, who is 23, an Australian At Large Rhodes Scholarship. Ingrid was a student at Parap Primary from those same years, 1985 to 1987, while her mother, Jenny, was a teacher at the school. After the Barnsley family moved back to Sydney, Ingrid attended Abbottsley School at Baroonga. Ingrid completed an Arts Law degree at the University of New South Wales with Honours in Political Science. Ingrid will take up the Rhodes Scholarship in September 2002 when she will commence a Masters Degree in International Relations at Oxford University.
The achievements of Geraldine and Ingrid highlight how important it is to provide educational opportunities for young Territorians. I congratulate them both, and I am sure this House does, and their families and most importantly Parap Primary School which is still doing an excellent job with our young people.
I had the great pleasure recently of approving a grant of $2000 to support the Australian Navy Cadets with their impending 10 day trek on the Kokoda Trail. The Australian Navy Cadets are a community-based youth training organisation. The Darwin unit, Training Ship Darwin, is situated at HMAS Coonawarra and has been operational for 14 years. The Australian Navy Cadets is an organisation committed to providing youth training for young Australians aged between 12 and 20 years. The aims and objectives of the organisation are to foster leadership, self-reliance, initiative and discipline, character, community spirit and good citizenship in the wider sense, skills useful to the individual and the community in general, knowledge and interest in the defence forces, and knowledge, interest and skills in seamanship, the sea environs and maritime affairs.
When we speak of the Kokoda Trail, we speak of the bravest of the brave. The Kokoda Trail is a place filled with Australian military history and it is important that our youth remember the sacrifices made by the brave men and women who defended our nation. The cadets and staff will depart Darwin in October to walk the 93 km trail, and I certainly want to congratulate Commanding Officer Gillian McKay, the cadets and all the local businesses who support the expedition.
I had the honour this week of welcoming delegates to the Third World Recreational Fishing Conference. Delegates from 17 different nations, other Australian states and a formidable contingent of Territorians are attending the conference. My government acknowledges how important recreational fishing is to the Territory. It enhances our lifestyle, it is great for tourism, and it is the quintessential Territory past-time - as well as watching football on the telly, of course - and playing. My government is very keen to promote and enhance the recreational fishing industry. We want to ensure the pristine conditions we have here are maintained for this generation and for generations to come.
This commitment was demonstrated by our recent closing of the McArthur River to commercial fishing. The McArthur River is the second most popular recreational fishing spot in the Territory after Darwin Harbour and we are proud to have done this for our recreational fishing men and women who add so much to the Territory’s economy. We have committed substantial funds to improving fishing and you will soon see better boat ramps and better security, very importantly, at those boat ramps.
The government is committed to working with indigenous communities and pastoralists to open up new areas to recreational fishing. We are talking to the fishing community on their priorities, and will be working through a process with Aboriginal land councils and pastoralists.
On the night before the conference, I had the great pleasure of hosting a reception on the lawns of Parliament House for conference delegates. The sun was setting on our magnificent harbour and our guests were entertained by the Tiwi Island Dancers and the Galiwinku Dancers. I want to pay tribute to the dancers; they did a great job. The Tiwi dancers were Eucharia, Eleanor, Mabel, Sally and Brenda, and the Galiwinku dancers, Malengim, Mathew, Luke, Ezra and Eugene.
An enormous amount of effort has gone into the organisation of the conference and I thank the Fisheries Division of our Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development as well as the Amateur Fishing Association of the NT, both of whom put enormous effort into organising the conference. AFANT brought the conference to Darwin; a great achievement, I’m sure all honourable members will agree. My government recognises what a great job they do for recreational fishing in the Territory and that’s why we’ve been delighted to increase their annual base funding to $140 000 a year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few comments tonight on the DARE program which, as we know, is currently being reviewed both by the police and by the Education Department. I attended a public meeting held at Darwin High School, probably about six weeks ago, hosted by the police, looking into the issue of the DARE program. I know there have been a number of these meetings held throughout the Northern Territory. What struck me was the level of support for this program coming from the community represented at that meeting.
As honourable members know, the DARE program was instituted and initiated by the CLP government quite a few years ago now in response to concerns about youth and their use of drugs. I gather it commenced at Casuarina Secondary College and developed as a result of the learning that the police had when they went to America and saw a similar program in operation in the United States. This program was brought back to the Northern Territory and slowly grew into the DARE program that we see today. It is a comprehensive program that focusses on having police present in the primary schools, with the key role of delivering drug education to the young students.
The key factors in the DARE program are that it gives a valid reason for the police to be present in a primary school. The police meet the young children in the transition and early grades and they establish what I gather are quite wonderful relationships with the students. Some of the police involved in the DARE program have been with the program for many years and have seen the young students grow up and become young adults with whom they still interact, usually in a positive manner.
When I went to the Darwin High School meeting, I was sitting next to a young fellow from Timor. He told the group during the night that when he came from Timor he was very frightened of the police. He was a high school student here, and when he went to the high school and saw police, he was frightened by and worried about the police. It was through the relationship that that police person in his high school had with the students and with him that he learnt a different way of dealing with police. He learnt to trust them. He took the trouble to come to this meeting to offer his support to the DARE program because of the value that he felt that the program had generally and for him in particular in breaking down the fear and the barriers that he had towards authority when he came here to Australia.
What I learnt at the meeting was how valued the DARE program is. The students go through their life, when the come into perhaps a bit of trouble in their teenage and early adult years, they still have relationships with police who they can go and talk to, and that they may interact with on an official basis. I understand that it is working very well.
One of the problems the program has faced is that it does not have empirical evaluation programs done on it. It’s been a very difficult program to develop some form of evaluation as to how you judge whether or not students who have been exposed to the DARE program are less likely to interact with drugs, for example. That sort of an evaluation tool has not been developed nor implemented. So a quantitative evaluation of the DARE program has been very difficult however the public meetings that have been held in the Northern Territory over the last few months will have demonstrated that in a qualitative way, the evaluation is extremely positive for the retention of the DARE program.
We heard from teachers, students, parents and from those of us who are just community observers, noting the value of the DARE program and concerned that we are going to lose this valuable tool.
My understanding is that at the time of the review, part of the motivation for reviewing the DARE program was that, in the new government’s promises for the election, there has been a promise for increased police presence and numbers and it has been put that by reducing the numbers of police involved in school programs, that will free up police to go on to the streets or into other areas for different work.
Obviously it is difficult to find police numbers at the drop of a hat, however, I would urge the government to think very carefully about the program. When I went to the meeting at Darwin High School, we were asked by the police who were facilitating the meeting to come up with some valid reason, apart from the DARE program, for the presence of police in a primary school. No-one could think of any other reason why you could have police in a primary school for anything other than trouble. What else would they do there? In a high school, they might do something to do with traffic safety and driving, those sorts of programs, perhaps even legal studies, whatever it might be. But in that crucial primary school period, it was very hard - in fact, impossible for our group - to come up with any idea as to why you would have police present and attached to a primary school except for some negative reason such as if someone is sprung with some marijuana in their backpack when they are in Grade 7.
We couldn’t come up with any valid reason to have the police there yet we heard from teachers what an impact it has on the very young children to have a friend in a police uniform.
It has been proposed that the education on drugs would move from the police into the realm of teachers, that it would just become a normal part of the curriculum. To my mind, what that loses is the impact of having someone in a police uniform explaining to young people what some of the implications are from the use of drugs, for example. I understand the DARE program is broader than that, but I’ll just stick to the issue of drugs.
You would dilute the impact of the program if you lost that impact of the police uniform and, I guess, the authority that the position holds. Young children, it is argued, may come from dysfunctional homes, perhaps homes that don’t have a male adult in them, and at a time now when we recognise in our community the unfortunate situation that very few men are being attracted to the education system to become teachers, it is often fairly rare to see a male in a classroom.
One of the other aspects that the DARE program brought was the presence of an authoritative male, in many cases - I know there are females who are DARE police officers and, in fact, the schools in my electorate have a female DARE officer. However, one of the advantages, as I say, has been for many schools is that it puts a male role model in to a classroom in a position of authority. I understand from teachers who have been involved in this that the young children look up to that person with wide eyes and a fascination in the stories that they have to tell them.
This has been a wonderful program here in the Northern Territory, something we can be very proud of. I know that reviews are always useful in any program and need to be conducted, but I certainly urge the minister involved to think very carefully about this, and I would urge him to retain the DARE program as it is.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a couple of schools in my electorate tonight. The recent NT News competition, Win a Croc for a Year, drew national and international press. The winner of the competition was a Year 4 class at Holy Spirit Primary School within my electorate. The NT News competition was held in conjunction with Crocodylus Park and Hibiscus Pet and Aquarium Centre. I thank and congratulate all of those parties for their generosity. This is an excellent initiative and will only be of benefit to the Year 4 class at Holy Spirit School.
Ms Mohr and her Year 4 class had the best prepared and most thorough submission as judged by Dr Adam Britton from Crocodlyus Park. The crocodile has been named Crunch at the school but currently there is a school-wide competition to rename it. Quite honestly, I like the name Crunch. I know my kids have a book about Crunch the crocodile so hopefully it will keep its name.
I assure all animal lovers that this crocodile will have the best attention and Dr Britton from Crocodlyus Park will provide careful supervision to ensure that no crocodiles or children are harmed in the production of this education experience.
I congratulate Ms Mohr and her Year 4 class for winning the competition. It is a unique educational tool for the classroom, even for a Darwin one, and will no doubt stay with the kids for the rest of their lives. It provides a unique learning opportunity and will actively engage the children to learn by interacting with the crocodile rather than just a photo in the book.
Thanks also to Steve Jennings of the Hibiscus Pet and Aquarium Centre for providing the equipment necessary to cater for the needs of the crocodile. I look forward to getting into the classroom and seeing Crunch for myself and catching up with the kids.
Currently at Holy Spirit we have a Japanese intern working with the school for the next two terms. Ms Keiko Yokoi from Nagoya will be a valuable addition in the class rooms. Her presence in class rooms will provide for a valuable cultural exchange with the children.
Whilst learning about our culture from Holy Spirit, students and staff she will also be informing the school about her culture. Ms Yokoi’s internship is the product of an excellent exchange program called Japanese School Teaching Assistants Program which is part of an international program called School Language Assistants Program. It is great to have Holy Spirit participating in innovative programs like this. They ensure that school children have an enriching school life and it further builds on the multicultural aspect of our community.
Wanguri School has continued its participation in Adopt-a-Vet whereby schools ‘adopt’ a World War II veteran. Adopt-a-Vet was an initiative of the Northern Territory Committee of the federal government’s Australia Remembers: 1945-1995 commemorative program to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.
This is an excellent initiative which helps keep alive in our community the spirit of Anzac Day and World War II. It reminds us of the lessons we have learnt from war and allows for valuable interaction between different generations. It is appropriate for a program such as this to be run in Darwin. Darwin obviously as all members of this House would know had a prominent role in Australia’s involvement in the Second World War and the Adopt-a-Vet program works to improve the understanding of Wanguri Primary School students on the importance of the Second World War. Hopefully, they will never forget the participation of Australians within that war, particularly here in Darwin.
Mr Merv Ogram served in Darwin as a Gunner with the 70th Mobile Searchlight Battery. He currently resides in Sydney. That has not prevented him from being involved with Wanguri Primary. Mr Ogram was assigned to Wanguri School during the Australia Remembers year and has continued his involvement with the school at the school’s request. I’m told that other schools in the Territory have also maintained contact with their adopted veterans since 1995.
Mr Ogram has created a hand-crafted Lest we Forget wooden cross which was presented to Wanguri Primary as a gesture from Mr Ogram by military historian Bob Alford on 10 May. I was present for the presentation which was during the school assembly and it was a moving occasion. The interest, respect and admiration that the primary school students held for both of these men was obvious. Mr Ogram is the author of Searchlights, an account of his war years published an NT Australia Remembers publication The Territory at War – memories of the men and women of Australia’s Armed Forces who played a vital role in Australia’s defence during World War II.
Students of Wanguri Primary will correspond over the course of 2002 with Mr Ogram and, hopefully, some will even continue that correspondence past this year.
I have a copy of the first letter sent to Mr Ogram by Master Josh Roach who is 7 years old. It is very touching. I seek leave to incorporate Josh’s letter into the Hansard.
Leave granted.
- Dear Mr Ogram,
My name is Joshua Roach. I’m in 2/3E. I live in Darwin. Darwin is hot. Could you come to Darwin? We learnt lots
of Anzac Day information. Is it very scary at war? Did you cry when your friends died? Do you have lots of Medals?
I hope you have them. Miss K read lots of books. I get scared. I hate war do you hate war? Where did you fight?
You made a book. It’s good. A friend came on Friday. Your friend gave a cross and a picture. My Principal up
graded it. It’s big you look good at assembly. We got told about a book we read a book it’s got photo’s of you. You
are a hero Mr Ogram. You so cool Mr Ogram. You have skin cancer legs and sore and a friend was cleaning his army
tank it blew up on him. Another of your friends found a Joey he nursed it and fought at the territory War. You are the
best person at war. You rock did you have a cannon and ball?
Yours sincerely
Josh Roach
16th May 2002
Mr HENDERSON: I congratulate Wanguri Primary School for participating in this great program. I thank Mr Ogram and Mr Alford for taking the time to help and talk to the children. I also extend a special thanks to Mrs Susan Neil, the teacher from Wanguri Primary School who is organising the program.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016