2004-06-25
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 1 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 23 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act to amend the Magistrates Act to authorise salaries, allowances and other benefits payable to magistrates appointed under section 4(3) of that act to be paid from the public monies of the Territory.
Dr TOYNE: (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 236); and Magistrates Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 237):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to insert a new section in the Remuneration Tribunal Act, and to amend section 6 of the Magistrates Act to provide that the Remuneration Tribunal determines the salary, allowances and other benefits that magistrates are entitled to receive, and that such salary, allowances and other benefits cannot be altered to the magistrate’s detriment during the term of the office of a magistrate.
Currently, magistrates’ remuneration and allowances, and terms and conditions of appointment, are determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 6 of the Magistrates Act, usually on the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal.
The amendments will establish a process whereby the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent body, determines magistrates’ remuneration and allowances. The Remuneration Tribunal determination would then be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and, unless disallowed by the Assembly, would come into operation. This means the Remuneration Tribunal actually determines the remuneration, rather than merely recommending to the Administrator. Removing the Administrator from the process supports the important principle of judicial independence.
There are a couple of reasons why the government has decided to make these amendments. The issue of magistrate’s remuneration has been subject to much legal debate in recent times, arising from the recent Territory case of North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley. In addition, a recent review of the Magistrates Act highlighted concerns for the process for determining magistrates’ remuneration to be consistent with and, if possible, to strengthen the principle of judicial independence.
The High Court in its recent decision of 17 June 2004 in North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley upheld the construction of the current section 6 of the Magistrates Act stating that it: ‘… does not compromise or jeopardise the integrity of the Territory magistracy or the judicial system’. The High Court also found that section 6 defends ‘… the interests of judicial independence and impartiality which inform the legislation’.
Chief Justice Gleeson in Bradley observes that although there are variations between jurisdictions in the mechanism used to determine judicial remuneration, the regular review of judicial remuneration by a Remuneration Tribunal is ‘… a common procedure, consistent with requirements of fairness, transparency and accountability and consistent also with judicial independence’. The Remuneration Tribunal process described by the Chief Justice in Bradley is reflected in submissions received as part of the general review of the Magistrates Act.
The government has decided to strengthen the principle of independence and impartiality for magistrates by adopting a Remuneration Tribunal process and providing for security of remuneration.
The Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill inserts a new section, 9B to provide that the Remuneration Tribunal at least once a year must determine the salary, allowances and other benefits that magistrates are entitled to receive. Such a determination is then tabled in the Legislative Assembly and, unless disapproved by resolution, comes into operation on the date specified in the determination.
The transitional provisions saves existing determinations in force under the Magistrates Act as if they were determinations under the new section 9B of the Remuneration Tribunal Act. The Magistrates Amendment Bill repeals the current section 6 of the Magistrates Act and substitutes a new section to provide that a magistrate is entitled to receive salary, allowances and other benefits as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, which salary, allowances and other benefits must not be altered to a magistrate’s detriment during a term of office and which are paid from public monies.
These amendments are consistent with, and further guarantee, the principle of judicial independence for magistrates.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I table the terms of reference agreed to by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the creation of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
Madam Speaker, members will recall that on 17 June 2004 I gave notice of this motion and seeking the Assembly to authorise the establishment of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference established by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. On 23 May 2003, the Chief Minister publicly announced the government’s recommitment to Northern Territory statehood. On 18 June 2003, the Chief Minister referred the matter to this committee. The reference stipulated with the Northern Territory committee must be involved at all levels in an inclusive, transparent and democratic process to achieve statehood based on the following principles:
the process will be community based, and not imposed on the people; and
a central principal will be respect for, and the proper recognition of, indigenous
people of the Northern Territory.
The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional affairs will facilitate and provide resources for this community-based process. The government has set a five year timetable, including the drafting of a new constitution, its examination by an elected Constitutional Convention, and an eventual vote by all Territorians. However, this timeline will be designed for maximum flexibility to fit in with the community’s wishes.
After considering a number of models, the committee elected to establish an advisory body to advise and assist in this important task, and approved the establishment and terms of reference of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, which are before members today.
The steering committee is to advise and assist the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to identify, develop and implement strategies and programs, and to inform and educate the community about statehood and constitutional development. Membership of the steering committee is to comprise both parliamentary and community representatives, including the Chairman and two members of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Community membership will reflect a broad range of stakeholders and groups, including local government, business and industry, primary industry, unions, education, religious bodies, representatives of indigenous and ethnic Territorians, women, and young and senior Territorians must also be integral to the steering committee, and how it will operate.
The Statehood Steering Committee is to be jointly presided over by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and a community representative as co-chair. Expressions of interest for membership of the Statehood Steering Committee will shortly be invited from the Northern Territory community, and it is envisaged that the first meeting of the steering committee will be held in late August 2004.
The innovate changes that are being put in place by the standing committee in establishing the Statehood Steering Committee is a major step towards involving the community in the process of constitution-making that provides for inconclusiveness and transparency. It is vital that committee participation and commitment plays an important role in the process of change. That is, all Territorians need to engage in a dialogue that will eventually provide for the admission of the Northern Territory to become a state within the Australian federation.
I take this opportunity to thank Mr Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, for his advice and hard work. Equally to Mr Rick Gray, who his put in some long hours in assisting in developing this model, and to Ms Joanne Carbone who also provided very important input into this process.
Members Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that I will not be opposing this motion. The motion brings before the parliament an outline of a set of terms of reference for a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee to pursue what has been a long-held passion of mine and many other members and former members of this House.
I speak as the longest-serving, member on the committee. It has undergone some change over recent times. One of the saddest roles I ever had in my parliamentary history was to participate into an inquiry as to why the last attempt at statehood failed.
Mr Henderson: Well, you stuffed it up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, before members start interjecting left, right and centre, I think it is important to remember …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! Government members, the member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important to remember that the goal of this exercise is statehood for the Northern Territory. As I said at the outset, it is very important for me to achieve statehood, because I live in a country where the democratic principles that drive this country are supposed to be equally shared. But I have been a Territorian my whole life and, as a consequence of that, I have never had equal political status to other Australians. That is the purpose of statehood and that is part of the reason I am pursuing this effort.
The argy-bargy between sides, even the look of argy-bargy between sides, the slagging off in the public arena, is part of the thing that scares people away from signing ‘yes’ to a referendum. That was my experience when I was part of the committee that travelled around the Northern Territory. People often voted no for no other reason than it was a contentious issue in the public arena. I would be very cautious to remind honorable members that there is a risk that this becomes a political issue once again, that it has the potential to derail the process again. If the process is derailed again, then God knows when I will become a full political entity in my own country.
There are some comments I wish to make in relation to the work of this committee’s job. This committee’s job is to do nothing more than, as the member for Barkly, the chairman of the committee, pointed out, to educate and to develop programs as to how to bring this forward. The process of bringing this forward is there to try to keep the statehood process on track through education systems and things like that. This is not inconsistent with the findings of the committee, which looked into why statehood failed the last time round.
It is important to note that this select committee is subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is to say, it cannot make independent decisions of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, other than what the terms of reference allow it to do, and it must be very mindful of the fact that it can be pulled up at any time by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for whatever it does. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee naturally has the ascendancy over the select committee for a very good reason: we are elected by Territorians. Every member in this House has a mandate to be here, whereas members on select committees do not have that mandate, with the exception of those members from both sides of the House who will be sitting, and the Independent, I might add, who have the ability to sit on the select committee and to gauge its progress.
As I said before, this system cannot even appear to carry a taint with it. If it becomes contentious, it will be enough to derail the process. I am aware that the position of the CEO of this particular committee will be an Executive Officer Level 2. Executive Officer Level 2 is merely an administrative rank given under the normal public service rules. However, I do wish to place on the record my concern about the administrative arrangements that surround this particular officer. I would hope that, in the spirit of what we have learned, and in the spirit of what this committee is trying to achieve, that this Executive Officer Level 2 is an officer of the parliament - quite definitely something different to an officer of the government. The reason that I say that is that an officer of the parliament has, and is seen to have, insulation from the influence of government. If the officer is a government appointee, then there may be difficulties in relation to the ability for the ruling government of the day - be it either side of this Chamber - to be able to clearly state that the whole thing is being done at arms length of government.
The process that surrounds the appointment of this officer is not yet clear. I hope that the CEO of parliament, the Clerk, and the CEO of the Chief Minister’s Department get their heads together on this particular issue. I believe the best arrangement would be to make the funds available to the parliament directly, to be administered by the parliament on behalf of parliamentarians, for the appoint of this officer through the parliament, and that government steps back from the appointment of this officer completely - doing nothing more than providing money from government to the parliament to offset the cost of this officer.
Otherwise, I hope the committee understands the spirit of what is attempted to achieve here. I hope that the government also understands that and, on this occasion, that statehood proceeds, and Territorians are asked to look at the processes of statehood so that they can turn with some comfort, knowing that the independence which is being outlined here and attempted to be achieved through the terms of reference will be adhered to. And, as a consequence of that, the process leading up to a constitutional convention will be seen to be - as well as is - a legitimate one, so that there is no major conflict.
I wish to point out how careful we have to be. I point out that the Chair of the committee, in introducing this matter before the House said that the government has set a five-year timetable, including the drafting of a new constitution, its examination by an election constitutional convention, and eventual vote by all Territorians. I accept that the wording is ambiguous, but this is why we have to be so careful. The government’s role, I hope, is not in drafting the constitution. There may be constitutions presented by members of a constitutional convention at that time. However, I am cautious - and please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended – of even those sorts of loose words having the potential to create division.
This committee must understand that it has a noble role attached to itself, but that noble role has to been seen by the public as being untainted in any way, because interference with the process will cause the process some grief. I have already once, to my great disheartenment, seen what happens when the impression is given at least - and that is all that has to be; an impression - that people are unhappy with the process and, as a consequence of that, the whole thing falls over.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this particular motion. I say at the outset that I believe that the member for Barkly, as chairman of the standing committee, and also now proposed to be chairman of the statehood steering committee, comes to this responsibility and this debate with the utmost integrity …
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: I am sure he will do his utmost to meet the challenges that that particular position requires. The reason I am speaking now is that I do believe that he needs every opportunity to meet those challenges. This is not a good way to start. I do not blame the chairman for this; I blame the parliament and, perhaps, the committee as a whole. If you read the motion that is before us today - that the Assembly is to authorise the establishment of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference established by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional matters - that would read to any reasonable person that the standing committee would bring to this parliament a terms of reference to be debated. They are not terms of reference that have already been decided in that committee.
To come in now and expect this parliament to pass those terms of reference with the amount of notice that certainly I have received - I have received some briefings from members of the committee to me that things are moving along - but I have never seen these terms of reference before. I was never, ever under the impression, basically because the Labor government in opposition criticised the CLP for the way they went about the process, and I would have thought, and I had every confidence, in fact, that the process that we would embark on would be something that would carry all the members of the Assembly all of the way, all of the time.
I want to be carried. I do not want to be obstructive. But I ask the chairman perhaps he could, either by decision now or by amendment to this motion, accept that by amendment that these terms of reference will be decided by the parliament at the next sittings of this parliament, so that we can all move forward together with terms of reference that every member of this parliament has considered with debate and discussion, not necessarily in the parliament, on issues that we might have with the terms of reference.
On the face of it, I would have thought that the public at large would have expected a process for the selection of a standing committee to be better than applications as a result of an advertisement in the paper and the decision as to who would be on that committee made by a few members of the select committee. I could be persuaded that this particular method that is laid down in 6(e) of the terms of reference is fine, that I should not be concerned about that; that there are sufficient safeguards to get wide membership of the community on to that steering committee. I could be persuaded of that. I do not wish to be obstructive, but I do say that to put one member of this Assembly in the position now that I am being told that the first step that we embark on in any real sense in engaging and involving the community is something that we have all agreed to, is something that I cannot agree to. I simply have not had the chance or the opportunity to peruse these terms of reference in a suitable amount of time.
I doubt whether there is any other member of this Assembly who has looked at these terms of reference, informed themselves that they are the most appropriate way to go forward, and also be informed enough to talk to their own constituents that this is the best way to go forward.
None of those safeguards or guarantees are there. As I said, it may be that the government decides, because they have the numbers, that they will force this particular terms of reference through today and I cannot prevent that. But I can say, and I can warn, that it is not the way to start the process. It is not the way to embark on this process together.
We know ourselves that if statehood fails again, it falls on all of our heads. You can say fairly or unfairly that it fell on the CLP’s head last time. I disagree. But this time it falls on all of our heads and everyone wants to ensure that the process is bipartisan throughout, it carries everyone together, because we are moving to the same objective. But I cannot agree with these terms of reference. I certainly will not vote to support them and if that upsets members of my wing, I am sorry, too bad. I am one member of the Northern Territory. I have a responsibility to my electorate and I want to ensure that these terms of reference are the most appropriate way for us to move forward with statehood. I want to cooperate in that way. When I vote on these terms of reference, I want to vote with a sense of confidence and satisfaction that I am meeting the best objectives of Territorians.
I ask the chairman if would he accept an amendment to the motion that says, after Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ‘… and that these terms of reference to be decided at the next sittings of this parliament’.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is an amazing turn around at the 11th hour in regards to the genuine bipartisan way that this committee has been working through this issue for some months now. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Barkly, who has approached this very important task as the chair of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, a chair who has been supported by everyone in this parliament. I know from discussions that I have had with him that he has gone to great lengths to ensure bipartisan support for the motion that is before us this evening.
Within the structures of the parliament and our own parliamentary wings, whether it be the opposition wing or the government caucus, we debate these issues through. We come to a consensus agreement on everything that we bring to this parliament. Until this extraordinary turnaround, to my understanding, 15 minutes before the bells were ringing for the commencement of the session this afternoon we had bipartisan support for this motion. The extraordinary thing that has emerged this afternoon is that the Leader of the Opposition is actually on this committee. The Leader of the Opposition has been consulted at great length in a bipartisan way to come to these terms of reference that are here. As of 15 minutes before coming into this Chamber, we had agreement with the opposition, and with the independent member of the committee. At the last minute, we have the member for Brennan trapezing here seeking a last minute amendment.
What that shows on this side of the House is that the member for Brennan is outside of the circle. He is dissenting from the position of the Leader of the Opposition who has signed up to these terms of reference in a bipartisan way and is now, at the last minute, seeking to exert his authority back on the leadership of the parliamentary wing. It is absolutely outrageous.
We had every intention of moving this Statehood Standing Committee out into the public arena to engender genuine bipartisan support.
After the failure of the last statehood referendum, a committee of this House conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the reasons for that failure. It was an exhaustive inquiry that travelled across the Northern Territory, spoke to many hundreds of Territorians and reported to this parliament. The report to parliament was a bipartisan report. There were many recommendations in that report as to how get the statehood train back on track again, what needed to be accommodated by way of community engagement, community involvement, and all of those issues were taken into account by the committee.
We have here tonight what was, five or 10 minutes prior to coming into this House, a position from the committee that was a united position to accept these terms of reference. It is quite extraordinary that the member for Brennan seeks to amend his own leader’s position on this, an extraordinary development. It is not the way that this committee or parliament should be progressing on this issue and the government will not be accepting an 11th hour amendment on a position that had been previously agreed with the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is very important that we understand exactly what is going on with this issue. We are talking about statehood and advancing the issue of statehood in the Northern Territory and it is beholden upon members in this Chamber to ensure that we have a completely bipartisan approach.
For the member opposite to assert that there was an agreed position within the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is overstating the fact. The issue here that was established was that these terms of reference would be presented to this Chamber today and would not be put on the paper and then removed from the paper. They need to be established and laid on the table for this parliament to consider. It was not my view that this issue would be put on the paper and removed from the paper in one fell swoop. Therefore, I support the amendment that has been proposed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I point out to members that the notice of motion was that the Assembly would authorise the establishment of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference.
May I just allay some of the fears of the member for Macdonnell, that the Legal and Constitutional Committee will appoint the executive officer, and all the way through the terms of reference it says very strongly that it is the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that this particular committee will report back to them. I just want to allay your fears, because I think that it is really very important that we get this going. We have dilly dallied for a long time, and I just believe - I know you do not like me talking from the Chair - but I think it is important that we do get this in motion. And, if anyone wishes to approach the committee, any parliamentary member can approach the committee if they wish to at any time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that it is important we get this going. It is important we get this going properly, and for the Leader of Government Business to stand up and talk about this being the 11th hour, this is our one, this is the start. This committee has been going since 1985, so it has been going for a long time, and it has been discussing these issues for a long time. This is not the penultimate hour, and if you are trying to tell us that this terms of reference has us within an hour of midnight, which is the act of achieving statehood, I would tell you that we have some problems out there.
There are a couple of things that came through loud and clear. One is that many people in the community were disconcerted about the fact that politicians seem to have such an important role in it. There was a feeling that a unanimous decision of this parliament was a problem. They believed that there should have been people saying that there were good things and bad things about statehood, and we unanimously endorsed it. We also said there should be an educative program.
Now, apart from the Territorians for Statehood, there has been very little come out. So, what we have here is the Chief Minister saying, well I am going to send it to a committee, that committee will accept these terms of reference, they will pass in this session. And we have words from the Leader of Government Business like ‘the government won’t accept it’. Do you not understand that this is entirely the problem that the people out there have? That, ‘You will do it this way. We will not brook any dissent. Everybody has to agree with this. The Labor Party agree with all this in its entirety’. That is nonsense. We have to have a debate where there is a plurality of opinion. You should not be pointing fingers and saying, people who disagree with certain elements have an element of treachery about them.
I am speaking not because I am against statehood. I am passionately for statehood. I printed material at the last election for the yes vote. I am pleased to say that every booth in my electorate voted for statehood. I am disappointed to say that I went to mobile polling booths on the Tiwi Islands and people voted against statehood. I know some of the reasons for that.
I would implore the government to do this properly. I would implore them to get away from the rhetoric saying, ‘You mucked it up’, from the Leader of Government Business, reinforced later by the member for Arnhem, saying, ‘It is because you mucked it up’. That sort of finger pointing, the sort of notion that we all have to have an unanimity of view, that we have to rush this thing through now because it is at the 11th hour, ie, it has to be done within the next hour, they are all precursors to a failure. It would disappoint me to the extreme if we did this again and mucked it up.
I implore the government to look at this process in the best interests of Territorians, not, ‘Let us see if we can get our mates on the committee, let us shape this to make sure that it says unionists have to be on there and they have to be represented, because our constituency out there will be saying, gee we need trade unions on there’. Let us get away from the background noise and focus on the glittering prize, which is statehood. Let us make the assumption that every one of us in this House wants statehood. The issue then, is how you progress. I have to tell you: this is not a good start. The interjections from the other side of finger pointing about what happened how ‘you’ – that is, the now opposition - mucked it up, is not a good way to start this debate.
It needs some level heads. I do not believe that there has been adequate time for the parliament to digest this. I do not know how long it has been before the committee. However, if the committee had this for a long amount of time …
Mr Henderson: Don’t you meet as a parliamentary wing?
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon?
Mr Henderson: Don’t you meet as a parliamentary wing and discuss these issues?
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Don’t we meet as a parliamentary wing and discuss these issues?’ That is the sort of thing I am talking about. Because I could have a rejoinder like: ‘We know that you mob have different opinions on this’, ‘Where is the Chief Minister today on this important thing?’ ...
Mr Henderson: She is down at COAG.
Mr DUNHAM: We could run all those issues too. However, it is not helpful. It is not helpful. That is the point. Let us get to a position where we all sit around this room nodding, instead of those trite interjections that come about various political quantums that are represented in this debate. That is not how you progress it! It is a very foolish and stupid thing you are doing!
I believe we can agree that we want to progress to statehood. We can agree that there should be people from the community that are involved. We could probably agree that there should be a structure around how they discussed this, and that could be called for instance, terms of reference.
Let us not make the assumption that somebody has written this just before we walked into this parliament and dropped on the desk, we all sign off on it, and it becomes not so much a discussion paper, but a blueprint. That is what worries me! Because I believe discussion papers are put on the desk - to what? - to discuss! It is my opinion that we should be moving slowly with this and moving at the same pace as the community around us. If the community gets the idea that we have sprinted off in front and we are saying: ‘Catch up! Because we are running statehood and you people back there have to catch up - and don’t you have meetings, and don’t get organised’. Sometimes, there are groups out there that do not get organised, but all of them have a passion for this thing. It is presumptuous in the extreme for the government to come in here and make an assumption that, because they are fully familiar with these terms of reference - which they may well be - and I am not, that somehow this is some indicator of my passion for statehood - because it is not.
I would ask, therefore, that the Assembly consider the motion of my colleague, the member for Brennan, and I will now put it formally, Madam Speaker: that the paper that has been put before us be laid on the Table for consideration of its contents at the next sitting of the Assembly – the terms of reference and various other matters.
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving an amendment, are you?
Mr DUNHAM: I am moving an amendment to the motion, and the amendment is to delete all words after ...
Mr Burke: No. All after add.
Mr DUNHAM: I move that we add the words ‘after the Assembly’ …
Mr Bonson: Are you going to get the 10 votes?
Mr DUNHAM: Ten votes? Mate, you have to get 50% plus one. Do you understand it is not 10 votes? There are 200 000 people out there! Do not make assumptions …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: … that the 25 of us can sit in here and say: ‘Righto, we want statehood’, and it automatically happens. There are 200 000 people out there - less and less, it turns out, because of this government, but that is getting into the …
Mr Bonson: You are supporting your leader?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Millner! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I am buggered if I can read this writing. I move that:
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any speakers on that amendment?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I must admit I came into the House thinking that this was an agreed position between both sides. However, that may not have been the case, of course. The one thing I would be very disappointed in, is if this new attempt at starting off the statehood debate, started off with a non-bipartisan position by this House. That would send the wrong message out to the community.
It seems, of course, that if I was to vote on the original motion and this side was to vote against it, you still would not have a bipartisan position. Statehood is such an important matter for this House and for the Territory that I would support this amendment simply as a way of trying to make sure that this House agrees, together as a group, to go forward with the statehood proposals.
I have great admiration for the member for Barkly. I think he would take this whole motion forward in a very balanced way. I have a lot of faith in the member for Barkly. But I do believe that if we as a group send out a message to the community that we are fighting over how this whole thing should start, that will reverberate continually through this whole process and will make it very difficult for us to achieve statehood. If we do not go ahead united in this process, we are dooming ourselves either to failure or a very messy process.
I ask the government to support the amendment based on that argument; that it would be far better for us to delay this debate and achieve a result of bipartisanship which in the end would mean a result that was better for the Territory. And should we not be making decisions here that are good for the Territory, not good for what one party believes as against another party? I fully understand the member for Barkly’s support for the terms of reference he has put here and there are many good things in there. I must admit I have not had a chance to really look at that.
We have had the Estimates Committee and it has been a fairly difficult time to get through much of the work that we have had to get through. But, Madam Speaker, I just say that I think it is a fair and reasonable amendment. We may dig our heels in on party lines and say, ‘We simply cannot agree because the opposition has brought forward this amendment’. I would ask the government to consider the welfare of the Territory. I would ask them to consider that it would be far better this statehood process went through where we all agreed on the process by which it was going to happen and if that meant that we only have to wait until the next sittings to get that bipartisanship, then I would support this amendment.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am in agreement with the member for Nelson. We should look for bipartisan support all the way through on this process. It is important to Territorians that we get it right and we get it right this time round. There will not be too many bites of the cherry left after this. I also agree with the member for Nelson when he said it is a shame to see politics enter. But when did the politics enter? When did this thing get politicised, when did it move from bipartisan? It moved just a moment ago. It is the politics of spoiling. Because the previous government, which is now in opposition, and this is one of the factors over there, this is why they lost their leader who politicised the process, and this is why they have another leader, this is why and it carries on through this whole debate.
I have been on the statehood committee for three years now under the chairmanship of the member for Arafura, and now under the chairmanship of the member for Barkly; both good chairs. I refute the comment and the observation made by the member for Drysdale, who has done nothing to help this process over the years, that that committee has not been doing anything. This body of work here has been arrived at from three years of hard work and of looking for a way to get it progressed.
Statehood is on the agenda of this government; it is on the agenda of Territorians; it is on the agenda of the Chief Minister to try to drive it ahead …
Mr Dunham: Drive it.
Mr KIELY: ... to get consensus throughout the community.
Mr Dunham: Ah, the Chief Minister is going to drive it is she?
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: That’s right, because statehood does need leadership and it needs to bring people along with us.
Madam Speaker, there was this assertion from the member for Drysdale that the Chief Minister said ‘Do this and do this’. Let me say, that the statehood committee is made up of the member for Barkly, I as the member for Sanderson, the member for Millner, the member for Macdonnell and the member for Blain. The Leader of the Opposition is on that committee.
This committee is one that always works on getting a bipartisan approach to whatever they come up with. As a matter of fact, it is one of the best working and most amicable committees in this House. This is how these terms of reference were arrived at through sitting down and talking through the issues. I recall going down to Alice Springs and meeting and talking about these terms of reference and working it through. These terms of reference, unlike the assertion that the member for Drysdale would make they have just dropped out of the sky, have been worked on for many months and have been the subject of much deliberation by both sides of the House and by all committee members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition who, when he became Leader of the Opposition, wanted to stay on this committee.
The member for Drysdale is saying the Chief Minister this and Chief Minister that. They have their own leader sitting on the committee. We do not have the Chief Minister sitting there. There would have been an expectation that these terms of reference would have been discussed in the party room: this is the position we are looking at and let us bring it together and this is how we want it to go forward. That is my expectation. There was never any thought that the members of the opposition were not representing their party room. There was never any thought that this was the case.
I am a bit amazed to come in here today after we had agreed terms of reference from the committee, not from government, on how to progress statehood. They are good terms of reference and will take the ambition of making us a state ahead. They will lead the realisation of that. I am amazed that I come in here today and see a back flip from the Leader of the Opposition saying he supports the amendment that the member for Brennan unilaterally decided that he going to move without discussing - he said: ‘I don’t care how any of my parliamentary wing colleagues vote; I am voting this way’. You can take your bat and ball and you can go home, member for Brennan. You lost it once; we do not need you. We do not need you in this debate, spoiling tactics ably assisted by the member for Drysdale.
I do not know what their full agenda is here, but it is not one of progressing the statehood notion forward. I do not support the amendment. I would not expect that the people who support their leader over there - what you have is a leadership challenge on your hands right now. You have him going against it. You have a choice over there. You either get behind and support your leader, or you get behind and you support someone who was your leader and whom you ruled out. That is what you have, a leadership challenge, nothing more. It is wrecking the whole idea of getting a bipartisan approach to statehood. You have your spats, you have your party room fights. Do it behind that door, do not drag them on to the floor of parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: For the information of people in the gallery, we are now going to the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill and I will leave the Chair so that the member for Nelson can take the committee Chair.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I call on the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the committee.
Mr KIELY (by leave): Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, together with questions on notice and additional information provided to the committee today.
I also advise honourable members that further additional information and answers to outstanding questions taken on notice will be tabled on 17 August 2004.
This has been the third public hearing conducted by the Estimates Committee, and the overall process appears now to be bedded down. There are still members who raise the issue of allocation of time when individual ministers appear for questioning. There was a situation where an agency was not provided with the opportunity to be questioned as the total span of time allocated for that particular day had expired. As Chairman of the committee, I can vividly recollect constantly reminding all members of their responsibility to fully utilise the time available to ensure all portfolios received some form of scrutiny. I also specifically reminded members of the scheduled finishing time for that evening.
There could be an argument that there should be a process in place where the most economic use of time available is paramount, but despite this issue of a time concern, the fixed schedule of appearance paves the way for an orderly scrutiny of the budgetary matters with each portfolio. This set timing approach has seen a marked improvement and the orderly appearance of the mass of public servants who provide the very necessary behind the scenes briefings to support their ministers during questioning by the Estimates Committee.
The substitution of members of the committee has been clearly set out in the terms of reference for the three committees to date, but this year the committee took the decision to apply the letter of the law to those sections which require prior notice to Madam Speaker before any member of the committee could be substituted. This in itself imposed a further level of management within the whole process by the committee.
There were a minor number of occasions where emotions ran high but, in my opinion, there was once again a marked improvement in the level of professionalism adopted by both sides throughout the process over the last three and a half days, which resulted in a rigorous scrutiny of the budget.
Public servants who have been a part of the three estimates processes to date are now a great deal more comfortable with their role in actively delivering oral answers to questions referred to them by their minister while appearing as a witness in the proceedings.
I place on the record the appreciation of the committee to the parliamentary staff who maintain behind the scenes support in these processes, in particular, the committee secretariat staff, the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the daily Hansard rushes during the day.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY: Last year, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee provided this Assembly with statistical information flowing from the public hearings, and I intend to follow in the same tradition. During the 42 hours of debate, there were 39 questions taken on notice. This is well down on the 74 questions taken last year. When the public hearings were halted, 22 answers had been received, and with the limitation of time to take questions on notice and to receive replies late on Thursday evening, the last day of the public hearings, the outstanding number of 17 is well within reason. In addition to this, there were four questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this morning, and because of the relatively short time frame, these are still outstanding.
All outstanding answers must be included with the paper to be tabled on 17 August 2004. I would like to acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which sat for the second time. PowerWater corporation officials provided the members with clear, concise and accurate replies to questions which assisted the scrutiny process with this type of organisation. Finally, I thank all members who participated in the Estimates Committee process.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 18 May 2004, the committee has before it the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which shall be considered in the following manner: the question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, all the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, with reference to the Statement of Corporate Intent for 2004-05, be noted.
I remind honourable members that the speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition, and shadow ministers, 20 minutes; any other member 10 minutes. Further, the resolution provides for a maximum period of five hours for the conduct of the debate. Accordingly, as the time is now 2.05 pm, if the debate is not concluded before 7.05 pm, I will then put to question. When the consideration of the bill and the report have been concluded, and the question put, the following question will be put forthwith, without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, firstly, I place the congratulations and sincere appreciation of the opposition to the Hansard staff, who have worked remarkably efficiently to be able to produce the words into a format that we could digest very quickly. They have done a remarkable job.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: Also, to the support staff who worked behind the scenes and constantly supported the activities of the estimates process. From opposition, we sincerely thank you. Also, to the public servants within Northern Territory for the support that they gave to this process. Sometimes, they were utilised far more excessively than others due to the minister, generally, being unable to address complex issues. We have demonstrated the quality that we have within our public service, and your activities were sincerely appreciated.
Of course, you would expect from opposition that we would narrow our focus down to quibble over issues of process, and argue about the lack of time. However, that will not be the place at which my comments will dwell. I understand the estimates process to be a process that provides the opportunity for opposition - in fact, the community - to access the workings of government. I see it as a similar process and, bearing in mind that many people in our community hear the word ‘estimates’ and know that something is going on and that it is important, but they often do not really know what it is about. In simple terms it is this: if you run a business, it is the audit, the opportunity to scrutinise aspects of the running of that business. There is no business in this town that has an audit conducted within parameters that restrict the capacity of the audit to be conducted completely. No business can operate efficiently, effectively or, in fact, legally if there are restrictions upon the access of the audit in terms of, ‘I need to be audited; I will give you four hours’. That would not be a qualified nor legal audit.
In this event, we had the biggest business in town with a restriction and a limitation on the capacity to audit - as simple as that. Nonetheless, in the opportunity that we have provided to us by those who are being scrutinised and audited, they established the parameters. They established the restrictions, and narrowed down the windows of opportunity as far as reasonably possible. They tell the community on one hand: ‘We are open and fully accountable’. Many will believe it, because it is asserted so genuinely. It is a bit like asserting that breakfast cereal is really very good for you - Froot Loops and others are presented as being highly tasty, but they are actually low on nutritional value. You may assert to the public that this is a wonderful program, and it provides us with full exposure to the scrutiny of the community through the opposition. It is not true. Nonetheless, the wider community has been alarmed at the limited opportunity which has been revealed through this audit opportunity forwarded to the opposition through the estimates process, and to the Independent.
What was uncovered? What do Territorians now know? What they now know is that there are more taxes flowing to the Treasury coffers than ever before in the history of the Northern Territory. That this government has at its resource, at its call, huge amounts of taxation revenue at a quantum way in excess of any government in the Territory’s history, ever, evidenced by what was uncovered and inadequately addressed of having an account there, a Central Holding Authority, that earns $30m interest.
Any householder out there who has an investment, or cash in the bank, looks occasionally to see how much interest is being generated. You only have to think again, if you are going to earn $30m interest, how much do you actually have in the bank? Okay, that can be argued and we can be blinded by science. But let’s jump back to the previous year and we find that the amount of interest generated by the Central Holding Authority was half that. We go back to the year before that and we find that the interest generated by the Central Holding Authority was less again. So it is going up and up until this point we have clearly presented to the Northern Territory $30m interest from about $9m or thereabout three years ago. How could that be? It is because of the excessive - I should not say excessive – it is due to the amount of cash that is being held in the Labor government’s war chest to be deployed at a time of their strategic choosing.
It seems to coincide with when the planets align around election time and out it will flow. It is clearly evident you have an amassed a war chest and Territorians now know that. They know that the revenue that is flowing from the GST into Treasury coffers is to be employed to build the economy. Now Territorians have verified with some certainty that that is being held in reserve not for their benefit but for the political benefit of those who have the responsibility of Treasury at this point.
Secondly, more jobs: we established that there is now an increased tax take. Now we have the next revelation through this limited audit. We now have revealed that there are in fact fewer jobs. We have it verified that 1400 jobs have gone, disappeared from the Northern Territory economy. Before members charge me with talking the economy down, that is a fact that is evident not by me asserting it and therefore talking the economy down, that is a symptom. If a doctor assesses a patient who is ailing and says, ‘This is the symptom’, do you criticise the doctor for identifying the symptom? The symptom is evidence of a disease that needs to be addressed and the disease is the management that has been conducted by those who have responsibility for the running of the economy in the Northern Territory. A symptom, 1400 jobs missing.
That is concerning in its own right but it is worse, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because each one of these statistics represents people. Territorians with dreams; with hope for the future who have left the labour force, and many of them have left the Northern Territory. They have chosen to leave. Why would that be? Because we have had two years of zero growth. That has been revealed quite clearly. In the face and offensive to the average Territorian when now they know there are large reserves of cash that are not being employed in ways that make a difference to them and their future and provision of a real job.
Further development of the jobs question, which was raised in banners right across everything that resulted from the release of the Treasurer’s budget, was that we had an enlargement in the public sector of over 2000 jobs. You only have to think about that for a moment. The evidence of a healthy economy is jobs, and the assertion of this government is jobs, jobs, jobs. What we have is jobs, jobs, jobs gone. That is evidence of an economy that is not producing required outcomes. Fourteen hundred jobs missing; one page of the Treasurer’s own budget paper. Look further on and we find that the public sector has enlarged by over 2000. Stop and think about it. If the public sector has enlarged by over 2000 and we have lost in total 1400 jobs, it would not be going too far to say that it is the private sector that has suffered way more than 1400, and our limited opportunities to audit have revealed that symptom of an economy improperly and inefficiently managed by this Labor government.
We have the issue of the payroll tax increase clearly presented. In the face of zero growth from period to period, we have the assertion that there will be increased economic activity. I would like to believe that be the case, but every indicator, as revealed through the process of estimates, does not throw up sufficient reason for that hope, particularly when we have an economy that has, from period to period, not performed to the expectations of those opposite, of those who had their opportunity to manage this budge.
In light of that, we had a fiscal strategy that was heading in one direction and now we have panic and a change of direction, a change of fiscal strategy, a significant departure from the direction that this government was headed. We only have to go back and acknowledge the GST revenue that has flowed in, the $36m I should not mention that the Treasurer acknowledged during Estimates does exist ‘… and is sitting over here. Unfortunately, it did not come in at the right time and we could not put it in the budget papers. We are not sure what we are doing with it at the moment, but it is in the bank’. We have plenty of ideas about what could happen with that $36m additional. You could relieve the pressure on Territory families with regard to the MVR increase, the cost of registering a vehicle in the Northern Territory. You could use it for that purpose. It has been done before and it could be done in this instance, rather than holding it in an account which earns a huge quantum of interest. It is being held in reserve, it is being inappropriately applied. We must build the economy.
Other interesting things came to light throughout this audit such as the wharf precinct. Territorians are beginning to look with some interest at what is actually going to happen down there. They think that something might eventually result after the time that this government has had to do something. They know that they have been in their back yards and interfered with their lifestyle through swimming pool fencing; they know that that has come at a bill of $8m additional dollars – ‘Thank you very much Territorians, we must apologise but we have to back flip out of this one. Sorry about getting in your back yards for the last couple of years. Anyway, we have to turn your attention so we are going to talk about the wharf precinct and we are going to build you something really flash down at your waterfront. We are going to build you something. No, I am going to build myself something so it looks like we can build a project that shows that we can build projects and we will do it as quickly as we can and it is a $100m’. Where is the $100m in the budget? Is it on this page? Is it on that page? Did you say $100m, Chief Minister? Yes, I did. Is it on this page, or is it on that page? No, it is not on any page! There is no allocation of $100m to get this project going. It is not there.
Territorians believe that they have contributed $100m to this project, they have been told that, but it is not there, it has not been allocated, which is the beginning of a story I believe which is to unfold – this wharf project, the development of our waterfront. There have been more questions than answers raised through our limited opportunity to investigate that matter.
About the decision that this government, the brave and courageous decision that they have taken to deal with our parks estate. Their management regime was held open to scrutiny, and it raised many more questions than answers. These questions must be pursued, because we are dealing with our future, the implications, and the ramifications of the path that this government has committed itself to, has profound consequences, which were touched on through the estimates process and will be further elaborated on by my colleagues.
We have dispelled the myth, the lie, in fact, that was told to Territorians: ‘There will be no more expensive interstate consultancies under my government if ever I were given the opportunity’, by the Chief Minister, smiling face, signing it in the face of the Northern Territory community. Now we have a mountain of expensive interstate consultancies. And we have the assurance, the honest, genuine, breakfast cereal-type nice commitment to Territorians: ‘That will simply not be the case under my government’. It has been demonstrated it is the case, in bucket loads.
We also have the revelation that the expenses on the 5th floor; Territorians were told: ‘They will be reduced. We will run a small, lean machine. It is you we are interested in’. Now we have the revelation that it is enlarged. It costs more to run the 5th floor than it ever has, ever. It is plain, there to see through the estimates process that, once upon a time, in 2001, the expenditure to run the 5th floor was $9.9m. It has enlarged by well over $3m. And they have reduced by one minister. What is going on up there? We found that there have been promotion units, glossies pouring out of the 5th floor, and we have been able to verify and demonstrate that to Territorians. ‘These are Territorians. I am thinking of you at this moment. You had a belief. You had an expectation. You thought this was going to be the case. You thought it would be a new and golden age’.
Well, we have been able to expose that hypocrisy through the limited opportunity provided in the estimates process. Your fuel prices are up. You have someone there who is so tied to this issue of fuel prices that, given the opportunity, would come and conduct an independent inquiry and deal with that issue once and for all. Fuel prices are now higher than they ever have been, and the one who asserted that once upon a time in the face of the Northern Territory community, now has the authority and the power to do that – and is mute.
Territorians, with the limited opportunities that we have to investigate completely, to do a thorough audit on your behalf, we have uncovered much to concern you. Territorians, nonetheless, the future is before you. Things can change. There is hope for the future. The Territory is a fine place, and we will, despite that which has been uncovered through this estimates process, we will, in the long term, go from strength to strength. I report to you that that which has been uncovered during this brief period is cause for concern, and I admit that. It is our responsibility in opposition and, indeed, members opposite, to take heed of that which has been uncovered through this process and ensure that we will respond in a way that is mindful of the future of Northern Territory families.
Territory families now know that there are no fewer taxes. They now know there are no new jobs, or more jobs – there are, in fact, fewer. For every young family with kids in high school, or kids who have gone to seek apprenticeships or a range of opportunities, they have been restricted under two years of zero growth. These are hard times for Territorians. Government, you have a responsibility – indeed, a duty - to bear clearly in mind the suffering of small business. The payroll tax changes are, in fact, minimal. You may rail against that, but Territorians know full well that you had the opportunity to change that comprehensively, as the opposition has committed to do, because you now have GST revenue to give you the capacity to provide real benefits to those in our community who can create the wealth. Small business operators needed to be given the real relief, so that they can stimulate the economy …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I congratulate the hard-working staff of the Assembly on the significant efforts they went to, to ensure that, as members of parliaments, we were able to debate and investigate the budget, with very a professional level of support.
As a member of the Estimates Committee, I have been intrinsically involved in the process from the outset. Certainly, I am not a member of the Standing Orders Committee, so was not privy to the discussions that went on within that committee about what the terms of reference would be. However, speaking from the terms of reference in regards to the process, it was a highly thought-out and prosecuted process of scrutiny. I participated in the majority of the estimates hearings, and had the opportunity to chair a couple. On the whole, there was significant scrutiny of each portfolio area. Following the output-by-output group process is a useful way of approaching it. Members had the opportunity of following where they were, and it made it easier for most people, I believe, to follow the process. We did have one agreement to go outside of that output-by-output area process that led to some significant arguments, at some stage, of where we were in that scrutiny. I guess a salient lesson was learnt there: if we identify a process that really does work, stick to that process. Certainly, in all the other hearings that were conducted where we followed the output group process, we were able to move through very clearly and scrutinise the budget.
The shadow ministers had very well-prepared approaches on this scrutiny. I know there were some instances where time did run out, and I am sure members of the opposition will talk at great length about that. I notice there was some time-wasting as well. Certainly, as chair, I felt that there were unnecessary arguments about various matters that certainly chewed into the clock. People can go into a process with a view to getting through the questions. I make note that the shadow minister for Community Services in the session we had last night, went in there with prepared questions and moved through a process in a way that was not about political point scoring – it really was scrutinising the portfolio and the budget. We finished very well on the clock on that.
I note other shadow ministers went in with an attitude that they did not like the process, they did not think the process would work, and they went out of their way in some situations to make sure that the process and the clock worked against full scrutiny. That is politics. Many people will choose to play politics ahead of thorough scrutiny. However, it is a maturing process, and members in this Chamber need to say: ‘We have a Estimate Committee process. It is a process that each of us has signed up to, and can we, in fact, make it work for the benefit of all Territorians, where people have an opportunity to feel satisfied that thorough scrutiny has occurred’.
As a member of the committee, I have noted that while we are still grappling with just how many questions other members of the committee can get to ask, certainly deference quite properly and appropriately is given to the shadow ministers. They get to ask questions first and it is not until they have exhausted their questions that other members get to ask questions. At times, I felt that there was an indulgence in the number of questions and the repetitive nature of questions asked by the Independent. I noted that as a member of the committee, and I raised points of order to that. I really feel that where we have one of 25 members taking significant chunks of scrutiny time on repetitive and argumentative and going old ground issues, really I urge that member to consider their role and the need to understand that you are not always going to get the answer you are seeking and asking the question again and again in a variety of ways, and I saw shadow ministers do this as well, came up with the same answer. And there was a lot of time wasting by members in going over old ground.
Dr Lim: You don’t understand the process do you?
Ms LAWRIE: No, do not put the Chair in a position where you know the clock is being talked down, basically, and you would like to see it moved ahead and you weigh up the balance of ensuring everyone is getting a fair crack at it. Certainly, I know that the member for Greatorex was interjecting then at me about the process of time wasting, but he has to have a good hard look at his performance in the Estimates Committee. I sought withdrawal of some derogatory comments he made. It is demeaning for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get down to that level of gutter politics and attacking the person. I am sure that in the cold hard light of day he might actually mature into his position, but I am still waiting for that to happen.
As a member of the committee, I know that we go in to deliberative session after each section of the estimates hearing and we identify core points that came out of that process which the Chair of the committee has tabled here in parliament today. We will continue as a committee to discuss various aspects of points that came out of the process. It is not a debate that finishes at the tick of the clock this morning in terms of Power and Water scrutiny. It is a debate that goes on both inside and outside this Chamber.
The budget is a significant piece of legislation that goes through this House. It obviously identifies where government will spend and what priorities there are and by nature of that there will be debate and argument and variances of difference positions about it. I have to say that looking at the debates this year compared to the debates last year, there really was not debate based on the merit of what was in the budget. I did not hear anyone saying: ‘Oh well, I disagree with this particular aspect of the budget or that particular aspect’. It came down to what I felt was significantly political debates rather than merit debates. I see that as actually a strong tick for the Treasurer and the budget that he has delivered. Last year, I remember, we had hours of debate in here about mining royalties and to me that is a merit argument - does it merit changing the mining royalties? - and certainly we argued that the money we put in to the mining sector in other forms was more beneficial to the sector.
This year the debates were far more based on the politics of a budget rather than whether or not it is a sound budget. No one was able to prosecute a point that it was not a sound budget. No one was able to prosecute the point that we are getting debt spiralling out of control. No one was able to prosecute the point that the economy is going backwards. Certainly, all the statistics and arguments and figures that were laid through the estimates process shows there is a healthy growth in public service. I say healthy, it is not a spiralling out of control growth; it is a growth that has been identified in significant areas such as health, education, and law and order.
It was a very interesting process, as a member of the Estimates Committee, to sit through. We hear members of the opposition complain about 4 hours being too short. I found that 4 hours was actually a fair amount of time when people went into the process wanting to move through succinctly and reasonably both the asking of questions and the answering of questions. It became bogged down and time ran short when people really just wanted to go around in circles and rerun the same argument of the question before and maybe change one or two words of that question, but really they are repeating the question. They are asking the same question. I think it is the repetitive nature of some of the arguments that cause the timing issues that your saw.
I have to say it was not the majority of the estimates hearings. Where there was a willingness from the shadow to move through it in a comprehensive and highly scrutinised way, that worked. Where the shadow had a view to run just political arguments and repetitive arguments, the system became bogged down. It really does take both sides of the House to go in and look at it in a way of saying, ‘I want to maximise my scrutiny here. I want to move through and get through as many output areas as I can’. Until that is genuinely done by all shadows I do not think we will ever solve the ongoing argument about time.
On a human perspective I can say 4 hours is a long time for any person to be sitting there in the role of minister answering questions. I certainly know that it takes a lot out of their staff to sit there for 4 hours just as it takes a lot out of the Estimates Committees members. I have to say that the 7 hours that the Treasurer gets is extraordinary. It was truly a marathon human effort. I do not like the amount of time we put a person through that level of physical strain. I look for the time when parliament starts to realise that politicians are actually people and we pay attention to that in how we structure the hours and the way their work conditions operate.
As a member of the Estimates Committee I finish again by congratulating the Assembly staff, the Hansard staff, the committees and their staff. They are fantastic.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, as a core member of the Estimates Committee, I would like to join in this debate and share my thoughts on the whole process. Obviously, there will members on the government side saying everything is hunky-dory and great, and you will hear from members from the opposition saying that it is not. There are issues in terms of opportunities to discover information from ministers. Even prior to the process we had spoken about the possibility of providing written questions for ministers so that we can get a better understanding of the issues and also get fulsome answers rather than the questions taken on notice. Time and time again when questions were taken on notice, and a written response comes back, it comes back with half a question unanswered. I can go through many examples of that. In particular, I asked questions of the Minister for Family and Community Services and about the Rachael Hostel and Bill Braitling Hostel. All I received was a couple of lines on each that did not answer the whole of the question. I had asked the question on three separate occasions in the course of the debate during the estimates process.
Despite of all the restrictions that were placed on opposition to interrogate the budget fully, the opposition believed that it had obtained sufficient evidence to show that this government has failed to manage. It has failed to manage this Territory budget and the Territory for the last three years. You can see, as somebody aptly described, a torrent of GST revenue flowing through the Territory, and this government has not been able to ensure that there is enough employment, development, and attractions for people to stay in the Territory. A typical example is that of the loss of primary school students which I raised with the minister for Education. We have lost something like 1000 students from primary schools in the last 12 months. That is a huge loss. It is equivalent to three or four schools. When I quizzed him about why we have lost students, and have they increased the number of primary schools, the answer was, ‘No, we did not build any primary schools; what we did was increase the number of schools providing primary education’. This is a very imaginative way of describing something. This government has not built a single primary school. For the three years they have been in, this government has not done such a thing at all.
It has been a real issue. It reflects, again, the population loss that we talked about. With $1.2bn extra money coming to the Territory in the last three years, they have not been able to increase the population in the Territory, apart from relying on an increase in birth rate amongst people in the bush. I also said in estimates that these children, born in the last 12 months, are not going to be productive Territorians for a minimum of 15 years. These people are not going to generate any jobs; they are not going to be gainfully employed. Sure, they will be going to school, we hope. We hope all the primary schools will be chock-a-block with these children, and maybe we can look forward to some primary schools starting to fill up and stop this loss of primary school enrolments.
I will go through the list of points that were made by the Estimates Committee during the last three and a half days. I am a little concerned. I heard Madam Speaker saying that she was disappointed that she lost funding for her repairs and maintenance. All up, if you nett it all out, she would have lost something like $350 000 for repairs and maintenance in a building that is 10 years old and continues to age. We have complained incessantly about the IT services in this building. In the Estimates Committee, the IT services were roundly criticised by members of the committee, and Madam Speaker agreed with the committee that there are issues there to be sorted out. If the government is serious about maintaining this building and providing the best technology that we can have, for a reasonable sum of money, then that is why the money should be reinstated.
Coming back to education, when the minister for Education responded to my questions about the Charles Darwin University, I was disappointed. He was more than effusive, or he was perhaps a little bit free with his effusive compliments about Centralian College and what Centralian College might do for the Northern Territory University through its merger to form the Charles Darwin University. I thought the minister would have treated that issue a lot more seriously because, right now, the Charles Darwin University is at a crossroad. It has had more than 12 months of amalgamation and things should be starting to settle. But, as time goes on, it appears that things have not settled. We had the TCA recently pulling out its trainees from the Charles Darwin University. We have had others complaining. Students are complaining of their excessive charges. Somehow, the public relations exercise for the Charles Darwin University must be won, and I urge the minister to focus on that particularly. I note there are some people in the gallery who are from Charles Darwin University, and I hope they will take heart that the opposition is strongly supportive of Charles Darwin University and want to see it do well. We will do as much as we possibly can to ensure that that happens.
When the Chief Minister was interviewed by the committee, I recall a section where the Leader of the Opposition sought some understanding from the Chief Minister about the way she went about advertising for her government. Instead of getting an appropriate and fulsome answer that was factual, she ended up lambasting the Leader of the Opposition for a breach of the code of advertising. Well, I would like to show you this little advertisement. This appeared in Central Australian newspapers, particularly the Tennant Creek Times: ‘Your Territory needs you’ sanctioned by the Northern Territory government, with the face of the minister for Health, Peter Toyne MLA. But guess what? There appears underneath the Minster for Health, Elliot McAdam MLA, member for Barkly. Is that in the code? This is the government signing off on an advertisement, and then they dare to accuse the opposition of doing something that is inappropriate. What is good for the goose is good for and gander.
Here is a Northern Territory government advertisement that includes a backbencher. Nobody complained about it. The member for Barkly justly deserves to be in the advertisement because he would have taken part in the promotion of the eradication of mosquitos in Tennant Creek, and I commend him for such a sincere public activity. However, if the government is prepared to do that, then it does not have the right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition. I seek leave to table this document, Mr Chairman, so that it is there for the record.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: When we came to the issue of Mimosa pigra, my colleague, the member for Daly, asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage what he has done about that. You could see the discomfort the minister was in from the body language and the attempts by the minister to try to deflect the issue.
I was the chair of the Environment Committee between 1994 and the year 2000. In those years, we were given quite a few relevant references by parliament to investigate, and the infestation of Mimosa pigra was one of them. Mr Chairman, you are also vitally interested in this, and you probably would have read the very fulsome report that the Environment Committee produced for this parliament. Many of the recommendations were taken up by government. We also found out during that investigation that the government had been providing significant subsidies for weed poisons that could be sourced by land-holders to remove Mimosa pigra. The government did nothing about that, instead, took away this funding, and now land-holders have no source of funding to go to, to deal with this infestation in the Territory. This is at a time when the federal government is prepared to put in money, and the Northern Territory government, instead, pulls its money out. Again, I say, at a time when GST revenue is pouring like a river into this place.
There were several issues raised regarding Alice Springs: fruit fly infestation and how primary industry was going to deal with it. I felt that the answer provided was not satisfactory. There are significant issues in terms of infestations there, and I believe that the government should be more concerned about it.
The water supply in Alice Springs was another matter. I listened to the interrogation this morning very closely to what PowerWater had to say about what is happening with the sewerage pond, and about the water supply. The sewerage pond issue is still unresolved. For the last month now, volumes of water have been pouring down St Mary’s Creek. It has been pouring relentlessly. It is supposed to fixed. They are supposed to be putting pipes in the ground to take the water out to AZRI and CSIRO, but nothing has been done. There is water flowing on both sides of the road and, with all the earthworks going on for the roadworks for the Desert Knowledge Precinct and the Desert People’s Centre, you would think that all this would be addressed at the same time. Obviously, the right hand and the left hand do not know what the other is doing. Again, this is an example of how this government is failing to manage for Territorians.
When I asked the Minister for Family and Community Services about Bill Braitling and Rachael Hostel, I said earlier I was very disappointed with the written response that she gave me at the end of the session last night. It was an inadequate response. It is just an example of how this whole estimates process has been really deficient. Just about every minister ran out of time in terms of having questions asked of the ministers. The only one was the minister with the lightest load, where four hours and he was over, whereas with every other minister there were copious questions that were just skipped over. When member for Karama says: ‘Oh well, the people were very repetitive’. Sometimes it is important to pursue an issue. And ministers would try to obfuscate, be very circumlocutory with their discussions and never provide an answer.
At other times they would spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the issue with the officers surrounding them, which at that time, from the way I observed it, the minister was receiving an instant briefing from the officer. Then deciding what to do with the briefings and then passing onto the officer to respond because the minister could not understand what the officer said. That takes a lot of time which could have been avoided had there been a much more open process. Other times, the minister would be just fudging around. The best one of the lot was the Minister for Local Government. Of the 4 hours he sat there …
Mr Bonson: He was one of the best.
Dr LIM: … if you went through the Hansard and really teased out the information that he provided, he would have spent less than an hour providing the information. The rest of the time was a lot of – I hear the member for Millner giggling and carrying on back there. Be arrogant, be …
Mr Bonson: He made you look stupid!
Dr LIM: … dismissive about what the rightful role of the Estimates Committee is. Carry on the way you do, that is fine. But I am saying to you that the Estimates Committee is there for the opposition and any other member of parliament to interrogate executive government as to how money is being spent in a responsible way. And when you prevent that process from happening, then what happens is that Territorians start to have less confidence in the ability of government to manage. So, I say to the government again, if we do this one more time next year, think about your process, think about how you can improve it. Do not just lock in on the 4 hours as if that is a be all and end all of the matter. Territorians need to have the opportunity to question the Budget in a way that becomes meaningful. If you do not do that, then all you do is to just generate an air of disbelief, and of distrust, in the government.
Finally, and I will not go much longer, when government members of the Estimates Committee start running interference in the committee, that is really the most intolerable thing. I am sure minsters are able to fend for themselves. They do not need government members of the Estimates Committee running interference. And to see a member get up in umbrage, trying to find information to shove down my throat, I thought was the silliest thing that could have happened. I thought that the look from the public gallery was not good. Anyway, it is up to the member to decide on that matter and for the member to deal with it in his or her own time.
On the process itself, we have to go by what the government puts in front of us. Those are the rules they make and we have to live by them. The opposition dealt with government in quite an effective way. We elicited much information that will be very useful to us: health, child abuse, hospital management in Alice Springs, education, Charles Darwin University, and senior secondary education.
There were issues that were prominent in my mind and over the next few months, I will continue to follow through on the responses we received in Estimates as I go through Hansard in a methodical manner.
Mr BONSON: Mr Chairman, I am a first-time member of the Estimates Committee. In thinking about the process over the last few days, it has highlighted two issues.
The first is: how does the Estimates Committee work? The reality is we have to look at convention in the Westminster system. Sometimes, members of this House, government, opposition and Independents, need to realise that it is a convention in the Westminster system and, in particular, in Australian jurisdictions, that there is an Estimates process. It would be good in speeches by opposition and Independent members – we know we will hear it from government members – that there is recognition that we did not have an Estimates process until this government was elected.
What benefit is the Estimates process to the Northern Territory people? After all, that is who we answer to. The whole idea, of course, is to scrutinise government spending. That is the objective of the Estimates Committee process.
The second thing is confidence in the process so that the whole Northern Territory community feels it has ownership of the Territory budget and is confident that the government is accountable. This is, obviously, the duty of the opposition in the process.
As all members of this House know, the Martin government delivered on its election promise to establish an Estimates process. The reality is that we were the only jurisdiction in Australia not to have an Estimates process. It should cause shame to the opposition.
This was the opposition’s opportunity to ask questions about the budget and for the government ministers to answer questions and be thoroughly investigated on good and bad points of the budget and what it delivers. On observation, I would estimate that government ministers played their role by allowing the opposition as much time as was available to ask questions. My guesstimate is that members of the committee asked less than 2% of total questions. The reason for that is that the process was designed, and it needs to be recognised by both sides, for the opposition to interrogate government ministers about how they spend money.
It should also be recognised that both sides of parliament indulged the Independent member on the committee so that he could ask questions. I appreciate that the Independent member would recognise the fact that the Chair and the opposition gave him the opportunity to ask questions. His role is important as well. We have seen, in matters over the last few years, that each side will take a political view and will push that view. An Independent is seen by the community to have his or her own views, or is seen to have their own views. It is important to recognise that this Estimates Committee was introduced for the benefit of interrogation of government budgets.
A couple of the other benefits from this process is the fact that we did have members of the public service come to support the minister. I pick up on two things that two members have already spoken about. The member for Karama has spoken about the human aspect of it. I know that there were first time ministers, and they studied their guts out to ensure that they covered all the areas of their portfolio, but the stress and pressure on all the members was quite high, and you cannot underestimate that. Yes, they were elected to do a job; yes, they have taken up that responsibility, but they are doing a job that is very hard, has a lot of responsibility, and sometimes we often forget that they are only human, not to mention the fact that there were public servants assisting the relevant ministers.
This point was raised by the member for Greatorex, who is also on the committee, that they were getting on-the-spot briefings. This is ridiculous. The role of the Estimates Committee is to allow budget scrutiny. How does it happen? Questions are posed to the minister. With our process, there is an opportunity for public servants to come along and talk about operational matters, not government policy. The minister was there to define what was government policy, what was government platform. We should all expect it to be appropriate for the minister to refer operational matters to the relevant public servant who had that responsibility.
We know that there has been a campaign run by the opposition, for political purposes, and I understand that and we recognise it, that there was not enough time. I am more than happy to see that people who were involved, members and observers, people involved with the working process can tell you it was quite a hard, long slog, with ample time given to all parties to ask the question and get the relevant answer. This is shown by the fact that, on many occasions, ministers provided more information than was actually asked for in the question.
On observations again, as a first time member, and on previous observations as a supplementary member, it was apparent that the opposition did do a much better job this year in asking, and strategically asking, and framing their questions. This helped with the whole process and recognition has to be given to those on the opposition side for that. When they found the matter they wanted to follow up, they did prosecute that matter. But credit has to be given to the ministers. There would always be argy-bargy whether or not they provided precise information, but there is no doubt that the budget process was scrutinised, important information was brought out and, hopefully, this informs other members of parliament, and the Northern Territory public.
I would also like to thank the public servants, who obviously acted in a very professional and accommodating manner through the whole process. Members did try their hardest to make the estimates process work, and special mention needs to made of the Chair who did do his best to accommodate the process. This is not a reflection on past Estimates committees, but the chairperson did remain polite, did accommodate the opposition, was professional and fair and impartial but, importantly, and I do not think we can underestimate this, there was lightheartedness, there was friendly banter and good humor amongst all members, and this helped the whole process. Recognition needs to be made of the ministers’ staff, and the Legislative Assembly staff and Hansard. They did a fantastic job. They worked side by side, and no doubt earned their pay packets this last fortnight. They did a magnificent job in supporting all of the members of parliament in the estimates process.
In summary, I believe the process worked. There was improvement from the previous years. All stakeholders, I believe, improved in general in the process. The aim of the estimates was, of course achieved; which was democratic accountability, or the perception of democratic accountability. There are two different things to this – the reality and perception. Both are important. An elected government needs this to continue on, and to deliver the services that we, as Australians and Territorians, all take for granted: education, health, safety, police; the list goes on. I thank all of those involved in the process, and hope to see you next year.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, firstly, thank you to the member for Millner for giving us advice about how to be an opposition. We appreciate that. Thank you to all the staff of the Legislative Assembly for all their hard work in making sure the estimates process went as well as it did, from that point of view. Particularly, thanks to all the public servants throughout the Northern Territory who have worked hard, not just over this last week, but over the last few weeks, trying to second guess what the opposition may ask, and being prepared to follow up on any of the questions and issues that members of this parliament asked of ministers.
Thanks also to the committee members for their work, because it is them, predominantly, who spend the long hours in the estimates process, manning the core positions of the committee seats, and that is a great job.
I also thank, believe it or not, some of the ministers - and I say some, and I will pick out the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in particular, for the way in which he conducted himself. I thought the exchange that I, as shadow, had with him was very worthwhile and was without any of the rhetoric that some of the other ministers seem to have engaged in, in the process. It was a very smooth and productive process from that minister. While some ministers were very belligerent in their reports, and in answering of questions, others were lazy and hid behind officers on quite a many occasions. I have to say the minister for the Environment was one who stands out most in that regard. Anyone can check this. All you have to do is look through the Hansard and see how much of an answer was given by that minister.
Unfortunately, for this parliament and for the government, some were just plain embarrassing, and the Minister for Parks and Wildlife has to take the cake. He gets the cake for the most embarrassing minister, not only to himself, but to all of those who witnessed his performance - the media included, the officers who were there, and all of us watching on around the place. He was making stupid remarks, filibustering, waffling, answering questions that were not asked of him. Certainly, if you want to talk about time wasting, he is the time waster. You, minister, are the absolute time waster, and all we have to do is go to the Hansard. That is the good thing about Hansard, and I am sure in your reply, you will pick out something to use against me, but I thought I would get in first to give you the opportunity.
Let us look at the Hansard. We are looking at the issue of the weeds program. We started off, and I asked the minister about Mimosa pigra: ‘It is a noxious weed that attracts a subsidy to help landowners combat that weed. I am informed that there have been some delays, and blah, blah, and people are not being paid …’, and I could go through it for the length that it took. But unfortunately, I would run out of my 20 minutes, or the 16 that are left. Because when I asked the question he straight away said: ‘As you are quite well aware there has been an amalgamation between Weeds and Bushfires and I hope one of your questions is going to be about bushfires because there are 200 000-odd more vehicles, more gear …’. I said: ‘Can we stick to weeds, minister, for a minute?’ ‘You probably do not want to hear the good news,’ he said. I said: ‘That is going to be my second question.’ Dr Burns said: ‘I will defer to – well they love me, they love me, the bushfires brigade. I have given each one of them …,’ blah, blah, blah ...
Dr Burns: Well, read it out. Come on.
Mr BALDWIN: ... blah, blah, blah. Then he went on and on, and for members who are here, here is where we started the question. We go down here, we go up here and all I am asking the minister to answer is: ‘Is the subsidy still available?’ It could have been, ‘Yes’, or it could have been, ‘No’. And we go over the page and we are still going …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: ... still going blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and we get to me: ‘Is there a level of funding that land-holders can apply for or a subsidy to treat Mimosa pigra now, right now?’ Dr Burns: ‘As of this minute?’ Mr Baldwin: ‘Right now?’ Dr Burns ...
Mr Ah Kit: Blah, blah, blah.
Mr BALDWIN: ... ‘No’. We got to the ‘No’ after a page. Well, two pages - two pages. Two full pages of transcript. Now, if that ain’t time wasting, nothing is. So, minister, unfortunately, you may laugh and I note that you are laughing, but it did not do you any good. No, truly.
You think we dream up all of these questions on our own, but I can assure you that a lot of people, those that do understand this process, do come to you and say, ‘This is an issue and can you find out the answer because I am having some troubles’. In this case a number of land-holders came to me and they are having troubles because they have not been told that it is not available. They have put in for their subsidy which they have been putting in and you have admitted in there – well, it was not you but actually between the blah, blah, blahs you flicked it to Mr Applegate who did a great job - that this subsidy has been in place for over a decade, and it has not been clear to these people that they could not apply, and they have been wondering what was going on.
All it needed was a clear answer so they knew where they stood and what was going to happen from this point on. Unfortunately, I am obligated to give them the answer and they will get it - two pages. So, not only do you embarrass those who were looking on, or listening on, or watching, but those who are asking for some answers from government will obviously get that same impression which is unfortunate, minister, for you.
I must say that if you are going to take a leaf out of anyone’s book for this process in the future, look to your colleague, the minister for primary industries, at least in his session, and the way in which he conducted himself during his appearance before the committee.
Mr Chairman, I believe we found out all sorts of information, notwithstanding that you could always want more time. I am sure that if we had more time we would find out even more relevant information. I had to cut down very considerably on the questions, but we were heartened by the fact that, in the time that we were provided, a number of significant issues were revealed on some very important topics. I know my colleague is going to talk about the waterfront. I raised a number of issues: waste oil disposal, fisheries, cotton, native title, mimosa and weeds, and the Katherine flood waters preventative work, which my colleagues raised on behalf of the member for Katherine. The answers to our questions and the issues raised will make good reading for all kinds of people who have concerns in these areas. The government, although they think they are putting a good spin on a number of these areas, particularly native title, thinks that it is going down well in the community. I can assure them that it is not. These are issues we will progress in due course.
All in all, it was a good process from our point of view in terms of the answers we were able to elicit in the time that we had. I am sure the information that we have arising from the Estimates Committee process will be well used in the future.
Once again, I thank those public servants for their great support of their ministers and for being well prepared to give concise answers to the questions we asked and for the provision of information we were seeking. Without them, I am sure we would have had the sort of rhetoric that came from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife that did not contain any relevant information. At the end of his rhetoric, at least he flicked to the good officers next to him, who were able to provide the information. Whilst it took pages to extract from the minister, who, in the end, did not know that ‘no’ was the answer to the question at the beginning, his officers were able to get him to that answer in good time – two pages worth of good time; good time that we are being blamed for wasting.
Mr Chairman, I put those comments on the record so that they can be used in refining the process in the future.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I was assuming we would go one-on-one and I assumed there were more speakers from the other side, so I apologise for being a bit slow to jump.
I have a couple of comments about the Estimates Committee, and certainly join with my colleagues in thanking all of those who were involved in the process, in particular the committee staff and, most importantly, as has already been mentioned, the Hansard staff who, of course, have done a superb job in producing the transcripts of those lengthy proceedings in a very timely manner. It is very professional, very efficient and very helpful to have the transcript on the run as we go.
I would like to pay particular notice of the efforts of the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, the member for Sanderson. He and I do not agree too often on too many things, but I thought he conducted himself well. He was fair and impartial, pretty well, to me, and I can only comment for myself. At times when he had to step in, and we might have disagreed on a couple of occasions, his arguments would have been as weighty as mine, and that is the normal repartee and theatre that happens within these proceedings. In that regard, I felt that he did an extremely good job overall.
I entered the Estimates Committee with a number of objectives, and they were to look at the outcomes of the budget from a strategic perspective. My aim was not to get down to the detail of the budget papers. I have learnt by now that where there are concerns about details and numbers, you can get those answers by a variety of means. I was more interested, in an accrual accounting method, of what are the strategic outcomes of this government in a number of areas that interested me. I certainly had the opportunity to explore all of those issues, and in that regard it was a satisfactory process.
There are some difficulties. I do not have the answers for them. Certainly, the inability to interrogate the Darwin Port Corporation was something that did not occur again in this estimate session. I understand, in the three estimate sessions we have conducted so far, the Darwin Port Corporation has not been called; it has not had a chance to get to the table, certainly in the last two sessions, where they have not been questions on notice. And I think it is a fact that, in all three sessions, they have not had a chance to get to the table. That is problematic in itself.
My solution to that, which the government intuitively does not agree with, but it is worth consideration, is that it is primarily the objective of the opposition and other members to interrogate the government minister on his portfolios areas. The government minister is equipped, prepared, supplied with advice to go to any of those areas at any time, and the staff are there ready to assist the minister. Where the process fails, in my opinion, is that the number of output areas are extremely lengthy in some portfolio areas, in particular, Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The shadow minister may not have areas of interrogation there, but other members of the parliamentary committee may have. I guess it is really a matter of deciding where your priority goes. In the committee process, one argument is that all members of the committee should have equal opportunity. I think it is taking it a bit too far.
The reality is that the opposition represents the largest majority in this Chamber, apart from the government, and there should be some further consideration given to, within the time allowed, the shadow minister being able to perhaps nominate the output area that they would like to concentrate on, agree that with the Chairman, and move to those output areas, in total, not in part, in some sort of agreeable fashion. And if other members want to question at any time, they can question on those output areas. However, it gives the shadow the opportunity to organise their time within the 4 hours, and also organise it in the way that they set their own priorities for the output areas they want to go to.
Darwin Port Corporation is a good example. The Darwin Port Corporation was a particular area that I wanted to question, and I am sure the minister was quite keen to answer. However, there were a whole range of other output areas that were of interest to other members, and me as well. The simple fact is that there was no opportunity to be able to get down to that particular area, other than by point by point in the individual output areas, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Last year, we were ticking off who were the best performing ministers and the worst. I think we gave the worst performing minister tick to the previous Health minister, and she is no longer the Health minister. Unfortunately, member for Johnston, our side agreed you were the most wasteful minister, in terms of time, the most filibustering minister and, frankly, the minister that gave the impression that whilst you had plenty to say, you did not seem to understand much of the substance of your portfolio. I am sure you do not agree with it.
However, at the end of the day, there is an expectation that the minister takes the questions; is across the portfolio areas; and is confident to answer those questions. A minister can go in there, angry or happy - we do not really care; crack jokes - we do not really care; be abusive - we do not really care. But we expect the minister to be competent in their portfolio areas, and to answer the questions in their portfolio areas, not simply filibuster and then flick questions continuously to public servants.
One of the good things of the process though, is that the public servants, when given the opportunity to speak, generally gave you the answer quickly and in the format that you wanted. As I said, overall, I felt that my objectives were met.
The main thing that came out of the estimates process for me, in priority, was firstly gas supplies. We found out today in interrogating the Power and Water Corporation, that not one molecule of Bayu-Undan gas is coming to the Northern Territory. The government has paraded that - that gas onshore is going to be good for Territorians, jobs, infrastructure, further development, and has also put forward the argument, also in the PowerWater documentation, that some gas from Bayu-Undan will be reserved for domestic use, namely for the power continued gas supply. We found out today the decision has been made and that all of that gas is committed overseas. As the member for Drysdale and I both commented, that is a disgusting and a very disappointing outcome that I am sure Territorians, when they hear of it, will be equally concerned about.
Despite the efforts of previous CLP governments over many years to achieve gas onshore - efforts that extended to acrimonious relations with the interim East Timorese government over taxation and unitisation arrangements, difficult negotiations with native title claimants to achieve the land at Wickham Point, extensive accommodations for gas suppliers and, in particular, to ConocoPhillips over many years to meet their commercial and strategic objectives - the very least the Northern Territory could have expected was to get some of that gas reserved for their own use, and reserved at a price that Territorians felt was competitive, met their needs, and was some compensation for the efforts that Territorians, through their governments, had made for many years for ConocoPhillips.
That challenge and that responsibility was left in the hands of this current Labor government because, as you will recall, when the last election occurred, the issue of Bayu-Undan gas onshore was put on hold during the course of that campaign. Even though I knew that those hold issues were only temporary ones and really extended to the issues surrounding unitisation and taxation arrangements, the now government, then in opposition, made much of the fact that Bayu-Undan gas was not going to be achieved. It was achieved and, if there were outstanding issues for this current government and accommodations that they had to gain from ConocoPhillips on behalf of all Territorians, was to get some of that gas reserved for Territorians. To hear today that none of that is reserved for Territorians is extremely disappointing. I am sure that when Territorians know about that. they will be very angry.
This begs the question - and members from the Power and Water Corporation mentioned the fact that they have limited leverage in these matters. Well, they might have limited leverage, but the government as a whole has large leverage. Certainly, I would expect that, whilst that opportunity may have passed, this government - and if the CLP is fortunate enough to be elected to power next time you can guarantee that we will do it. We will ensure that any gas that comes onshore in the Northern Territory comes onshore in a way that benefits Territorians.
We have allowed a 10 million tonne gas plant to be built at Wickham Point. There is a three million tonne train there at the moment. The expectation and strategic objectives, obviously, of ConocoPhillips will be to build that to a 10 million tonne plant. I do not believe they should be allowed to expect one additional extension to that current gas plant unless we get the accommodations we require. It happens in other countries. In Indonesia, for example, you cannot bring gas or develop gas in Indonesia unless you reserve 25% for the domestic supply. That is the sort of insistence that we should have.
I raised the issue of native title, genuinely, with the Chief Minister and also the Minister of Lands. Without going through the issues again, it was surprising to me to find that at the Chief Minister’s level, through the Department of the Chief Minister, and also through the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, there was little understanding in those portfolios, either by the ministers, the Chief Minister, or their senior bureaucrats, as to what was happening with native title that had the potential of creating precedence for disadvantaging either Aboriginal claimants or other lessees such as pastoralists, in the sorts of competing claims that are going through the Native Title Tribunal or are in mediation at the moment and, as I said, how those competing interests can affect some of the decisions that are being contemplated and about to be made in the various portfolio areas.
On the one hand you have the Chief Minister about to hand over part of the parks estate to Aboriginal ownership and, where those arrangements are being put in some parks, not into Aboriginal ownership park freehold but into joint management arrangements. The sorts of Indigenous Land Use Agreements that are being contemplated, I believe, will create precedence for native title claimants in other areas. There may be - and I am sure there are - ways to work through this. I was surprised that the portfolio ministers who were responsible for these areas – namely, the member for Johnston and the Chief Minister, and their senior staff - did not seem to have any understanding of the coordination that was required and seemed to put all of their faith in the Justice Department for handling these issues. I would have thought that the Justice Department might have principle carriage of native title negotiations, but the issues that the Justice Department was carrying, the arguments that were being put forward by the government, the competing arguments of the claimants, the effect on lessees, particularly pastoralists, should be known and well known by those ministers in carrying their portfolios. It was not, and that was disappointing, but certainly one issue that arose to my mind out of the estimates process.
I made the point that the Darwin Port is the jewel in the crown of the AustralAsia Trade Route. I spoke to the Chairman of the Darwin Port Corporation today. I might add, minister, without verballing him too much. He has read the transcripts and he did not have any issue with me with the points that I had raised. He and I agreed that probably the operation of this port, at this critical period, is probably the most fundamental issue that we have to address in making that port competitive against other ports around Australia. There are real difficulties with that port. The Darwin Port Corporation has limited ability to influence some of those issues. They are not responsible for Customs clearance, for stevedores, for subsidies for containers that transit up and down the rail corridor, or any accommodation for the shipping lines that are being accommodated here.
At the end of the day, the people who use that port are not interested in all of those complexities. They are only interested in the fact that this port is not working properly. Most of that blame will fall from the users, inevitably on the Darwin Port Corporation. That is unfair.
Again, I was surprised to hear that no one, certainly none of the senior executives in the Office of Territory Development or the Chief Minister – I did not have a chance to question minister Burns on the issue - but certainly no one in that area where I believe the responsibility rightly lay, because it is cross-portfolio and it does require the senior executive of government to address it from a strategic sense, were aware, except in a passing way, of the issues that surround Darwin Port and the issues that not only the Darwin Port Corporation is dealing with, but the shippers themselves are dealing with, and the shipping agents are trying to grapple with. The end result is that that port is not performing to best practice standards by any shape or form.
I know there are difficulties with AQIS, particular difficulties since the local AQIS group has been taken back to Commonwealth control, and is essentially being run out of Canberra. That is why the port was closed down last December because it did not meet AQIS standards. There are real issues with AQIS and parameters that are being put by AQIS on trade and goods that is coming across that port which seem to be overly onerous compared to what is being applied down south. That is where the minister …
Dr BURNS: I have written to Truss six weeks ago, he has not replied.
Mr BURKE: Well, get on a plane, fly down there and get into his office. The minister needs to recognise that Territorians do not want excuses and they are not really interested in laying the blame at someone else’s feet. What they want is the situation resolved. There is not much use blaming the federal government if the bottom line is that the effect is on our own port. It is our port that we want to be more effective.
There is a lack of stevedores at the port, there is a lack of infrastructure, there is a lack of ability to clear containers and those are issues, unfortunately, that, when probed, there appears to be any real understanding of their importance.
We will have a lot more to say about the water front development in later debate in this Chamber. Again, there was little satisfaction with the Chief Minister and her senior staff that Territorians can be comforted by the process that has been undertaken. A broadband EIS that is supposed to have addressed all of the possible implications for our harbour and the impact on the waterfront area itself has been done, and we had to tease out from officers the fact that if there were large changes, perhaps they might conduct another EIS to look at the impact of the built environment and the density of that environment when it occurs.
It is pretty hard to understand how, on the one hand, a developer can be chosen, a contract for a staged development can be committed to over 10 years and, knowing the way these developers will be pitching for their commercial interests and concerns, they will want that thing stitched up incredibly well, the competing interest of government to have this sealed up quickly so they look good before they go to the next election augers to me that we are going to have a real mess on our hands, a mess that will be very difficult to extract ourselves from. At the moment, we are being told by the Chief Minister: ‘Trust us. These are commercial interests. All will be revealed in good time’. From my questioning, I could not see that at all.
Finally, it was surprising to learn that Palmerston High School, which has been on the budget for the last three years, has a commitment of $10m for construction. We know – the minister did not seem to know – that a high school that is expected to be constructed this year - certainly from the Education Department’s point of view - is still only a concept and the best case is that the school will not open before the start of the school year in January 2007.
If one wants a telling example of what this government has done over the last three years in office that is it. They have not built one new school in the Northern Territory. When they talk about the Territory population growing, the economy going well, if that is translated to children, families and schools – no school, not one built, and the only high school on the agenda does not look like it will be built for some years to come.
I could say more, Mr Chairman, but my time has run out. I thank you for the opportunity to make those comments.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I find it surprising that I am speaking after two members of the opposition. It seems that the government has gone to sleep at the wheel and is no longer interested in talking about a $2.5bn budget in this House, which is very sad. It demonstrates the cavalier attitude that this government is taking towards this parliament.
I wish to raise several issues, the first of which is time limits. I was unable to ask many of the questions I wanted to ask. One of the major problems with time limits is that you have a handful of ministers who carry portfolios that spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and other ministers who carry portfolios that spend much smaller amount. It behoves government to reconsider its approach to the Estimates process inasmuch that when government gets to the Estimates process and there is a minister such as the Minister for Justice who is now also the Minister for Health and gives 4 hours to that minister, what you are actually doing is halving the time that was available last year to inquire into both of those departments’ spending habits. For example, when the former Minister for Health, the now member for Nightcliff had the portfolio, there was 4 hours dedicated to the portfolio. The Attorney-General had 4 hours dedicated to Justice.
With the Minister for Health and Attorney-General being the same person, one would hope that 9 hours would be available to scrutinise those two portfolio areas but, sadly, no, once again 4 hours is available to both areas. When you consider that Health is the biggest spending department in the Northern Territory, you have to ask yourself the question: why would we allow 4 hours for the minister for fruit, which is exactly the same amount of time that you would allow for the Minister for Health and the Attorney-General? There is a serious disparity there, and that is one of the great shortcomings of the estimates process. The senior ministers such as the Leader of Government Business, the Chief Minister, and the Treasurer are carrying a large workload whilst the other ministers are not. That is one of the great shortcomings of this process. However, despite the process having shortcomings, we were able to use the time successfully to elicit information from government that would otherwise not have been forthcoming.
I turn primarily to the first aspect of it, which dealt with Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The question I actually asked on Tuesday of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and finally the truth will out. It took me a while to read and understand exactly what the minister for public employment had told me, but now, finally, thanks to the two questions I was able to get in, despite the fact I ran out of time at that point, I have been able to glean some facts out of that. I start out by asking the questions that I did not get answers to, or could not get answers to because of the time constraint restrictions, that I would have like to ask.
The Commissioner for Public Employment explained to me that the paperwork that I had placed on the Table in this place in relation to the departure of Darryl Pepper had been incorrectly filled out. He also went on to explain to me the circumstances of the departure of Mr Pepper. The questions I did not understand, and would like to have asked, is that I laid those documents on the Table in this House three months ago, after I was on the telephone to him. When I was on the telephone to him, and he advised me that the correct information would have been ‘terminated by employer’, the commissioner could have well explained to me what he explained to me last night, but he chose not to. That is his business. Then I was on the Hansard record that evening, making comments about the departure of Mr Pepper, and that was three months ago, and the Commissioner for Public Employment has chosen not, in that time, to advise me as to the correct answer to that question and finally, during the estimates process, I had the ability to put those questions to him, and I get an explanation.
The explanation that he gave me, and I will quote him, was:
Which is not what he told me, by the way.
I asked another question of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and his response in relation to that question was, in part:
The section 59 he was referring to was section 59 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. Subsequent to that opportunity, I have had time to confirm what my instincts told me at that stage, is that section 59 of the Public Employment and Management Act is a section that deals with grievances. Therefore, as a result of the conversation between the Commissioner for Police and the Chief Fire Officer, the Chief Fire Officer spoke to the Commissioner for Public Employment, and the Commissioner for Public Employment as a consequence of that communication was thinking in terms of section 59.
The first part of section 59 of that act reads as follows:
Officer to terminate the employee’s employment on probation - within 14 days; or
in the Public Sector - within 3 months after the action or decision by which he or she is aggrieved,
I draw members’ attention to the fact that, according to the Commissioner for Public Employment, ‘the imminent release of the Metis review was critical of Fire Service management’. That is true. The Metis review is critical of Fire Service management, as well as the Commissioner of Police and the unions. In fact, it is critical of every aspect of the operation of the Fire Service across the board. Curiously, since that time, Mr Darryl Pepper left. He left because of health reasons. However, it is clear now that he was pushed into that position because he knew that the Metis review was going to reflect negatively on him. Probably the stress that caused him was enough to bring on his medical condition - I do not doubt the veracity of that condition and, doubtlessly, the condition was quite serious - especially after his discussions with the Commissioner of Police. However, he then was, basically, considered to be unfit by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment.
It is curious that the Fire Service review has seen the departure of the Chief of the Fire Service, and of a rank causing six demotions amongst the ranks. That is the problem for the management, but what happened to those other elements that received criticism? The answer is: nothing.
Who was one of the great sources of information for the Metis review? Remember that Metis is made up of people with strong Labor Party contacts. One of the great sources that they relied upon was staff that they spoke to, many of them union members. What is the chance of some of those union members being members of the Labor Party? Now you have a vice-like action occurring. You have the minister who has contact with his own party people; you have a tainted review organisation looking into the Fire Service, where much of the battle is between unions and management. That is well established, that is in Metis, that there is a conflict between union and management. As a consequence of that review, the unions suffer no sanction - nobody at the lower levels has suffered sanction whatsoever. There is no effect on the unions whatsoever. It has all been management which has copped the smack on the chin.
The message is clear from this: the government has caved in to union pressure. The government has now become part of the problem and not the solution. The minister needs to move now to reassure that all fire staff management has a role to play in the Fire Service as leaders. If government does not do this, and the public loss in confidence in the Fire Service could lead to a fine reputation being tarnished - and it is of grave concern to me that this sort of power is now being wielded. I know the minister for police will come in here with his usual tirade and say, ‘You are reflecting on the Commissioner for Police’. The fact is that when the minister does not approve of what the Commissioner does, he puts out a press release saying that is not Labor party policy and that places the Commissioner in an invidious situation.
So what does the Commissioner do? He does what a good loyal public servant does and listens to the instructions from the government of the day. So do not blame shift this on to the Commissioner. This issue falls squarely on to the shoulders of the minister for police. He sought to use the certificate of exemption process to find his own people to place them in charge of a review to protect Labor mates and to give Labor people jobs and that is what comes out of this estimates process.
It has taken a while to piece it together. I have to say that I am shocked considering the messages that this government sent out while it was in opposition, and how they were going to rescue the Northern Territory from all sorts of silver circles, and those sorts of things, and some conspiracy theory about how the CLP mates get jobs and those sorts of things. The fact is that what this government is doing, if that is what they believe, they came in on a promise that they were going to be better than that. And they have failed to do so miserably.
I also turn my attention to the issue of traffic infringement notices which are predicted by Budget Paper No 3 to go up by 2000 more traffic infringement notices being issued in the next financial year. I would prefer to see that those traffic infringement numbers come down. It was clear from the Commissioner of Police that the use of speed cameras did have an effect in lowering the overall number of tickets dished out using those particular pieces of equipment. However, I am unsatisfied at this stage that the prediction in the increase in the number of TINES dished out for non-speed camera related offences is going to go up, because it still predicts a deterioration in driver behaviour. I urge the government to reconsider its approach. If they expect driver behaviour to deteriorate, then perhaps it is time to look at some new policies.
I also turn my attention, in the time I have left to me, to some questions I asked the Minister for Community Development in relation to its actions and investigations into Owston Nominees. I asked during the estimates process how many actions had been taken in the last year under the Animal Welfare Act and the answer was one, and that action of course was the publicised action against Owston Nominees and, I presume, the owner of that company, Mr Warren Anderson. During that question period I asked how much the prosecution of Owston Nominees had cost. I was advised by the minister that the amount was $43 057 so far to prosecute Owston Nominees. This afternoon I had a conversation with Mr Warren Anderson and Mr Anderson advises me that his legal costs are more than $100 000 in defence of these matters. I find it curious that the prosecution went through a firm in Darwin. That firm took on the services of a QC from Sydney, a lady by the name of Liz Fullerton, who was purported to cost in the order of $7000 a day. I am curious as to why Mr Anderson’s legal bills are now in excess of $100 000, and how the government can afford to engage Liz Fullerton at - if that is the correct amount - $7000 a day and then maintain a bill of only $43 057 at the end of the day? It is incongruous in the least to see that result rolled out.
I am not going to dwell on the facts of those cases, but the costs of prosecuting need to be completely divulged by the minister and he has an opportunity in this House today to get the cost of that prosecution completely divulged, so that Territorians know exactly how much it is costing to pursue this particular matter through the courts.
I also asked questions of the Minister for Community Development in relation to pool fencing. I pointed out that in Budget Paper No 3, over the next three years there was an estimated upcoming cost of $8m, not $1.4m that the minister told us, of expected compensation costs, and that has not been budgeted for in this financial year. A much smaller amount has been budgeted for. He tells us that if compensation costs come in, he expects to be able to get an extra $5m out of Treasury so he can pay them.
This is indicative of an issue inasmuch as the minister clearly knows through the debacle that pool fencing has proven to be, it is impossible to predict how much government is going to have to pay in compensation. Consequently, they placed in Budget Paper No 3 a figure of $5m. They are hopeful that it is not going to be more than that, and it may well be less than that. However, the minister is not in a position to be able to even guess how much it is going to cost.
That is the way he has approached his budgetary position and that is why he has had to go back to Treasury, as explained, and ask for $21m extra to run his department. That is not good planning. It is not even a legitimate argument. He tells us that it is the eloquence of his ability to provide us with the glory of a Labor government and walk into Cabinet and put beautiful arguments to them as to why they keep rolling out money.
The idea of budgetary analysis is so that you know roughly how much you are going to spend at the beginning of the financial year. You then put that into your budget papers so you can predict how much is going to be there at the end of the financial year. You can be out; no one is ever perfect on these things and the minister is quite right about that. But to be out by $21m, 10% of his budget, is a big mistake. It does not go to his competence as a minister in being able extract money out of the Treasurer, but it does go to his competence and his ability to predict how much his department has to spend in the future.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DEBITS TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 226)
MINERAL ROYALTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 227)
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 228)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 229)
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 230)
Continued from 20 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is the position of opposition to support these bills. In regard to the Debits Tax Amendment Bill, I have taken the opportunity afforded by its tabling and notice being given to consult with the chamber and others who are expert in the field of tax issues to ensure that what we have contained within this bill does do what we are led to believe it will do. I have, therefore, no intention, nor does opposition, to oppose the passage of this bill.
However, I cannot let this moment pass without reference to the payroll tax and what has actually been offered to the Northern Territory business community by way of a much trumpeted concession. It is, in fact, minimal and demonstrably so, when the capacity of this government is to afford a greater easing of payroll tax to Territory businesses if we want to see the economy grow, and we fix our focus on over-the-horizon large projects. We believe, in opposition - and to some degree government has responded - that that is a misguided and inappropriate focus, because the stimulation of a domestic economy is lower down.
We need to fix our attention on what we can do to ease the burden on the contractors and the employers who are currently working in the Northern Territory. We sustain our position that it is welcomed that there has been some relief with payroll tax. It does not go far enough in light of the capacity of government to provide that additional relief. It is, in fact, clear - and clear to the Territory business community - now that the budget ball has been thrown, it did not bounce anywhere near the degree that it was expected to bounce. The business community, in assessing what is actually offered here, has now, on second opinion and second consideration, expected and hoped for more, notwithstanding they welcome what has been offered, but fundamentally deeper issues remain.
With those comments, and having already been referred to time and time again from this side, we reaffirm our commitment to focus our attention on the reduction of, not only the rate at which payroll tax is applied, but that the threshold be raised to $850 000. As it currently stands, our payroll tax regime must be, in the interests of stimulating and strengthening our domestic economy, significantly altered. That is the remaining commitment of opposition. Notwithstanding that, that business we have to attend to here is able to pass this Chamber with the support of opposition.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, spokesperson for matters of Treasury opposite, for his comments. I want to foreshadow a proposed amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill. I believe the Leader of the Opposition had a briefing this week. In broad terms, it refers to the put and call option, where there is a question of avoidance to conveyancing and collection of stamp duty with the potential, if left unaddressed, to continue to roll through and be picked up by other proponents, and quite seriously erode the tax collection base. It is an issue that was addressed in 2000 by the former government, which foresaw the likely consequences of what was occurring then, and could occur. They closed it off. There is a further arrangement now -- another loophole - that is being exploited, and the purpose of the committee stage amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill is to close off that loophole, in what would be a remarkable similar fashion to the action taken back in 2000.
Having foreshadowed that in the committee stage, I put on the record exactly where we are coming from on this. In the committee stage, we can deal with any further question or clarification that is required. I propose this amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill. The government has recently become aware of a stamp duty avoidance scheme that seeks to overcome the current laws that deal with the use of put and call option to avoid the payment of stamp duty for home units purchased off the plan. This contrived arrangement results in the sale of a home unit, as it secures the future sale for the vendor – the put option - and future acquisition for the purchaser - the call option - without them entering into a contract of sale. There are no mainstream commercial reasons for transacting in this manner, other than to avoid the payment of stamp duty.
Since 16 May 2000, the Territory stamp duty laws have treated purchasers using option schemes as if they were made as a contract of sale; that is, stamp duty is charged on the full value of the property covered by the options. This anti-avoidance provision was introduced to counter a scheme being used at that time that allowed multiple sales of the same property to occur in a manner that avoided the payment of stamp duty. The newly identified stamp duty avoidance scheme sidesteps these provisions, and has the potential to seriously erode the Territory stamp duty collection should it become more widespread.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the bill be amended to insert provisions that take effect from 23 June 2004 - being the date that they were publicly announced - bolstering the anti-avoidance measures introduced in 2000. The effect of the changes will be to recognise the economic effect of arrangements involving put and call options by treating them as conveyances of the property that they relate to. This property may comprise marketable security such as shares in units in unit trusts, dutiable property, or accommodation of the two.
I now provide further detail on this specific change proposed to the bill. The amendment schedule proposes to insert a new Part 6 into the bill. The proposed part applies in circumstances where a call option is first granted or is transferred to another person, and ensures that stamp duty is payable at conveyance rates on the option property by the holder of that option. Importantly, if the option property is conveyed to a person who did not hold the call option and they received the property because they had an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the holder of the call option, both the option holder and the other person acquiring the option property will be liable to duty. This ensures both sub-sales, and conveyances by direction, which are liable for duty when not effected using options, will also be subject to stamp duty, when effected under an option.
It is, however, recognised that it is not appropriate for conveyance stamp duty to be paid on the option property where: both the call option and the put option expire without being exercised; the failure to exercise either option is not a tax avoidance scheme; and the option property has not been conveyed to a person who has an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the holder of the call option.
In these circumstances the call option does not result in the option holder, or another person who has an arrangement with the option holder, acquiring the option property. Accordingly, the last person to hold the call option will be liable for duty on the consideration for, or value of, the call option only. This person may also apply for a reassessment of the stamp duty raised in relation to the deemed conveyance of the option property. Importantly, no stamp duty reduction would be given to anyone other than the last person to hold the call option. This is consistent with the treatment given to any other purchaser of property who pays stamp duty at the time of purchase and then later sells that property to another.
In addition, the proposed amendment recognises that call and put options have a legitimate place in ensuring the continuity of a business. Accordingly, the proposed provisions will not apply where the commissioner is satisfied that the call and the put option arrangement is between the proprietors of a business for the sole purpose of providing continuity of that business on the death, total and permanent disablement, retirement, or bankruptcy of a proprietor, and the arrangement is not a tax avoidance scheme.
Finally, the bill proposes changes to the so-called Clayton’s contract provisions in the Taxation (Administration) Act to ensure that they also apply to the transactions involving options that are not recorded in writing.
I commend these committee amendments to honourable members. I understand that they are being supported by the opposition. We thank them for their support. They clearly recognise that this a continuation and a strengthening of the measure that was put in place in 2000 to avoid the very thing that is occurring here. It is a measure that worked effectively for the four years that it was in place, but clearly, there is another attempt at avoidance in these matters. These amendment clauses into the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill will close that loophole and time will tell whether it lasts four years, two years, six years, or whatever. However, I am sure a Treasurer in the Northern Territory in future will be in here passing and seeking support to pass amendments to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill to close of a potential loophole because that is what it is about.
You have a responsibility, and the government has a responsibility, to protect the integrity of the taxation collection system wherever they are Treasurer and for what ever jurisdiction they represent. On the other side, there are those who are paid good sums of money to find ways around the taxation laws of any state or territory or indeed the Commonwealth. It is incumbent of governments everywhere to keep a very close watch on what is occurring out there in the commercial world. I thank the opposition for their support on this amendment bill and the other revenue matters associated with the budget.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Debit Tax Amendment Bill (Serial 226):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Mineral Royalty Amendment Bill (Serial 227):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill (Serial 228):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Stamp Duty Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 229):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill (Serial 230):
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 83.1, which amends clause 2 by inserting a commencement date of 23 June 2004, being the date that the changes were publicly announced. It is retrospective to the day that the media release went out, which was 23 June.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 14, 15 and 16:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 83.2, a new Part 6, Duty Payable on Conveyances of Options. I do not intend to read through the three pages if it is understood by the opposition.
Proposed new clauses agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 20 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the issue before us is one that has weighed heavily on the minds of the opposition, and an admission that when this legislation was presented to the Chamber the very wording and construction of it did not reveal, initially, a significant cause for concern. The cause for concern was simply that one component of the legislation contained a means by which the very fundamental upon which our whole gaming industry, with specific regard to poker machines, is altered. That was an issue which required a significant amount of consideration. When something is going to be changed of such importance in our community in such a fundamental way, the first question one must ask as a representative of the community is: has the community, those who will be directly and indirectly affected by this decision, been adequately consulted? That was a question that arose. I admit that it came some two weeks after the legislation had been tabled, and I believe the minister would also be aware that the nature in which the legislation was presented, it is understandable that the third component of the legislation is the contentious aspect, and the other two prefacing it are benign and require no closer scrutiny, but general and easy acceptance.
In asking that first question, what does this actually mean? Does this mean that the foundation upon which our whole community’s acceptance and appreciation and working with gaming machines is changed by this legislation? And the answer was, yes. Therefore, are those who are going to be affected by it aware of this? I noted in the second reading speech that there was reference to those who had contributed. Looking again, I notice that there would be many others who had had the opportunity, if made very clear what was contained in this legislation, would have responded.
The concern rose to a new level when I spoke to, one, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, because there are commercial considerations with this legislation. It affects those who currently hold gaming licences to operate poker machines. Was the chamber aware of this? No. The AHA - they were aware of it but, for obvious reasons, were not buying in knowing that there would be some who would be beneficiaries and some who would not be.
More importantly, when we weigh up the whole issue of gaming in our community, as a Territorian, I do enjoy going past a pokie occasionally. If I am at a ball at the MGM, I do not mind stopping and putting a few dollars through the pokies. I do that from time to time, and I guess I am like most Territorians. I do not spend day after day there, but I do enjoy it, as most Territorians do enjoy it and appreciate it. I understand that there is a negative aspect to gaming machines, but we have safety nets and we have means to assist those who have difficulty with gambling. We do see the more concerning side, and it really is quite tragic if we look at that. However, by and large, the bigger picture is something that Territorians accept and have enjoyed. The system that we have in place in the Northern Territory, when you compare and contrast it with interstate, is a good system.
When I spent the time talking to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, they did not know about it. Most significantly, the agencies that are there as a safety net to provide that welfare and support to those who would be affected by what could be, quite arguably - and no one has denied this - an increase in the number of poker machines in our community - had they been consulted? Did they have the opportunity to respond? Of great concern, no they had not. Overwhelmingly, the response has been: ‘Yes, we are concerned’. Not being miffed that they were not consulted, but: ‘We are concerned about this issue; that we have not had the opportunity to be prepared to make an informed response’. It will be argued - and I do not think quite fairly: ‘They knew about it because they knew that the overarching discussion about NCP requirements were in existence at an earlier stage’. Honestly, none of those people, who are very busy and very focussed on their specific responsibilities, were aware of the implications contained within this NCP recommendation to remove an anti-competitive means from the way that the gaming machines operate in our community.
As I said at the outset, most Territorians accept it as an enjoyment, a bit of relaxation. They accept also, that a good portion of the revenue that flows through our gaming machines goes towards our community and sporting groups through the community clubs. That is good. They also accept that there is an amount of revenue that flows into the Northern Territory Treasury, which is the 10% on hotels and in that. We would expect that would flow into the community for its benefit. We recognise that there is a current responsible gambling code of practice which has been developed collaboratively by industry, welfare groups and the government.
However, with the consideration of this legislation, which will see the opportunity for many others who hold liquor licences to now apply for gaming machines, we see this raises a number of questions which, unfortunately due to the lack of adequate consultation, have not had the opportunity to be answered. We have established at the outset: has the community been consulted? No, they have not. Will there be, potentially, a significant increase in the number of gaming machines in our community? The answer is yes, there will be. Does this change significantly affect the foundation upon which our whole gaming industry is based, specifically in regard to poker machines? Yes, it does.
In knowledge of what is happening interstate and internationally with poker machines specifically, and in researching the history of the poker machine industry in the Northern Territory, I see this as a perfect opportunity, after 10 years, to pause, hold it, and to establish a mechanism to review our gaming industry, specifically in regards to poker machines, to determine the level of benefit that does flow into our community. Could it be improved? To assess the commercial aspects of gaming as it currently exists, specifically in regard to poker machines. Could that be improved? As local members we all know those who suffer, and suffer tragically, and it is the vulnerable. Could we improve the support and services we offer? Could there be different ways that we can run our poker machines? It is a good time to ask those questions. It is a perfect time and, in fact, it is required in the light of sectors of the community not being consulted nor aware of what we have within this legislation.
I believe it is beholden that the minister and this government stop and direct its decision making ability to establish a select committee to address issues related to gaming and specifically poker machines. I urge the minister and I urge members opposite to see this as the opportunity. This is the opportunity to pause and to reassess how far we have come in the 10 years since they have operated in the Northern Territory. It gives us the opportunity to assess and weigh the commercial implications of the current operation, which may be contained in this legislation, and much of it has merit but we cannot be sure. Why embark on this path without that opportunity?
It is for that reason the opposition has no alternative but to oppose passage of this legislation. I foreshadow that I will present to this parliament a motion calling for the establishment of a select committee so that we can assess the distance we have traveled as a community, the effect of gaming on our community, and I am talking in the first instance of its commercial implications and the commercial aspects of its current operation. There may be issues that we could put on the table and discuss as a community to change the way we operate at the commercial level. There are also issues in the social implications of gaming, how we are tracking there. I believe it is very important to look interstate because you know the movements that are in other states, particularly in South Australia.
I shudder to think that I would be standing in this parliament in 10 years time, looking back at this moment and saying, ‘How on earth did we get here?’ If you look at South Australia, they have had to make some very difficult decisions. I know the minister will argue that we established it on a different foundation, that we did not go down the South Australian path. I put it to you, minister, that we are now choosing to go down a very different path than the first position that we took when we introduced poker machines in the Northern Territory.
This is the perfect time and the responsible decision is to not pass this legislation. Pause and allow the wider community access to this very important question which does affect many families in our community either through sporting groups and community clubs and those who currently hold poker machine licenses.
For that reason, minister, I urge you to not proceed with this legislation. Provide the Northern Territory community with the opportunity to visit this very important issue because I, for one, do not want to stand in this parliament in years to come and propose even more drastic legislation that helps us to extricate ourselves from a position that has become untenable, as have jurisdictions.
Let us proceed with great caution. I urge members opposite not to support this bill, and to support the opposition’s call for the establishment of a select committee so that we can proceed responsibly on this very important issue.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that is before us this evening. I follow a very considered contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, and I commend him for bringing a considered position to the House. However, I do not think he has considered the detail of this legislation.
Essentially, the argument that he is trying to run is that somehow this legislation will lead to significantly more poker machines being available in our community, and the associated harm to vulnerable members of the community who may use those machines.
What we have before us is a bill that puts significant additional hurdles in place in the public interest before the grant of any additional poker machines may be made, far in advance of what is in the existing legislation. We all agree that gambling is a problem for a section of our community in the same way that alcohol is a problem for some and drugs are a problem for others. There is also no doubt that when used responsibly, poker machines are very popular, and you only have to go to places where poker machines exist to see people enjoying them. For the life of me, I do not see how – it is not something that I am particularly interested in, but there is no doubt that people enjoy the pokies.
The Leader of the Opposition’s comments about proliferation and additional harm in the community do not stand scrutiny under what is being proposed. Honourable members will remember that the first poker machines in the NT were only granted to casinos which had an exclusive licence for years and had considerable taxation concessions. The decision to grant those licences was made by the former government. As those agreements expired, a regime was introduced whereby poker machines could be taken up by clubs, such as sporting clubs, to give them an additional source of revenue and attract people away from the casinos and, via the Community Benefit Fund, a percentage of takings going back into the community by way of funding for community and sporting groups.
We also had the ridiculous – and it is ridiculous when you try to find any logic to it – position where if a pub wanted access to poker machines, if they have a bottle shop and drive-through somehow they can be granted poker machines. What bottle shops have to do with the accessibility of poker machines is beyond me. The ludicrous position under the current legislation is that hotels that are like any other hotel except that they do not have a bottle shop are not allowed access to poker machines for the reason that there is no bottle shop licence attached to a liquor licence. That is patently anti-competitive, and the issue before us in terms of trying to ameliorate the spread of machines is, well how do we rectify that blatant anti-competitive position and privilege that liquor licences with bottle shops attached to them have without causing an explosion of poker machines through the community. That is what these amendments are seeking to do.
We all know the harm that alcohol causes in our community. We have a review process underway at the moment. But we also have pressure building up at present where hotels that do not have bottle shops, and therefore cannot access poker machines, are now seeking licences for bottle shops to further put pressure on the community through additional licensing provisions. They want to get a licence for a bottle shop for their liquor licence purely in order to access poker machines. Again, I think, by way of public policy, anybody would see that that is absolutely ludicrous, that we are actually going to increase the opportunity for retail liquor sales in the Territory purely to give those commercial operators access to poker machines.
It is very clear the current legislation is not working. It is anti-competitive and could lead to additional social harm by the grant of additional bottle shop licences. For example, under the current legislation, the bar operating at the Darwin airport terminal could apply for a gaming licence and install up to 10 new machines. Under the new definition, this venue would be excluded by virtue of not having a public hotel or tavern authority.
The argument that we will see an explosion of poker machines, again, is not borne out by the facts. There are currently 37 hotel-style venues with gaming machine licences. Under the current gaming machine legislation, there are a further 44 hotel-style venues that could potentially apply for a gaming machine licence; and be granted, uncontested, those licences. What is proposed here today is that the potential to apply for those machines under the proposed changes will reduce from 44 to an estimated 23. So we are actually reducing the opportunity for additional licences to go to the community. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, will agree that under the conditions of existing legislation we have the potential for an additional 440 hotel gaming machines in the community. Under the new proposal it halves that. It actually halves that potential to a maximum of 230 hotel gaming machines.
The legislation is actually going to do exactly what the opposition leader wants it to do: to reduce the potential for gaming machines in to the community. At the moment, the only hurdle an applicant has to jump in order to get access to those poker machines is via a ‘fit and proper person’ test. There is no capacity for the community to put in any objections. All a licensee has to do, and the very fact that they already have a liquor licence, and they cannot have a liquor licence unless they are a fit and proper person, that is the only test. That is the only hurdle that has to be jumped by a licensee who wishes to access that opportunity for poker machines. Again, given the legal context of the Licensing Commission, it is virtually impossible for the commission to knock back on those grounds that somebody is not a fit and proper person when they already have a liquor licence by the same test. Patently, what these changes are going to do is to give the community an opportunity to voice their objections, and for the commission to take into account a broader range of criteria in allocating a licence rather than just a fit and proper person test.
We also know through various studies, and consistent with research on gambling behaviour and the experience of other states - and I am sure we all have seen it here in the Northern Territory - that the reality is people who have significant gambling problems actually go to gaming venues where there are significant numbers of machines for them to play. It really is in the casinos where we see the damage being caused, I suppose, by people who have significant gaming problems. We all wonder about people sitting at poker machines at 9 am or 10 am. All of the research shows that the venues with increased density of gaming machines are the venues that attract the very problem gamblers that the Leader of the Opposition wants to protect, as per his contribution.
In an entertainment precinct like Mitchell Street, this increase is unlikely to transform the character of the area, or suddenly make it the epicentre for those people who are addicted to pokies. It is just incongruous that we have two pubs in Mitchell Street - one at the top of the street and one at the bottom of the street – which have a takeaway licence, which can access pokies and the pubs in between cannot. It is clearly anti-competitive. However, any arguments that, even if they met these community tests, by having an additional, fairly small, number of poker machines in Mitchell Street is somehow going to lead to a significant outbreak in gambling, addictions and problems, and is not borne out by research, evidence or experience in other places.
The requirement under the amendments will see a new community impact analysis, and also proposals for specific criteria to mediate any expansion of gaming machines. There has to be a community impact analysis, and each applicant will have to satisfy the commission that granting them a licence will not contribute to adverse social outcomes and, among other things, that it will be conducive to the primary activity of the venue; that it will not overly concentrate gaming venues; that machines will be suitably accommodated; and the venue has adequate responsible gambling strategies in place. These are all hurdles that do not exist at the moment. The only test at the moment is that the applicant is a fit and proper person.
Therefore, the concerns of the opposition that this legislation is going to lead to a significant increase in the number of poker machines and will see a consequential escalation of gambling-induced harm in our community, is not borne out by the realities of what this bill is doing which, essentially, is going to halve the number of venues that under the current of legislation can apply for poker machines and be granted those poker machines based on a fit and proper person test. It is going to halve the number of venues that can apply. It is going to put a community impact analysis fair and square in front of the Licensing Commission in deciding and determining any request for additional poker machines. For the first time, the public, by way of public notification - a public process where anybody in the community can lodge an objection to the Licensing Commission on the grant of additional gaming machines - is being bought into this equation.
For the opposition to say that, somehow, this legislation is actually worse than the existing legislation that we have, really does not bear any scrutiny whatsoever. This is a genuine attempt to meet the National Competition Principles, and even up the playing fields in regards to who can and who cannot have poker machines. It is a genuine attempt to put in place a threshold where additional machines will only be granted once they have passed a public process and a community impact analysis. My colleague will detail exactly how that works. Individuals and organisations will now be able to put their arguments and evidence in written submissions that the Licensing Commission must have regard to when considering an application.
None of those provisions currently apply. To argue that somehow we have let the cat out of the bag, that there is going to be a massive explosion of poker machines, and increased gaming-related harm in the community cannot be borne out by the facts. What I am prepared to say, and we have every responsibility as a parliament, that if, for some extreme reason we saw an explosion of gaming-related problems in the community well, of course you would come back and have a look at it.
The reality of fewer venues being able to claim, a public interest and a public submission to that process being in place, the doom and gloom, I suppose, in terms of what potentially might happen as per the Leader of the Opposition’s arguments, I just cannot see. What I think is that we will see a number of venues have access to poker machines that do not currently have access in the same way that another 44 clubs and venues could access them at the moment. The reality is, from evidence interstate and the research that is being conducted, that whilst adding some taverns and public hotels which do not have takeaway conditions, the amendments remove road side inns and other outlets where the primary activity is mixed or is focussed on something other than the sale and consumption of liquor, for example, the provision of accommodation, food, tourist services, or fuel.
By taking those out and saying no, under no circumstances can those enterprises have access to poker machines, we are raising the bar and the hurdles for people to access poker machines, and for the first time bringing a public interest test into the consideration of the Licensing Commission whilst making that decision. Madam Speaker, I support the Treasurer and Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, with these amendments.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, in the past in this parliament, the government and the opposition, regardless of which side they were, which party they were, when it came to issues of gambling, and nobody can dispute this, has always worked in a bipartisan matter. You can look at the racing industry funding, you can look at Internet and interactive gambling, you can look at the sale of the TAB, and you can look at the introduction of poker machines or gaming machines into the community. And one thing we can stand proud of in this parliament is that we have always worked together for an outcome that we believed - not we the opposition or they the government, whoever they were believed was the best outcome for them; but the best outcome for the Territory.
It really disappoints me that we are in here tonight arguing over this issue. We are starting to argue the detail and the minister for business just stood up and started arguing why this was good legislation on the detail. I do not care about the detail, Madam Speaker. What I care about is the basic fundamentals. No one can dispute in this Chamber that what this piece of legislation is doing is changing those basic fundamentals. What the opposition is saying is, if you are going to change the basic fundamentals, we are not averse to poker machines or gambling; but if you are going to change these basic fundamentals, let us go back and make sure we have it right. Let us just pause for a minute and make sure we have it right.
Let us just have a look at the history of this. I am imploring the minister for gaming to take note because this is very important. We had legislation introduced three weeks or so ago. We had some concerns, which we raised when it came on for debate. We said we would like to see it delayed. The minister, to his credit, said he would delay it until this week, which is why we are debating it tonight.
We then asked in Estimates this week about the changes and ramifications and, most importantly, about public consultation. The morning after we asked those questions, a couple of members of the opposition, including me, had a briefing; thank you, minister, for arranging that. It was admitted at that meeting – and everyone should take note of this – that the public consultation had not been thorough. The community, including community organisations, had not been engaged.
We know that submissions to the NCP report were generally from the hospitality industry. There were not submissions, as the minister reported, from community organisations. When we, prior to the briefing, talked to those organisations, they were not aware of the ramifications of any changes. We know that since then, Racing and Gaming staff have been consulting with those community organisations and they now have a different understanding. I do not know whether they are supportive or opposed, but there is certainly confusion.
The consultation that has taken place in a more thorough way has happened in the last three days. It has been a knee-jerk reaction to the issues the Leader of the Opposition raised with the minister.
I return to the fact that we have always dealt with these matters in a bipartisan way. What is the only excuse for ensuring this bill goes through tonight? Apart from arguing whether it is good, bad or indifferent, the minister’s only excuse will be that the current legislation is anti-competitive and it is NCP policy that we have to change it. The business minister just came in and said the fact that it is based on a takeaway licence is absolutely ludicrous.
For the minister’s sake – and I am not going to get into arguing the detail of this – let us go back 10 years to 1994. This parliament and 25 members considered how to introduce poker machines into the community, and they decided, after massive consultation, a report of which is available, that one of the basic fundamentals would be the takeaway licence. Now, it may not be suitable for today, but 25 members from both sides of the House agreed that it was a good idea at that time, and the community signed off on it.
The fact is that the basic changes you want to make today have not been signed off by the community. We all know how sensitive this issue is in the community when people become aware that there could be changes up, down, indifferent, whatever to gambling in their community. Everyone will have a position. It is almost like euthanasia. It is almost one of those issues about which people are concerned. All we are saying is, we need now to review the situation, see how it is working …
Mr Stirling: Nitschke’s not into pokies, is he?
Mr BALDWIN: You can argue your own points, minister for Gaming. I am putting my point of view, and I hope that you are listening.
In this parliament, we set some primary objectives under which community gaming machines would be introduced. As far as I know, they have been met and maintained. If there is a different point of view in this parliament, let us go back and ask all of those concerned: the clubs, the pubs, those who want poker machines but do not have them; those that do not want poker machines; those that deal with the harm from poker machines; those individual businesses that have a viewpoint about poker machines, let us go back and do the homework, because there is no rush.
I say that again, minister, for your sake, there is no rush to pass this tonight. The minister has said to me, in that briefing, that I said, ‘Okay, there could be a fine from National Competition Policy’. He said, ‘I am not worried about a fine. It is not an issue’. So if that is not an issue, then tell me, what is the rush? If you want to rush this through tonight, you better have a better reason than NCP. And you want to have a better reason than arguing the detail about whether you are making it better or not, because I think we should go and ask the community before we have that debate.
You can come and argue all the detail, and try to persuade us and whatever, all we are saying to you, minister, is, let us go back, it is time, it is a very good time to go back. Nothing will change for the short period of time that it will take, relatively speaking, to go back out and canvass the community. Let us do that. That is all that we are saying. I mean, we have in here, after the bill has been introduced, a whole raft of amendments. How do we go out there and consult about these amendments, minister? It is just irresponsible, when you are talking about gaming machines, to try to do this stuff on the run, as you full well know that you are doing when you found out that the consultation has not taken place and the community is not engaged on this subject. And if you do not believe me, ask what the subject was on radio ABC 105.7 FM on Drive last night. You will find that it was about poker machines.
The minister for Business also said, which I thought was absolutely astounding, let us do this and if we have a problem in the future, then we can come back in here and fix it up. Well, what this about, and the way we have always operated on gambling issues in the Northern Territory is, let us agree to try to get it right in the first place. That is what is happening down south. They are going back to the parliaments now to try to claw back machines. If you think that is the way to go well, boy, you have it dead wrong.
What we are saying is, let us test the fundamentals again, and this may well be the right way to go that you are proposing. But let us ask the community, because it is a sensitive issue. And if you are not prepared to do it, then we are. The Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed a motion. We are going to move a motion at the end of the second reading speech under Standing Order 183 to refer this bill to a standing committee. That seems patently sensible to me. There is no rush to take this issue forward on the eve of passing the Appropriation Bill just because NCP regulations have to be met by 30 June. That is not a good enough reason to bludgeon this through the parliament without taking account of all of the issues and all of the stakeholders.
I appeal to the minister on the past bipartisanship that we have always shown. He knows what I am talking about; when I was Gaming minister we always did things in that manner. We worked together on committees. He was on the gaming machine committee which introduced gaming machines to the Territory. He was on the interactive gaming machine committee which led us to the introduction of interactive Internet; the first ever in a jurisdiction such as ours in the world. We have been leaders in the way we have dealt with gambling issues in the Northern Territory, nationally and internationally. And so the bipartisanship is a very strong point.
The timing is another strong point. Changing the base of fundamentals is what we are resting on here; observing those primary objectives for which we introduced poker machines, and how they will be impacted under any changes that go to those basic fundamentals.
On that basis, I am appealing to the gaming minister to support a motion - not that we have worked out all the terms of reference or anything. We have some ideas and we will put those in the motion, and we are happy that they are added to. Send this off to a standing committee for a time for proper and thorough consultation with the entire community, and not just those that were reported and gave submissions to the NCP report.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments with regards to this legislation and the opposition’s position. I say at the outset, and simply endorse the comments that the member for Daly has made to the minister who has carriage of this legislation, that we have always acted in a bipartisan way on these sorts of issues. I had hoped that the government would see the good sense in taking up what the opposition has suggested, and bring forward a separate select committee to use this opportunity to look at the electronic gaming industry, in particular, as it is today – the problems that there currently are in the operation, regulation, and legislative requirements of that particular industry - with a view to going back to first principles and ensuring that the principles under which we set up this industry in the first place are being adhered to.
In that context I say, minister, that the Leader of Government Business did not help you in your case at all, because to sit back and listen to the Leader of Government Business make these sorts of comments, such as ‘it is clear that the current legislation is not working, and could cause significant social harm’. He went on to say that the only test for a person to obtain poker machines under the current legislative regime is for the person to be a fit and proper person with a takeaway licence, and the Licensing Commissioner has little or no opportunity to reject those applications. He also said that if this legislation is not working we can come back and have a further look at it. Essentially, he put a case that we should pass this legislation because, rather than allowing 43 new venues to get gaming machines in the Northern Territory, it will only allow possibly 23.
If you take that in its context and then read, say, the second reading speech, a couple of issues in the second reading speech jump straight out at you. Firstly, that this change results primarily from a National Competition Policy review. The second reading speech said this:
Not only is this legislation being brought forward now, but there are other aspects of this legislation that have been deferred and they will be brought forward at a later date, because they deal with other comprehensive changes. They …
It went on to say that these deferred recommendations will, in future, look at the indefinite granting of gaming licences. The second reading speech said - and I have highlighted it – that the intent of this legislation is primarily to:
If you take all that together and go back to first principles - go back to the reasons why we introduced electronic gaming machines into the Northern Territory - those first principles are enlightening because the current Treasurer was a member of that committee. There were three members of the committee: the current Lord Mayor of Darwin, who is well versed on these issues; the current Treasurer; and myself as chairmen. It was a three member committee. We worked and travelled all around Australia, talked to the industry, talked to the regulating bodies …
Mr Stirling: You and I did a good job.
Mr BURKE: We did an extremely good job. As the shadow minister, the member for Daly, said, it is unfortunate that we now find ourselves in a situation where, in this parliament, we are going to see legislation bludgeoned through to a point that we have disagreement on these issues.
If the minister recalls that particular committee and the information it received as it travelled around the country, it led us to say that there are some things that we will put into this framework of the Northern Territory that are so important that we want it framed in the legislation. We want it as the primary objectives of the introduction of poker machines, and the methodology and – I am trying to think of a better word than regime - essentially, the culture that we will ensure that we encourage in the Northern Territory. That culture was unpinned with these warnings that were strong in the committee’s report.
Listen to these warnings again; they were made in 1994 and think of your comments today that you are looking at an NCP review. You want a low regulatory gaming industry. You want to remove anti-competitive elements. People under the current regime can apply for a licence and the only strength the Licensing Commission has is to say: ‘Do you have a take away licence. Oh yes, you do. Okay, you fit the bill. We have no other strength to contain your application’. Listen to these warnings. First of all, we said that the industry is selfish and will look after itself, and we said in anticipation of these representations, it is proper to include a reminder that:
Revokable privileges, not rights. That is what we said.
We set up a regime in the Northern Territory that said as its first recommendation that the regulatory system for the Territory should be designed to meet its own circumstances - not the NCP circumstances - its own circumstances. That was the first recommendation we made. We made that because we knew that in this sort of industry some people will see it as a licence to print money. Some people will see it as a cash cow and some people will see it without any reference to the social harm that can be caused, and also, if we do not put in very strict controls, we will meet our own primary objectives which were: this is recommendation 2 – the primary objective in extending the distribution of poker machines in the community should be explicit.
The minister checked off on all these; I think he can help find the words - and Mr Otto Alder - should be explicit. That is, to provide a productive, local, leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs to improve neighbourhood recreation amenity and to the government for services for all Territorians. Those were the fundamentals that we introduced poker machines into the Northern Territory and we allowed some small concession to hotels to get some small numbers of poker machines and we defined those hotels quite definitely. We knew the arguments about takeaway liquor licences at the time and we did not care because we said, we will allow certain venues that meet our description of a hotel; not the NCP’s description; our description of a hotel. If that is anti-competitive, too bad. We are setting our own regime for the Northern Territory and that is the regime we will put in place.
Now, it is in that circumstance I say to the Treasurer, what has gone wrong? What has gone wrong and why are we now in a position where the Licensing Commission that is in charge of these poker machines not only has no teeth, according to the Leader of Government Business in his submission, but by the Treasurer’s own arguments in other areas, reckons it is stupid in its decision making. Your own second reading speech, Treasurer, says:
How does that tick up in your statement of the responsible community representative when that same commission issued a liquor licence to a hairdresser in Alice Springs and you described it as ‘stupid’? You cannot say on the one hand that this is the organisation that is representative of the community and we can have ultimate faith in this organisation when its latest decision was described as ‘stupid’.
We see a situation where the fundamental controls that were put in place have been eroded away. Now, I do not know the reason why. I know that circumstances have changed dramatically. We used to have a finite cap on the number of machines based on the contractual arrangements we had with the casinos. Those circumstances have changed. We had a revenue flow that had to go to the casinos to meet what they felt were the commercial disadvantages they were facing because of the introduction of poker machines. Those circumstances have changed. We had a requirement to pass benefit back to the community through the clubs in their revenue flow from poker machines, and that has not been as successful as we would have liked. There is no doubt that the commercial interests that have become involved in clubs, you have to ask whether their interests are so strong that community interests are becoming subservient to their return on their investment faster than the community is getting direct community benefit. So things have changed in that regard.
There is no doubt, and we realised it at the time, that 45 machines maximum for a club was going to be a position that would be hard to hold because other states told us that 45 machines was about the bare minimum for a reasonably sized club …
Mr Stirling: It has not been hard to hold.
Mr BURKE: It will be hard to hold in the future. Once you give …
Mr Stirling: Forty-five and 10 are still there.
Mr BURKE: I will say to you now that I believe that the whole situation of whether a club should get no more than 45 machines needs to be looked at as well, particularly if there are new venues entering the market that will put pressure on those clubs and their turnover. They will be commercial, attractive and taking away patronage. Where does that affect the fundamentals of why we introduced poker machines: to strengthen clubs? It was not to make Mitchell Street the poker machine venue of the Northern Territory. To strengthen clubs! That is why we did it.
We need to look at this whole regime for two reasons: (1) the circumstances of introduction have changed dramatically; (2) to address the NCP review; (3) to see the appropriateness of this legislation in ensuring that the fundamentals of our regime are there and continue in the future; (4) to ensure the Licensing Commission has far more strength than it has at the moment; and, more importantly than anything, is (5) to go back to the community and ask the community what they think of what has occurred in the Territory with electronic gaming machines in the last 10 years. I believe their report will be quite good.
However, if you do not consult them and the message reaching the community is that the changes will see the proliferation of poker machines, if the message to the business community with poker machines is that they are not going to get any more but other venues will be getting some and possibly more than they think will get them, you will have a major problem on your hands. You will have a major problem with the general community and with the business community.
As one member of this parliament, I can tell you that I am one who would argue that there is a need for some of the clubs to be considered for more machines. In a place like Palmerston, for example, you have poker machines at the Palmerston Golf Club that are totally inefficient and you have a cap on machines at The Hub. An innovative government looking to put benefit back to the community would probably be looking at mechanisms whereby you can somehow amortize that arrangement so that you have a better situation than exists at the moment. Does your regime cater for that at the moment? It probably does not.
It has to be a flexible regime for the future. It has to look at those businesses that currently operate poker machines and confirm that whatever you do, you have to preserve their commercial interests and make sure that they are not disadvantaged now or into the future. You certainly have to look at new venues from an anti-competitive point of view, but mindful of the fundamentals of why we brought poker machines into the Northern Territory. And the last thing, I would think, what is irrelevant in the whole process, is the NCP. We could not give flying fig about the NCP, frankly, and I reckon more and more the Territory should be standing up and saying that to the National Competition Policy’s review, ‘We do not give a flying fig what you think. We introduced poker machines in the Northern Territory to suit our own circumstances, and we are proud of it.’
I reckon if you go to the community generally, undoubtedly you will find 1% or 2% that cannot stand pokies and think the whole world will end tomorrow because of poker machines, but generally, I believe the community has been comfortable with the regime that was put in place. They have seen greater amenity in their own communities. They have seen the ability to have far better social interaction, certainly in my community of Palmerston, with places like Cazalys and The Hub. They are concerned about the return back, through the turnover of those machines to the community, directly through grants, which they are not seeing as fulsomely as they would like. And all of these things need to be looked at.
Rather than seeing this as a threat, I would see it as an opportunity. I would go back to the Treasurer - who in many ways likens himself to, and likes and respects a guy called Barry Coulter. I reckon if Coulter was sitting in that chair now, he would already be picking off the ones who are in it, because he would see the politics in it. He would see the advantage of being able to sit back and say: ‘We have to look at this whole thing, and by the way, the rationale is there. The report says, “… conduct a comprehensive review in 1998”.’
I know we conducted a review, but it was not comprehensive. It certainly did not go back to the community in the way the select committee intended. The select committee intended us to go back to the community and start from first principles and ask them again, how are we going? The rationale is there to do it. You are just following the recommendations. It has now been 10 years. We could also stand on the fact that other states in Australia are in extreme difficulty. South Australia is a classic. In other states, slowly, the strong commercial venues got more and more …
Mr STIRLING: That is why we did not go that way; you know.
Mr BURKE: We knew it. They got more and more powerful because they got more and more machines, and more and more out of the market. The ones that failed in South Australia were the clubs. The ones that will fail up here, if we keep this bracket creep that is coming in, and if we hold to the words of the Leader of Government Business, that the only test is limited, the only strength that the commission has is limited - we are going to get bracket creep all right because, as the recommendations of the committee tells you, ‘legislation of gaming creates strong and selfish interest groups’. That was in 1994. You helped me write it, Syd. ‘Creates strong and selfish interest groups’. That is the warning we sent. And those strong and selfish interest groups do not need economic rationalists like the NCP to help them in their argument. We should be saying to the NCP, Territory regime, our business, go away, not interested. But what we will do is, we will go back to the community and say, what do you think? It has been 10 years. We believe that we need to stick to our first principles. Now how are those first principles operating today? Where do we need to strengthen them? And let all of the stakeholders have their say.
I believe the outcome will be excellent. I believe the outcome will probably be that they will allow more machines, in certain venues, under certain conditions. I reckon that is what the community will say. They will be very concerned about the social impact, and that is another reason why you cannot go ahead with this sort of methodology without going back to the community and asking them, and certainly satisfying them that those social impacts are being attended to. The only way you will do it is to go back and ask them how to do it. Particularly a Labor government which stands up and says that this is the stuff that the CLP did not do, and aren’t we great because we do it. This is the stuff the CLP did – select committee, go to the community and ask them how to do it, tell them the framework that we want to do, and then ask them what they think of it. I believe that is the track record we can stand on. I believe the Labor government, if it has any sense at all, will stand on the same methodology and the same principles.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition will move that we establish a committee. The terms of reference that will be provided are not complete in themselves. They ask them for those terms of reference to be agreed. Certainly, you will have our support if you move forward with this in this way.
However, Treasurer be warned. You have the numbers; you reckon you are smarter in politics than we are in the Northern Territory. Do not bludgeon this one through, because you cannot argue it. You cannot argue it, because you have not consulted, and they know you have not consulted them. The business people are not persuaded, because they have selfish and competing interests. So, do not tell me that they have come to you as a bloc and they all agree, because they would not. For everyone who wants more, someone else does not want them to get more. We knew that 10 years ago. So, they have not agreed. You will have a lot of difficulty, I believe, satisfying them that if one more enters the market, their own competitor position is not being eroded and, therefore, they should not get more themselves.
I also believe the community, when it comes to poker machines, wants to re-look at this whole issue in terms of how much it is directly benefiting them. Not through government grants that serve a political purpose, either by our government or yours - and you are just doing the same thing with a different methodology. They want to know what is benefiting them in their own community, because they sit in the clubs and they know how much is going through those machines, and they want to know how much is flowing back to them in their own community, not through Consolidated Revenue. I see it as an opportunity and, if the government does not see that opportunity, all I can do is warn and encourage you to look at it.
I ask you to support the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal, rather than bludgeoning this legislation through, so it can move forward in a bipartisan way.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from St Bernard’s College, Essendon, Victoria. They are accompanied by Garth Cupido and Petra Moon. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Wood: They are probably all Bombers supporters, Madam Speaker.
A Member: No, they are good kids.
Mr Wood: No, they are from Essendon.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member for Brennan and thought to myself: what better argument to put forward than to have a member of a previous select committee discussing this particular issue. Presuming that the Treasurer is having an alternative point of view, I would have thought that, if we are to come to a bipartisan agreement on this issue, with the two people who belonged to a select committee in 1994, why not have another select committee and see if we can come to common ground, because it is a very important issue.
At the outset, I thank the minister for the briefings. I know some of the amendments arose from one of those briefings. My concern would be that, regardless of whether these changes are good or bad, the community has been left out of the whole process. I also rang Amity House today and asked them if they had been involved, and they said only this week. I am of the understanding that they did know, somewhere back weeks or months ago, that there was something put in place. However, I understand that, because they made no comment at that stage, they were not involved in any further processes. I also believe that people like Relationships Australia also fell into that category.
Mr Mills: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of even those community groups being involved, the issue of poker machines is a much broader issues than just the people who have to deal with those who have a problem. The public use poker machines. I enjoy the pokies. There are other who cannot stand the pokies …
Mr Baldwin: I can attest to that.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a conflict of interest.
Mr WOOD: Oh, I should have declared a conflict of interest. I am not sure what the address is in Whitewood Road, but it is the Howard Springs Tavern. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The community must be involved. South Australia and the issues that have been debated there have been mentioned. That highlights that the community does have some concerns. I have certainly run into people who hate going to pubs where there are pokies. They would like some clubs with no pokies. They are not saying they are against them …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That raises a very interesting issue because, if these change go forward, I believe that there would be about 10 or 11 new premises in Mitchell Street that could have poker machines. Do we really want Mitchell Street wall-to-wall with poker machines? It is a tourist place; there are a lot of young people, backpackers. Or would we prefer to have at least a range of venues so that people can have a choice about where they want to go?
Mr Baldwin: Importantly, do they want it?
Mr WOOD: Well, we might be asking the tourism industry if they want places just with wall-to-wall poker machines.
The key issue here is not necessarily what is in the legislation. It is that the legislation has not gone back out for a widespread community consultation. That is part of the reason I did ask - and you will see it in the amendments - that when somebody is applying for poker machines there should be community involvement. I must admit I would prefer something similar to the Development Consent Authority, where you can have a public meeting so that, if my local pub wants to put in another 10 poker machines, you can go to a meeting and discuss it.
The government has brought in some amendments which allows an occurrence similar to applying for a liquor licence, where you write to the commissioner, and they will take into account what you have said. However, sometimes you need to have these sorts of issues which can impact on a community discussed by the community. For instance, if there was a pub close to one of the Aboriginal communities, I would expect the Aboriginal community to have the opportunity in a public forum, to sit down and give their points of view as to how much that could affect those communities. That issue of the effect on some Aboriginal communities, is what would be part of this select committee. As we know, poker machines can take money out of a community. It is not the same as playing cards under the street light where, even though somebody might lose all their money, that money is eventually shared and put back mainly into the community. Poker machines take money out of the communities. A select committee certainly should be looking at what effects they have on some of our communities.
As regards the NCP review, I must admit I would like to know who it spoke to when it was doing a review. It seems to me that this was a review done internally amongst those, I suppose, directly affected from an industry point of view. However, I would be interested to know whether the NCP itself went out into the community and discussed it with the community. I also find some things that were recommended in the second reading that relate to that review conflicting. I will quote from the second reading speech where it talks about the review. It says:
We turn the page over to Regulatory Directions and it says:
This is where I see - I would not call it hypocrisy. I cannot work out what the review is trying to say. It says ‘we should have minimum regulatory intervention by government’ after it just said ‘we need strong and prescriptive regulatory approach’. Now we have completely the opposite, ‘we need maximum cooperation between industry and government’. ‘Cooperation’ - lovely word in this sort of business. ‘Performance-based risk management controls’; what does that mean? ‘Proactive and competitive industry positioning’ - that sounds like she is a free market. ‘Long-term viability of the industry’, and last, ‘and balanced approach to problem gambling’.
On one hand the review is saying: ‘if you want to address concerns about the potentially addictive nature of gambling activity, you should have strong and prescriptive regulations’ and, on the next page, it says: ‘if you want to have a balanced approach to problem gambling, you should have minimum regulatory intervention by government’. The review is sending out mixed signals.
To some extent, the government has gone down the path of minimum regulatory intervention by government. Poker machines are such an important social issue that the government needs to have tight control. I do not believe there is no problem with that in this industry.
Those are my main concerns. I hope we do not use the argument that the NCP might take a few dollars from us …
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would have said: ‘So what?’. I would have thought that we could argue the case that there should not be any penalty because this is such an important social issue that it would be pretty poor form of any government to apply penalties to a government looking at an issue that has important social implications.
I have spoken to the Treasurer, who knows that I will not support the bill. It is not because I do not support what is in it; the real issue is lack of community consultation. I support the Leader of the Opposition’s idea for a select committee. That would be a very good process. After all, we should do that more often to ensure when there is legislation before us, that the community is thoroughly consulted. Select committees do that.
Madam Speaker, I do not support this legislation as it is. The main reason is there should be more community consultation after which we can look at it again.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input to this debate, which is one that we come to with like minds regarding the outcomes we seek to achieve, albeit through different processes.
I take on the chin the comments made by the Opposition Leader and the member for Daly in relation to consultation with community groups. There was an oversight in getting back to them, notwithstanding the fact that they had the same opportunity as every other group to respond when the information was disseminated.
Some of these groups are not strongly resourced and, over the past week, getting the information back in has been a job in itself for RGL to track some of them down. Some of them are resourced: Anglicare, Amity, Sommerville, Salvos, and St Vincent de Paul you can get hold of, but we could not get hold of NTCOSS over a period of days. That is the reality and you do need, obviously, a lot longer.
I listened with close interest to each of the members, most particularly the member for Brennan, because we shared the experience of working on the committee that saw the introduction of gaming machines into the wider community 10 years ago. I think it was the first leadership role in the parliament that the member for Brennan undertook as chair of that committee, and he did it in a forthright fashion.
I must say we were well advised and assisted by one Mr Otto Alder through that process, having a first-hand look at the introduction of machines into the community, as was occurring and has recently occurred in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. We also looked at New South Wales where they have been in existence legally or otherwise for many years. We were able to settle on a position that was to follow the Queensland model because we thought gaming machines had been introduced into the community in that state in the most moderate and well-controlled fashion of all, in the sense that the idea was about strengthening clubs, as the member for Brennan said, and government took ownership of the machines, and purchased the machines in the first place to enable those clubs who otherwise would not have had the wherewithal to get into the game to do so. Then, over a period of time, government ownership ceased and the ownership reverted to the venues themselves.
I thought the introduction overall was very good, and credence has been paid to the first principles that the member for Brennan was talking about, albeit it could have been strengthened in the parts of the act itself regarding community contribution by the clubs because, not only were they expected to strengthen themselves and their ability to offer amenity to their community and their members, but they were expected to contribute. Because they were on the gravy train, in the sense, of a good revenue stream through gaming machines, they were expected to contribute, pretty handsomely, to the community. That was not picked up in the bill itself as strongly as it could have been, and it is an issue that continues to roll on and still needs to be looked at closely.
The different positions put by the members opposite are interesting, though, in the sense that, on the one hand, there is an anxiety or a concern about proliferation - and certainly the member for Daly and the Leader of the Opposition see in this a capacity to roll out very quickly …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never articulated a concern about the proliferation of poker machines at all, and I am being defamed here.
Mr STIRLING: I am happy to take it back. I thought that was, if not expressed today …
Mr Baldwin: No, I talked about the fundamental …
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, I think, was the …
Mr STIRLING: I thought it was expressed the other day. I take it back.
Certainly, that view was expressed to me, perhaps by - I will say the member for Drysdale, because he is not here to contradict me.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: If he comes through the door, I will take it back.
No, these concerns were expressed, and they were genuine, but misplaced. In my view, misplaced because, if they were genuine concerns that I shared, I would not be standing here passing these bills tonight. I guess one of the difficulties we have with ‘stop now, and hold the bus while we look’, is the fact that government has signalled very clearly with this bill the intention to tighten up the ability to get gaming machines out there in the community. If that is not a signal to those venues were - and let us say we had a select committee for six months: ‘Hello to the venues, you have six months to get across the line and get your machines now, because it is going to be darn site tougher in six months time when the select committee reports back’.
Notwithstanding those concerns - and I believe they are genuinely held by members of the opposition - from the member for Brennan, speaking from the heart, he said that 45 is not enough in some clubs, and I think referred to clubs in his own area. That 45, and originally six in hotels, was set as the max at the time of the introduction. The six in hotels shifted to 10 at some point, but the 45 has never been changed, and we have not seen a need to change that. Of the all the clubs with gaming machines in the Territory, just six have the full 45. The average per club is 19, and they vary in number from holding two, right up to 45. It is interesting that, in the past two years, there has been no application for gaming machines from clubs in the Northern Territory.
We would have a difficulty with holding everything now for three months or six months, because it would be a very clear signal to venues that want to get hold of gaming machines to do so now. ‘Get your takeaway licence and put your hand up for gaming machines, because all the signs are that the government is going to make this a much tougher game into the future’. There is a real difficulty with that, albeit, some of the things that you might get a committee to look at, we would agree were good things to do.
I sense from the opposition - and the member for Daly did actually spell it out. He said: ‘I do not want any of the detail …
Mr Baldwin: I do not want to discuss the details. I heard the details.
Mr STIRLING: ‘I do not want to hear the detail’. What a nonsense when you are a legislator in the parliament; you have a bill before you and you do not want to hear the detail. You cannot come to a debate with a closed mind. I listened intently to each of the speakers, including the member for Daly …
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about the amendments. That is the detail that came in here today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly! The minister is explaining.
Mr Baldwin: Explain those.
Mr STIRLING: … including the member for Daly. I just cannot believe that he can come into this parliament and make sensible decisions about legislation when you say: ‘I do not want to hear the details’. There are none so deaf than those who will not hear and engage. It is a pity if the member for Daly has that view, because a failure to listen is obviously going to be a failure to recognise what we believe is good policy; what I stand by as good policy.
The member for Brennan also talked about first principles, and about strengthening the clubs in the community. That is true; that is what we and the committee set out to do. In part, it is preserved in going to the object section of the bill. One of the common threads through all of the amendments to legislation coming from National Competition Policy is to state quite explicitly, up-front, the objects of the act so people know the purpose and the intention of having the legislation in the first place. The object section of the act, very clearly, is to ensure probity and integrity in gaming, and to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming in the Territory. As the National Competition Policy review noted, an important contemporary social objective of gambling regulation is to promote problem gambling remedies and responsible gambling practices.
The proposed objects are: to promote probity and integrity; to maintain the probity and integrity of persons in gaming; to promote fairness, integrity and efficiency in the operations of persons in gaming; to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming; and to promote a balanced contribution by the gaming industry to general community benefit and amenity. I read that last point as going back and relating to one of the first principles that the member for Brennan was talking about. It is still there, albeit in a broader form. However, importantly, right up-front, is this question of to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming in the Territory.
I want to take some time to go through this. I heard also the points – and they are true – raised about concerns about the number of machines, and the damage done by gambling using those machines, in other states.
The Northern Territory was very particular about the model of implementation and the way it went, and that is why we have not seen the level of social damage and harm. I do not deny there is a level, and I see it. I see it myself on a regular basis, but not to the extent that we are seeing in Victoria, South Australia more recently, and New South Wales for many years.
I want to table this document because it states exactly what the situation is now. It is the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults in 2002-03 in clubs and hotels. The average for Australia is 13. Western Australia has none because they only have them in the casino; South Australia has 13; Queensland 14; New South Wales 20 - this is gaming machines per 1000 adults in clubs and hotels – Victoria, amazingly, seven – yet, when I am in Victoria, I seem to see them everywhere and I am confronted by them. Maybe it is where I go. I go to the Essington Football Club – machines …
Mr Baldwin: Well, I am sure they are there!
Mr STIRLING: Well, it seems to me - and maybe it is my nature and it is in me to seek them out. I think not. They seem to be in your face.
Mr Baldwin: If you just go to clubs and pubs, that is where you will see them.
Mr STIRLING: South Australia is the same. They seem to be in your face, and you see them down the street in a way that you do not in the Northern Territory. I am just putting that on the record, because this is only an indicator. Although Victoria may seem low at seven, I would think that it is easier to find them, and you are more exposed to them in Victoria than you are here. Tasmania has six, ACT 21, and the Northern Territory seven, Western Australia nil. The Australian average, as I said, was 13.
If you put casinos into the mix, which is only fair - so you have got clubs, hotels and casinos - the figures read, for the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults: South Australia at 14, Queensland at 15; New South Wales at 20; Victoria at eight; Tasmania at 10; ACT at 21; the Northern Territory at 12; Western Australia with one; and the Australian average lists 1:14. At the clubs and hotels, we are about half the Australian average. Put casinos into the mix then we shift, under the Australian average, to 12:14. I table that for the interest of members.
Madam Speaker, I want to foreshadow the amendments that I will propose in the committee stage because these have the effect of further strengthening what we believe will be a fairly strong regime anyway. I want to put these on the record now, notwithstanding that we will go into committee and debate these.
To further clarify the venue types that can and cannot apply for gaming machines and strengthen the controls on existing licensees wanting to increase their machine numbers, clause 5 of the bill would amend section 3, the definitions section of the principal act, by revising the definition of a club liquor license, which previously had references to a redundant section, of the Liquor Act. The amendment schedule to the bill would seek to clarify the definition of a ‘club liquor license’ by introducing the reference to guests as well as members within the meaning of a club license. Clause 5 would also make the definition of ‘hotel’ more precise following recent consultation with members of the House.
As currently proposed in the bill, a range of current liquor licence classifications used by the Licensing Commission would meet the proposed definition given for a hotel liquor licence. This would have led to a broader range of outlets being able to argue their case to apply for machines than intended. Therefore, to remove doubt about the government’s intention and to contain eligibility only to those venues traditionally regarded as pubs and taverns, the proposed amendment specifically requires that the hotel liquor licence be endorsed by a public hotel or tavern authority. This is in addition to the current proposal in the bill that the primary activity is on-premise sale and consumption of liquor.
The consequence of this amendment is significant, as it reduces the types and number of outlets that can potentially apply for gaming machines. For example - and I thank the member for Daly for pointing this situation out - under current legislation the bar operating at the Darwin Airport terminal could apply for a gaming licence and install up to 10 machines. It would seem incongruous for an airport which is, essentially, a transport hub. Under the new definition, this venue would be excluded by virtue of not having a public hotel or tavern authority.
The proposed change would ensure the types of venues that can apply for gaming machines are more akin to what the community expects. There are currently 37 hotel-style venues with gaming machines licences in the Territory. Under current gaming machine legislation, there are a further 44 hotel-style venues that could potentially apply for a gaming machine licence. The proposed amendments will add some new venues to the list that can potentially apply for a licence, but these will be more than offset by the venues that will no longer be able to apply. In overall terms, the number of venues that would have to potential to apply for machines under the proposed changes will reduce from 44 to an estimated 23 based on current liquor licences. While adding some taverns and public hotels that do not have takeaway conditions, the amendments remove roadside inns and other outlets where the primary activity is mixed, or is focussed on something other than the sale of consumption of liquor; for example, the provision of accommodation, food, tourist services or fuel.
The estimated 23 venues that would be able to apply for machine licence under the proposed amendments will be subject to a much more stringent application process. They will be required to undertake a community impact analysis, and it is most likely that this new process will see a number of applicants weeded out. The existing requirement of having a takeaway liquor licence to apply for machines has the potential - worse case scenario, admittedly - to put 440 more hotel gaming machines in the community vetted by the fact that they have a takeaway licence and they pass probity and the fit and proper person test.
The new regime halves this potential to a maximum of 230 hotel gaming machines. The current vetting process is ineffective in stemming machine numbers, as applicants need only satisfy the Licensing Commission that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence without any regard for the impact of the machines on the surrounding community.
I note that seven of the venues that would eligible under the proposed new law to apply for gaming machine licences for the first time are located on Mitchell Street in the CBD of Darwin. While this might be of concern for some, it needs to be kept in perspective. If all of these venues successfully applied for gaming machines and got the maximum of 10, it would result in a maximum increase of seven machines - 10 at each venue. In an entertainment precinct like Mitchell Street, that increase is unlikely to transform the character of the area or suddenly make it the epicentre for those who like to play the poker machines. Indeed, evidence from service agencies – and I thank those agencies that commented in this area and provided evidence - is that gaming machines in hotels are the least likely to be played by people who have gambling problems. Data from Amity House for the last year shows that only around one in 10 new clients with gaming problems link their situation to hotels as opposed to other types of venues. Problem gambling is more strongly associated with locations that have a greater density of gaming machines. That is consistent with research on gambling behaviour and the experience of other states.
The amendment schedule proposes a new mechanism to ensure that community members can be part of the decision process on new licences. This mechanism does not currently exist. Individuals and organisations will now be able to put their argument and evidence in written submissions that the Licensing Commission must have regard to when considering applications.
The new community impact analysis also poses specific criteria to mediate any expansion of gaming machines. Each applicant would have to satisfy the commission that granting them a licence will not contribute to adverse social outcomes and, among other things, that it will be conducive to the primary activity of the venue; that it will not overly concentrate gaming venues; that machines will be suitably accommodated; and that the venue has adequate responsible gambling strategies in place.
These amendments also require applicants to advertise their intention to apply for gaming machines. The ad must be placed in the press in a prescribed form and enable the director to stipulate any other notification required, such as at the venue itself.
Clause 9A of the amendment schedule proposes an amendment which requires a community impact analysis if a venue already with gaming machines wants to significantly increase its number. The proposed section 41A requires a community impact analysis to accompany any application for an increase of five or more gaming machines, or where the Director of Licensing requires it. These measures are primarily intended to allow small increases in gaming machines to be considered without a community impact analysis. At the same time, it will control or limit frequent requests being made for increases of fewer than five machines because the director will have powers to require a community impact analysis. Section 41A also sets out the criteria of the community impact analysis, which are consistent with the requirements on new licence applicants. These amendments are a direct response to requests by industry in consultation with public representatives. I want to reiterate that the government does not want to see an unchecked proliferation of community gaming machines.
The amendments I am proposing remove the takeaway liquor requirement as a filter. That filter has no fair rationale and, further, has not been effective in recent years in curtailing the spread of machines. Between 1 July 2000 and 31 May 2004, community gaming machines increased by 48% from 650 to 962. The current system is too loose in terms of who can apply for machines, and there is not enough rigour in the process to vet gaming machine applications.
That current situation is not acceptable to government. Whilst the opposition is agitating that the proposed amendments would fuel a greater spread of machines, in truth they halve the number of outlets that might have machines, and impose significant new criteria to limit the number of machines that might be obtained by eligible venues. The opposition, when formerly in government, expressed its position on gaming machines by raising the maximum number of machines allowed in hotels from six to 10. Since they did that in July 2001, there has been a doubling of machines in hotels from 149 to 301. The measures proposed here in this bill are intended to prevent just such expansion rates.
The amendments I am proposing will introduce more stringent and comprehensive criteria that include committee views, and which are framed by objectives that included harm minimisation. They will also, for the first time, provide a check on the proliferation of gaming machines through clubs.
We acknowledge the value that machines add to the services provided by clubs but, under these new amendments the granting of the licence or the increase in machine numbers at a particular club will have to be more fully justified. Those concerned with proliferation should appreciate that the amendments now provide a mechanism for controlling the situation where only a very limited mechanism currently exists. It is a vast improvement on the current situation; it clarifies the type of venues that can apply for gaming machine licences and significantly expands the process involved in the assessment of those applications.
It is true these changes will still allow certain outlets to apply for machines, but it is a vast improvement on this current situation because fewer outlets in the community would be able to apply for gaming machines. Therefore, in seeking to remove measures that are discriminatory and anticompetitive a more robust and balanced approach is being developed, and I commend each of those committee stage amendments.
In wrapping up, the member for Brennan talked about the NCP review representing an opportunity, and that is exactly what it does. It does represent an opportunity to revisit what exists - does it work, what is it doing - and have a look right through. That is what is being done and the opportunity is being taken to strengthen the provisions and the circumstances under which venues are able to apply and get gaming machines.
With those comments, I might just briefly touch on amelioration and I will just put this on the record: many counselling and other support services provided by generalists or agencies are funded by other departments, and it is difficult to disaggregate what services deal with gambling issues, because gambling is often a part of multiple issues which people will bring with them. Specific funds provided by the government for gambling services by Amity House and Anglicare are: 2001-02 was $162 727; 2002-03, $192 027, an 18% increase; 2003-04, $226 212, a 17.8% increase; subtotal for three years, $580 966; recommended for 2004-05 was $241 523, a 6.8% increase. However, it is intended to call for research proposals and for specified criteria by which government will be wanting various aspects looked at, but also look at any proposal that come in. Those research proposals will be called in July, funded under the Community Benefit Fund, and there is an estimated $400 000 available. Therefore, I do not see why that ought not - depending, obviously, on the quality of the research applications coming in - be expended. There is an additional $81 000 for the development and implementation of the code of practice for responsible gambling.
I will detail some further facts, which I have touched on. Amity House had 93 new clients in 2002-03, by face-to-face. Data suggests that two-thirds of those coming to see Amity House are related to poker machines and, of that two-thirds, around 12% were poker machines in hotels, 31% in clubs and the majority of 57% in the casino.
Anglicare provides financial counselling and, in 2003-04, a year later, had 204 new clients. They are not all gamblers, many included relatives and concerned employers. It notes, too, that gaming machines are the primary source of problems for addictive gamblers, the majority indicating they prefer to play at the casino.
The other point on research: the Northern Territory contributes nationally to the national gambling research program, and delivers about $1m of research each year to June 2008. Racing, Gaming and Licensing has partnered Charles Darwin University for an Australian Research Council linkage project, a three-year post-graduate research program looking at the impact of commercial gambling on Aboriginal communities. The Northern Territory government is providing almost $50 000 of that needed $146 349.
If there was a need to look at what is occurring out there - and I would agree there is - it may be that we get views from the opposition as to where they think problem areas might be, and they could be included in that criteria around which we would call for research proposals. However, I would not just limit it to what views are put forward. If very worthwhile research proposals came forward from industry itself in that process, we would be keen to consider it.
Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the opposition. I understand their concerns and, if the majority of them are around proliferation and excessive machines, this process will well and truly handle it. It does not, in itself, address the concerns or the view put forward by the member for Brennan that there are, in fact, clubs out there that have more than 45 machines. At the moment, nothing affects the 45 maximum cap in clubs, or the 10 maximum cap in hotels. Whether that changes over time, I am open, but it is not an issue here; it is not part of this amendment bill tonight. Those caps will remain.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 183, I move:
Mr MILLS: Yes it is right here.
Madam Speaker, we have had presented to this Chamber - and only in recent times in its initial form - in recent times, amendment proposed upon amendment, an issue that is of a high order. It is a unique issue that needs to be approached in a very special way.
We have been given arguments from the other side that paint the opposition as being primarily concerned about proliferation. That is not the primary concern, though it is a concern. We have been accused of saying this is bad legislation. We have said no such thing. We do not assert that this is bad legislation. On the issue of proliferation, members opposite have put forwarded that there will be, in fact, a reduction in the number of licences that are currently eligible to apply for gaming licences. That is not the case.
The truth is there has been a reduction of those that can currently apply in terms of takeaways. Many of those would probably not apply anyway. But nonetheless, we are talking about 20-plus. However, in addition to that we are talking about another 20-odd which are currently unable to apply for gaming licences. Inherent in that is not the fundamental issue that we have been charged with - that we are concerned, therefore that there will be a proliferation. We go back to the basic: there is a significant and fundamental change to the way in which gaming has been established in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is aware of the system we have had. We have had ownership of it from the very beginning. It has been put in place and it works reasonably well. We are provided with an opportunity to reassess where we are now. Look back and look interstate.
The trigger should be applied by good legislators who are aware of an exiting situation. Knowing that the recommendations were presented to the parliament 10 years ago, now, 10 years later, is an opportune time to look back. The minister knows the trigger is, in fact, the NCP. That is an inappropriate trigger to activate the legislation we have before us. I believe the legislation we have before us today should have been triggered by a select committee, by a group of Territorians who have gotten together, with all the stakeholders being consulted, to propose legislation that would come to this Chamber to show us the way forward. Recommendations from a select committee should guide our decision-making processes. To be at this juncture without recommendations from a select committee that has consulted with all sectors of our community is something I am not happy to be a part of, nor are members of opposition and the Independent.
When we go out and ask members of the community: ‘What do you think about poker machines?’, the instinctive response is: ‘We do not want any more’. There would be a temptation to play politics with that but, if we are reasonable, we know that people do not necessarily want to remove gaming machines; they are a part of our lifestyle. However, we would be satisfied with reasonable caution in how they are managed in the Northern Territory. The Productivity Commission, in a survey, found that 92% of Australians do not want to see any increase at all in gaming machines. That is 92% of Australians. If you asked our community: ‘Do you want more or do you want less?’ They will certainly not be nodding for ‘Yes, we would like some more, if you do not mind’. That will not be the answer to that question.
It is little wonder, therefore, that radio station FM 104.9 seized upon this, instinctively evoking that response from listeners saying: ‘Oh no, we do not want any more’. Drive on the ABC was the same.
Mr Stirling: It is not about more, it is about a process.
Mr MILLS: There will be more. There is potential for a significant increase. That may well be the decision that we want to take, but we have not taken that back to the community. The community has not had their opportunity to own this decision. For the community to be informed that a decision has been made on their behalf - and we will endeavour to sell it to them in a rush - has been triggered by the National Competition Policy: ‘I hope it is okay. We will let you know all about it know, and we will try our very best to sell it to you and reassure you we had your best interests at heart’. In fact, the whole thing has been instigated by external forces: ‘I hope you do not mind’.
It compromises those who are there to try and respond to issues related to gambling. It compromises the commercial sector, which has not had an opportunity to be a part of the decision-making process. It compromises us as legislators when we are presented with legislation initially that escaped the attention of a number of us, and then, upon realising that contained within this legislation was some significant implications and, as reasonable representatives of our community, we consult and find that sectors are uniformed. Then they are activated, concerns are raised, amendments are proposed, and amendments again are proposed. A situation such as this compromises us as legislators – and all triggered by the NCP. I find that, as a Territorian, unacceptable. I have done all that I can to assess how this affects different sectors of our community. I cannot cover all those bases.
On issues such as gaming - which impacts on families, business, community groups and clubs - should, for all legislators, be treated in a unique way. That is why I urge members to support the motion for the establishment of a select committee. I suspect our parliamentary colleagues on the other side would realise that, perhaps, they have gotten off on the wrong foot here and are trying to work out how they could get themselves into a better position because they acknowledge that, in the face of the community, this has been triggered by NCP. They will try and cover that up by saying: ‘We will be fine’. Territorians will say: ‘Oh gee, we do not to be fine; that is an awful thing’. Then we find that that is actually the trigger.
Really, this is a matter for us all to seriously, carefully, and sensibly consider. We are at crossroads. You have placed us at the crossroads and you have already committed us to a new chapter in this journey - a chapter that other states have already encountered. Maybe they got off on the wrong foot. Maybe we were wise enough to go and consult and assess what was going on in other jurisdictions and establish a good framework in the Northern Territory. That is to the credit of those who were on that original select committee.
Nonetheless, we are at crossroads now. Without due consultation or due regard to carrying this through so that every family, every commercial interest, every club, and every community group is aware of what we are doing, we are now committed to the next stage. That is unacceptable when we have the Leader of Government Business say: ‘Well, all right, if we do get ourselves into a spot of bother somewhere down the track, we will fix it then’. This is an issue that should be treated with the utmost caution now, and with respect for the Northern Territory community to preserve the integrity of the system we currently have, and then throw up those recommendations which are borne out of the interest of the community, not the interests of the NCP.
If the driving force behind NCP recommendations are the issue of anti-competitiveness, the changing of definitions as proposed by NCP will only move competitive barriers, it will not remove them. The competitive barriers will be placed in a different position. That is what the case will be. The pressure points will just reappear at a different place. If we are going to use NCP as the reason, the competitive aspects will simply be shifted and the pressure will be applied elsewhere. The argument currently is that the pressure is now on the issue of takeaways. To be a takeaway or not be a takeaway, that is the question. ‘I want to be a takeaway. I want to have a takeaway licence so I can have pokies’. That is where the pressure is at the moment. If we leave it as it is, we will have increasing pressure on that point.
Minister, if we now change and allow all eligible comers, as described in this legislation, to now apply, all the pubs and the clubs that do not have takeaways will now be able to apply. There has to be definition put in place to define between those; for example, a roadside inn. By definition, a roadside inn will not be able to apply. The pressure in the long term, or the short term, will now be moved to a different point, by nature of definition. Therefore, to think that we are removing competition, and all will be good and well, is not the case, because competition will be moved to another place. We are not removing competition, in effect. In the short term, it is certainly altering it, but in the long term, the pressure points will reappear.
I guess issues such as this bring out the conservative nature in many of us. As I said, the issue of gambling is an issue that is in a different category, and we should proceed with the utmost of caution. I know that the response of government is going to be: ‘Look, we have to do this. We believe that the systems we have put in place, the new benchmarks, they are pretty good’. They may well be. ‘What we will do is put them in place and then we will get the community together and say: “Sorry that we did not consult you before, now we will explain to you what we have just done on your behalf”’. We have to do that, because the industry, currently, is going to be thinking: ‘We better get in now’, as I heard in some of the comments earlier. This will be the argument, I believe, of government. They will say: ‘We will have to move this now, because if we do not move this now, those out there will think: “My goodness, there is going to be a tougher regime coming, so we will apply the pressure on the system now. We will get in now, because it is going to be a much tougher regime”’. It may not be.
The regime to come from a select committee could be, as Territorians are able to do, a very innovative and very specifically tailor-made Territory-suited regime, a modification which is borne out of Territory interests and contributed to by Territorians, and triggered simply by Territorians wanting to have the state-of-the-art regime. We have a good system at the moment.
That is why we need to make sure this is couched, triggered and motivated by the very right reasons; that is, fuelled and driven, not by the NCP, but by Territorians. To propose that we have to pass this because we will have a tougher regime is not necessarily the case. None of us on this side are opposed to poker machines, but we are opposed to being put in the position - compromised as legislators - to embark Territorians down a new path, of significant departure from the regime and the fundamentals upon which that has been established. For that reason, I urge members opposite to support the motion for the establishment of a select committee so that Territorians’ best interests can be served by allowing for their response and contribution to the way forward. They may well reflect on the work that has been done in the last few days. Some of it is good. Let them reflect on that. Let them propose recommendations and move forward only on that basis, not on this basis.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am interested in the attitude being espoused by members opposite in relation to National Competition Policy. It was a policy signed up to and agreed by them when they were in government, all the way down the line. The National Competition Policy is a policy we have a commitment to. Although it might bring difficulties here and there, it is not a commitment that we are about to walk away from, regardless of the $7.5m or $7.6m a year that we get as a jurisdiction for adhering to NCP.
The fact is, whether this Review 2002, a view of what was going on, was triggered by NCP or not, is immaterial. The fact is, it does mean that the review itself looked at points of anti-competitive practice within the industry. However, a lot of good things that have been achieved in this amendment bill as a result of going back and having a look. I have heard constantly tonight: ‘10 years on, it is time to have a look’. What do you think NCP review was about? Toward the end of 2002, this work went on right through the industry, and the report came forward to government. Every piece of legislation in the Northern Territory has undergone this process.
The other point raised by the member for Brennan: ‘We will not have the NCP tell us what to do, or the ACCC’. Well, what about the licensee at the top of Mitchell Street who has a takeaway licence and, therefore, has the ability to have poker machines? The venue down the road does not have a takeaway licence, therefore, under no circumstances can put their hand up for a gaming machine licence.
Mr Baldwin: So you are going to bow down to them?
Mr STIRLING: Well, how long do you think they are going to cop that?
Mr Baldwin: You are going to bow down to them! Yes, that would be right, you are bowing down to them.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly!
Mr STIRLING: How long do you think they are going to cop that before they are in the courts against the Northern Territory government? You get five or six of them together, and they can fund the case.
Mr Baldwin: Ho ho! What about Sunday trading? You cannot say that. You are bowing down to them.
Mr STIRLING: They can fund the case and do you know why? Because it is anti-competitive. It is anti-competitive to have to have a takeaway licence in order to get poker machines. No relationship whatsoever. No relationship whatsoever between the takeaway licence on the one hand,. and the ability to sensibly control and organise poker machines on the other. It would be a question of time before five or six would have said: ‘Oh, look, here is $100 000, let us take these mugs on’.
Mr Burke: All the more reason why you should have a good select committee to look at it.
Mr Baldwin: And you said you did not care about a fine.
Mr STIRLING: Because it is clearly anti-competitive. There is not a court of law in this land that will not support our case. That is point one: it is anti-competitive. If you guys like anti-competitive behaviour - and some people are winners and some people are losers – well, good luck to you. It is not the way. We prefer equity and fair play in everything we do.
The member for Blain, Leader of the Opposition, tells me national studies show people do not want more poker machines - 93% of people say they do not want more poker machines. He may be right. I do not think we have a figure on that in the Northern Territory. However, I tell you what the people in the Northern Territory do not want: more takeaway licences, because it is takeaway alcohol licences that contribute to and are the sole cause of our antisocial behaviour problems in the streets of our towns and communities throughout the Northern Territory.
There are no poker machines that contribute to this antisocial behaviour, and it is not the clubs and pubs with organised venue and drinking inside those walls; it is the activities of takeaway licences. This government does not want to see a proliferation of takeaway licences - and no Territorian wants to see it, regardless of the view on poker machines. Ask anyone out there: ‘Do you want to see lots more takeaway alcohol licences out in the community?’ ‘No thank you’, would be the answer. And yet, if we sit here for six months while there is a committee, that is very much what is going to happen. Venues that want to get gaming machines are going to have to go the route of getting a takeaway licence. Therefore, you get more takeaway licences out there, and they may not even be interested in the takeaway licence itself, other than a means to an end to get community gaming machines.
Let us have a look at the terms of reference. I am not opposed to these because I believe they have all been done. ‘A complete review on the report by the select committee on effects of poker machines in community venues’. Well, the NCP review itself - the Leader of the Opposition really needs to go back and have a look at this. ‘A review of the National Competition Commission reports …’. Well, he has had the opportunity to read that in the past two years. ‘Ensure that the primary objectives of the distribution are explicit and unchanged. That is, to provide a productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds ...’. That remains, albeit the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory are explicit and unchanged. That means you cannot do you anything. You can have a review, you can have a look, you can have a select committee, but the terms of reference themselves tell you that you cannot change the objectives of the distribution of gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It seems to be a short-sighted review. You can have a look at it …
Mr Baldwin: It does not say that at all.
Mr STIRLING: It says ‘are explicit and unchanged’! Unchanged! Why have a review if you cannot change it? Why have a review if you cannot change what you are looking at?
This idea of ‘productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs and licensed venues to improve neighborhood recreational amenity’ - still there. ‘Delivering proceeds to government for services to all Territorians’ - still there. Delivering proceeds the means - I am not sure if this reads properly – ‘the means by each any negative impacts of electronic gaming machines in the community are minimized’ - there now; not there before; there now in our objects. First objective, second objective of the act, of which the Licensing Commission must take heed. It is there now and it is also there in the building in of the community impact statement: the advertising requirement that an application is to proceed from the venue; the ability for people to put their objection in writing to the Licensing Commission, and the venue itself having to fill in and comply with the community impact statement. All of that is picked up. ‘The form and extent of regulatory mechanisms necessary to ensure that fairness, efficiency and integrity are maintained. The impact of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 and existing regulatory system and in meeting the primary objectives of distributing electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory’. That is exactly what this bill is about.
The opposition said these could be changed, amended, added to or whatever. I am sure if we were of a mind to go to a select committee, we would certainly be strengthening them. However, from where I stand, each of those points proposed by the Leader of the Opposition as a compelling reason to go to a select committee are far less than compelling to me. We have picked up all the issues.
Another point is that he was saying it is unacceptable that it has come from NCP; we have to do it for Territorians and by Territorians because it is the Territory and we know best - well, who does he think wrote the amendments? People from the NCP? No. People from interstate? No. Officers from Northern Territory Racing Gaming and Licensing Commission - a Territory piece of work, this amendment bill. He had this view that somehow it arose, or the origins were in the sense of an NCP review, and that it is all contaminated and all bad.
The heart of competition policy and the job of the ACCC is to ensure a fair go. That is the great Australian ethic; it is to ensure a fair go. It is to ensure that someone does not have an unhealthy competitive advantage over someone else in the game. That is the heart of competition policy.
Mr Baldwin: What? Like price fixing in Nhulunbuy? Is that what you are talking about?
Mr STIRLING: The member for Daly does not like competition policy. I am not sure. He was a member of the government that signed up for it.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about Sunday trading while you are on your feet.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I will tell you. That is an issue. That is an issue, and this is an interesting conundrum of competition policy. It is not an issue in Queensland because there is no such thing as licensed grocers. The only places that can sell grog in Queensland are hotels and clubs. They do not get into strife with competition policy, because there has never been such things as licensed grocers. Alcohol has not spread beyond the traditional venues for retail. Up here, because we have licensed grocers unable to trade on Sunday, we have an unfair situation in the view of National Competition Policy …
Mr Baldwin: Have you changed it? No!
Mr STIRLING: We have not changed it. It is a body of work coming forward …
Mr Baldwin: Then why do you run the argument on this?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease!
Mr STIRLING: There is a body of work coming forward, and much consideration going into the Alcohol Framework Review. I am sure it will have plenty to say on Sunday trading when it comes forward. It is a difficult issue for government on the same situation that we have here, that we do not want to see any more takeaway outlets, full stop, but we certainly do not want to see takeaway outlets because they want to get gaming machines and that is the only way they can get them. That is a nonsense.
This parliament, at some stage, will have to consider this question of Sunday trading and just how that is dealt with in the future. The fact is that other places that legally sell alcohol can sell on a Sunday, but the grocer has to close it up on the Saturday night at a given time and that is it until whenever they open on the Monday. If you are a licensed grocer, you are going to say: ‘That is not fair’, and they do. They have made representations to my office and others in the time that we have been in government, and I do not doubt that there were representations to the former government.
That is what it is about. If you go beyond the rhetoric of ‘the ACCC and NCP and we should not have to do this and we are Territorians and we will not be pushed around’, you have to look beyond the rhetoric at a fair go. A fair go is what this country has fought for and people have died for and it is the great Australian ethos …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It is apparently not part of the ethos of the CLP, and we well know the silver circle and how they used to have their friends in there and who used to get the contracts, and who used to get the work: the little silver circle.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It does not go well. It does not sit well. No wonder you blokes hate competition policy because you cannot play favourites, you cannot backhand to your little mates like you did for 26 years. We do not support it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He should withdraw the referencing to ‘backhanding little mates’ because in Australian colloquial, it is offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I am surprised, member for Drysdale. There is no point of order.
Mr Dunham: No point of order? We can talk about backhanding your little mate?
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if he does find it offensive, in deference to the member’s wishes, I will withdraw that last comment.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: He is a bit sensitive.
Madam SPEAKER: I will not say anything.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, it is a shame that we started off in what should have been a bipartisan way in the debate on this bill and now it has turned into this. We propose a sensible resolution to this issue, and the minister comes up with all sorts of reasons and excuses to defend his position.
First he tells us that it is not about the NCP or what they have imposed on him; that is not what triggered this whole thing. That is what he said. He said it is not about them; it is about us signalling to the business community that these changes are going to take place, and if we do not go forward and delay this by going to a select committee, all of those who are currently eligible – that is 40-odd premises - are going to rush out and apply for their 10 machines. What a load of nonsense!
I have never heard such irresponsible nonsense in this House before. The minister, as he knows, has every power to do what he has to do to stop that happening. What is the simplest solution that he could come up with if he agreed to take this to a select committee for its consideration? He could say: ‘Let us have a moratorium’.
Mr Dunham: Yes! That would be a good idea.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh! Apart from the ones that have already been agreed to - and from memory and their own papers, the number was 56 that are in the pipeline and have been approved - until we have had a considered look at the whole issue of gaming machines, let us have a moratorium.
They are not averse to moratoriums. Have a look at what they are doing in the Katherine/Daly region as far as land clearing goes - moratorium! Not a problem for this government when they see an issue but, to suit his own means, he said they are all going to rush out and that we are going to have 40 venues going for 10 machines each - 400 machines. Well, leave me alone! Ask yourself this simple question: of those venues that have been eligible since the introduction of the machines - most of them - have they applied? No. Otherwise they would not be on that list as eligible but with no machines. Has Saville Apartments applied? No. Ask yourself why. Perhaps it is because they do not want machines.
Therefore, to run the argument that they are all going to rush out because they are going to lose the opportunity (1) is nonsensical from the point of view that they have not done it to this point, and they probably are not likely to; but (2) the minister, at a stroke of the pen - no, less: by walking out with a press release and saying publicly that from this point on, from tonight, because we, this parliament - not the opposition, this parliament - has decided to have a review of the whole gaming machine situation. Until that report comes back to parliament and government has considered its recommendations, there will be no issuing of any more gaming machine licences other than those that have already been approved. It is not even writing anything down. That is how easy it is for the minister. That is how easy it is for the minister to do this.
Let us look at the fact that he wants no more takeaway licences. Personally, I agree; there is a problem with takeaway licences, and something should be done about it. However, it is in his jurisdiction. If that is the case, if he is basing the whole argument as well on the fact that those existing takeaway licences can now - we want to take away that provision for machines - then do something about it. Do something about the takeaway licences. You are killing two birds with one stone. You are going to restrict the amount of takeaway in the community, and you are going to restrict the amount of gaming machines while you consider this. Another nonsensical argument.
He goes on and on about the NCP and he says it is all about giving them a fair go - this country giving everyone a fair go. Well, I reckon that is quite right, and we should give everyone a fair go. However, the fact of the matter is that the current legislation for gaming machines, the current legislation for alcohol licences, and the provisions that are put before this parliament tonight do not give everyone a fair go and, even with the changes that the minister wants to make, will make it less of a fair go. So, do not run the fair go argument.
The fact that he has called the decision by the Licensing Commission to issue a liquor licence to a hairdresser as stupid, tells you he is not convinced that it should all be about a fair go because, if he thought it was all about a fair go, then he would have applauded the commission for issuing a liquor licence to a hairdresser. So do not even try to run that argument. As far as the NCP, you called …
Mr Stirling: That is rubbish! That is a rubbish argument.
Mr BALDWIN: You called the decision by the commission stupid. Do not walk away from that because it is on the public record.
Mr Stirling: I maintain it is stupid. It has nothing to do with competition.
Mr BALDWIN: It is on the public record!
As far as the NCP - and if you want to talk about some detail, I will just pick him up on the fact that he slighted me in some way and said I did not want to discuss the detail. I said there is no point in discussing the detail if you stick to the fundamentals. The fundamentals are what is being changed here tonight. If you are going to change the fundamentals, go back and review them. The NCP, in fact, has no problem with the capping of the number of poker machine licences as part of an overall harm minimisation program. Let us get the minister up talking about that, because he says it is too hard to put a cap. The NCP has not a problem with a capping mechanism to reduce, as part of an overall harm minimisation program. So, do not waltz in here reciting all things about the NCP, minister.
The excuses you are using are very poor. You even picked up on the fact that the points in the motion will not allow you to change anything. Well, if you are reading it that way well, I am sorry. The first point of the motion is that: ‘The committee’s terms of reference to be agreed but should include the following …’. If you do not like them, let us agree on the words. However, you picked out that the primary objectives of the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory are explicit and unchanged. That is not the fundamental formula that was put in place; that is the primary objectives. The primary objectives were recommendation 2, that: ‘The distribution of poker machines in the community should be explicit, ie to provide a productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs; to improve neighbourhood recreational amenity; and to government for services to all Territorians’. That is was we are talking about, as to whether those primary objectives are being met.
Minister, your excuses are absolutely poor. I believe we have showed substantially and convincingly that you had not engaged the community whatsoever until we raised this issue. I want you to remember that, because you are the consultative, the open, and the transparent government. When we came in and asked you about this you said: ‘No, she is right, but I will defer it a week’. We went and asked those community organisations, including the business community, what their viewpoint was. Your viewpoint of community consultation certainly did not match what we found; and that is, a whole raft of the business community were totally unaware. The hospitality industry was aware, of course.
It is quite amazing that you would find within the AHA, for an example, that half of their membership is split on this issue. Why? Because half of them have pokies and do not want anyone else to have them, and the other half have not got them and want them. Okay, you can understand that.
The wider business community though, are totally unaware. When they have become aware, do you know what their concern is? Their concern is about what the effect is on their business, not whether they can go into venues such as the minister mentioned in Victoria and play poker machines. Their concern is: ‘What is the effect of these changes on my business?’. I can tell you - and I have listened in the briefing to the minister - that there are businesses in Katherine that, before this issue came up over the last few months, these business have been going to Treasury officials - confirmed by Treasury officials - to get all of the data about player loss in the town and region of Katherine.
Why did they want to do that? Because they want to know how much money is going from the residents of that town and region into that machine, and not being returned in some way back to the business community. They were looking for how much is paid in tax, how much is distributed by those clubs, for instance, back into the community. They wanted to know the tax rates there so that they could go to the clubs and say: ‘Show me your disbursements back to the community’. They wanted to know from the hotels how much of their 10% was going to the Community Benefit Fund. They even asked for the distribution of the Community Benefit Fund that is now under your control - how much, actually, of that is awarded by application back to the town of Katherine and to the region, so that they could ascertain how much money was flowing out of the community.
I am not saying that they have a problem with these changes. What I am saying to you is that things are pretty tight in the economy, and businesses are feeling the pinch. It may not be so that you believe it up here in Darwin, but it is so in Katherine and they do believe it. There are a number of businesses which have been working together to look at how this issue of player loss and, therefore, money flow out of in the community, can be ameliorated. Minister, you tell me how many clubs down there and licensed venues will lose their licence for poker machines, and how many will gain them. I know one that will, under this regime, be a new player in the market of gaming machines. I am not sure that that is going to go down too well unless we can ameliorate their concerns about total player loss in the region. That is one of the reasons why we believe it is an issue; because there is a direct effect on business, let alone the player harm.
We know from evidence provided here, in the media and by personal contact by the organisations that deal with the harm end of things, that they are not happy with the way this is proceeding and are confused. They are confused even more in the last three days because that is when they had a reapproach on this issue. The first approach was to have a look at the draft NCP discussion paper. What you should realise is that the way it has worked in this case is, if you did not put a submission to that discussion paper, you were not followed up with the recommendations made. They were not aware of the recommendations that went to government in regard to these changes. When we approached them in the last little while - in particular since we raised it in estimates, and then had the meeting the following morning with the minister, and they agreed that they had not fully engaged these people or the community - they were inundated. I chuckled to myself when I heard the member for Nelson say that he approached Amity House. It would have been their 30th phone call and contact in the last few days on this issue. They have been well briefed on these changes in the last three days by Treasury and Racing and Gaming officials. They are now not necessarily opposed or supportive, perhaps, but I tell you what they are: totally confused. And why? Because of mismanagement - total mismanagement in consultations. Something you crow about on that side like you have never heard before. You stand up there and say you are the greatest at it. Well, you get out there and turn the radio on. You get out there and talk to Relationships Australia, Sommerville, and the Salvation Army. Aren’t you part of one of these organisations? Which one is it?
Let us talk about your churches. Are they aware of these changes? Do they have a view? The churches you belong to? I bet they do, but I bet they do not know anything about it. They probably do now that is been on the radio for a little while, and that is the whole point. The whole point is that this is an issue that affects every sector of the community. It has not been handled well. We do not want to make political points out of it and you may laugh …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: You may laugh and I expect you to.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I was right, Madam Speaker. I was right. We are not trying to make political points. We, in fact, went to the minister for gaming. The Leader of the Opposition went to the minister for gaming and said: ‘We have considered it. We have had the briefings, we have talked to you and you have delayed it. We thank you for doing that. However, we have considered this and we believe it is one of those issues that, in a bipartisan way, we should delay and have a good, thorough look at’.
The minister said: ‘I will have to discuss that with my colleagues’ and whatever, the leader and all the rest of it. Now we find he comes in here tonight and says: ‘That is not on’. However, I guarantee what he will do: he will pass this legislation and then he will go out there and will call for a select committee to have a look and review the whole poker machines situation. I bet you! In their hearts, they know they have mucked this up, and they know they have to recover.
The simple thing to do here - and I will be the first to stand and applaud them if they do it - is to use the mechanism of this motion - and it is not something unusual to refer a bill off to a committee; in a parliamentary system to refer a bill off to a committee - to go and properly consult with every sector of the community. I will be the first to applaud them for doing it.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, it is quite an astounding debate that we are having this evening on these amendments. I could understand the opposition’s angst over these proposals if the proposal was explicitly to increase the number of poker machines in the Northern Territory over and above what is currently catered for under the existing legislation. If, for example, we were in this House proposing the removal of the ceiling on the number of poker machines and clubs and doing away with the 45 cap altogether - have what you want, fellas; if we proposing to lift the cap on hotels, currently at 10 - take what you want, fellas; and if we were to move to anybody with a liquor licence be able to have poker machines, I could understand the angst from members opposite.
However, the proposals regarding the changes are sensible. They will have the effect of bringing the community, for the first time via the community impact statements, into the decision-making process as to who should or should not get poker machines in the Northern Territory. The act is strengthened with an objects clause that specifically seeks to reduce any adverse social impact of gaming for the first time. It deals with how the courts are to consider the intent of the legislation as opposed to a report from a committee of parliament. All of the mechanisms that are enshrined in this legislation will lead to fewer poker machines being able to be claimed by people in the hospitality industry than can be currently be claimed under the existing legislation.
To argue somehow that these proposed changes are going to lead to a potential adverse impact on our community is nonsense. Therefore, to send these amendments off to a select committee of parliament is really not warranted. There is no one on the other side, in speaking in opposition to the amendments and in support of this motion to refer to a select committee of parliament, who can explain how the changes that are here now are somehow going to lead to more poker machines in the community than currently are catered for in the existing legislation.
We are raising the threshold; we are raising the bar. We are bringing the community impact statements into the decision-making process. We are inserting into the objects clause of the legislation - which will be interpreted by the commission and, ultimately, by the courts - a purpose in the act to reduce any adverse social impacts of gaming. Therefore, to argue that somehow this legislation is going to lead to the opposite - to an increase in the adverse social impact of gaming - is patently ridiculous. I, for the life of me, fail to see why the opposition have got themselves into such a knot on this issue. We are not proposing to lift the caps in the number of machines that clubs and hotels can access; we are doing away with an anomaly. I do not think anybody in here - and I appreciate the member for Brennan’s opening contribution to the debate. Ten years ago, when the committee decided that, in further extending the poker machines into the community, hotels would have some but only if they had a bottle shop. At that point in time, it may have been appropriate. He did not go into debate as to why the committee thought that so.
However, in terms of today, in the current environment - and as my colleague, the Treasurer, said in terms of a fair go - the logic behind ‘if you are running a hotel with a bottle shop you can have a poker machine, but if you are running a hotel without a bottle shop you cannot have a poker machine’, is pretty hard to sustain. These amendments and the initial proposals are all about removing an inequity under National Competition Policy - an inequity that is detrimental regarding competition to licensees - but further safeguards our community in regards to the proliferation of poker machines by ensuring that the community can oppose, by way of community impact statements, very explicitly in the object of the bill, against a determination that any application would lead to an increased adverse social impact of gaming in the community. Then the commission, and ultimately the courts, will have the powers to reject that application which they do not have today.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak for much longer on this. I believe this is very sound legislation. It is legislation that halves the potential for the number of machines that could be leased into the community under the existing legislation. It sets the bar much higher for individual applicants in accessing the potential for those machines. That is clearly defined in the amendment act. The government will not be supporting this motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, there are only really three issues here. The first issue is that there will be more poker machines, and we know that, and we know they have an effect on …
Mr Henderson: It will be half as many.
Mr DUNHAM: There will be more poker machines. We received a briefing, and we know there will be more. That is the first issue, and that they will have an impact on the community.
The second issue is: we think the community should be consulted about this. There are a number of devices to do it. Passing this bill here tonight and expecting the galleries to be full and people to be reading Hansard is not a good device. We think that there has to be some other things put in place. I believe the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a good one.
The third thing is: the government has the potency to fix it. Therefore, they are the only three things we have to focus on: there will be more poker machines - they will have a social impact; we should talk to the community about it; and the government should then fix it.
Mr Henderson: There will be half as many as there would have been.
Mr DUNHAM: What you are trying to do is say: ‘We have the potency to fix it and we are going to fix it, and we do not need to do those other two things, because numbers will not go up …’. Yes, they will. ‘… and there will not be a social impact and we do not have to talk to the people’. That is called arrogance.
We know you have the potency; we know you have the numbers. What we are asking you to do is please hold that in abeyance and go through those first two steps. Step one, tell us how much they will go up by and do some scenarios for us, because even that is an issue of debate in this House. We believe the numbers will go up. We believe, from our Treasury briefings, they will go up.
Mr Henderson: You lifted the cap from six to 10.
Mr DUNHAM: We have had the last speaker telling us they will not. Even if somebody does peruse Hansard, they will find that even that issue was something that was misunderstood. All we are asking for is: we know you have the potency to do it, and we know you have the potency to put this thing through tonight - please do not use it without consulting the community, because to do so smacks of rank arrogance.
It is also not helpful in debates like this to make assumptions that decisions that were made about granting of licences had some sort of a favour that was bestowed back to government. If you do believe that - in providing licences that, somehow, there was a kickback to government - the very same charge could be levelled tonight. I will not level that charge because I found it offensive when it was levelled by the minister ...
Mr Stirling: I was not talking about gamine licences, and I withdrew it
Mr DUNHAM: I do not care. All I am saying is that, in a situation like this where there are big bucks to be made, it is a sad and tragic fact that there will be people making assumptions that there is collusion between people who might win and be advantaged by the system, and government decisions and policies. There is a way for the government to go forward and say this is bipartisan: ‘Do blame me, do not blame the minister. This is a decision of the parliament of the Northern Territory. We took it to the people and we asked them what their view was before we made the decision’. If you make any promises to consult with the community after passing this tonight, they are empty - they are merely because what you are saying is: ‘We have passed the law, what do you thing about it? We have found you guilty, what do you reckon about that?’.
It is a very stupid thing to put the position in an unchanging way to the people and then ask for their comment. Please, minister, I ask you – we know you have the capacity to do it; we know you have the numbers in the parliament; we know you could put this motion at any time and have it rammed through. We do not think it is in the best interest of the Territory community, and we will be telling them that - however late that might be.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to pay close attention to what has been presented before them this evening, because I can assure members that, if you make this decision and support this motion, it will be the position of opposition to applaud you for that decision; and the foundations have been laid very soundly that it is our community that must be involved in these decision before they are made - not make the decision and return to them with the report.
These are decisions that many Territorians will wake up to tomorrow, if you choose to ignore this opportunity; to bypass it. Many Territorians will awake tomorrow and reflect on the decision that has been made on their behalf. You will endeavour to spin it and to sell it because, in a sense without thinking deeply, I think you believe it but, in your heart of hearts, you do not. You do not support it - you do not. You know that by weight of numbers, by sheer will, it can be done. However, damage will be done at the same time.
You may have confidence in the structures that you have outlined, and in the amendments and the provisions that have been put together on the run over the last couple of days. Some of those have merit. However, we must remember the basics: issues such as gambling. Gaming in our community is an issue that the community must own. They must be a part of that decision otherwise, I warn you, it will come back to bite you. The community will resent the actions that you take this evening - they will resent it. You will endeavour to spin it and to cover yourselves, but they will know that the decision you have made tonight is a decision that has been made without their support, their involvement, or their inclusion, by a very government that will spend an extraordinary amount of time to review and consult, and to review and consult again, and hold off a decision until you have all the ducks lined up; then you will cautiously step forward. Perhaps with the education review it may occur at some time. You will do it again, and again, and again, and again until you get to that magic moment when you have the confidence to step out on to that stage and say: ‘We have made a decision’.
Tonight, on an issue to do with gambling, you afford the community no such luxury, involvement or respect, and you proceed alone. The community is watching; the community will learn; and the community will understand. You have stepped out on your own and you had the opportunity presented to you to afford respect to the Northern Territory community - to the families, the businesses, the community groups, all those to have input, all those to have contribution - and then you could walk on after that moment, from that point on, with their support.
Members, I urge you to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now referred to a select committee.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
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
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Soccer Football Pools Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 223); the Gaming Control Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 224) and the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 225) together with a schedule of amendments No 84 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
Soccer Football Pools Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 223):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Gaming Control Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 224):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 225):
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.1 that amends clause 5 of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill by replacing the definition of a club liquor licence. The proposed change seeks to clarify the definition of a club liquor licence by introducing a reference to guests as well as members within the meaning of the club licence. The proposed amendment also requires a club liquor licence to have endorsed on that liquor licence the words ‘Authority - Club’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.2. This amends the definition of the hotel liquor licence by requiring words of ‘Authority - Public Hotel’ or ‘Authority - Tavern’ endorsed, as well as having to satisfy that the primary activity conducted on or at the premises specified in the licence is the sale and consumption of liquor on or at the premises.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 7A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.3. This amendment inserts new section 24A into the principle act to provide community input to the process when a new licence is sought. The amendment requires advertisements to be placed in the press in a prescribed form and enables the Director of Licensing to stipulate any other notification required such as the venue. Any interested or concerned persons are given 30 days to make a submission on the proposal.
New clause 7A agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 84.4. The proposed amendment to section 25 of the principal act is consequential to the introduction of section 24A. The amendment requires the Licensing Commission to take into account any submissions received under section 24A when considering a gaming machine licence application.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
New clauses 9A and 9B:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 84.5. The proposed amendment, after clause 9, inserts clauses 9A and 9B into the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004.
Clause 9A is a consequential amendment to section 41 of the principal act. It gives effect to the proposed section 41A, which extends the need for a community impact analysis beyond new licence applications for situations in which venues already with gaming machines want to significantly increase their number of machines. The amendment under clause 9A also requires any public submissions relating to the increase sought to be taken into consideration by the Licensing Commission.
Clause 9B proposes to introduce section 41A and section 41B. Section 41A requires a community impact analysis to accompany any application for an increase of five or more gaming machines, and when required either under guidelines or by the director. These measures are primarily intended to allow small increases in gaming machines to be considered without a community impact analysis, and to control or limit frequent requests being made for increases of less than five machines.
Section 41A also sets out the criteria of the community impact analysis, which includes the suitability of the premises, the primary activity of the premises, the location of the premises, the appropriateness of problem gambling risk management and responsible gambling strategies, and the economic impact of the proposal. The criteria are consistent with the requirements to be accounted for when assessing applications for new licences, as set out in clause 8 of the bill.
Section 41B provides community input to the process when licensees seek approval to increase the number of gaming machines at their venue. The amendment requires advertisements to be placed in the press in a prescribed form, and enables the Director of Licensing to stipulate any other notification required, such as at the venue. Any interested or concerned persons are given 30 days to make a submission on the proposal.
Proposed new clauses 9A and 9B agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 17 August 2004 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to session order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next general business day, the following motion be debated:
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 23 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act to amend the Magistrates Act to authorise salaries, allowances and other benefits payable to magistrates appointed under section 4(3) of that act to be paid from the public monies of the Territory.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two Bills together
Take two Bills together
Dr TOYNE: (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 236); and Magistrates Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 237):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third reading of the bills together; and
- (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 236)
MAGISTRATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 237)
(Serial 236)
MAGISTRATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 237)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to insert a new section in the Remuneration Tribunal Act, and to amend section 6 of the Magistrates Act to provide that the Remuneration Tribunal determines the salary, allowances and other benefits that magistrates are entitled to receive, and that such salary, allowances and other benefits cannot be altered to the magistrate’s detriment during the term of the office of a magistrate.
Currently, magistrates’ remuneration and allowances, and terms and conditions of appointment, are determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 6 of the Magistrates Act, usually on the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal.
The amendments will establish a process whereby the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent body, determines magistrates’ remuneration and allowances. The Remuneration Tribunal determination would then be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and, unless disallowed by the Assembly, would come into operation. This means the Remuneration Tribunal actually determines the remuneration, rather than merely recommending to the Administrator. Removing the Administrator from the process supports the important principle of judicial independence.
There are a couple of reasons why the government has decided to make these amendments. The issue of magistrate’s remuneration has been subject to much legal debate in recent times, arising from the recent Territory case of North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley. In addition, a recent review of the Magistrates Act highlighted concerns for the process for determining magistrates’ remuneration to be consistent with and, if possible, to strengthen the principle of judicial independence.
The High Court in its recent decision of 17 June 2004 in North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley upheld the construction of the current section 6 of the Magistrates Act stating that it: ‘… does not compromise or jeopardise the integrity of the Territory magistracy or the judicial system’. The High Court also found that section 6 defends ‘… the interests of judicial independence and impartiality which inform the legislation’.
Chief Justice Gleeson in Bradley observes that although there are variations between jurisdictions in the mechanism used to determine judicial remuneration, the regular review of judicial remuneration by a Remuneration Tribunal is ‘… a common procedure, consistent with requirements of fairness, transparency and accountability and consistent also with judicial independence’. The Remuneration Tribunal process described by the Chief Justice in Bradley is reflected in submissions received as part of the general review of the Magistrates Act.
The government has decided to strengthen the principle of independence and impartiality for magistrates by adopting a Remuneration Tribunal process and providing for security of remuneration.
The Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill inserts a new section, 9B to provide that the Remuneration Tribunal at least once a year must determine the salary, allowances and other benefits that magistrates are entitled to receive. Such a determination is then tabled in the Legislative Assembly and, unless disapproved by resolution, comes into operation on the date specified in the determination.
The transitional provisions saves existing determinations in force under the Magistrates Act as if they were determinations under the new section 9B of the Remuneration Tribunal Act. The Magistrates Amendment Bill repeals the current section 6 of the Magistrates Act and substitutes a new section to provide that a magistrate is entitled to receive salary, allowances and other benefits as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, which salary, allowances and other benefits must not be altered to a magistrate’s detriment during a term of office and which are paid from public monies.
These amendments are consistent with, and further guarantee, the principle of judicial independence for magistrates.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Terms of Reference
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Terms of Reference
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I table the terms of reference agreed to by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the creation of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee
MOTION
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Adopt Terms of Reference
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Adopt Terms of Reference
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
- (a) endorse the terms of reference of the Northern Territory Statehood Committee; and
- (b) authorise the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to appoint the membership of the
Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference tabled this
day; subject to the Speaker tabling in the Assembly for its adoption:
- (i) the membership of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee; and
- (ii) a Speaker’s Determination authorising the level and terms and conditions of payment of
meeting/sitting fees and travel allowances paid to the Northern Territory Statehood
Steering Committee members, pursuant to paragraphs 48 to 50 of the terms of reference
above; and
- (c) notwithstanding paragraph 4 of the Terms of Reference, may, by resolution, dissolve the Northern
Territory Statehood Steering Committee.
Madam Speaker, members will recall that on 17 June 2004 I gave notice of this motion and seeking the Assembly to authorise the establishment of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference established by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. On 23 May 2003, the Chief Minister publicly announced the government’s recommitment to Northern Territory statehood. On 18 June 2003, the Chief Minister referred the matter to this committee. The reference stipulated with the Northern Territory committee must be involved at all levels in an inclusive, transparent and democratic process to achieve statehood based on the following principles:
the process will be community based, and not imposed on the people; and
a central principal will be respect for, and the proper recognition of, indigenous
people of the Northern Territory.
The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional affairs will facilitate and provide resources for this community-based process. The government has set a five year timetable, including the drafting of a new constitution, its examination by an elected Constitutional Convention, and an eventual vote by all Territorians. However, this timeline will be designed for maximum flexibility to fit in with the community’s wishes.
After considering a number of models, the committee elected to establish an advisory body to advise and assist in this important task, and approved the establishment and terms of reference of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, which are before members today.
The steering committee is to advise and assist the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to identify, develop and implement strategies and programs, and to inform and educate the community about statehood and constitutional development. Membership of the steering committee is to comprise both parliamentary and community representatives, including the Chairman and two members of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Community membership will reflect a broad range of stakeholders and groups, including local government, business and industry, primary industry, unions, education, religious bodies, representatives of indigenous and ethnic Territorians, women, and young and senior Territorians must also be integral to the steering committee, and how it will operate.
The Statehood Steering Committee is to be jointly presided over by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and a community representative as co-chair. Expressions of interest for membership of the Statehood Steering Committee will shortly be invited from the Northern Territory community, and it is envisaged that the first meeting of the steering committee will be held in late August 2004.
The innovate changes that are being put in place by the standing committee in establishing the Statehood Steering Committee is a major step towards involving the community in the process of constitution-making that provides for inconclusiveness and transparency. It is vital that committee participation and commitment plays an important role in the process of change. That is, all Territorians need to engage in a dialogue that will eventually provide for the admission of the Northern Territory to become a state within the Australian federation.
I take this opportunity to thank Mr Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, for his advice and hard work. Equally to Mr Rick Gray, who his put in some long hours in assisting in developing this model, and to Ms Joanne Carbone who also provided very important input into this process.
Members Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that I will not be opposing this motion. The motion brings before the parliament an outline of a set of terms of reference for a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee to pursue what has been a long-held passion of mine and many other members and former members of this House.
I speak as the longest-serving, member on the committee. It has undergone some change over recent times. One of the saddest roles I ever had in my parliamentary history was to participate into an inquiry as to why the last attempt at statehood failed.
Mr Henderson: Well, you stuffed it up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, before members start interjecting left, right and centre, I think it is important to remember …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! Government members, the member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important to remember that the goal of this exercise is statehood for the Northern Territory. As I said at the outset, it is very important for me to achieve statehood, because I live in a country where the democratic principles that drive this country are supposed to be equally shared. But I have been a Territorian my whole life and, as a consequence of that, I have never had equal political status to other Australians. That is the purpose of statehood and that is part of the reason I am pursuing this effort.
The argy-bargy between sides, even the look of argy-bargy between sides, the slagging off in the public arena, is part of the thing that scares people away from signing ‘yes’ to a referendum. That was my experience when I was part of the committee that travelled around the Northern Territory. People often voted no for no other reason than it was a contentious issue in the public arena. I would be very cautious to remind honorable members that there is a risk that this becomes a political issue once again, that it has the potential to derail the process again. If the process is derailed again, then God knows when I will become a full political entity in my own country.
There are some comments I wish to make in relation to the work of this committee’s job. This committee’s job is to do nothing more than, as the member for Barkly, the chairman of the committee, pointed out, to educate and to develop programs as to how to bring this forward. The process of bringing this forward is there to try to keep the statehood process on track through education systems and things like that. This is not inconsistent with the findings of the committee, which looked into why statehood failed the last time round.
It is important to note that this select committee is subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is to say, it cannot make independent decisions of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, other than what the terms of reference allow it to do, and it must be very mindful of the fact that it can be pulled up at any time by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for whatever it does. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee naturally has the ascendancy over the select committee for a very good reason: we are elected by Territorians. Every member in this House has a mandate to be here, whereas members on select committees do not have that mandate, with the exception of those members from both sides of the House who will be sitting, and the Independent, I might add, who have the ability to sit on the select committee and to gauge its progress.
As I said before, this system cannot even appear to carry a taint with it. If it becomes contentious, it will be enough to derail the process. I am aware that the position of the CEO of this particular committee will be an Executive Officer Level 2. Executive Officer Level 2 is merely an administrative rank given under the normal public service rules. However, I do wish to place on the record my concern about the administrative arrangements that surround this particular officer. I would hope that, in the spirit of what we have learned, and in the spirit of what this committee is trying to achieve, that this Executive Officer Level 2 is an officer of the parliament - quite definitely something different to an officer of the government. The reason that I say that is that an officer of the parliament has, and is seen to have, insulation from the influence of government. If the officer is a government appointee, then there may be difficulties in relation to the ability for the ruling government of the day - be it either side of this Chamber - to be able to clearly state that the whole thing is being done at arms length of government.
The process that surrounds the appointment of this officer is not yet clear. I hope that the CEO of parliament, the Clerk, and the CEO of the Chief Minister’s Department get their heads together on this particular issue. I believe the best arrangement would be to make the funds available to the parliament directly, to be administered by the parliament on behalf of parliamentarians, for the appoint of this officer through the parliament, and that government steps back from the appointment of this officer completely - doing nothing more than providing money from government to the parliament to offset the cost of this officer.
Otherwise, I hope the committee understands the spirit of what is attempted to achieve here. I hope that the government also understands that and, on this occasion, that statehood proceeds, and Territorians are asked to look at the processes of statehood so that they can turn with some comfort, knowing that the independence which is being outlined here and attempted to be achieved through the terms of reference will be adhered to. And, as a consequence of that, the process leading up to a constitutional convention will be seen to be - as well as is - a legitimate one, so that there is no major conflict.
I wish to point out how careful we have to be. I point out that the Chair of the committee, in introducing this matter before the House said that the government has set a five-year timetable, including the drafting of a new constitution, its examination by an election constitutional convention, and eventual vote by all Territorians. I accept that the wording is ambiguous, but this is why we have to be so careful. The government’s role, I hope, is not in drafting the constitution. There may be constitutions presented by members of a constitutional convention at that time. However, I am cautious - and please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended – of even those sorts of loose words having the potential to create division.
This committee must understand that it has a noble role attached to itself, but that noble role has to been seen by the public as being untainted in any way, because interference with the process will cause the process some grief. I have already once, to my great disheartenment, seen what happens when the impression is given at least - and that is all that has to be; an impression - that people are unhappy with the process and, as a consequence of that, the whole thing falls over.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this particular motion. I say at the outset that I believe that the member for Barkly, as chairman of the standing committee, and also now proposed to be chairman of the statehood steering committee, comes to this responsibility and this debate with the utmost integrity …
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: I am sure he will do his utmost to meet the challenges that that particular position requires. The reason I am speaking now is that I do believe that he needs every opportunity to meet those challenges. This is not a good way to start. I do not blame the chairman for this; I blame the parliament and, perhaps, the committee as a whole. If you read the motion that is before us today - that the Assembly is to authorise the establishment of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference established by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional matters - that would read to any reasonable person that the standing committee would bring to this parliament a terms of reference to be debated. They are not terms of reference that have already been decided in that committee.
To come in now and expect this parliament to pass those terms of reference with the amount of notice that certainly I have received - I have received some briefings from members of the committee to me that things are moving along - but I have never seen these terms of reference before. I was never, ever under the impression, basically because the Labor government in opposition criticised the CLP for the way they went about the process, and I would have thought, and I had every confidence, in fact, that the process that we would embark on would be something that would carry all the members of the Assembly all of the way, all of the time.
I want to be carried. I do not want to be obstructive. But I ask the chairman perhaps he could, either by decision now or by amendment to this motion, accept that by amendment that these terms of reference will be decided by the parliament at the next sittings of this parliament, so that we can all move forward together with terms of reference that every member of this parliament has considered with debate and discussion, not necessarily in the parliament, on issues that we might have with the terms of reference.
On the face of it, I would have thought that the public at large would have expected a process for the selection of a standing committee to be better than applications as a result of an advertisement in the paper and the decision as to who would be on that committee made by a few members of the select committee. I could be persuaded that this particular method that is laid down in 6(e) of the terms of reference is fine, that I should not be concerned about that; that there are sufficient safeguards to get wide membership of the community on to that steering committee. I could be persuaded of that. I do not wish to be obstructive, but I do say that to put one member of this Assembly in the position now that I am being told that the first step that we embark on in any real sense in engaging and involving the community is something that we have all agreed to, is something that I cannot agree to. I simply have not had the chance or the opportunity to peruse these terms of reference in a suitable amount of time.
I doubt whether there is any other member of this Assembly who has looked at these terms of reference, informed themselves that they are the most appropriate way to go forward, and also be informed enough to talk to their own constituents that this is the best way to go forward.
None of those safeguards or guarantees are there. As I said, it may be that the government decides, because they have the numbers, that they will force this particular terms of reference through today and I cannot prevent that. But I can say, and I can warn, that it is not the way to start the process. It is not the way to embark on this process together.
We know ourselves that if statehood fails again, it falls on all of our heads. You can say fairly or unfairly that it fell on the CLP’s head last time. I disagree. But this time it falls on all of our heads and everyone wants to ensure that the process is bipartisan throughout, it carries everyone together, because we are moving to the same objective. But I cannot agree with these terms of reference. I certainly will not vote to support them and if that upsets members of my wing, I am sorry, too bad. I am one member of the Northern Territory. I have a responsibility to my electorate and I want to ensure that these terms of reference are the most appropriate way for us to move forward with statehood. I want to cooperate in that way. When I vote on these terms of reference, I want to vote with a sense of confidence and satisfaction that I am meeting the best objectives of Territorians.
I ask the chairman if would he accept an amendment to the motion that says, after Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ‘… and that these terms of reference to be decided at the next sittings of this parliament’.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is an amazing turn around at the 11th hour in regards to the genuine bipartisan way that this committee has been working through this issue for some months now. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Barkly, who has approached this very important task as the chair of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, a chair who has been supported by everyone in this parliament. I know from discussions that I have had with him that he has gone to great lengths to ensure bipartisan support for the motion that is before us this evening.
Within the structures of the parliament and our own parliamentary wings, whether it be the opposition wing or the government caucus, we debate these issues through. We come to a consensus agreement on everything that we bring to this parliament. Until this extraordinary turnaround, to my understanding, 15 minutes before the bells were ringing for the commencement of the session this afternoon we had bipartisan support for this motion. The extraordinary thing that has emerged this afternoon is that the Leader of the Opposition is actually on this committee. The Leader of the Opposition has been consulted at great length in a bipartisan way to come to these terms of reference that are here. As of 15 minutes before coming into this Chamber, we had agreement with the opposition, and with the independent member of the committee. At the last minute, we have the member for Brennan trapezing here seeking a last minute amendment.
What that shows on this side of the House is that the member for Brennan is outside of the circle. He is dissenting from the position of the Leader of the Opposition who has signed up to these terms of reference in a bipartisan way and is now, at the last minute, seeking to exert his authority back on the leadership of the parliamentary wing. It is absolutely outrageous.
We had every intention of moving this Statehood Standing Committee out into the public arena to engender genuine bipartisan support.
After the failure of the last statehood referendum, a committee of this House conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the reasons for that failure. It was an exhaustive inquiry that travelled across the Northern Territory, spoke to many hundreds of Territorians and reported to this parliament. The report to parliament was a bipartisan report. There were many recommendations in that report as to how get the statehood train back on track again, what needed to be accommodated by way of community engagement, community involvement, and all of those issues were taken into account by the committee.
We have here tonight what was, five or 10 minutes prior to coming into this House, a position from the committee that was a united position to accept these terms of reference. It is quite extraordinary that the member for Brennan seeks to amend his own leader’s position on this, an extraordinary development. It is not the way that this committee or parliament should be progressing on this issue and the government will not be accepting an 11th hour amendment on a position that had been previously agreed with the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is very important that we understand exactly what is going on with this issue. We are talking about statehood and advancing the issue of statehood in the Northern Territory and it is beholden upon members in this Chamber to ensure that we have a completely bipartisan approach.
For the member opposite to assert that there was an agreed position within the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is overstating the fact. The issue here that was established was that these terms of reference would be presented to this Chamber today and would not be put on the paper and then removed from the paper. They need to be established and laid on the table for this parliament to consider. It was not my view that this issue would be put on the paper and removed from the paper in one fell swoop. Therefore, I support the amendment that has been proposed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I point out to members that the notice of motion was that the Assembly would authorise the establishment of a Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee in accordance with the terms of reference.
May I just allay some of the fears of the member for Macdonnell, that the Legal and Constitutional Committee will appoint the executive officer, and all the way through the terms of reference it says very strongly that it is the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that this particular committee will report back to them. I just want to allay your fears, because I think that it is really very important that we get this going. We have dilly dallied for a long time, and I just believe - I know you do not like me talking from the Chair - but I think it is important that we do get this in motion. And, if anyone wishes to approach the committee, any parliamentary member can approach the committee if they wish to at any time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that it is important we get this going. It is important we get this going properly, and for the Leader of Government Business to stand up and talk about this being the 11th hour, this is our one, this is the start. This committee has been going since 1985, so it has been going for a long time, and it has been discussing these issues for a long time. This is not the penultimate hour, and if you are trying to tell us that this terms of reference has us within an hour of midnight, which is the act of achieving statehood, I would tell you that we have some problems out there.
There are a couple of things that came through loud and clear. One is that many people in the community were disconcerted about the fact that politicians seem to have such an important role in it. There was a feeling that a unanimous decision of this parliament was a problem. They believed that there should have been people saying that there were good things and bad things about statehood, and we unanimously endorsed it. We also said there should be an educative program.
Now, apart from the Territorians for Statehood, there has been very little come out. So, what we have here is the Chief Minister saying, well I am going to send it to a committee, that committee will accept these terms of reference, they will pass in this session. And we have words from the Leader of Government Business like ‘the government won’t accept it’. Do you not understand that this is entirely the problem that the people out there have? That, ‘You will do it this way. We will not brook any dissent. Everybody has to agree with this. The Labor Party agree with all this in its entirety’. That is nonsense. We have to have a debate where there is a plurality of opinion. You should not be pointing fingers and saying, people who disagree with certain elements have an element of treachery about them.
I am speaking not because I am against statehood. I am passionately for statehood. I printed material at the last election for the yes vote. I am pleased to say that every booth in my electorate voted for statehood. I am disappointed to say that I went to mobile polling booths on the Tiwi Islands and people voted against statehood. I know some of the reasons for that.
I would implore the government to do this properly. I would implore them to get away from the rhetoric saying, ‘You mucked it up’, from the Leader of Government Business, reinforced later by the member for Arnhem, saying, ‘It is because you mucked it up’. That sort of finger pointing, the sort of notion that we all have to have an unanimity of view, that we have to rush this thing through now because it is at the 11th hour, ie, it has to be done within the next hour, they are all precursors to a failure. It would disappoint me to the extreme if we did this again and mucked it up.
I implore the government to look at this process in the best interests of Territorians, not, ‘Let us see if we can get our mates on the committee, let us shape this to make sure that it says unionists have to be on there and they have to be represented, because our constituency out there will be saying, gee we need trade unions on there’. Let us get away from the background noise and focus on the glittering prize, which is statehood. Let us make the assumption that every one of us in this House wants statehood. The issue then, is how you progress. I have to tell you: this is not a good start. The interjections from the other side of finger pointing about what happened how ‘you’ – that is, the now opposition - mucked it up, is not a good way to start this debate.
It needs some level heads. I do not believe that there has been adequate time for the parliament to digest this. I do not know how long it has been before the committee. However, if the committee had this for a long amount of time …
Mr Henderson: Don’t you meet as a parliamentary wing?
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon?
Mr Henderson: Don’t you meet as a parliamentary wing and discuss these issues?
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Don’t we meet as a parliamentary wing and discuss these issues?’ That is the sort of thing I am talking about. Because I could have a rejoinder like: ‘We know that you mob have different opinions on this’, ‘Where is the Chief Minister today on this important thing?’ ...
Mr Henderson: She is down at COAG.
Mr DUNHAM: We could run all those issues too. However, it is not helpful. It is not helpful. That is the point. Let us get to a position where we all sit around this room nodding, instead of those trite interjections that come about various political quantums that are represented in this debate. That is not how you progress it! It is a very foolish and stupid thing you are doing!
I believe we can agree that we want to progress to statehood. We can agree that there should be people from the community that are involved. We could probably agree that there should be a structure around how they discussed this, and that could be called for instance, terms of reference.
Let us not make the assumption that somebody has written this just before we walked into this parliament and dropped on the desk, we all sign off on it, and it becomes not so much a discussion paper, but a blueprint. That is what worries me! Because I believe discussion papers are put on the desk - to what? - to discuss! It is my opinion that we should be moving slowly with this and moving at the same pace as the community around us. If the community gets the idea that we have sprinted off in front and we are saying: ‘Catch up! Because we are running statehood and you people back there have to catch up - and don’t you have meetings, and don’t get organised’. Sometimes, there are groups out there that do not get organised, but all of them have a passion for this thing. It is presumptuous in the extreme for the government to come in here and make an assumption that, because they are fully familiar with these terms of reference - which they may well be - and I am not, that somehow this is some indicator of my passion for statehood - because it is not.
I would ask, therefore, that the Assembly consider the motion of my colleague, the member for Brennan, and I will now put it formally, Madam Speaker: that the paper that has been put before us be laid on the Table for consideration of its contents at the next sitting of the Assembly – the terms of reference and various other matters.
Madam SPEAKER: You are moving an amendment, are you?
Mr DUNHAM: I am moving an amendment to the motion, and the amendment is to delete all words after ...
Mr Burke: No. All after add.
Mr DUNHAM: I move that we add the words ‘after the Assembly’ …
Mr Bonson: Are you going to get the 10 votes?
Mr DUNHAM: Ten votes? Mate, you have to get 50% plus one. Do you understand it is not 10 votes? There are 200 000 people out there! Do not make assumptions …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: … that the 25 of us can sit in here and say: ‘Righto, we want statehood’, and it automatically happens. There are 200 000 people out there - less and less, it turns out, because of this government, but that is getting into the …
Mr Bonson: You are supporting your leader?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Millner! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I am buggered if I can read this writing. I move that:
- Omit all words after ‘That’ and insert in their stead: ‘the document entitled Terms of Reference, Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee be held in abeyance and used by members for consultation and discussion and be put forward for further debate in the Assembly at the next sittings.’.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any speakers on that amendment?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I must admit I came into the House thinking that this was an agreed position between both sides. However, that may not have been the case, of course. The one thing I would be very disappointed in, is if this new attempt at starting off the statehood debate, started off with a non-bipartisan position by this House. That would send the wrong message out to the community.
It seems, of course, that if I was to vote on the original motion and this side was to vote against it, you still would not have a bipartisan position. Statehood is such an important matter for this House and for the Territory that I would support this amendment simply as a way of trying to make sure that this House agrees, together as a group, to go forward with the statehood proposals.
I have great admiration for the member for Barkly. I think he would take this whole motion forward in a very balanced way. I have a lot of faith in the member for Barkly. But I do believe that if we as a group send out a message to the community that we are fighting over how this whole thing should start, that will reverberate continually through this whole process and will make it very difficult for us to achieve statehood. If we do not go ahead united in this process, we are dooming ourselves either to failure or a very messy process.
I ask the government to support the amendment based on that argument; that it would be far better for us to delay this debate and achieve a result of bipartisanship which in the end would mean a result that was better for the Territory. And should we not be making decisions here that are good for the Territory, not good for what one party believes as against another party? I fully understand the member for Barkly’s support for the terms of reference he has put here and there are many good things in there. I must admit I have not had a chance to really look at that.
We have had the Estimates Committee and it has been a fairly difficult time to get through much of the work that we have had to get through. But, Madam Speaker, I just say that I think it is a fair and reasonable amendment. We may dig our heels in on party lines and say, ‘We simply cannot agree because the opposition has brought forward this amendment’. I would ask the government to consider the welfare of the Territory. I would ask them to consider that it would be far better this statehood process went through where we all agreed on the process by which it was going to happen and if that meant that we only have to wait until the next sittings to get that bipartisanship, then I would support this amendment.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am in agreement with the member for Nelson. We should look for bipartisan support all the way through on this process. It is important to Territorians that we get it right and we get it right this time round. There will not be too many bites of the cherry left after this. I also agree with the member for Nelson when he said it is a shame to see politics enter. But when did the politics enter? When did this thing get politicised, when did it move from bipartisan? It moved just a moment ago. It is the politics of spoiling. Because the previous government, which is now in opposition, and this is one of the factors over there, this is why they lost their leader who politicised the process, and this is why they have another leader, this is why and it carries on through this whole debate.
I have been on the statehood committee for three years now under the chairmanship of the member for Arafura, and now under the chairmanship of the member for Barkly; both good chairs. I refute the comment and the observation made by the member for Drysdale, who has done nothing to help this process over the years, that that committee has not been doing anything. This body of work here has been arrived at from three years of hard work and of looking for a way to get it progressed.
Statehood is on the agenda of this government; it is on the agenda of Territorians; it is on the agenda of the Chief Minister to try to drive it ahead …
Mr Dunham: Drive it.
Mr KIELY: ... to get consensus throughout the community.
Mr Dunham: Ah, the Chief Minister is going to drive it is she?
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: That’s right, because statehood does need leadership and it needs to bring people along with us.
Madam Speaker, there was this assertion from the member for Drysdale that the Chief Minister said ‘Do this and do this’. Let me say, that the statehood committee is made up of the member for Barkly, I as the member for Sanderson, the member for Millner, the member for Macdonnell and the member for Blain. The Leader of the Opposition is on that committee.
This committee is one that always works on getting a bipartisan approach to whatever they come up with. As a matter of fact, it is one of the best working and most amicable committees in this House. This is how these terms of reference were arrived at through sitting down and talking through the issues. I recall going down to Alice Springs and meeting and talking about these terms of reference and working it through. These terms of reference, unlike the assertion that the member for Drysdale would make they have just dropped out of the sky, have been worked on for many months and have been the subject of much deliberation by both sides of the House and by all committee members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition who, when he became Leader of the Opposition, wanted to stay on this committee.
The member for Drysdale is saying the Chief Minister this and Chief Minister that. They have their own leader sitting on the committee. We do not have the Chief Minister sitting there. There would have been an expectation that these terms of reference would have been discussed in the party room: this is the position we are looking at and let us bring it together and this is how we want it to go forward. That is my expectation. There was never any thought that the members of the opposition were not representing their party room. There was never any thought that this was the case.
I am a bit amazed to come in here today after we had agreed terms of reference from the committee, not from government, on how to progress statehood. They are good terms of reference and will take the ambition of making us a state ahead. They will lead the realisation of that. I am amazed that I come in here today and see a back flip from the Leader of the Opposition saying he supports the amendment that the member for Brennan unilaterally decided that he going to move without discussing - he said: ‘I don’t care how any of my parliamentary wing colleagues vote; I am voting this way’. You can take your bat and ball and you can go home, member for Brennan. You lost it once; we do not need you. We do not need you in this debate, spoiling tactics ably assisted by the member for Drysdale.
I do not know what their full agenda is here, but it is not one of progressing the statehood notion forward. I do not support the amendment. I would not expect that the people who support their leader over there - what you have is a leadership challenge on your hands right now. You have him going against it. You have a choice over there. You either get behind and support your leader, or you get behind and you support someone who was your leader and whom you ruled out. That is what you have, a leadership challenge, nothing more. It is wrecking the whole idea of getting a bipartisan approach to statehood. You have your spats, you have your party room fights. Do it behind that door, do not drag them on to the floor of parliament.
Debate adjourned.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2004-05
(Serial 234)
(Serial 234)
Madam SPEAKER: For the information of people in the gallery, we are now going to the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill and I will leave the Chair so that the member for Nelson can take the committee Chair.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I call on the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the committee.
Mr KIELY (by leave): Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, together with questions on notice and additional information provided to the committee today.
I also advise honourable members that further additional information and answers to outstanding questions taken on notice will be tabled on 17 August 2004.
This has been the third public hearing conducted by the Estimates Committee, and the overall process appears now to be bedded down. There are still members who raise the issue of allocation of time when individual ministers appear for questioning. There was a situation where an agency was not provided with the opportunity to be questioned as the total span of time allocated for that particular day had expired. As Chairman of the committee, I can vividly recollect constantly reminding all members of their responsibility to fully utilise the time available to ensure all portfolios received some form of scrutiny. I also specifically reminded members of the scheduled finishing time for that evening.
There could be an argument that there should be a process in place where the most economic use of time available is paramount, but despite this issue of a time concern, the fixed schedule of appearance paves the way for an orderly scrutiny of the budgetary matters with each portfolio. This set timing approach has seen a marked improvement and the orderly appearance of the mass of public servants who provide the very necessary behind the scenes briefings to support their ministers during questioning by the Estimates Committee.
The substitution of members of the committee has been clearly set out in the terms of reference for the three committees to date, but this year the committee took the decision to apply the letter of the law to those sections which require prior notice to Madam Speaker before any member of the committee could be substituted. This in itself imposed a further level of management within the whole process by the committee.
There were a minor number of occasions where emotions ran high but, in my opinion, there was once again a marked improvement in the level of professionalism adopted by both sides throughout the process over the last three and a half days, which resulted in a rigorous scrutiny of the budget.
Public servants who have been a part of the three estimates processes to date are now a great deal more comfortable with their role in actively delivering oral answers to questions referred to them by their minister while appearing as a witness in the proceedings.
I place on the record the appreciation of the committee to the parliamentary staff who maintain behind the scenes support in these processes, in particular, the committee secretariat staff, the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the daily Hansard rushes during the day.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY: Last year, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee provided this Assembly with statistical information flowing from the public hearings, and I intend to follow in the same tradition. During the 42 hours of debate, there were 39 questions taken on notice. This is well down on the 74 questions taken last year. When the public hearings were halted, 22 answers had been received, and with the limitation of time to take questions on notice and to receive replies late on Thursday evening, the last day of the public hearings, the outstanding number of 17 is well within reason. In addition to this, there were four questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this morning, and because of the relatively short time frame, these are still outstanding.
All outstanding answers must be included with the paper to be tabled on 17 August 2004. I would like to acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which sat for the second time. PowerWater corporation officials provided the members with clear, concise and accurate replies to questions which assisted the scrutiny process with this type of organisation. Finally, I thank all members who participated in the Estimates Committee process.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 18 May 2004, the committee has before it the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which shall be considered in the following manner: the question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2004-05, all the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, with reference to the Statement of Corporate Intent for 2004-05, be noted.
I remind honourable members that the speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition, and shadow ministers, 20 minutes; any other member 10 minutes. Further, the resolution provides for a maximum period of five hours for the conduct of the debate. Accordingly, as the time is now 2.05 pm, if the debate is not concluded before 7.05 pm, I will then put to question. When the consideration of the bill and the report have been concluded, and the question put, the following question will be put forthwith, without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, firstly, I place the congratulations and sincere appreciation of the opposition to the Hansard staff, who have worked remarkably efficiently to be able to produce the words into a format that we could digest very quickly. They have done a remarkable job.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: Also, to the support staff who worked behind the scenes and constantly supported the activities of the estimates process. From opposition, we sincerely thank you. Also, to the public servants within Northern Territory for the support that they gave to this process. Sometimes, they were utilised far more excessively than others due to the minister, generally, being unable to address complex issues. We have demonstrated the quality that we have within our public service, and your activities were sincerely appreciated.
Of course, you would expect from opposition that we would narrow our focus down to quibble over issues of process, and argue about the lack of time. However, that will not be the place at which my comments will dwell. I understand the estimates process to be a process that provides the opportunity for opposition - in fact, the community - to access the workings of government. I see it as a similar process and, bearing in mind that many people in our community hear the word ‘estimates’ and know that something is going on and that it is important, but they often do not really know what it is about. In simple terms it is this: if you run a business, it is the audit, the opportunity to scrutinise aspects of the running of that business. There is no business in this town that has an audit conducted within parameters that restrict the capacity of the audit to be conducted completely. No business can operate efficiently, effectively or, in fact, legally if there are restrictions upon the access of the audit in terms of, ‘I need to be audited; I will give you four hours’. That would not be a qualified nor legal audit.
In this event, we had the biggest business in town with a restriction and a limitation on the capacity to audit - as simple as that. Nonetheless, in the opportunity that we have provided to us by those who are being scrutinised and audited, they established the parameters. They established the restrictions, and narrowed down the windows of opportunity as far as reasonably possible. They tell the community on one hand: ‘We are open and fully accountable’. Many will believe it, because it is asserted so genuinely. It is a bit like asserting that breakfast cereal is really very good for you - Froot Loops and others are presented as being highly tasty, but they are actually low on nutritional value. You may assert to the public that this is a wonderful program, and it provides us with full exposure to the scrutiny of the community through the opposition. It is not true. Nonetheless, the wider community has been alarmed at the limited opportunity which has been revealed through this audit opportunity forwarded to the opposition through the estimates process, and to the Independent.
What was uncovered? What do Territorians now know? What they now know is that there are more taxes flowing to the Treasury coffers than ever before in the history of the Northern Territory. That this government has at its resource, at its call, huge amounts of taxation revenue at a quantum way in excess of any government in the Territory’s history, ever, evidenced by what was uncovered and inadequately addressed of having an account there, a Central Holding Authority, that earns $30m interest.
Any householder out there who has an investment, or cash in the bank, looks occasionally to see how much interest is being generated. You only have to think again, if you are going to earn $30m interest, how much do you actually have in the bank? Okay, that can be argued and we can be blinded by science. But let’s jump back to the previous year and we find that the amount of interest generated by the Central Holding Authority was half that. We go back to the year before that and we find that the interest generated by the Central Holding Authority was less again. So it is going up and up until this point we have clearly presented to the Northern Territory $30m interest from about $9m or thereabout three years ago. How could that be? It is because of the excessive - I should not say excessive – it is due to the amount of cash that is being held in the Labor government’s war chest to be deployed at a time of their strategic choosing.
It seems to coincide with when the planets align around election time and out it will flow. It is clearly evident you have an amassed a war chest and Territorians now know that. They know that the revenue that is flowing from the GST into Treasury coffers is to be employed to build the economy. Now Territorians have verified with some certainty that that is being held in reserve not for their benefit but for the political benefit of those who have the responsibility of Treasury at this point.
Secondly, more jobs: we established that there is now an increased tax take. Now we have the next revelation through this limited audit. We now have revealed that there are in fact fewer jobs. We have it verified that 1400 jobs have gone, disappeared from the Northern Territory economy. Before members charge me with talking the economy down, that is a fact that is evident not by me asserting it and therefore talking the economy down, that is a symptom. If a doctor assesses a patient who is ailing and says, ‘This is the symptom’, do you criticise the doctor for identifying the symptom? The symptom is evidence of a disease that needs to be addressed and the disease is the management that has been conducted by those who have responsibility for the running of the economy in the Northern Territory. A symptom, 1400 jobs missing.
That is concerning in its own right but it is worse, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because each one of these statistics represents people. Territorians with dreams; with hope for the future who have left the labour force, and many of them have left the Northern Territory. They have chosen to leave. Why would that be? Because we have had two years of zero growth. That has been revealed quite clearly. In the face and offensive to the average Territorian when now they know there are large reserves of cash that are not being employed in ways that make a difference to them and their future and provision of a real job.
Further development of the jobs question, which was raised in banners right across everything that resulted from the release of the Treasurer’s budget, was that we had an enlargement in the public sector of over 2000 jobs. You only have to think about that for a moment. The evidence of a healthy economy is jobs, and the assertion of this government is jobs, jobs, jobs. What we have is jobs, jobs, jobs gone. That is evidence of an economy that is not producing required outcomes. Fourteen hundred jobs missing; one page of the Treasurer’s own budget paper. Look further on and we find that the public sector has enlarged by over 2000. Stop and think about it. If the public sector has enlarged by over 2000 and we have lost in total 1400 jobs, it would not be going too far to say that it is the private sector that has suffered way more than 1400, and our limited opportunities to audit have revealed that symptom of an economy improperly and inefficiently managed by this Labor government.
We have the issue of the payroll tax increase clearly presented. In the face of zero growth from period to period, we have the assertion that there will be increased economic activity. I would like to believe that be the case, but every indicator, as revealed through the process of estimates, does not throw up sufficient reason for that hope, particularly when we have an economy that has, from period to period, not performed to the expectations of those opposite, of those who had their opportunity to manage this budge.
In light of that, we had a fiscal strategy that was heading in one direction and now we have panic and a change of direction, a change of fiscal strategy, a significant departure from the direction that this government was headed. We only have to go back and acknowledge the GST revenue that has flowed in, the $36m I should not mention that the Treasurer acknowledged during Estimates does exist ‘… and is sitting over here. Unfortunately, it did not come in at the right time and we could not put it in the budget papers. We are not sure what we are doing with it at the moment, but it is in the bank’. We have plenty of ideas about what could happen with that $36m additional. You could relieve the pressure on Territory families with regard to the MVR increase, the cost of registering a vehicle in the Northern Territory. You could use it for that purpose. It has been done before and it could be done in this instance, rather than holding it in an account which earns a huge quantum of interest. It is being held in reserve, it is being inappropriately applied. We must build the economy.
Other interesting things came to light throughout this audit such as the wharf precinct. Territorians are beginning to look with some interest at what is actually going to happen down there. They think that something might eventually result after the time that this government has had to do something. They know that they have been in their back yards and interfered with their lifestyle through swimming pool fencing; they know that that has come at a bill of $8m additional dollars – ‘Thank you very much Territorians, we must apologise but we have to back flip out of this one. Sorry about getting in your back yards for the last couple of years. Anyway, we have to turn your attention so we are going to talk about the wharf precinct and we are going to build you something really flash down at your waterfront. We are going to build you something. No, I am going to build myself something so it looks like we can build a project that shows that we can build projects and we will do it as quickly as we can and it is a $100m’. Where is the $100m in the budget? Is it on this page? Is it on that page? Did you say $100m, Chief Minister? Yes, I did. Is it on this page, or is it on that page? No, it is not on any page! There is no allocation of $100m to get this project going. It is not there.
Territorians believe that they have contributed $100m to this project, they have been told that, but it is not there, it has not been allocated, which is the beginning of a story I believe which is to unfold – this wharf project, the development of our waterfront. There have been more questions than answers raised through our limited opportunity to investigate that matter.
About the decision that this government, the brave and courageous decision that they have taken to deal with our parks estate. Their management regime was held open to scrutiny, and it raised many more questions than answers. These questions must be pursued, because we are dealing with our future, the implications, and the ramifications of the path that this government has committed itself to, has profound consequences, which were touched on through the estimates process and will be further elaborated on by my colleagues.
We have dispelled the myth, the lie, in fact, that was told to Territorians: ‘There will be no more expensive interstate consultancies under my government if ever I were given the opportunity’, by the Chief Minister, smiling face, signing it in the face of the Northern Territory community. Now we have a mountain of expensive interstate consultancies. And we have the assurance, the honest, genuine, breakfast cereal-type nice commitment to Territorians: ‘That will simply not be the case under my government’. It has been demonstrated it is the case, in bucket loads.
We also have the revelation that the expenses on the 5th floor; Territorians were told: ‘They will be reduced. We will run a small, lean machine. It is you we are interested in’. Now we have the revelation that it is enlarged. It costs more to run the 5th floor than it ever has, ever. It is plain, there to see through the estimates process that, once upon a time, in 2001, the expenditure to run the 5th floor was $9.9m. It has enlarged by well over $3m. And they have reduced by one minister. What is going on up there? We found that there have been promotion units, glossies pouring out of the 5th floor, and we have been able to verify and demonstrate that to Territorians. ‘These are Territorians. I am thinking of you at this moment. You had a belief. You had an expectation. You thought this was going to be the case. You thought it would be a new and golden age’.
Well, we have been able to expose that hypocrisy through the limited opportunity provided in the estimates process. Your fuel prices are up. You have someone there who is so tied to this issue of fuel prices that, given the opportunity, would come and conduct an independent inquiry and deal with that issue once and for all. Fuel prices are now higher than they ever have been, and the one who asserted that once upon a time in the face of the Northern Territory community, now has the authority and the power to do that – and is mute.
Territorians, with the limited opportunities that we have to investigate completely, to do a thorough audit on your behalf, we have uncovered much to concern you. Territorians, nonetheless, the future is before you. Things can change. There is hope for the future. The Territory is a fine place, and we will, despite that which has been uncovered through this estimates process, we will, in the long term, go from strength to strength. I report to you that that which has been uncovered during this brief period is cause for concern, and I admit that. It is our responsibility in opposition and, indeed, members opposite, to take heed of that which has been uncovered through this process and ensure that we will respond in a way that is mindful of the future of Northern Territory families.
Territory families now know that there are no fewer taxes. They now know there are no new jobs, or more jobs – there are, in fact, fewer. For every young family with kids in high school, or kids who have gone to seek apprenticeships or a range of opportunities, they have been restricted under two years of zero growth. These are hard times for Territorians. Government, you have a responsibility – indeed, a duty - to bear clearly in mind the suffering of small business. The payroll tax changes are, in fact, minimal. You may rail against that, but Territorians know full well that you had the opportunity to change that comprehensively, as the opposition has committed to do, because you now have GST revenue to give you the capacity to provide real benefits to those in our community who can create the wealth. Small business operators needed to be given the real relief, so that they can stimulate the economy …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I congratulate the hard-working staff of the Assembly on the significant efforts they went to, to ensure that, as members of parliaments, we were able to debate and investigate the budget, with very a professional level of support.
As a member of the Estimates Committee, I have been intrinsically involved in the process from the outset. Certainly, I am not a member of the Standing Orders Committee, so was not privy to the discussions that went on within that committee about what the terms of reference would be. However, speaking from the terms of reference in regards to the process, it was a highly thought-out and prosecuted process of scrutiny. I participated in the majority of the estimates hearings, and had the opportunity to chair a couple. On the whole, there was significant scrutiny of each portfolio area. Following the output-by-output group process is a useful way of approaching it. Members had the opportunity of following where they were, and it made it easier for most people, I believe, to follow the process. We did have one agreement to go outside of that output-by-output area process that led to some significant arguments, at some stage, of where we were in that scrutiny. I guess a salient lesson was learnt there: if we identify a process that really does work, stick to that process. Certainly, in all the other hearings that were conducted where we followed the output group process, we were able to move through very clearly and scrutinise the budget.
The shadow ministers had very well-prepared approaches on this scrutiny. I know there were some instances where time did run out, and I am sure members of the opposition will talk at great length about that. I notice there was some time-wasting as well. Certainly, as chair, I felt that there were unnecessary arguments about various matters that certainly chewed into the clock. People can go into a process with a view to getting through the questions. I make note that the shadow minister for Community Services in the session we had last night, went in there with prepared questions and moved through a process in a way that was not about political point scoring – it really was scrutinising the portfolio and the budget. We finished very well on the clock on that.
I note other shadow ministers went in with an attitude that they did not like the process, they did not think the process would work, and they went out of their way in some situations to make sure that the process and the clock worked against full scrutiny. That is politics. Many people will choose to play politics ahead of thorough scrutiny. However, it is a maturing process, and members in this Chamber need to say: ‘We have a Estimate Committee process. It is a process that each of us has signed up to, and can we, in fact, make it work for the benefit of all Territorians, where people have an opportunity to feel satisfied that thorough scrutiny has occurred’.
As a member of the committee, I have noted that while we are still grappling with just how many questions other members of the committee can get to ask, certainly deference quite properly and appropriately is given to the shadow ministers. They get to ask questions first and it is not until they have exhausted their questions that other members get to ask questions. At times, I felt that there was an indulgence in the number of questions and the repetitive nature of questions asked by the Independent. I noted that as a member of the committee, and I raised points of order to that. I really feel that where we have one of 25 members taking significant chunks of scrutiny time on repetitive and argumentative and going old ground issues, really I urge that member to consider their role and the need to understand that you are not always going to get the answer you are seeking and asking the question again and again in a variety of ways, and I saw shadow ministers do this as well, came up with the same answer. And there was a lot of time wasting by members in going over old ground.
Dr Lim: You don’t understand the process do you?
Ms LAWRIE: No, do not put the Chair in a position where you know the clock is being talked down, basically, and you would like to see it moved ahead and you weigh up the balance of ensuring everyone is getting a fair crack at it. Certainly, I know that the member for Greatorex was interjecting then at me about the process of time wasting, but he has to have a good hard look at his performance in the Estimates Committee. I sought withdrawal of some derogatory comments he made. It is demeaning for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get down to that level of gutter politics and attacking the person. I am sure that in the cold hard light of day he might actually mature into his position, but I am still waiting for that to happen.
As a member of the committee, I know that we go in to deliberative session after each section of the estimates hearing and we identify core points that came out of that process which the Chair of the committee has tabled here in parliament today. We will continue as a committee to discuss various aspects of points that came out of the process. It is not a debate that finishes at the tick of the clock this morning in terms of Power and Water scrutiny. It is a debate that goes on both inside and outside this Chamber.
The budget is a significant piece of legislation that goes through this House. It obviously identifies where government will spend and what priorities there are and by nature of that there will be debate and argument and variances of difference positions about it. I have to say that looking at the debates this year compared to the debates last year, there really was not debate based on the merit of what was in the budget. I did not hear anyone saying: ‘Oh well, I disagree with this particular aspect of the budget or that particular aspect’. It came down to what I felt was significantly political debates rather than merit debates. I see that as actually a strong tick for the Treasurer and the budget that he has delivered. Last year, I remember, we had hours of debate in here about mining royalties and to me that is a merit argument - does it merit changing the mining royalties? - and certainly we argued that the money we put in to the mining sector in other forms was more beneficial to the sector.
This year the debates were far more based on the politics of a budget rather than whether or not it is a sound budget. No one was able to prosecute a point that it was not a sound budget. No one was able to prosecute the point that we are getting debt spiralling out of control. No one was able to prosecute the point that the economy is going backwards. Certainly, all the statistics and arguments and figures that were laid through the estimates process shows there is a healthy growth in public service. I say healthy, it is not a spiralling out of control growth; it is a growth that has been identified in significant areas such as health, education, and law and order.
It was a very interesting process, as a member of the Estimates Committee, to sit through. We hear members of the opposition complain about 4 hours being too short. I found that 4 hours was actually a fair amount of time when people went into the process wanting to move through succinctly and reasonably both the asking of questions and the answering of questions. It became bogged down and time ran short when people really just wanted to go around in circles and rerun the same argument of the question before and maybe change one or two words of that question, but really they are repeating the question. They are asking the same question. I think it is the repetitive nature of some of the arguments that cause the timing issues that your saw.
I have to say it was not the majority of the estimates hearings. Where there was a willingness from the shadow to move through it in a comprehensive and highly scrutinised way, that worked. Where the shadow had a view to run just political arguments and repetitive arguments, the system became bogged down. It really does take both sides of the House to go in and look at it in a way of saying, ‘I want to maximise my scrutiny here. I want to move through and get through as many output areas as I can’. Until that is genuinely done by all shadows I do not think we will ever solve the ongoing argument about time.
On a human perspective I can say 4 hours is a long time for any person to be sitting there in the role of minister answering questions. I certainly know that it takes a lot out of their staff to sit there for 4 hours just as it takes a lot out of the Estimates Committees members. I have to say that the 7 hours that the Treasurer gets is extraordinary. It was truly a marathon human effort. I do not like the amount of time we put a person through that level of physical strain. I look for the time when parliament starts to realise that politicians are actually people and we pay attention to that in how we structure the hours and the way their work conditions operate.
As a member of the Estimates Committee I finish again by congratulating the Assembly staff, the Hansard staff, the committees and their staff. They are fantastic.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, as a core member of the Estimates Committee, I would like to join in this debate and share my thoughts on the whole process. Obviously, there will members on the government side saying everything is hunky-dory and great, and you will hear from members from the opposition saying that it is not. There are issues in terms of opportunities to discover information from ministers. Even prior to the process we had spoken about the possibility of providing written questions for ministers so that we can get a better understanding of the issues and also get fulsome answers rather than the questions taken on notice. Time and time again when questions were taken on notice, and a written response comes back, it comes back with half a question unanswered. I can go through many examples of that. In particular, I asked questions of the Minister for Family and Community Services and about the Rachael Hostel and Bill Braitling Hostel. All I received was a couple of lines on each that did not answer the whole of the question. I had asked the question on three separate occasions in the course of the debate during the estimates process.
Despite of all the restrictions that were placed on opposition to interrogate the budget fully, the opposition believed that it had obtained sufficient evidence to show that this government has failed to manage. It has failed to manage this Territory budget and the Territory for the last three years. You can see, as somebody aptly described, a torrent of GST revenue flowing through the Territory, and this government has not been able to ensure that there is enough employment, development, and attractions for people to stay in the Territory. A typical example is that of the loss of primary school students which I raised with the minister for Education. We have lost something like 1000 students from primary schools in the last 12 months. That is a huge loss. It is equivalent to three or four schools. When I quizzed him about why we have lost students, and have they increased the number of primary schools, the answer was, ‘No, we did not build any primary schools; what we did was increase the number of schools providing primary education’. This is a very imaginative way of describing something. This government has not built a single primary school. For the three years they have been in, this government has not done such a thing at all.
It has been a real issue. It reflects, again, the population loss that we talked about. With $1.2bn extra money coming to the Territory in the last three years, they have not been able to increase the population in the Territory, apart from relying on an increase in birth rate amongst people in the bush. I also said in estimates that these children, born in the last 12 months, are not going to be productive Territorians for a minimum of 15 years. These people are not going to generate any jobs; they are not going to be gainfully employed. Sure, they will be going to school, we hope. We hope all the primary schools will be chock-a-block with these children, and maybe we can look forward to some primary schools starting to fill up and stop this loss of primary school enrolments.
I will go through the list of points that were made by the Estimates Committee during the last three and a half days. I am a little concerned. I heard Madam Speaker saying that she was disappointed that she lost funding for her repairs and maintenance. All up, if you nett it all out, she would have lost something like $350 000 for repairs and maintenance in a building that is 10 years old and continues to age. We have complained incessantly about the IT services in this building. In the Estimates Committee, the IT services were roundly criticised by members of the committee, and Madam Speaker agreed with the committee that there are issues there to be sorted out. If the government is serious about maintaining this building and providing the best technology that we can have, for a reasonable sum of money, then that is why the money should be reinstated.
Coming back to education, when the minister for Education responded to my questions about the Charles Darwin University, I was disappointed. He was more than effusive, or he was perhaps a little bit free with his effusive compliments about Centralian College and what Centralian College might do for the Northern Territory University through its merger to form the Charles Darwin University. I thought the minister would have treated that issue a lot more seriously because, right now, the Charles Darwin University is at a crossroad. It has had more than 12 months of amalgamation and things should be starting to settle. But, as time goes on, it appears that things have not settled. We had the TCA recently pulling out its trainees from the Charles Darwin University. We have had others complaining. Students are complaining of their excessive charges. Somehow, the public relations exercise for the Charles Darwin University must be won, and I urge the minister to focus on that particularly. I note there are some people in the gallery who are from Charles Darwin University, and I hope they will take heart that the opposition is strongly supportive of Charles Darwin University and want to see it do well. We will do as much as we possibly can to ensure that that happens.
When the Chief Minister was interviewed by the committee, I recall a section where the Leader of the Opposition sought some understanding from the Chief Minister about the way she went about advertising for her government. Instead of getting an appropriate and fulsome answer that was factual, she ended up lambasting the Leader of the Opposition for a breach of the code of advertising. Well, I would like to show you this little advertisement. This appeared in Central Australian newspapers, particularly the Tennant Creek Times: ‘Your Territory needs you’ sanctioned by the Northern Territory government, with the face of the minister for Health, Peter Toyne MLA. But guess what? There appears underneath the Minster for Health, Elliot McAdam MLA, member for Barkly. Is that in the code? This is the government signing off on an advertisement, and then they dare to accuse the opposition of doing something that is inappropriate. What is good for the goose is good for and gander.
Here is a Northern Territory government advertisement that includes a backbencher. Nobody complained about it. The member for Barkly justly deserves to be in the advertisement because he would have taken part in the promotion of the eradication of mosquitos in Tennant Creek, and I commend him for such a sincere public activity. However, if the government is prepared to do that, then it does not have the right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition. I seek leave to table this document, Mr Chairman, so that it is there for the record.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: When we came to the issue of Mimosa pigra, my colleague, the member for Daly, asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage what he has done about that. You could see the discomfort the minister was in from the body language and the attempts by the minister to try to deflect the issue.
I was the chair of the Environment Committee between 1994 and the year 2000. In those years, we were given quite a few relevant references by parliament to investigate, and the infestation of Mimosa pigra was one of them. Mr Chairman, you are also vitally interested in this, and you probably would have read the very fulsome report that the Environment Committee produced for this parliament. Many of the recommendations were taken up by government. We also found out during that investigation that the government had been providing significant subsidies for weed poisons that could be sourced by land-holders to remove Mimosa pigra. The government did nothing about that, instead, took away this funding, and now land-holders have no source of funding to go to, to deal with this infestation in the Territory. This is at a time when the federal government is prepared to put in money, and the Northern Territory government, instead, pulls its money out. Again, I say, at a time when GST revenue is pouring like a river into this place.
There were several issues raised regarding Alice Springs: fruit fly infestation and how primary industry was going to deal with it. I felt that the answer provided was not satisfactory. There are significant issues in terms of infestations there, and I believe that the government should be more concerned about it.
The water supply in Alice Springs was another matter. I listened to the interrogation this morning very closely to what PowerWater had to say about what is happening with the sewerage pond, and about the water supply. The sewerage pond issue is still unresolved. For the last month now, volumes of water have been pouring down St Mary’s Creek. It has been pouring relentlessly. It is supposed to fixed. They are supposed to be putting pipes in the ground to take the water out to AZRI and CSIRO, but nothing has been done. There is water flowing on both sides of the road and, with all the earthworks going on for the roadworks for the Desert Knowledge Precinct and the Desert People’s Centre, you would think that all this would be addressed at the same time. Obviously, the right hand and the left hand do not know what the other is doing. Again, this is an example of how this government is failing to manage for Territorians.
When I asked the Minister for Family and Community Services about Bill Braitling and Rachael Hostel, I said earlier I was very disappointed with the written response that she gave me at the end of the session last night. It was an inadequate response. It is just an example of how this whole estimates process has been really deficient. Just about every minister ran out of time in terms of having questions asked of the ministers. The only one was the minister with the lightest load, where four hours and he was over, whereas with every other minister there were copious questions that were just skipped over. When member for Karama says: ‘Oh well, the people were very repetitive’. Sometimes it is important to pursue an issue. And ministers would try to obfuscate, be very circumlocutory with their discussions and never provide an answer.
At other times they would spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the issue with the officers surrounding them, which at that time, from the way I observed it, the minister was receiving an instant briefing from the officer. Then deciding what to do with the briefings and then passing onto the officer to respond because the minister could not understand what the officer said. That takes a lot of time which could have been avoided had there been a much more open process. Other times, the minister would be just fudging around. The best one of the lot was the Minister for Local Government. Of the 4 hours he sat there …
Mr Bonson: He was one of the best.
Dr LIM: … if you went through the Hansard and really teased out the information that he provided, he would have spent less than an hour providing the information. The rest of the time was a lot of – I hear the member for Millner giggling and carrying on back there. Be arrogant, be …
Mr Bonson: He made you look stupid!
Dr LIM: … dismissive about what the rightful role of the Estimates Committee is. Carry on the way you do, that is fine. But I am saying to you that the Estimates Committee is there for the opposition and any other member of parliament to interrogate executive government as to how money is being spent in a responsible way. And when you prevent that process from happening, then what happens is that Territorians start to have less confidence in the ability of government to manage. So, I say to the government again, if we do this one more time next year, think about your process, think about how you can improve it. Do not just lock in on the 4 hours as if that is a be all and end all of the matter. Territorians need to have the opportunity to question the Budget in a way that becomes meaningful. If you do not do that, then all you do is to just generate an air of disbelief, and of distrust, in the government.
Finally, and I will not go much longer, when government members of the Estimates Committee start running interference in the committee, that is really the most intolerable thing. I am sure minsters are able to fend for themselves. They do not need government members of the Estimates Committee running interference. And to see a member get up in umbrage, trying to find information to shove down my throat, I thought was the silliest thing that could have happened. I thought that the look from the public gallery was not good. Anyway, it is up to the member to decide on that matter and for the member to deal with it in his or her own time.
On the process itself, we have to go by what the government puts in front of us. Those are the rules they make and we have to live by them. The opposition dealt with government in quite an effective way. We elicited much information that will be very useful to us: health, child abuse, hospital management in Alice Springs, education, Charles Darwin University, and senior secondary education.
There were issues that were prominent in my mind and over the next few months, I will continue to follow through on the responses we received in Estimates as I go through Hansard in a methodical manner.
Mr BONSON: Mr Chairman, I am a first-time member of the Estimates Committee. In thinking about the process over the last few days, it has highlighted two issues.
The first is: how does the Estimates Committee work? The reality is we have to look at convention in the Westminster system. Sometimes, members of this House, government, opposition and Independents, need to realise that it is a convention in the Westminster system and, in particular, in Australian jurisdictions, that there is an Estimates process. It would be good in speeches by opposition and Independent members – we know we will hear it from government members – that there is recognition that we did not have an Estimates process until this government was elected.
What benefit is the Estimates process to the Northern Territory people? After all, that is who we answer to. The whole idea, of course, is to scrutinise government spending. That is the objective of the Estimates Committee process.
The second thing is confidence in the process so that the whole Northern Territory community feels it has ownership of the Territory budget and is confident that the government is accountable. This is, obviously, the duty of the opposition in the process.
As all members of this House know, the Martin government delivered on its election promise to establish an Estimates process. The reality is that we were the only jurisdiction in Australia not to have an Estimates process. It should cause shame to the opposition.
This was the opposition’s opportunity to ask questions about the budget and for the government ministers to answer questions and be thoroughly investigated on good and bad points of the budget and what it delivers. On observation, I would estimate that government ministers played their role by allowing the opposition as much time as was available to ask questions. My guesstimate is that members of the committee asked less than 2% of total questions. The reason for that is that the process was designed, and it needs to be recognised by both sides, for the opposition to interrogate government ministers about how they spend money.
It should also be recognised that both sides of parliament indulged the Independent member on the committee so that he could ask questions. I appreciate that the Independent member would recognise the fact that the Chair and the opposition gave him the opportunity to ask questions. His role is important as well. We have seen, in matters over the last few years, that each side will take a political view and will push that view. An Independent is seen by the community to have his or her own views, or is seen to have their own views. It is important to recognise that this Estimates Committee was introduced for the benefit of interrogation of government budgets.
A couple of the other benefits from this process is the fact that we did have members of the public service come to support the minister. I pick up on two things that two members have already spoken about. The member for Karama has spoken about the human aspect of it. I know that there were first time ministers, and they studied their guts out to ensure that they covered all the areas of their portfolio, but the stress and pressure on all the members was quite high, and you cannot underestimate that. Yes, they were elected to do a job; yes, they have taken up that responsibility, but they are doing a job that is very hard, has a lot of responsibility, and sometimes we often forget that they are only human, not to mention the fact that there were public servants assisting the relevant ministers.
This point was raised by the member for Greatorex, who is also on the committee, that they were getting on-the-spot briefings. This is ridiculous. The role of the Estimates Committee is to allow budget scrutiny. How does it happen? Questions are posed to the minister. With our process, there is an opportunity for public servants to come along and talk about operational matters, not government policy. The minister was there to define what was government policy, what was government platform. We should all expect it to be appropriate for the minister to refer operational matters to the relevant public servant who had that responsibility.
We know that there has been a campaign run by the opposition, for political purposes, and I understand that and we recognise it, that there was not enough time. I am more than happy to see that people who were involved, members and observers, people involved with the working process can tell you it was quite a hard, long slog, with ample time given to all parties to ask the question and get the relevant answer. This is shown by the fact that, on many occasions, ministers provided more information than was actually asked for in the question.
On observations again, as a first time member, and on previous observations as a supplementary member, it was apparent that the opposition did do a much better job this year in asking, and strategically asking, and framing their questions. This helped with the whole process and recognition has to be given to those on the opposition side for that. When they found the matter they wanted to follow up, they did prosecute that matter. But credit has to be given to the ministers. There would always be argy-bargy whether or not they provided precise information, but there is no doubt that the budget process was scrutinised, important information was brought out and, hopefully, this informs other members of parliament, and the Northern Territory public.
I would also like to thank the public servants, who obviously acted in a very professional and accommodating manner through the whole process. Members did try their hardest to make the estimates process work, and special mention needs to made of the Chair who did do his best to accommodate the process. This is not a reflection on past Estimates committees, but the chairperson did remain polite, did accommodate the opposition, was professional and fair and impartial but, importantly, and I do not think we can underestimate this, there was lightheartedness, there was friendly banter and good humor amongst all members, and this helped the whole process. Recognition needs to be made of the ministers’ staff, and the Legislative Assembly staff and Hansard. They did a fantastic job. They worked side by side, and no doubt earned their pay packets this last fortnight. They did a magnificent job in supporting all of the members of parliament in the estimates process.
In summary, I believe the process worked. There was improvement from the previous years. All stakeholders, I believe, improved in general in the process. The aim of the estimates was, of course achieved; which was democratic accountability, or the perception of democratic accountability. There are two different things to this – the reality and perception. Both are important. An elected government needs this to continue on, and to deliver the services that we, as Australians and Territorians, all take for granted: education, health, safety, police; the list goes on. I thank all of those involved in the process, and hope to see you next year.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, firstly, thank you to the member for Millner for giving us advice about how to be an opposition. We appreciate that. Thank you to all the staff of the Legislative Assembly for all their hard work in making sure the estimates process went as well as it did, from that point of view. Particularly, thanks to all the public servants throughout the Northern Territory who have worked hard, not just over this last week, but over the last few weeks, trying to second guess what the opposition may ask, and being prepared to follow up on any of the questions and issues that members of this parliament asked of ministers.
Thanks also to the committee members for their work, because it is them, predominantly, who spend the long hours in the estimates process, manning the core positions of the committee seats, and that is a great job.
I also thank, believe it or not, some of the ministers - and I say some, and I will pick out the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in particular, for the way in which he conducted himself. I thought the exchange that I, as shadow, had with him was very worthwhile and was without any of the rhetoric that some of the other ministers seem to have engaged in, in the process. It was a very smooth and productive process from that minister. While some ministers were very belligerent in their reports, and in answering of questions, others were lazy and hid behind officers on quite a many occasions. I have to say the minister for the Environment was one who stands out most in that regard. Anyone can check this. All you have to do is look through the Hansard and see how much of an answer was given by that minister.
Unfortunately, for this parliament and for the government, some were just plain embarrassing, and the Minister for Parks and Wildlife has to take the cake. He gets the cake for the most embarrassing minister, not only to himself, but to all of those who witnessed his performance - the media included, the officers who were there, and all of us watching on around the place. He was making stupid remarks, filibustering, waffling, answering questions that were not asked of him. Certainly, if you want to talk about time wasting, he is the time waster. You, minister, are the absolute time waster, and all we have to do is go to the Hansard. That is the good thing about Hansard, and I am sure in your reply, you will pick out something to use against me, but I thought I would get in first to give you the opportunity.
Let us look at the Hansard. We are looking at the issue of the weeds program. We started off, and I asked the minister about Mimosa pigra: ‘It is a noxious weed that attracts a subsidy to help landowners combat that weed. I am informed that there have been some delays, and blah, blah, and people are not being paid …’, and I could go through it for the length that it took. But unfortunately, I would run out of my 20 minutes, or the 16 that are left. Because when I asked the question he straight away said: ‘As you are quite well aware there has been an amalgamation between Weeds and Bushfires and I hope one of your questions is going to be about bushfires because there are 200 000-odd more vehicles, more gear …’. I said: ‘Can we stick to weeds, minister, for a minute?’ ‘You probably do not want to hear the good news,’ he said. I said: ‘That is going to be my second question.’ Dr Burns said: ‘I will defer to – well they love me, they love me, the bushfires brigade. I have given each one of them …,’ blah, blah, blah ...
Dr Burns: Well, read it out. Come on.
Mr BALDWIN: ... blah, blah, blah. Then he went on and on, and for members who are here, here is where we started the question. We go down here, we go up here and all I am asking the minister to answer is: ‘Is the subsidy still available?’ It could have been, ‘Yes’, or it could have been, ‘No’. And we go over the page and we are still going …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: ... still going blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and we get to me: ‘Is there a level of funding that land-holders can apply for or a subsidy to treat Mimosa pigra now, right now?’ Dr Burns: ‘As of this minute?’ Mr Baldwin: ‘Right now?’ Dr Burns ...
Mr Ah Kit: Blah, blah, blah.
Mr BALDWIN: ... ‘No’. We got to the ‘No’ after a page. Well, two pages - two pages. Two full pages of transcript. Now, if that ain’t time wasting, nothing is. So, minister, unfortunately, you may laugh and I note that you are laughing, but it did not do you any good. No, truly.
You think we dream up all of these questions on our own, but I can assure you that a lot of people, those that do understand this process, do come to you and say, ‘This is an issue and can you find out the answer because I am having some troubles’. In this case a number of land-holders came to me and they are having troubles because they have not been told that it is not available. They have put in for their subsidy which they have been putting in and you have admitted in there – well, it was not you but actually between the blah, blah, blahs you flicked it to Mr Applegate who did a great job - that this subsidy has been in place for over a decade, and it has not been clear to these people that they could not apply, and they have been wondering what was going on.
All it needed was a clear answer so they knew where they stood and what was going to happen from this point on. Unfortunately, I am obligated to give them the answer and they will get it - two pages. So, not only do you embarrass those who were looking on, or listening on, or watching, but those who are asking for some answers from government will obviously get that same impression which is unfortunate, minister, for you.
I must say that if you are going to take a leaf out of anyone’s book for this process in the future, look to your colleague, the minister for primary industries, at least in his session, and the way in which he conducted himself during his appearance before the committee.
Mr Chairman, I believe we found out all sorts of information, notwithstanding that you could always want more time. I am sure that if we had more time we would find out even more relevant information. I had to cut down very considerably on the questions, but we were heartened by the fact that, in the time that we were provided, a number of significant issues were revealed on some very important topics. I know my colleague is going to talk about the waterfront. I raised a number of issues: waste oil disposal, fisheries, cotton, native title, mimosa and weeds, and the Katherine flood waters preventative work, which my colleagues raised on behalf of the member for Katherine. The answers to our questions and the issues raised will make good reading for all kinds of people who have concerns in these areas. The government, although they think they are putting a good spin on a number of these areas, particularly native title, thinks that it is going down well in the community. I can assure them that it is not. These are issues we will progress in due course.
All in all, it was a good process from our point of view in terms of the answers we were able to elicit in the time that we had. I am sure the information that we have arising from the Estimates Committee process will be well used in the future.
Once again, I thank those public servants for their great support of their ministers and for being well prepared to give concise answers to the questions we asked and for the provision of information we were seeking. Without them, I am sure we would have had the sort of rhetoric that came from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife that did not contain any relevant information. At the end of his rhetoric, at least he flicked to the good officers next to him, who were able to provide the information. Whilst it took pages to extract from the minister, who, in the end, did not know that ‘no’ was the answer to the question at the beginning, his officers were able to get him to that answer in good time – two pages worth of good time; good time that we are being blamed for wasting.
Mr Chairman, I put those comments on the record so that they can be used in refining the process in the future.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I was assuming we would go one-on-one and I assumed there were more speakers from the other side, so I apologise for being a bit slow to jump.
I have a couple of comments about the Estimates Committee, and certainly join with my colleagues in thanking all of those who were involved in the process, in particular the committee staff and, most importantly, as has already been mentioned, the Hansard staff who, of course, have done a superb job in producing the transcripts of those lengthy proceedings in a very timely manner. It is very professional, very efficient and very helpful to have the transcript on the run as we go.
I would like to pay particular notice of the efforts of the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, the member for Sanderson. He and I do not agree too often on too many things, but I thought he conducted himself well. He was fair and impartial, pretty well, to me, and I can only comment for myself. At times when he had to step in, and we might have disagreed on a couple of occasions, his arguments would have been as weighty as mine, and that is the normal repartee and theatre that happens within these proceedings. In that regard, I felt that he did an extremely good job overall.
I entered the Estimates Committee with a number of objectives, and they were to look at the outcomes of the budget from a strategic perspective. My aim was not to get down to the detail of the budget papers. I have learnt by now that where there are concerns about details and numbers, you can get those answers by a variety of means. I was more interested, in an accrual accounting method, of what are the strategic outcomes of this government in a number of areas that interested me. I certainly had the opportunity to explore all of those issues, and in that regard it was a satisfactory process.
There are some difficulties. I do not have the answers for them. Certainly, the inability to interrogate the Darwin Port Corporation was something that did not occur again in this estimate session. I understand, in the three estimate sessions we have conducted so far, the Darwin Port Corporation has not been called; it has not had a chance to get to the table, certainly in the last two sessions, where they have not been questions on notice. And I think it is a fact that, in all three sessions, they have not had a chance to get to the table. That is problematic in itself.
My solution to that, which the government intuitively does not agree with, but it is worth consideration, is that it is primarily the objective of the opposition and other members to interrogate the government minister on his portfolios areas. The government minister is equipped, prepared, supplied with advice to go to any of those areas at any time, and the staff are there ready to assist the minister. Where the process fails, in my opinion, is that the number of output areas are extremely lengthy in some portfolio areas, in particular, Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The shadow minister may not have areas of interrogation there, but other members of the parliamentary committee may have. I guess it is really a matter of deciding where your priority goes. In the committee process, one argument is that all members of the committee should have equal opportunity. I think it is taking it a bit too far.
The reality is that the opposition represents the largest majority in this Chamber, apart from the government, and there should be some further consideration given to, within the time allowed, the shadow minister being able to perhaps nominate the output area that they would like to concentrate on, agree that with the Chairman, and move to those output areas, in total, not in part, in some sort of agreeable fashion. And if other members want to question at any time, they can question on those output areas. However, it gives the shadow the opportunity to organise their time within the 4 hours, and also organise it in the way that they set their own priorities for the output areas they want to go to.
Darwin Port Corporation is a good example. The Darwin Port Corporation was a particular area that I wanted to question, and I am sure the minister was quite keen to answer. However, there were a whole range of other output areas that were of interest to other members, and me as well. The simple fact is that there was no opportunity to be able to get down to that particular area, other than by point by point in the individual output areas, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Last year, we were ticking off who were the best performing ministers and the worst. I think we gave the worst performing minister tick to the previous Health minister, and she is no longer the Health minister. Unfortunately, member for Johnston, our side agreed you were the most wasteful minister, in terms of time, the most filibustering minister and, frankly, the minister that gave the impression that whilst you had plenty to say, you did not seem to understand much of the substance of your portfolio. I am sure you do not agree with it.
However, at the end of the day, there is an expectation that the minister takes the questions; is across the portfolio areas; and is confident to answer those questions. A minister can go in there, angry or happy - we do not really care; crack jokes - we do not really care; be abusive - we do not really care. But we expect the minister to be competent in their portfolio areas, and to answer the questions in their portfolio areas, not simply filibuster and then flick questions continuously to public servants.
One of the good things of the process though, is that the public servants, when given the opportunity to speak, generally gave you the answer quickly and in the format that you wanted. As I said, overall, I felt that my objectives were met.
The main thing that came out of the estimates process for me, in priority, was firstly gas supplies. We found out today in interrogating the Power and Water Corporation, that not one molecule of Bayu-Undan gas is coming to the Northern Territory. The government has paraded that - that gas onshore is going to be good for Territorians, jobs, infrastructure, further development, and has also put forward the argument, also in the PowerWater documentation, that some gas from Bayu-Undan will be reserved for domestic use, namely for the power continued gas supply. We found out today the decision has been made and that all of that gas is committed overseas. As the member for Drysdale and I both commented, that is a disgusting and a very disappointing outcome that I am sure Territorians, when they hear of it, will be equally concerned about.
Despite the efforts of previous CLP governments over many years to achieve gas onshore - efforts that extended to acrimonious relations with the interim East Timorese government over taxation and unitisation arrangements, difficult negotiations with native title claimants to achieve the land at Wickham Point, extensive accommodations for gas suppliers and, in particular, to ConocoPhillips over many years to meet their commercial and strategic objectives - the very least the Northern Territory could have expected was to get some of that gas reserved for their own use, and reserved at a price that Territorians felt was competitive, met their needs, and was some compensation for the efforts that Territorians, through their governments, had made for many years for ConocoPhillips.
That challenge and that responsibility was left in the hands of this current Labor government because, as you will recall, when the last election occurred, the issue of Bayu-Undan gas onshore was put on hold during the course of that campaign. Even though I knew that those hold issues were only temporary ones and really extended to the issues surrounding unitisation and taxation arrangements, the now government, then in opposition, made much of the fact that Bayu-Undan gas was not going to be achieved. It was achieved and, if there were outstanding issues for this current government and accommodations that they had to gain from ConocoPhillips on behalf of all Territorians, was to get some of that gas reserved for Territorians. To hear today that none of that is reserved for Territorians is extremely disappointing. I am sure that when Territorians know about that. they will be very angry.
This begs the question - and members from the Power and Water Corporation mentioned the fact that they have limited leverage in these matters. Well, they might have limited leverage, but the government as a whole has large leverage. Certainly, I would expect that, whilst that opportunity may have passed, this government - and if the CLP is fortunate enough to be elected to power next time you can guarantee that we will do it. We will ensure that any gas that comes onshore in the Northern Territory comes onshore in a way that benefits Territorians.
We have allowed a 10 million tonne gas plant to be built at Wickham Point. There is a three million tonne train there at the moment. The expectation and strategic objectives, obviously, of ConocoPhillips will be to build that to a 10 million tonne plant. I do not believe they should be allowed to expect one additional extension to that current gas plant unless we get the accommodations we require. It happens in other countries. In Indonesia, for example, you cannot bring gas or develop gas in Indonesia unless you reserve 25% for the domestic supply. That is the sort of insistence that we should have.
I raised the issue of native title, genuinely, with the Chief Minister and also the Minister of Lands. Without going through the issues again, it was surprising to me to find that at the Chief Minister’s level, through the Department of the Chief Minister, and also through the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, there was little understanding in those portfolios, either by the ministers, the Chief Minister, or their senior bureaucrats, as to what was happening with native title that had the potential of creating precedence for disadvantaging either Aboriginal claimants or other lessees such as pastoralists, in the sorts of competing claims that are going through the Native Title Tribunal or are in mediation at the moment and, as I said, how those competing interests can affect some of the decisions that are being contemplated and about to be made in the various portfolio areas.
On the one hand you have the Chief Minister about to hand over part of the parks estate to Aboriginal ownership and, where those arrangements are being put in some parks, not into Aboriginal ownership park freehold but into joint management arrangements. The sorts of Indigenous Land Use Agreements that are being contemplated, I believe, will create precedence for native title claimants in other areas. There may be - and I am sure there are - ways to work through this. I was surprised that the portfolio ministers who were responsible for these areas – namely, the member for Johnston and the Chief Minister, and their senior staff - did not seem to have any understanding of the coordination that was required and seemed to put all of their faith in the Justice Department for handling these issues. I would have thought that the Justice Department might have principle carriage of native title negotiations, but the issues that the Justice Department was carrying, the arguments that were being put forward by the government, the competing arguments of the claimants, the effect on lessees, particularly pastoralists, should be known and well known by those ministers in carrying their portfolios. It was not, and that was disappointing, but certainly one issue that arose to my mind out of the estimates process.
I made the point that the Darwin Port is the jewel in the crown of the AustralAsia Trade Route. I spoke to the Chairman of the Darwin Port Corporation today. I might add, minister, without verballing him too much. He has read the transcripts and he did not have any issue with me with the points that I had raised. He and I agreed that probably the operation of this port, at this critical period, is probably the most fundamental issue that we have to address in making that port competitive against other ports around Australia. There are real difficulties with that port. The Darwin Port Corporation has limited ability to influence some of those issues. They are not responsible for Customs clearance, for stevedores, for subsidies for containers that transit up and down the rail corridor, or any accommodation for the shipping lines that are being accommodated here.
At the end of the day, the people who use that port are not interested in all of those complexities. They are only interested in the fact that this port is not working properly. Most of that blame will fall from the users, inevitably on the Darwin Port Corporation. That is unfair.
Again, I was surprised to hear that no one, certainly none of the senior executives in the Office of Territory Development or the Chief Minister – I did not have a chance to question minister Burns on the issue - but certainly no one in that area where I believe the responsibility rightly lay, because it is cross-portfolio and it does require the senior executive of government to address it from a strategic sense, were aware, except in a passing way, of the issues that surround Darwin Port and the issues that not only the Darwin Port Corporation is dealing with, but the shippers themselves are dealing with, and the shipping agents are trying to grapple with. The end result is that that port is not performing to best practice standards by any shape or form.
I know there are difficulties with AQIS, particular difficulties since the local AQIS group has been taken back to Commonwealth control, and is essentially being run out of Canberra. That is why the port was closed down last December because it did not meet AQIS standards. There are real issues with AQIS and parameters that are being put by AQIS on trade and goods that is coming across that port which seem to be overly onerous compared to what is being applied down south. That is where the minister …
Dr BURNS: I have written to Truss six weeks ago, he has not replied.
Mr BURKE: Well, get on a plane, fly down there and get into his office. The minister needs to recognise that Territorians do not want excuses and they are not really interested in laying the blame at someone else’s feet. What they want is the situation resolved. There is not much use blaming the federal government if the bottom line is that the effect is on our own port. It is our port that we want to be more effective.
There is a lack of stevedores at the port, there is a lack of infrastructure, there is a lack of ability to clear containers and those are issues, unfortunately, that, when probed, there appears to be any real understanding of their importance.
We will have a lot more to say about the water front development in later debate in this Chamber. Again, there was little satisfaction with the Chief Minister and her senior staff that Territorians can be comforted by the process that has been undertaken. A broadband EIS that is supposed to have addressed all of the possible implications for our harbour and the impact on the waterfront area itself has been done, and we had to tease out from officers the fact that if there were large changes, perhaps they might conduct another EIS to look at the impact of the built environment and the density of that environment when it occurs.
It is pretty hard to understand how, on the one hand, a developer can be chosen, a contract for a staged development can be committed to over 10 years and, knowing the way these developers will be pitching for their commercial interests and concerns, they will want that thing stitched up incredibly well, the competing interest of government to have this sealed up quickly so they look good before they go to the next election augers to me that we are going to have a real mess on our hands, a mess that will be very difficult to extract ourselves from. At the moment, we are being told by the Chief Minister: ‘Trust us. These are commercial interests. All will be revealed in good time’. From my questioning, I could not see that at all.
Finally, it was surprising to learn that Palmerston High School, which has been on the budget for the last three years, has a commitment of $10m for construction. We know – the minister did not seem to know – that a high school that is expected to be constructed this year - certainly from the Education Department’s point of view - is still only a concept and the best case is that the school will not open before the start of the school year in January 2007.
If one wants a telling example of what this government has done over the last three years in office that is it. They have not built one new school in the Northern Territory. When they talk about the Territory population growing, the economy going well, if that is translated to children, families and schools – no school, not one built, and the only high school on the agenda does not look like it will be built for some years to come.
I could say more, Mr Chairman, but my time has run out. I thank you for the opportunity to make those comments.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I find it surprising that I am speaking after two members of the opposition. It seems that the government has gone to sleep at the wheel and is no longer interested in talking about a $2.5bn budget in this House, which is very sad. It demonstrates the cavalier attitude that this government is taking towards this parliament.
I wish to raise several issues, the first of which is time limits. I was unable to ask many of the questions I wanted to ask. One of the major problems with time limits is that you have a handful of ministers who carry portfolios that spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and other ministers who carry portfolios that spend much smaller amount. It behoves government to reconsider its approach to the Estimates process inasmuch that when government gets to the Estimates process and there is a minister such as the Minister for Justice who is now also the Minister for Health and gives 4 hours to that minister, what you are actually doing is halving the time that was available last year to inquire into both of those departments’ spending habits. For example, when the former Minister for Health, the now member for Nightcliff had the portfolio, there was 4 hours dedicated to the portfolio. The Attorney-General had 4 hours dedicated to Justice.
With the Minister for Health and Attorney-General being the same person, one would hope that 9 hours would be available to scrutinise those two portfolio areas but, sadly, no, once again 4 hours is available to both areas. When you consider that Health is the biggest spending department in the Northern Territory, you have to ask yourself the question: why would we allow 4 hours for the minister for fruit, which is exactly the same amount of time that you would allow for the Minister for Health and the Attorney-General? There is a serious disparity there, and that is one of the great shortcomings of the estimates process. The senior ministers such as the Leader of Government Business, the Chief Minister, and the Treasurer are carrying a large workload whilst the other ministers are not. That is one of the great shortcomings of this process. However, despite the process having shortcomings, we were able to use the time successfully to elicit information from government that would otherwise not have been forthcoming.
I turn primarily to the first aspect of it, which dealt with Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The question I actually asked on Tuesday of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and finally the truth will out. It took me a while to read and understand exactly what the minister for public employment had told me, but now, finally, thanks to the two questions I was able to get in, despite the fact I ran out of time at that point, I have been able to glean some facts out of that. I start out by asking the questions that I did not get answers to, or could not get answers to because of the time constraint restrictions, that I would have like to ask.
The Commissioner for Public Employment explained to me that the paperwork that I had placed on the Table in this place in relation to the departure of Darryl Pepper had been incorrectly filled out. He also went on to explain to me the circumstances of the departure of Mr Pepper. The questions I did not understand, and would like to have asked, is that I laid those documents on the Table in this House three months ago, after I was on the telephone to him. When I was on the telephone to him, and he advised me that the correct information would have been ‘terminated by employer’, the commissioner could have well explained to me what he explained to me last night, but he chose not to. That is his business. Then I was on the Hansard record that evening, making comments about the departure of Mr Pepper, and that was three months ago, and the Commissioner for Public Employment has chosen not, in that time, to advise me as to the correct answer to that question and finally, during the estimates process, I had the ability to put those questions to him, and I get an explanation.
The explanation that he gave me, and I will quote him, was:
- The correct entry should have been voluntary redundancy …’,
Which is not what he told me, by the way.
- That follows the discussions between the Commissioner of Police and Mr Pepper as his Chief Fire Officer.
That followed discussions between Mr Pepper and the Commissioner of Police, as I understand, that
predicated the imminent release of the Metis report that was critical of Fire Service management.
I asked another question of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and his response in relation to that question was, in part:
- For the termination in this instance was that employer terminated as we do under section 59.
The section 59 he was referring to was section 59 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. Subsequent to that opportunity, I have had time to confirm what my instincts told me at that stage, is that section 59 of the Public Employment and Management Act is a section that deals with grievances. Therefore, as a result of the conversation between the Commissioner for Police and the Chief Fire Officer, the Chief Fire Officer spoke to the Commissioner for Public Employment, and the Commissioner for Public Employment as a consequence of that communication was thinking in terms of section 59.
The first part of section 59 of that act reads as follows:
- 59. Review of Grievances.
(1) An employee may:
Officer to terminate the employee’s employment on probation - within 14 days; or
in the Public Sector - within 3 months after the action or decision by which he or she is aggrieved,
request the Commissioner to review the action, intended action or decision complained of.
I draw members’ attention to the fact that, according to the Commissioner for Public Employment, ‘the imminent release of the Metis review was critical of Fire Service management’. That is true. The Metis review is critical of Fire Service management, as well as the Commissioner of Police and the unions. In fact, it is critical of every aspect of the operation of the Fire Service across the board. Curiously, since that time, Mr Darryl Pepper left. He left because of health reasons. However, it is clear now that he was pushed into that position because he knew that the Metis review was going to reflect negatively on him. Probably the stress that caused him was enough to bring on his medical condition - I do not doubt the veracity of that condition and, doubtlessly, the condition was quite serious - especially after his discussions with the Commissioner of Police. However, he then was, basically, considered to be unfit by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment.
It is curious that the Fire Service review has seen the departure of the Chief of the Fire Service, and of a rank causing six demotions amongst the ranks. That is the problem for the management, but what happened to those other elements that received criticism? The answer is: nothing.
Who was one of the great sources of information for the Metis review? Remember that Metis is made up of people with strong Labor Party contacts. One of the great sources that they relied upon was staff that they spoke to, many of them union members. What is the chance of some of those union members being members of the Labor Party? Now you have a vice-like action occurring. You have the minister who has contact with his own party people; you have a tainted review organisation looking into the Fire Service, where much of the battle is between unions and management. That is well established, that is in Metis, that there is a conflict between union and management. As a consequence of that review, the unions suffer no sanction - nobody at the lower levels has suffered sanction whatsoever. There is no effect on the unions whatsoever. It has all been management which has copped the smack on the chin.
The message is clear from this: the government has caved in to union pressure. The government has now become part of the problem and not the solution. The minister needs to move now to reassure that all fire staff management has a role to play in the Fire Service as leaders. If government does not do this, and the public loss in confidence in the Fire Service could lead to a fine reputation being tarnished - and it is of grave concern to me that this sort of power is now being wielded. I know the minister for police will come in here with his usual tirade and say, ‘You are reflecting on the Commissioner for Police’. The fact is that when the minister does not approve of what the Commissioner does, he puts out a press release saying that is not Labor party policy and that places the Commissioner in an invidious situation.
So what does the Commissioner do? He does what a good loyal public servant does and listens to the instructions from the government of the day. So do not blame shift this on to the Commissioner. This issue falls squarely on to the shoulders of the minister for police. He sought to use the certificate of exemption process to find his own people to place them in charge of a review to protect Labor mates and to give Labor people jobs and that is what comes out of this estimates process.
It has taken a while to piece it together. I have to say that I am shocked considering the messages that this government sent out while it was in opposition, and how they were going to rescue the Northern Territory from all sorts of silver circles, and those sorts of things, and some conspiracy theory about how the CLP mates get jobs and those sorts of things. The fact is that what this government is doing, if that is what they believe, they came in on a promise that they were going to be better than that. And they have failed to do so miserably.
I also turn my attention to the issue of traffic infringement notices which are predicted by Budget Paper No 3 to go up by 2000 more traffic infringement notices being issued in the next financial year. I would prefer to see that those traffic infringement numbers come down. It was clear from the Commissioner of Police that the use of speed cameras did have an effect in lowering the overall number of tickets dished out using those particular pieces of equipment. However, I am unsatisfied at this stage that the prediction in the increase in the number of TINES dished out for non-speed camera related offences is going to go up, because it still predicts a deterioration in driver behaviour. I urge the government to reconsider its approach. If they expect driver behaviour to deteriorate, then perhaps it is time to look at some new policies.
I also turn my attention, in the time I have left to me, to some questions I asked the Minister for Community Development in relation to its actions and investigations into Owston Nominees. I asked during the estimates process how many actions had been taken in the last year under the Animal Welfare Act and the answer was one, and that action of course was the publicised action against Owston Nominees and, I presume, the owner of that company, Mr Warren Anderson. During that question period I asked how much the prosecution of Owston Nominees had cost. I was advised by the minister that the amount was $43 057 so far to prosecute Owston Nominees. This afternoon I had a conversation with Mr Warren Anderson and Mr Anderson advises me that his legal costs are more than $100 000 in defence of these matters. I find it curious that the prosecution went through a firm in Darwin. That firm took on the services of a QC from Sydney, a lady by the name of Liz Fullerton, who was purported to cost in the order of $7000 a day. I am curious as to why Mr Anderson’s legal bills are now in excess of $100 000, and how the government can afford to engage Liz Fullerton at - if that is the correct amount - $7000 a day and then maintain a bill of only $43 057 at the end of the day? It is incongruous in the least to see that result rolled out.
I am not going to dwell on the facts of those cases, but the costs of prosecuting need to be completely divulged by the minister and he has an opportunity in this House today to get the cost of that prosecution completely divulged, so that Territorians know exactly how much it is costing to pursue this particular matter through the courts.
I also asked questions of the Minister for Community Development in relation to pool fencing. I pointed out that in Budget Paper No 3, over the next three years there was an estimated upcoming cost of $8m, not $1.4m that the minister told us, of expected compensation costs, and that has not been budgeted for in this financial year. A much smaller amount has been budgeted for. He tells us that if compensation costs come in, he expects to be able to get an extra $5m out of Treasury so he can pay them.
This is indicative of an issue inasmuch as the minister clearly knows through the debacle that pool fencing has proven to be, it is impossible to predict how much government is going to have to pay in compensation. Consequently, they placed in Budget Paper No 3 a figure of $5m. They are hopeful that it is not going to be more than that, and it may well be less than that. However, the minister is not in a position to be able to even guess how much it is going to cost.
That is the way he has approached his budgetary position and that is why he has had to go back to Treasury, as explained, and ask for $21m extra to run his department. That is not good planning. It is not even a legitimate argument. He tells us that it is the eloquence of his ability to provide us with the glory of a Labor government and walk into Cabinet and put beautiful arguments to them as to why they keep rolling out money.
The idea of budgetary analysis is so that you know roughly how much you are going to spend at the beginning of the financial year. You then put that into your budget papers so you can predict how much is going to be there at the end of the financial year. You can be out; no one is ever perfect on these things and the minister is quite right about that. But to be out by $21m, 10% of his budget, is a big mistake. It does not go to his competence as a minister in being able extract money out of the Treasurer, but it does go to his competence and his ability to predict how much his department has to spend in the future.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DEBITS TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 226)
MINERAL ROYALTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 227)
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 228)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 229)
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 230)
Continued from 20 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is the position of opposition to support these bills. In regard to the Debits Tax Amendment Bill, I have taken the opportunity afforded by its tabling and notice being given to consult with the chamber and others who are expert in the field of tax issues to ensure that what we have contained within this bill does do what we are led to believe it will do. I have, therefore, no intention, nor does opposition, to oppose the passage of this bill.
However, I cannot let this moment pass without reference to the payroll tax and what has actually been offered to the Northern Territory business community by way of a much trumpeted concession. It is, in fact, minimal and demonstrably so, when the capacity of this government is to afford a greater easing of payroll tax to Territory businesses if we want to see the economy grow, and we fix our focus on over-the-horizon large projects. We believe, in opposition - and to some degree government has responded - that that is a misguided and inappropriate focus, because the stimulation of a domestic economy is lower down.
We need to fix our attention on what we can do to ease the burden on the contractors and the employers who are currently working in the Northern Territory. We sustain our position that it is welcomed that there has been some relief with payroll tax. It does not go far enough in light of the capacity of government to provide that additional relief. It is, in fact, clear - and clear to the Territory business community - now that the budget ball has been thrown, it did not bounce anywhere near the degree that it was expected to bounce. The business community, in assessing what is actually offered here, has now, on second opinion and second consideration, expected and hoped for more, notwithstanding they welcome what has been offered, but fundamentally deeper issues remain.
With those comments, and having already been referred to time and time again from this side, we reaffirm our commitment to focus our attention on the reduction of, not only the rate at which payroll tax is applied, but that the threshold be raised to $850 000. As it currently stands, our payroll tax regime must be, in the interests of stimulating and strengthening our domestic economy, significantly altered. That is the remaining commitment of opposition. Notwithstanding that, that business we have to attend to here is able to pass this Chamber with the support of opposition.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, spokesperson for matters of Treasury opposite, for his comments. I want to foreshadow a proposed amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill. I believe the Leader of the Opposition had a briefing this week. In broad terms, it refers to the put and call option, where there is a question of avoidance to conveyancing and collection of stamp duty with the potential, if left unaddressed, to continue to roll through and be picked up by other proponents, and quite seriously erode the tax collection base. It is an issue that was addressed in 2000 by the former government, which foresaw the likely consequences of what was occurring then, and could occur. They closed it off. There is a further arrangement now -- another loophole - that is being exploited, and the purpose of the committee stage amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill is to close off that loophole, in what would be a remarkable similar fashion to the action taken back in 2000.
Having foreshadowed that in the committee stage, I put on the record exactly where we are coming from on this. In the committee stage, we can deal with any further question or clarification that is required. I propose this amendment to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill. The government has recently become aware of a stamp duty avoidance scheme that seeks to overcome the current laws that deal with the use of put and call option to avoid the payment of stamp duty for home units purchased off the plan. This contrived arrangement results in the sale of a home unit, as it secures the future sale for the vendor – the put option - and future acquisition for the purchaser - the call option - without them entering into a contract of sale. There are no mainstream commercial reasons for transacting in this manner, other than to avoid the payment of stamp duty.
Since 16 May 2000, the Territory stamp duty laws have treated purchasers using option schemes as if they were made as a contract of sale; that is, stamp duty is charged on the full value of the property covered by the options. This anti-avoidance provision was introduced to counter a scheme being used at that time that allowed multiple sales of the same property to occur in a manner that avoided the payment of stamp duty. The newly identified stamp duty avoidance scheme sidesteps these provisions, and has the potential to seriously erode the Territory stamp duty collection should it become more widespread.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the bill be amended to insert provisions that take effect from 23 June 2004 - being the date that they were publicly announced - bolstering the anti-avoidance measures introduced in 2000. The effect of the changes will be to recognise the economic effect of arrangements involving put and call options by treating them as conveyances of the property that they relate to. This property may comprise marketable security such as shares in units in unit trusts, dutiable property, or accommodation of the two.
I now provide further detail on this specific change proposed to the bill. The amendment schedule proposes to insert a new Part 6 into the bill. The proposed part applies in circumstances where a call option is first granted or is transferred to another person, and ensures that stamp duty is payable at conveyance rates on the option property by the holder of that option. Importantly, if the option property is conveyed to a person who did not hold the call option and they received the property because they had an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the holder of the call option, both the option holder and the other person acquiring the option property will be liable to duty. This ensures both sub-sales, and conveyances by direction, which are liable for duty when not effected using options, will also be subject to stamp duty, when effected under an option.
It is, however, recognised that it is not appropriate for conveyance stamp duty to be paid on the option property where: both the call option and the put option expire without being exercised; the failure to exercise either option is not a tax avoidance scheme; and the option property has not been conveyed to a person who has an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the holder of the call option.
In these circumstances the call option does not result in the option holder, or another person who has an arrangement with the option holder, acquiring the option property. Accordingly, the last person to hold the call option will be liable for duty on the consideration for, or value of, the call option only. This person may also apply for a reassessment of the stamp duty raised in relation to the deemed conveyance of the option property. Importantly, no stamp duty reduction would be given to anyone other than the last person to hold the call option. This is consistent with the treatment given to any other purchaser of property who pays stamp duty at the time of purchase and then later sells that property to another.
In addition, the proposed amendment recognises that call and put options have a legitimate place in ensuring the continuity of a business. Accordingly, the proposed provisions will not apply where the commissioner is satisfied that the call and the put option arrangement is between the proprietors of a business for the sole purpose of providing continuity of that business on the death, total and permanent disablement, retirement, or bankruptcy of a proprietor, and the arrangement is not a tax avoidance scheme.
Finally, the bill proposes changes to the so-called Clayton’s contract provisions in the Taxation (Administration) Act to ensure that they also apply to the transactions involving options that are not recorded in writing.
I commend these committee amendments to honourable members. I understand that they are being supported by the opposition. We thank them for their support. They clearly recognise that this a continuation and a strengthening of the measure that was put in place in 2000 to avoid the very thing that is occurring here. It is a measure that worked effectively for the four years that it was in place, but clearly, there is another attempt at avoidance in these matters. These amendment clauses into the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill will close that loophole and time will tell whether it lasts four years, two years, six years, or whatever. However, I am sure a Treasurer in the Northern Territory in future will be in here passing and seeking support to pass amendments to the Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill to close of a potential loophole because that is what it is about.
You have a responsibility, and the government has a responsibility, to protect the integrity of the taxation collection system wherever they are Treasurer and for what ever jurisdiction they represent. On the other side, there are those who are paid good sums of money to find ways around the taxation laws of any state or territory or indeed the Commonwealth. It is incumbent of governments everywhere to keep a very close watch on what is occurring out there in the commercial world. I thank the opposition for their support on this amendment bill and the other revenue matters associated with the budget.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Debit Tax Amendment Bill (Serial 226):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Mineral Royalty Amendment Bill (Serial 227):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill (Serial 228):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Stamp Duty Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 229):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment
Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill (Serial 230):
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 83.1, which amends clause 2 by inserting a commencement date of 23 June 2004, being the date that the changes were publicly announced. It is retrospective to the day that the media release went out, which was 23 June.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 14, 15 and 16:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 83.2, a new Part 6, Duty Payable on Conveyances of Options. I do not intend to read through the three pages if it is understood by the opposition.
Proposed new clauses agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
SOCCER FOOTBALL POOLS
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 223)
GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 224)
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 225)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 223)
GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 224)
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 225)
Continued from 20 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the issue before us is one that has weighed heavily on the minds of the opposition, and an admission that when this legislation was presented to the Chamber the very wording and construction of it did not reveal, initially, a significant cause for concern. The cause for concern was simply that one component of the legislation contained a means by which the very fundamental upon which our whole gaming industry, with specific regard to poker machines, is altered. That was an issue which required a significant amount of consideration. When something is going to be changed of such importance in our community in such a fundamental way, the first question one must ask as a representative of the community is: has the community, those who will be directly and indirectly affected by this decision, been adequately consulted? That was a question that arose. I admit that it came some two weeks after the legislation had been tabled, and I believe the minister would also be aware that the nature in which the legislation was presented, it is understandable that the third component of the legislation is the contentious aspect, and the other two prefacing it are benign and require no closer scrutiny, but general and easy acceptance.
In asking that first question, what does this actually mean? Does this mean that the foundation upon which our whole community’s acceptance and appreciation and working with gaming machines is changed by this legislation? And the answer was, yes. Therefore, are those who are going to be affected by it aware of this? I noted in the second reading speech that there was reference to those who had contributed. Looking again, I notice that there would be many others who had had the opportunity, if made very clear what was contained in this legislation, would have responded.
The concern rose to a new level when I spoke to, one, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, because there are commercial considerations with this legislation. It affects those who currently hold gaming licences to operate poker machines. Was the chamber aware of this? No. The AHA - they were aware of it but, for obvious reasons, were not buying in knowing that there would be some who would be beneficiaries and some who would not be.
More importantly, when we weigh up the whole issue of gaming in our community, as a Territorian, I do enjoy going past a pokie occasionally. If I am at a ball at the MGM, I do not mind stopping and putting a few dollars through the pokies. I do that from time to time, and I guess I am like most Territorians. I do not spend day after day there, but I do enjoy it, as most Territorians do enjoy it and appreciate it. I understand that there is a negative aspect to gaming machines, but we have safety nets and we have means to assist those who have difficulty with gambling. We do see the more concerning side, and it really is quite tragic if we look at that. However, by and large, the bigger picture is something that Territorians accept and have enjoyed. The system that we have in place in the Northern Territory, when you compare and contrast it with interstate, is a good system.
When I spent the time talking to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, they did not know about it. Most significantly, the agencies that are there as a safety net to provide that welfare and support to those who would be affected by what could be, quite arguably - and no one has denied this - an increase in the number of poker machines in our community - had they been consulted? Did they have the opportunity to respond? Of great concern, no they had not. Overwhelmingly, the response has been: ‘Yes, we are concerned’. Not being miffed that they were not consulted, but: ‘We are concerned about this issue; that we have not had the opportunity to be prepared to make an informed response’. It will be argued - and I do not think quite fairly: ‘They knew about it because they knew that the overarching discussion about NCP requirements were in existence at an earlier stage’. Honestly, none of those people, who are very busy and very focussed on their specific responsibilities, were aware of the implications contained within this NCP recommendation to remove an anti-competitive means from the way that the gaming machines operate in our community.
As I said at the outset, most Territorians accept it as an enjoyment, a bit of relaxation. They accept also, that a good portion of the revenue that flows through our gaming machines goes towards our community and sporting groups through the community clubs. That is good. They also accept that there is an amount of revenue that flows into the Northern Territory Treasury, which is the 10% on hotels and in that. We would expect that would flow into the community for its benefit. We recognise that there is a current responsible gambling code of practice which has been developed collaboratively by industry, welfare groups and the government.
However, with the consideration of this legislation, which will see the opportunity for many others who hold liquor licences to now apply for gaming machines, we see this raises a number of questions which, unfortunately due to the lack of adequate consultation, have not had the opportunity to be answered. We have established at the outset: has the community been consulted? No, they have not. Will there be, potentially, a significant increase in the number of gaming machines in our community? The answer is yes, there will be. Does this change significantly affect the foundation upon which our whole gaming industry is based, specifically in regard to poker machines? Yes, it does.
In knowledge of what is happening interstate and internationally with poker machines specifically, and in researching the history of the poker machine industry in the Northern Territory, I see this as a perfect opportunity, after 10 years, to pause, hold it, and to establish a mechanism to review our gaming industry, specifically in regards to poker machines, to determine the level of benefit that does flow into our community. Could it be improved? To assess the commercial aspects of gaming as it currently exists, specifically in regard to poker machines. Could that be improved? As local members we all know those who suffer, and suffer tragically, and it is the vulnerable. Could we improve the support and services we offer? Could there be different ways that we can run our poker machines? It is a good time to ask those questions. It is a perfect time and, in fact, it is required in the light of sectors of the community not being consulted nor aware of what we have within this legislation.
I believe it is beholden that the minister and this government stop and direct its decision making ability to establish a select committee to address issues related to gaming and specifically poker machines. I urge the minister and I urge members opposite to see this as the opportunity. This is the opportunity to pause and to reassess how far we have come in the 10 years since they have operated in the Northern Territory. It gives us the opportunity to assess and weigh the commercial implications of the current operation, which may be contained in this legislation, and much of it has merit but we cannot be sure. Why embark on this path without that opportunity?
It is for that reason the opposition has no alternative but to oppose passage of this legislation. I foreshadow that I will present to this parliament a motion calling for the establishment of a select committee so that we can assess the distance we have traveled as a community, the effect of gaming on our community, and I am talking in the first instance of its commercial implications and the commercial aspects of its current operation. There may be issues that we could put on the table and discuss as a community to change the way we operate at the commercial level. There are also issues in the social implications of gaming, how we are tracking there. I believe it is very important to look interstate because you know the movements that are in other states, particularly in South Australia.
I shudder to think that I would be standing in this parliament in 10 years time, looking back at this moment and saying, ‘How on earth did we get here?’ If you look at South Australia, they have had to make some very difficult decisions. I know the minister will argue that we established it on a different foundation, that we did not go down the South Australian path. I put it to you, minister, that we are now choosing to go down a very different path than the first position that we took when we introduced poker machines in the Northern Territory.
This is the perfect time and the responsible decision is to not pass this legislation. Pause and allow the wider community access to this very important question which does affect many families in our community either through sporting groups and community clubs and those who currently hold poker machine licenses.
For that reason, minister, I urge you to not proceed with this legislation. Provide the Northern Territory community with the opportunity to visit this very important issue because I, for one, do not want to stand in this parliament in years to come and propose even more drastic legislation that helps us to extricate ourselves from a position that has become untenable, as have jurisdictions.
Let us proceed with great caution. I urge members opposite not to support this bill, and to support the opposition’s call for the establishment of a select committee so that we can proceed responsibly on this very important issue.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that is before us this evening. I follow a very considered contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, and I commend him for bringing a considered position to the House. However, I do not think he has considered the detail of this legislation.
Essentially, the argument that he is trying to run is that somehow this legislation will lead to significantly more poker machines being available in our community, and the associated harm to vulnerable members of the community who may use those machines.
What we have before us is a bill that puts significant additional hurdles in place in the public interest before the grant of any additional poker machines may be made, far in advance of what is in the existing legislation. We all agree that gambling is a problem for a section of our community in the same way that alcohol is a problem for some and drugs are a problem for others. There is also no doubt that when used responsibly, poker machines are very popular, and you only have to go to places where poker machines exist to see people enjoying them. For the life of me, I do not see how – it is not something that I am particularly interested in, but there is no doubt that people enjoy the pokies.
The Leader of the Opposition’s comments about proliferation and additional harm in the community do not stand scrutiny under what is being proposed. Honourable members will remember that the first poker machines in the NT were only granted to casinos which had an exclusive licence for years and had considerable taxation concessions. The decision to grant those licences was made by the former government. As those agreements expired, a regime was introduced whereby poker machines could be taken up by clubs, such as sporting clubs, to give them an additional source of revenue and attract people away from the casinos and, via the Community Benefit Fund, a percentage of takings going back into the community by way of funding for community and sporting groups.
We also had the ridiculous – and it is ridiculous when you try to find any logic to it – position where if a pub wanted access to poker machines, if they have a bottle shop and drive-through somehow they can be granted poker machines. What bottle shops have to do with the accessibility of poker machines is beyond me. The ludicrous position under the current legislation is that hotels that are like any other hotel except that they do not have a bottle shop are not allowed access to poker machines for the reason that there is no bottle shop licence attached to a liquor licence. That is patently anti-competitive, and the issue before us in terms of trying to ameliorate the spread of machines is, well how do we rectify that blatant anti-competitive position and privilege that liquor licences with bottle shops attached to them have without causing an explosion of poker machines through the community. That is what these amendments are seeking to do.
We all know the harm that alcohol causes in our community. We have a review process underway at the moment. But we also have pressure building up at present where hotels that do not have bottle shops, and therefore cannot access poker machines, are now seeking licences for bottle shops to further put pressure on the community through additional licensing provisions. They want to get a licence for a bottle shop for their liquor licence purely in order to access poker machines. Again, I think, by way of public policy, anybody would see that that is absolutely ludicrous, that we are actually going to increase the opportunity for retail liquor sales in the Territory purely to give those commercial operators access to poker machines.
It is very clear the current legislation is not working. It is anti-competitive and could lead to additional social harm by the grant of additional bottle shop licences. For example, under the current legislation, the bar operating at the Darwin airport terminal could apply for a gaming licence and install up to 10 new machines. Under the new definition, this venue would be excluded by virtue of not having a public hotel or tavern authority.
The argument that we will see an explosion of poker machines, again, is not borne out by the facts. There are currently 37 hotel-style venues with gaming machine licences. Under the current gaming machine legislation, there are a further 44 hotel-style venues that could potentially apply for a gaming machine licence; and be granted, uncontested, those licences. What is proposed here today is that the potential to apply for those machines under the proposed changes will reduce from 44 to an estimated 23. So we are actually reducing the opportunity for additional licences to go to the community. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, will agree that under the conditions of existing legislation we have the potential for an additional 440 hotel gaming machines in the community. Under the new proposal it halves that. It actually halves that potential to a maximum of 230 hotel gaming machines.
The legislation is actually going to do exactly what the opposition leader wants it to do: to reduce the potential for gaming machines in to the community. At the moment, the only hurdle an applicant has to jump in order to get access to those poker machines is via a ‘fit and proper person’ test. There is no capacity for the community to put in any objections. All a licensee has to do, and the very fact that they already have a liquor licence, and they cannot have a liquor licence unless they are a fit and proper person, that is the only test. That is the only hurdle that has to be jumped by a licensee who wishes to access that opportunity for poker machines. Again, given the legal context of the Licensing Commission, it is virtually impossible for the commission to knock back on those grounds that somebody is not a fit and proper person when they already have a liquor licence by the same test. Patently, what these changes are going to do is to give the community an opportunity to voice their objections, and for the commission to take into account a broader range of criteria in allocating a licence rather than just a fit and proper person test.
We also know through various studies, and consistent with research on gambling behaviour and the experience of other states - and I am sure we all have seen it here in the Northern Territory - that the reality is people who have significant gambling problems actually go to gaming venues where there are significant numbers of machines for them to play. It really is in the casinos where we see the damage being caused, I suppose, by people who have significant gaming problems. We all wonder about people sitting at poker machines at 9 am or 10 am. All of the research shows that the venues with increased density of gaming machines are the venues that attract the very problem gamblers that the Leader of the Opposition wants to protect, as per his contribution.
In an entertainment precinct like Mitchell Street, this increase is unlikely to transform the character of the area, or suddenly make it the epicentre for those people who are addicted to pokies. It is just incongruous that we have two pubs in Mitchell Street - one at the top of the street and one at the bottom of the street – which have a takeaway licence, which can access pokies and the pubs in between cannot. It is clearly anti-competitive. However, any arguments that, even if they met these community tests, by having an additional, fairly small, number of poker machines in Mitchell Street is somehow going to lead to a significant outbreak in gambling, addictions and problems, and is not borne out by research, evidence or experience in other places.
The requirement under the amendments will see a new community impact analysis, and also proposals for specific criteria to mediate any expansion of gaming machines. There has to be a community impact analysis, and each applicant will have to satisfy the commission that granting them a licence will not contribute to adverse social outcomes and, among other things, that it will be conducive to the primary activity of the venue; that it will not overly concentrate gaming venues; that machines will be suitably accommodated; and the venue has adequate responsible gambling strategies in place. These are all hurdles that do not exist at the moment. The only test at the moment is that the applicant is a fit and proper person.
Therefore, the concerns of the opposition that this legislation is going to lead to a significant increase in the number of poker machines and will see a consequential escalation of gambling-induced harm in our community, is not borne out by the realities of what this bill is doing which, essentially, is going to halve the number of venues that under the current of legislation can apply for poker machines and be granted those poker machines based on a fit and proper person test. It is going to halve the number of venues that can apply. It is going to put a community impact analysis fair and square in front of the Licensing Commission in deciding and determining any request for additional poker machines. For the first time, the public, by way of public notification - a public process where anybody in the community can lodge an objection to the Licensing Commission on the grant of additional gaming machines - is being bought into this equation.
For the opposition to say that, somehow, this legislation is actually worse than the existing legislation that we have, really does not bear any scrutiny whatsoever. This is a genuine attempt to meet the National Competition Principles, and even up the playing fields in regards to who can and who cannot have poker machines. It is a genuine attempt to put in place a threshold where additional machines will only be granted once they have passed a public process and a community impact analysis. My colleague will detail exactly how that works. Individuals and organisations will now be able to put their arguments and evidence in written submissions that the Licensing Commission must have regard to when considering an application.
None of those provisions currently apply. To argue that somehow we have let the cat out of the bag, that there is going to be a massive explosion of poker machines, and increased gaming-related harm in the community cannot be borne out by the facts. What I am prepared to say, and we have every responsibility as a parliament, that if, for some extreme reason we saw an explosion of gaming-related problems in the community well, of course you would come back and have a look at it.
The reality of fewer venues being able to claim, a public interest and a public submission to that process being in place, the doom and gloom, I suppose, in terms of what potentially might happen as per the Leader of the Opposition’s arguments, I just cannot see. What I think is that we will see a number of venues have access to poker machines that do not currently have access in the same way that another 44 clubs and venues could access them at the moment. The reality is, from evidence interstate and the research that is being conducted, that whilst adding some taverns and public hotels which do not have takeaway conditions, the amendments remove road side inns and other outlets where the primary activity is mixed or is focussed on something other than the sale and consumption of liquor, for example, the provision of accommodation, food, tourist services, or fuel.
By taking those out and saying no, under no circumstances can those enterprises have access to poker machines, we are raising the bar and the hurdles for people to access poker machines, and for the first time bringing a public interest test into the consideration of the Licensing Commission whilst making that decision. Madam Speaker, I support the Treasurer and Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, with these amendments.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, in the past in this parliament, the government and the opposition, regardless of which side they were, which party they were, when it came to issues of gambling, and nobody can dispute this, has always worked in a bipartisan matter. You can look at the racing industry funding, you can look at Internet and interactive gambling, you can look at the sale of the TAB, and you can look at the introduction of poker machines or gaming machines into the community. And one thing we can stand proud of in this parliament is that we have always worked together for an outcome that we believed - not we the opposition or they the government, whoever they were believed was the best outcome for them; but the best outcome for the Territory.
It really disappoints me that we are in here tonight arguing over this issue. We are starting to argue the detail and the minister for business just stood up and started arguing why this was good legislation on the detail. I do not care about the detail, Madam Speaker. What I care about is the basic fundamentals. No one can dispute in this Chamber that what this piece of legislation is doing is changing those basic fundamentals. What the opposition is saying is, if you are going to change the basic fundamentals, we are not averse to poker machines or gambling; but if you are going to change these basic fundamentals, let us go back and make sure we have it right. Let us just pause for a minute and make sure we have it right.
Let us just have a look at the history of this. I am imploring the minister for gaming to take note because this is very important. We had legislation introduced three weeks or so ago. We had some concerns, which we raised when it came on for debate. We said we would like to see it delayed. The minister, to his credit, said he would delay it until this week, which is why we are debating it tonight.
We then asked in Estimates this week about the changes and ramifications and, most importantly, about public consultation. The morning after we asked those questions, a couple of members of the opposition, including me, had a briefing; thank you, minister, for arranging that. It was admitted at that meeting – and everyone should take note of this – that the public consultation had not been thorough. The community, including community organisations, had not been engaged.
We know that submissions to the NCP report were generally from the hospitality industry. There were not submissions, as the minister reported, from community organisations. When we, prior to the briefing, talked to those organisations, they were not aware of the ramifications of any changes. We know that since then, Racing and Gaming staff have been consulting with those community organisations and they now have a different understanding. I do not know whether they are supportive or opposed, but there is certainly confusion.
The consultation that has taken place in a more thorough way has happened in the last three days. It has been a knee-jerk reaction to the issues the Leader of the Opposition raised with the minister.
I return to the fact that we have always dealt with these matters in a bipartisan way. What is the only excuse for ensuring this bill goes through tonight? Apart from arguing whether it is good, bad or indifferent, the minister’s only excuse will be that the current legislation is anti-competitive and it is NCP policy that we have to change it. The business minister just came in and said the fact that it is based on a takeaway licence is absolutely ludicrous.
For the minister’s sake – and I am not going to get into arguing the detail of this – let us go back 10 years to 1994. This parliament and 25 members considered how to introduce poker machines into the community, and they decided, after massive consultation, a report of which is available, that one of the basic fundamentals would be the takeaway licence. Now, it may not be suitable for today, but 25 members from both sides of the House agreed that it was a good idea at that time, and the community signed off on it.
The fact is that the basic changes you want to make today have not been signed off by the community. We all know how sensitive this issue is in the community when people become aware that there could be changes up, down, indifferent, whatever to gambling in their community. Everyone will have a position. It is almost like euthanasia. It is almost one of those issues about which people are concerned. All we are saying is, we need now to review the situation, see how it is working …
Mr Stirling: Nitschke’s not into pokies, is he?
Mr BALDWIN: You can argue your own points, minister for Gaming. I am putting my point of view, and I hope that you are listening.
In this parliament, we set some primary objectives under which community gaming machines would be introduced. As far as I know, they have been met and maintained. If there is a different point of view in this parliament, let us go back and ask all of those concerned: the clubs, the pubs, those who want poker machines but do not have them; those that do not want poker machines; those that deal with the harm from poker machines; those individual businesses that have a viewpoint about poker machines, let us go back and do the homework, because there is no rush.
I say that again, minister, for your sake, there is no rush to pass this tonight. The minister has said to me, in that briefing, that I said, ‘Okay, there could be a fine from National Competition Policy’. He said, ‘I am not worried about a fine. It is not an issue’. So if that is not an issue, then tell me, what is the rush? If you want to rush this through tonight, you better have a better reason than NCP. And you want to have a better reason than arguing the detail about whether you are making it better or not, because I think we should go and ask the community before we have that debate.
You can come and argue all the detail, and try to persuade us and whatever, all we are saying to you, minister, is, let us go back, it is time, it is a very good time to go back. Nothing will change for the short period of time that it will take, relatively speaking, to go back out and canvass the community. Let us do that. That is all that we are saying. I mean, we have in here, after the bill has been introduced, a whole raft of amendments. How do we go out there and consult about these amendments, minister? It is just irresponsible, when you are talking about gaming machines, to try to do this stuff on the run, as you full well know that you are doing when you found out that the consultation has not taken place and the community is not engaged on this subject. And if you do not believe me, ask what the subject was on radio ABC 105.7 FM on Drive last night. You will find that it was about poker machines.
The minister for Business also said, which I thought was absolutely astounding, let us do this and if we have a problem in the future, then we can come back in here and fix it up. Well, what this about, and the way we have always operated on gambling issues in the Northern Territory is, let us agree to try to get it right in the first place. That is what is happening down south. They are going back to the parliaments now to try to claw back machines. If you think that is the way to go well, boy, you have it dead wrong.
What we are saying is, let us test the fundamentals again, and this may well be the right way to go that you are proposing. But let us ask the community, because it is a sensitive issue. And if you are not prepared to do it, then we are. The Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed a motion. We are going to move a motion at the end of the second reading speech under Standing Order 183 to refer this bill to a standing committee. That seems patently sensible to me. There is no rush to take this issue forward on the eve of passing the Appropriation Bill just because NCP regulations have to be met by 30 June. That is not a good enough reason to bludgeon this through the parliament without taking account of all of the issues and all of the stakeholders.
I appeal to the minister on the past bipartisanship that we have always shown. He knows what I am talking about; when I was Gaming minister we always did things in that manner. We worked together on committees. He was on the gaming machine committee which introduced gaming machines to the Territory. He was on the interactive gaming machine committee which led us to the introduction of interactive Internet; the first ever in a jurisdiction such as ours in the world. We have been leaders in the way we have dealt with gambling issues in the Northern Territory, nationally and internationally. And so the bipartisanship is a very strong point.
The timing is another strong point. Changing the base of fundamentals is what we are resting on here; observing those primary objectives for which we introduced poker machines, and how they will be impacted under any changes that go to those basic fundamentals.
On that basis, I am appealing to the gaming minister to support a motion - not that we have worked out all the terms of reference or anything. We have some ideas and we will put those in the motion, and we are happy that they are added to. Send this off to a standing committee for a time for proper and thorough consultation with the entire community, and not just those that were reported and gave submissions to the NCP report.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments with regards to this legislation and the opposition’s position. I say at the outset, and simply endorse the comments that the member for Daly has made to the minister who has carriage of this legislation, that we have always acted in a bipartisan way on these sorts of issues. I had hoped that the government would see the good sense in taking up what the opposition has suggested, and bring forward a separate select committee to use this opportunity to look at the electronic gaming industry, in particular, as it is today – the problems that there currently are in the operation, regulation, and legislative requirements of that particular industry - with a view to going back to first principles and ensuring that the principles under which we set up this industry in the first place are being adhered to.
In that context I say, minister, that the Leader of Government Business did not help you in your case at all, because to sit back and listen to the Leader of Government Business make these sorts of comments, such as ‘it is clear that the current legislation is not working, and could cause significant social harm’. He went on to say that the only test for a person to obtain poker machines under the current legislative regime is for the person to be a fit and proper person with a takeaway licence, and the Licensing Commissioner has little or no opportunity to reject those applications. He also said that if this legislation is not working we can come back and have a further look at it. Essentially, he put a case that we should pass this legislation because, rather than allowing 43 new venues to get gaming machines in the Northern Territory, it will only allow possibly 23.
If you take that in its context and then read, say, the second reading speech, a couple of issues in the second reading speech jump straight out at you. Firstly, that this change results primarily from a National Competition Policy review. The second reading speech said this:
- Specifically …
Not only is this legislation being brought forward now, but there are other aspects of this legislation that have been deferred and they will be brought forward at a later date, because they deal with other comprehensive changes. They …
- … relate to recommendations dealing with a new, integrated legislative framework that incorporates
licensing and operations of the industry on the one hand, and gambling control on the other.
It went on to say that these deferred recommendations will, in future, look at the indefinite granting of gaming licences. The second reading speech said - and I have highlighted it – that the intent of this legislation is primarily to:
- … remove anti-competitive requirements or restrictions that cannot be justified on a public benefit basis.
The overall purpose of the review was to identify anti-competitive restrictions and undertake reforms that
will enable the gaming industry to operate in an environment as free from unnecessary restrictions as
possible, while ensuring the integrity of industry participants and ensuring industry regulation upholds
the aims of harm minimisation and the amenity of community life.
If you take all that together and go back to first principles - go back to the reasons why we introduced electronic gaming machines into the Northern Territory - those first principles are enlightening because the current Treasurer was a member of that committee. There were three members of the committee: the current Lord Mayor of Darwin, who is well versed on these issues; the current Treasurer; and myself as chairmen. It was a three member committee. We worked and travelled all around Australia, talked to the industry, talked to the regulating bodies …
Mr Stirling: You and I did a good job.
Mr BURKE: We did an extremely good job. As the shadow minister, the member for Daly, said, it is unfortunate that we now find ourselves in a situation where, in this parliament, we are going to see legislation bludgeoned through to a point that we have disagreement on these issues.
If the minister recalls that particular committee and the information it received as it travelled around the country, it led us to say that there are some things that we will put into this framework of the Northern Territory that are so important that we want it framed in the legislation. We want it as the primary objectives of the introduction of poker machines, and the methodology and – I am trying to think of a better word than regime - essentially, the culture that we will ensure that we encourage in the Northern Territory. That culture was unpinned with these warnings that were strong in the committee’s report.
Listen to these warnings again; they were made in 1994 and think of your comments today that you are looking at an NCP review. You want a low regulatory gaming industry. You want to remove anti-competitive elements. People under the current regime can apply for a licence and the only strength the Licensing Commission has is to say: ‘Do you have a take away licence. Oh yes, you do. Okay, you fit the bill. We have no other strength to contain your application’. Listen to these warnings. First of all, we said that the industry is selfish and will look after itself, and we said in anticipation of these representations, it is proper to include a reminder that:
- 1. legislation of gaming creates strong and selfish interest groups;
- 2. the government’s position of responsibility and accountability for probity and fairness
must be paramount and unambiguous; and
- 3. licences to operate in the field of legal gambling represent revokable privileges, not rights.
Revokable privileges, not rights. That is what we said.
We set up a regime in the Northern Territory that said as its first recommendation that the regulatory system for the Territory should be designed to meet its own circumstances - not the NCP circumstances - its own circumstances. That was the first recommendation we made. We made that because we knew that in this sort of industry some people will see it as a licence to print money. Some people will see it as a cash cow and some people will see it without any reference to the social harm that can be caused, and also, if we do not put in very strict controls, we will meet our own primary objectives which were: this is recommendation 2 – the primary objective in extending the distribution of poker machines in the community should be explicit.
The minister checked off on all these; I think he can help find the words - and Mr Otto Alder - should be explicit. That is, to provide a productive, local, leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs to improve neighbourhood recreation amenity and to the government for services for all Territorians. Those were the fundamentals that we introduced poker machines into the Northern Territory and we allowed some small concession to hotels to get some small numbers of poker machines and we defined those hotels quite definitely. We knew the arguments about takeaway liquor licences at the time and we did not care because we said, we will allow certain venues that meet our description of a hotel; not the NCP’s description; our description of a hotel. If that is anti-competitive, too bad. We are setting our own regime for the Northern Territory and that is the regime we will put in place.
Now, it is in that circumstance I say to the Treasurer, what has gone wrong? What has gone wrong and why are we now in a position where the Licensing Commission that is in charge of these poker machines not only has no teeth, according to the Leader of Government Business in his submission, but by the Treasurer’s own arguments in other areas, reckons it is stupid in its decision making. Your own second reading speech, Treasurer, says:
- The Licensing Commission is representative of the community and will have to reflect on the interests
of the general community when assessing gaming machine licence applications against the prescribed
criteria.
How does that tick up in your statement of the responsible community representative when that same commission issued a liquor licence to a hairdresser in Alice Springs and you described it as ‘stupid’? You cannot say on the one hand that this is the organisation that is representative of the community and we can have ultimate faith in this organisation when its latest decision was described as ‘stupid’.
We see a situation where the fundamental controls that were put in place have been eroded away. Now, I do not know the reason why. I know that circumstances have changed dramatically. We used to have a finite cap on the number of machines based on the contractual arrangements we had with the casinos. Those circumstances have changed. We had a revenue flow that had to go to the casinos to meet what they felt were the commercial disadvantages they were facing because of the introduction of poker machines. Those circumstances have changed. We had a requirement to pass benefit back to the community through the clubs in their revenue flow from poker machines, and that has not been as successful as we would have liked. There is no doubt that the commercial interests that have become involved in clubs, you have to ask whether their interests are so strong that community interests are becoming subservient to their return on their investment faster than the community is getting direct community benefit. So things have changed in that regard.
There is no doubt, and we realised it at the time, that 45 machines maximum for a club was going to be a position that would be hard to hold because other states told us that 45 machines was about the bare minimum for a reasonably sized club …
Mr Stirling: It has not been hard to hold.
Mr BURKE: It will be hard to hold in the future. Once you give …
Mr Stirling: Forty-five and 10 are still there.
Mr BURKE: I will say to you now that I believe that the whole situation of whether a club should get no more than 45 machines needs to be looked at as well, particularly if there are new venues entering the market that will put pressure on those clubs and their turnover. They will be commercial, attractive and taking away patronage. Where does that affect the fundamentals of why we introduced poker machines: to strengthen clubs? It was not to make Mitchell Street the poker machine venue of the Northern Territory. To strengthen clubs! That is why we did it.
We need to look at this whole regime for two reasons: (1) the circumstances of introduction have changed dramatically; (2) to address the NCP review; (3) to see the appropriateness of this legislation in ensuring that the fundamentals of our regime are there and continue in the future; (4) to ensure the Licensing Commission has far more strength than it has at the moment; and, more importantly than anything, is (5) to go back to the community and ask the community what they think of what has occurred in the Territory with electronic gaming machines in the last 10 years. I believe their report will be quite good.
However, if you do not consult them and the message reaching the community is that the changes will see the proliferation of poker machines, if the message to the business community with poker machines is that they are not going to get any more but other venues will be getting some and possibly more than they think will get them, you will have a major problem on your hands. You will have a major problem with the general community and with the business community.
As one member of this parliament, I can tell you that I am one who would argue that there is a need for some of the clubs to be considered for more machines. In a place like Palmerston, for example, you have poker machines at the Palmerston Golf Club that are totally inefficient and you have a cap on machines at The Hub. An innovative government looking to put benefit back to the community would probably be looking at mechanisms whereby you can somehow amortize that arrangement so that you have a better situation than exists at the moment. Does your regime cater for that at the moment? It probably does not.
It has to be a flexible regime for the future. It has to look at those businesses that currently operate poker machines and confirm that whatever you do, you have to preserve their commercial interests and make sure that they are not disadvantaged now or into the future. You certainly have to look at new venues from an anti-competitive point of view, but mindful of the fundamentals of why we brought poker machines into the Northern Territory. And the last thing, I would think, what is irrelevant in the whole process, is the NCP. We could not give flying fig about the NCP, frankly, and I reckon more and more the Territory should be standing up and saying that to the National Competition Policy’s review, ‘We do not give a flying fig what you think. We introduced poker machines in the Northern Territory to suit our own circumstances, and we are proud of it.’
I reckon if you go to the community generally, undoubtedly you will find 1% or 2% that cannot stand pokies and think the whole world will end tomorrow because of poker machines, but generally, I believe the community has been comfortable with the regime that was put in place. They have seen greater amenity in their own communities. They have seen the ability to have far better social interaction, certainly in my community of Palmerston, with places like Cazalys and The Hub. They are concerned about the return back, through the turnover of those machines to the community, directly through grants, which they are not seeing as fulsomely as they would like. And all of these things need to be looked at.
Rather than seeing this as a threat, I would see it as an opportunity. I would go back to the Treasurer - who in many ways likens himself to, and likes and respects a guy called Barry Coulter. I reckon if Coulter was sitting in that chair now, he would already be picking off the ones who are in it, because he would see the politics in it. He would see the advantage of being able to sit back and say: ‘We have to look at this whole thing, and by the way, the rationale is there. The report says, “… conduct a comprehensive review in 1998”.’
I know we conducted a review, but it was not comprehensive. It certainly did not go back to the community in the way the select committee intended. The select committee intended us to go back to the community and start from first principles and ask them again, how are we going? The rationale is there to do it. You are just following the recommendations. It has now been 10 years. We could also stand on the fact that other states in Australia are in extreme difficulty. South Australia is a classic. In other states, slowly, the strong commercial venues got more and more …
Mr STIRLING: That is why we did not go that way; you know.
Mr BURKE: We knew it. They got more and more powerful because they got more and more machines, and more and more out of the market. The ones that failed in South Australia were the clubs. The ones that will fail up here, if we keep this bracket creep that is coming in, and if we hold to the words of the Leader of Government Business, that the only test is limited, the only strength that the commission has is limited - we are going to get bracket creep all right because, as the recommendations of the committee tells you, ‘legislation of gaming creates strong and selfish interest groups’. That was in 1994. You helped me write it, Syd. ‘Creates strong and selfish interest groups’. That is the warning we sent. And those strong and selfish interest groups do not need economic rationalists like the NCP to help them in their argument. We should be saying to the NCP, Territory regime, our business, go away, not interested. But what we will do is, we will go back to the community and say, what do you think? It has been 10 years. We believe that we need to stick to our first principles. Now how are those first principles operating today? Where do we need to strengthen them? And let all of the stakeholders have their say.
I believe the outcome will be excellent. I believe the outcome will probably be that they will allow more machines, in certain venues, under certain conditions. I reckon that is what the community will say. They will be very concerned about the social impact, and that is another reason why you cannot go ahead with this sort of methodology without going back to the community and asking them, and certainly satisfying them that those social impacts are being attended to. The only way you will do it is to go back and ask them how to do it. Particularly a Labor government which stands up and says that this is the stuff that the CLP did not do, and aren’t we great because we do it. This is the stuff the CLP did – select committee, go to the community and ask them how to do it, tell them the framework that we want to do, and then ask them what they think of it. I believe that is the track record we can stand on. I believe the Labor government, if it has any sense at all, will stand on the same methodology and the same principles.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition will move that we establish a committee. The terms of reference that will be provided are not complete in themselves. They ask them for those terms of reference to be agreed. Certainly, you will have our support if you move forward with this in this way.
However, Treasurer be warned. You have the numbers; you reckon you are smarter in politics than we are in the Northern Territory. Do not bludgeon this one through, because you cannot argue it. You cannot argue it, because you have not consulted, and they know you have not consulted them. The business people are not persuaded, because they have selfish and competing interests. So, do not tell me that they have come to you as a bloc and they all agree, because they would not. For everyone who wants more, someone else does not want them to get more. We knew that 10 years ago. So, they have not agreed. You will have a lot of difficulty, I believe, satisfying them that if one more enters the market, their own competitor position is not being eroded and, therefore, they should not get more themselves.
I also believe the community, when it comes to poker machines, wants to re-look at this whole issue in terms of how much it is directly benefiting them. Not through government grants that serve a political purpose, either by our government or yours - and you are just doing the same thing with a different methodology. They want to know what is benefiting them in their own community, because they sit in the clubs and they know how much is going through those machines, and they want to know how much is flowing back to them in their own community, not through Consolidated Revenue. I see it as an opportunity and, if the government does not see that opportunity, all I can do is warn and encourage you to look at it.
I ask you to support the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal, rather than bludgeoning this legislation through, so it can move forward in a bipartisan way.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from St Bernard’s College, Essendon, Victoria. They are accompanied by Garth Cupido and Petra Moon. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Wood: They are probably all Bombers supporters, Madam Speaker.
A Member: No, they are good kids.
Mr Wood: No, they are from Essendon.
____________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member for Brennan and thought to myself: what better argument to put forward than to have a member of a previous select committee discussing this particular issue. Presuming that the Treasurer is having an alternative point of view, I would have thought that, if we are to come to a bipartisan agreement on this issue, with the two people who belonged to a select committee in 1994, why not have another select committee and see if we can come to common ground, because it is a very important issue.
At the outset, I thank the minister for the briefings. I know some of the amendments arose from one of those briefings. My concern would be that, regardless of whether these changes are good or bad, the community has been left out of the whole process. I also rang Amity House today and asked them if they had been involved, and they said only this week. I am of the understanding that they did know, somewhere back weeks or months ago, that there was something put in place. However, I understand that, because they made no comment at that stage, they were not involved in any further processes. I also believe that people like Relationships Australia also fell into that category.
Mr Mills: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of even those community groups being involved, the issue of poker machines is a much broader issues than just the people who have to deal with those who have a problem. The public use poker machines. I enjoy the pokies. There are other who cannot stand the pokies …
Mr Baldwin: I can attest to that.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a conflict of interest.
Mr WOOD: Oh, I should have declared a conflict of interest. I am not sure what the address is in Whitewood Road, but it is the Howard Springs Tavern. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The community must be involved. South Australia and the issues that have been debated there have been mentioned. That highlights that the community does have some concerns. I have certainly run into people who hate going to pubs where there are pokies. They would like some clubs with no pokies. They are not saying they are against them …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That raises a very interesting issue because, if these change go forward, I believe that there would be about 10 or 11 new premises in Mitchell Street that could have poker machines. Do we really want Mitchell Street wall-to-wall with poker machines? It is a tourist place; there are a lot of young people, backpackers. Or would we prefer to have at least a range of venues so that people can have a choice about where they want to go?
Mr Baldwin: Importantly, do they want it?
Mr WOOD: Well, we might be asking the tourism industry if they want places just with wall-to-wall poker machines.
The key issue here is not necessarily what is in the legislation. It is that the legislation has not gone back out for a widespread community consultation. That is part of the reason I did ask - and you will see it in the amendments - that when somebody is applying for poker machines there should be community involvement. I must admit I would prefer something similar to the Development Consent Authority, where you can have a public meeting so that, if my local pub wants to put in another 10 poker machines, you can go to a meeting and discuss it.
The government has brought in some amendments which allows an occurrence similar to applying for a liquor licence, where you write to the commissioner, and they will take into account what you have said. However, sometimes you need to have these sorts of issues which can impact on a community discussed by the community. For instance, if there was a pub close to one of the Aboriginal communities, I would expect the Aboriginal community to have the opportunity in a public forum, to sit down and give their points of view as to how much that could affect those communities. That issue of the effect on some Aboriginal communities, is what would be part of this select committee. As we know, poker machines can take money out of a community. It is not the same as playing cards under the street light where, even though somebody might lose all their money, that money is eventually shared and put back mainly into the community. Poker machines take money out of the communities. A select committee certainly should be looking at what effects they have on some of our communities.
As regards the NCP review, I must admit I would like to know who it spoke to when it was doing a review. It seems to me that this was a review done internally amongst those, I suppose, directly affected from an industry point of view. However, I would be interested to know whether the NCP itself went out into the community and discussed it with the community. I also find some things that were recommended in the second reading that relate to that review conflicting. I will quote from the second reading speech where it talks about the review. It says:
- The review found that the strong and prescriptive regulatory approach taken towards the gaming industry is
justified, and restrictions are generally in the public interest. Strong and prescriptive regulation is justified
because it addresses concerns about the ability of gaming operators to control the operation of activities,
and the ability of gaming operators to control information which could result in biased outcomes in favour
of operators. The approach also addresses concerns about the potentially addictive nature of gaming activity.
We turn the page over to Regulatory Directions and it says:
- … the NCP review noted that the nature of the industry has an inherent risk of criminal exploitation of gaming
activity. An effective regulatory framework is an essential element to protect against such infiltration. It is
important that regulation against such infiltration is not overly protective against all initiatives. Thus, a
new section is introduced into the Gaming Control Act and the Gaming Machine Act stipulating the following
principles as the basis for regulating the industry.
This is where I see - I would not call it hypocrisy. I cannot work out what the review is trying to say. It says ‘we should have minimum regulatory intervention by government’ after it just said ‘we need strong and prescriptive regulatory approach’. Now we have completely the opposite, ‘we need maximum cooperation between industry and government’. ‘Cooperation’ - lovely word in this sort of business. ‘Performance-based risk management controls’; what does that mean? ‘Proactive and competitive industry positioning’ - that sounds like she is a free market. ‘Long-term viability of the industry’, and last, ‘and balanced approach to problem gambling’.
On one hand the review is saying: ‘if you want to address concerns about the potentially addictive nature of gambling activity, you should have strong and prescriptive regulations’ and, on the next page, it says: ‘if you want to have a balanced approach to problem gambling, you should have minimum regulatory intervention by government’. The review is sending out mixed signals.
To some extent, the government has gone down the path of minimum regulatory intervention by government. Poker machines are such an important social issue that the government needs to have tight control. I do not believe there is no problem with that in this industry.
Those are my main concerns. I hope we do not use the argument that the NCP might take a few dollars from us …
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr WOOD: Well, I would have said: ‘So what?’. I would have thought that we could argue the case that there should not be any penalty because this is such an important social issue that it would be pretty poor form of any government to apply penalties to a government looking at an issue that has important social implications.
I have spoken to the Treasurer, who knows that I will not support the bill. It is not because I do not support what is in it; the real issue is lack of community consultation. I support the Leader of the Opposition’s idea for a select committee. That would be a very good process. After all, we should do that more often to ensure when there is legislation before us, that the community is thoroughly consulted. Select committees do that.
Madam Speaker, I do not support this legislation as it is. The main reason is there should be more community consultation after which we can look at it again.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their input to this debate, which is one that we come to with like minds regarding the outcomes we seek to achieve, albeit through different processes.
I take on the chin the comments made by the Opposition Leader and the member for Daly in relation to consultation with community groups. There was an oversight in getting back to them, notwithstanding the fact that they had the same opportunity as every other group to respond when the information was disseminated.
Some of these groups are not strongly resourced and, over the past week, getting the information back in has been a job in itself for RGL to track some of them down. Some of them are resourced: Anglicare, Amity, Sommerville, Salvos, and St Vincent de Paul you can get hold of, but we could not get hold of NTCOSS over a period of days. That is the reality and you do need, obviously, a lot longer.
I listened with close interest to each of the members, most particularly the member for Brennan, because we shared the experience of working on the committee that saw the introduction of gaming machines into the wider community 10 years ago. I think it was the first leadership role in the parliament that the member for Brennan undertook as chair of that committee, and he did it in a forthright fashion.
I must say we were well advised and assisted by one Mr Otto Alder through that process, having a first-hand look at the introduction of machines into the community, as was occurring and has recently occurred in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. We also looked at New South Wales where they have been in existence legally or otherwise for many years. We were able to settle on a position that was to follow the Queensland model because we thought gaming machines had been introduced into the community in that state in the most moderate and well-controlled fashion of all, in the sense that the idea was about strengthening clubs, as the member for Brennan said, and government took ownership of the machines, and purchased the machines in the first place to enable those clubs who otherwise would not have had the wherewithal to get into the game to do so. Then, over a period of time, government ownership ceased and the ownership reverted to the venues themselves.
I thought the introduction overall was very good, and credence has been paid to the first principles that the member for Brennan was talking about, albeit it could have been strengthened in the parts of the act itself regarding community contribution by the clubs because, not only were they expected to strengthen themselves and their ability to offer amenity to their community and their members, but they were expected to contribute. Because they were on the gravy train, in the sense, of a good revenue stream through gaming machines, they were expected to contribute, pretty handsomely, to the community. That was not picked up in the bill itself as strongly as it could have been, and it is an issue that continues to roll on and still needs to be looked at closely.
The different positions put by the members opposite are interesting, though, in the sense that, on the one hand, there is an anxiety or a concern about proliferation - and certainly the member for Daly and the Leader of the Opposition see in this a capacity to roll out very quickly …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never articulated a concern about the proliferation of poker machines at all, and I am being defamed here.
Mr STIRLING: I am happy to take it back. I thought that was, if not expressed today …
Mr Baldwin: No, I talked about the fundamental …
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, I think, was the …
Mr STIRLING: I thought it was expressed the other day. I take it back.
Certainly, that view was expressed to me, perhaps by - I will say the member for Drysdale, because he is not here to contradict me.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: If he comes through the door, I will take it back.
No, these concerns were expressed, and they were genuine, but misplaced. In my view, misplaced because, if they were genuine concerns that I shared, I would not be standing here passing these bills tonight. I guess one of the difficulties we have with ‘stop now, and hold the bus while we look’, is the fact that government has signalled very clearly with this bill the intention to tighten up the ability to get gaming machines out there in the community. If that is not a signal to those venues were - and let us say we had a select committee for six months: ‘Hello to the venues, you have six months to get across the line and get your machines now, because it is going to be darn site tougher in six months time when the select committee reports back’.
Notwithstanding those concerns - and I believe they are genuinely held by members of the opposition - from the member for Brennan, speaking from the heart, he said that 45 is not enough in some clubs, and I think referred to clubs in his own area. That 45, and originally six in hotels, was set as the max at the time of the introduction. The six in hotels shifted to 10 at some point, but the 45 has never been changed, and we have not seen a need to change that. Of the all the clubs with gaming machines in the Territory, just six have the full 45. The average per club is 19, and they vary in number from holding two, right up to 45. It is interesting that, in the past two years, there has been no application for gaming machines from clubs in the Northern Territory.
We would have a difficulty with holding everything now for three months or six months, because it would be a very clear signal to venues that want to get hold of gaming machines to do so now. ‘Get your takeaway licence and put your hand up for gaming machines, because all the signs are that the government is going to make this a much tougher game into the future’. There is a real difficulty with that, albeit, some of the things that you might get a committee to look at, we would agree were good things to do.
I sense from the opposition - and the member for Daly did actually spell it out. He said: ‘I do not want any of the detail …
Mr Baldwin: I do not want to discuss the details. I heard the details.
Mr STIRLING: ‘I do not want to hear the detail’. What a nonsense when you are a legislator in the parliament; you have a bill before you and you do not want to hear the detail. You cannot come to a debate with a closed mind. I listened intently to each of the speakers, including the member for Daly …
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about the amendments. That is the detail that came in here today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly! The minister is explaining.
Mr Baldwin: Explain those.
Mr STIRLING: … including the member for Daly. I just cannot believe that he can come into this parliament and make sensible decisions about legislation when you say: ‘I do not want to hear the details’. There are none so deaf than those who will not hear and engage. It is a pity if the member for Daly has that view, because a failure to listen is obviously going to be a failure to recognise what we believe is good policy; what I stand by as good policy.
The member for Brennan also talked about first principles, and about strengthening the clubs in the community. That is true; that is what we and the committee set out to do. In part, it is preserved in going to the object section of the bill. One of the common threads through all of the amendments to legislation coming from National Competition Policy is to state quite explicitly, up-front, the objects of the act so people know the purpose and the intention of having the legislation in the first place. The object section of the act, very clearly, is to ensure probity and integrity in gaming, and to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming in the Territory. As the National Competition Policy review noted, an important contemporary social objective of gambling regulation is to promote problem gambling remedies and responsible gambling practices.
The proposed objects are: to promote probity and integrity; to maintain the probity and integrity of persons in gaming; to promote fairness, integrity and efficiency in the operations of persons in gaming; to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming; and to promote a balanced contribution by the gaming industry to general community benefit and amenity. I read that last point as going back and relating to one of the first principles that the member for Brennan was talking about. It is still there, albeit in a broader form. However, importantly, right up-front, is this question of to reduce the adverse social impact of gaming in the Territory.
I want to take some time to go through this. I heard also the points – and they are true – raised about concerns about the number of machines, and the damage done by gambling using those machines, in other states.
The Northern Territory was very particular about the model of implementation and the way it went, and that is why we have not seen the level of social damage and harm. I do not deny there is a level, and I see it. I see it myself on a regular basis, but not to the extent that we are seeing in Victoria, South Australia more recently, and New South Wales for many years.
I want to table this document because it states exactly what the situation is now. It is the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults in 2002-03 in clubs and hotels. The average for Australia is 13. Western Australia has none because they only have them in the casino; South Australia has 13; Queensland 14; New South Wales 20 - this is gaming machines per 1000 adults in clubs and hotels – Victoria, amazingly, seven – yet, when I am in Victoria, I seem to see them everywhere and I am confronted by them. Maybe it is where I go. I go to the Essington Football Club – machines …
Mr Baldwin: Well, I am sure they are there!
Mr STIRLING: Well, it seems to me - and maybe it is my nature and it is in me to seek them out. I think not. They seem to be in your face.
Mr Baldwin: If you just go to clubs and pubs, that is where you will see them.
Mr STIRLING: South Australia is the same. They seem to be in your face, and you see them down the street in a way that you do not in the Northern Territory. I am just putting that on the record, because this is only an indicator. Although Victoria may seem low at seven, I would think that it is easier to find them, and you are more exposed to them in Victoria than you are here. Tasmania has six, ACT 21, and the Northern Territory seven, Western Australia nil. The Australian average, as I said, was 13.
If you put casinos into the mix, which is only fair - so you have got clubs, hotels and casinos - the figures read, for the number of gaming machines per 1000 adults: South Australia at 14, Queensland at 15; New South Wales at 20; Victoria at eight; Tasmania at 10; ACT at 21; the Northern Territory at 12; Western Australia with one; and the Australian average lists 1:14. At the clubs and hotels, we are about half the Australian average. Put casinos into the mix then we shift, under the Australian average, to 12:14. I table that for the interest of members.
Madam Speaker, I want to foreshadow the amendments that I will propose in the committee stage because these have the effect of further strengthening what we believe will be a fairly strong regime anyway. I want to put these on the record now, notwithstanding that we will go into committee and debate these.
To further clarify the venue types that can and cannot apply for gaming machines and strengthen the controls on existing licensees wanting to increase their machine numbers, clause 5 of the bill would amend section 3, the definitions section of the principal act, by revising the definition of a club liquor license, which previously had references to a redundant section, of the Liquor Act. The amendment schedule to the bill would seek to clarify the definition of a ‘club liquor license’ by introducing the reference to guests as well as members within the meaning of a club license. Clause 5 would also make the definition of ‘hotel’ more precise following recent consultation with members of the House.
As currently proposed in the bill, a range of current liquor licence classifications used by the Licensing Commission would meet the proposed definition given for a hotel liquor licence. This would have led to a broader range of outlets being able to argue their case to apply for machines than intended. Therefore, to remove doubt about the government’s intention and to contain eligibility only to those venues traditionally regarded as pubs and taverns, the proposed amendment specifically requires that the hotel liquor licence be endorsed by a public hotel or tavern authority. This is in addition to the current proposal in the bill that the primary activity is on-premise sale and consumption of liquor.
The consequence of this amendment is significant, as it reduces the types and number of outlets that can potentially apply for gaming machines. For example - and I thank the member for Daly for pointing this situation out - under current legislation the bar operating at the Darwin Airport terminal could apply for a gaming licence and install up to 10 machines. It would seem incongruous for an airport which is, essentially, a transport hub. Under the new definition, this venue would be excluded by virtue of not having a public hotel or tavern authority.
The proposed change would ensure the types of venues that can apply for gaming machines are more akin to what the community expects. There are currently 37 hotel-style venues with gaming machines licences in the Territory. Under current gaming machine legislation, there are a further 44 hotel-style venues that could potentially apply for a gaming machine licence. The proposed amendments will add some new venues to the list that can potentially apply for a licence, but these will be more than offset by the venues that will no longer be able to apply. In overall terms, the number of venues that would have to potential to apply for machines under the proposed changes will reduce from 44 to an estimated 23 based on current liquor licences. While adding some taverns and public hotels that do not have takeaway conditions, the amendments remove roadside inns and other outlets where the primary activity is mixed, or is focussed on something other than the sale of consumption of liquor; for example, the provision of accommodation, food, tourist services or fuel.
The estimated 23 venues that would be able to apply for machine licence under the proposed amendments will be subject to a much more stringent application process. They will be required to undertake a community impact analysis, and it is most likely that this new process will see a number of applicants weeded out. The existing requirement of having a takeaway liquor licence to apply for machines has the potential - worse case scenario, admittedly - to put 440 more hotel gaming machines in the community vetted by the fact that they have a takeaway licence and they pass probity and the fit and proper person test.
The new regime halves this potential to a maximum of 230 hotel gaming machines. The current vetting process is ineffective in stemming machine numbers, as applicants need only satisfy the Licensing Commission that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence without any regard for the impact of the machines on the surrounding community.
I note that seven of the venues that would eligible under the proposed new law to apply for gaming machine licences for the first time are located on Mitchell Street in the CBD of Darwin. While this might be of concern for some, it needs to be kept in perspective. If all of these venues successfully applied for gaming machines and got the maximum of 10, it would result in a maximum increase of seven machines - 10 at each venue. In an entertainment precinct like Mitchell Street, that increase is unlikely to transform the character of the area or suddenly make it the epicentre for those who like to play the poker machines. Indeed, evidence from service agencies – and I thank those agencies that commented in this area and provided evidence - is that gaming machines in hotels are the least likely to be played by people who have gambling problems. Data from Amity House for the last year shows that only around one in 10 new clients with gaming problems link their situation to hotels as opposed to other types of venues. Problem gambling is more strongly associated with locations that have a greater density of gaming machines. That is consistent with research on gambling behaviour and the experience of other states.
The amendment schedule proposes a new mechanism to ensure that community members can be part of the decision process on new licences. This mechanism does not currently exist. Individuals and organisations will now be able to put their argument and evidence in written submissions that the Licensing Commission must have regard to when considering applications.
The new community impact analysis also poses specific criteria to mediate any expansion of gaming machines. Each applicant would have to satisfy the commission that granting them a licence will not contribute to adverse social outcomes and, among other things, that it will be conducive to the primary activity of the venue; that it will not overly concentrate gaming venues; that machines will be suitably accommodated; and that the venue has adequate responsible gambling strategies in place.
These amendments also require applicants to advertise their intention to apply for gaming machines. The ad must be placed in the press in a prescribed form and enable the director to stipulate any other notification required, such as at the venue itself.
Clause 9A of the amendment schedule proposes an amendment which requires a community impact analysis if a venue already with gaming machines wants to significantly increase its number. The proposed section 41A requires a community impact analysis to accompany any application for an increase of five or more gaming machines, or where the Director of Licensing requires it. These measures are primarily intended to allow small increases in gaming machines to be considered without a community impact analysis. At the same time, it will control or limit frequent requests being made for increases of fewer than five machines because the director will have powers to require a community impact analysis. Section 41A also sets out the criteria of the community impact analysis, which are consistent with the requirements on new licence applicants. These amendments are a direct response to requests by industry in consultation with public representatives. I want to reiterate that the government does not want to see an unchecked proliferation of community gaming machines.
The amendments I am proposing remove the takeaway liquor requirement as a filter. That filter has no fair rationale and, further, has not been effective in recent years in curtailing the spread of machines. Between 1 July 2000 and 31 May 2004, community gaming machines increased by 48% from 650 to 962. The current system is too loose in terms of who can apply for machines, and there is not enough rigour in the process to vet gaming machine applications.
That current situation is not acceptable to government. Whilst the opposition is agitating that the proposed amendments would fuel a greater spread of machines, in truth they halve the number of outlets that might have machines, and impose significant new criteria to limit the number of machines that might be obtained by eligible venues. The opposition, when formerly in government, expressed its position on gaming machines by raising the maximum number of machines allowed in hotels from six to 10. Since they did that in July 2001, there has been a doubling of machines in hotels from 149 to 301. The measures proposed here in this bill are intended to prevent just such expansion rates.
The amendments I am proposing will introduce more stringent and comprehensive criteria that include committee views, and which are framed by objectives that included harm minimisation. They will also, for the first time, provide a check on the proliferation of gaming machines through clubs.
We acknowledge the value that machines add to the services provided by clubs but, under these new amendments the granting of the licence or the increase in machine numbers at a particular club will have to be more fully justified. Those concerned with proliferation should appreciate that the amendments now provide a mechanism for controlling the situation where only a very limited mechanism currently exists. It is a vast improvement on the current situation; it clarifies the type of venues that can apply for gaming machine licences and significantly expands the process involved in the assessment of those applications.
It is true these changes will still allow certain outlets to apply for machines, but it is a vast improvement on this current situation because fewer outlets in the community would be able to apply for gaming machines. Therefore, in seeking to remove measures that are discriminatory and anticompetitive a more robust and balanced approach is being developed, and I commend each of those committee stage amendments.
In wrapping up, the member for Brennan talked about the NCP review representing an opportunity, and that is exactly what it does. It does represent an opportunity to revisit what exists - does it work, what is it doing - and have a look right through. That is what is being done and the opportunity is being taken to strengthen the provisions and the circumstances under which venues are able to apply and get gaming machines.
With those comments, I might just briefly touch on amelioration and I will just put this on the record: many counselling and other support services provided by generalists or agencies are funded by other departments, and it is difficult to disaggregate what services deal with gambling issues, because gambling is often a part of multiple issues which people will bring with them. Specific funds provided by the government for gambling services by Amity House and Anglicare are: 2001-02 was $162 727; 2002-03, $192 027, an 18% increase; 2003-04, $226 212, a 17.8% increase; subtotal for three years, $580 966; recommended for 2004-05 was $241 523, a 6.8% increase. However, it is intended to call for research proposals and for specified criteria by which government will be wanting various aspects looked at, but also look at any proposal that come in. Those research proposals will be called in July, funded under the Community Benefit Fund, and there is an estimated $400 000 available. Therefore, I do not see why that ought not - depending, obviously, on the quality of the research applications coming in - be expended. There is an additional $81 000 for the development and implementation of the code of practice for responsible gambling.
I will detail some further facts, which I have touched on. Amity House had 93 new clients in 2002-03, by face-to-face. Data suggests that two-thirds of those coming to see Amity House are related to poker machines and, of that two-thirds, around 12% were poker machines in hotels, 31% in clubs and the majority of 57% in the casino.
Anglicare provides financial counselling and, in 2003-04, a year later, had 204 new clients. They are not all gamblers, many included relatives and concerned employers. It notes, too, that gaming machines are the primary source of problems for addictive gamblers, the majority indicating they prefer to play at the casino.
The other point on research: the Northern Territory contributes nationally to the national gambling research program, and delivers about $1m of research each year to June 2008. Racing, Gaming and Licensing has partnered Charles Darwin University for an Australian Research Council linkage project, a three-year post-graduate research program looking at the impact of commercial gambling on Aboriginal communities. The Northern Territory government is providing almost $50 000 of that needed $146 349.
If there was a need to look at what is occurring out there - and I would agree there is - it may be that we get views from the opposition as to where they think problem areas might be, and they could be included in that criteria around which we would call for research proposals. However, I would not just limit it to what views are put forward. If very worthwhile research proposals came forward from industry itself in that process, we would be keen to consider it.
Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the opposition. I understand their concerns and, if the majority of them are around proliferation and excessive machines, this process will well and truly handle it. It does not, in itself, address the concerns or the view put forward by the member for Brennan that there are, in fact, clubs out there that have more than 45 machines. At the moment, nothing affects the 45 maximum cap in clubs, or the 10 maximum cap in hotels. Whether that changes over time, I am open, but it is not an issue here; it is not part of this amendment bill tonight. Those caps will remain.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 183, I move:
- That the bill be referred to a select committee; the committee’s terms of reference to be agreed but should include the following:
- 1. A complete review on the report by the select committee on effects of poker machines in community venues.
2. A review of the National Competition Commission report on gaming machines in the Northern Territory
and the current regulatory systems for the Territory to meet its own requirements.
3. Ensure that the primary objectives of the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory
are explicit and unchanged. That is, to provide a productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds:
- (a) to clubs and licensed venues to improve neighbourhood recreational amenity;
(b) to government, for services to all Territorians;
(c) the means by which any negative impacts of electronic gaming machines in the community are
minimised; and
(d) the form and extent to regulatory mechanisms that will be necessary to ensure fairness, efficiency and
integrity are maintained.
the primary objectives of distributing electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory.
5. The committee report by December 2004.
6. The committee be able to:
- (a) adjourn from time to time and place to place;
(b) to send for persons, papers and records; and
(c) to sit during any sitting and adjournment of the Assembly.
Mr MILLS: Yes it is right here.
Madam Speaker, we have had presented to this Chamber - and only in recent times in its initial form - in recent times, amendment proposed upon amendment, an issue that is of a high order. It is a unique issue that needs to be approached in a very special way.
We have been given arguments from the other side that paint the opposition as being primarily concerned about proliferation. That is not the primary concern, though it is a concern. We have been accused of saying this is bad legislation. We have said no such thing. We do not assert that this is bad legislation. On the issue of proliferation, members opposite have put forwarded that there will be, in fact, a reduction in the number of licences that are currently eligible to apply for gaming licences. That is not the case.
The truth is there has been a reduction of those that can currently apply in terms of takeaways. Many of those would probably not apply anyway. But nonetheless, we are talking about 20-plus. However, in addition to that we are talking about another 20-odd which are currently unable to apply for gaming licences. Inherent in that is not the fundamental issue that we have been charged with - that we are concerned, therefore that there will be a proliferation. We go back to the basic: there is a significant and fundamental change to the way in which gaming has been established in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is aware of the system we have had. We have had ownership of it from the very beginning. It has been put in place and it works reasonably well. We are provided with an opportunity to reassess where we are now. Look back and look interstate.
The trigger should be applied by good legislators who are aware of an exiting situation. Knowing that the recommendations were presented to the parliament 10 years ago, now, 10 years later, is an opportune time to look back. The minister knows the trigger is, in fact, the NCP. That is an inappropriate trigger to activate the legislation we have before us. I believe the legislation we have before us today should have been triggered by a select committee, by a group of Territorians who have gotten together, with all the stakeholders being consulted, to propose legislation that would come to this Chamber to show us the way forward. Recommendations from a select committee should guide our decision-making processes. To be at this juncture without recommendations from a select committee that has consulted with all sectors of our community is something I am not happy to be a part of, nor are members of opposition and the Independent.
When we go out and ask members of the community: ‘What do you think about poker machines?’, the instinctive response is: ‘We do not want any more’. There would be a temptation to play politics with that but, if we are reasonable, we know that people do not necessarily want to remove gaming machines; they are a part of our lifestyle. However, we would be satisfied with reasonable caution in how they are managed in the Northern Territory. The Productivity Commission, in a survey, found that 92% of Australians do not want to see any increase at all in gaming machines. That is 92% of Australians. If you asked our community: ‘Do you want more or do you want less?’ They will certainly not be nodding for ‘Yes, we would like some more, if you do not mind’. That will not be the answer to that question.
It is little wonder, therefore, that radio station FM 104.9 seized upon this, instinctively evoking that response from listeners saying: ‘Oh no, we do not want any more’. Drive on the ABC was the same.
Mr Stirling: It is not about more, it is about a process.
Mr MILLS: There will be more. There is potential for a significant increase. That may well be the decision that we want to take, but we have not taken that back to the community. The community has not had their opportunity to own this decision. For the community to be informed that a decision has been made on their behalf - and we will endeavour to sell it to them in a rush - has been triggered by the National Competition Policy: ‘I hope it is okay. We will let you know all about it know, and we will try our very best to sell it to you and reassure you we had your best interests at heart’. In fact, the whole thing has been instigated by external forces: ‘I hope you do not mind’.
It compromises those who are there to try and respond to issues related to gambling. It compromises the commercial sector, which has not had an opportunity to be a part of the decision-making process. It compromises us as legislators when we are presented with legislation initially that escaped the attention of a number of us, and then, upon realising that contained within this legislation was some significant implications and, as reasonable representatives of our community, we consult and find that sectors are uniformed. Then they are activated, concerns are raised, amendments are proposed, and amendments again are proposed. A situation such as this compromises us as legislators – and all triggered by the NCP. I find that, as a Territorian, unacceptable. I have done all that I can to assess how this affects different sectors of our community. I cannot cover all those bases.
On issues such as gaming - which impacts on families, business, community groups and clubs - should, for all legislators, be treated in a unique way. That is why I urge members to support the motion for the establishment of a select committee. I suspect our parliamentary colleagues on the other side would realise that, perhaps, they have gotten off on the wrong foot here and are trying to work out how they could get themselves into a better position because they acknowledge that, in the face of the community, this has been triggered by NCP. They will try and cover that up by saying: ‘We will be fine’. Territorians will say: ‘Oh gee, we do not to be fine; that is an awful thing’. Then we find that that is actually the trigger.
Really, this is a matter for us all to seriously, carefully, and sensibly consider. We are at crossroads. You have placed us at the crossroads and you have already committed us to a new chapter in this journey - a chapter that other states have already encountered. Maybe they got off on the wrong foot. Maybe we were wise enough to go and consult and assess what was going on in other jurisdictions and establish a good framework in the Northern Territory. That is to the credit of those who were on that original select committee.
Nonetheless, we are at crossroads now. Without due consultation or due regard to carrying this through so that every family, every commercial interest, every club, and every community group is aware of what we are doing, we are now committed to the next stage. That is unacceptable when we have the Leader of Government Business say: ‘Well, all right, if we do get ourselves into a spot of bother somewhere down the track, we will fix it then’. This is an issue that should be treated with the utmost caution now, and with respect for the Northern Territory community to preserve the integrity of the system we currently have, and then throw up those recommendations which are borne out of the interest of the community, not the interests of the NCP.
If the driving force behind NCP recommendations are the issue of anti-competitiveness, the changing of definitions as proposed by NCP will only move competitive barriers, it will not remove them. The competitive barriers will be placed in a different position. That is what the case will be. The pressure points will just reappear at a different place. If we are going to use NCP as the reason, the competitive aspects will simply be shifted and the pressure will be applied elsewhere. The argument currently is that the pressure is now on the issue of takeaways. To be a takeaway or not be a takeaway, that is the question. ‘I want to be a takeaway. I want to have a takeaway licence so I can have pokies’. That is where the pressure is at the moment. If we leave it as it is, we will have increasing pressure on that point.
Minister, if we now change and allow all eligible comers, as described in this legislation, to now apply, all the pubs and the clubs that do not have takeaways will now be able to apply. There has to be definition put in place to define between those; for example, a roadside inn. By definition, a roadside inn will not be able to apply. The pressure in the long term, or the short term, will now be moved to a different point, by nature of definition. Therefore, to think that we are removing competition, and all will be good and well, is not the case, because competition will be moved to another place. We are not removing competition, in effect. In the short term, it is certainly altering it, but in the long term, the pressure points will reappear.
I guess issues such as this bring out the conservative nature in many of us. As I said, the issue of gambling is an issue that is in a different category, and we should proceed with the utmost of caution. I know that the response of government is going to be: ‘Look, we have to do this. We believe that the systems we have put in place, the new benchmarks, they are pretty good’. They may well be. ‘What we will do is put them in place and then we will get the community together and say: “Sorry that we did not consult you before, now we will explain to you what we have just done on your behalf”’. We have to do that, because the industry, currently, is going to be thinking: ‘We better get in now’, as I heard in some of the comments earlier. This will be the argument, I believe, of government. They will say: ‘We will have to move this now, because if we do not move this now, those out there will think: “My goodness, there is going to be a tougher regime coming, so we will apply the pressure on the system now. We will get in now, because it is going to be a much tougher regime”’. It may not be.
The regime to come from a select committee could be, as Territorians are able to do, a very innovative and very specifically tailor-made Territory-suited regime, a modification which is borne out of Territory interests and contributed to by Territorians, and triggered simply by Territorians wanting to have the state-of-the-art regime. We have a good system at the moment.
That is why we need to make sure this is couched, triggered and motivated by the very right reasons; that is, fuelled and driven, not by the NCP, but by Territorians. To propose that we have to pass this because we will have a tougher regime is not necessarily the case. None of us on this side are opposed to poker machines, but we are opposed to being put in the position - compromised as legislators - to embark Territorians down a new path, of significant departure from the regime and the fundamentals upon which that has been established. For that reason, I urge members opposite to support the motion for the establishment of a select committee so that Territorians’ best interests can be served by allowing for their response and contribution to the way forward. They may well reflect on the work that has been done in the last few days. Some of it is good. Let them reflect on that. Let them propose recommendations and move forward only on that basis, not on this basis.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am interested in the attitude being espoused by members opposite in relation to National Competition Policy. It was a policy signed up to and agreed by them when they were in government, all the way down the line. The National Competition Policy is a policy we have a commitment to. Although it might bring difficulties here and there, it is not a commitment that we are about to walk away from, regardless of the $7.5m or $7.6m a year that we get as a jurisdiction for adhering to NCP.
The fact is, whether this Review 2002, a view of what was going on, was triggered by NCP or not, is immaterial. The fact is, it does mean that the review itself looked at points of anti-competitive practice within the industry. However, a lot of good things that have been achieved in this amendment bill as a result of going back and having a look. I have heard constantly tonight: ‘10 years on, it is time to have a look’. What do you think NCP review was about? Toward the end of 2002, this work went on right through the industry, and the report came forward to government. Every piece of legislation in the Northern Territory has undergone this process.
The other point raised by the member for Brennan: ‘We will not have the NCP tell us what to do, or the ACCC’. Well, what about the licensee at the top of Mitchell Street who has a takeaway licence and, therefore, has the ability to have poker machines? The venue down the road does not have a takeaway licence, therefore, under no circumstances can put their hand up for a gaming machine licence.
Mr Baldwin: So you are going to bow down to them?
Mr STIRLING: Well, how long do you think they are going to cop that?
Mr Baldwin: You are going to bow down to them! Yes, that would be right, you are bowing down to them.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly!
Mr STIRLING: How long do you think they are going to cop that before they are in the courts against the Northern Territory government? You get five or six of them together, and they can fund the case.
Mr Baldwin: Ho ho! What about Sunday trading? You cannot say that. You are bowing down to them.
Mr STIRLING: They can fund the case and do you know why? Because it is anti-competitive. It is anti-competitive to have to have a takeaway licence in order to get poker machines. No relationship whatsoever. No relationship whatsoever between the takeaway licence on the one hand,. and the ability to sensibly control and organise poker machines on the other. It would be a question of time before five or six would have said: ‘Oh, look, here is $100 000, let us take these mugs on’.
Mr Burke: All the more reason why you should have a good select committee to look at it.
Mr Baldwin: And you said you did not care about a fine.
Mr STIRLING: Because it is clearly anti-competitive. There is not a court of law in this land that will not support our case. That is point one: it is anti-competitive. If you guys like anti-competitive behaviour - and some people are winners and some people are losers – well, good luck to you. It is not the way. We prefer equity and fair play in everything we do.
The member for Blain, Leader of the Opposition, tells me national studies show people do not want more poker machines - 93% of people say they do not want more poker machines. He may be right. I do not think we have a figure on that in the Northern Territory. However, I tell you what the people in the Northern Territory do not want: more takeaway licences, because it is takeaway alcohol licences that contribute to and are the sole cause of our antisocial behaviour problems in the streets of our towns and communities throughout the Northern Territory.
There are no poker machines that contribute to this antisocial behaviour, and it is not the clubs and pubs with organised venue and drinking inside those walls; it is the activities of takeaway licences. This government does not want to see a proliferation of takeaway licences - and no Territorian wants to see it, regardless of the view on poker machines. Ask anyone out there: ‘Do you want to see lots more takeaway alcohol licences out in the community?’ ‘No thank you’, would be the answer. And yet, if we sit here for six months while there is a committee, that is very much what is going to happen. Venues that want to get gaming machines are going to have to go the route of getting a takeaway licence. Therefore, you get more takeaway licences out there, and they may not even be interested in the takeaway licence itself, other than a means to an end to get community gaming machines.
Let us have a look at the terms of reference. I am not opposed to these because I believe they have all been done. ‘A complete review on the report by the select committee on effects of poker machines in community venues’. Well, the NCP review itself - the Leader of the Opposition really needs to go back and have a look at this. ‘A review of the National Competition Commission reports …’. Well, he has had the opportunity to read that in the past two years. ‘Ensure that the primary objectives of the distribution are explicit and unchanged. That is, to provide a productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds ...’. That remains, albeit the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory are explicit and unchanged. That means you cannot do you anything. You can have a review, you can have a look, you can have a select committee, but the terms of reference themselves tell you that you cannot change the objectives of the distribution of gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It seems to be a short-sighted review. You can have a look at it …
Mr Baldwin: It does not say that at all.
Mr STIRLING: It says ‘are explicit and unchanged’! Unchanged! Why have a review if you cannot change it? Why have a review if you cannot change what you are looking at?
This idea of ‘productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs and licensed venues to improve neighborhood recreational amenity’ - still there. ‘Delivering proceeds to government for services to all Territorians’ - still there. Delivering proceeds the means - I am not sure if this reads properly – ‘the means by each any negative impacts of electronic gaming machines in the community are minimized’ - there now; not there before; there now in our objects. First objective, second objective of the act, of which the Licensing Commission must take heed. It is there now and it is also there in the building in of the community impact statement: the advertising requirement that an application is to proceed from the venue; the ability for people to put their objection in writing to the Licensing Commission, and the venue itself having to fill in and comply with the community impact statement. All of that is picked up. ‘The form and extent of regulatory mechanisms necessary to ensure that fairness, efficiency and integrity are maintained. The impact of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 and existing regulatory system and in meeting the primary objectives of distributing electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory’. That is exactly what this bill is about.
The opposition said these could be changed, amended, added to or whatever. I am sure if we were of a mind to go to a select committee, we would certainly be strengthening them. However, from where I stand, each of those points proposed by the Leader of the Opposition as a compelling reason to go to a select committee are far less than compelling to me. We have picked up all the issues.
Another point is that he was saying it is unacceptable that it has come from NCP; we have to do it for Territorians and by Territorians because it is the Territory and we know best - well, who does he think wrote the amendments? People from the NCP? No. People from interstate? No. Officers from Northern Territory Racing Gaming and Licensing Commission - a Territory piece of work, this amendment bill. He had this view that somehow it arose, or the origins were in the sense of an NCP review, and that it is all contaminated and all bad.
The heart of competition policy and the job of the ACCC is to ensure a fair go. That is the great Australian ethic; it is to ensure a fair go. It is to ensure that someone does not have an unhealthy competitive advantage over someone else in the game. That is the heart of competition policy.
Mr Baldwin: What? Like price fixing in Nhulunbuy? Is that what you are talking about?
Mr STIRLING: The member for Daly does not like competition policy. I am not sure. He was a member of the government that signed up for it.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about Sunday trading while you are on your feet.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I will tell you. That is an issue. That is an issue, and this is an interesting conundrum of competition policy. It is not an issue in Queensland because there is no such thing as licensed grocers. The only places that can sell grog in Queensland are hotels and clubs. They do not get into strife with competition policy, because there has never been such things as licensed grocers. Alcohol has not spread beyond the traditional venues for retail. Up here, because we have licensed grocers unable to trade on Sunday, we have an unfair situation in the view of National Competition Policy …
Mr Baldwin: Have you changed it? No!
Mr STIRLING: We have not changed it. It is a body of work coming forward …
Mr Baldwin: Then why do you run the argument on this?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease!
Mr STIRLING: There is a body of work coming forward, and much consideration going into the Alcohol Framework Review. I am sure it will have plenty to say on Sunday trading when it comes forward. It is a difficult issue for government on the same situation that we have here, that we do not want to see any more takeaway outlets, full stop, but we certainly do not want to see takeaway outlets because they want to get gaming machines and that is the only way they can get them. That is a nonsense.
This parliament, at some stage, will have to consider this question of Sunday trading and just how that is dealt with in the future. The fact is that other places that legally sell alcohol can sell on a Sunday, but the grocer has to close it up on the Saturday night at a given time and that is it until whenever they open on the Monday. If you are a licensed grocer, you are going to say: ‘That is not fair’, and they do. They have made representations to my office and others in the time that we have been in government, and I do not doubt that there were representations to the former government.
That is what it is about. If you go beyond the rhetoric of ‘the ACCC and NCP and we should not have to do this and we are Territorians and we will not be pushed around’, you have to look beyond the rhetoric at a fair go. A fair go is what this country has fought for and people have died for and it is the great Australian ethos …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It is apparently not part of the ethos of the CLP, and we well know the silver circle and how they used to have their friends in there and who used to get the contracts, and who used to get the work: the little silver circle.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It does not go well. It does not sit well. No wonder you blokes hate competition policy because you cannot play favourites, you cannot backhand to your little mates like you did for 26 years. We do not support it.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He should withdraw the referencing to ‘backhanding little mates’ because in Australian colloquial, it is offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I am surprised, member for Drysdale. There is no point of order.
Mr Dunham: No point of order? We can talk about backhanding your little mate?
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if he does find it offensive, in deference to the member’s wishes, I will withdraw that last comment.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: He is a bit sensitive.
Madam SPEAKER: I will not say anything.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, it is a shame that we started off in what should have been a bipartisan way in the debate on this bill and now it has turned into this. We propose a sensible resolution to this issue, and the minister comes up with all sorts of reasons and excuses to defend his position.
First he tells us that it is not about the NCP or what they have imposed on him; that is not what triggered this whole thing. That is what he said. He said it is not about them; it is about us signalling to the business community that these changes are going to take place, and if we do not go forward and delay this by going to a select committee, all of those who are currently eligible – that is 40-odd premises - are going to rush out and apply for their 10 machines. What a load of nonsense!
I have never heard such irresponsible nonsense in this House before. The minister, as he knows, has every power to do what he has to do to stop that happening. What is the simplest solution that he could come up with if he agreed to take this to a select committee for its consideration? He could say: ‘Let us have a moratorium’.
Mr Dunham: Yes! That would be a good idea.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh! Apart from the ones that have already been agreed to - and from memory and their own papers, the number was 56 that are in the pipeline and have been approved - until we have had a considered look at the whole issue of gaming machines, let us have a moratorium.
They are not averse to moratoriums. Have a look at what they are doing in the Katherine/Daly region as far as land clearing goes - moratorium! Not a problem for this government when they see an issue but, to suit his own means, he said they are all going to rush out and that we are going to have 40 venues going for 10 machines each - 400 machines. Well, leave me alone! Ask yourself this simple question: of those venues that have been eligible since the introduction of the machines - most of them - have they applied? No. Otherwise they would not be on that list as eligible but with no machines. Has Saville Apartments applied? No. Ask yourself why. Perhaps it is because they do not want machines.
Therefore, to run the argument that they are all going to rush out because they are going to lose the opportunity (1) is nonsensical from the point of view that they have not done it to this point, and they probably are not likely to; but (2) the minister, at a stroke of the pen - no, less: by walking out with a press release and saying publicly that from this point on, from tonight, because we, this parliament - not the opposition, this parliament - has decided to have a review of the whole gaming machine situation. Until that report comes back to parliament and government has considered its recommendations, there will be no issuing of any more gaming machine licences other than those that have already been approved. It is not even writing anything down. That is how easy it is for the minister. That is how easy it is for the minister to do this.
Let us look at the fact that he wants no more takeaway licences. Personally, I agree; there is a problem with takeaway licences, and something should be done about it. However, it is in his jurisdiction. If that is the case, if he is basing the whole argument as well on the fact that those existing takeaway licences can now - we want to take away that provision for machines - then do something about it. Do something about the takeaway licences. You are killing two birds with one stone. You are going to restrict the amount of takeaway in the community, and you are going to restrict the amount of gaming machines while you consider this. Another nonsensical argument.
He goes on and on about the NCP and he says it is all about giving them a fair go - this country giving everyone a fair go. Well, I reckon that is quite right, and we should give everyone a fair go. However, the fact of the matter is that the current legislation for gaming machines, the current legislation for alcohol licences, and the provisions that are put before this parliament tonight do not give everyone a fair go and, even with the changes that the minister wants to make, will make it less of a fair go. So, do not run the fair go argument.
The fact that he has called the decision by the Licensing Commission to issue a liquor licence to a hairdresser as stupid, tells you he is not convinced that it should all be about a fair go because, if he thought it was all about a fair go, then he would have applauded the commission for issuing a liquor licence to a hairdresser. So do not even try to run that argument. As far as the NCP, you called …
Mr Stirling: That is rubbish! That is a rubbish argument.
Mr BALDWIN: You called the decision by the commission stupid. Do not walk away from that because it is on the public record.
Mr Stirling: I maintain it is stupid. It has nothing to do with competition.
Mr BALDWIN: It is on the public record!
As far as the NCP - and if you want to talk about some detail, I will just pick him up on the fact that he slighted me in some way and said I did not want to discuss the detail. I said there is no point in discussing the detail if you stick to the fundamentals. The fundamentals are what is being changed here tonight. If you are going to change the fundamentals, go back and review them. The NCP, in fact, has no problem with the capping of the number of poker machine licences as part of an overall harm minimisation program. Let us get the minister up talking about that, because he says it is too hard to put a cap. The NCP has not a problem with a capping mechanism to reduce, as part of an overall harm minimisation program. So, do not waltz in here reciting all things about the NCP, minister.
The excuses you are using are very poor. You even picked up on the fact that the points in the motion will not allow you to change anything. Well, if you are reading it that way well, I am sorry. The first point of the motion is that: ‘The committee’s terms of reference to be agreed but should include the following …’. If you do not like them, let us agree on the words. However, you picked out that the primary objectives of the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory are explicit and unchanged. That is not the fundamental formula that was put in place; that is the primary objectives. The primary objectives were recommendation 2, that: ‘The distribution of poker machines in the community should be explicit, ie to provide a productive local leisure activity delivering proceeds to clubs; to improve neighbourhood recreational amenity; and to government for services to all Territorians’. That is was we are talking about, as to whether those primary objectives are being met.
Minister, your excuses are absolutely poor. I believe we have showed substantially and convincingly that you had not engaged the community whatsoever until we raised this issue. I want you to remember that, because you are the consultative, the open, and the transparent government. When we came in and asked you about this you said: ‘No, she is right, but I will defer it a week’. We went and asked those community organisations, including the business community, what their viewpoint was. Your viewpoint of community consultation certainly did not match what we found; and that is, a whole raft of the business community were totally unaware. The hospitality industry was aware, of course.
It is quite amazing that you would find within the AHA, for an example, that half of their membership is split on this issue. Why? Because half of them have pokies and do not want anyone else to have them, and the other half have not got them and want them. Okay, you can understand that.
The wider business community though, are totally unaware. When they have become aware, do you know what their concern is? Their concern is about what the effect is on their business, not whether they can go into venues such as the minister mentioned in Victoria and play poker machines. Their concern is: ‘What is the effect of these changes on my business?’. I can tell you - and I have listened in the briefing to the minister - that there are businesses in Katherine that, before this issue came up over the last few months, these business have been going to Treasury officials - confirmed by Treasury officials - to get all of the data about player loss in the town and region of Katherine.
Why did they want to do that? Because they want to know how much money is going from the residents of that town and region into that machine, and not being returned in some way back to the business community. They were looking for how much is paid in tax, how much is distributed by those clubs, for instance, back into the community. They wanted to know the tax rates there so that they could go to the clubs and say: ‘Show me your disbursements back to the community’. They wanted to know from the hotels how much of their 10% was going to the Community Benefit Fund. They even asked for the distribution of the Community Benefit Fund that is now under your control - how much, actually, of that is awarded by application back to the town of Katherine and to the region, so that they could ascertain how much money was flowing out of the community.
I am not saying that they have a problem with these changes. What I am saying to you is that things are pretty tight in the economy, and businesses are feeling the pinch. It may not be so that you believe it up here in Darwin, but it is so in Katherine and they do believe it. There are a number of businesses which have been working together to look at how this issue of player loss and, therefore, money flow out of in the community, can be ameliorated. Minister, you tell me how many clubs down there and licensed venues will lose their licence for poker machines, and how many will gain them. I know one that will, under this regime, be a new player in the market of gaming machines. I am not sure that that is going to go down too well unless we can ameliorate their concerns about total player loss in the region. That is one of the reasons why we believe it is an issue; because there is a direct effect on business, let alone the player harm.
We know from evidence provided here, in the media and by personal contact by the organisations that deal with the harm end of things, that they are not happy with the way this is proceeding and are confused. They are confused even more in the last three days because that is when they had a reapproach on this issue. The first approach was to have a look at the draft NCP discussion paper. What you should realise is that the way it has worked in this case is, if you did not put a submission to that discussion paper, you were not followed up with the recommendations made. They were not aware of the recommendations that went to government in regard to these changes. When we approached them in the last little while - in particular since we raised it in estimates, and then had the meeting the following morning with the minister, and they agreed that they had not fully engaged these people or the community - they were inundated. I chuckled to myself when I heard the member for Nelson say that he approached Amity House. It would have been their 30th phone call and contact in the last few days on this issue. They have been well briefed on these changes in the last three days by Treasury and Racing and Gaming officials. They are now not necessarily opposed or supportive, perhaps, but I tell you what they are: totally confused. And why? Because of mismanagement - total mismanagement in consultations. Something you crow about on that side like you have never heard before. You stand up there and say you are the greatest at it. Well, you get out there and turn the radio on. You get out there and talk to Relationships Australia, Sommerville, and the Salvation Army. Aren’t you part of one of these organisations? Which one is it?
Let us talk about your churches. Are they aware of these changes? Do they have a view? The churches you belong to? I bet they do, but I bet they do not know anything about it. They probably do now that is been on the radio for a little while, and that is the whole point. The whole point is that this is an issue that affects every sector of the community. It has not been handled well. We do not want to make political points out of it and you may laugh …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: You may laugh and I expect you to.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I was right, Madam Speaker. I was right. We are not trying to make political points. We, in fact, went to the minister for gaming. The Leader of the Opposition went to the minister for gaming and said: ‘We have considered it. We have had the briefings, we have talked to you and you have delayed it. We thank you for doing that. However, we have considered this and we believe it is one of those issues that, in a bipartisan way, we should delay and have a good, thorough look at’.
The minister said: ‘I will have to discuss that with my colleagues’ and whatever, the leader and all the rest of it. Now we find he comes in here tonight and says: ‘That is not on’. However, I guarantee what he will do: he will pass this legislation and then he will go out there and will call for a select committee to have a look and review the whole poker machines situation. I bet you! In their hearts, they know they have mucked this up, and they know they have to recover.
The simple thing to do here - and I will be the first to stand and applaud them if they do it - is to use the mechanism of this motion - and it is not something unusual to refer a bill off to a committee; in a parliamentary system to refer a bill off to a committee - to go and properly consult with every sector of the community. I will be the first to applaud them for doing it.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, it is quite an astounding debate that we are having this evening on these amendments. I could understand the opposition’s angst over these proposals if the proposal was explicitly to increase the number of poker machines in the Northern Territory over and above what is currently catered for under the existing legislation. If, for example, we were in this House proposing the removal of the ceiling on the number of poker machines and clubs and doing away with the 45 cap altogether - have what you want, fellas; if we proposing to lift the cap on hotels, currently at 10 - take what you want, fellas; and if we were to move to anybody with a liquor licence be able to have poker machines, I could understand the angst from members opposite.
However, the proposals regarding the changes are sensible. They will have the effect of bringing the community, for the first time via the community impact statements, into the decision-making process as to who should or should not get poker machines in the Northern Territory. The act is strengthened with an objects clause that specifically seeks to reduce any adverse social impact of gaming for the first time. It deals with how the courts are to consider the intent of the legislation as opposed to a report from a committee of parliament. All of the mechanisms that are enshrined in this legislation will lead to fewer poker machines being able to be claimed by people in the hospitality industry than can be currently be claimed under the existing legislation.
To argue somehow that these proposed changes are going to lead to a potential adverse impact on our community is nonsense. Therefore, to send these amendments off to a select committee of parliament is really not warranted. There is no one on the other side, in speaking in opposition to the amendments and in support of this motion to refer to a select committee of parliament, who can explain how the changes that are here now are somehow going to lead to more poker machines in the community than currently are catered for in the existing legislation.
We are raising the threshold; we are raising the bar. We are bringing the community impact statements into the decision-making process. We are inserting into the objects clause of the legislation - which will be interpreted by the commission and, ultimately, by the courts - a purpose in the act to reduce any adverse social impacts of gaming. Therefore, to argue that somehow this legislation is going to lead to the opposite - to an increase in the adverse social impact of gaming - is patently ridiculous. I, for the life of me, fail to see why the opposition have got themselves into such a knot on this issue. We are not proposing to lift the caps in the number of machines that clubs and hotels can access; we are doing away with an anomaly. I do not think anybody in here - and I appreciate the member for Brennan’s opening contribution to the debate. Ten years ago, when the committee decided that, in further extending the poker machines into the community, hotels would have some but only if they had a bottle shop. At that point in time, it may have been appropriate. He did not go into debate as to why the committee thought that so.
However, in terms of today, in the current environment - and as my colleague, the Treasurer, said in terms of a fair go - the logic behind ‘if you are running a hotel with a bottle shop you can have a poker machine, but if you are running a hotel without a bottle shop you cannot have a poker machine’, is pretty hard to sustain. These amendments and the initial proposals are all about removing an inequity under National Competition Policy - an inequity that is detrimental regarding competition to licensees - but further safeguards our community in regards to the proliferation of poker machines by ensuring that the community can oppose, by way of community impact statements, very explicitly in the object of the bill, against a determination that any application would lead to an increased adverse social impact of gaming in the community. Then the commission, and ultimately the courts, will have the powers to reject that application which they do not have today.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak for much longer on this. I believe this is very sound legislation. It is legislation that halves the potential for the number of machines that could be leased into the community under the existing legislation. It sets the bar much higher for individual applicants in accessing the potential for those machines. That is clearly defined in the amendment act. The government will not be supporting this motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, there are only really three issues here. The first issue is that there will be more poker machines, and we know that, and we know they have an effect on …
Mr Henderson: It will be half as many.
Mr DUNHAM: There will be more poker machines. We received a briefing, and we know there will be more. That is the first issue, and that they will have an impact on the community.
The second issue is: we think the community should be consulted about this. There are a number of devices to do it. Passing this bill here tonight and expecting the galleries to be full and people to be reading Hansard is not a good device. We think that there has to be some other things put in place. I believe the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a good one.
The third thing is: the government has the potency to fix it. Therefore, they are the only three things we have to focus on: there will be more poker machines - they will have a social impact; we should talk to the community about it; and the government should then fix it.
Mr Henderson: There will be half as many as there would have been.
Mr DUNHAM: What you are trying to do is say: ‘We have the potency to fix it and we are going to fix it, and we do not need to do those other two things, because numbers will not go up …’. Yes, they will. ‘… and there will not be a social impact and we do not have to talk to the people’. That is called arrogance.
We know you have the potency; we know you have the numbers. What we are asking you to do is please hold that in abeyance and go through those first two steps. Step one, tell us how much they will go up by and do some scenarios for us, because even that is an issue of debate in this House. We believe the numbers will go up. We believe, from our Treasury briefings, they will go up.
Mr Henderson: You lifted the cap from six to 10.
Mr DUNHAM: We have had the last speaker telling us they will not. Even if somebody does peruse Hansard, they will find that even that issue was something that was misunderstood. All we are asking for is: we know you have the potency to do it, and we know you have the potency to put this thing through tonight - please do not use it without consulting the community, because to do so smacks of rank arrogance.
It is also not helpful in debates like this to make assumptions that decisions that were made about granting of licences had some sort of a favour that was bestowed back to government. If you do believe that - in providing licences that, somehow, there was a kickback to government - the very same charge could be levelled tonight. I will not level that charge because I found it offensive when it was levelled by the minister ...
Mr Stirling: I was not talking about gamine licences, and I withdrew it
Mr DUNHAM: I do not care. All I am saying is that, in a situation like this where there are big bucks to be made, it is a sad and tragic fact that there will be people making assumptions that there is collusion between people who might win and be advantaged by the system, and government decisions and policies. There is a way for the government to go forward and say this is bipartisan: ‘Do blame me, do not blame the minister. This is a decision of the parliament of the Northern Territory. We took it to the people and we asked them what their view was before we made the decision’. If you make any promises to consult with the community after passing this tonight, they are empty - they are merely because what you are saying is: ‘We have passed the law, what do you thing about it? We have found you guilty, what do you reckon about that?’.
It is a very stupid thing to put the position in an unchanging way to the people and then ask for their comment. Please, minister, I ask you – we know you have the capacity to do it; we know you have the numbers in the parliament; we know you could put this motion at any time and have it rammed through. We do not think it is in the best interest of the Territory community, and we will be telling them that - however late that might be.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to pay close attention to what has been presented before them this evening, because I can assure members that, if you make this decision and support this motion, it will be the position of opposition to applaud you for that decision; and the foundations have been laid very soundly that it is our community that must be involved in these decision before they are made - not make the decision and return to them with the report.
These are decisions that many Territorians will wake up to tomorrow, if you choose to ignore this opportunity; to bypass it. Many Territorians will awake tomorrow and reflect on the decision that has been made on their behalf. You will endeavour to spin it and to sell it because, in a sense without thinking deeply, I think you believe it but, in your heart of hearts, you do not. You do not support it - you do not. You know that by weight of numbers, by sheer will, it can be done. However, damage will be done at the same time.
You may have confidence in the structures that you have outlined, and in the amendments and the provisions that have been put together on the run over the last couple of days. Some of those have merit. However, we must remember the basics: issues such as gambling. Gaming in our community is an issue that the community must own. They must be a part of that decision otherwise, I warn you, it will come back to bite you. The community will resent the actions that you take this evening - they will resent it. You will endeavour to spin it and to cover yourselves, but they will know that the decision you have made tonight is a decision that has been made without their support, their involvement, or their inclusion, by a very government that will spend an extraordinary amount of time to review and consult, and to review and consult again, and hold off a decision until you have all the ducks lined up; then you will cautiously step forward. Perhaps with the education review it may occur at some time. You will do it again, and again, and again, and again until you get to that magic moment when you have the confidence to step out on to that stage and say: ‘We have made a decision’.
Tonight, on an issue to do with gambling, you afford the community no such luxury, involvement or respect, and you proceed alone. The community is watching; the community will learn; and the community will understand. You have stepped out on your own and you had the opportunity presented to you to afford respect to the Northern Territory community - to the families, the businesses, the community groups, all those to have input, all those to have contribution - and then you could walk on after that moment, from that point on, with their support.
Members, I urge you to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now referred to a select committee.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
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
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Soccer Football Pools Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 223); the Gaming Control Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 224) and the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 225) together with a schedule of amendments No 84 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
Soccer Football Pools Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 223):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Gaming Control Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 224):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 225):
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.1 that amends clause 5 of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill by replacing the definition of a club liquor licence. The proposed change seeks to clarify the definition of a club liquor licence by introducing a reference to guests as well as members within the meaning of the club licence. The proposed amendment also requires a club liquor licence to have endorsed on that liquor licence the words ‘Authority - Club’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.2. This amends the definition of the hotel liquor licence by requiring words of ‘Authority - Public Hotel’ or ‘Authority - Tavern’ endorsed, as well as having to satisfy that the primary activity conducted on or at the premises specified in the licence is the sale and consumption of liquor on or at the premises.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 7A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment 84.3. This amendment inserts new section 24A into the principle act to provide community input to the process when a new licence is sought. The amendment requires advertisements to be placed in the press in a prescribed form and enables the Director of Licensing to stipulate any other notification required such as the venue. Any interested or concerned persons are given 30 days to make a submission on the proposal.
New clause 7A agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 84.4. The proposed amendment to section 25 of the principal act is consequential to the introduction of section 24A. The amendment requires the Licensing Commission to take into account any submissions received under section 24A when considering a gaming machine licence application.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
New clauses 9A and 9B:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 84.5. The proposed amendment, after clause 9, inserts clauses 9A and 9B into the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004.
Clause 9A is a consequential amendment to section 41 of the principal act. It gives effect to the proposed section 41A, which extends the need for a community impact analysis beyond new licence applications for situations in which venues already with gaming machines want to significantly increase their number of machines. The amendment under clause 9A also requires any public submissions relating to the increase sought to be taken into consideration by the Licensing Commission.
Clause 9B proposes to introduce section 41A and section 41B. Section 41A requires a community impact analysis to accompany any application for an increase of five or more gaming machines, and when required either under guidelines or by the director. These measures are primarily intended to allow small increases in gaming machines to be considered without a community impact analysis, and to control or limit frequent requests being made for increases of less than five machines.
Section 41A also sets out the criteria of the community impact analysis, which includes the suitability of the premises, the primary activity of the premises, the location of the premises, the appropriateness of problem gambling risk management and responsible gambling strategies, and the economic impact of the proposal. The criteria are consistent with the requirements to be accounted for when assessing applications for new licences, as set out in clause 8 of the bill.
Section 41B provides community input to the process when licensees seek approval to increase the number of gaming machines at their venue. The amendment requires advertisements to be placed in the press in a prescribed form, and enables the Director of Licensing to stipulate any other notification required, such as at the venue. Any interested or concerned persons are given 30 days to make a submission on the proposal.
Proposed new clauses 9A and 9B agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 17 August 2004 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to session order.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Select Committee – Effect of Poker Machines in Community Venues
Select Committee – Effect of Poker Machines in Community Venues
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next general business day, the following motion be debated:
- That this Assembly appoint a select committee to inquire into and review –
- 1. The report by the select committee on effects of poker machines in community venues.
2. The National Competition Commission report on gaming machines in the Northern Territory
and the current regulatory systems for the Territory to meet its own requirements.
3. The primary objectives of the distribution of electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory
are explicit and unchanged with a view to provide a productive local leisure activity which would
deliver proceeds:
(a) to clubs and licensed venues to improve neighbourhood recreational amenity;
(b) to government, for services to all Territorians;
(c) for the means by which any negative impacts of electronic gaming machines in the community
are minimised; and
(d) to the community as a result of revised regulatory mechanisms that will be necessary to ensure
fairness, efficiency and integrity are maintained.
4. The impact of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004 on the existing regulatory system and in meeting
the primary objectives of distributing electronic gaming machines in the Northern Territory.
5. The committee report by December 2004.
6. The committee be able to:
- (a) adjourn from time to time and place to place;
(b) to send for persons, papers and records; and
(c) to sit during any sitting and adjournment of the Assembly
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016