2005-02-09
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr MALEY (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 30 petitioners relating to the Bees Creek Kennels in Horne Road. It does not bear the Clerk’s certificate as it does not conform with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 54 petitioners praying that student nurses in the Northern Territory are paid at a suitable level. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conform with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on the operations of the AustralAsia Railway following its first year of operation.
After one year, FreightLink, the private sector owner and the operator of the railway, report that they have successfully carried more than 600 000 tonnes of freight, which well exceeded their original forecast of 360 000 tonnes for the same period. This highlights that the Territory now enjoys a competitive model for its domestic freight task, with access to high quality road and rail systems. In doing this, FreightLink have, essentially, offered a wholesale service to the major domestic freight forwarders including Toll, the Scott group of companies and SCL.
New terminal operations have been established at Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek and, at this stage, the train is operating five daily services between Adelaide and Darwin.
Domestic freight has included all forms of consumable products, both dry and refrigerated, being moved in containers. It has also included some military shipments between Darwin and southern Australia for the Australian Defence Force.
From an international perspective, as at the end of January, FreightLink report that they have moved some 18 500 tonnes of international freight. Exports commenced in March last year and, to date, some 16 000 tonnes of export cargo from southern Australia to Asia has been shifted by rail. These exports have predominantly consisted of South Australian products destined for South-East Asia, a diverse range of containerised commodities including base metals, wheat, malt, machinery and chemicals. Imports commenced in August last year and, as of the end of January, some 2500 tonnes of imports have been shipped by railway. These consisted primarily of raw timber, plywood, stone, furniture and steel sourced from Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Hong Kong.
The achievement of this international freight is ahead of target, as FreightLink had not planned to commence international operations until the second quarter of 2006. It is generally accepted that the Territory government’s efforts to secure new international shipping links in advance of the railway commencing operations has enabled this international freight to be captured ahead of schedule. Initiatives pursued by the government to stimulate this trade include persuading Swires to establish a new NT express between Singapore and Darwin in November of 2003; successfully initiating and delivering the Global Freight Connect conference in Darwin in February last year; establishing the 50 ha Stage 1 business park adjacent to the domestic rail terminal in April last year; negotiating and securing an $80m investment by Toll Holdings for the development of state-of-the-art distribution facilities in the business park; facilitating a major national pre-retail processor supply link to establish a capability in Darwin in conjunction with local company Geminex; facilitating full commercial trial of a new Shanghai-Darwin shipping link in November last year; supported sea freight trials of north Australian mangoes from Katherine and Kununurra to London via the new trade route in December last year; and allocating $11.2m for the development of a new bulk handling facility at East Arm which, in the first instance, will service 600 000 tonnes per annum of bulk manganese exports from the Bootu Creek development near Tennant Creek, to China.
These initiatives were supported by detailed market research and analysis completed on key commodity sectors - imported timber and automotive tyres, for example; strategic marketing and promotion of the new trade route delivered to key shipping lines; and global logistic operators; and major importers and exporters throughout Australia and Asia which included my trade and investment missions to Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia and then Hong Kong and China in April last year and to Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne during 2003-04. This work was also supported by direct face-to-face interviews conducted by my Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation, with over 150 major importers and exporters during 2003-04.
Another major benefit of the railway has been its contribution to Territory tourism. Great Southern Rail, the operators of The Ghan, report that they have carried in excess of 70 000 passengers since the commencement of the passenger service in February last year. Government has supported this development through the provision of new passenger terminal infrastructure in Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek. As a government, we are committed to the development of the AustralAsia trade route and the expansion of new tourism business using the rail. We continue to take a whole-of-government approach to achieving all of these priorities via the AustralAsia Trade Route Task Force that I established early last year. My government’s wider trade and transport policies also clearly reflect the strategic importance of the development of the AustralAsia Trade Route for the Territory. The Territory government is driving economic growth because, Madam Speaker, it means jobs for Territorians.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Chief Minister, if the government’s objective in building the railway was to bring tourism to the Northern Territory, we would have bought an airline. That is the fact of it. That railway was never designed to bring tourists; that is an added bonus.
What I do hear from your report and what I can fairly deduce is that you know how to read a script. However, when it comes to making this railway work, this government has failed - and failed dismally. In answer to a question yesterday, the Chief Minister said that the railway is going very well, at the same time that FreightLink issued a media release which any financial analyst who would read it, would know that they have had to put more asset into the railway line because the banks are not happy. Anyone knows that. The banks are not happy because the return on investment is too skinny for the banks, and that means that the railway is not going well.
You can stand here and talk about carrying freight in tonnes as long as you like. The reality is, first, the return on investment is not occurring and, second, anyone who knows what is happening in the road transport industry knows that they are buoyed up. They are buoyed up because they are buying new trailers, they are buying new prime movers because they know that freight is moving from rail to road.
This was the government that, because of their inexperience, asked for the steady guiding hand of Bob Collins to help them. What is clear from this report today and the actions of this government, is that you do not know how to manage the economy or these projects.
Members interjecting
Mr Stirling: You sent us broke!
Mr BURKE: You cannot manage – sent you broke! You are …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The GST could have filled the black hole four times over! You are into your own Treasurer’s Advance now.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Police budget is into infrastructure funding to try to fund operational costs. Anyone who has their ear to the ground knows that as well; and Treasury is not happy. You know, Treasurer, from your own Treasury …
Mr Stirling: Make it up! No one believes you!
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, order!
Mr BURKE: You have failed with this railway. You have absolutely, abysmally failed!
Mr Stirling: You have no credibility.
Mr BURKE: Any project you try to get up has failed, including the …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Baldwin: Bring on a statement!
Mr Henderson: Are you still here, Tim?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, enough!
Mr Baldwin: You! You were away for three weeks and your office was closed. You had the lights off!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr Henderson: Are you still here? Good to see you.
Mr Baldwin: Three weeks you were closed for.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business! You are on a warning, both of you! And Treasurer, settle down!
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, what an extraordinary …
Madam SPEAKER: No, Chief Minister, I am waiting for everyone to settle down! Yes, I know your time is running out. Now, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, what an extraordinary outburst from the Leader of the Opposition - yesterday’s man with yesterday’s story - bagging the facts of how the rail is working: 600 000 tonnes of freight on the rail when we expected 360 000. The Opposition Leader can continue to bag this major piece of infrastructure, but it is working.
It has import and export when there was no intention to have it before, say, the second quarter of 2006. What we have, much to the chagrin of the opposition, is something that is working - a major infrastructure that is working, delivering for Territorians and creating jobs. What do we get from the Opposition Leader? Bagging it, bagging it and bagging it!
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, one of the key priorities of this government is building a better health system and providing better hospital care for the people of the Territory. We committed, in the Building Healthier Communities framework, to building effective, innovative and sustainable health services and enforcing high standards of accountability and quality. We have linked our five hospitals in a Territory-wide network, which has strengthened quality services throughout these hospitals and improved recruitment, retention and career prospects.
This government is committed to supporting the high quality of service provided by staff of our hospitals, and I am very proud of the high quality of service that the staff in each of our five hospitals provides to the community. However, I also want to ensure that we have independent experts assess the standards of these hospitals against national standards.
To this end, it gave me great pleasure to be able to announce in January this year that, for the first time ever, all five of the Northern Territory hospitals received Australian Council of Healthcare Standards accreditation against rigorous national benchmarks. The Australian Council of Healthcare Standards is an independent not-for-profit organisation, dedicated to improving the quality of health care in Australia. The council provides national accreditation for hospitals and health care organisations.
The council’s Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program, EQuIP, is about improving consumer/patient safety by introducing mandatory evaluation of those areas of health care which have high safety risks. Surveyors from the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards conducted these reviews as part of the ongoing accreditation cycle. This is a process of external peer review against national standards, which facilitates the award of accreditation status.
All Northern Territory hospitals have now been reviewed against the latest version of the Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program (Version 3) which includes 19 mandatory criteria, fully effective as of 1 January 2005. Last year, four of the five Northern Territory hospitals successfully underwent a review against the standards and criteria contained in the EQuIP program. Katherine Hospital is currently accredited and will undergo a scheduled review in November 2005.
The accreditation process ensures continuous improvements in the areas of leadership and management, continuum of care, information management, human resource management, safe practice and environment, and evaluation of improving performance. Staff and patient safety and quality is assessed and evaluated, giving strong support to the Building Healthier Communities commitment to providing better hospitals and accreditation across the Northern Territory hospital network.
The Royal Darwin Hospital has been accredited with the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards for a number of years. Now, all other Northern Territory hospitals have reached this level of achievement and, in January, the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Johnston, presented certificates of accreditation to the general managers of Royal Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Gove Hospitals.
All Territorians can now be assured that all five of our hospitals meet these painstaking national benchmarks for quality services. This is something that was never achieved under the previous government. This Territory first can be attributed to this government’s $150m boost to health, which has been increasing services and nurse numbers across the Territory.
The government has exceeded its promise to create and fund an extra 75 hospital-based nursing positions. Today, we have over 100 additional nurses across the health system. These include a range of specialist positions, such as clinical nurse educators, nurse managers, and renal, critical care and midwifery nurses. With more hospital-based nurse positions yet to be recruited for the hospice and birthing centre, this figure will be increased even further.
This achievement clearly recognises the efforts of staff in all of our hospitals in reaching this historic milestone, and demonstrates the ongoing commitment to safety and quality in health care in the Northern Territory. I congratulate the staff of all five hospitals for this achievement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in two minutes, I do not have enough time to adequately respond to the minister’s comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … so I will refer to the Alice Springs Hospital in reply, if members on the other side give me the courtesy of so doing.
The facts are these: On 26 February 2002, the former Health minister announced to the parliament that the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards (ACHS) would undertake the accreditation process. There is a confidential report, dated April 2003, which revealed a list of defects and problems, some of which were highlighted in the NT News last week, provoking the headline ‘Sick Joke’ in the NT News and ‘Oops, Hospital Not Fireproof’ in the Centralian Advocate. The ACHS inspected the hospital on 25 and 26 May 2004, and prepared its report in 2004.
In a ministerial report on 6 October 2004, the minister said in this Chamber that it was revealed that there was a failure of the redevelopment to meet Building Code of Australian standards. In your media release on 19 January this year, you proudly announced that the Alice Springs Hospital, along with others, had gained accreditation for, amongst other things, ‘meeting rigorous national standards’. In your media release of 2 February, three weeks later, you said that there had been 24 studies and assessments into problems at the Alice Springs Hospital. A number of questions arise, minister, and we are by no means at the bottom of this. You will be hearing much more from us.
However, we have some obvious questions. Was the ACHS review team given access to those 24 reports and assessments; if not, why not? Did you proceed with undue haste to gain accreditation for the hospital? Did you deliberately ensure that the 24 reports were not provided? Did you deliberately wait to attain accreditation before announcing the problems and extra costs amounting to $10m, only three weeks after accreditation? Minister, this has a dreadful smell, and could be your undoing.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I will tell you what we have done for the Alice Springs Hospital: we recruited to all vacant consultant positions; we have 90% of the junior doctor positions now filled; we have considerably closed the gap in nursing numbers since last December through to now; we have now recruited all of the senior clinical positions so there is now a very affective senior clinical leadership within the hospital, if you include the offer that has been made for paediatrics; and we have now recruited a Director of Corporate Services who will be bringing financial and corporate management skills to the hospital’s staff.
That is what we are doing; we are building the capacity of Alice Springs Hospital against all the carping that the opposition might want to make.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about the fire hazard?
Dr TOYNE: I will tell you what they have done: between 1998 and the year 2001, all those holes appeared in the firewalls of Alice Springs Hospital. I wonder who knew about that?
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: Let us have the report then. Show us the report on the table. That is what we …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Baldwin: I am happy to look at the report.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, are you going to be like this all day? Settle down.
Mr Baldwin: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Oh, good!
Mr Stirling: He is having one of those days, Madam Speaker. He is going to be a problem child today; I can see it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, you are being problem child yourself at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call on the Minister for Mines and Energy, I draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of representatives from the Northern Territory Construction Unions. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the award of the first Minister for Mines and Energy Cadetship in earth science and geology, an award for young Territorians to support university studies leading to a degree qualification in geology.
I launched the cadetship scheme at Charles Darwin University in October last year. The main objectives of the scheme are to encourage young Territorians to study earth sciences/geology; to assist young Territorians in the first year of their studies in the Territory at Charles Darwin University and, subsequently, at a university elsewhere where an earth sciences/geology degree is offered; and to contribute to the retention of earth sciences/geology professionals in the Territory so as to assist in the development of the Territory’s mineral and energy resource base.
The cadetship provides an annual stipend for three years of $12 000, paid quarterly in advance, to assist with living and other expenses; and guaranteed employment in the Territory at base casual rates during each of the long university vacations. This will be provided either by DBIRD, or by a major mining or exploration company operating in the Territory. The first year of the cadetship will be undertaken at Charles Darwin University, with the following two years to be completed at an appropriate interstate university that offers earth sciences/geology courses. The cadet will also be provided with a mentor in the Northern Territory Geological Survey in DBIRD.
The scheme was promoted to Northern Territory school leavers through schools and media advertisements, and it attracted an enthusiastic response with a number of queries received prior to the applications closing in November. Applications were considered by a committee which had representatives from DBIRD, the Charles Darwin University, and the Northern Territory Branch of the Geological Society of Australia. The selection committee considered the following information in assessing applications: first, the applicant’s academic record and whether he or she has been accepted for study in science-related subjects at Charles Darwin University; second, the level of knowledge and interest in working professionally in the earth sciences/geology areas; third, the level of commitment to gaining practical work experience in Northern Territory Geological Survey, or exploration or mining operations in the Territory - this could include working at remote locations in the Northern Territory; and lastly, the applicant’s interest in the minerals and energy industry in the Territory.
I am delighted to inform the House that the successful applicant was Ms Susan Farquhar. I presented the award to Ms Farquhar at a reception here last week. Susan is a 19-year-old former Dripstone High School and Casuarina Secondary College student who has been working at Charles Darwin University over recent months. She is very excited to be the first recipient of this cadetship and thankful for the opportunity this will provide for her.
The maintenance of an appropriate skills base is essential to assure that innovation continues to drive mineral and petroleum exploration and development in the Territory, and it is very important that we find ways of encouraging young Territorians to be part of that drive for innovation. Keeping the Territory moving ahead is our top priority and, to do that, we must encourage young Territorians to study here and put their skills and knowledge to use in the Territory.
I am sure that all members will join in congratulating Ms Farquhar on the award, and wish her well with her future studies.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report and congratulate him because I actually heard every word today; so we are going somewhere.
I welcome the introduction of the science and geology cadets to Darwin University. The mining industry plays a significant part in the Northern Territory economy and, of course, it needs as much support as possible. For too long, the Territory government has not been addressing the mining industry and the interests of the Territory people.
Exploration licences are down in the Territory and, obviously, we need to support that more. If we are going to introduce science and geology cadetships to the university, we need to look at the introduction of more exploration licences in the Northern Territory, and I would encourage the minister to do that.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her contribution. I would like to advise her that, in its first term, this government actually approved more than 700 exploration licences in the Territory compared with the very few that the previous administration approved.
On the other hand, I fully agree with the member regarding the contribution the mines and energy sector has made to the economy of the Territory. I wish to encourage more exploration in the Territory. If we do not have exploration today, we are not going to have mines in five or seven years. However, to carry out the exploration, we need geologists. We did not have many geologists in the Territory. The purpose of this cadetship is to attract young Territorians to this particular field, train them here and keep them here so they can work in the mines and energy sector in the Northern Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Assisting the Chief Minister on Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is the youngest jurisdiction in Australia, and the Martin government has been responsible for many new initiatives which support and nurture young Territorians. We are a government for all Territorians, and helping our young people is all about supporting families to get ahead.
Today, I am pleased to announce the outcomes of the government’s youth initiatives funding. This funding results from the commitment made by government in 2001 when new funding was allocated to introduce and expand youth programs across the Northern Territory.
Two successful programs in Nightcliff and Borroloola were established in 2002 and 2003, and the additional funding in 2004 has allowed for new services to be developed in other locations. In Alice Springs, last year we expanded the services of the youth drop-in centre with increased funding.
The quality of the submissions for this round was very impressive, and I am pleased to inform members that there are seven new services being funded through this initiative across the Northern Territory. They are: in Belyuen, transport services and youth activity programs; in Gunbalunya, for the Youth and Wellbeing Program; the youth drop-in and activities zone for Nhulunbuy’s Ski Beach and Yirrkala; Bush Mob’s Adventure Therapy for remote communities in Central Australia; Willowra Community Youth Development Program; Young People Keeping Strong at Timber Creek; and the Cultural Knowledge Program at Angurugu.
The government is working with these services now to get them up and running, and some of them have already started delivering services to the community. These new services will assist young people who normally have very little access to any types of services. We know that when young people get bored trouble often starts, and these projects play a role in delivering our promise to attack the cause of crime. We have already put 100 extra police on the street and this has led to a reduction in property crime, and these youth projects will continue to help cut crime further.
In Darwin and Alice Springs, services for young people are now well established, and additional funding over the last three years has allowed for increased access and coordination. In Katherine, Family and Community Services is in discussion with the stakeholders to finalise details of the Katherine Youth Centre.
The Martin government has the long-term plans that stand up for youth of the Territory, and the projected funding towards new youth initiatives by 2006 will be in the vicinity of $20m. By providing youth with opportunities, supporting them with comprehensive services, and protecting them with effective legislation, this government is moving the Territory ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the information provided to the House of the range of projects and programs which are running across the Territory to support our youth. It is very important that, particularly, reference is given to regional youth. I acknowledge the need to focus more attention on engaging regional youth who are particularly disadvantaged.
More importantly, we need to attend to issues that allow our young people to be gainfully employed and that speaks of the Jobs Plan, apprenticeships and training, and the raising of the value and status of trade and technical skills within education. That is the core issue that must be attended to.
This is a very significant area that requires deep thinking when we are faced with the information, recently released to the Northern Territory community through ABS, of the 71% increase in youth suicides in the Northern Territory. That is an issue that must be attended to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Assisting Chief Minister on Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his words, and I agree. I do not think any of us disagree, but we are moving on with this. The Office of Youth Affairs in the Department of Chief Minister, the Office of Crime Prevention, the Department of Sports, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and my department, all agree that sometimes we forget about youth. However, we are all working together to try and tackle these people who are sometimes left in the cracks by government.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill 2005 (Serial 278) passing through all stages of this sittings.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition strongly opposes this motion. The one thing we agree with in the wording of the motion is the name of the bill because it is called Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill, and ‘revival’ is really what this is all about.
We simply cannot have a situation in this House that, yesterday, the minister for Education said: ‘We do not have a mandate from Territorians to deal with 11- to 14-year-olds. Because it is such an important issue, we have to go back to the people to discuss whether or not they are comfortable with what we might be doing with middle schooling’ ...
Mr Stirling: Because we are inclusive, not because …
Mr BURKE: You did not have a mandate from the people to deal with middle schooling so, therefore, you are going back to the people for further consultation. Madam Speaker …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition can point to the words in Hansard where I said that, I will go he. I never said anything like that. Find the words, put them on the table, otherwise withdraw the nonsense that you are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: I will not be misrepresented in this Chamber. I am not on the record as saying anything like that.
Mr Dunham: Make a personal explanation. You know the rules!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, a little less from you. Leader of the Opposition, have you finished? You want to finish?
Mr BURKE: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is in that context that the government, on that issue, feels insecure to proceed without the opinion of the wider populous - the opinion that they have already consulted on for 18 months - and are now going back for further consultation. Put that in this context …
Mr Stirling: You blokes do not like talking to people. We know that. That is why you lost government.
Mr BURKE: Oh, will you shut up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, that is not parliamentary.
Mr BURKE: Well, he is speaking at the same time as me, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That happens all the time, I am afraid, with both sides. You know that anyone …
Mr Stirling: I thought you had changed! I thought you had changed!
Mr Baldwin: It’s all right, is it, Syd?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I am trying to! I am losing weight and I am trying to change, for God’s sake!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Let me be the genteel human being I would like to be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, will you withdraw that remark? That was most unparliamentary.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw telling him to shut up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Now could we have a little less interruption from both sides.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I am trying to present the context of the opposition’s objections. We have a situation where the government has consulted for 18 months for some changes to the secondary education scheme. After 18 months, they feel that they are unsure of the Territory families’ opinion on this issue of middle schooling and, therefore, in press releases, press conferences and answers in this Chamber, the government feels that it has to go back to Territorians to further consult on this issue.
Let us get that in context. In context, we now have the handing over of the parks estate in the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Like Nitmiluk?
Mr BURKE: … to Aboriginal interests. No, it is not like Nitmiluk - not like Nitmiluk! Do you know whose words those are? Norman Fry’s, not mine. Not like Nitmiluk. It is the greatest con to Aboriginal people that has ever been ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell! Leader of the Opposition, just wait.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as Leader of Opposition Business, I seek some guidance from you. Two members are currently on a warning for minor interjections across the room. The Treasurer is screaming and he does not have the floor. I ask that all members contain themselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for your assistance, member for Macdonnell.
Mr Stirling: Mr Deputy Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, you are on a warning. I will reinforce that to you. I do not think you are going to last the morning. Leader of the Opposition, get on with your speech.
Mr BURKE: Despite the assistance I am giving, I have great confidence in your ability to control this Chamber.
The member for Johnston says, ‘Like Nitmiluk’. It is not like Nitmiluk. If you want to talk about Nitmiluk, that is what the CLP put in place with the Jawoyn. Talk to your member for Arnhem …
Mr Ah Kit: Okay, whatever.
Mr BURKE: Whatever.
It is not like Nitmiluk, because the Nitmiluk deal had greater advantages for Aboriginal people than this lousy deal has. Aboriginal people know that. The reason they know it is the reason why they are not signing up. That is evidenced by the fact that this is the third or fourth piece of legislation that is trying to get a deal. And you will not get a deal, because Aboriginal people are far smarter than to be conned by smart words. They know that this is not Nitmiluk, and that is why you will not get a deal. That is why five parks have fallen out already. That is why you have four pieces of legislation in this House trying to stitch it up.
My argument though, is that this should not be rushed. If the government follows its own logic, this should not be rushed. How, possibly, could this government say that they have a mandate to put through the handing over of the parks estate, on urgency in this Chamber? Never did it appear in a policy document of the ALP. No one - no Territorian - is a party to these consultations. It is the prerogative of the Chief Minister alone to hold secret negotiations to get a deal. Territorians have no idea what the Chief Minister is proposing. However, that is par for the course for this government; they have the same deal going on for the waterfront. No one will know until the deal is done and, then, it will be a done deal. The government hopes they will be also be past the election by that stage, and they have another four years to recover. Well, you are not going to get that either.
This is a deal that never had any authority from any Territorian to progress it. This is a deal that should be the subject of an election. If you are confident, Chief Minister, that you can go to Territorians and say: ‘I am doing the right thing by Territorians’, you do it and go to an election. You go out there to Territorians and say: ‘I am confident that I can hand over the parks estate with this deal, and you will vote us back into government’. You know what I bet? I will lay you money that Aboriginal people will not vote for it, because they know this is a lousy deal. It is a lousy deal for Aboriginal people because it does not do anything like Nitmiluk. It does not give them any real commercial interests or any real say in what is going on, and they know that. So do not use the word ‘Nitmiluk’. Someone advisor said: ‘You just tell them Nitmiluk, just like the CLP and Nitmiluk’. The thing you ought to remember is that the CLP did Nitmiluk, not you. The other thing you want to remember is that the CLP did and the Larrakia people …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could the member for Brennan address his remarks through the Chair?
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Because you are a bully!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Do speak to me, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I will, Madam Speaker. However, the member for Johnston was happy to join the debate through interjection; I was simply responding.
They are happy to say ‘Just like Nitmiluk’, but it is not; so you want to give that one away. However, I will tell you what it is like. This deal is like no other deal which has ever been put before Aboriginals before, and they know it. If you want to talk about Nitmiluk, the CLP proudly did that deal with Aboriginal people. Perhaps the member for Arnhem was involved at the time – I cannot recall, I think he was. It is a good deal and they know it …
Mr Ah Kit: It certainly was.
Mr BURKE: I know. It is a good deal and they know it is a good deal. If they want to talk about deals in the future, let us start looking at that Nitmiluk model, and Aboriginal people may join in.
The second thing is, if you want to talk about the CLP’s track record, look at Darwin. It is now in Stage 3 of development. My government did that and I, as Chief Minister, negotiated that. The Larrakia are benefiting in the millions from it. This is not words; this is not soft ‘we love you and the CLP hate you’ stuff; this is dollars in Aboriginal people’s pockets. This is the Larrakia becoming a strong and robust organisation that is involved in other projects. That is giving a hand-up, not a hand-out. All you mob know about is hand-outs.
The other thing you have learnt very quickly is ‘let us try and get as comfortable as we can in those chairs’. However, when it comes to substance and doing deals with Aboriginal people, I will lay money that they are more comfortable with the directness of the CLP because they get results. The other thing they also know – this is the track record of the ALP - there are more Aboriginal people in Territory gaols now under the ALP than there were under the CLP. That is a fact, and you point proudly to it. You, member for Millner, sit there proudly as an ALP member, with a government that is locking up Aboriginal people at a great rate …
Mr Baldwin: At a rate never seen before.
Mr BURKE: At a rate never seen before …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member continues to address his remarks away from the Chair trying to provoke members of government. We want to get on with business.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I need to say to you that you must keep to the motion. You are digressing off on a tangent that has nothing to do with this motion. Please address your remarks to the motion.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The importance of my comments is that this fourth piece of legislation should not be rushed. That is the first point.
The second point is that this House has no ability, on a rushed piece of legislation which is going to pass through on urgency, to get across what is going on with this parks hand-over. We do not know what is happening, because there are secret negotiations with the Chief Minister and the parties concerned. Let us get a little history – let us get it simplistically down for Territorians.
There were approximately 47 parks which were thrown in doubt in the Northern Territory by virtue of the Ward decision. I may have a number here or there incorrectly.
A member: Forty-nine.
Mr BURKE: Forty-nine – I am corrected. Forty-nine parks were in the Ward decision. The Chief Minister said: ‘We are not going to go through the litigious situation the CLP are in; we are going to deal outside of the court process with Aboriginal people and everyone will dance happily ever after, and we will all be economically well off’. However, the Chief Minister did not put the 49 parks into the deal; she took out around 27 parks, as I recall, from the deal. Some of those parks are going through the court process. When I asked the member for Johnston in estimates why the government was going forward with the parks hand-over, he said to do otherwise would create enmity, division, wedge politics and bad feeling with Aboriginal people.
The reality is that the government is litigating on a large number of those parks; therefore, this business of ‘we will not use the court process’ is an absolute lie. You are using the court process. The Chief Minister said in estimates that she will, quite rightly, use the court process where she feel they can do it. However, she came in to this Chamber and said: ‘We are going to set up this deal for about - how many? - 27 parks. We are going to set up this deal where we will have a combination of joint management, Aboriginal freehold and parks freehold in this whole deal’. However, from the average Territorian’s point of view, if you get rid of all of the clutter it means for a great deal of the parks estate that is currently owned by all Territorians - by everybody - will now be given, not to owners, but to claimants - the people who claim that they own it under the Native Title Act. ‘We will forget about the process of Native Title Act. We will forget about the fact that you have to prove that you have some legitimacy to your claim. We are just going to do a deal - and, by the way, no one knows what the deal will be except the Chief Minister, who is doing the deal - until it is done’.
The Chief Minister also said: ‘I will rule a line in the sand. These are all the parks that are in the deal and, if we cannot do the deal with all those parks, it is all off’. That was the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill. She put a trip mechanism in the bill that said it gave her until about 31 July, as I recall, to withdraw some of the parks. That was because she knew then she could not get the whole lot in there. So, she has this line in the sand that they are all in but a trip mechanism so she can withdraw some of them. By 31 July, she withdrew three or four of the parks because the Aboriginal people who were claimants on those parks were telling her they were not going to get conned in this. They knew - if you want to talk Nitmiluk - they wanted a Nitmiluk deal, not the deal she was trying to stitch up. Therefore, some of the parks were withdrawn.
The legislation lapsed on 31 December last year. Therefore, the Chief Minister, under her own legislation had until 31 December to decide on the number of parks involved and do the deal with Aboriginal people, or all bets were off. These are her words, not mine: ‘… or all bets are off’. The 31 December has come and gone. Prior to 31 December, the Chief Minister knew she could not get the deal, so she inserted the amending bill on the Notice Paper of 2 December at No 1 - it is at No 9 today - which was called the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. That bill was to give life to a dead bill that died on 31 December.
This government was expecting this parliament to debate a bill this week to give lie to a bill that died last week. What sort of a government do we have here? I rang up Parliamentary Counsel and I said: ‘I think this is ultra vires. I do not think you can do this. I do not believe that you can do amending legislation after the event to bring a bill to life that is dead.’ Parliamentary Counsel said: ‘Government can do whatever they like. It is all correct. We have had legal advice’. ‘Thank you, I believe you are wrong but, thank you’.
Interestingly, new bill. A new bill appears on the Notice Paper today that kills the amending bill, brings in a whole new bill to amend the original act. Therefore, the act that the Chief Minister said was dead - all bets are off, the deal is raw - had to be done by 31 December, and, by the way, it is bringing to life less parks than were in the original deal because Keep River has already dropped off as well - that has been withdrawn.
That is the situation that the government thinks Territorians will cop: secret negotiations by her; undertakings to Territorians that she will do a deal that she cannot do and has not been able to do; legislation that makes objectives to be achieved that were not achieved; and, at the end of the day, a deal that hands over the parks estate to Aboriginal people that Aboriginal people do not want and that Territorians know nothing about. However, when they get to know what it is about, I reckon that, at the very least, you should challenge Territorians to support you at the next election. If you do not have the courage to do that, you should not be in government and you should not have the gall to suggest that, somehow, you have the authority of Territorians to rule.
That is all I ask. This legislation should not even be in this Chamber. However, given that it is in the Chamber, it should not be on urgency. There is no reason other than the numbers that the government has that would allow this legislation to pass in this House today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, one of the very first motions I spoke to in this House was a matter of urgency. I voted against it based on the principle that legislation, unless it is shown for some extraordinary reason that it needs to be rushed through, should go through the proper process. I still believe that to be the case.
This is not a matter of discussion about whether we have too many Aboriginal people in gaol or mandates because, I must admit, mandates is one of those things that governments throw around after an election. They might have had 200 different policy items that they put to the electorate. However, I am sure that not everyone, when voting, necessarily believed that they were voting for every one of those 200 policies. Therefore, it is something that governments can twist around and say they had or did not have a mandate. In this case, that is irrelevant. This case is rushing legislation through, which is important legislation.
Mr Dunham: We have not seen it yet.
Mr WOOD: Well, I am presuming it is important, because it is being rushed. However, I do not believe in the principle of rushing it through. If it is important, then it needs plenty of time for people to discuss it.
The parks issue is one that has raised a lot of debate in this parliament. In general, I support what the government is trying to do, but I do have some concerns. I did have a briefing recently. I would be interested in what the opposition is proposing because it is a debate about different philosophies on how our parks are run. The debate is difficult for many of us to get our heads around. For some of us, like myself, what opinion I had on parks 20 years ago may be different today simply because circumstances have changed, especially with matters like native title which did not exist as we know it today. As a member of parliament, there are other issues that I have to take into account that, perhaps years ago, I would not have even given any thought to at all.
Madam Speaker, I oppose it being rushed through on urgency simply because this is not the proper way to deal with important legislation like this. We need adequate time. The process is there; I spoke yesterday about correct processes when I talked about the Lake Bennett bill. Processes are important. We are the peak body that makes laws in the Northern Territory and we should set the example. We should make sure we do things properly. I realise that you could say: ‘Well, we are doing things properly because the parliament does allow things to be passed through on urgency’. However, in this case, we should not do that; we should to through the normal process and allow proper discussion and debate.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I am surprised, Madam Speaker, that no government members are speaking on this urgency debate. I would like to make a short contribution on a couple of counts:. First, the orthodoxy of the current process - the process itself - and the need for the people’s parliament to take the people with it.
However, I draw the government’s attention to Standing Order 179 about urgent bills. I will read it in its entirety:
We have not seen this bill. We had notice of it yesterday. We do not know the detail of it. We do not know the details of the hardship that could be caused by a delay of this bill until March - 30 days. The Chief Minister has had some many months - close to two years - to negotiate this behind closed doors. This is the first opportunity the parliament will get to see some of the detail behind those confidential negations. It is imperative that the 30 days - the mere 30 days - is available to us parliamentarians to go back to our constituencies and talk to them about the government’s intention.
If the Chief Minister can have years to sit around board tables and behind closed doors and discuss it, I would have thought 30 days for us to go back to our electorates and talk about what the government intends should be a matter that is foremost in the government’s mind. It is incumbent on the government to enter this debate - rather the Chief Minister rising to close it, which she is intending to do - and describe the hardship. She has to be able to describe, in graphic terms, how a 30-day delay to this bill will cause hardship.
I can tell her some of the hardships that will be caused. The hardship will be to government because, once this bill is out there for debate among the people and they see some of the details in it - and we are surmising, because we have talked to some of the players who are sitting behind closed doors; not government, I might add - one can see that there will be some hardship caused. It will be hardship caused to the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, one can see why that particular clause is being invoked by the Chief Minister.
I turn now to orthodoxy. This is a very unusual set of circumstances. We have the Chief Minister carrying a bill that is not within her purview under the Administrative Arrangements Order. We have a bill which had two kill clauses in it, both of which were activated and rendered that bill obsolete. We had a further bill that was tabled in the December sittings that sought to bring this matter forward. We had a period that was talked about in that bill, which was Friday last week. Therefore, on Friday last week, we had an activator under a bill which had not even been debated in this House. We how have a third bill.
This is a highly unorthodox process. We already have a set of circumstances with the Ward High Court decision that caught people by surprise, so we should progress slowly. Why? Because we are talking about a 99-year lease. We are talking about the Chief Minister saying: ‘I am going to sign over these various estates for 99 years’ - which will be, God knows, how many terms of parliament in this House - ‘But I cannot afford to give you 30 days to talk to your electorates; to talk to the people about it’. That cannot sit comfortably with anybody in this parliament. The fact that we are quite happy to talk about a time span of 99 years and, yet, 30 days is somehow going to render some terrible hardship to somebody. Therefore, I would talk about the orthodoxy of the process.
The minister who has responsibility is, obviously, highly ignorant about this matter, given his interjection about Nitmiluk. You have the minister with carriage having been gazumped by the Chief Minister and told to keep out of the debate - and you can see why, given his level of ignorance. You have the Chief Minister carrying secret negotiations on a bill which went through this parliament which has been rendered obsolete on two clauses in her bill. You have a bill on the Notice Paper that has slipped right down the bottom. You also have the Chief Minister seeking urgency on a bill she has yet to table.
This is the worst ‘trust me’ case I have ever seen. The matters that we are talking about here will not be resolved, I believe, in - don’t look to the heavens, because your solution is really going to come from your mouth. That solution will be undertakings to the people that you will include them in matters that are important. The schedule of parks in the bill we are talking about here are well known to many Territorians: Arltunga Historical Reserve, Chamber’s Pillar, Corroboree Rock, Davenport Range, Devil’s Marbles, Emily and Jessie Gaps, Ewaninga Rock Carvings, Finke Gorge, Gregory National Park, Keep River National Park, Elsey National Park, Native Gap, Watarrka, Alice Springs Telegraph Station, Black Jungle, Flora River, Fogg Dam, and Harrison Dam, to name a few. Do not assume that those parks are not well known to Territorians.
Do not assume that you can make secret negotiations behind closed doors, rush something through this parliament so that we do not have the ability to get back to the people and tell them what you intend and then, somehow, hope that all these matters will go away and we will live happily ever after. The reason this is called a parliament is because we are supposed to speak. We are currently speaking about a bill which has yet to be tabled. You have a very sorry history with this matter; you have used emotional rhetoric to describe why you have chosen to pursue this matter, including by the minister who is supposed to have line carriage. He was very dismissive of the approach of previous governments in estimates, to the extent that he virtually said that, if you want to talk about elements of this you are virtually running a divisive process.
Ward talked about 49 reserves. I would be very surprised if the Chief Minister’s act introduces any more than 27. Therefore, there is a whole other debate about the things that are not covered in her act. Assuming the act, when we eventually get to see it, will cover 27 parks and reserves, there is still a another whole debate about the other 22 that Ward talked about in his High Court decision.
Chief Minister, you have a problem on your hands here; which is we want to be participants. We are making the assumption that, having been elected by people, they want us to participate in this debate and take them with us. The rhetoric that was used for stalling matters relating to the Education Department - which has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition - is something we would like you to employ in this case. Therefore, please take the leaf out of the Education minister’s book: please consult. Please make sure that you call meetings in various communities and that you identify some of those parks in the schedule that are very difficult to identify unless you have various bits of paper. Also, please ensure that when you stand, you ask the attendants to bring the bill out so we have at least 30 seconds to peruse it before you use your numbers to ram this thing through.
Chief Minister, before you seek urgency, please tell us what the hardship is. Please tell us why we cannot have 30 days to talk to our electorates when you want to give our parks away on a 99-year lease. Please tell us why this is a racial matter rather a matter of interest to Territorians. Please tell us why you can use the court processes in a way that is not racist and antagonistic and all the rest of it; however, at the same time, if we chose to use such a process, we would be called racist. Chief Minister, you have some explaining to do, and please start with hardship because that is the requirement under standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I find that the position into which the Chief Minister has placed this parliament is extraordinary. When a member brings a motion before this House, the member is supposed to explain to this House the purpose of the motion. I will give you an example.
If a member on this side of the House seeks to censure a member of government, the words are: ‘I move that this House do censure …’, and then you explain what you are censuring for. Then you spend 40 minutes prosecuting that case. What we have heard from the Chief Minister today is: ‘I move that we do this on urgency’, and she sat down. What she has asked members of parliament to do is to accept from her: ‘I ask that the motion be moved, we have to put it through on urgency’. Yet, we hear from the Leader of the Opposition extensive problems as to why this motion should be resisted. She has in no way endeavoured to explain and convince this parliament why this motion should be supported. I suggest, by the silence of the minister who has carriage of parks in the Northern Territory - which is not the Chief Minister - he has not had it explained to him as well. The minister for parks is utterly silent on this particular issue.
The former governments, through their years of governance, built up a parks estate which is the envy of the world. The Chief Minister has been proposing, by her legislation from last year, as a solution to the problems outlined in the Ward decision, to transfer the title of those parks to private hands. That is essentially what is happening. Then we have the privilege of losing – and when I say ‘we’, I am talking about all Territorians - whatever the value of those parks is in cost dollar terms. I have no idea what the costing is because the Chief Minister, when questioned, has refused to answer how much the parks estate is worth. She is also going to rack up a debt which she has also refused to tell Territorians about, which is the cost of leasing those parks back from the owners who have it in private hands.
The negotiation process which the Chief Minister forced through this parliament the last time around so she could negotiate privately, has been done behind closed doors. I have no idea - and nor does any other Territorian – at what stage those negotiations are. Those negotiations came with a time limit. The list of parks attached to that negotiation process has been pared off, contrary to the ‘take it or leave it’ deal that the Chief Minister announced. The deadlines that the Chief Minister set have passed, and the legislation has, essentially, collapsed as a result of it. The Chief Minister has reintroduced legislation which has dropped from No 1 to No 9, I think, on today’s Notice Paper – it was No 11 on yesterday’s Notice Paper - and she introduced a new bill on urgency and then asked me as a lawmaker in the Northern Territory to say: ‘Well, without explanation, we will allow the stuff to go on urgency’. That is a fascinating position to put somebody in.
One can only guess why the Chief Minister is trying to achieve this. Quite simply it is this: she does not want to draw attention to this issue. Why is the parks minister utterly silent on this issue? He has been told that no attention should be drawn to this issue. Why is no other member of the Labor Party in this House speaking on this issue? Because they have to try to push this through as quickly as they can. My alarm bells are going off. Why? Because this minister touted this particular solution to the Ward decision as the solution for all Territorians. Yet, we find that this thing has been done secretively and, now, the secrecy is percolating through this Chamber as: ‘I want this through on urgency today, and I am not going to even bother explaining to you why I want the urgency’.
That is not good enough. I, and any other sensible lawmaker in this House, could not support the Chief Minister’s position. She has not bothered to explain why this is urgent. She simply stood up and said, ‘I move this on urgency’, and sat down. It would be reprehensible and irresponsible of any legislators in this House to say: ‘That is good enough. That is the reason we are going to push this through on urgency, without consulting widely in the community: because the Chief Minister said so’. Now, you start to understand why parliaments exist: to pare back the power of people who do not want to explain to the people that they represent exactly what they are doing.
Yesterday, we had dropped on the Table, after two years of consultation, a DVD and policy document that had wide consultation. The Treasurer and Education minister said they had to talk to lots of people about these important issues in education, and: ‘We consulted widely as we know that Territorians need to be consulted’. Why, then, does the Chief Minister not only not consult Territorians through her legislative arrangements, but seeks to push through this parliament an urgency motion which will prevent any Territorian, other than herself and the other participants in the negotiations, from knowing what on earth is going on? An outrageous request, and an outrageous demand. I demand in return that the Chief Minister explains to this House, in proper fashion and in due course, exactly what it is she is doing so that we know what the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the parks estate is going to look like in a couple of years time. This outrage is the lowest pit of this government’s approach. If the negotiations are falling apart, then this government needs to explain to all Territorians in here why they have fallen apart; not try to dodge and weave their way around the issue.
I cannot, will not, support what the Chief Minister is trying to do. There is nothing urgent in this - there is nothing urgent at all. The only urgency that the Chief Minister must be feeling is that her glorious solution is now nothing more than an attempt to save face. That attempt to save face is going to be paid for by the parks estate which is the property of all Territorians at the moment - Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put. However, I will say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot speak to a procedural motion.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The standing orders say that when the motion to be put has been moved, there is no further debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. There is no further debate. You have moved that the motion be put.
Ms MARTIN: I said I would like to move …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I will qualify it; okay.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points about …
Madam SPEAKER: You have put a procedural motion which we must now put. Once that is over, you can then make your …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I cannot speak to this?
Madam SPEAKER: Not to the motion you put. However, you can speak to a motion you have put up …
Ms MARTIN: I can speak to the motion?
Madam SPEAKER: … after the motion you put is resolved.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, can I get some clarification.
Madam SPEAKER: I will clarify it for the Chief Minister. You have put the motion be put. We will now ask that question. When that is completed, you can then speak to your original motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: We will actually be very generous. Chief Minister, were you foreshadowing that you were going to put the motion? We will be very generous so that we can …
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, to clarify. In terms of what I moved, can I speak to what has happened, to what has been said so far?
Madam SPEAKER: Let me say it again. Were you foreshadowing that you would put a motion?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, all right. Now you may speak to your motion. We are being very generous to you.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I thought the opposition might like to hear the explanation.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, in my second reading, I outlined the nature of what is being put to this parliament. It has been put into the public arena through media releases on 1 January that the opposition could have asked more about. This is an issue that we debated in here in November 2003 for, I think, six hours. This is, in essence, the same bill that has gone through a very transparent …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: This is the most transparent legislation we have had here because all the terms were laid out in this parliament in a most extraordinary way. The opposition is saying ‘secretive government doing deals behind closed doors’. This has been talked about, explained through newsletters to Territorians - and I thank the opposition for their contributions to explaining. It was not accurate, but I have seen a lot of electorate newsletters that dealt with this. To say that we have not had discussions with Territorians about this and there is no mandate, is simply untrue.
We discussed the terms of this bill in 2003 in November, as I said, for six hours in this parliament. We discussed it in detail. We discussed the terms of what would happen on 31 July last year, and we that three of the parks had come out of the proposal. Then, there was an extension until 31 December and one more park was not included.
As I will say in the second reading, I had a choice: I could either let the whole the whole proposal lapse for one park, or I could move with what was contained in the bill. That is what I have decided to do. It is simply, as the bill says, a revival. The policy has not changed, neither have the fundamentals, except for four parks.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: That is what is there and that is what will be explained. In this, it is only one park difference.
The opposition does not support this; they made that very clear. The policy is there; we have explained it to Territorians. We have had booklets, web site, and newsletters. There is nothing secretive here.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Everything you see is on the Table in the bill, and I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: We now have the original question on suspension of standing orders.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In November 2003, the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was passed by this parliament. This legislation provided the framework for settling Aboriginal land and native title issues associated with a large number of the Territory’s parks and reserves, and reconciled Aboriginal interests with the government’s commitment to retain existing parks and reserves in the Territory for public use and enjoyment, while also expanding and enhancing the Territory’s parks system.
The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act set down a time frame for Aboriginal traditional owners to agree to the framework offer set out in the legislation, and ensured any such agreements occurred in a transparent manner. From the beginning, the government has adopted an open and transparent approach to dealing with this issue. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was an important part of this approach to make it clear what was on the table, and to bind all parties to core principles agreed to before the government entered the negotiations.
A deliberate part of this transparent approach was to authorise me, as Chief Minister, to do certain things only if a number of pre-specified conditions were complied with by the defined deadline of 31 December 2004, otherwise the framework offer would lapse. One of these conditions was that the agreement would be reached on all of the 28 parks and reserves specified in the act. By the end of the year, successful agreements had been reached with traditional owners of 27 of the 28 parks and reserves, which is a testament to the overwhelming support for the package as a whole. Only the traditional owners of Keep River National Park had not accepted the government’s offer.
I am not prepared to allow this whole package to flounder due to the inability to secure agreement with one group of traditional owners. Therefore, I present this bill which will provide the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act to ensure that the public benefits of the government’s offer are enjoyed by all Territorians.
Let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. Section 2 defines the dates on which various sections of the act commence. Sections 3 and 4 revoke the notice published pursuant to section 16(4) of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act in Gazette No S1 on 1 January 2005. Sections 5 to 7 amend the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act to allow for the extension of the date of compliance from 31 December 2004 to 2 February 2005. Finally, section 8 removes Keep River from Schedule 1 of the act.
The decision to extend the date of the compliance will not affect the integrity of the overall package, and will result in a win/win situation for all Territorians. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act provides the foundation for a new era in park management in the Territory which will be reinforced by the implementation of a comprehensive master plan currently being developed with extensive stakeholder participation.
The Ward decision of 2002 resulted in uncertainty over the validity of the grant of many of the Territory’s national parks and reserves. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act provides a resolution of the legal situation, and also presents a prime opportunity to establish a world class joint management system of the Territory’s unique natural assets.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Housing Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill that will greatly increase our ability to keep the HomeNorth home loan scheme responsive to the needs of Territorians. Honourable members will recall that, on 1 July last year, we introduced a number of new HomeNorth products. At that time, I indicated publicly that we would be moving to make the administration of the HomeNorth scheme more flexible through amendments to the Housing Act. I am pleased to introduce those amendments today.
Under the existing provisions of the Housing Act, changes to the HomeNorth schemes - whether by amending an existing scheme or introducing a new one - can only be done through regulation. This is a slow and cumbersome process which seriously restricts our ability to respond quickly and effectively to shifting housing market conditions and the changing needs of our population. Instead, the Chief Executive Officer, Housing, with endorsement from the Housing Minister, will be able to approve and amend housing purchase assistance schemes. This will mean that the schemes will be governed by business rules rather than regulation, allowing us to make strategic and timely changes to HomeNorth as market conditions dictate. This will bring the management of HomeNorth into line with commercial lending sector standard practice, including that of the Territory Insurance Office.
Members will be well aware of the quite dramatic shifts that have occurred in the Territory housing market in the past year or two. Unfortunately, we have had limited ability to keep HomeNorth loans abreast of those changing conditions as, to date, we have lacked the flexibility to do so. For instance, when average Territory house prices went beyond HomeNorth’s upper limit of $180 000, it became very hard for applicants to locate a suitable property to buy, especially in the northern suburbs of Darwin and Alice Springs. Under the new arrangements, we will be able to respond quickly and effectively to market changes of this type. Territory Housing will be reviewing the upper limits for the maximum purchase price, loan amounts and household incomes annually to ensure that the schemes remain consistent with current conditions.
It is important that we make sure that the people who took out a HomeNorth loan in the past, under an old scheme, may have the benefit of huge improvements to the administration of HomeNorth loans. For this reason, the amendment bill repeals the majority of the regulations governing existing and former HomeNorth schemes. This will allow us to manage all HomeNorth loans under relevant business rules, and to incorporate important new features into existing loans. For instance, we can allow Territory Housing to purchase an additional share in a property when the borrower is in financial difficulty, or give borrowers the ability to access funds which they have paid over and above the minimum repayments, to assist with home improvements. These are features of the new products which may be extended to existing borrowers as a result of these amendments.
The only loans which are now covered under this bill are those held under the Housing Loans Act and its associated regulations. This is simply an administrative matter, and we will be moving to amend that act and repeal the regulations in the near future.
Part 3 of the amendment act deals with a consequential amendment to the Stamp Duty Act. This amendment will allow Territorians who purchase, in partnership with government under the new home purchase assistance schemes, to benefit from the stamp duty first home owners concession, or the principal place of residence rebate. Under the Stamp Duty Act, these concessions are currently restricted in the application to former home purchase assistance schemes. The amendment will extend the concessions to the new products which came in to effect on 1 July 2004, and will operate retrospectively to that date.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this bill as the new Leader of the Opposition. Whilst the carriage of this legislation’s detail is the responsibility of the shadow minister for employment, the member for Greatorex, I feel it is incumbent on me to make comment so that the CLP’s, and my position, is fully understood.
Dr Burns: That is a compliment to you.
Mr BURKE: You want to join the debate again? Happy to? What is the interjection this time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: If I was you, I would zip up. You do not do any good when you open your mouth.
The position is that, when it comes to this particular legislation, the Construction Industry and Long Service Leave and Benefits Bill, the CLP supports the principle of the legislation. In fact, I support the principle that any worker should receive long service leave and the associated benefits, no matter what work they are engaged in. That is something that, in the 21st century with a mobile work force, we should all strive to achieve. That is the CLP’s position, which will remain unchanged - certainly whilst I am leader.
The issues with this particular legislation only involve concerns about the way the government has gone about putting in place the benefits for the construction industry. If it is the intent of the government that the construction industry is the first cab off the rank, that is fine, because we can all point to other workers for whom the nature of their work in a mobile work force in Australia means that they are, in many respects, itinerant workers and have to move from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in order to obtain work. That is a simple fact of the world and economy we live in nowadays. However, the principle that they should be rewarded for the work that they do and given long service benefits that other workers enjoy in a more stable environment - for example public servants - is a principle that should be upheld, and I will hold to that.
The problems with this legislation revolve around who is and is not caught in the reasons why the government has only chosen the construction industry. On the one hand, if you look at this industry that now has, with this legislation, long service benefits that will accrue, how does that sit with the current redundancy entitlements that industry enjoys? Are there issues where the employers who are paying into the fund and the fund itself could, in fact, be ripped off by individuals who would see a scheme that they could use for their own benefit in coupling up long service and redundancy benefits on multiple occasions? There is a problem in that respect.
There is also a problem with consultation. I raise not the fact they there may have been consultation with some sectors of the industry but, certainly, other sectors of the industry feel that they have not been consulted, particularly in relation to their concerns. For example, why are developers only contributors to the fund and builders are not? What about the developer builders? There are many of them. Are they caught or not caught? Why are builders in certain incidences not caught as contributors to the fund? Clearly, there is an argument from the developers that they feel that the levy is punitively biased towards them paying rather than others. That is an issue with which the opposition has problems.
Who is a worker? The legislation goes to the definition of a construction worker, but that definition, in itself, does not seem sufficient in that a person working as a bricklayer on a site may be entitled, but a person who provides the bricks and then lays the bricks may not be entitled. There is a problem, to my mind, in this bland definition of the construction worker, which does not appear to be clarified in the bill.
Why are single dwellings excluded? It seems fair to say that the government wants to ensure that the cost of introducing this legislation only falls on a few people - and, therefore, a few votes – and, therefore, many Territorians are not caught up in having to contribute to this levy. If the principle is sound - and I believe it is - that a worker, in whatever capacity, is entitled to long service leave - I agree with it - therefore, we should not be sensitive about where those workers actually work and where their levy should be applied.
It seems, on the face of it, to be a pretty quick vote-catching exercise to appease one section of the industry; therefore, probably, then nullify what is a strong voice, and rightly so. Some of them are in the gallery today, and that is good to see. They obviously feel strongly about this, and they are ready to argue that case, and have argued it very successfully. I applaud them for that. However, there are also many who have no voice, and the government, in this legislation, does not seem to have provided any comfort for those people who are clearly not going to be caught up, either in the benefits or, certainly, the many who will enjoy building houses and not fairly contribute to the levy.
It is in that context that I ask the minister to understand the opposition’s concerns with this bill - certainly not with the principle of it. Whilst we will not oppose its passage in this House today, we will do so with the reservations regarding its actual implementation and its equity across the board. That is the reason why we have concerns with the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Brennan. I also support the bill and the whole concept behind it; that we allow benefits for most other workers. We should also apply that to construction workers as well.
I also believe it will stop deterring workers coming to the Territory. I spoke to the TCA, and one example they gave me was, for instance, of someone who may have eight years of LSL who wanted to come to the Territory, but found out that they could not get any more long service leave points, and could decide not to come to the Territory for a particular construction project. That will certainly remove any deterrent that existing lack of legislation could apply.
There were a couple of issues that the TCA raised, and the member for Brennan cut across some of those. There were concerns about the transition period. For instance, if a building had a development permit issued, and the timing of whether the building got a building permit was determined by pre-sales - for instance, if you were building a large unit complex - when you decided to build would depend on whether you thought you had enough sales to get the thing off the ground, literally. You might have had a development permit before this legislation was put through, but you might get your building permit after. What would happen to the builder there? He might have determined a price for the sale of the units based on having no levy, and then, if he is caught in a situation where he has to pay a levy, that might cause a problem with the sale price of those units.
The other question is: why should all housing be excluded? What the TCA was trying to get at here is that, whilst they understand that you do not want housing included as you do not want to increase the price of housing, maybe that should be applied just to first home owners. There is a difference between the average three-bedroom house in Farrar and a $1m house being built in Cullen Bay. You would have to ask if someone can afford a $1m house, why they could not afford a levy, as the $1m house could be the same as the $1m block of flats? I believe that is a fair question to ask.
The other point raised is that, I gather, project homes are only allowed if the project will carry over more than 12 months. The problem TCA had is that you could have a very expensive project, but it could be finished within 12 months and, for someone to come up with the levy at one hit, might be very difficult. I believe they are saying that it should perhaps be looked on in relation the value of the project, rather than the time taken for the construction of the project.
The other area that was of some concern is that, if you are not under the Construction Award, such as electricians or plumbers, you may have to pay the levy, and you would not receive long service leave. In the example I was given, for instance: if they wish to fit out the entire airconditioning for the casino - which will certainly cost more than $200 000 - the company will pay the levy, but the workers will not receive the benefits. I am interested to see what will apply there.
Another issue I have raised in a previous question to you, minister, is the case of a company - and I use Bechtel as an example - in Palmerston which has a job to build cupboards for Bechtel. They are a cupboard manufacturing business which has loyal workers. They not only put cupboards into construction sites, they put them in house kitchens, Parliament House – they do all that sort of work. They are permanent employees who have been working for a number of years. That employer would normally pay them long service leave when the time came, and that is a requirement by law. One of the reasons we have long service leave is also to recognise the loyalty of workers who have stayed with a business for a long period of time. The question is: why should a company be drawn into this scheme when it is already covered for its workers? This company just happens to be building a range of kitchens and other things for Bechtel, and they might cost over $200 000. At the same time, those same workers are going out to Mr and Mrs Smith’s place and putting in a kitchen there. They are standard workers for that company and they will receive long service leave. That long service leave is something that shows the workers that, by being loyal to that company, the employer is recognising that fact. I know one particular person who used to work at the 11 Mile who will be very interested in your answer, minister.
The other philosophical question is that, whilst I agree with the principle that construction workers should receive long service leave and we should set up a program such as this because construction workers do move from state to state, we should at least be looking at workers in other industries. I do not think we should be singling out one group of workers. For instance, ringers on pastoral stations - or any of those people who have a job for six months in the Dry Season - have to go and find work elsewhere and then come back to the pastoral property the next year. A lot of commercial fishermen are working in the prawning industry and have work for a period of time, and they work with someone else the next year. The hospitality industry is also a very mobile industry. When it is the tourist season, they have plenty of work here; however, when the Wet Season arrives, they have to find work elsewhere.
The principle behind what you are doing is to be applauded. I certainly believe that construction workers should receive the benefits that other workers get. However, at the same time, if you are going to apply that principle, then the government should look at the bigger picture of all workers who come under similar circumstances and apply this type of legislation for everybody to benefit, not just one particular group.
I support the legislation; however, along with the member for Brennan, I do have some concerns. It is probably legislation which we will have to ‘suck it and see’ and, as it goes along, we will see what happens in the meantime. I welcome the legislation and will be interested to see how it operates in practice.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Bill. This bill is part of a series of reforms to the construction industry, and such reforms come about after 27 years of neglect and complacency by the previous government. The reforms include builder’s licensing and indemnity insurance …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Listen, member for Greatorex, you might learn something. … builder’s licensing and indemnity insurance, contractor payments, construction industry long service leave and benefits - all things introduced by the government, not by 27 years of CLP complacency! All these reforms were long overdue, along with many legacies of the previous government.
The Territory lagged behind the rest of Australia, construction industry long service leave and benefits being no exception. The question needs to be asked: why? There is no doubt in my mind that the CLP is not inclined to workers, workers’ rights, or to unions. I am proud to be a part of a party that grew out of the workers’ movement and fights for workers. I am proud to put on the record, once again, that I have been a unionist for much of my working life. This is also a government that has a proven record of driving economic development in the Territory, and having productive partnerships with industry, and valuing views of industry, on a whole range of issues.
Being cognisant of the broad range of reforms to the building industry, this government set about extensive consultation with industry, peak bodies and unions. In March 2004, we set up a Construction Industry Reference Group comprised of these groups as well as relevant government departments. This group met at least five times in 2004, and I was privileged to attend three of these meetings. I believe that the Treasurer attended two of those meetings. I also met with a number of industry groups as part of my normal round of stakeholder meetings. Issues relating to these reforms were raised and discussed in those meetings. I am pointing to extensive consultation and engagement by this government with industry groups, unions and workers, and government departments. In essence, there has been a great deal of consultation on these matters. Whilst there has been some differences of opinion within the CIRG, there has also been substantial agreement and understandings reached through this process.
I would also like to point to the fact that I do not think unions have ever been engaged in this sort of forum in the Territory with employers before, and that is a productive step forward and shows the consultative way that this government engages with the community and with industry and with workers.
Turning specifically to the legislation at hand, I believe that it was very overdue, not only because of 27 years of inaction by the CLP, but also because there is burgeoning economic and construction activity. This activity includes the LNG project, the Alcan expansion and trans-Territory pipeline, the waterfront development, the Lee Point housing development …
Mr Burke: As well as the railway?
Dr BURNS: … as well as high levels of residential construction. Well, the Opposition Leader can laugh, but everyone out there knows the real story that business and the construction industry is doing very well in the Territory at present. Although you might try to deny it, Leader of the Opposition, that is the fact.
However, we are also aware of skill shortages contributing to escalating construction costs.
I believe that the provisions of this bill will remove barriers for construction workers to come and live and work in the Territory without fearing that they will lose long service leave benefits accrued in every other state and territory in Australia. Many construction workers saw the lack of provision of these benefits by the former government as a disincentive to come to the Territory. Also, for many workers, this issue is a matter of equity.
Through the CIRG, this government has listened to industry and implemented the project levy model where long service leave for construction workers will be levied on projects over $200 000, excluding houses, garages, sheds, fences, etcetera. I will emphasise again, as I am sure the Treasurer will, that this model of a project-based levy was the model that industry wanted - that the industry pointed to and requested. Whilst I understand that industry is reticent about any cost impost, I also understand from my discussions with peak bodies and individual companies, that they also recognise the benefits of such legislation bringing the Northern Territory into line with the rest of the nation.
These are very important reforms. There have been questions asked about why housing is not included. Basically, it was decided that the people working in the housing sector are primarily subcontractors. Also, the government did not wish to add to the cost of residential housing, which has undergone substantial increases as a result of the introduction of the GST and real estate boom. There is a reason why government has done this.
I commend the Treasurer on his second reading speech. He very concisely set out the system of administration and the processes that are involved in determining who is a worker when projects are being started, and just how the whole situation will work.
Madam Speaker, in summary, I believe this is a great step forward for workers in the Territory. I believe that this bill will remove disincentives to construction workers moving to the Territory. It is part of a whole raft of overdue reforms that this government has introduced for the construction industry. These reforms are things we have consulted very closely with industry on, and I am proud to be part of a government that is introducing this bill, which I commend to the House.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I just seek your guidance before I commence. I note the time, and that committee meetings are scheduled for 12 o’clock. I am more than likely to take the whole 30 minutes. Shall we recommence this after Question Time?
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was not …
Dr LIM: I asked your guidance earlier, but never mind, I will proceed with the debate, Madam Speaker.
What a zealot is this member for Johnston. He was the member of a union; he is a unionist. I wonder whether he has any conflict of interest in this legislation. I wonder.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition articulate the CLP’s position on where we stand with this legislation. We understand the mobile work force that we experience in the 21st century, and we need to take this into consideration.
I have lived in this country well over 40 years, and I recall the days when long service leave was introduced. It was introduced to reward an employee who had long service with an employer - a reward for loyalty. We understand, especially in the construction industry, that many people move from place to place to work as work becomes available and, somehow, there has to be a balance. This legislation may have addressed some of this balance. However, it is interesting to note that this was introduced when every state across Australia is in Labor hands. We have to be a little cynical and say: is this a union move to try and now bring in the thin edge of the wedge to increase their pay scale? Is this going to bring in a disparity between the construction industry and other industries? You need to ask those questions.
By introducing legislation such as this, you create a domino effect. We did ask if the government is doing this as a first step to address all other industries across the Territory. Then, it is a good first step - a very good first step. The minister needs to understand there are nurses who come to the Territory, and they move in and out regularly. The Minister for Health struggles to get enough nurses for our hospitals; they have to employ agency nurses. Are they on long service leave with an agency? What do they do?
The member for Nelson spoke of ringers and commercial fishermen. Fruit pickers! Regularly, we have fruit pickers in the Territory to help us with our fruit season. Where do they go for long service leave? If this government proposes to do this as a first step to introducing portability of long service leave across industries, then this is a very cautious way of doing it.
I spoke to industry people about it, and the TCA has been quoted as supporting it. However, their comment to me was that they support it with caution. That is the crux of the matter; it is all with caution. There are issues in the legislation that will go through. I hope that the minister will provide enough time for a committee stage where we can go through the legislation bit by bit to ensure that we understand where we are.
One of the difficulties is: how do you define construction worker? What is it? What is a construction worker? In the bill …
Mr Kiely: Any of you blokes know? Go up there; they will tell you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Sanderson!
Dr LIM: In the bill, ‘construction worker’ is defined as:
I have been in private enterprise all my life. If I were a contractor, I would contract my service to somebody who wants it. I am self-employed; I have my ABN. I have my own superannuation and my own sickness and accident insurance policy. I also, obviously, put money aside to take long service holidays, or long holidays, if I want to. That is all within the gambit of me being a self-employed as a contractor. I would organise the contract price with the developer at a level that provides cover for all those things.
If a construction worker is then a contractor, is he then defined as an employee? I understand not, and I am not a lawyer. I understand that, when you are an employee there is always a master/employee relationship. I do not know where this contractor comes into it. It is those sorts of things that really worry us on this side of the House.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr Burke: You are racist, do you know that? You are! Every time he gets up to talk …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that!
Mr Burke: Every time he gets up to talk, you guys have a go at him! Every time he gets up to talk in this House!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I am speaking to you! Withdraw that remark!
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: Ask him to withdraw it.
Mr Burke: Well, you are. You are a bloody hypocrite!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark, and you are on a warning.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: The member for Johnston got up and said: ‘Oh, we have been consulting widely. We have been there three, four, five times’. If the CFMEU and people in the constructing industry have lobbied this government well - well done. You have achieved your aim, and keep on doing that. I suggest to you that, when we are in government, we would like to have conversations and dialogues with you as well, to your needs.
Let me read you a letter that one person in industry wrote. The minister has also received this letter, so he knows who I am talking about:
Minister, you might have done your consultation selectively, and that is your choice. However, there are people in industry who had no idea about this until I wrote to them, and they have voiced their concern. Minister, just be a bit cautious with what you are doing.
This person is a developer and a builder …
Mr Burke: And a big one.
Dr LIM: Yes, and a big one in the Northern Territory. He said that he is captured as the developer, but if he were just solely in the building game as the builder, he would not be. The developer that he is building for will then be captured by this matter. Because he is a developer and likes to put up quality buildings, he is doubly captured. He is captured by this not only because he is the developer, but because the cost of his development is more in the expensive material that he uses than in the labour cost. Another developer would use cheaper materials; the labour cost would be the same. You would lay the same number of bricks and put in the same amount of plumbing. However, if you use cheaper material, the project would cost less. If you are a quality builder, you are using more expensive material, therefore, your project will cost more. What happens to the levy on that project then? Is it 0.5% or is it 2%? At the present, nobody knows what it is and, when you ask the question: ‘Oh, it will be in regulations’ is the answer. Regulations do not even get to see light of day in this House, so we do not know what it is.
Let us move along to the wharf precinct that this government is involved in. In a $1bn project, 0.5% equates to - what? - $5m? If it is 2%, it is $20m. That is the exposure that project has with this levy. What does it cover? It covers people in the construction industry. Does it mean the carpenters? Does it mean the bricklayers? What about the people who drive the earthmoving equipment? They are involved in the construction of the project itself; they are constructing the roads within the project. Are they captured by this? We do not know. I believe this government needs to really show how it proposes to delineate who is covered and who is not. If I were a developer and I have a $m project …
Mr Stirling: If you are worried about it, why did you not seek a briefing?
Dr LIM: … and I am worried about the …
Mr Stirling: Why did you not come for a briefing if you had these questions?
Dr LIM: I know that if I went to …
Mr Stirling: Too lazy to come for a briefing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, minister!
Ms Carney: I had a briefing with Toyne and it took him three months to answer the question. So, don’t you come in here saying things like that, Syd.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you.
Dr LIM: If I was the developer and it cost $1m and I have to pay 0.5% levy, I would assume that the levy they I pay covers the long service leave of every person who works in that project. But, no, it does not; it covers only those people who are actually hands-on, provided they do not supply material. If I were a plumber and supplied and then installed the piping; if I were the bricklayer and supplied and also laid the bricks; if I were a carpet layer and supplied and laid all the carpets myself - am I going to get my long service leave from this levy? As a developer, who has paid the levy – is he covered or is he not covered? I propose to you that, under the bill itself, probably half of the people working in the project would not be covered by this long service leave levy, where the other half may. Why am I paying all that money for half of the work force on the project? Is that fair?
Industry has also raised concerns about the idea of long service leave being available after 10 years of employment with a single employer. Under this bill, potentially, a person who has worked only five years in this industry can access their long service leave. Somehow, you eroded the principle of the long service leave by half. Most employers, when they put somebody on their work force, would probably not start making provisions for long service leave until about the sixth or seventh year of the employment of that person because, under current awards for long service leave, you cannot access any privileges for long service leave until you have been there for a minimum of seven years. Therefore, many employers do not even make provisions for that until about the sixth year of the employee’s association with the business. With this levy, you are going to make everybody pay up-front. As member for Nelson asked earlier, what happens to all these projects that are dependant on pre-sales before a project commences? All those people are going to be under significant hardship.
The issue of redundancy payments - which have been already mentioned by the member for Nelson - is already in the award. By bringing this in to ‘complement’ redundancy measures, potentially, a person could get their money in about four years. I put myself in the shoes of an employee and then have an employer or a developer looking in. A construction worker comes to the Territory for the first time and works for three years on a project. The project developer has paid the levy for the three years the person has been working. At the end of that time, the construction worker decides to move interstate and the money from the Territory follows the construction worker – let us say to South Australia. That construction worker then works in Adelaide for one year and says: ‘I am sick of this work. I am not going to work any more’, and moves out of the construction industry altogether. He drives a taxi, or whatever. He has done only four years so is not entitled to long service leave. The money has left the Territory; it has gone to South Australia, sits in South Australia …
Mr Stirling: No, it hasn’t.
Dr LIM: It sits in South Australia …
Mr Stirling: No, it does not.
Dr LIM: Then he had better explain that, minister, because that is what he said; the money moves with the employee ...
Mr Stirling: Why do you not take the time to get a briefing so you will understand these issues? You come in here and make it up.
Dr LIM: … from state to state. Or are you suggesting there is going to be a national pool of money? Well, it is going to be controlled by the registrar and his board in the Territory; however, when the employee moves interstate what happens? Exactly the same thing as you would expect – when somebody from interstate moves from New South Wales or South Australia to the Northern Territory, the money will come in, otherwise the Northern Territory will be forced to fund the full entitlement of long service leave of a construction worker who has lived in the Territory for only a short time. The money has to follow the construction worker. There is no other way to do it, otherwise you cannot do it. However, if the employee comes and works here and the money does not follow them, we are going to be out of pocket. If the minister is going to say: ‘No the money does not follow the employee’, then you have even more problems.
Before actuarials have been done on projects, and the government has come up with the percentage of levy, you have decided already it is going to happen. It is going to start as from 1 January. This type of retrospectivity causes a lot of hardship for a lot of developers, and it should not be so. I suggest to the government that, if you bring this in, it should commence on the day the legislation is passed.
The minister needs to explain about the qualifying period of service. In the bill it says the registrar is required to take into account service in the 12 months preceding registration. Does that mean fully crediting claimed service? How is this going to be verified? If somebody moves to the Territory from interstate, and says: ‘I have been in the building game as a construction worker for the last 12 months. Are you going to credit me with those 12 months of service?’ How do you verify that? Somebody working as a construction worker in the Northern Territory may only work for six or nine months and have three months off, or work six months on, and six months off. How do you calculate that? Is the registrar going to be following every construction worker and say: ‘No, you cannot do that’ …
Mr Stirling: If you are not prepared to get a briefing that is one thing; however, read the bill, please! At least read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, patience. Patience …
Dr LIM: These are questions posed through me by industry.
Mr Stirling: Have a read of the bill over lunchtime and you will answer your own question.
Dr LIM: These are questions which have been put to me by the industry …
Mr Stirling: You have not read the bill! You have not read the bill, member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Settle down. Member for Greatorex, I will stop you at quarter past.
Dr LIM: Okay. It is strange. As members of parliament we are messengers on behalf of the community. I am bringing …
Mr Stirling: You have a responsibility to read the bill before you get in here.
Dr LIM: It is not my job to explain the legislation to industry.
Mr Stirling: It is your responsibility to read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, enough!
Dr LIM: Industry posed questions to me, which I then put to the minister. If the minister is not prepared to answer, that is fine; that is his call. Let me just go to the legislation item by item. It is probably easier so that I can show the minister that there are issues that he needs to consider.
Obviously, funding for the board is going to come from the money that has been levied against developers. However, I recall the minister saying that the Northern Territory government would put seed funding to get the board and the registrar’s office working. The government needs to explain how much is going to be put into that and how long the government proposes that the money will be available because, if suddenly within the first 12 months of this scheme several construction workers decide to take their long service leave, would there be enough money in the scheme to provide for that long service?
The government also needs to explain what happens if, through the contribution by all the developers, there is a large pool of money. Would the government then say: ‘Yes, there will be a moratorium on the levy. There will be no more levy required because there is more money in there than needed because the actuals worked out that there are not enough construction workers who will be taking long service leave and, therefore, the fund does not need any further money’?
Those are the questions that the industry has put to me. That is why the TCA said: ‘We support this cautiously’, because they do not know the answers. If the minister suggests that they know all about it, then why would they be saying those things to me?
One of the questions that industry has also put to me is the obligation for the employer to register their employees. Employers are obliged to report in respect of registered construction worker employees, but not registered subcontractors. The employer’s record is then used to determine the long service leave credit of each employee. How does the registrar determine the credits applicable to a registered contractor? There is no obligation for reporting by a registered employer, nor does there appear to be any obligation for the registered contractor to report. There is also no verification of service other than site inspection or the auditing role of the registrar. Therefore, there is a huge potential for abuse. Not that I am suggesting there will be, but the potential is there.
As I said earlier, the registered construction worker or subcontractor could be drifting in and out of the industry - travel interstate for a while, come back and do some more work - and then claim 260 days credit per year. Is that right? How are you going to prevent that from happening?
Then there is the other issue of the government …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, perhaps I could interrupt you at that stage. Would you mind continuing your debate after Question Time?
Dr LIM: Yes, I will continue at a later time.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. We will continue this after Question Time.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on to government business, the Leader of the Opposition has asked me if he could make a personal explanation on remarks that were attributed to him yesterday. I have said he can, as long as he remembers that no such other matters may be debated.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I make a personal explanation in regards to comments which the Chief Minister made in Question Time yesterday. The Chief Minister said:
I strongly believe that these comments reflect negatively on me and the then CLP government, of which I was leader. I wish to place on the public record, many of the initiatives and projects that I, as Chief Minister, and the CLP government, were part of and demonstrated that our government had a real and valuable relationship with the people of East Timor. I want to briefly outline just a few of the many things that the CLP government was able to do to support the East Timorese during their time of need, something the Chief Minister seems to have forgotten.
Firstly, Chief Minister Shane Stone had a very good relationship with East Timor. He met with Bishop Bello and the Caritas Catholic relief movement to offer government help to alleviate suffering in East Timor. I met Bishop Bello on many occasions.
As well, the then CLP government was involved in a reconstructive surgery program; provided funding to the NT School of Health for a cerebral malaria program in East Timor; and government support for the 600 personnel that were preparing to be deployed to East Timor, including the use of the old Reserve Bank building for the United Nations and other affiliated agencies. The CLP also provided funds to help fundraising efforts by the East Timorese Association in Darwin …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A personal explanation is available for a member to correct the public record in terms of remarks being misquoted.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, clarify remarks.
Mr HENDERSON: The Leader of the Opposition is listing a whole raft of government initiatives; not personal initiatives of the member. I do not believe this is the appropriate form of debate to put that list of achievements on the paper. It is not personal; those were actions by government.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you did agree that you would address the remarks made and that it was for you personally. Please confine your remarks as we agreed.
Mr BURKE: The remarks made were that I bagged East Timor, and that there was a sense of relief amongst the East Timorese people when the government changed. That was the allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr BURKE: I am laying on the record what the CLP government did …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we talked …
Ms Martin: You should have heard what they said to me.
Mr BURKE: If you had a cup of tea with Mr Alkatiri and that made you feel warm and fuzzy - fine. You are making allegations against my government and the East Timorese people …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we agreed that it was your personal explanation.
Mr BURKE: I will try to stay with the script if they would stop interrupting, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying: confine your remarks to those incidents that are personal - not the government’s of the day. That is what you asked me.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In terms of Standing Order 54:
How does this fit Standing Order 54 …
Madam SPEAKER: We are talking about Standing Order 57.
Mr STIRLING: … ‘By way of a personal explanation’.
Madam SPEAKER: 57!
Mr STIRLING: 57?
Madam SPEAKER: Personal explanation.
Mr STIRLING: Of a personal nature? Where does it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has claimed that the remarks made about him reflect upon his relationship with East Timor. I agreed that he could make a personal explanation. However, I did also agree, Leader of the Opposition, that you would confine your remarks to personal matters. Could we not have any further interruptions so we can get on with it?
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As Chief Minister, I:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order again, Madam Speaker! You have asked the member to confine his remarks to those of a personal nature.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have.
Mr HENDERSON: He is talking about the United Nations thanking his government. This is nothing to do with the personal comments that may have been attributed to him. This is an attempt at re-writing history. It is not an appropriate personal explanation. If he wants to do this, he can do it by way of a substantive motion or in an adjournment debate; not by way of a personal explanation. I believe he is misusing this standing order.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have allowed a lot of leniency so you should wrap up quickly. You have given many examples of what you feel that you have done to support East Timor.
Mr BURKE: I feel offended when the government says that the East Timorese people were glad to see our government go. I am putting on the record what we did.
Madam SPEAKER: Wind it up, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: … became heavily involved in vocational training on the ground – I only have a little bit – in East Timor.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The actions of Primary Industry and Fisheries have nothing to do with a personal explanation to this House.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Leader of the Opposition, you are …
Mr BURKE: I stand proudly on my record, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is all you need say.
Mr BURKE: I take personal offence to the comments by the Chief Minister who has done nothing, as I understand it, to assist the East Timorese, apart from having a cup of tea with Mr Alkatiri.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would also like you to come and speak to me privately in a minute.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us get on with Government Business of the day. Member for Greatorex, you were on your feet.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, continuing from what I said before the luncheon adjournment, Part 4 of the bill deals with funding of the scheme. There is some confusion. I will read clause 32(2) of the bill:
Suppose the government was building, let us say, the hospice being built at the moment. That is a government project. Is the government going to pay a levy on the project because the people who are building it are construction workers? That is something I hope the minister will deal with when it comes to the committee stage.
Then, when you go to the next section about who must pay the levy, section 34(1)A, it says:
Therefore, you have one head contractor, who engages other contractors to construct this on a contract price. How do you divvy up who is then liable for the levy? Those are the sort of things I believe the minister needs to really consider clearly before we pass this legislation. Again, I hope he will be able to respond to those questions during the committee stage.
I recall the minister’s earlier interjection about the money not leaving the Territory. I know that in his second reading speech he did mention that, but it then does not make sense to me. If you do not bring the money into the Territory, and somebody goes on long service, the Territory will be responsible. I want to know where the money is going to come from to pay for that. I will not go any further, Madam Speaker; my time is nearly up. In the committee stage, I have quite a few clauses that I would like to interrogate the minister on in greater detail.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank members for participating in the debate. It is somewhat of a proud day for me, because I undertook this commitment to construction workers in the Northern Territory as far back as 1995. Government probably looked a fairly dim prospect in those days, having come through a pretty solid 1994 election. Of course, in 1997, things did not get any better. Therefore, my commitment stood and became part of the Labor Party’s platform and policy: that the election of a Labor government in the Northern Territory would see this legislation come through. From that point of view, 10 years on, I am proud to stand here today and have carriage of it through the House, given that it was a commitment that I undertook after discussion with members of the unions.
It is interesting, and quite appropriate, that the Leader of the Opposition took first spot in speaking to the bill in the second reading debate, and put clearly on the record the opposition’s support for the principle of the bill. We welcome that support. It begs the question, of course, why the CLP is keen to support this bill today when they had 26 years in which to bring this legislation into this House and pass it; notwithstanding, of course, the member for Brennan had a couple of years as Chief Minister. Chief Ministers, usually, if they have a mind to do things with their party and want to put legislation into effect, will usually get it through their parliamentary wing and into the parliament; probably with some degree of priority and urgency attached to it.
It is interesting that that support is there today notwithstanding the attempt by the member for Greatorex to suggest that this is the thin edge of the wedge and, ‘Where does it go after this? Why the construction industry? Why not the fruit pickers, the hospitality workers, or the cleaning industry?’ Well, let me be very clear to the member for Greatorex and everyone else in this debate, the reason for the construction industry. It is very simple: every other jurisdiction in this country has had reciprocal arrangements around portable long service leave for many years. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction outside those arrangements. Workers in the Northern Territory construction industry were discriminated against - discriminated against by your government - for many years. There already was a national scheme in relation to this to match, unlike those other industry areas that the member for Greatorex - in his weasel-like words - suggested the government might be looking at next.
Let me assure him we have no plans to go anywhere else with this. It was a commitment - and a proper commitment - to bring the Northern Territory into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia. I am proud, as I said, to take this bill through today.
I go to this question of CLP support. I refer to a sheet put out by Wendy Green, the CLP candidate for Casuarina:
They are pretty supportive words. That is pretty strong support from a CLP candidate for Casuarina in this forthcoming election:
I will go over to the back:
And in bold black:
Well, if the CLP is supporting this bill, then someone ought talk to the candidate for Casuarina, whose support seems to be somewhat lacking:
I put that on the record because, today, the opposition tried to convince us that they are all for this bill and support it. Yet, they allow their candidates to put out rubbish like that, which is absolutely contemptable of this legislation and what it is trying to achieve.
I was happy to hear the member for Nelson also support the bill. He had a couple of questions about the case of the developer who gets the permit, but it is some time before construction starts. In any case, actual payment does not start until 1 July - the scheme kicks in from that point - and there is an ability to pay over time. At clause 48 of the bill - which I could find fairly quickly unless my colleague is able to put his hands right on it, and he is:
I believe the question came up somewhere else in debate: what if the project subsequently did not go forward at all? Having paid or be paying instalments in the expectation that the project would proceed, there then is the ability for the project proponent to get that back. There is a review process available to the project developer.
In the example put forward by the member for Nelson, the cabinetmaker is the employer. Therefore, under the terms of this bill and who pays, it is not the employer. At the moment, of course, under the normal provisions of the Long Service Leave Act, that employer is responsible for those payments. For example, if the employee, up until the time of the bill, had worked nine years for that employer, they would have been up for that anyway. If the employee left, they would have been up for pro rata. If the employee saw 10 years out, they would have been up for the full amount. Under this, we would expect that they go into and are registered with the scheme, and the employer would be responsible, in the sense of that particular employee - as they would have been under the provisions applying now - to put what they would have owed that employee into the scheme.
When it goes forward, of course, under the new scheme, it is the developer, the proponent of the project, not the employer, who pays the levy. Of course, that would be a rate set by the board itself into the future, before the scheme gets going, on the advice of actuaries. They will try to get a picture of what it is going to cost over time and what a fair rate, a fair levy, will be, to see that this fund continues into the future. It is an industry controlled and maintained fund; it is not a government tax. This revenue will not accrue to government. It will go into the fund. There is provision, of course, for the actuaries to have a look every three years at the scheme, and how it is going.
In order to get it up and running, of course, with no money in it at all, government is putting $1.5m into the kitty. At some point into the future - we are probably looking at around five years - government would expect to draw that $1.5m back. It is simply a seed fund in order to get the scheme going and, as it becomes self-funding over time, government will get that back.
There are a couple of issues around the definition of an employee, as defined in clause 6. It is the same as used anywhere else, or a labour-only contractor. They must apply for registration under clause 10, and it is the registrar who will register, if the registrar thinks that a worker does, in fact, fit the bill.
Regarding the entitlements that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about - and I think he was crossing to redundancy - of course, we are talking about two different purposes here. Long service rewards service to the industry; redundancy or severance pay is to tide the employee over until the next job. In every other jurisdiction, those two entitlements do exist side by side. In any case, severance pay is provided for by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and beyond the control of this parliament.
It is interesting regarding this concept of long service reward to the industry. The member for Greatorex was saying that long service leave was only ever about reward for loyalty to the employer, suggesting that we were stretching the definition here and that it ought not apply to these people. Well, the very reason the portability arrangements came into place around Australia was because it is the nature of the industry, where construction workers go from job and job, change employers quite frequently as a job completes in one area, and often interstate. That is why the portability came into being. It beggars belief that the CLP failed to recognise this over all the years that they had an opportunity to fix it.
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition says he supports it, I thought the member for Greatorex found it very difficult, in his contribution in the second reading speech, to say that he actually did support the bill. As I said, he is trying to suggest a broader agenda here; that we will move to cover other areas. This was a commitment - a clear commitment - to major construction workers in 1995. There is no intention for it to go anywhere else – neither then, nor now – to bring these provisions to any other industries.
The facts, of course, are that whilst you are employed in the construction industry in the Northern Territory, you missed out on accruing entitlements under long service leave, such as you would have accrued working in any other part of Australia. It was a disincentive - and for some people it would have been a strong disincentive - to come to work in the Northern Territory. It was a disincentive that industry could ill afford over all of those years, and a disincentive that they certainly cannot afford now, in view of the advent of the major projects under way in the Northern Territory. It is a provision that brings equity to these workers, removes that disincentive that was on workers to come to the Northern Territory, and it will strengthen the ability of these major companies to recruit. It will strengthen, of course, beyond recruitment, the retention of those workers in the NT.
The member referred to a letter to me that had been copied to him, which said that there had been little or no consultation. Well, way back last year, the government created the Construction Industry Reference Group. It included the TCA, civil contractors, an architect from Alice in that group, contractors’ accreditation and HIA. Portable long service leave was very much on the agenda of that forum. That met from April 2004. At times, there were monthly meetings because there was a whole range of matters - including builder licensing and other matters before government - that were all being pushed through this Construction Industry Reference Group for the very purposes of consultation with industry. You cannot have every builder and developer in the room. That is why you work through the peak bodies, as we did. It is the responsibility of the peak bodies to inform their members of the consultative process: what is happening, where government is going and what the likely decisions are to be.
I attended a few of those meeting. My colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning attended many more than I, including as late as November last year, when I believe there were 40 people in the room. This was an ongoing process, and I am pleased to see that the Construction Industry Reference Group itself will be an ongoing body for any number of issues that come up in the industry. They will have the ability, through that forum, to bring them straight to government.
In terms of consultation, the discussion paper was posted on the web site, and that goes back a fair way. Arising out of that discussion paper, the government went to face-to-face consultation with TCA members at a TCA meeting in which major contractors, builders, the Chamber of Commerce and the member for Nelson, and the Minerals Council were involved. That is a snapshot of the consultative process that we went through.
Where does the money come from for funding of the scheme? In the consultative process, it was a direct result of consulting with industry that government did change its views from levying an employer to a developer levy. The advice from actuaries, so far, is that the fund will be viable in a very short time. As I mentioned before in the example of a cabinet maker, the previous liabilities do exist – nothing changes there – for existing employees under the existing Long Service Leave Act; so nothing changes there.
Why a developer levy? That was a question in that letter. Well, that was close consultation with industry. We went into the process in the early stages thinking it ought be an employer responsibility, but it was the consultative process that convinced us that a developer levy was a cleaner and simpler approach. It was considered the least onerous in terms of impact on the industry as well.
Why do we exempt housing? Not many employees work in the housing sector. It is more often the case that they are subcontractors in the housing sector. We did not want to add, quite deliberately, to the cost of residential housing. The GST did its own work there, in pushing the price of housing construction up, and it continues to rise through general property increases and the price of labour and materials over recent times.
Redundancy I did cover, but it is covered by the award. It is an award of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission so it is outside the capacity of this government to deal with. Those redundancy provisions exist alongside portable long service leave in every other jurisdiction in Australia. They deal with different conditions of employment. All employees covered by awards are entitled to both redundancy and long service leave.
The point on the way we are going to go about collecting the levy reflected the position through the consultative process, as I said, that was put very clearly to us.
I believe the letter called for at least a six-month notice before it comes into effect. Well, that is almost there. It is 30 June or 1 July before it kicks in to action, so having the 1 January, we are talking about five weeks, and that is all. We are quite happy with accruals to commence from 1 January and the scheme in full to kick in from the 1 July.
There is a question in that letter regarding whether the contractor gets the money back if an employee leaves in five years or sooner. Well, clearly not, because it is not the contractor who paid it in the first place; it would be the developer.
Regarding the allegation that it is a government rip-off or a further tax, well, it is clearly not. It is a levy to fund the cost of the provision of portable long service leave to construction workers in the Northern Territory. It is not money that accrues to government, so it is not a tax in any way. It is an industry levy to go into a bucket which will become an industry fund to pay these provisions into the future. We expect that the industry will pick it up, will own it, will run it and run it very properly, for and on behalf of all the workers in the construction industry in the Northern Territory.
I thank the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment for their work in this area. Of course, they are charged with the responsibility of looking after the public sector, by and large. This task or project went beyond that brief somewhat, into the realm of the private sector. However, they are the one area inside government that has considerable industrial relations expertise, notwithstanding that it is the Office of the Public Service Commissioner. We did load them up with this task and they have done a very good job in bringing this forward.
I also thank Mr Gerard Butler for his work in the Construction Industry Reference Group – a robust forum, and rightly so, where people were very able to speak their mind and put their issues on the table. I enjoyed getting along to that industry reference group, and I will continue to do so as they meet in the future. It is a very worthwhile forum for an industry to be able to put their concerns on the table. Gerard Butler was charged, not only with that chairing that group through, but with looking at schemes around Australia: how other jurisdictions did it, and what particular scheme lent itself best to the needs of the Northern Territory and the size, scope and scale of the industry here. He has made contacts all around Australia with practitioners inside long service leave schemes, and he has been able to make those high-level contacts and get support for us going forward in advice and seeing that the scheme gets up and running. I value the work that Gerard Butler has done, and I thank him for it.
I thank again the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment which has, on this occasion, gone quite strongly into the private sector in pursuit of an objective of government. As I said before, I am very proud to stand here today and see this bill go through, even if it took 10 years from the time I made that commitment on an individual level and, subsequently, got the Australian Labor Party to support it and embed it in policy platform. We are bound, and a future Labor government - even if I was not part of it – is always going to be bound by that commitment. I am privileged, 10 years later, to still be here to see it through.
I thank all members again for their contribution. We will work through any clauses that the member for Greatorex or anyone else wishes to raise. I have people well versed with the bill and its construction who can take us, quite quickly, to any issues of concerned or, indeed, issues that require clarification.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, in my second reading response, I asked the minister to define what he meant by ‘construction worker’ and he mentioned that it would be left up to the registrar to determine. I asked because this is where the intention of the legislation is meant to be delivered, so at least the registrar will have some guidance when he struggles to determine who a construction worker is. I would like to hear the minister’s intent on this matter.
Would he call the pipe construction workers on the Alcan pipeline ‘construction workers’ or are they not? The people who build roads or dams are in construction. If you build a big dam, it is a construction project. Would you classify them as construction workers, or any other civil project you choose to name? It would be good for the minister to define exactly what he meant when he wrote in clause 6, Definitions, for ‘construction worker’, because all it says here and I quote from it:
That is very wide. It means just about everybody who rolls up his sleeves and does some work.
Mr STIRLING: It is going to be up to the employee. The employer, as well, will register their workers with the registrar. The registrar will have a look at that through the operation of the company and the nature of the work carried out: is it construction work? It is not intended that it will cover the office worker on the fourth floor or the manager or those sorts of issues. It is up to the registrar in the first instance and, if there is a serious question beyond the registrar’s decision, the board, to clarify whether that person is a construction worker for the purposes of the act and deemed to be registered.
Dr LIM: It is fine for the employer to define the type of work an employee is doing and say: ‘This employee is a construction worker’. At least there is a second or third party to put the definition to it. However, in your definitions you say a contractor can also be registered as a construction worker. A contractor in your definition here means ‘a person who carries out work for a fee or a reward on the person’s own account’. Hey, I am a contractor, I am a construction worker, I am defining myself.
You have left it wide open here, minister. You have to give clear guidance to the board and the registrar as to what you mean a construction worker to be under this legislation. That has to be clear. Otherwise, well, I am a contractor; I contracted my work to Peko Mines many years ago - definitely not as a construction worker. However, if I had been underground constructing a mine shaft, am I covered by this legislation?
Mr STIRLING: I refer the member for Greatorex to clause 10(2)(c). It is page 7 in this draft and I do not know whether that would relate to the bill; it probably would. Yes, it says:
Therefore, if they are supplying materials along with their labour, they are not in.
Dr LIM: Minister, we are now going to confuse clause 6 with 10. I would rather go one clause at a time, otherwise ...
Mr STIRLING: Okay. I was just taking you to where the answer is to that question.
Dr LIM: Yes, I will be coming to clause 10 eventually. We are dealing with clause 6 at the moment. If you want to say to me that you cannot define the construction worker any better than what you have there, then your intent is not clear. I want to be on record that your intent is not clear and that, therefore, leaves wide open as to who can be classified as a construction worker. I have issues with clause 10 also, in terms of who can apply to be registered. However, I would rather not go to clause 10 first if I do not have to, because it really will confuse the issue.
Mr STIRLING: If the member is seeking clarity and not just trying to muddy the issue, Mr Chairman, the answer is here under clause 10:
Application for Registration
(a) …
(b) …
(c) …
(d) …
And so on. That is where the answer lies in relation to the question that the member for Greatorex is seeking to have answered. Either he wants to play games or we move through this.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, obviously what the minister is telling me is that clause 6 definitions are subject to clause 10. The way he is going to answer clause 6 is to go to clause 10 and we will get the answers there. I will accept that. However, on record, the definitions in my mind are not clearly defined.
Clauses 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, regarding clause 10, the minister quoted all the subsections that are in there. I draw his attention to clause 10(2)(c). That was the section he read out earlier:
In that clause, it still does not define what a construction worker is, except that that person does not supply materials. Again I ask: what about the guy who is working to build the Alcan pipeline? Is he a construction worker, or is he not? Is this about building buildings or is it about building a pipeline? Are they construction workers? You cannot tell me that.
Earlier in my second reading response, I said to you a plumber could come along and supply all the copper pipes for a building project and then installs the plumbing. Is he now, outside of this, still covered for the portability of long service leave, or is he not? A bricklayer who lays bricks for a building; that is fine. However, if he happens to be a manufacturer of the bricks as well, and brings the bricks and then lays them for the project, is he out of the contention here? Can he claim long service leave?
Mr STIRLING: Let us take the welder on the pipeline. The registrar would ask whether he is supplying the pipe for the pipeline?’ No. Is he supplying the gas for the welding of the pipeline? No.
Dr LIM: Probably would. A welder would bring his gear.
Mr STIRLING: Is he supplying the gas for welding of the pipeline? No. Is he supplying anything in relation – is he supplying his labour and his skills? Is he providing that? Yes. Anything else? No. He is a construction worker and he is in.
Dr LIM: Minister, I need to go further. There are not many welders I know who do not own a utility with a couple of gas bottles strapped to it, and all the welding rods that he owns. He supplies that material when comes to do the work. When he bills you for his labour, there are usually materials costs in the invoice. They supply material. What are you talking about? You have to be clear with your definitions.
Mr STIRLING: If he has bottles in the back of the ute, he might have the dog and the work boots as well. It matters naught. If he is working on the pipeline, they are providing everything else. He is providing his skills, his expertise as a welder. He is in - whether he has a ute, a dog and the work boots is irrelevant.
Dr LIM: Fine. So, the welder is in. The bricklayer who supplies the bricks; is he in?
Mr STIRLING: The bricklayer who supplies the bricks as well as his or her labour is not in. It is ‘supplies materials for construction work’. Supplying bricks to the site and laying them means ‘supplying materials to the construction work’. Not in.
Dr LIM: Minister, the way I read this, CSR would supply concrete to a project and that is a supplier. That should not be covered. That supplier should not be covered by this bill. However, if it happens to be a concreter who brings the concrete to the site, supplies the material, and then proceeds with his four or five associates - brothers, cousins, employees - to spread the concrete that he has supplied, he has provided his labour at the same time as he has supplied the concrete. Is he covered?
Mr STIRLING: I do not know if we are talking semantics here. The person who drives the truck which supplies the cement to the site - are they supplying the cement or are they supplying the labour to drive the truck? The cement is actually owned by CSR, is being sold to the company building at the site. These are semantics. The question of whether the worker driving the truck and supplying that labour - they are in. What are you talking about? If they own the company and supply the material in their own right, they are not.
Dr LIM: I am, obviously, not making myself clear. I am not talking about the truck driver. I am talking about somebody who owns a concrete plant who also has a group of people working at the concrete plant. They load the concrete into a truck, they bring it to the site, they all get out of the truck, pour the concrete, spread the concrete. They supply material, but they also supply the labour. I am not talking about a truck driver; I am talking about a guy who has to screed out, trowel out - whatever you use - to lay the concrete. Are these people covered by this bill? It is not a truck driver I am talking about. I am talking about the people who actually lay the slab. Are they covered?
Mr STIRLING: If they are providing their labour to lay the slab, they are in; however, if they are selling the concrete, selling the cement, they are not.
Dr LIM: Therefore, say I am one of 10 people in a group who happen to own a concrete mixing plant, who are also concrete layers. You have bought the concrete off my company - or my associates, my group - so we supply you with the raw material. We bring it to your site. We 10 people will now put the concrete slab down for you. We are now providing our labour to lay the concrete slab. What I am saying is, I supply and I lay the concrete at the same time. Where do I stand?
Mr STIRLING: Well, the workers for that particular organisation may be in. If they are a part of that contract to supply and lay, that has to be looked at by the registrar. If they are simply providing labour only - no question, they are in.
Dr LIM: If they are the layers only, they are in, I accept that, and do not have difficulties with that. However, you are not clear with your intention whether the person who supplies and lays is in or not. You are saying: leave that to the registrar. Well, let us give the registrar some guidance. What is your intention in this? Is the person who provides the material as well as the labour covered or not covered? Just tell us your intention, and the registrar can sort it out from there.
Mr STIRLING: The person is not covered.
Dr LIM: He is not covered?
Mr STIRLING: I cannot see how that can be clearer. He supplies materials for construction work.
Dr LIM: All right, I now have your intention clear. What you are saying now then is that, say, every planning company in the Territory who bids for a project has either to bid for just supplying the material or just the labour; they cannot do both. If they do both, they will not be covered by this. Right?
Mr STIRLING: That is a question for the registrar.
Dr LIM: What is your intention, minister?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Any more questions on that?
Dr LIM: Obviously, the minister is not going to respond to that and he is going to leave it right up to the registrar and the board to decide. I suppose the decision could, potentially, be following the bias of the registrar or the board.
Mr STIRLING: Just on that, if you want to go to the board - and he says we are just going to leave it to the registrar and the board - he needs to be clear about what the board is. Its composition will be two members that represent the interests of employers in the Territory, two members who represent organisations that represent the interests of employees in the Territory, an independent chair, and the minister may appoint two additional board members. If that is not as fair a representation of the industry that you could get in the composition of the board, I will go he. They will have their expertise and work through this accordingly.
Dr LIM: Again, I do not have any difficulties with what the minister has just said to describe the board; the board will do its own thing. What I am saying is that, usually in legislation, government gives guidance as to how it wants legislation to be implemented. The second reading speech is when the guidance, the intention of government, is clearly articulated. Here I can see the minister is not quite clear. Anyway, let us move on.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr LIM: With regard to clause 13, I refer to the minister’s second reading speech when he said:
I see from that, that the levy the developer contributes will stay in the Territory, full stop, and will not get transferred out if the employee moves interstate.
I give an example of, say, an employee who works in the Territory as a construction worker for only three years, and a developer contributes towards that long service leave. That particular person then moves interstate and goes and works as a construction worker in another place, but only does it for one year. Under this legislation, that person is, obviously, not covered by us anymore so it does not really matter. However, if that person leaves the industry, that money that has been provided by a developer for that person’s long service leave is - what? Does it go back to the developer because that money is not being used by the worker because he is no longer in the industry and not entitled to long service leave?
Mr STIRLING: No, the member is right, the cut-off is five years. However, it is not intended that, if someone does not make five years, it is refunded. It goes into the big bucket that goes on to pay entitlements for workers forever and a day. I do not see that you have to give all that back because the worker did not make the five years - in which case they might have left the industry or retired and are eligible for a pro-rata benefit. There is no intention and it would be nightmarish, I would have thought, to be refunding along those lines.
Dr LIM: The money then stays in the board? Okay. You can imagine, if the projects keep coming along and the levy keeps being imposed on projects, the money keeps accumulating. Will there be a time when you might have a moratorium where you do not need to contribute any more to the levy. This pool is going to – I suggest to you - increase at a greater rate than long service leave entitlements are being paid out. That is how I would see it happening, which means this pool is going to grow very large. (1) What are you going to do with that money; and (2) is there going to be a moratorium that future projects will not have to be levied? If that is the case, how do you balance the equity between current and future projects?
Mr STIRLING: I welcome the member for Greatorex’s enthusiasm and positive nature that it will accrue at such a rate. Certainly, the actuarial advice is that it will be viable. That is our bottom line; that it will be viable in covering entitlements into the future.
The scheme has an inbuilt review mechanism. Every three years, the independent actuaries look at it - how much it has accrued, what it entails and what are the likely outgoings - and they will make recommendation to the board. I would not put any suggestion about a moratorium. However, it may be that, if it was going that well into the foreseeable future, there was a way to reduce the levy for that next three-year period. That is a question for the actuaries after the experience of three years. That would probably take three years to start to get a fix on the flow of revenue; both into the scheme and how that is accruing, and out of the scheme in entitlements owed. That would be the appropriate time, and every three years thereafter, to have a look at it. It is not for me to say exactly what would happen. However, the provision is there and it would be independent actuaries who look at it and advise the board accordingly.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, the minister was a little sceptical about my enthusiasm that the number of projects and the levy that would be imposed on these projects will increase the funds to such a level that you might require a moratorium. I know that several interstate boards have so much money they do not know what to do with it; it has become an embarrassment. That is true, and there is every likelihood it will happen in the Northern Territory also.
That is as far as we can go with the money. What I am concerned about is that, if you start having - whether it would be 0.5% or 1% - a project levy now, in the future years when you have a lot of money and you start dropping the percentage of the levy down, whether it is equitable for future projects to assist current projects which would be funding it up-front first. It is the next two or three years of projects that are going to be ‘penalised’ versus what can happen in the future when you have a lot of money in a pool.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, were we dealing with clause 13 or 30?
Dr LIM: Clause 13.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which was deregistration?
Dr LIM: We are talking about the money anyway. Sure, okay.
Mr STIRLING: We should probably pass those, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I like to know where I am. Are you talking about LSL credits? That is where you are up to? Do you have anything more on that?
Dr LIM: No, I have nothing further on that.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which is the next clause you would like?
Dr LIM: Clauses 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Mr CHAIRMAN: But LSL was clause 16. We are going backwards.
Clauses 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Dr LIM: In regards to the qualifying service, clause 15(4)(a) speaks about a period of 12 months immediately before the worker becomes a registered worker, and that period is to be taken into consideration. How are you going to determine that, particularly if that person comes from interstate? How are you going to determine that, for the previous 12 months, this person has been a construction worker?
Mr STIRLING: I am advised that the clause is to cover the eventuality of, in a year’s time, a worker in the industry now or around about now, or in the near future, who did not realise that they needed to be registered, who puts their hand up and says: ‘Hey, I have actually worked here since March last year; no one ever told me that I needed to register’. There is a provision there to allow for a backtracking. Obviously, the record of employment has to be substantiated to the satisfaction of the registrar and the board. However, it is simply to allow for an oversight where a person who, perhaps through no fault of their own, failed to register and could risk losing out on accruing that time. It is a safety gap, and only designed for that 12 months.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Dr LIM: Clause 16 talks about 6.5 days for each qualifying services of 260 days. In other words, when you talk about a person being entitled to start claiming the credits once they have accrued - this goes with clause 18 as well. By your leave, Mr Chairman, can I incorporate those two together?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be all right.
Dr LIM: It says that a person who has accrued 32.5 days of long service leave can start claiming it. That, effectively, brings the entitlement down to a five-year period of engagement in the industry whereas, currently under all awards, it is a minimum of seven years to get pro rata of a 10-year long service leave. By using 32.5 days, you are effectively reducing down to five years. Do you follow my argument?
Mr STIRLING: The member for Greatorex is right; however, it only applies after they have actually done 10 years. Therefore, you are talking about a 15-year mark. In clause 18 that a registered employee who is employed by a registered employer is entitled to a grant of long service leave if any of the following occurs:
The first time has done 10 years:
Credits for the first time. Therefore, it is a 15-year clause in that sense.
Dr LIM: Does not clause 18(2)(b) say that you can claim after five years?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, but you have to read that in conjunction with clause 18(1)(b) on the previous page; that is, only eligible after the first 10 years has ticked over.
Dr LIM: Obviously, the way I am reading it - but if you assure me that is what it is - that after 10 years they can access it - I am happy with that. If I may have the indulgence, Mr Chairman, and go to clause 17.
Clause 16 agreed to
Clause 17:
Dr LIM: Clause 17 is in regards to credits for a person registered as both employee and contractor. I suppose I come back to the issue of definition. A contractor, as I understand it, is someone who is self-employed, has an ABN, can supply labour, materials, and anything he likes. A contractor is responsible, because he is self-employed, for his own superannuation, his own sickness and accident insurance, workers compensation or whatever you want to call it, and other work-related entitlements. He is responsible for that himself. How do you now bring this contractor into a situation where he can then be eligible for long service leave under this scheme?
Mr STIRLING: Again, on advice, if they were an employee for five years and, subsequently, become a contractor, perhaps for three years, this is to ensure that there is no double-counting across the categories.
Dr LIM: There is a lot of whispering going on here; I did not quite catch it. A contractor is a contractor. He could have been working as an employee for a period and that is not a problem. In that period, you are entitled to accrue the long service leave. If you then become a contractor after that, are you still entitled to accrue long service leave while working as a contractor?
Mr STIRLING: Again, we go back to that question before. It is a question for the registrar and, perhaps, the board to make that call, depending on the circumstances and the merits of the case.
Dr LIM: What is your intention, minister? That is what I am asking.
Mr STIRLING: Well, that is for the registrar and the board to make that call, depending on the circumstances around the individual.
Dr LIM: I do not know whether you appreciate the confusion that is there at the moment amongst the contractors in the Northern Territory. They know in their minds that they are fully responsible for their business enterprise. They are a contractor. They are registered as self-employed people with their own ABNs. If somebody wants a service to be provided, they do it on contract. The price of the job they do incorporates all the on-costs that are not normally there when you are just the employee. The contractor puts in all the extras like superannuation, workers compensation, and all that, into the contract price, so that has already been covered. How does the contractor then become covered by a developer’s levy when, in his own contract price, he has that already built into it? Can you see that the contractor is double-dipping?
Mr STIRLING: I will probably need to have that one put past me again, Mr Chairman.
Dr LIM: Okay. A developer of this building lets the job out to several contractors who are putting up the panels, or whatever. The contractor will put a price to the developer and say: ‘Okay, to do these panels is going to cost you this much money’. That price that the contractor puts to the developer will include workers compensation, superannuation, whatever you like, because that is what contractors do. You have your own ABN; you submit a price that covers all your other costs.
Then another person comes in who is an employee of the developer and puts up other things. The developer pays a levy for the project. Okay? The project covers the contractor and the employee. The contractor already is paid by the developer for the work that a contractor does. The price that the contractor has asked for has included workers comp, superannuation, leave, whatever you like.
Mr STIRLING: I would not be so sure that they would be paying it.
Dr LIM: Oh, if were properly employed, you would be doing all those things, minister, I assure you - you would. Okay? Believe me. Ask anybody out there who is on private contracts. They would include all those things in their contract price that they put to a developer. The employee does not, of course. Therefore, the employee deserves to have the long service leave.
Mr STIRLING: I am not quite sure where the member goes with this. It is the contractor who is the labour-only contractor, who is selling their labour - they are in.
Dr LIM: Correct.
Mr STIRLING: The contractor who is supplying all manner of material to this building, is not.
Dr LIM: Correct. I do not want to labour this. We will move on after this.
Yes, you are correct, minister. A person who provides the material, provides the material. I am talking about a contractor who provides labour. Right? I am a carpenter, so I am a construction worker under this bill. However, I am also self-employed. The developer of this building has come to me and said: ‘Look, I need you to work on this project; come to me as a contractor. Give me a price to sell your labour for this project’. I say: ‘Okay, that is fine’.
He is consulting. Okay, I will lead you through again. I am a contractor engaged by the developer of this building to sell my labour only. Okay? But, I am self-employed. I am a self-employed labourer, a construction worker. I have my own ABN, so you pay me the money and I pay the tax; you do not take any tax out of my money. Okay? You pay me what I am billing you for, for my contract work, and I pay my own tax. In my bill, built into that fee that I charge you, will be enough money to cover my workers comp, my sickness and accident insurance, my superannuation, my sickness, my medical insurance – all those little add-ons to keep me in viable business. You pay me the whole lump sum, and I will pay the tax man my just taxes and sort it out. I am a contractor. Okay? So, I have money that you paid me that I can put away for long service leave already. You, as the developer, at the same time, have paid a levy which is supposed to cover my long service leave, so I am entitled to the long service leave from the developer. At the same time, in my contract price, I have received money that I have earned that I am putting aside for long service leave, because that is how I billed my contract price. I am double-dipping.
Mr STIRLING: Very much a case for the project developer to be on their guard against that. When they look at the tenders put before them as to which contractors they may or may not engage, they are probably going to be a wake-up to that and say: ‘Well, we are not paying you for that because I have already had to put in a part percentage point of a levy towards long service leave and, if you are a registered contractor – providing labour only – you will be picked up under that over time. So, that bit of your claim goes out’.
It is a matter for the state of the industry and the going rate - all of those questions that the project developer is going to look at - whether they accept it or not.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister. I think I understand that what you are saying now is that the developer would pay whatever rate the levy is set at, and will go back to the contractor and say: ‘Your price is now too high because I have already paid for your long service leave. Your price has to be reduced by a certain percentage and that is the contract price I will accept, or go away’. Contractors, in fact, now will not be able to charge what they used to charge - per hour, per day or whatever – for the services they provide. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: The state of the industry, at any time, will dictate the outcomes and negotiations like that; they are commercial arrangements. The project developer will know what the going rate is for a contractor providing labour only, and they will meet the bid accordingly.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 20, by leave, taken together:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I withdraw clause 20 as I have already argued in the previous clause. It is the same thing.
Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Dr LIM: I need to talk about clause 22 at the same time because it seems to go one with the other. Clause 21 talks about long service leave benefits on deregistration, which applies to somebody who has accrued something like 32.5 days of long service leave. Then, clause 22 talks about one who has accrued 45.5 days long service leave. If you only can derive benefits after 32.5 days, what is the 45.5 days for? If you can already get your entitlements up to 32.5 days, the 45.5 days is of no relevance at all. Should it be there?
Mr STIRLING: If deregistered under clause 13(1)(b) or (c), the person no longer carries out construction work - possibly on retirement - or applies to the registrar for deregistration on the basis that they retired or (d) that they actually died and had worked over five years, they are entitled to that pro rata.
Dr LIM: If I may ask the question again, minister: what does clause 22 achieve that is not covered by clause 21? What is the point of requiring seven years service for entitlement on leaving the industry, when the employee can simply apply for deregistration on leaving the industry after five years?
Mr STIRLING: I am advised it is necessary to have the two different clauses, member for Greatorex. Clause 21 is a permanent departure, as in leaving the industry at retirement or death. Clause 22 is if you want to take your leave - that is, on a pro rata basis after seven years – and not necessarily leave the industry.
Dr LIM: The title of clause 22 is ‘Long Service Leave Benefit on Ceasing to Carry out Construction Work’. Clause 21 says ‘Long Service Benefit on Deregistration’. You get deregistered because you are no longer in that industry or you seek to be deregistered yourself. Clause 22 says ‘Long Service Benefit on Ceasing to Carry out Construction Work’. Therefore, if you cease construction work, you are deregistered.
Mr STIRLING: No, clause 21 covers leaving the industry permanently; that is, died, not coming back, or retired.
Dr LIM: Or deregistered for whatever reason.
Mr STIRLING: The deregistration, that is it; you are out. This is ceasing to carry out construction work; that is, for 45.5 days. I would grab my long service leave that I am entitled to and, on the 46th day, could well be back at work in the industry.
Dr LIM: Okay.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 32:
Dr LIM: I drew the minister’s attention to my second reading speech response. The way clause 32(2) of the bill is written it says:
Does that include government projects sponsored by government or benevolent organisations, charities, not-for-profit organisations and the like?
Mr STIRLING: Could the member for Greatorex just put that past me again? I cannot see what the problem is there.
Dr LIM: Well, on reading clause 32(2), it suggests to me that, apart from the issue of $200 000 for a home - it has already been covered by that - projects that are sponsored by government such as charities, not-for-profit organisations and the like, may not have to pay the levy. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: The member is reading it exactly right. If that is what the board’s consideration is, then the levy is not payable.
Dr LIM: Then I would put this to you, minister. The government is building the hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a project with lots of construction workers. Why are those construction workers not entitled to long service leave for working on that project?
Mr STIRLING: Quite clearly, they are; the government would pay the levy. The government is not a charitable organisation. Are we? Do we get tax-free status? I do not think so. Look, in the case of any government project over $200 000, the government pays the levy and those workers registered and working on that site would benefit in the long term.
Dr LIM: I ask you then, minister, in the words that you have in the bill:
Of course, there is no pecuniary gain for government members to build a hospice, but what about benevolent organisations? There is pecuniary interest for the organisation; that is why they build it in the first instance. Do they pay or do they not? Each individual member of the board or its members have no pecuniary interest in the project, but the organisation does.
Mr STIRLING: I believe the member for Greatorex explained it himself ...
Dr LIM: Sorry?
Mr STIRLING: I believe you explained it yourself. It is ‘formed or carried on for a purpose other than pecuniary gains to its members and ‘voluntary labour or donated materials’. It is not in; does not get levied.
Dr LIM: All right. Therefore, what you are saying is every project that comes forward after passage of the bill will be captured by the levy in this bill provided it is more than $200 000 - other than the exceptions - every project built, whether it be by a benevolent organisation or otherwise?
Mr STIRLING: After 1 July when it cuts in, over $200 000 in the first instance, and not the private home and the other categories that are ruled out earlier in the bill - they are in.
Dr LIM: Let us move on.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think you got an answer.
Dr LIM: I believe the minister has answered the question. That is fine.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Dr LIM: Minister, can you give us an indicative rate at which the levy will be struck?
Mr STIRLING: It has to be in the order of 0.45% to 0.5% of 1% of the overall project cost. That will become clearer. A great deal of work was done on this by an actuary leading up to this, who, unfortunately, died in the process. Another actuary had to then come in and pick it up. That is not that easy; picking up someone else’s work. That is as far as I could go. It will be around that 0.5% of 1%. That will be much clearer in the couple of weeks or months ahead before this kicks in on 1 July.
Dr LIM: Do you have an actuarial person who is coming in from interstate to do this work, or do you have somebody in mind lined up ready to go?
Mr STIRLING: I understand that it is an interstate firm that has been looking at those figures.
Dr LIM: Can you give us an indication of what the government’s exposure will be regarding the waterfront project? That is going to come in after 1 July.
Mr STIRLING: No, I could not give any indication whatsoever.
Dr LIM: Have you, as Treasurer, worked out what it is?
Mr STIRLING: I could not give any indication whatsoever at this stage.
Dr LIM: Well, would you agree that 0.5% of $1bn is something like at least $20m exposure?
Mr STIRLING: I am not going to give any forecast, predication, projection whatsoever at this stage. One would have thought that, if this does not cut in until 1 July, that project may well be off and running before that.
Dr LIM: Sorry, someone coughed – may well be?
Mr STIRLING: I would expect that project to have made a commencement well before 1 July.
Dr LIM: are you suggesting that anything that gets off before 1 July is exempt from this levy?
Mr STIRLING: I am not saying that absolutely everything around a particular project. It might depend on the stages of it and whether it stands eligible to come into the scheme. However, I would not rule totally out, totally in. You are asking me to look in the crystal ball and say that I know what date it is going to start; that we might capture Stage 2, No, I am not in that forecasting game.
Dr LIM: Okay, I am not asking you to forecast. This bill backdates the long service leave entitlements to 1 January 2005 for all construction workers. You are now saying that projects will not be levied until 1 July. Therefore, anything that starts before that will not be levied. So, workers are covered, there is no money, the government puts $1.5m …
Mr STIRLING: That is …
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me finish. The government will put in $1.5m seed money, which it will then withdraw after five years. What happens to all the people working at the waterfront if they started before and where is the money going to come from to cover them? You are talking about a $1bn project out there, and your $1.5m is not going to cover much of that.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I said I will not enter into any conjecture around what parts or stages of a project may or may not be captured. He is asking me to look into a crystal ball and say when Stage 1 and Stage 2 will start, what might be in, what might be out. I am not doing it. I have told him that and, I will not entertain that conjecture.
Dr LIM: At least if you were to say to me that you will leave the $1.5m in the pool and not take it out after five years, I might believe you. You are looking at, potentially, up to $20m exposure. You are now saying to me that you do not know what you are doing - no idea whatsoever. Maybe there might not be enough money in there to cover the employees on the project.
Mr STIRLING: The member is forgetting, it requires 10 years of work in the industry in order to qualify. If someone works on that project for two years and they had eight years in other jurisdictions, then other jurisdictions pay their share of that. Quite clearly, looking forward for the Territory worker who is only starting work in the industry in the Territory, it is 10 years before that would be due. In any case, they are not liabilities and, a little like superannuation, never all falls due on one day. It is a far-flung thing all the way into the future.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
In so doing, I raise one point for the member for Greatorex. In any of the legislation that comes through my office - be it through Treasury, Education or, in this case, an employee entitlement scheme - we do invite members opposite for briefings on aspects of the bill. There are some complexities. This is not an overly complex bill, but with all legislation, it does take time to come to grips with the various clauses and how they interrelate. It strikes me that, whilst going through committee stage is a valuable exercise – that is what it is for; seeking clarification, probing aspects of the bill and making sure that it reflects the intent of government and authors – and is a process that lends itself well to this Chamber, and is usually carried out in a pretty positive fashion as it was today.
However, I urge the member for Greatorex, because we do have a number of dealings in common - I do not understand the intransigence in failing to accept an offer to brief on any legislation …
Dr Lim: At lunchtime? I had other things to do.
Mr STIRLING: Your job is to prosecute your side of politics’ arguments in relation to the bill. If you do not go out and get the views of industry, constituents and whoever may be impacted upon by this legislation, you ought to - get their views, round them up, round up your colleagues and get a party position view on it. You are also charged with having some understanding, I suppose, of the legislation all the way through. As I said, this committee stage is a valuable exercise; that is what it is for.
However, it does make it difficult when there is this intransigence about coming to government, the people who have put the legislation together - not the authors in the sense of drafting, but the authors in the mind sense of seeing the bill through to getting its aims and objectives in it. That opportunity is there and I would urge the member for Greatorex to take it in future. We encourage you to come forward for the briefing. It is an opportunity to test your own understanding, to test and probe the parameters of the bill, and get as good an understanding as possible before we come into the House. Notwithstanding that, I welcome committee stage; it is good. I always welcome walking the bill through the committee stages. However, I do not understand this refusal or inability to take up the offer of briefings, and I would recommend that people do.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his patronising discussion on how I should do my work. I have had many briefings from the minister’s office, and some are better than others. Others are sometimes pretty slack and, when you ask for information, there is not much forthcoming. Also, the briefings are pretty thin in information provided and, when promises are made that ‘I will get the information to you’, it is never followed through. That has happened in many of the portfolios that the minister carries, which I share with him.
As for today’s lunchtime offer of a briefing, I do not have the luxury, as the minister might have, of spending his two hours at lunch. I am flat out at committee meetings - two of which I had today at lunchtime - plus I have many phone calls to make. That is what I do with my lunchtime; I work hard. I thank the minister for trying to give me a lesson in how to do my job. Sure, I concede he is probably the longest-serving member of parliament in this Chamber, but I am not that far behind either, minister.
With regard to this legislation, the opposition does not oppose it. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this is something that needs to come. It has now arrived in the Territory; we will go along with it and not object to it. However, let us watch it cautiously over time and see how it goes. I am glad to hear the minister say that this legislation and the levy will all be reviewed in three years time. I look forward to seeing how this legislation will work in bringing about some equity to what is normally a very transient population of construction workers.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, from the outset, I thank the minister for the briefing that was provided to me and my colleagues, the members for Daly and Port Darwin. I also thank those who provided the briefing, John Gronow, Fabio Finocchiaro and Jim O’Neill for their obvious depth of knowledge about these issues, and commitment to addressing what seemed to be a series of problems. I note that minister, in his speech, talked about some of the legal conundrums, and they have done a reasonably good job in addressing those issues.
Members would be aware that, only last sittings we passed a Building Bill which was No 1 of the tranche, I guess. Now we have a Building Amendment Bill (No 2). If you look to the critical year of 1993 and to the fact that the source of these amendments come from both Magistrates Court problems, High Court problems, and legal advice that has come to the department from its own independent legal counsel, you can see that there has been an effort to provide remedies to those problems that have beset this bill, unbeknownst to original drafters and those practitioners who have had to work with it. I believe when the minister said in his second reading speech in December that legal complexities abound, it must have been a speech written by some poor person the department has severely battered by the various legal issues that have come sailing in from the blue on this bill.
From the outset too, I should say the opposition supports this bill. We are aware of some of the issues that have been talked about. In the second reading speech, the minister eloquently described the issues. Without going to the actual details of the case, the opposition is aware of some of the matters that have been discussed in this bill. We are also aware of the difficulties with conveyancing and Certificates of Compliance and how there is a dependency upon those certificates; how there is a misunderstanding sometimes from the client about what those certificates convey. There is a notion that they are provided a sense of the engineering worthiness of the place. We can understand the necessity for the amendments the minister will be bringing on in committee, and we will support those also.
The ambition, I suppose, of the department and the minister is to continue with an orderly method for regulating those who build our houses, providing consumer confidence, and providing a robust system to make sure that what people get in terms of certificates and other devices gives them confidence that their home will accord with the standards of the day. I believe this bill achieves that and, from the briefings we have received, there are no major departures in the direction of government. The government, like us, will look to issues relating to self-certification. We will look to issues relating to ensuring there is adherence in matters under that purview.
I understand that these tranches will come together, that is Building Bill (No 1) and Building Bill (No 2), and that there are various issues that are called up in each that will require some fairly fancy footwork in timing for early next year. I am quite confident that the capacity of the department and those practitioners who work with these bills will make sure that the meshing of the issues across those two bills will mean that there is little impact for the consumer. There is a great necessity for education of those people, including tradespeople who are involved in the industry, and I am very confident that will take place.
With those few words, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we support the bill. We support its intent as a look-back mechanism to remedy some of the problems of the past that were unanticipated. We look to it as an instrument which, in the future, will require some further communication devices with the industry, with practitioners, with home owners and home builders. We are very confident that the department has the capacity, the willpower, and the practices to be able to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. There has been a long history of how this bill came before us. I recall headlines from the Litchfield Times where some engineers said that, basically, to do what the government was going to require them to do would mean they would have to demolish a home. I remember Stringer’s cartoon in the Litchfield Times that had an engineer who had just finished more or less demolishing the home and telling the homeowner: ‘Look, I have to tell you the sad fact is that your home was up to code,’ but he had to demolish it to tell him. It certainly did put the fear in a lot of people regarding what was going to be required. The changes the government has proposed will, hopefully, allay those fears now.
I was contacted by some people who were not particularly happy with some of the processes. I have since, after having a briefing, contacted other people who believe that the government has done a good job in talking to industry: the conveyancers, the Law Society, the Real Estate Institute and certifiers. Of course, not everyone is going to be happy about the changes.
I have taken onboard some of the issues that were of concern to the certifiers. Those issues still need to be looked at. One issue concerns building status reports and that there is some assurance that there will be uniformity in the way those status reports are carried out. Another issue was that they believed there is a shortage of certifiers. My understanding is that there is a shortage of certifiers throughout Australia, so I am not sure how we can overcome some of those issues. Perhaps we should look at a cadetship similar to the one the Minister for Mines and Energy talked about today to encourage some of our young people to get into that area. There are not a lot of certifiers; therefore, if we can encourage young people to think about going into that industry, it would be good.
Minister, there will need to be more discussion. I realise that you have had quite a few meetings with industry. You did talk - and I was alluding to this some time ago - about meetings with the community. I realise it is a complex issue. The last thing I want is a public forum or a public meeting which confuses people more than it assists them. Is it possible for a meeting in the future, perhaps when the regulations - especially on issues regarding substantial compliance and those sorts of issues - are ironed out? Could we arrange a meeting, at least in the rural area? I imagine there are still quite a few homes in the rural area that were built pre-1974, pre-1983 and pre-1993 when plenty of them were built. People would be happy to determine the status of their houses and, if they are selling their house, what sort of certification they are required to have.
Minister, in your reply, you might be able to expand on issues about insurance and the ability of banks to grant loans on houses now under these new requirements. There has always been a fear that you could not get insurance on a house unless it was up to code, or you could not get a loan if your house was not up to code. I am interested to hear what the government has to say on something that many people want to hear about. It was certainly an issue when this first came up for debate. Therefore, minister, if you could allay people’s fears that they still can get insurance and a bank loan under this system, that would also be good to hear.
I welcome the bill. I believe if it clears up what has certainly been a very messy area for a lot of people, it would be welcomed. I wonder whether the government will look at reviewing how it is working after 12 months, and perhaps report back on whether adjustments need to be made to it. I know you can adjust things to the regulations, but it would be nice to see a report saying the act is working satisfactorily, or that we need to do some changes to it because of some technicalities that we have not quite worked out or some practical problems. Again, it would be nice to see the minister report on the status of this bill after it has been in operation for, say, 12 months.
As I said before, I support the bill. I will talk to those certifiers about some of the issues they raised and see whether we can sort those issues through. With that, I will finish my debate on the bill and wait for the committee stage.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I thank the member for Drysdale for his contribution and, also the member for Nelson. No doubt, it was the extensive briefing given by the very experienced members of the department which played a pivotal role in moving through these issues.
Just to recap, there are actually three issues covered under this Building Amendment Bill (No 2). One of them is to do with the Building Practitioners Board and another is to do with building control areas. Both of those issues arose out of court cases, as the member for Drysdale alluded to. Similarly, the Certificates of Occupancy and the impasse over them, was linked to some legal proceedings and uncertainties over the whole issue of liability of the Building Services Branch in issuing Certificates of Occupancy that may be open to challenge and, I guess, further litigation. I will focus on the Certificates of Occupancy and the Certificates of Substantial Compliance which are suggested in this bill and the amendments to the bill.
When I took over this portfolio area a little over 12 months ago, it was one of the main issues that was flagged to me. There was a lot of uncertainty, and people were not sure what was happening. The member for Nelson alluded to some newspaper articles which, frankly, were a little bit over the top. However, there certainly was a lot of uncertainty and angst, I suppose, and representation from people who felt they should have been able to have a Certificate of Occupancy but were told by the department, for various reasons due to the timing of their building and some of the paperwork which existed - or did not exist, which is probably more to the point - that a certificate really could not be issued to them. What I endeavoured to do was to bring the main players together within the industry - the certifiers, the lenders, the insurers; a whole range of people - to talk through the issue and try and come up with a solution. I believe the solution that has been put forward in this legislation about buildings of a certain age - pre-1993 and further back beyond that - is really a good solution. It comes about through taking time to talk the issues through with the industry groups in a number of meetings I was able to attend.
The member for Nelson has raised a number of issues about further consultation, and that will be appropriate once the regulations are drawn up. The regulations will be all about how people apply for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, what the processes are, and how it actually all works. I believe that is where we need to engage further with the industry, particularly the certifiers. The real estate industry is a very important group that I omitted to mention before, which has been involved in these discussions. We can flag some further discussions, certainly in the rural area as the member for Nelson has requested.
However, I say to the member for Nelson and any prospective buyer of a house that what really counts - and you can have a Certificate of Occupancy for a building that might be 20 years old and that would give some people some comfort - and is a major comfort for people is getting a structural report from a licensed person about the current state of that building. That is what lending institutions require. Some of the interstate lending bodies are particularly interested in Certificates of Occupancy, and that caused some of the hassles. However, most lending institutions are interested in the structural report to see about the integrity of the building at that particular point in time. Basically, the Certificate of Occupancy or the Certificate of Substantial Compliance should not be seen as replacing buyers going out and getting those reports that I have alluded to.
Given the nature of the Territory and some of the back blocks of the rural areas that the member for Nelson talked about, there will always be some buildings that, basically, have no certificates for anything; they have not started off with the building permit. I suppose people can still buy and sell those buildings, depending on the lending institution and, as I say, the state of that building. They can still get loans against that building.
I point out to the member for Nelson straight up that there is no way that a person who owns a building with no certification can expect to get a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, because they are really complying with nothing. However, this legislation does provide a way forward for the majority of buildings that have fallen into this phantom zone through the court case that we have mentioned. I hope that clarifies some of the issues for the member for Nelson.
Once the regulations are settled and there have been negotiations, it is incumbent on us to launch a public education campaign, and continuing education for professionals such as those in the real estate industry. There are people who probably move in and out of that particular profession who may come from interstate, or be new to it, who need to know what is required to expedite sales.
Having said that, I have really summed up most of what I want to say, except that, leading into the committee stage now, I want to advise members that there are a number of committee stage amendments. I want to explain the reasons why those committee stage amendments have arisen. The first one is regarding, as the member for Drysdale pointed out, this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) which is linked to Building Amendment Bill (No 1). There were committee stage amendments with (No 1) which resulted in re-numbering quite a number of clauses and parts of that particular act. To make sure that the two acts really can work together, the amendments are about renumbering so that the two acts can line up. Therefore, renumbering will come up during these committee stage amendments, particularly after the amendments to Building Amendment Bill (No 1).
A number of the amendments also relate to the fact that this particular Building Amendment Bill (No 2) actually starts before Building Amendment Bill (No 1). To get the flow and the activation of the various parts of the legislation, basically, there have to be committee stage amendments to specify the starting dates. Those are two categories of committee stage amendments. There are going to be lots of numbers and clauses, but I can assure members that the intent of the original bill and this one is not altered at all by these committee stage amendments.
There are some amendments which, I guess, the parliamentary draftsmen has come across some things that may have been minor omissions in the first act, and I praise the draftsmen for their diligence. I understand that, to some degree, because of some of the issues I have outlined, these amendments created a bit of a nightmare for the parliamentary draftsmen. They have acted very professionally and, basically, created these committee stage amendments. They have worked very hard on this legislation.
There is one small part in the bill which clarifies some definitional aspects of the Certificate of Substantial Compliance. That is a clarification of meaning rather than any change about the thrust of the legislation. Having said that, I hope we can go into committee stage and expedite this legislation, which is being supported by the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) 2004 (Serial 274) together with schedule of amendments No 97 circulated by the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Burns.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 22:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 22A to 22D:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.9.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 22A to 22D agreed to.
Clause 23:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.10.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.11.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new Clause 23A:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.12.
Proposed new clause 23A agreed to.
Clause 24:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.13.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.14.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on something the minister mentioned about the bill in his second reading. I am hoping that the government will come on board with it. He mentioned that the person buying a house would be required to obtain the certificates. Of course, last year, I proposed a bill in parliament in which responsibility for those certificates would rest with the person selling the house.
The minister, in his second reading speech, mentioned that some of the responsibility when selling a house at the moment falls back on the old adage of ‘buyer beware’. I hope that part of this package of reforms to the building industry will include changes to the way we sell property. I hope the government is considering getting rid of what I call ‘buyer beware’ and introducing the reforms that I tried to introduce last year, which will make sure that all the certificates that are required when one is selling a house are up-front for those who wish to purchase what, in many ways, is their biggest purchase of their life - their home. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. I believe he is referring to legislation regarding vendor disclosure in real estate. After talking with the Attorney-General, my knowledge is that that reform is moving through the system. It is a very important reform, and takes on board the member for Nelson’s comments for the need for further reform.
Finally, I thank both opposition and Independent members for their contributions and support for this bill. I would like to thank those public servants who have worked very tirelessly to bring these bills to fruition, both Building Amendment Bill (No 1) and (No 2), Mr John Gronow, who is very experienced, Fabio Finocchiaro, and Gale Jamieson from Parliamentary Counsel. They have done a fantastic job on some very complex issues with these interconnected bills. I have to confess, as we often talk about briefings in this place, it took me three briefings. I was around each and every one of those amendments, as I wanted to be very clued up on it. They showed a lot of patience with me over these issues, right from day one when I became minister of this portfolio, and they have briefed me extensively. I know they have briefed the opposition and Independent members. I commend them for their hard work in the consultation process and in framing this legislation. With that, I conclude my remarks, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 1 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this Taxation (Administration) Amendment (Objections and Appeals) Bill essentially sets up an appeals tribunal. I hope the Treasurer would understand that I have recently assumed the responsibility for Treasury matters, and there are some issues that I am more across than others. However, the issue with regards to this particular legislation picks up an extant problem that exists.
I have been briefed by my former shadow Treasurer, the member for Greatorex, on the issue, who advises me that the bill, in its entirety, achieves the objectives that appear to need to be rectified. Essentially, where there is an appeal against payroll tax applications, that appeal previously was to the Commissioner for Taxation, and the opinion of the Commissioner for Taxation stood. An appellant could then, as I understand it, go to the court - whether it be a Supreme Court or a Magistrates Court, depending on their choice - to proceed with what was a very costly appeal. Therefore, in practical decision-making, the situation essentially rested with the Commissioner for Taxation - a fairly unsatisfactory situation in the opinion of some. A better mechanism was sought to be put in place.
This mechanism puts in place a tribunal which has the responsibility to not only hear objections, but also to mediate as well as make decisions. The accommodation still remains with the appellant to go to court if they so wish. However, for all practical purposes, one would expect this legislation to attend to a fair system whereby a person can make an appeal to a tribunal consisting of a magistrate and - who else?
Dr Lim: They can go to the Supreme Court to appeal if the decision is not satisfactory and …
Mr BURKE: They can appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal mediates and makes a decision; if the appellant is not happy with that decision, they can go to the court. That is what, for practical purposes, those who felt aggrieved with the previous process expected. I believe this bill accommodates those wishes and, therefore, the opposition supports it.
Mr HENDERSON (Industry and Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this bill this afternoon. The genesis of this bill came as a result of a government that is actually out there meeting with business and listening to their concerns. About 18 months ago, as I went around the business community, the concern was issues in regards to the capacity of particularly small business in the Northern Territory to appeal Treasury’s rulings in complex areas, such as stamp duty and payroll tax in particular.
The existing avenue was, yes, an appeal could be lodged with Treasury and it would be heard within a separate division of Treasury. I have every confidence, as I am sure members of this House have, in the integrity of Treasury and its officers who do a great job on their rulings. However, the perception – right or wrong - was that the agency here assessing its own evaluation, even though done by a separate division or arm within the agency, was less than the best way to go. The only other avenue left for small business, in particular, was to appeal to the Supreme Court at significant cost.
Examples were pointed out to me by a number of business people. What may seem to be an item of contention would be, where around $15 000 or $20 000 might be subject of debate between the business and Treasury on what was owed - particularly with companies that may have some complex structures - the cost of actually going to the courts was far in excess of the amount in dispute. Therefore, business would pay up rather than take their chances with the expense of legal action. Business argued with me that a simple administrative appeals tribunal where they could go as a first point of contact to have their concern heard, would be a greater benefit than imposing the cost of going to the Supreme Court. I took those concerns to the Treasurer and got a very supportive hearing at Treasury, and I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to see this tribunal come into place on behalf of small business in the Northern Territory. It shows that this government does listen and respond to the concerns of small business. Certainly, those business people I spoke to said that they had tried for a number of years under the previous government to get this same facility, but without success.
I am pleased to see this in place today, and I will be sending copies of the second reading debate to those business people who raised this issue with me. At the end of the day, I am very pleased to see this legislation come in. Again, it gives business the reassurance that taxation judgments that are issued and lodged on them by the Tax Commissioner are transparent and appealable at no cost. This does not stop, ultimately, for the business if they lose in the appeals tribunal; they can still go to the Supreme Court if that is what they choose to do. However, this is in direct response to advocacy from the business community and, as business minister, I am very pleased this tribunal come into place. I congratulate the Treasurer for bringing this to the House today.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to just add a few words to what the Leader of the Opposition has already said about the support that we give to this bill. The Treasurer made a promise when he handed down the budget in May last year, and has taken a little longer than I would have anticipated to get this up and running. However, the sooner it is up the better, so the last businesses who have any conflict with Treasury assessment can go through an appeal process.
The minister, in his second reading, drew the line on the sand using the date 18 May 2004. I wonder whether there is any room for him and his department to, in fact, extend that line on the sand to some of the cases that are already afoot with their appeals or discussions with Treasury. I am aware of many cases where people have felt that they have been unjustly assessed. Maybe these are the ones also that need to be looked at, rather than just drawing 18 May as a firm date.
Once this appeal process is in place, it will be good that appellants can go, and the magistrate can do it just as a desktop exercise to start off with. The magistrate can call for hearing if he wants to, with or without legal representation. Quite often, business people are flat out trying to manage their own business; they do not have legal expertise – whereas, I am sure, Treasury officials will have at least the capacity to deal with that a lot better than the business person can. However, having the option of being able to bring in legal representation would be a help.
What troubles me a little is that I know that magistrates across the Territory are all flat out as it is with the workload that they have; putting this job onto the Chief Magistrate or his delegate adds another layer of work onto the magistracy. We have to make sure that the magistrates have time to consider the issues, and the technicalities of the issues, of each individual case in a timely fashion so that things are progressed quickly. We must make sure that the magistrates have the technical expertise to deal with it. In many other jurisdictions where such tribunals exist, they use taxation officers who really are across taxation law. Those are people who have the specific expertise to do that. Our magistrates in the Territory may not have that expertise. I wonder if the government is going to provide instruction, training or in-service training for the magistrates so that they have a level expertise that will enable them to do the job a lot more easily and quickly.
The minister might also want to consider reviewing the caseloads and the outcomes of the magistrates’ arbitration in 12 months time. Review that in 12 months to see if the skills of magistrates are adequate, that they are all done in timely fashion, and that the cases are reasonably dealt with. Otherwise, we will find that we might be back in the same situation in spite of the tribunal.
I do not believe that this is something that can be brushed off by saying, ‘Well, we have a tribunal now; that is the end of that, business can deal with it’, and they are left to deal with it the best they can. This is designed to be cost saving, to expedite appeals by appellants who feel that they have been unjustly taxed. Therefore, the process has to be made easy, but also handled with the expertise that is required. I am not saying that magistrates here do not have the expertise. I know they are busy but, if they do not have adequate expertise then they should be provided with the training. This must be part of the first priorities this government must have to ensure that what they will do with this legislation will work and work efficiently.
I was pleased to see that if an appellant is not happy with the decision made by the tribunal, there is an option to go to the Supreme Court with a de novo appeal. That is good because other information that has become available can be presented to the Supreme Court for assessment. In previous times, what happened in an appeal was that only the relevant information that was presented to the first appeal may be heard. It meant that any other useful and relevant information would not be considered. That might place a significant bias to a decision made by the Supreme Court.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I repeat the words of the Leader of the Opposition that we support this bill and we look forward to working properly and helping industry with the tax. However, I also ask the minister to consider putting in place a training program for magistrates and to have a review of the process in 12 months time to see how it is going.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members for contributing in a positive fashion to this debate. It was my colleague, the Minister for Business and Industry who first bought this issue to my attention, but I did pick it up subsequent to that from Business Round Tables and agreed to go forward with this.
At different times I have met with groups of business people, and individually, where people have raised it and said we have to have a system that has more independence stamped around it than what we have at the moment; no matter what regard they have for Treasury. We certainly hold Treasury in high regard and we never questioned their integrity in the way that they dealt with appeals through Treasury. However, the perception was that it was Caesar to Caesar and, no matter how independently you drew it within Treasury, that perception was always there.
I was taken with those arguments, notwithstanding that we never had a question about Treasury’s integrity. This is all about a perception, about putting it at arms length away from Treasury who make the original decision. It is a low-cost, no-frills process that we expect will resolve a lot of these questions before they go on to the Supreme Court. In any case, failure to satisfy at this level does not prevent the matter going on to the Supreme Court.
In relation to the question of resources for magistrates, we do not know how many of these will come before the tribunal. However, at any time that there is a question of overload or blocking up the system, the Office of Courts Administration is well placed to take those concerns to Justice. Justice would raise them with the Attorney-General and they would come to government as a issue of greater resources needed to deal with matters before them.
In relation to questions around the expertise of magistrates in dealing with taxation and financial related matters, one thing magistrates are very good at is reading law. That is their expertise, and their lifelong occupation in most cases. They are very learned when it comes to reading and understanding the law. At the end of the day, financial laws are still laws. The same question, of course, could be raised - but was not raised by the member for Greatorex - in relation to the Supreme Court. They are expected to hear cases and make decisions accordingly. Again, they are well versed in the law; that is their game. Therefore, we see magistrates in the same position as judges of the Supreme Court when it comes to working through these types of issues.
I thank members for their comments. We also look forward to it being in place. We will watch it and see how it rolls out. If there are any wrinkles in the system, we will be alerted to that and will respond accordingly. However, but let us get it up and running and see it in operation. I look forward to it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 1 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said for some time - and will continue to make and reinforce the point to Territorians - that this government has squandered opportunities that were presented to them in the almost four years now that they have been in government. They have wasted the opportunities that have been provided by the GST. They have missed out on the economic boom that other states have experienced. That, in total, is a demonstration that this government has failed in managing the economy of the Northern Territory.
One does not need to be an economist to look at some simple facts, and those facts are reflected very clearly in this mid-year report. These are almost Percy Allan’s words, in some respect: if your revenue is high, your population growth should also be skidding off that revenue, because it is a simple indicator of how your economy is going; that is, you are generating the wealth, and that wealth is attracting people to come to the Northern Territory.
What we have in this mid-year report is just further evidence that revenue growth has been very strong in the Northern Territory, and population growth has been very low. Population growth being low is also compounded by jobs being low. The Treasury script in the mid-year report talks about lower employment. However, look at the population figures and compare them to other states in Australia, and read Commonwealth Treasury comments, which say things such as: ‘Population growth in the Northern Territory has fluctuated over the past few years. In 2002-03, nett interstate migration was at its lowest level in the past decade’. That is people leaving the Northern Territory. They are people who could be looking for jobs in the Northern Territory who are looking for jobs elsewhere. That, in itself, has been interpreted by government as lowering the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory. The simple facts are that it is not; that this period of the Labor government has been really evidenced by poor economic growth, higher than even they forecast growth in GST revenue - of which the Northern Territory government can claim no credit - an inability to manage their own budget targets under the strategy that they set themselves when they came to government despite revenue far in excess of the revenue that was predicted for them to get, poor population growth, the direct effect of which is now going to impact on future Commonwealth funding, which is laid down in the report.
If one turns to GSP, and I say at the outset that I accept the Treasurer’s obvious answer that GSP is a poor indicator of economic growth, I accept that. However, the issue of GSP, reflected in the mid-year report, needs to be seen in context with what is actually happening; that is, that the GSP predictions that the Treasurer has continually trotted out has been GSP growth of 3.7% for 2002-03, when they have actually achieved 0.2% and, for 2003-04, 3.4%, when the government has actually achieved 0.3%. I accept, as I said, that GSP growth is volatile and affected by many things, much of which is outside the government’s control. However, the point I am making is that when the government has a budget forecast projection of 5.8% growth in GSP, and reinforces that projection in its mid-year report, that has no substance when all of their projections have failed to be met by numbers of percent - not points of percent - in the past. One can have no faith at all in the GSP predictions that are in this mid-year report and were in the budget. The report says these are unchanged, the inference being, therefore, things are good. The reality is that the predictions have never come anywhere near the actual fact over the last few years since this government has been in power.
On page 7 of the mid-year report it says the 2004-05 budget papers outline the three fiscal challenges that led to the government revising the fiscal strategy. It then points to the fact that, with these revised fiscal strategy objectives, the government is on course. What Territorians need to be reminded of is that the fiscal strategy that was set by Percy Allan - the guru the Treasurer and others applauded who said that this was the blueprint for the government fiscal management of the Northern Territory during this term in office and beyond if it was elected - has been abandoned. It is one thing to abandon the fiscal strategy when there are issues that are outside of your own control; however, on my calculations, the GST revenue to the Northern Territory provided by Commonwealth government which was forecast by Percy Allan, has outstripped his predictions by $66m at least. Therefore, we have a situation where, on the one hand the government is provided with a fiscal strategy that says ‘You will receive this much money in GST from the Commonwealth on my forecast, and you will receive this much taxation revenue from your own sources over the next few years’. If one compares the mid-year report, the 2004-05 budget and Percy Allan’s report - which I did – it is very clear that the projections and the reality in revenue coming to the Northern Territory has far outstripped those projections.
Therefore, when we sit in this Chamber and listen to the government saying, ‘We are spending this and we are doing this and that’, the reality is that it is all John Howard. John Howard has provided this government with the ability to strengthen the Northern Territory economy, and he has done it in a way that is far out and above what the economic expert predicted. However, that economic expert, in his predictions - even with his lower predictions - expected this government to be in budget balance by 2005-06. It is a damning indictment of the Labor government whose members, in this Chamber only yesterday, could not point to anything of substance that they have actually done to strengthen this economy in a real sense - no infrastructure projects of substance on the ground that the people can see, a damning …
Mr Henderson: Lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia.
Mr BURKE: ‘Lowest taxation’, the business minister says. I can tell you one bit of scuttlebutt going around, minister, that you proudly boast of cutting the business budget by about $6m. Well, it is good scuttlebutt, I can tell you, because a lot of public servants think it and you proudly boast it …
Mr Henderson: Businesses love not paying tax that you used to levy.
Mr BURKE: Also, he is a business minister who can sit here and watch a community services minister call on the Commonwealth to allocate $10m to petrol sniffing and another $10m of Territory money to petrol sniffing, when the most he can do for businesses in the Northern Territory is $6.7m. It is a disgrace! No one denies the importance of those social programs, but it is certainly an indication of where the priorities of this government are.
Mr Henderson: We know what your policies were: you ignored it.
Mr BURKE: Petrol sniffing has been in the Northern Territory since World War II, introduced by the American servicemen. If you go and talk to the health people, they will show you the graphs going up and down since the 1940s. It is a problem, of course, but it is obviously a bigger problem to you than fixing Territory businesses and making them competitive with other states and businesses in Australia.
If you also look at the Commonwealth data on where Territorians are going, you will find they are fleeing the Northern Territory to the states of - in priority order - Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia, which are experiencing better economic times in the Northern Territory. They are going there for the jobs, lifestyle, and to try to make a better lot for themselves because this government is not delivering on the capacity that John Howard gave you through the GST to deliver with.
Therefore, this mid-year report can be looked at fairly simply. As I said, if you look at the amount of GST that has come into the Northern Territory, you can very quickly see that, in generating real money through its own programs that have grown the capacity of the Northern Territory government and, therefore, to provide that wealth to Territorians, there is nothing there to show effort - nothing. The effort has come from John Howard; the effort has come from the GST.
The other thing that is really damning is the fact that the predictions in the mid-year report are that the GST revenue will decrease. Do you know why the GST revenue is going to decrease? Because the Territory’s share of the overall pool will decrease. Do you know why the Territory’s share in the overall pool will decrease? Because our population is going down. Therefore, under the methodology of the GST of the Commonwealth, you will get less money. If you want to spin it another way, you can spin it this way: the Territory is saying: ‘Our share of the national pool will be decrease because the national pool is going to decrease’. This is another way of saying the only reason we can sit back and say we have $37m more than we predicted is – why? It is because the other states are doing well. That is why Bob Carr and the others are complaining that we get too much; because the other states are going gangbusters.
The Northern Territory has, essentially, missed out on the economic boom that has grasped the whole of the rest of Australia. We have become middle rankers when we used to be in front of them. We used to be able to stand up in the Northern Territory and say we have the highest disposable income of any state or territory. We had the highest growth rates in population and economy of any state or territory. We also had a reasonable engagement reality that was the envy of any state and territory including the Commonwealth. That was what we had in the past. All of those things are gone, and we have a government that points proudly to the fact that we have a - I forget the words that were used in here – ‘a rebound in population’. That is what it says in the mid-year report, a rebound - a rebound of 0.3%. If you look at what this government has achieved on pretty blunt figures, you have all of this revenue - massive amounts of revenue coming in from the Commonwealth - but what have you done to grow this population, this Territory, this economy? ‘We have a rebound in population of 0.3%’ which is probably less than 1000 people - much less than 1000 people.
We can go through the figures in the mid-year report. I have read the Treasurer’s statement when tabling this report. It skirts around the simple facts that any person who is not expert in reading budget papers will look for; that is, let us look at revenue, how that revenue was grown, who provided that revenue growth, how much of it can we give credit to the government for, what they have done with that revenue - what are the things that they have done that we can see impacting on the economy with that revenue growth. There is absolutely nothing there, and the quickest way to see that is to look at population departure, not population growth.
It is interesting also that, in talking about small numbers of population, the mid-year report states:
We have an amazing situation in the Northern Territory where revenue growth is astronomical and real growth in the economy, evidenced by one factor – population - is going the other way. Anyone who looked at that would say: ‘There is something drastically wrong in the way this Territory is being managed and this economy is being run’. It begs the question: what has happened to all of that money? What has happened to it in real terms? I know you have spent it and continue to spend it. The figures will show that you are spending it, but it does not really show that you are spending it any real sense.
You talk about a reduction in debt to revenue. You say that the ratio of debt to revenue has gone from 134% down, we hope, to about 118%. However, what you are not saying is where those two methodologies fit with what the debt to revenue was, and would be, if you had the same factors existing years ago. I have not done the figures yet, but I would imagine that you have not done as much as the CLP did in terms of your capacity - you have a massive amount more capacity - to reduce debt and your effort is almost non-existent in real terms. That was one of the big promises that you made. I remember you saying you were going to, very quickly, make sure that superannuation liabilities for public servants was all costed and paid for, and that is barely even bumping along, if at all.
That is my take on this mid-year report. I look forward to the Auditor-General’s report that is coming out next week, because I have more and more indications - and part of it is reflected in this mid-year report - that Treasurer’s Advances are being used for recurrent operational costs. It is an amazing situation, when you find how far out of sync this budget is in spending on top of budget by department, considering that the budget was only brought down on 1 July and spending by the departments - police is one - on top of their budget is well out of sync. Something like $27m out of the Treasurer’s Advance gone like that, and that is only what is revealed here, which was put out some time ago.
I bet Treasurer’s Advances are being used incredibly liberally. It is supposed to be only used for one-off items that are urgent. It seems to me that this Treasurer and this government bring down a budget, puts out all the PR gloss and, then, has no capacity, no ability and probably no intention of staying anywhere near it. All you do is keep spending as items come along.
Our ability - and anyone’s ability - to analyse the budget in what it projects to achieve and what it actually achieves is almost non-existent because, frankly, you cannot even keep up with the GST. You have $39m in GST more than you predicted just for the year alone since the budget. There is also a note in there that you expect about another $32m as well. This is on page 13:
This is Australia wide.
Therefore, $37m came in out of the blue, on top of even the amounts that were far in excess of what Percy Allan predicted. Then, on top of that, there is another $32m going to drop down. No wonder you have money to spend. No wonder you can stand up here and say: ‘We bring out the biggest spending budgets that the Territory has ever seen’. No one has ever been in a situation where they have had so much disposable income coming in that they can spend. The reality is, when it comes to what this government actually does, all you do is hold your hand out. John Howard provides, you spend - you do. You are spending far in excess of your ability to meet your own fiscal targets. Ditto, ‘We have revised our fiscal strategy to achieve a fiscal balance’. Not for 2005-06, but 2012-13 I think it is now.
I believe this mid-year report is just another indictment of this government’s inability to manage the economy. It is a heralding statement of wasted opportunity for Territorians, and of the inability of this government to improve the economic prosperity of Territorians. That is what we will be taking to the election, and that is what I will be making sure that Territorians understand over the coming weeks and months.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, really, I would have thought that, after 14 months out of the position, the Leader of the Opposition - or the new recycled Leader of the Opposition - probably would have spent a bit more time out in the community to see actually what is happening in the economy. His contribution this evening would have us believe that the economy is somehow in a hole or going backwards and that people are leaving the Territory in droves. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why the opposition keeps talking down the economy and perpetuating the myth that people are leaving the Territory in droves is beyond me, because the sentiment I get when I am out and about in the community is that people are doing very well, the economy is going well, and private sector investment in the Territory is the strongest that it has ever been. The business community is certainly showing that they have confidence in the economy, and they are investing. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the way back to government is to talk the economy, the Territory, and the confidence that there is around the place at the moment down, then I believe that he really is on the wrong track.
I was not going to speak in this debate tonight, but I could not leave aside an opportunity to demonstrate very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition how dangerous is the path he is taking. If you look at some fundamental economic indicators, they show you how wrong the Leader of the Opposition is.
I will look at the property market, the real estate market. Real estate is a fundamental barometer of how any economy is performing. Transactions in investments in new real estate is a fundamental barometer of the economy. That the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite do not know that real estate is going gangbusters at the moment; that we have seen about a 20% growth in property values across Darwin and Palmerston in the last 12 months - how that can occur when the population of the Territory is leaving in droves? - is absolutely confounding. I urge members opposite to go back to uni and study Economics 101.
I urge members to get - and I am sure the Opposition Leader’s office subscribes to this - the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory’s Real Estate Local Market Analysis December 2004 Quarter:
Vacancy rates lowest on record. The population, according to the Opposition Leader, is leaving the Territory in droves, but we have the lowest vacancy rates for the December period on record. I will read from this analysis:
When the Leader of the Opposition was the Chief Minister:
Mr Burke: You were there then.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, within a couple of months.
There are some other graphs in there that show what vacancy rates were around the Territory. If we are looking at about 4% now, it was nearly 13% when we took government. The analysis that, all of a sudden when the Labor government came to power, people left the Territory in droves - well, the fundamental economic barometer, which is real estate, does not show that. It goes on to say:
Therefore, not only do we have the market as at 2001, we have had an enormous amount of residential construction since then. Who is living in all of these units and houses that have come onto the market?
The Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory is not some sort of Labor think tank propaganda glossy brochure machine; this is the fundamental barometer of what is happening in our economy. The myths that the Leader of the Opposition believes that he can win the election on, to try to convince Territorians that somehow the Territory economy is not performing and people are leaving in droves - who are investing in property like they never have before, who are seeing their property values go up, and vacancy rates at an all-time low - well, go out and try and sell that message, because Territorians are not fools.
I will quote other pieces in here. The Leader of the Opposition should get a copy of this. I would have thought that he would have been pleased that the Territory economy is doing well:
That is for Darwin:
How does that work in an economy? If you believe the Leader of the Opposition people are leaving in droves; the economy is in free fall; we have missed the boat; and everybody else is on an economic growth, but not the Northern Territory. How come housing prices are at a record high and vacancy rates are at a record low?
It goes on to talk about all the subdivisions where land is for sale. All these land releases are testament to consumer confidence in house/land packages. Why does the Leader of the Opposition insist on talking the Territory down when Territorians have confidence in our Territory?
There are a couple of interesting charts here, if you want to look at comparisons in the economy between when the Leader of the Opposition was last on the Treasury benches and where we are today - again, a very significant barometer of the economy. We have house vacancy rates here. Here is a graph - again, a real estate monitor, not some Northern Territory ALP publication - that shows in June 2001 in Darwin, when the Opposition Leader was last in government, house vacancy rates were somewhat over 20% as opposed to around 4% now. Again, if you look at unit vacancy rates around the same time – this is your record, Leader of the Opposition - we have unit vacancy rates at around 25%. How on earth all these people have just left the Territory since we came to government is beyond me.
Again, we can see why the Opposition Leader, when in government, was fixated about government building this and that. Fundamentally, as business minister, I am very pleased to see that the private sector is investing - and investing with confidence because they will know they will get a return. By cutting taxes, providing the capacity, and making the Territory business community competitive, we can see that investment is returning strongly to the Northern Territory. It is private sector investment that will lead this economy. The public sector is there to build infrastructure and to boost the economy during slow periods, but it is good to see private sector confidence out there and strong at the moment. The private sector is not silly. Business people are not silly. They do not park money in investments and expect to lose. They can sniff the breeze, read the economic indicators and understand what is happening out there in the economy.
Again, I was not particularly prepared for this debate, but I could not believe the planning notices in last Friday’s paper. Everybody you talk to at the moment wonders why all these units are going up and where all these people are coming from. Well, they are obviously here, given the vacancy rates. In last Friday’s paper, we have approvals for another 61 units to go up in Darwin. There are some business people out there with confidence. They are not proposing to build those units and have them sit empty because people are leaving the Territory in droves. They are building with confidence because they know the economy is growing and will grow for many years to come, given the investment in the large projects, the rebound in tourism and the Territory’s competitive position.
If the Leader of the Opposition really believes he can go to the election and try to convince Territorians that black is white and white is black, and the prosperity that is here at the moment with people sitting on rising asset values is somehow some sort of myth, well I say bring it on. The people I talk to out in my electorate are very pleased with how the economy is growing at the moment. Yes, we have problems; there are skills and labour shortages. We are looking at strategies to address that. However, there are much better problems than having no work, which was the economy we inherited when we came to government just over three years ago.
Madam Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s statement today. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to get out there a bit more, understand what is happening, and look at some of the independent commentators and analysts who are completely at odds with his blinkered view of the world. I support the Treasurer’s statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it needs a couple of ministers on the other side of the House to try to talk up the government’s position on this economy - not about the economy out there. Business people out there now exactly how they are faring and they are not faring well at all. I have more opportunities than many across the Chamber to meet with business people. I will not , say every one of them, but the bulk of them are bemoaning the fact that this government does not seem to know how to manage the business of governing.
You have $2.5bn, or thereabouts, to spend each year and you do not even know how to use that sort of money to create an environment where business will prosper. That is your responsibility and that is what you should be looking at. Instead, you spend it on things that do not seem to show any benefit for Territorians. We have had years and years of zero economic growth, a population decline until just recently when you can claim a 0.3% population growth. That was based, primarily, on a lot of babies born in remote Northern Territory. For them to become productive, it is going to be at least a minimum of 15 years of growing before they can get anywhere there.
The high unemployment is for everybody to see. We all know it is there. For the last 10 months straight, we have had increasing unemployment. Industry cannot get workers because they are not here in the Territory; people are leaving the Territory. We know that Alice Springs loses a family a week, and that is why the community suffers. The turnover of trade has decreased because of the lack of population. The GST is flowing to the Territory at such a level that some commentators have said it is akin to the level of federal funding that came to the Territory in the early days of self-government. What happened in those days? The money was spent on infrastructure, on building the Territory. Today, we see none of that.
I do not dispute that social and welfare programs need to be supported, but do it so that we can see some real benefits for Territorians. We have not done that at all.
This side of the House does not talk down the economy. This side of the House is critical of the government, asking the government to produce the goods for Territorians. If you do not do that then, obviously, as business improves, the multiplier effect improves the whole scene. However, if it does not, you create the reverse spiral.
The minister for business talked about property sales and how well property prices have risen; it has risen in Alice Springs and in Darwin. A lot of that property is sold to interstate investors where they see they are getting properties at much lower price than they can ever pay for in New South Wales or Victoria. That is how the properties are moving. When you ask a Territorian whether they are going to do the same thing, that is another question.
Over the last few months, the government has announced increased expenditure. They have decided to spend money on the Alice Springs Hospital - $8m. I am sure my colleague, the member for Araluen, will speak more about that. In education, this minister is going to spend another $10.5m this financial year in the new program of his. Petrol sniffing is to get another $10m. That is nearly $30m of extra money. Where is it in the budget? Nowhere to be seen.
As the Leader of the Opposition observed earlier, when you create a budget, you plan to stick to the budget. You plan to stick to it in a way that is open, transparent, and accountable so that everyone in the Territory can follow where the money is going and where it is coming from. Right now, we have no idea. All we know is that, obviously, the Treasurer’s Advance is going to fund some of this. It gives you an impression that every cent that John Howard sends, this Treasurer in the Northern Territory tosses it into a pool in the Treasurer’s Advance and then feeds off it as he feels that these projects need to be funded.
The Bayu-Undan project, as reported by the media, peaks at 2004-05 or this year. It means that on the graph that you see, it starts to come downhill, the downward side of the graph. So what else is on the horizon, minister, to keep your economy going? I do not see anything there. If you do not improve the population in the Territory over the next few years, things are going to look really bad. We need figures about GST. Obviously, GST is based on population figures and, as the Northern Territory’s population growth is slower than the rest of the states and territories, our share of GST is going to decrease. Then you are going to be in big trouble because you are not going to have the flexibility of the GST flow that is coming in now to fund your unplanned expenditure.
Our gross state product has shrunk, as has been noted by a few people, while, in the rest of Australia, it has grown. For the last two years, if you look at other states and territories, all their businesses are prospering. Here we are, missing out on the growth that Australia has. We are the frontier, we should be looking at the fastest growth of the lot because we have 100 years of catching up to do with other states and territories. Yet, we are not. While under the CLP in the early years of self-government and later, we were catching up with the rest of Australia. That is why the economy of the Territory was improving. Suddenly, over the last three years, the whole thing has stalled and now we are not getting very much.
When the Auditor-General tells us what is going to happen us next week, I am sure we will have a lot more questions to ask the minister and we shall bring them forth after that.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I can assure members that I will not be terribly long. It is important to put on the public record the blow-out in the health budget, so I stand in my capacity as shadow minister for Health.
It is abundantly clear to anyone who knows figures that the health budget has again blown out; this time it is in the vicinity of $9m. Members will recall that, compared to the mid-year report in December 2003 and the subsequent May budget in 2004, there was a blow-out of $50m. The spending on health in the health budget is now $644m. If this minister’s stewardship of his department continues, that figure will increase, and will increase dramatically.
What highlights the government’s performance when it comes to operating its budget is an irrational and, at times, inconsistent approach to money management. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about. On the one hand, we are seeing truckloads of money being poured into the Northern Territory from the GST revenue - the GST, incidentally, that Labor Party members throughout the country so vigorously opposed when it was proposed and introduced by the Liberal government. This money is coming in truckloads and, yet, for some reason, the irrationality of the government is such that it seems not to be spending it or, if it is spending it, it is not spending it in areas where people can see the results. The money management by this Treasurer and, in particular, the Health minister, is irrational.
Only today, I did an interview, and then the minister followed, about the hospice. I do not know if all members heard that interview, but I do not think I have heard the minister so evasive. I made the criticism that the hospice is not going to be fully fitted out. I have been provided with a list of furniture and fittings, and it includes things like clocks, radios, microwaves, crockery, cutlery, beds, bedside tables, curtains - Madam Speaker, curtains! This morning, the minister was asked specifically, by Julia Christianson who said:
The minister:
I would suggest that was a completely meaningless answer. The interviewer must have thought the same thing. She went on
The minister:
The interviewer, like me, clearly frustrated, said:
This is arrant nonsense. When I bought my house, the curtains were part of the fittings and fixtures. I would suggest that is the case anywhere in the Northern Territory. Yet, in light of the increasing blow-outs and the truckloads of GST revenue that has been pouring into the Northern Territory courtesy of John Howard and Peter Costello, this government will not even make the concession about the curtains. It is this irrational spending or non-spending of money that just beggars beliefs. Can you get them the curtains, Treasurer? I reckon you would look at yourself in the mirror at the end of most days, and you would reckon that you were a pretty generous sort of a bloke. Well, can you please get the hospice people their curtains?
Mr Stirling: Least we can do. The member for Port Darwin knows all about those curtains, I am told.
Ms CARNEY: Perhaps, in the spirit of Christmas cheer - and we have not long moved on from Christmas, and I note the Leader of Government Business conceded yesterday that he still had a bit of Christmas spirit - Treasurer, that might be extended to pay for the clocks, the radios, the bedside tables.
Mr Henderson: He said ‘yes’.
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up on that interjection. Treasurer, are you saying, right here, right now, that the hospice will have its curtains paid for?
Ms Carter: The beds.
Ms CARNEY: I will come to the beds, member for Port Darwin. Treasurer, we can have the discussion here or outside. Will you pay for the curtains?
Mr Stirling : Just let me assure you, the fit-out will be funded, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Well, with great respect, I still think that that is perhaps not quite as evasive as the minister was this morning, but vaguely similar to it. In any event, that is just one thing. That was an issue that, although it has been around for a while, was current today because the minister and I talked about it in parliament yesterday, and we did it again on radio today.
There are other instances of what I describe as irrational and inconsistent expenditure of monies. We have, for instance, one of many issues in health, but an issue that the minister made comment on when he was in Alice Springs last week; that is, the question of agency nurses. We know that a memorandum from the Department of Health was sent to all nurses on the 28 January advising of changes to pay rates for agency nurses which would commence on the 24 February. A memo was sent to employment agencies saying that the changes would be effective immediately. Despite that minor inconsistency, the fact of the matter is that businesses that are in the business of providing agency nurses have been told that the rates of payments of agency nurses will be cut.
Curiously, the minister knows – well, we assume he knows – that his department have sent around a memorandum talking about the reduction of pays. When asked by the Centralian Advocate about the difficulties that this would create because of the shortage of nurses in Alice Springs - and we know about that because we know that some nurses in Alice Springs are working double and, sometimes, triple shifts - double and triple shifts. Therefore, there is a shortage of nurses; we know that to be the case. What the minister was reported to have said - and I note that there has been no correction - was this: he would prefer the pay cut to be delayed until more permanent staff were employed. My response was: it is an appalling time to reduce the rates of agency nurses. It is appalling because there are not enough nurses. Why is government - or the department at least - insisting that the pay rates of the agency nurses go down? Could it be what appears to be this curious obsession from this government on occasion of wanting to save money? At a time when there are not enough nurses on the ground, the minister, with the implied consent of the Treasurer, is wanting to save money by paying agency nurses less. This has serious consequences for the health profession because what it will mean, I am told, is that fewer agency nurses will make themselves available. Members will appreciate that agency nurses are paid handsomely - some would say – or certainly at a higher rate than permanently employed nurses. If it is not made worth their while, then they will not drop everything to go to work.
This is but one example of the irrational approach to spending: lots of money, huge budget and, yet, there is an obsession with reducing with the pay rates of agency nurses. We are not seeing the results for close to $650m. There are, again for example in Alices Springs, 1500 people - 1500 people - waiting for elective surgery. Some of them have been waiting some time. One, a constituent of mine, as he was so frustrated that his wife needed elective surgery and she was in a great deal of pain, decided to head south. This is the sort of stuff that a government - any government worth its salt - should be able to fix. Yet, 1500 people are waiting for elective surgery just in Alice Springs. The breast screening clinic is closed much of the time in Alice Springs. We have patients waiting in trolleys, some for as long as 15 hours, at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I would have thought that, with a budget of $644m, we would see better results and better services. However, we are just not seeing it. Ultimately, my view is that the responsibility lies with the Minister for Health, but I would have thought that the Treasurer, having been a long-time Territorian, would know enough people to receive the message that the punters are not seeing the results. For $650m, where are the results? We cannot see them, and I am sure that that information has come to the Treasurer.
However, the Minister for Health has said publicly, and I quote: ‘My life is such a blur sometimes I do not know where I am going next’. I suggest that the Minister for Health should do something about his health to ensure that his life is not a blur. If he is not up to the job then he should stand down. I believe that his stewardship of Health has been utterly appalling, so I rest the blame with him. There have been irrational and inconsistent approaches to money management. He gloats, on the one hand, of $650m for Health. Well, we want to see results. All of us in the Chamber want to see results. However, the difficulty is that we cannot see them. We have bizarre situations like the Hospice and Palliative Care Association will need to fundraise for curtains.
Treasurer, can you do something about this? Can you please grab the Minister for Health and say: ‘$650m - where are the results? We cannot see them’. I really wanted to confine my comments to health issues so, accordingly, I will finish.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for contributing to this debate, particularly the member for Araluen whose contribution I did enjoy. I do not often enjoy what she has to say in here but it was relayed, I thought, in fine spirit tonight, which is good to see.
The Leader of the Opposition was somewhat less positive and enthusiastic and talked about squandered opportunities and the Northern Territory having missed out on the economic boom. One wonders. We know he was out of action a little for a couple of years. Even so, as a member of this House, whether you are on the front bench, the leader, or sulking on the backbench, one would have thought that you would have seen and paid some acknowledgment to the efforts that this government has put in to rebuilding the Territory and its services after the condition he left it in, in mid-2001.
The papers all show us over $120m extra has gone into health in the time that this government has been in place. Why was it necessary to inject that level of extra funding? It was because the service had become so run down under the previous government. Similarly, there is $75m to police over a period of years and an extra 200 police into the service - a service that was almost brought to its knees by a recruitment freeze in the early 1990s and a failure to lift the funding to the requisite levels to provide for a decently manned and properly resourced police services. There is $27.5m into tourism to put the Territory back onto the map after 11 September and SARS and terrorist attacks to our immediate north. In those three budgets that we have brought down, there were record infrastructure spends in each year. There is an extra $42m into education announced yesterday to strengthen outcomes in secondary education. This is not a squandering of the GST, as the Leader of the Opposition would have it.
In terms of growth, the LNG plant is well under way, the G3 expansion at the Gove has made an absolute flying start - over 600 people employed. That will build to a peak work force of 1700, which we will not even see until into next year. The waterfront development is not far away. That is going to change the face of Darwin forever, providing jobs in construction over a long period of time, and permanent jobs in the precinct as each of the stages are completed.
The Leader of the Opposition has made a couple of comments over the past few days about disposable income, and that Territorians had the highest disposable income under the CLP and now no longer enjoy that. Well, we need to put this on the record and get it straight. The Territory has consistently, throughout the mid-1990s until today, had the second highest disposable income per capita in Australia. In 1999-2000 under Chief Minister Burke, it was $23 428 per capita compared to the ACT with $30 961. In 2003-04 under Chief Minister Martin, it was $28 029 with the ACT at $38 173. The relativity has not changed one iota. Gross household income per capita is also interesting. In Chief Minister Burke’s time, we were No 4 in Australia behind the ACT at $39 912; New South Wales, $29 972; Victoria, $29 457; and the Territory at $29 287. Today, in 2004-05, we remain fourth behind the ACT at $48 900; New South Wales at $35 900; Victoria at $35 500; and the Northern Territory at $35 211. The problem we have with statistics and records like that is that they are always available, so if you want to reinvent history a bit and say: ‘We used to be the highest and we are now no longer the highest’, the record is there for all to see. The Leader of the Opposition needs to recognise that those facts can be dug up fairly readily.
It is always good to have a third party endorsement when you are talking about the health of the economy. Access Economics is a noted economic forecaster and commentator in the community, and their December quarter findings tell us that the population is once again growing, the tourists are back in numbers, and a recent lift in job vacancies points to better news on the employment front in the next year so. Most substantively, new projects are already taking the slack including the LNG plant at Wickham Point, while Gove and the Darwin waterfront will kick into gear in 2005, suggesting investment ratios will recover:
Access Economics sees good average output growth rates ahead for the Territory:
Access Economics, December quarter last year - not a bad story that they have about the Northern Territory economy.
The Opposition Leader also has been on the record the last few days saying: ‘What sort of a government is this that gives just $6.7m assistance to business and has the audacity to spend $10m and $10m of Commonwealth money as well on petrol sniffing programs for Aboriginal youth?’ He cannot even get the base facts right.
The payroll tax shifts over the past two years alone, including this year, to take effect on 1 July, are $7.2m in their own right, so his base figure is wrong. I do not know what he considers $160m in training over three years from the government, including the Jobs Plan and the apprentice incentives up to $7700 per employer is. How does he consider that as not in some way assistance to business in skilling the work force and giving business an opportunity to have those skills come into the work force for them to utilise productively? Of course, it is assistance to business and industry that they readily appreciate.
We do not, as in other states and territories around Australia, levy land taxes, fire services, and ambulance levies. In New South Wales alone, a land tax on business is levied at around $7000. Therefore, if you want to consider what it might add up, to applying them across the Northern Territory, we get to a figure of many millions of dollars, which is not there on the top of business. It does represent a real saving to business in that sense, because it is revenue that accrues to every other state and territory government in Australia, but not here.
Regarding population growth, the Leader of the Opposition talked about declining population. Well, he is now five quarters out of date. We have had five consecutive quarters of population growth, that suggests we have turned the corner. They are modest increases, I acknowledge, but it does show, after five quarters, that the trend is reversed. That is in the face, of course, of some very questionable methodology about population measures. The mid-year report also turns up growth factor from 0.3% to 0.5%, but we are now running at 0.7%. That may be the figure, and perhaps even higher, into the future if they do not get too optimistic.
It is a bit rich also for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest this is a government that cannot live within its means. He was the leader of the government which falsified budget estimates inside the Health budget. He blew his last budget when he was in office to the extent of $126m, when he told Territorians and this parliament that the deficit would be just $12m. All of this at a time when the Northern Territory economy had all but collapsed.
The member for Araluen said: ‘A massive blow-out in the health budget’. We are talking about a budget of $635.362m, and she says there is a massive blow-out because it shows that they are $9m over. If she read a little more closely, she would see that $6.9m of that is a carry over of funding from 2003-04; therefore, hardly a blow-out there because it is monies that were not expended in 2003-04. Why not? In part, they could well have been - and would have been - late receipts from the Commonwealth received by the Territory very late in the 2003-04 financial year, too late to expend and acquit, so they carry forward into the 2004-05 financial year. They could have been items ordered in the 2003-04 but not received or paid for by 30 June, the end of the financial year, and simply carried forward into 2004-05. However, to describe a ‘massive blow-out’ of $9m in a Health budget of $635m when, in fact $7m of that is a straight carry over – and I refer her to where it says quite clearly ‘carry over of funding from 2003-04’. That is what that means, for the benefit of the member for Araluen: that is money that was there for 2003-04, it was not spent in 2003-04 and carried over into 2004-05.
In relation to the hospice, let me assure the member for Araluen that this government will fund any fit-out that is required, including the curtains, if they are of a concern. I would imagine that curtains would be a normal standard part of the fitting.
I thank Treasury for the job they do in the support that Treasury gives to government, in general, and to me in my role as Treasurer, is very much appreciated. I am certainly no economics brains trust but, under Treasury’s steady hands, I have to admit I have learned a few things in the last couple of years. It is never easy, but things do get more readily understood over time. Treasury are, by nature, conservative in their approach. I believe it is a good thing, because you never know quite what is around the corner. If we go back to about March or April last year, with just a flick of the relativities that came into play, the feds suddenly removed $48m out of our budget - not just that financial year, but each financial year into the future until the relativities are renewed again. The opposition, of course, conveniently forgets when things like that occur, but occur they do, and that is why I believe a conservative approach to budget matters is a good approach to take.
Madam Speaker, I thank members who contributed this evening and, again, thanks to Treasury for the work that they do.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, honourable members will be aware that, since October 2004, the Standing Orders Committee has been considering a reference from the Assembly which was moved by the member for Nelson as follows:
As Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, I inform the Assembly that the committee met during the lunch suspension today and has authorised me to advise that the committee, in reporting on this reference next week, will recommend the publication of explanatory statements at the time of the presentation of bills. It is anticipated that the report and recommendations will be debated in the Assembly next week, and at the regional sittings in Alice Springs next month. However, I am pleased to advise honourable members that the government has initiated the process to provide explanatory statements with bills commencing during the current period of sittings.
The explanatory statements are intended to assist members and the public to better understand the policy intent and key provisions of each bill. Statements will be tabled by the sponsoring minister at the time of presentation of the bill, and will be incorporated in the Parliamentary Record. The proposed format is for statements to consist of a statement of the policy intent together with the brief explanation of each clause. The statement should also serve as an intrinsic aid in future interpretation of legislation. I thank the Standing Orders Committee and the member for Nelson for their contribution to this initiative, and look forward to the debate on the report of the committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the government for converting to this idea. It has the wholehearted support of the CLP. During the Standing Orders Committee meeting today it was discussed. I want to put on the record the CLP’s appreciation to the member for Nelson, as well as to the government, for agreeing to this process. Hopefully, it will make things a lot more simple. I look forward, Madam Speaker, to reading these notes. Let us see if it makes the process simpler.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I also would like to put on record my gratitude for the Standing Orders Committee in allowing these notes to occur in legislation. It will certainly help people reading legislation. It may only be a little matter, but if we can improve the way we understand legislation, and if this change helps that, it is all for the best. Certainly, the Independents support it. We are very pleased that the government has backed it.
When it was put presented on the last General Business Day, I was probably disappointed that it was the only thing we had passed. However, it is now well and truly passed, and it is something that I hope will help members and the public in their reading of legislation and, in the long run, make for better lawmaking and legislation
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, one of the defining things about being a Territorian is our commitment towards moving ahead together as a community, based on social inclusion and mutual benefit. It is for this reason that the Martin Labor government has subscribed to the principles of social justice. It is on that basis we measure our success in developing the kind of community in which the idea of a fair go for all is at the heart of public policy. As I said in this place just under three years ago, a critical element of social justice policy is that the people of the Territory should have access to the essential services, in which there is fair access to employment, education, training, health care, housing and child care.
Of these, access to adequate housing is of critical importance to a social justice policy, as housing is fundamental to our people’s capacity to enjoy good health and take advantage of educational opportunities and, thus, achieve positive employment outcomes. If we are all to enjoy the benefits of our unique Territory lifestyle, access to decent adequate housing must be a prime objective of government. That is why this government, and I as minister responsible, have concentrated significant public resources to the issue of housing in the Northern Territory and why, in turn, those resources had been picked up by the private sector in building enterprise and employment. Furthermore, the increased private home ownership that has been fostered under this government will make significant contributions to social stability and a sustainable population base.
In 2001, we took on a legacy of neglect of social housing - a neglect that has been directly reflected in social problems. Over many years, thousands of tax and rent paying Territorians have been living in substandard houses that have never been the subject of any kind of formal policy of concerted upgrade renovation, or even half-decent maintenance. Added to that a policy - if you can call it that - was in place of selling off public housing stock willy-nilly. Indeed, between the years 1997 and 2001, 622 public housing buildings were sold in Alice Springs alone, without a single dwelling replacing them. In that period, 46 one-bedroom dwellings, 57 two-bedroom, 476 three-bedroom and 43 four-bedroom dwellings were sold out of the public housing market in Alice Springs - a total of 1760 bedrooms were removed as a resource for the people of Central Australia.
The fact that many properties were through sales to public housing tenants was one thing; the fact that there was no attempt to replace Alice Springs housing stock was a travesty of good management of our public assets in the Northern Territory. What is truly alarming is the social and moral bankruptcy of the approach taken by the opposition to social housing. They behave as if treating our fellow Territorians who are public housing tenants as human beings is a crime. The kind of knee-jerk responses that the opposition would encourage - like the indiscriminate sale of public housing - simply will not work. It is unfortunate that the members opposite prefer to arm themselves with flimsy opinions and wild assertions, rather than facts.
Recent independent and authoritative research identified four principles relevant to the circumstances of the Northern Territory:
These are precisely the strategies we are pursuing.
When we formed government, I was deeply concerned about the state of housing and the approach that had been taken. I wanted to see a strategic direction, a way of thinking about housing that rightly placed it as integral component of economic and social progress, not as an afterthought. That is why I developed a new direction for housing in August last year: Home Territory 2010.
Home Territory provides direction for increasing the supply and range of affordable housing options across all tenures. Home Territory has provided an avenue for encouraging a significant increase in the number of people in home ownership. Home Territory has increased the level of support for ‘special needs groups’ in our community through flexible service provision, working across sectors and improved service delivery. Home Territory has improved the way we do business through partnerships across public and private sectors, using good communication and long-term strategic planning with industry. A perfect example of this is the new Housing Round Table that I chair. For the first time, the Northern Territory government has formalised a mechanism for actually talking to industry and the community about strategic housing issues.
The Northern Territory has, by far, the lowest levels of private homeownership in the nation - 44.6% compared to the national average of 66%. There are a number of historical explanations for this, as well as contemporary obstacles. For these reasons, the Martin Labor government has sought to transform the marketplace for new home buyers in our towns and cities, as well as to begin the slow process of creating new marketplaces in the bush.
Owning your own home is an incredibly satisfying experience that has far-reaching benefits. This government recognises that the person who enjoys the stability of home ownership is also more likely to be able to access employment, education and health. In turn, this increased participation in the community makes for stronger regional economies.
A major achievement in housing that has had a significant impact on the economy and on people’s lives is the new suite of home purchase assistance products that were announced on the 1 July 2004, HomeNorth. It is because we know and believe in the importance of home ownership that we launched the new scheme.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the take-up rate of home ownership in the Northern Territory is almost twice the rate originally estimated when the revamped HomeNorth scheme commenced. Its combination of low deposit rate and shared equity regimes, fee assistance loans and liberalised income levels make first home ownership the most accessible and affordable in the nation.
The new schemes have generated extensive interest, with an excellent take-up rate to date. The number of new home loans has increased by 95%, and the value of the new home loans is up by 156%. Up to 31 January 2005, 238 new home loans have been funded to the value of $33.3m, and 229 fee assistance loans for $1.8m. This is a significant increase from the previous financial year when there were 122 new home loans for $14m over the same period.
In the first seven months of the new scheme, the total loans funded – final approved loans and approved in-principle loans – have totaled 350, with 284 funded and final approved loans. The total value of these loans stands at $61 052 047, of which $43 093 584 has been actually expended. This compares to the estimate at 1 July 2004 of 250 loans in the entire year.
There have been 16 construction property loans and new units; 231 loans have gone to new home buyers, with 53 re-entering the market after partnership break-up or financial difficulties and the like - 21 of the properties were previous Territory Housing properties. Further highlights in the first seven months have included 65 new clients in Alice Springs, 98 new clients in Palmerston, and 20 new clients in Katherine.
In remote areas of the Northern Territory, the lack of private home rental and purchase markets and, indeed, commercial sales and rentals, are seen as severely limiting the amount of capital available for housing. My department has commenced discussions with land councils and other stakeholders to determine the kinds of regimes that might be developed within remote indigenous townships to overcome these problems. In turn, some traditional owner groups are also exploring ways in which they might undertake commercial housing developments on their lands. At this point, most discussions are centred around ways that section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act might be utilised for such purposes. In any case, this will be a slow process, and one in which traditional owner groups must be fully satisfied that their rights are not deleteriously affected.
While an increasing number of Territorians are enjoying the rewards of home ownership, we also recognise the importance of providing decent homes and support to those people who reside in public and community housing. The program of neglect that public housing has copped over the years before we came to government means that addressing the shortfall is huge.
In 2003, the government committed $45m over five to seven years to start the work. Works include internal and external painting, floor covering replacement, kitchen and bathroom refurbishment, bedroom and linen cupboard replacement and solar hot water system replacement. Where they do not exist, carports and driveways are being added to bring dwellings to a decent standard. We have prioritised those properties that are in the worst condition which are occupied by longer-term tenants.
During 2003-04, upgrades to 73 public housing dwellings were completed at a cost of $4m. Cabinet approved $5.7m against this program for 2004-05. So far during 2004-05, upgrades to 79 houses and units have been completed at a cost of $5m. Another 26 houses are in progress, estimated to cost $1.81m, and 140 houses are being assessed at an estimated cost of $6.56m.
The importance of feeling safe in your own home cannot be overestimated. The Martin Labor government recognised this and, on coming to office in 2001, commenced an accelerated program to provide security screening for all accessible windows on Territory housing properties. We started with the aged, the disabled, victims of crime, and have gradually worked through to the point where the program is due for completion in the 2004-05 financial year. Indeed, the final houses in Jabiru will be completed within a matter of weeks. A contract has been let to provide security screens for 61 houses in Jabiru, and the contract for Katherine has been completed. In Alice Springs, a contract for 203 houses for the Racecourse, Eastside and Gap areas has been completed.
An additional initiative of this program is to provide smoke detectors to all housing stock. Although the Building Code does not require smoke detectors to be fitted retrospectively, Territory Housing has taken this extra step to complement the security program. The installation of smoke detectors in all Territory Housing properties is expected to be completed later this year.
Over the past three years, Territory Housing has undertaken a program to upgrade or redevelop a number of major public housing unit complexes across the Northern Territory. We understand the importance for residents of having an environment that they can feel comfortable in - one that feels safe, clean and liveable. The upgrades to these complexes have included consultation across the community and with other agencies. For instance, the upgrades to Keith Lawrie are being planned through discussion with the Quality of Life Project, the Pmere Housing Group, residents, the Gillen Primary School, Holyoake and other residents from the area. These projects generally involve renovating the units, landscaping gardens, erecting high fences and redesigning hidden public spaces that tend to attract antisocial behaviour.
The biggest and most recent of these upgrades is Fannie Bay Seniors Village. The project was completed, at a cost of $7.7m, in November last year. This was an election commitment and I was proud to open the new seniors village, together with the member for Fannie Bay. Further work is to be carried out with upgrades to the remaining Kurringal complex.
Other redevelopment projects currently under way are Keith Lawrie in Alice Springs, Blain Street in Tennant Creek and Bernhard Street in Katherine. Works at Blain Street in Tennant Creek are targeted for completion by October 2005. The works at the Keith Lawrie flats complex are being planned, with a contract due to be awarded in April 2005. Works at the Bernhard Street flat complex in Katherine have been slightly delayed due to contractual difficulties, but we are under way with a new contractor for completion later this year.
The government takes a serious view of noise and nuisance complaints. While we are very keen to allow people the space to enjoy their own home environment, if they start impacting on people around them because of relentless nuisance behaviour, we want Territory Housing to take a tough stand. It is a difficult job, and I know that sometimes it can be difficult to bring about the kind of immediate solutions that some might wish. However, through clear legislative and policy guidelines and good proactive stock and tenancy management, we have a good chance of stopping problems before they start.
In the event problems occur, our Good Neighbour policy - which is a tool to promote the message that everyone is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their home - kicks in. It provides advice on who to contact for assistance when problems arise. A Good Neighbour brochure has been widely distributed to tenants, Territory Housing offices and electorate offices, and it covers such topics as the responsibilities of a good neighbour; suggestions on resolving problems and minor disputes; how Territory Housing can help and who to contact; when to contact the police who are the first point of contact to respond to neighbourhood disturbance; provision of useful contact numbers - for example, police, Day and Night Patrols, Territory Housing Client Relations Officers, local councils and indigenous housing assistance services.
Where necessary, and from time to time, Territory Housing utilises private security operations to augment support from the Northern Territory police. A security presence is maintained at the following Territory Housing unit complexes: in Darwin we have Kurringal, Tomaris Court, Pitcheneder Court, Wirrina, Hudson Fysh, Bill Harney Place, John Stokes Square, and Runge Street; and in Alice Springs Keith Lawrie flats, Jim McConville flats, John Gorey flats and three complexes in Lyndavale Drive.
Indigenous Community Liaison Officers have recently been employed in Palmerston and Alice Springs with the express intent of working with tenants, Territory Housing tenancy teams and support agencies, to address issues as they arise. Service providers in each urban centre of Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs are contracted to support indigenous public housing tenants in a culturally appropriate manner to obtain and retain their tenancies. Tenant responsibilities are explained and, in instances where noise/nuisance issues arise, all parties work together on a resolution and ways to avoid a recurrence.
Two temporary positions have been created at Territory Housing for Environmental Health Officers. One male officer has commenced and recruitment processes are currently under way to employ a female officer. The role of the Environmental Health Officers will be to provide living skills assistance to public housing tenants who are encountering difficulties in maintaining their tenancies. The officers will also be required to liaise with community-based service providers regarding the needs of the client, and work in with the environmental health workers employed by the Alice Springs Town Council.
The Community Harmony strategy has been a hugely successful model for finding pathways out of the itinerant lifestyles. It is a direct success in the number of people it has been able to assist in different ways, but it is also a success because of the way that it has drawn people together from across community and government, getting advice and ideas from the ground up. One of the most successful strategies of the Community Harmony strategy has been the Return to Country, which has thus far assisted 2171 people to return home from Darwin and Katherine. This is a program based on a full cost recovery through repayment of travel costs from Centrelink. The government is exploring options to expand Return to Country to other regional centres.
The Referrals Centre has assisted 805 people needing short-term accommodation in the Darwin and Palmerston regions. These are people who, without this assistance, would have slept in the long grass, adding to homelessness and, potentially, antisocial behavioural problems. The Referrals Centre has also provided 1754 proof of ID cards. For these recipients, an ID card may be the only way that an individual can verify who they are, enabling them thereby to access vital health care, accommodation and other services.
Some of the noise and nuisance complaints received are related to antisocial behaviour displayed by people who are living itinerant lifestyles. The longstanding difficulties experienced with people camping and behaving in antisocial ways around housing in addition to shopping centres, parks and other public places in our regional centres, has concerned residents, the business community, organisations and government for a number of years. The rationale of the Community Harmony strategy is to find pathways out of itinerant lifestyles towards a return to home, or towards appropriate services and interventions to live more productive lifestyles in town.
The Community Harmony strategy is a whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. In 2003, I announced that the itinerant’s project in Darwin would be extended Territory-wide. Recognising that local issues and concerns require local responses, regional Community Harmony groups have been established in each major centre to identify and prioritise local initiatives. These regional harmony committees are comprised of community organisations and industry representatives, peak Aboriginal organisations and representatives from the three tiers of government.
There are number of initiatives working to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour displayed by itinerants including the delivery of the intervention strategies such as information referrals; return to home programs; community patrolling services; elder strategies and research; providing adequate infrastructure such as accommodation options, day activity centres and health facilities; and the provision of health treatment and care, such as assessment, withdrawal and rehabilitation.
As an initiative of Home Territory 2010, to assist in the improvement of coordination between housing tenures, the Housing Round Table was established. The Housing Round Table is a strategic, collaborative forum that provides an opportunity for stakeholders to gain input into the direction of housing, a platform to develop private/public partnerships that is consistent with the aims and objectives of Home Territory 2010, and the opportunity to obtain feedback on housing matters and establish ongoing dialogue from a broad cross-section of the community. The round table is not limited to public housing but includes home ownership initiatives, housing affordability issues and community and government employee housing. Participants represent a broad spectrum of the community and include banking and finance, construction, public sector and Australian government representatives. The round table also provides a significant opportunity to link housing outcomes to economic and regional development.
The inaugural Housing Round Table was held in Alice Springs on 18 November 2004 and the second round table was held in Nhulunbuy on 24 January 2005. I chaired the meetings which were attended by traditional owners, and invited representatives from the banking and finance sector as well as from the relevant housing stakeholders from the construction industry and non-government organisations. At these meetings, there was significant dialogue with participants and a wide array of constructive and positive issues were discussed.
Another key element of Home Territory 2010 is the development of a homelessness strategy to provide coordination and direction for a whole-of-government and community-based response to homelessness. Agreement has been reached between my department and the Department of Health and Community Services on a joint approach in the development of such a homelessness strategy. The terms of reference are being prepared for a collaborative working group to develop options for a Northern Territory homelessness strategy in consultation with officers from within government and the community sector.
Proportionately, indigenous housing construction is one of the Territory’s key industry sectors with $100m going into capital and recurrent funding in the current financial year.
More importantly, new developments being undertaken in the life of the current IHANT agreement with the Australian government has an increased focus on indigenous employment and training in the bush, where the need is so acute. The IHANT budget for this financial year has been increased to $70m through the receipt of additional Australian government funds. These increased funds will allow IHANT to achieve the following: construction of an additional 70 houses; conduct of a $5m upgrade/renovation program in five major communities; spot purchasing of land and housing in both the Alice Springs and Darwin regions; and the development of a new subdivision in the Port Keats-Thamarrurr region.
The efforts of the Northern Territory to highlight the indigenous housing crisis have also been recognised on the national front. In December last year, I tabled a Northern Territory position paper National Issues in Indigenous Housing 2004-05 and Beyond at the Housing Ministers’ Conference held in Adelaide. Madam Speaker, I table that document for the benefit of members of the House.
These three key strategies were identified by the Northern Territory government and are being actively pursued with the Australian government: improving indigenous access to mainstream housing and infrastructure programs such as the Commonwealth Rental Assistance Program; an increased focus on improved housing management practices aimed at improving housing quality within communities and increasing housing asset life spans; along with substantially increased financial resources available through the indigenous-specific housing programs.
IHANT has made significant inroads through the implementation of its housing management program. This program ensures that housing organisations, regardless of whether they are local governing bodies, regional authorities or resource centres, adopt and maintain good housing management practices. Currently, 46 out of a total of 70 organisations have approved management plans in place and are receiving IHANT funding, together with the accrued benefits of improved housing management practices. A key element of this program is the enhancement of the home living skills of people moving into community and urban housing.
For the first time, I have issued more than $10m to assist indigenous community housing organisations to undertake repairs and maintenance to their housing stock. These IHANT funds were matched with rental funds collected by the indigenous community housing organisations. In all, over $20m was spent maintaining community housing during the 2003-04 financial year.
Congratulations are due to IHANT - ably led by Des Rogers and, more recently, by Michael Berto - on the leadership role it has taken in the areas of indigenous employment and training. The central remote training and employment strategy has moved into its third year, with 16 apprentices currently undertaking Certificate III in general construction. A new building team has been established at the Amoonguna community, and a further four building teams are currently being recruited to work in the Thamarrurr region.
A further IHANT initiative involving the progressive implementation of a regional construction model will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction program and provide greater opportunities for indigenous employment and training.
Over the last 12 months, IHANT has been looking towards the future with a view that it be well positioned to continue to provide quality housing and housing-related services. Indigenous leadership and participation is critical to the success of our indigenous housing programs. While there is considerable uncertainty about the future of ATSIC and indigenous representation through ATSIC, there will continue to be an important role for indigenous community housing organisations, community government councils, and regional authorities in the planning and delivery of sustainable indigenous housing services.
In conclusion, as I have stated before, a house is more than just a roof over your head. It is a place where you and your family should feel secure. The role of government in housing is twofold: first, to provide the kind of economic climate in which the take up of private home ownership is made easier; and second, the provision of a helping hand to those who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to access that market. This is at the heart of what this government has been doing over the past three years, and what we shall continue to do.
Since this government came to office, we have delivered substantial progress in the housing sector for all stakeholders. We have begun the process of addressing years of shameful neglect of our public housing assets. We have delivered tangible benefits to both Territory Housing tenants and to industry through our extensive upgrade and urban enhancement programs. We have opened up new and exciting pathways to home ownership through the extraordinary and continuing success of HomeNorth. We have addressed antisocial behaviour constructively and robustly through the Territory-wide rollout of the Community Harmony project. We have started to develop solutions to the vexed and troubling issues of housing shortages in the bush. Importantly, we have developed a visionary and comprehensive policy framework, Home Territory 2010, which will underpin this government’s continuing commitment to social housing in the next decade and beyond.
This government’s coherent and visionary policy framework and array of innovative program initiatives contrasts with 20 years of neglect, short-sighted policies, inadequate budgets and reactive dodging and evasion in the face of enormous housing needs across all sectors of the Territory community.
In contrast to the previous government’s shameful record, I am proud to assert that the Martin Labor government’s housing policies speak for themselves. However, we recognise that there is still much to be done.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House, and move that the statement be noted
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the minister, of course, has followed the standard pattern of abusing the old CLP government: ‘They did nothing. I will get on saying what a great deal I am doing and go through the statement, all the stuff I am doing, and then I will finish it off with a quick swipe of the former CLP government. So everything that goes wrong is not my fault, and everything that goes right is’. Okay, fair enough, that is politics. Let us actually start to investigate what we are talking about here and what is going on.
I begin with rejecting, absolutely, the whingeing about the former CLP government the minister has decided to engage in. Rewriting history for purely political purposes is not going to solve any problems. I am not suggesting that the minister is not doing things right. The HomeNorth stuff that is happening is very good. It was a policy that was started originally by the CLP government and, to the credit of this government, they have expanded it, lifted thresholds, etcetera, to make it work in the current environment. I am delighted that so many Territorians are taking up the opportunity to own their own homes.
It is worth investigating here, looking at the statement in its entirety as a starting point, because what we are talking about here is the philosophy. The minister started out by making philosophical comments about the principles of social justice; this is what his position is going to be in relation to the development of his housing policy. Good. A great place to start, stating your direction, because what happens is that the social commentary, the vision statement, ‘This is what I am going to do’, then forms a direction for the bureaucracy that works under the minister. That bureaucracy then has to put the minister’s vision into place. Sadly, the problem with setting a vision like that and then expecting the bureaucracy to kick in behind is that, from a ministerial point of view, what I would expect the minister to do is make an effort to actually examine what is going on.
The minister said these are the principles that guide him. He believes in social justice and those are the principles he then set down for his bureaucracy, and he expects the bureaucracy to pursue the principles of social justice as he has outlined them. Then, what has the minister to do? What the minister has to do after that is revisit, examine and inspect how those principles are working. However, to do that you need a minister who is actively involved in setting policy directions for his department. This is where the minister is not quite coming up to scratch. I believe it is worth examining the statement to give you an idea of what I am talking about.
The ‘recent independent and authoritative research’ that the minister refers to is actually a report called Linkages between Housing, Policing and Other Interventions for Crime and Harassment Reduction in Areas with Public Housing Concentration. Volume 1. Main report, a 107-page document. Mind you, there are probably about 70 or 80 pages of substance to it. I do not have the whole report in front of me. It is a report I read a while ago, and it is upon this report that the minister is basing his whole approach to housing in the Northern Territory. It is important to know why the minister is making a third ministerial statement in relation to housing in the Northern Territory in the space of 12 months. It is because the minister is reacting to pressure that he is feeling - especially coming out of Alice Springs – from the failure of public housing to effectively settle itself down into the rest of the community. Of course, what he is responding to is the stated position of the CLP - me - saying that I am prepared to sell off housing stock until the problem goes away.
This is the barb for me, as far as the minister is concerned because, in the conclusions to this document - this ‘authoritative research’ that the minister refers to - it quite clearly states that selling off housing stock in isolation does not fix your social problems. Very good. So far, from the minister’s perspective, everything is going swimmingly. My policy, according to the minister, is not going to work because ‘authoritative research’ clearly demonstrates that selling off housing stock does not work. This is where I urge the minister to start using some of the old grey matter and burrowing back into the philosophical approach.
The minister has to understand that, once he sets that agenda, the bureaucracy will find ways to make that agenda work, and then serve up to the minister those things which demonstrate the minister’s correctness. If the bureaucracy is worth its salt, it will also point out those areas where the minister is falling short. The minister, ultimately, makes the decision as far as policy is concerned but, at least the bureaucracy, I would expect, is being honest. The minister is clearly saying: ‘This is the path I want to go down’.
The policy document that we are relying on was, basically, looking at high concentration of public housing in urban areas in different places in three states of Australia. In that particular document, they did surveys, walk throughs, crime reports, and a tick-tack with the coppers to give them statistical information on what was happening in these areas. Clearly, simply selling off the housing stock into private hands does not fix the problem.
Never have I stated it is part of CLP policy that selling off the housing stock is just what we are going to do, without suggesting that there are going to be further responses. What I have said is that we will sell the housing stock to the point where the crime problem is alleviated, and then use the proceeds from that to put in place programs and other stock which is appropriate to the environment particular to Alice Springs - or wherever it is happening in the Northern Territory.
The fact is that this report talks about major metropolitan areas. Therefore, what the minister is trying to convince us to do is to cut and paste out of this report - which was done in major metropolitan areas down south in three different states - and then template that straight across the top of housing policy in the Northern Territory. I pause there briefly because I want to come back to that approach.
When I looked at the problems in Alice Springs and at the history of Alice Springs, it was clear that housing stock has been sold off in the past. As the minister quite correctly points out, large amounts of housing stock were sold off by the former government. I point specifically to three locations: the Bloomfield Street addresses, 109, 111, 107, if memory serves me correctly; the South Court flats; and Madam Speaker will, doubtlessly, be aware of Nicker Crescent and the flats that used to be there, Cawood Court. Those were the three government housing stocks that were sold off.
If the assumptions in the report on which the minister bases his whole policy are correct, crime problems in Bloomfield Street, South Court flats and Cawood Court should be as bad as they ever were or worse. Curiously, that is not the case. I have spoken to many police officers. I was a police officer at the time when we had to police those places and, on some occasions, those places would have deserved their own police force in their own right. Yet, in spite of what this document says, the premises show much, much improved rates of crime. Indeed, Cawood Court - which was a disaster area at one stage - is now a rather swish, privately-owned bunch of flats. Therefore, why is there a difference between what the minister asserts based on this report - and I believe you have a copy of this particular report floating around somewhere, Madam Speaker - and the results in Cawood Court, South Court flats and Bloomfield Street? The fact is that templating a report from large areas of southern states into Alice Springs is not so clever.
Why would the sale of private housing stocks in places like New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia lead to unchanged or worse crimes rates, and why would it, in Alice Springs, work better? The fact is that, if you think about the mechanics of how this works, the people who purchase these flats and houses in these tenancy schemes down south have no intention of living in them. These premises are often purchased so that the landlords can put their own tenants into them. By virtue of the fact that they are already in low socioeconomic areas with low values, the tenants you are going to get into these private dwellings are, generally, going to be the sort of tenants that you get in low socioeconomic areas - fact of life. It is certainly outlined in this report that the outcomes you get when you put large numbers of people into one place in low socioeconomic areas is poor social outcomes. It makes sense that selling off the private housing stock in large tenant areas down south is going to provide worse outcomes.
Therefore, what is the difference in Alice Springs? Well, many of the people who have purchased South Court flats, in Nicker Crescent, and in the Bloomfield Street flats bought to move in there. They move in there and they own the premises. That is quite different to what has occurred in these places down south. Also, if you look at the Lyndavale Drive area of the Larapinta area - which is really the thing that has driven this minister to report to this House on these particular issues and state his position - in amongst all of those - let me think - 100, nearly 200, publicly-owned dwellings, there are private dwellings. It was those people in those private dwellings who own them and live in themselves - we are not talking about other tenants - who became very angry at some of the outcomes of having large amounts of people coming into town and living in these public houses or even visiting in these public houses.
The other thing about this particular report upon which the minister bases his whole policy approach, is that nowhere in it does it deal with tribal or traditional people from Central Australia moving - in large numbers, often against their tenancy agreements - into houses in Alice Springs. It is a completely different social environment. Therefore, the minister is templating the report from down south into the Alice Springs environment without any regard whatsoever for the environmental change and the social differences.
For a minister who spends so much time criticising, carping and focussing on the social differences between indigenous and non-indigenous people, surely he could turn his mind to the issue of what is going to happen in Alice Springs when some old women, for argument’s sake, are moved into public housing in Alice Springs. The cultural demands on those women - and I can give an address: 11 Zeil Street, up until about 2002. For a couple of years, there were some old women who lived in 11 Zeil Street. How do I know this? I lived at 42 Zeil Street, just down the road. I watched them. There was no problem with those tenants; they were quiet, well behaved and worked very diligently trying to keep the place under control and clean. Good, not a problem. The problem was on the weekends when half of Yuendumu would turn up - or half of Willowra or wherever they would come from - to this house. There were some 60 people on a weekend evening or on a week night, suddenly living in and around this house - in the front yard, the backyard. There were camp fires going, cars parked all over the place, alcohol, screaming and yelling, and those sorts of things.
This is where the problems are occurring in Larapinta. When you have people in Larapinta who suddenly say, ‘I have an invasion of people into the house next door,’ they are talking about huge numbers of people turning up and camping at these places and causing all sorts of trouble and damage.
To base your policy on a report which takes none of these things into account, and then say, ‘This is what I am going to do about in accordance with the report’s conditions’ is a case of comparing apples with oranges. This is the problem. What the minister needs to do now is go back and inspect the results of this policy. He is choosing not to because, if he does, he might find some conclusions which confront some of the underlying expectations that he has in relation to the social outcomes that he wants.
The minister’s response from the last time that this was introduced in this House was to complain about black bashing, basically. His response was to say: ‘So long as the people who move in next door are not Aboriginal ...’. I do not care what colour a public housing tenant is; what I care about is the outcomes for (1) the housing stock, (2) the people who live in the area and, (3) the people who are the genuine tenants of those houses.
My policy approach - the one that the CLP will take forward to the next election - is to find an appropriate way to deal with this. The minister says we have to have a whole-of-government approach. It involves Community Harmony project, the police, and other government agencies to focus on getting these things sorted out. I agree that is the approach you have to take but, in this instance, you have to go one step further. You have to create an environment by using the income from the sold housing stock that is much easier to control and, then, through all of those processes the minister is talking about, you create an environment which is controllable. At the moment, it is not controllable in Alice Springs. It is the failure to control and to effectively plan that is causing the minister’s department and the minister to pull up short.
I urge the minister to re-visit this issue and say: ‘Right, we are going to find a way in which the interventions we plan are going to be effective’. At the moment, they look like a bandaid on an amputation rather than an effective way of dealing with the shortcomings in the environment which it occurs.
Here is another little furphy that I wish to touch on very quickly in relation to the minister’s statement. It is the claim in the statement that he has increased resources through his diligent work. Well, frankly, I do not know what he is doing in budget Cabinet, but I often get the impression that he must be asleep. I would like to investigate, very briefly, and demonstrate to this House, the minister’s track record in gaining funds for his department. It is true that, in the last financial year, the minister enjoyed an increase in the amount of money he was able to obtain. If you look at the estimate from 2002-03 for Public Rental Housing Assistance, and compare it to what was in the budget in 2003, it shifts from $85m to $87m. The budget has increased by that much over that period.
However, what is interesting is that the minister, although claiming increases in funding in the last year, did not turn his attention to the year before, where he was receiving much greater funds. The minister has basically said: ‘Look, the four-storey building got knocked over by the Treasurer two years ago, but I will not mention that. Last year it was a vacant block, this year I have a one-storey building’. Well, the fact is that the minister is not increasing funding in the long term at Territory Housing, or through housing assistance and the like. He has actually lost money from two years ago and he has made a little back. This is his great defence of housing in the Northern Territory for the job that he is doing. When he finds that he does not have enough money to achieve things, his first thing is to scream at the federal government: ‘You owe us $850m so that we can build houses in remote communities’.
The minister needs to start being realistic rather than just playing politics, saying what a great job he is doing, and bashing up on the CLP. Let us get some real outcomes. Let him go into budget Cabinet and get some real dollars for the people of the Northern Territory and the housing assistance programs that he wants to run. That way, when you go to operating expenses from the Budget Paper No 3 of the 2001-02 year, which is over $100m, to the next year, which drops to $95m, and, the year after, goes up to $98m, he will not have to sit here and try and make up stories about what a great job he is doing. He might be able to report that he is doing a great job and he is getting more money for his particular department. It reflects on the quality of the minister on how much he is able to extract out of the Treasurer during the budget Cabinet process.
The processes that the minister is also talking about regarding his social justice processes seems to put most of the pressure on government to provide most of the services. However, in these days of mutual obligations - hands up, not hand outs and those sorts of things - further pressure has to be put on the tenants as well. I believe simple things like keeping your house clean and keeping the peace in your community should lead to incentives, and penalties if you fail to do those sorts of things. I am not afraid, as the next minister for Housing, to stand up here and say I will apply penalties for those people who will not comply with their tenancy agreement.
The Tenancy Act is something that needs review. You have given notice, Madam Speaker, of a proposal to change the Tenancy Act. I have given notice of a proposal to change the Tenancy Act. Even on the Notice Paper, the minister has actually mentioned something, if I am not mistaken, about changing the Tenancy Act. Therefore, clearly, it is an act that requires review.
Here are a couple of other furphies that I want to talk about. The minister has said what a great success the Community Harmony project is, and we are flying 2000 people back to their communities, and they are paying for the cost of transport. Well, the fact is, minister, that they are coming back. That is another problem that you have not addressed; that you have gone to all this trouble to get people back to their communities, but they are coming back. If the minister thinks that his strategies are working, I urge him to have a look at page 141 of the police annual report. It is interesting to note that in 1999-2000, 11 000 people were taken into protective custody; the next year 13 000; the next year - when they came into government - nearly 16 000; and the year after that 16 000 - this is while the Community Harmony project was running and this has been reported to the parliament - and last year, nearly 20 000. We have an increase in the last four years of 8000, an increase of nearly 100% - 80% let us say - in the number of people taken into custody. If the minister’s programs are working so well, why are the police arresting and taking into custody 80% more intoxicated people under the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act than they were four years ago?
If the Community Harmony project is working so well, why are there more Aboriginal people in custody now than there ever were under the so-called mandatory sentencing regime? Why is it that the Attorney-General has to boast in this place about how many Aboriginal people he has in custody? Why is it that all of these inconsistencies exist between what the minister says in relation to the great job they are doing in Community Harmony and, when you inspect the cold hard figures, the Attorney-General comes up with a different story, and the minister for police provides a different one again. That is something that causes me some concern.
Something that leapt out of me was a little phrase in relation to liberalised income levels. I am not entirely sure what the minister means here but, on my first reading, I thought it actually meant that liberalised income levels meant that everybody was getting liberally more money. I presume that liberalised income levels means that thresholds have been changed to the HomeNorth scheme to allow more people to take advantage of it. I seek the minister’s clarification on that.
However, it is worth noticing the ABS figures from 1994 to 2004, the last 10 years, since we are talking about liberalised income levels. I have a graph that comes from ABS figures from February 2001, which has two lines on it. There is a red line and there is a black one. On the red line, that was the Territory average income level for February. The black one shows, quite clearly, the Australian income level for that period. You will notice that, up until about August 2001, the Territory’s income levels line was above the national average. In August 2001, it goes dead flat whilst the Australian average keeps going up. All of a sudden, they cross. For the first time in seven years, the two lines cross - shortly after the election of the Labor government. Then what happens is that the red line, the Northern Territory’s average income levels ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the member please table the graph he is talking about?
Mr ELFERINK: Of course, I will. I am intending to.
Ms LAWRIE: I have just asked the member to table the graph.
Mr ELFERINK: I am happy to, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You can table it when you finish your comment.
Mr ELFERINK: With great relish, I will. Hopefully, the government will pay attention to it.
The black line continues to be Australia’s average income level, average weekly earnings; the red line remains the Northern Territory’s average weekly earnings. Guess what? Since they were elected, the Territory’s average weekly earnings have fallen consistently and completely below the Australian average. Here is where the rub is in the ministerial statement. The minister says the government has two roles in getting people into houses, and one of those roles is to ‘create an economic environment in which people can afford housing’.
Well, the teachers, as we saw on the news tonight, are screaming for pay increases and talking about strike action against the Labor government so that they can afford to live in the Northern Territory more effectively. Why is it we are starting to see more industrial action under a Labor government than was happening under the CLP government? The industrial action and more disharmony is because of figures like this. This is the problem that this government is running into. I urge the government and the minister to pursue exactly what he was suggesting that he had to pursue; to create an economic environment in which people can buy their own homes.
Would it not be amazing and wonderful if they chose to sell off the housing stock in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs and the current tenants would buy them as their own homes? Would that not be great? Then, I tell you, they would look after it a whole lot better than it is being looked after now. However, sadly, of course, if those people want to buy their own homes, they have to part with $120 000 to buy a block of desert in the middle of the largest island in the world and the smallest continent.
This government likes to dress things up but, when you start looking at cold hard figures and move between the rhetoric that ministers and this government, and particularly this minister, bring in here, and drill into what they are actually talking about like social outcomes - well, here is a social outcome that I would like to see improve: home ownership. You are doing some things in those areas. Let us do more.
There is another thing, while I have a few minutes. I read a book over the Christmas period called The Birth of Plenty by a fellow by the name of Bernstein. He has no political persuasion which is apparent at all, and does not much care what people think about what he writes. He does a very good job examining the world economy and how plenty - wealth - is generated. It requires four things. All four must exist. Scientific rationalism I do not want to touch on; democratic rights is not something that is absent; and communications and transport infrastructure is not absent. There is one pillar that is missing in so many places in the Northern Territory; that is, property rights. Individual property rights is essential to the growth of wealth, and that is something that the system of land management on Aboriginal land trusts deprives people of because they cannot have individual property rights.
I congratulate the minister’s steps on trying to do some long-term leases. I look forward to the day when people can buy their own homes in places like Hermannsburg, Wadeye and Utopia.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the graph.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to talk on the statement from the minister; basically, on two issues. I will not be talking about all the issues that the minister has covered.
Adequate housing must be a prime objective of the government. That is true and is a fine objective. However, to have a house you need land. It seems there are problems in relation to that very issue. Firstly, it seems that although Aboriginal people own at least 50% of the Territory, they have the lowest home ownership. Aboriginal people own all this land that they do not have to purchase. You would think they would easily be able to own a house because they would only have to purchase it, and not the land as well as most of us have to.
A number of times, I have said in this House and in the media it is time that the mechanisms were devised where Aboriginal people could take advantage of what the rest of us can do; that is, obtain a loan and buy their own house. They should not wait in a never-ending queue to get the next available house or live in a house with other families all crammed in, in appalling unhygienic and dilapidated conditions. They should live in their own home, where they can make their own decisions, live their own lives, and be proud of what they own.
The minister has made great mileage out of the HomeNorth scheme. I am not saying that cynically. I believe it is a great scheme, minister. However, very few Aboriginal people can take advantage of that scheme. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s statement where he said that his department has commenced discussion with stakeholders to overcome some of these problems. Then the minister said: ‘This will be a slow process’. Whilst I realise that traditional owner groups need to be protected, I ask why this program has taken so long to get going. After all, the minister was in the Northern Land Council for many years and would know the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act backwards. It is disappointing that something has not happened earlier, because the queues are getting longer and Aboriginal living conditions are still appalling.
Perhaps the whole issue of Aboriginal land and the way it can be used by the owners needs to be looked at. We are still waiting for the outcome of proposed changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. What are they going to be about? We have issues about the ownership of parks before us in parliament, but are there other options or does the land rights Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act make it impossible to think outside the square? All I am saying is perhaps it is time to give Aboriginal people more say in what they want to do with their land and allow more them opportunities to use for their economic advancement, including owning their own home.
Even if there are no changes to Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which presently would not allow personal ownership of land, why cannot land be leased from traditional owners? Surely, there must be a way to make it happen? If it should mean radical changes, why not discuss it? What is the point of owning your own land just to live in dilapidated conditions of abject poverty and poor hygiene? Maybe if there was more housing in the bush there would be less of the need for people to come the urban area and try and find accommodation in public housing or someone else’s public housing.
Minister, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has been around for a long time, but the world moves on. Perhaps it is time to do some radical rethinking to allow some innovation that, hopefully, will allow for solutions to the acute housing problems in our communities. Why should Aboriginal people not have the same rights as the rest of us? Why can’t they own their own home? Why can’t they pass their home onto their children? I get the feeling that we rightfully gave people back their land, said goodbye and then left Aboriginal people to live on that land courtesy of welfare.
Mr Kiely: Aboriginal people live in Wanguri and can buy their own house, Gerry. You should not generalise so much.
Mr WOOD: The member for Sanderson knows to whom I am referring.
Mr Kiely: Well, say it, Gerry. Anyone living in an urban property can buy it, be they Aboriginal or Italian.
Madam SPEAKER: You can talk later, member for Sanderson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Sanderson. That is bleeding obvious and, if you were listening to my total argument, I am referring to people on Aboriginal land. You just have to keep in tune.
I reckon it is time to ask Aboriginal people what they want, give them options and see whether we can make some changes that will produce positive changes, especially in regards to housing. If we do not do something, Aboriginal people will be on waiting list forever.
The second aspect about land is its price - and this refers to people outside of Aboriginal communities, member for Sanderson. As I said before, you cannot own a house if you do not have land. It is the price of that land that I am concerned about, especially in the rural area. Land prices had sky-rocketed over the last couple of years. This may have been due to a shortage, high demand from people wanting to get out of the Delfin lifestyle, or developers knowing that they can now get high prices for land and charging what they like. Land prices, for instance, at the far end of Herbert in Bennington Road - which is upper Humpty Doo if you do not know the geography of the rural area - are now being advertised at between $100 000 to $120 000 per two hectare block. Only a few years ago, it would have been half that price.
I do not believe that the cost of developing subdivisions has doubled over the last five years. However, when I see the developer put on the development consent form that the cost of subdivision will be about $800 000, and know he is going to subdivide the land into about 60 to 80 blocks, each selling for at least $100 000, I have to wonder if the price of land is a rip-off. A return of $8m on an $800 000 investment is a mighty big return. There may be some amongst you who say: ‘Well, that is market forces. That shows our economy is growing; that the real estate industry is booming. Isn’t it great?’ But is it?
Real estate is not really an industry. It does not produce anything; it just sells and resells land, which can be chopped up into smaller bits and sold again - and subdivided until we get down to 300 m2 blocks if we are not careful. The real estate industry makes its money out of land sales and the higher the price, the more money they make. Fair enough, but is that good for a young couple trying to buy their first home? The booming real estate market may be good news for investors and for sellers, but it is making it harder for families to buy a home in a reasonable price.
The minister might say there are record numbers taking up the HomeNorth scheme, and that is great. However, if you have to put half the loan into buying just the land, then you have to have a very small house or, if you want a bigger house, you have to stretch your loan repayments so that both partners are working flat out to cover repayments. Does the government have a role to play, influencing the price of land and helping first home buyers? May I suggest that the government develop some of its own land, such as the Howard Springs forestry land, and make that land available with conditions for first home buyers. Surely, government does have a role to play in making land available for its citizens.
I have never agreed to the change by the government some years ago to sell off Crown land to developers to then develop. Land automatically became dearer, blocks became smaller, and brochures became glossier. The price of land was higher because the developer had to add the cost of the original purchase price of the land to recover costs. Previously, the government would design the subdivision, engage a company to build the infrastructure, and then auction off the land with a certain number of blocks to be set aside for first home owners, which were capped at a certain price. This certainly happened in Palmerston, and I think it happened in most of the northern suburbs. This meant land was available at reasonable prices, and the blocks were a lot larger than they are today.
I believe the government should go back to opening up some of the land it owns, and give people an opportunity to buy land at a reasonable price. I do not believe they are inappropriately interfering in the market; they are assisting the market by allowing more people to spend less on land and more on a home, which will do more for the economy than just sitting on a piece of land. We may brag about the booming economy and think it is great to have high prices; however, with all the land in the Northern Territory, surely affordable housing land should not only be achievable, but a right. To get back to what your heading of tonight’s statement says, we need a fair go for all in Territory Housing.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I participate in debate to thank the minister for this statement, A fair go for all in Territory housing because, surely, as Territorians, we do believe intrinsically in a fair go. History speaks for itself in that there have been large sectors of our community who really have not received a fair go in housing in the Territory. It is not blame that I will sheet home to any individual. I know that, in the past, there have been ministers responsible for the portfolio of Housing who have gone into Cabinet and fought very hard for a fair go and a better deal in Territory Housing. Unfortunately, their voice was not always heard. I am really pleased that, in our government, the voice of our Minister for Housing has been very loudly heard and, importantly and critically, responded to.
Housing is one of our basic needs in life. It is right up there with education and health. If you have adequate shelter, you have a far better ability to cope with what life presents. People who do not have shelter - our homelessness in society - are among the most disadvantaged. Depending on the type of shelter, it really does set your social circumstances, and often affects issues such as health and access to education. Underpinning a fair society and equity within society, is the need to provide housing to our society’s most disadvantaged. In providing housing to the most disadvantaged, we call it public housing.
I represent a community in Karama and Malak that has a significant swathe of public housing. The public housing is in the vicinity of 600 homes. Living in those homes are our aged on pensions, people with disabilities on pensions, young families, single mothers with kids, and husband and wife with kids, doing it tough. We have indigenous, non-indigenous, Filipino, Thai, Timorese, and Chinese. Truly reflecting our multicultural society are the tenants of the public housing in Karama and Malak. There is diversity in the public housing we have. We have single-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, three-bedroom houses, and four-bedroom houses.
The range of public housing that is in the electorate has been there for 20 years. The densities have been, to my view, too high in the past. I have enjoyed working with the minister and his department to get some of those densities down to what I believe to be socially acceptable levels. The minister has provided us with figures in his speech and in document, to indicate that, where you have a reduction of densities, you have a reduction in social issues. That is accepted throughout Australia. I have seen it apply in a very practical sense in my electorate in the last three years. Streets that had in the vicinity of 12 or so public houses and are now down to almost half that amount, are far more presentable and a lot quieter now. Enjoyably, it has given young families who have difficulty meeting the financial access to home ownership the opportunity to buy public housing at the cheaper end of the housing scale. People have been picking up dwellings for around $160 000. It has crept up in the last two years; you are looking at around $200 000 now to purchase a public housing home. However, it really has given young families who are starting out in home ownership the opportunity to enter into ownership.
I have seen the minister encourage his department in managing, quite appropriately, the housing stocks to provide an opportunity for families to enter into home ownership, while looking at the mix of densities amongst our community and throughout our suburbs, and, particularly in a micro-management sense, within our streets. I congratulate the minister and his department for what is an incredibly difficult job of managing those housing stocks, as previous Ministers of Housing would appreciate. I have seen a growing awareness, not only of just how to manage the housing stock, but the real need to manage the tenancies, the people within the housing stock. It is people we are here to serve as elected members of parliament. I have been delighted to see that there has been an increase in the appropriateness of managing people.
I have had concerns in the past about how people from non-English speaking backgrounds were managed: was there cultural appropriateness in how they were spoken to and treated by various managers within housing? I have a great joy to stand here this evening and report to the Chamber that, in my discussions with public housing tenants from a culturally diverse background, they are saying that it is vastly different treatment they are receiving today in 2005 to what they were receiving under previous policies - treating people with dignity and accepting that they have issues in their life that might, from time to time, cause the tenancy managers to have to come and talk to them about whether they have slipped into arrears, whether there is a change in the numbers of people living in the house, and a whole range of changes within policy. The Good Neighbour policy has been explained to tenants. It is how you approach people. The feedback I am getting is that there is a great deal more fairness within the system regarding how people are being treated.
Karama and Malak have a large number of indigenous Territorians living in public housing in the electorate. I have found that, on the whole, it has been an harmonious environment. I have heard, with interest, in the debate in the Chamber the concerns about Alice Springs and what happens there. Obviously, I represent a quite different constituency because, on the whole in Karama and Malak, even though we have high densities, we do not seem to have the degree of antisocial behaviour issues. I am not saying that we do not have any. I do know that, from time to time, we have real antisocial behaviour issues within specific tenancies in the electorate. I also know, though, that we get in there and manage it. Residents come to me and highlight that the neighbour at No X has family coming in, there are loud parties, the grass has not been mown, the house is looking trashy – all of those issues that people present to their local member. Obviously, straight away, I am on to the Department of Housing and am alerting them to the concerns. I watch Housing go in and manage that tenancy and, importantly, the tenants within the tenancy. The tenants are clearly told that they have a great deal of responsibility about their behaviour and how they keep the house and yard. Over the last couple of years, I have seen real improvements in the responsiveness of tenants to that management.
I want to thank Yilli Rreung. I know they do a great job in helping the Department of Housing manage indigenous tenancies within our Darwin urban environment. They work very closely with HOME a Centacare program that assists indigenous tenants to understand how to live in an urban home environment and care for those homes. I have found both those programs have been of significant assistance in managing antisocial behaviour within the suburbs. I know the staff in Yilli Rreung and those HOME programs are very dedicated to working with people through the myriad of social problems that they might be enduring; whether it is mental illness issues with members of their family, which have been acquired through years of substance abuse, or whether it is children who have gone in and out of the education system and have problematic behaviours because of the challenge in trying to deal with an education beyond their capacity and their age level. Those programs, I know, are intrinsically linked now into the way tenancy managers manage tenancies in my electorate, and they have been enormously useful and helpful.
I want to also thank the Danila Dilba social wellbeing service. I know the counsellors in that service have assisted quite a few of my residents in public housing tenancies to deal with anger management issues and rowdiness, and to accept their responsibility to be good neighbours within our urban environment. The staff in those programs are doing a great job. Importantly, the staff in Territory Housing recognise that they are at the coalface, the front end, and they are very much needed to do the appropriate referrals to those agencies.
However, this comes about through policy change and it is a policy change of Home Territory that brought this about. I really do thank the minister for Home Territory 2010 because it gave the agency of Housing the ability to say: ‘We must do these referrals. These are the triggers we have to deal with. These are the agencies we are bringing in’. Home Territory 2010 underpinned that approach and provided the resources and funding for the staff to pursue that approach. I am seeing real improvement in my electorate as a result of that approach.
Importantly, though, you do have to look at your housing stock and the condition of that stock. Anyone who has gone doorknocking around the suburbs - whether it is Darwin, Alice Springs or, indeed, Katherine where I have doorknocked in the past, member for Katherine - the housing stock is embarrassingly dilapidated. I have been shocked at the physical condition of some of the housing stock that I have seen in those centres. Fortunately, the government has recognised that. We are sticking our hand up and saying, ‘Unacceptable’, and we are going to improve the housing stock. $45m over the next five to seven years will be spent on improving the public housing stock. It is called urban renewal. I want to indicate in a real sense and reiterate what the minister said that means.
Works that will be undertaken in homes include: internal and external painting; floor covering replacement; kitchen refurbishment; bathroom refurbishment; bedroom and linen cupboard replacement; solar hot water system replacement and, where they do not exist, carports and driveways are being added to bring dwellings to a decent standard.
Prior to this program, I did not see carports in public housing. I certainly had to fight like anything to try to get a cement driveway, because they were all dirt in my area. If you were lucky, you got a bitumen driveway. Now, they are putting in decent cement driveways. What does that mean to a family? What that means to a parent is that, when it rains, the kids are not trudging through mud, and you no longer see toddlers sitting out playing in mud. As we know, mud is dangerous in the Territory. You can pick up diseases and have absolutely horrifying health consequences with melioidosis and the like. Something as simple as a cement driveway actually means significant improvements to health and a reduction in the risk of horrendous diseases.
As we know, whether we are living in Darwin, Alice Springs or Katherine, a shaded carport area makes a world of difference to the standard and quality of your day-to-day life. There is nothing harder than getting a group of kids out to a car that has been baking out in the hot sun for about six hours, and literally pile everyone into what amounts to an oven. That makes your life difficult. As well, in Darwin, we have the issue of all-weather access to our front door. Things as simple as a carport make a huge difference to people’s day-to-day lives. If you lift people’s physical environments and the conditions in which they live, and improve those conditions, sociological studies show and have borne out and proven to be the case, that behaviour improves.
We are not just willy-nilly going around and fixing up every house we can see. I know that Territory Housing is very closely managing this urban renewal program. They are not rewarding bad behaviour. People who have failed to meet their responsibilities as tenants in the past are not going into significantly renovated homes. However, good tenants who are doing everything they should in the responsibilities as tenants of public housing are the recipients of these renovated homes. They are the mums and dads, the battlers with the kids out there. They are the aged pensioner who has been doing it tough. They are the disabled person in the wheelchair. Yes, they are the recipients of these renovated homes. Isn’t that a wonderful scheme?
In Karama in 2004-05, we have benefited from six homes being renovated and three homes in Malak - a total of nine homes with an expenditure of $720 000. That is a fantastic spend within just the small communities of Karama and Malak. We have one home being renovated in Malak at the moment, with work under progress, at a cost of $65 000.
It is a fair program and it is being spread around. For example, in the electorate of Blain, held by the opposition, 17 houses have been renovated in 2004-05 at a cost of $1m; in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate of Brennan, six houses at a cost of $425 000; in the member for Araluen’s electorate, three houses are under way at the moment at a cost of $478 000. Therefore, it is not a program that is being treated unfairly; it is a program that being appropriately managed throughout the Territory and the spin-offs are enormous.
You are seeing streets physically improving. Where there was a run-down house, an eyesore, next to people who had private ownership who really tend to their garden and improve their houses, and you renovate that eyesore, the entire street looks good. People are then proud about where they are living and the sense of community is lifted. I have seen that, in a real sense happen, within the streets, courts and places of the electorate of Karama.
Importantly, also, the subcontractors out there are getting great jobs. I have had feedback from tilers, painters, cleaners, cement layers who are all saying they love this urban renewal program because the tenders are being let out in bite size, small size amounts, that gives all of them the chance to get the work. They absolutely sing the praises of this program. It has kept a lot of the subbies who live in my area in decent and sustained work since it was introduced in the 2003-04 budget. Let us face it: it has about another five years to run. That is fantastic. I hope that this sort of program never finishes because you will always need significant maintenance to public housing.
It is great that this comes off the back of a government commitment to provide security screens to all Territory public houses. That commitment has practically been met, with final security screens going into Jabiru, Katherine and Alice Springs this year to finish that program. On top of that, the department, with the minister’s encouragement, has put smoke detectors into all Territory Housing properties. Again, this is expected to be completed by late this year.
Security in your own home is a fundamental right. People ought to feel safe in their homes, and to be given security screens and smoke detectors is a very basic need. I thank the minister for this. I remember in 2001 when I was doorknocking, I spoke to a young mother and asked what she really needed. She said: ‘Please, if you are elected, can I have security screens? I am a mum on my own with young kids and, at night, we are scared. If we had security screens, we would feel a whole lot better’. It is the mums like that I think of now, when I know that we have met that promise. Her and her neighbour’s houses are screened. The aged person living in the unit has a security screened home. Importantly, they also have smoke detectors which, as we all know, are critical lifesavers. I congratulate the minister on that fantastic program, which has also put a lot of money into the local economy.
I also congratulate the minister on the Good Neighbour policy that we have initiated, and the brochure that has been distributed. It is something I know has to be built upon. The minister is quite up-front about the fact that antisocial behaviour exists and that there is work to be done. I am delighted to see the amount of work that has already been done and continues to be done on a daily basis by the department and the minister’s staff.
Hand-in-hand with that goes the Community Harmony project about which the minister spoke. I have seen Community Harmony work at a very local level. In 2001, Karama Shopping Centre was a problematic area. There was a lot of antisocial behaviour in and around the shopping centre, and was also the case at Malak Shopping Centre. People come up to me now and say it is so vastly different. They can go the shops and it is quiet and pleasant, and the antisocial behaviour that we saw over the years past has just dissipated enormously. From time to time, there is still the odd hot spot. There will be antisocial behaviour from time to time; we are not living in nirvana. We will not be a perfect society ever, irrespective of the resources of government that go into it. But has it improved? Out of sight, absolutely! I will stand on that at the election, and I will take on anyone who tries to say that Karama and Malak have not improved. Absolutely they have, and they are pleasant suburbs in which we live.
It is really interesting to see business showing a great deal of confidence. We have businesses moving into Karama Shopping Centre, and agencies moving into Malak Shopping Centre. They are acknowledging the work that has been done by Community Harmony by moving into areas that, in the past, they found less attractive. I thank the minister; there has been a real boost to our area and it has made a world of difference.
I encourage the minister in the work that he has announced in the Northern Territory homelessness strategy. There is not a jurisdiction in Australia without homelessness. It is, unfortunately, a part of every society and the world. However, I believe it is a true testimony to the nature of good government to have a strategy to reduce homelessness. Unfortunately, a lot of our homeless are children. I commend the minister for his statement and his actions. Yes, we have a way to go, but we are finally providing a fair go for all in the Territory.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I reply to the minister’s housing statement. I agree with him when he said we need to have a fair go for all in Territory Housing. However, when I read the statement, I was expecting to find something new and very exciting, but it was not to be, minister. Of course, the minister, as usual, takes every opportunity to project the illusion that absolutely nothing was ever done in Housing - or in any other portfolio for that matter - in the Northern Territory until he and his colleagues came along like knights in shining armour. Well, the minister, obviously, was not very observant in his younger years. Where did all the Housing Commission homes and units come from in the first place? Certainly, not from out of the sky. They were built by the CLP government.
Regarding the minister’s claim of lack of maintenance and neglect, my experience with public housing and the amount of money that has been spent on it, began when I first arrived in the Territory and began living in Katherine, which was late 1989. I began work for a construction and maintenance company in 1990 - Semrite Constructions - and was their office manager for five years until I left to begin business with my husband in private enterprise. During the time I was working for Semrite Constructions, they were the maintenance contractors for Transport and Works throughout the Katherine region, which included not just Katherine itself but such distant communities such as Ngukurr, Lajamanu, Keep River, and all in between. The hundreds of thousands of dollars that was put into the repairs and maintenance of public housing during the five years that I worked for Semrite Constructions was incredible. The minister needs to refresh his clouded memory about the history of public housing in the Northern Territory.
For the past 10 years, my husband and I have lived in an area of Katherine where we have public housing neighbours directly and diagonally behind us at both corners. Up until just after the 1998 floods, we had had great public housing neighbours, especially Nan and Don Lockley who lived at the same address over our back fence for over 20 years, with another couple who lived next door who had lived there for several years. The houses and yards of those two houses and those of the rest of that street, which were mainly public housing, were always maintained to the highest standard. Following the 1998 floods, unfortunately, things changed. There were deaths in both of our neighbours’ families which resulted in them, under local public housing agreements, of course, to be relocated to smaller houses. Other residents in that street also moved to other locations, which changed the whole face of the street. Since that time, the deterioration in the presentation of those houses is visibly evident. The present tenants, unfortunately, do not have the pride that the previous long-term tenants had. This reflects sadly for the residents in the street who take pride in where they live.
The minister also spoke of the Bernard Street flats in Katherine. The business my husband and I have been operating for nearly 11 years has the Bernard Street flats directly over the back fence of the caravan park. These flats have a colourful history, and most of it is not of the happiest kind. The amount of money that has been spent on this area just in the time we have been next door is staggering. Following the 1998 floods, of course, each one of them was completely renovated as they had been severely damaged during the flood. Unfortunately, it was within 12 months of those complete renovations that some of those units looked as though they had been through another disaster, and required massive amounts of money to be renovated once again, which was a disgraceful waste of public money. It would be very interesting to know exactly how much those particular flats in Bernard Street have cost the government over the years. I am sure it would come as a shock to everyone. I am glad to see that there are going to be some changes with these Bernard Street units, with some being demolished to, hopefully, make the area a much better place to live.
Public housing in some areas of Katherine East is causing problems with neighbours where the tenants have no respect for the property and it has become an eyesore which, in turn, devalues the neighbouring houses. Interestingly, public housing that has been sold privately is hardly recognisable now after the new owners have completely renovated them. Therefore, it was well worthwhile to have those bought privately.
The member for Macdonnell talked earlier this evening of an issue that effects housing tenants in his electorate; that is, the number of indigenous people who come to town from outlying communities, arrive at the doorstep of somebody they know who lives in public housing, and stays there indefinitely. This scenario is repeated throughout the Territory, I am sure, and it creates so many additional social problems with the additional members living in one house. It is not fair on those people who were first living as tenants in that house.
All the programs that the minister has highlighted that tenants are supposed to read and adhere to - to respect their neighbours etcetera - are really great on paper, but not too many of them are adhered to. If you do not believe me, minister, you need to come back to the real world just to see how many of those are adhered to.
I am very much in favour of the indigenous communities being as self-sufficient as possible. To achieve that, they must have an economic base and be skilled at a trade that is appropriate to their community. In the case that the minister has described in his housing statement, that would be the Indigenous Community Housing Organisation. I believe that is one way that houses could be built in communities and be occupied. The ongoing maintenance would be the responsibility of those people in the communities as well. I am sure that we would find that those buildings would be much more easily and better maintained and respected if they were responsible for the building and maintenance of them.
On another positive point, the HomeNorth scheme allows people who are on a lower level of income and would not otherwise be able to afford to buy their own home, to now have the opportunity under this scheme. It is good to see people taking that opportunity, although I agree that the price of land is definitely an issue within the Northern Territory. We seem to be matching up with the southern and eastern states now, unfortunately. However, if we can keep those prices at a reasonable level, we will be able to retain and maintain families here. It will give families stability and keep them in the Territory - and heavens knows, we are still losing so many good people.
All in all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the minister still does not understand what some of those issues are that we have in our community. I am referring especially in Katherine to the problems that we have with indigenous housing. It has not improved at all in the time that I have been living in Katherine.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister Ah Kit’s statement, A fair go for all in Territory Housing. I have gone through the statement. It is probably without doubt one of the best written statements that has been presented in this House. It outlines the philosophy behind the need for improvements in Territory Housing. It also deals with facts and figures about what the Territory government and the residents of the Territory face in housing shortages, and needs in remote and urban areas. It also deals with how we can approach that in a whole-of-government approach. Words used such as ‘social inclusion’ and ‘mutual benefit’, ‘principles of social justice’, ‘a fair go for all’, and quoting directly from the statement:
I mentioned last year in another ministerial statement on Home Territory 2010, that my father was a fireman. He often said that there was a need for food, shelter and fire, basically, for people to survive. Shelter, unfortunately for many Territorians, is at the moment of poor quality and not even an option. In fact, many people, as we know, are living in over populated areas. I have done a little research on this matter. There is a document that I was able to find by the Queensland government Department of Housing. It is called The Social and Economic Impacts of Unmet Housing Needs prepared by Dr Peter Phibbs, University of Sydney. On page 7 of this document it talks about housing, health and poverty:
And it gives a list of different authors over many years:
In another document prepared for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia – We can do it! The needs of urban dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - the conclusion said:
I believe that the actions of the minister over the last few years, particularly with the HomeNorth scheme, has been fantastic. I have often spoken about it to constituents of mine in the Millner, Coconut Grove, Ludmilla/RAAF areas, Bagot communities and, generally, right across the Northern Territory. I will go into those figures that the minister has provided to this House, which reflect the uptake of the HomeNorth scheme.
The Commonwealth report goes on to say:
This is what the issue is all about. Unfortunately, the member for Macdonnell, as the opposition shadow for Housing, has come in here and tried to deflect 26 years of neglect and blame to the current minister and government. If he had a really good look at statement, it outlined all the positive things that are happening with the resources available.
The committee found that the real issue, unfortunately, is scarce resources provided for indigenous housing. How do we tackle the problem? The minister outlined the fact that we have to maximise the resources that we have available in urban and remote areas in providing private and public housing.
I will touch on the statement further, but I want to mention that, unfortunately, it is often easy for the opposition to criticise, criticise, criticise. The minister, in Home Territory 2010 last year stated that:
He went on to talk about how he delivered a ministerial statement to the Housing Ministerial Council. In this statement, he referred to that. I believe that will add to this debate across the Northern Territory regarding housing for indigenous people who are Australian citizens. We must not forget that.
This was recognised by the member for Macdonnell in the same debate last year. He said:
The member for Macdonnell criticises the minister and carries on like a two-bob watch yet, last year, he had the good grace to admit there have been serious ongoing problems under his former governments which continue to this day.
How do we deal with these problems? Again, I would like to go to the minister’s statement, which describes adequately what the issues are. One of the things that he has had to address over the last few years - and I have seen the results in my electorate of Millner, which many people would know is an electorate with high density Territory housing. Many people have lived in this housing for 20 to 30 years, if not longer.
The issues the member for Macdonnell raised are substandard housing, upgrades, renovations and maintenance. Well, I have houses in my electorate that have not been renovated for up to 17 years with leaking rooves, paint falling off, and stoves not working. The reality is these guys are paying rent. If you lived under a private landlord, you would expect a private landlord to maintain and upkeep the residents he is renting. Unfortunately, the Territory government, in the past, has not been able to do this.
We are also talking about situations where people have brought up their families now, and have children who are still living in the area and contributing to the paying of top commercial rate that they would in private accommodation, and they are still not getting the proper maintenance. They are on listings and they are waiting for it to happen. I look forward to that $45m flowing out over the next few years for the urban renewal.
In the previous statement, Home Territory 2010, the minister spoke about his background, and I spoke about the fact that I was lucky enough to grow up in a house where my parents were professional workers, in an area in Millner where people lived in public housing. In reality, maybe a bit naively, I did not realise what Territory housing was until I was in my late teens. However, that housing provided people with the option to go to the Millner School, Ludmilla School, and Nightcliff High School; it gave people somewhere to live; and it definitely gave them a head start in life. Many people - black, white, brindle and purple - in the Millner electorate have gone on and become a success.
That brings me to one of the points that I want to talk about, which is the shift of indigenous and non-indigenous people from rural and remote areas to urban areas. There is an interesting document here, by Margaret Alston, called You don’t want to be a check-out chick all your life: The out migration of young people from Australia’s small rural towns. It talks about populations in rural and remote areas of New South Wales travelling to the coast and to cities. It gives some of the reasons why this, I believe, will continue to happen also in the Northern Territory, as it happens in every continent in the world, and as it happens in every culture and every country in the world. There is a shift from rural and remote areas to urbanised areas because of the resources available in the cities. In the conclusion, it says:
I often speak to my Caucus members and to government as a whole, and have said in the debate last year, that the real issue is that we have $850m shortfall in housing in remote areas, and in urban areas as well. This can only be addressed when you consider that, as I said in last year’s debate:
If we use the figure of $850m:
Which I believe the minister has reflected in his statement:
The real issue is how, as a parliament - members on both sides; both the opposition representative and the minister realise the enormous task in front of us - do we come together as a parliament to lobby the Commonwealth? We had a debate earlier this evening about how much money the Commonwealth is providing - or how little they are providing. Well, we can certainly see by this example of housing that they are not providing enough. Somehow, we have to campaign to make this a national issue of shame.
Regarding indigenous people being Australian citizens, we often see many examples of how we help people in third world countries overseas - which is fantastic, and the Australian community is proud of the help that they give overseas. However, we have a crisis in our own backyard - a generational crisis to do with housing and the result of the unavailability of appropriate housing. I will give an example of Bagot Community, a community in my electorate.
I was a bit frustrated, I suppose, with how to get monies to renovate houses to what people expect to have in Ludmilla, Millner, Coconut Grove, Wanguri, Fannie Bay, etcetera. We brought in someone who had the Defence Force contract. I said to him: ‘Assess this house on the requirements that you would for the Australian Defence Force families in the Northern Territory’. He came back with the figure: to fix X amount of houses it would cost between $30 000 to $50 000 per house. I said to the then building manager of Bagot: ‘How much money do we have?’ He said: ‘We have $1600 per house on CDP’. The minister spoke about the increase in the amount of money from IHANT and that is fantastic, but that money has to go to all the communities across the board.
I have a paper here called Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Australia 2004 by Dennis Truman, Australian Statistician. It says about permanent dwellings:
Which is Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey:
Therefore, right across Australia, we have this whole issue and close to 17 000 permanent dwellings that are under-funded. CDP, IHANT - all these programs - are designed to deal with these issues which is fantastic and noble. We should be continuing to maximise what we do have in dealing with that reality and try to assist and fix all the problems that we can with the tools that we have. However, as a whole parliament, we need to go hand-in-hand - and we have heard that across the Chamber from both sides - to lobby the Commonwealth government, to get proper assistance to deal with our housing needs both for non-indigenous and indigenous Territorians who, most importantly, are Australian citizens.
To wrap up, I would like to just quickly speak on the fantastic effort the minister has made on HomeNorth. This has had an incredible effect on people who are friends of mine - many of those, obviously, I grew up and went to school with who are my age; a bit older, a bit younger - buying their first house. It is a fantastic initiative. I know that, in buying my first house a few years ago, it was a great feeling. I can assure people that young Territorians and first home owners are really enjoying owning their own house.
I like the fact that the minister talked about numbers. There is often the accusation that the government can be secretive. Well, this statement is definitely far from the fact. On page 6, he said:
The minister went on to talk about all different regions and all different loan packages. He did a fantastic job of providing the figures needed.
I have tried to cover as many issues as I can. I love this issue of housing because it causes very complex and interesting debates about how we should deal with it as a parliament and as a government. The minister should be congratulated. With what resources he does have at his disposal, he is definitely trying new ways and is being as creative as he can be. We, as a parliament and a government, need to really focus on getting the Commonwealth to assist us in dealing with a national problem facing indigenous Australians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, members are well aware that we debated the issue of housing as a result of a matter of public importance brought on by the member for Macdonnell late last year. Members of the government may be relieved that I do not propose to parrot everything I said in that speech. However, I may revisit some matters and I do so as a local member of parliament, because I take my electorate, above everything else, very seriously. To the extent that we can judge these things, I believe that I am as in touch with my electorate as some of the best politicians in this place. As an effective local member, part of my job requires me to raise matters in the Northern Territory parliament on behalf of the people of Araluen.
Not for a moment do I suggest that every single constituent of mine shares the view of their neighbour. However, after a while, when a consistent message is being put to me, I have no choice other than to express it. In that respect, this job is not very dissimilar from the job I had prior to this as a lawyer. As an advocate, one duty is to go into court to argue a case and present facts or elicit evidence. I suspect that members of the government will not like some of the things I have to say, but I will say them because it is my duty to do so.
Having said that, in a general sense, I was really disappointed with the statement. When I heard last night that there was a statement on housing, I thought: ‘Terrific, there is going to be some initiatives in here, some attempts by government to solve the problems of bad public tenants’. I reiterate bad public tenants. Not all public housing tenants are bad. In fact, there are some excellent public housing tenants. Some of them are friends of mine; they are great public housing tenants. They actually live in the member for Braitling’s electorate. I was at their house last weekend. I believe it is appropriate that I state very clearly that not all public housing tenants are bad. In fact - and I do not know what the figures are - I suspect relatively few public housing tenants are appalling. However, the fact is that the people they affect come to me and to the member for Braitling. They probably go to most members in this Chamber to raise their concerns.
In any event, as I say, I was excited when I heard that there was a statement on housing. When I read it, it was very ho-hum indeed. I know that we are in the game of politics and political puffery, especially for this government, seems to take precedence above a whole lot of other considerations. However, I expected more than political puffery from this statement.
In the second paragraph, I was amazed that the minister says that the Martin Labor government has subscribed to the principles of social justice. From comments he makes further on that page and others, the inference is that the CLP does not subscribe to social justice. That inference is offensive, not just to me, but to my colleagues and my party. The minister should not, for a moment, take the view that social justice is the domain of the Australian Labor Party. Spare me, minister! This sort of political puffery is garbage and very insulting to people on the conservative side of politics. He goes on to talk about a fair go for all. Well, the Country Liberal Party believes in a fair go for all. The minister said that people of the Territory expect access to decent, adequate housing, and it must be a prime objective of government. Indeed, it must. I suggest that it was also a prime objective of the former government. At the same time, the fact is that people, in my electorate at least, expect that not only do their fellow Territorians have access to decent and adequate housing, but that they maintain decent and adequate housing. They take the view, as do I, that that is the responsibility of the people who live in public housing.
I am offended by the minister’s comment on page 2 where he asserts that he took on a legacy of neglect of social housing that has been directly reflected in social problems. To suggest that the Country Liberal Party neglected public housing is fraudulent, to say the least. I note, in passing, that the minister himself has availed himself of public housing in the past. I also note that the member for Nhulunbuy availed himself of public housing when the Country Liberal Party was in government. I also note that former member Maurice Rioli availed himself of public housing under the Country Liberal Party. Therefore, it must not been that neglected.
The member for Arnhem, I would imagine, probably sets himself fairly high standards. I cannot imagine him living in a little humpy with a couple of bits of tin and no running water, no bathroom, no toilet and no kitchen. Therefore, it must have been, I reckon, a pretty decent public house for him and, presumably, his family, though I do not know. Presumably, it was a fairly decent public house for him to move into.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The minister is twitchy on this point. I actually cannot hear what he is saying. Can I suggest, minister, if you are going to be fair dinkum about making an interjection, then do it in a serious way. Otherwise, it just amounts to noise on the other side, and I will press on regardless.
The minister, in his statement, also said that there have been substandard houses that have never been the subject of any kind of formal policy of concerted upgrade, renovation, or half-decent maintenance. I asked the minister to provide evidence of that, and note with interest that he has not done so. It is offensive in the extreme to come in here, as the Chief Minister did yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about projects and how she never said that gas was going to be all done and dusted by 2007 and, yet, the very next day, we produced her own document that indicated that oh, yes she did.
These statements made by government ministers in particular, should involve checking of facts. If it is a fact - if the minister seriously asserts that there was substandard houses that were never the subject of concerted upgrade or renovation - then I defy him, I urge him, I invite him, to produce the evidence. In the absence of any evidence, I can only conclude, as will others who will one day read this transcript, that there is none.
I propose to flick through the statement and pick out the parts that I believe, as the local member for Araluen, that I should refer to, and also as a member of this parliament, generally. For those reasons, I say that I am deeply offended by the assertion that:
That is the opposition:
Minister, as I have said earlier, I have friends who are public housing tenants, so don’t you dare try to verbal us and try to spin what you think we are saying. Clearly, you are not listening. The concerns we raised are legitimate, and to use your oft-used line: ‘Listen and you might learn something’. What we do is represent the people who are often living next door to bad public housing tenants, and we will continue to do so. The suggestion that people who live in public housing are criminals is nothing short of outrageous.
The minister then goes on, on page 3, to assert that we have flimsy opinions and wild assertions, rather than facts. Well, I will tell the minister a fact that he conveniently omitted from his report, and I am sure the member for Braitling will talk about this. The fact is that over 200 people - and I was up the back and I counted - attended a public meeting in Alice Springs as a result of their frustration with public housing tenants. The fact is these people, courageously in my view, stood up at the public meeting and told their stories. Some of them said they were being driven out of their mind, and out of Alice Springs, as a result of their outrageously offensive neighbours. Some of them were concerned about their declining property values, because the bad public housing tenants next door had a very detrimental effect, not only on their enjoyment of life but their property values. Other people stood up and said simply that their neighbours, bad public housing tenants, were making their lives a living hell. That is a fact, minister, that was not contained in your statement.
There is also a reference on page 3, to the social strategies such as community policing, family/community conferencing and domestic violence programs. Apparently, accordingly to the minister, they are associated with strong reductions in crime. Well, under this government, we have seen an escalation of crime against the person; namely assaults and domestic violence, and violence against women - sexual assaults. I do not know; I suspect it is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing because, to suggest - as I understand he is trying to say - that programs for domestic violence are working and that is reducing crime and, somehow, that is having an effect on public housing tenants, is spurious to say the least
The minister said on page 5 that the government has formalised a mechanism for actually talking with industry and the community about strategic housing issues. I say again, that neither the Minister for Housing nor the Minister for Central Australia were at that meeting. I do not care about the reason; the fact is, they were not at the meeting. I invited the Minister for Central Australia when we debated this in December to call another meeting. I think he is on the Parliamentary Record, but I certainly heard that he said he would not do that, and that he would meet with stakeholders. Well, you can meet with all sorts of people, but why do you not meet with the punters? Why do you not meet with the people who were at that meeting? I know who some of them are and the member for Braitling certainly knows who some of them are. It could be said by some - although I suspect I could not possibly say it - but some might take the view that there is a cowardice on the part of these two ministers in particular, that they refused to meet with the very angry people. I have urged them to do so because there is a filtering process with this government. Lots of people communicate with government staffers, and then the staffers filter the information to government. Well, these government ministers need to actually hear from the people on the ground.
On page 8, the minister talked about monies dedicated to improving housing. I simply make the point, and I have seen some of these houses because I have doorknocked them. I doorknock every house in my electorate unless I feel unsafe. He says on page 8 that there is various refurbishment ‘to bring dwellings to a decent standard’. The suggestion is that they are not of a decent standard or they were not when they were handed over to the tenant. I also have friends in the building industry in Alice Springs. They build and renovate public houses.
When I go doorknocking, in various streets people say to me: ‘That house up there has been renovated half a dozen times, and bad tenants move in; the place just turns to ruin, and then, the builders or the people charged with the responsibility of renovating it, have to come back and fix it all up’. I would have thought that a lot of taxpayer money - the money of Territorians - could be saved by a firm policy - and I will come to that shortly – of dealing with these tenants, rather than indulging them in the way that this government seems to do.
On page 9, under the heading of ‘security screening’, the minister referred to the importance of feeling safe in your own home. Territorians can remember a time when they did feel safe in their own home, and it was certainly prior to August 2001. The facts are that - I do not have the figures with me or readily at hand - crime against the person has risen under this government. People do want to feel safe in their own home, but the people at that meeting in Larapinta - some of whom were my constituents - say they do not feel safe in their own home - some of them in a physical sense, some from an emotional or mental point of view. They do not feel safe because they feel as though are being plagued, hounded, harassed and ground down by really bad public housing tenants living next door. I am not quite sure why it was that the minister wanted to get into the puffery of ‘the importance of feeling safe in your own home cannot be overestimated’. Indeed it cannot, but the minister refuses to deal with the facts; that is, that a lot of people do not feel safe in their home, either under this government or because of appalling public housing tenants living next door.
However, I digress. On page 10, the minister said that he understands ‘the importance for residents of having an environment they can feel comfortable in - one that feels safe, clean and liveable’. My experience is that all public housing houses in the Territory are clean and liveable when tenants go into them. Bad public tenants make them unclean and barely liveable because of their outrageous and appalling standards. However, I note with interest that the minister did not refer to that.
On page 11, there is a subheading called ‘responding to antisocial behaviour’. I was terribly disappointed with this because I actually thought there was going to be something new - something that, perhaps, vaguely resembled a bit of action on the part of government, or some ideas at least or perhaps even a strategy group who might get together to see if it can come up with some answers. However, alas, that was not the case. All we have is a statement that I will quote:
These are real weasel words, I reckon. The minister wants Territory Housing to take a tough stand. Excuse me, but I thought the minister was the Minister for Housing. I thought that, as a minister, he might have said that his government will take a tough stand. This is delegation to public servants in a way that I do not think I have seen as obvious as this for some time. I invite the minister, in his reply, to say whether he or his government will take a tough stand, and not simply toss it over to the very hardworking public servants who work for Territory Housing.
He than made some peculiar comment about having a good chance of stopping problems before they start. I ask how, because the minister does not provide any information on that other than the reference to the Good Neighbour brochure – that is good; I look forward to receiving detailed information as to whether it has been a success – and a reference to a security presence. Well, the presence of security guards is hardly stopping problems before they start. Can I have an extension of time, please?
Ms CARTER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be allowed a 10-minute extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: I will not be long and I thank the member for Port Darwin. I am coming towards the end of the statement and, in particular, the comments I wanted to make.
The minister at page 14 refers to the Return to Country program. One paragraph is devoted to that and it borders on dishonest, really, because it says it has ‘thus far assisted 2171 people to return home from Darwin and Katherine’. I would have thought that the average Territorian would want much more information than that. The inference, or the political spin is: ‘Oh, yes, it has helped people’. All governments want to project the image of helping people, but I would have thought that Territorians would want to know the cost, what sort of response the minister makes to the allegation that we all hear, I am sure, on both sides of the Chamber, that the Return to Country program is a taxi service and that people use it as a taxi service to move regularly from their communities to Darwin and Katherine. I would have thought that a ministerial statement about housing should, in the normal course of events, provide detailed information. However, it is a bit of a common theme that we are seeing with this government. It is like the statement on child abuse,: full of statements but, if you scratch below the surface, very little in facts. I am very disappointed to see that.
The minister, elsewhere on page 14, said and I quote:
That is the case - we all know that that is the case. However, it is also the case - and he did not say it really - that some of the noise and nuisance complaints received are related to antisocial behaviour displayed by people who are the tenants. Whilst we all know that members of family, in the case of indigenous public housing tenants, can create problems, the fact is that some, not all, of the bad public housing tenants - certainly in my electorate - are not good tenants themselves. I would have liked the minister to have commented on that, but note that he did not.
The minister, on page 17, talked about indigenous housing. He referred to $100m going into capital and recurrent funding. That is a lot of money - a lot of money. My view is that the government, because it is spending that sort of money, needs to account to all Territorians how it is being spent and where it is being spent and, most importantly, why it is that there are - and I see them in my electorate, and I am sure the member for Braitling does in hers as well - obviously bad public housing tenants who are allowed to remain in their houses. I said when the matter of public importance was debated in December last year that this government, like all governments, has a responsibility to all of its citizens, not just some of them.
Yes, it is the case that governments in this country have a responsibility to provide housing for people, but the responsibility cuts both ways. There is so much money, $100m, being spent on housing that those who avail themselves of public housing for whatever reason, must surely have some responsibility to ensure that they look after their housing and that they allow their neighbours to fully enjoy their lives and they do not interfere with their lifestyle.
I am disappointed with the statement. I would have loved to have seen some answers, in particular to the sorts of public housing issues that I see in my electorate. Unfortunately, none were contained in the statement.
The HomeNorth stuff is terrific, obviously. It was a CLP initiative and it is great to see this government picking it up. However, there is a difference, though, between this government and the CLP in that, with the escalating crisis - and it is fair to say that - in public housing that bad public housing tenants cause to their neighbours, results in huge public meetings such as the one we saw in Larapinta. I would have thought that the minister would have come up with an answer, that the minister would say yes, he is going to take some action, he is going to do something. For my money, this statement falls well short.
I also make the point that I wonder whether the minister is going to make a statement about housing in Alice Springs. I invite him to do so. I suspect that he will not. I would have thought - and I am sure the member for Braitling will agree - that he may make a ministerial statement at the Alice Springs sittings about housing generally. I know only a part of that is bad public housing tenants and that is the part of the statement that I am talking about tonight. As I said at the outset, I do so as an effective local member. However, if the minister reckons that everything he is doing is that good, then I invite him to make a statement at the Alice Springs’ sittings, because the people of Alice Springs should see and hear for themselves what this minister is doing in this area. At present, I know what they are saying he is doing; that is, nothing.
Good citizens require, or expect of their government, assistance with problems, the likes of which see declining property values, people taking medication to get to sleep at night, and people being afraid in their own homes. I invite the minister to comment on that in reply. If he does not make a statement on housing at the Alice Springs’ sittings, I do not think I will be surprised; if he does, I will be very interested to hear what he says.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, a fair go for all in Territory housing. Well, how about a fair go for all those who live next door to people in Territory housing? That would have been something interesting if you had included that in your statement, minister, because that is what is wanted out there in the general public.
I do not intended to dwell too long on the social problems that we have in the electorate of Braitling; I believe the minister is more than aware of them. However, I do need to put on record clarification of some of the claims that he made. Might I remind the minister, I was Minister for Housing from November 1999 to November 2000 and I acknowledge it is a very hard portfolio; it is a hard ministerial role. However, you get great satisfaction out of some of the things you can do, particularly when you solve people’s problems. That is probably the joy of being a minister in any portfolio; that you can help people and do things that change their life and make it better.
I want to give you an example of how this minister could have changed a person’s life and made it so much better. I am frustrated because I spent hours bumping into brick walls at Territory Housing, in the minister’s office, and hours trying to console people who come to me for assistance. This was a really sad case.
This is a lady whose son was in a car accident. When she rang me she was sleeping on a mattress in her son’s room in the Alice Springs Hospital because he had serious injuries – which I will not go into - and she was spending 24 hours a day by his side. The hospital was great. They allowed her to stay there and use their facilities; they even gave her three meals a day. They were doing everything for her. She had three school-aged children in Tennant Creek. She came to me and said: ‘I need to have these children with me. I need to get my family together again’. You can imagine the stress that woman was under.
I am well aware of the fundraising by their good local member that was occurring in Tennant Creek to assist this family. I know the father was coming down on a weekly basis to see his son in hospital. Here we have probably one of the most genuine cases of needing assistance that I have ever come across. This lady took leave without pay from her job at a Tennant Creek school. She is now on a supporting mother’s pension. She is there looking after her son, hoping that some improvement will happen.
When we went to Territory Housing, what do we get? Well, we eventually got: ‘Yes, you can go on the priority housing list …’, which is great, ‘… but it will be six months before you get a house’. We went to the minister’s office and what did I get? Nothing but a lot of abuse, and I am very disappointed in the ministerial staff that acted in that way, because this was a chance for the minister to be seen to be doing something, if he really cares about his people in the Northern Territory.
St Mary’s Village have come to her rescue and offered her a house for three weeks. However, at the end of three weeks, what happens? What is the point in bringing her children down from Tennant Creek if she then has to go back to sleeping on the mattress in the hospital room? Surely, even this minister could understand this was one of those cases where he should have raised all hell to help her, because it was - and still is - one of the saddest cases I have ever come across.
At the moment, she has been given bond assistance, so she is able to get private rental. However, anyone who knows about private rental in Alice Springs knows you just cannot walk in and do it like that. We have people from the Aboriginal Information Referral Service negotiating with real estate people to get her a home. There are homes that are vacant in Alice Springs. We have suggested to public housing people: ‘Why don’t you just get one of them fixed, painted, cleaned up, repaired and offered to this lady?’ However, as of the moment, unless the minister can tell me something happened within the last few hours, that mother is still without a future - still without a home that she can take her children to, and still beside her son’s bed, waiting for him to come to and recognise her, and do all those things you do as a mother. I have to admire her so much for what she has done. Of course, she is suffering herself from the stress and the anguish of what has happened to her.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree, if you were the minister, you would have done something. You would have moved all heaven and hell to help this mother. You would have cared for this woman and done something. However, this minister chose not to, and that is really sad.
In one of the areas in his statement, he said that the previous governments sold off housing stock, willy-nilly. Well, minister, that is not true, and your department should have told you that. In February 1999, we introduced income testing for public housing. We were well aware that, in the past, the only housing that was available to many Territorians was public housing. In fact, the first house we ever bought was an old Commonwealth public house – as far back as that. When we introduced income testing, there were many people living in public housing who were not eligible for it and would have had to pay full rent.
The minister talked in his statement about how many houses were sold. Yes, we sold hundreds to people who were tenants in public housing, who bought what they considered to be their home, their castle. And yes, they did it through the home loans program that the minister has continued and, yes, that is a great program. Many people could have never bought their homes if those home loans programs had not been introduced. What you have to understand is that those people who are living in public housing, who bought their homes as a result of that policy change, are now increasing the percentage of home ownership in the Territory. That is what is the minister is saying; we need to increase home ownership. Of course, this is one way of doing it.
As well as that, there were people in public housing who, in fact, moved out because they did not want to pay full market rent. They freed up houses that people on the waiting list could go into. Therefore, there was a double benefit. Although the minister says ‘willy-nilly selling off houses’, it was part of the policy and it did good things. It increased home ownership, it gave people a chance to have their own home and, in many cases, it freed up housing for other people to move into.
The minister also referred to this report. I know members probably have seen this report. He said that it identifies four principles relevant to this circumstance of the Northern Territory. I have to admit I found that a little hard to swallow, particularly as one of the examples that he leaned on was to do with Georgia in America. However, he did say that selling of public housing - according to this report - does not reduce crime or antisocial behaviour. Well, I searched through here. It does say one page:
Decentralisation they call it. On another page it says:
And it refers to the American example:
Therefore, one of those statements about selling off public housing does not reduce crime or antisocial behaviour has been selectively worded from that report. I say, minister, that what you are claiming is not totally accurate.
One of the other things is that he talked about Aboriginal people purchasing their homes. I guess that is something that has been going on for many years. I am glad that the minister is pursuing it. I believe he is correct. We have to look at the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act. I am quite sure that there must be some ability to do this by offering a lease agreement, the same as we offer lease agreements on parks or something like that. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are keen for that to happen and I was keen for it to happen when I was minister. We have to find a way whereby people on communities can actually lease their piece of land, get a loan to build their own home, and enjoy the security of having that home. Perhaps that is probably one of the major steps this minister could do if he was able to achieve that: to get some sort of lease agreement.
The minister mentioned security screening. Well, can I remind the minister that security screening started in early 2000 when I was minister. However, I am pleased that he is continuing – that is good. We did not quite have the GST slush funds you have at the moment; so that is good. He also talked about the seniors village that you opened at Kurringal. Well, I am pleased because, if I recall, Kurringal redevelopment was first put forward in May 2000 when I was minister - might I add at the persistence also of the member of Fannie Bay, who was happy about that. I also opened the seniors village in October 2000 in Dick Ward Drive at Coconut Grove. Minister, it is good that you are continuing the things that are important for this Territory. However, please do not brag that you had done it all. That, perhaps, is not quite true.
You talked about antisocial behaviour and your Good Neighbour brochure. That is a joke! Community Harmony - community disharmony as far as I can see. I want to give you an example. This was not in my favourite street of Lyndavale; it was actually over in another part of Braitling. Police attended - according to the constituent who e-mailed me - on Saturday the 22nd; again on Thursday, the 20th; as well as on the 24th - all in three short nights or days. I rang Territory Housing and said: ‘Hey, there has been another disturbance in this particular street. I believe there about 40 people involved in this fight. What you going to do about it?’. They said: ‘The police did not inform us that this happened’. I really thought that one of the agreements we had was that the police would refer these matters to Territory Housing when they were called to a disturbance so they could follow up and find out exactly what was going on - whether the disturbance was caused by the tenant or again by visitors. At least let us find that out so people who are living with all this can know that Territory Housing is reacting to it.
You say the Indigenous Community Liaison Officers that you have employed are there with the expressed intent of working with tenants and it is great. I have said many times when you put someone in public housing do not wait for them to fail before you react; give them that helping hand to begin with. Make sure that when they go in they are aware of their responsibilities, their duties, the things they have to do.
This was another case, minister, which was to me really very sad. This gentleman who was in his 60s was put into a unit about six weeks ago. He is sleeping on a mattress, but that is okay, that is the way he likes it. He does have a fridge and he gets Meals on Wheels. The container from every meal that he has received is on his floor. He also smokes inside which is worse, and his fridge is full of the unfinished meals that were delivered to him. When I ring up and ask if someone could go and see this gentleman who is struggling with his tenancy, I get an e-mail back saying he was not at home. Where is this caring government? Where is this caring minister? This gentleman should not be living like this. He is old; he needs help. The funny remark they made was that his rubbish bin was spotless but, certainly, his house was not. The latest I have is that his cleaning service starts next week – his cleaning service! That is the way we solve this problem. I believe you are actually buying him a bucket, a mop and a broom.
Minister, if your Indigenous Community Liaison Officers were employed with the expressed intent of working with tenants, why are they putting a tenant in a house and waiting for this to happen before they do anything? Why can you not say: ‘I will have higher expectations of the service we are providing than what I am getting’? I know your ministerial people do not like it when I say, ‘Fix it’ because, to me, that is the simplest thing I can say …
Mr Ah Kit: What are you suggesting? Chuck them down the river?
Mrs BRAHAM: That is part of your job as minister to fix it ...
Mr Ah Kit: What do you suggest?
Mrs BRAHAM: I suggest that, when this gentleman went in, you should have made sure that he knew what his roles and responsibilities were …
Mr Ah Kit: Oh, well, put him down the creek, down the river.
Mrs BRAHAM: … that you went back and made sure that he knew on Monday night - do you want to hear the answer or not?
Mr Ah Kit: You want him down the river?
Mrs BRAHAM: … that he knew to put the rubbish bin out and put his rubbish in it; that you did not leave him to live in this filthy mess. It is as simple as that. Is it not your job as a landlord to ensure that your tenants are comfortable and doing the right thing? I am sorry, I really think you are letting many of your own people down, and that is the sad part about it.
Minister, I know it is not easy in Alice Springs. We do have that drift coming into town. We do have a number of people coming to town and we know why. I do not blame them; some of them live in terrible conditions out there. You are right; if you could get some more money through the IHANT program for the feds to build more homes for them, we would be behind you all the way. Goodness only knows that I fought long and hard for that. You would get a little and a little more, but never enough. Therefore, of course. the shortfall is there. We are all aware that that is the sort of things that is needed; they need more housing. Until we get them a house, you are probably always going to have these problems of people intruding upon the privacy of tenants and, perhaps, spoiling their whole pleasure of having a house. Minister, I say again that a fair go from all Territorians, as you said in your statement, means a fair go. I really do not think that you are taking that as seriously as you should.
Minister, I must spend hours on public housing. I really do not want to. Two of the cases I just told you about were, in fact, not even in my electorate. People come to me and I am not going to turn them away, because that is my job as an elected member: to help people when they come to me. However, that is also your job as minister: to help people who come to you and ask if you solve a problem for them.
I ask you to please do something constructive. Go out of your way to make sure that your ministerial and departmental people, if there is a really serious case, let you know. Perhaps you can think about how you can solve the problem for them.
The Territory is a good place. We have many people in public housing who are great people. We have many people in our suburbs who enjoy the town. However, I really become very concerned when I hear about people who leave Alice Springs for the simple reason that they just cannot put up with the dysfunctional areas any more. Minister, that that is something you have seriously have to think about. On the other side, you should say to your department and officers to tell you when there is a case that you think requires intervention. Do not let them make the decisions for you. You be the minister; you fix it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, as we have heard, the Martin Labor government is committed to moving the Territory ahead as a community based on social inclusion and mutual benefit.
As I get around my own electorate and, indeed, all over the Territory, no finer examples of this government’s commitment can be found in the policies and work that Territory Housing has undertaken with the guidance and foresight of a minister who has excelled in one of the most challenging but rewarding portfolios in Cabinet.
In the electorate I have the honour of representing, there is quite a diversity of households: first home owners, high and low income home owners, dual and single income families, sole parent families and the more traditional family with both mother and father. There are owner-occupied homes, as well as private and public housing rental properties. There are clusters of private units and street upon street of conventional three-bedroom homes. What we do not have in the electorate of Sanderson are estates of units under the control of Territory Housing, such as we find in other suburbs in regional centres across the Territory.
Territory Housing is tasked with a lot more than just being a tenancy manager. If you go to the government web site, I believe you will find their role very well encapsulated on the very first web page. It is a role we all need to dwell on for a moment, so that we fan fully grasp the breadth of influence that this organisation can have on all our lives; be it if we are in a government-owned home, a private rental property, or are fortunate enough to own our own home.
Territory Housing proudly and accurately proclaims that solutions to the housing needs of disadvantaged Territorians are not always simple or easily found. Housing requires a broad range of responses, and for all levels of government and the community sector to work together. A collective effort is required. We are committed to working with the community to provide access to safe, secure and affordable housing.
I would like now briefly to discuss how three fantastic initiatives, the HomeNorth home loan scheme, the Urban Renewal Renovation Project and the Good Neighbour initiative are working in my electorate of Sanderson. In July 2004, in my newsletter, I proclaimed good news on the home front when I let my constituents in Sanderson know about the HomeNorth initiative. I opened with the paragraph:
Ms Carney: Did you tell them it was the CLP’s?
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I gave the courtesy of not interjecting on the member for Araluen. I wish that she would extend the same courtesy to me in this debate.
Ms Carney: If you interject tonight.
Mr KIELY: As I was saying:
I went on to say that the maximum value of a home that can be purchased under the scheme has been raised from $180 000 to $240 000, which is a 33% increase; that we changed the gross income ceiling from $800 to $1100 per week; and expanded the eligibility to include people who had previously owned property, but no longer owned a home, including people who had been in relationship break-ups or had been victims of business failures.
Not long after that, a sole parent contacted my office. They were renting a Territory Housing home, and were looking to purchase, and they were talking to me about it. This person was a sole parent with a single income, of course, and had a couple of kids who were growing up and in their mid-teens. The person had just gone through university and had their qualification and had taken up first year in their chosen profession. They were looking at growing their wage but, at that stage, did not have enough cash for a decent deposit under the old scheme. They did not have enough income to make them eligible for a bank loan - no lending institution would go near them - and the Territory Housing tenancy that they had been in for quite some time, which was their home, where they were well-known in the neighbourhood, was where they wanted to stay. Quite fortuitously, our scheme came onto the market and this person was very happy with what this government had done.
Her story is a reflection of what was going all throughout the Territory, because this whole HomeNorth scheme was such a good thing for sole parents who might not have been on a large enough income to be able to afford a house through any other scheme, to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where the kids are growing up. They were able to purchased their place because of the flexibility of the loan.
Another couple, around the corner as a matter of fact, or a few blocks away. This family unit is comprised of a husband and wife, and a grown-up, adult son living at home. They are on a pension. They could not afford to purchase their home in any other way. These are long-term Territorians. They have been around for a long time and raised their family I believe their grown-up son is in his mid-thirties, perhaps forties. They had little to no hope, unless they won lotto, of purchasing their home in any other way. Thanks to the guidance and the spirit of equity and inclusion of this government, and the flexibility that we brought into the HomeNorth scheme, they are also now investigating, very strongly, the options of purchasing their house. How are they going to be doing it? Their income levels, plus their son’s income level will, in all probability, come together to make an income in the household enough for them to purchase. That is fantastic. Those are just a couple of stories of Sanderson people who are able to buy.
I am also aware of younger, single adults buying into the unit market around Northlakes. This initiative of the HomeNorth loans has opened up the housing market to people who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to get into their own property. It is, indeed, a great and wonderful program that the minister has steered through the department. Yes, it is similar, and it has built on the previous government’s program, but it is built on in a much more productive and meaningful way. I am very happy about that - so, good on you, minister.
There is also the matter of the boon to business and to contractors, with the raising of the limit of first home owners to $240 000. From memory, there was an item in the paper of a chap from Beare Homes. Beare Homes specialise in building homes for the first home buyer. It has been a boon for their business. They have been able to create new lines and new products for their market. It has been great. Beare Homes have been doing okay out of the first home loan scheme, as have other contractors. They are a great company. They are very appreciative of what this government has done in regard to revamping the HomeNorth loan scheme, and the injection of that money straight in at that level has truly been a great boon to the economy.
When we talk about the HomeNorth scheme, available in Territory Housing offices, in TIO, and also from most MLA’s offices - leastways, the government MLA offices - is a booklet entitled Own Your Own Home. It is a great overview of just how you go about getting the loan. As I said in my newsletter, I advertise this home purchase product for people to become aware of it. I have to the shopping centres in Palmerston, and I have not seen anything in the windows of the MLAs out there notifying their constituents of this great product. I wonder whether these messages from the government about great things for all people of the Territory are actually getting out to people who live in their electorates. It is a bit of a shame if they are not, because they are disadvantaging those people they should be representing. I urge opposition members, when the product comes up that is of benefit to their constituents, to advertise it. Just because it comes from the NT government does not mean that you have to hide it from them. I do not think you do any one any advantage out of that …
Mr Elferink: We agree with you. I actually said that HomeNorth was a good plan.
Ms Carney: So did I.
Mr KIELY: I am glad to see that members of the opposition are actually promoting this amongst their constituents in their newsletters. No doubt they are.
I would also like to talk about the urban renewal renovation project …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I wonder whether the member could table the document that he is referring to; namely his newsletter.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you table your newsletter, member for Sanderson?
Mr KIELY: I tabled it once before, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have actually spoken – oh, I am happy to. If the member for Araluen is so interested in my newsletter, I will happily put her on the mailing list.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Dear me, dear me, they must have had a big, long lunch.
Ms Carney: You tell your public housing tenants to open their windows now, or what?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: I shall not bite. Once again, I ask that I am shown the courtesy that I extended to them.
The urban renewal project is a fantastic project that has been going on for some time now, addressing the poor condition that we found the Territory housing stock in when we came to government. The member for Araluen seems to be terribly blinkered about the state of Territory housing. She said: ‘Come on, show me, tell me, give me examples of just one person, one house that was neglected and the address’. Well, I can give the member for Araluen the address …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Sanderson. Have you tabled the document, because the Clerk is waiting there.
Mr KIELY: Certainly. I can advise the member for Araluen that, when I was out doorknocking as candidate, I was taken into houses where nothing had been done - nothing had been done - where people were asking for security screens. The CLP’s policy on urban renewal seemed to be to offer tenants a can of paint and a paint brush so they could paint over. This is a really good policy that was in vogue with the CLP at that stage. If the housing stock was not in such poor condition, how can the opposition members explain away over $1m spent in the seat of Blain on fixing up 17 houses? How can they explain away in total something in the vicinity of $7m being expended on urban renovation of these homes. There have been something like 17 houses in Blain, and nine in the Sanderson electorate, where we have quite a large …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am not sure if it is actually a point of order but, once again, the member is referring to a document. I ask that he table that once he has finished with it …
Mr KIELY: No, these are my speaking notes, I am not tabling them.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures …
Mr Ah Kit: They are his speaking notes. It is not a point of order. Sit down.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures. Can I be heard, please?
Mr KIELY: No, I do not intend to table it.
Mr Baldwin: Hang on, she is on point of order. You cannot talk over the top of her.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures from a document; that is obvious. I ask that he table it at the completion of his speech.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point, but it is up to the member if he wishes to table it or not.
Mr KIELY: These are my research notes.
Mr Dunham: No, it is not his prerogative.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not the case. If he is quoting from a document, he can be asked to table it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member is speaking from his speech notes, as he said, I am not sure they have to be tabled.
Ms CARNEY: It is a table - you can see it. He is telling porkies again, then.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just wait one second, member for Sanderson. I will ask the Clerk. I will use a commonsense ruling. If he is speaking from his own notes, they do not have to be tabled.
Mr KIELY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, this government has spent nearly $7m on fixing up Territory Housing stock. For the member for Araluen to say that all the housing stock was in tip top order prior to 2001, I …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not say that. The member well knows it.
Mr KIELY: The member for Araluen can make a personal explanation; that is an option.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have been doing fairly well up to about the last 10 minutes. Can we …
Mr Dunham: He is being provocative.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I believe there is a bit on both sides here. There just happened to be a chorus come in here at a particular time.
Mr KIELY: I am happy to continue, Mr Deputy Speaker. The housing stock in Sanderson that I have had a look at - as I have said I have tenants ask me to come in. They have shown me the bathroom where the washbasin is separating from the wall. Places have not been painted for years, for decades. Roofs leak ...
Mr Baldwin: Decades! Ha! A little over-exaggeration.
Mr KIELY: The outgoing member for Daly may well laugh, but let me say that tenants in these houses are not laughing. Why should they be forced to live in that squalor? Why should those houses have been allowed to run down? We are addressing that. Unfortunately, the condition of those houses with funds we have available to do it, means that there has to be a prioritisation of homes to be done. We are rolling through. We are going through as best we can with the funds that we have for this job.
However, let me say that half of these funds would not have been required if a proper maintenance program had been in place years and years ago. You see, once again, we have been forced to pick up and clean up the mess that the CLP government left. The opposition can cry and whinge and say this was not true. Well, there is every tenant in all this Territory Housing stock who know the truth.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: The opposition can make all the noises they like. The truth is out there; the people in those homes knows exactly what is going on. I am more than happy there.
The urban renewal renovation program, I believe, is one of the best programs that we have going as far as Territory Housing is concerned. It certainly is enjoyed by all the people in those homes. To say to people that they should not have cement driveways and carports in the Top End because that is some sort of luxury - I really do not understand where the opposition came from on those aspects. Oh well, I do, because I believe that it gets back to their treatment of what they think of low income earners. It really is what they think of low income earners.
Ms Carney: Who is ‘they’?
Mr KIELY: It is no better reflected - that is the CLP, and it is all their policies of the past. We have had to go in readdress …
Ms Carney: Name one, name one.
Mr KIELY: … these policies - if the member for Araluen wants to be so blinkered about the housing stock then …
Ms Carney: Oh, facts will do.
Mr KIELY: … it is her approach to a whole range of shortcomings of the CLP. We know it is out there. The tenants in the houses know it is out there. I am very certain that anyone who has lived in suburbs or lived near Territory housing would know. The member for Araluen is so busy telling us that she knows one person who lives in a Territory housing …
Ms Carney: No, that was a friend. I know lots, they are called constituents. I do not know whether you are in contact with yours but, anyway ...
Mr KIELY: Yes, yes, and I am sure they know you.
I would also like to talk about the Good Neighbour initiative which is being run by the department. This is a great initiative. For the last, I would probably say, about two or three hours, we have heard from the opposition about Territory Housing clients and what poor tenants and how disruptive they are. Well, I am working with constituents on two neighbourhood conflicts at the moment. One is for a Territory Housing tenant and the other is for people who are renting privately, who are causing a few difficulties. Bad neighbours are not only to be found in the low income bracket; bad neighbours can be found anywhere. It is how they are handled by the landlords. That is what this Good Neighbour initiative sets out to do. It sets out how Territory Housing, as a landlord, will handle complaints and deal with tenants, just as Raine and Horne and KG Young and any other tenancy management companies should be looking after their tenants. Poor behaviour and bad neighbours is not the province of low income earners living in Territory Housing.
You say in Alice Springs, the place is going to rack and ruin. It may well have its genesis in the great sell-off of housing stock without any consideration …
Mr McADAM: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended for a further 10 minutes.
Leave denied.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Sanderson, there were insufficient people to agree to the motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, the tribal war is alive and well. The member for Sanderson is living in some mythical world if he thinks that, when people talk about problem tenants - ah! - they are talking about the underprivileged, under-trodden. A bad neighbour is a bad neighbour. Nobody talks about whether they are Housing Commission or whatever - with the exception of the member for Wanguri.
I had the unfortunate experience of attempting to find in my then electorate - which was opposite from his then electorate - some room for a seniors village. It has turned out to be a beautiful seniors village. The streetscape is lovely, the clients are lovely; it is one of those things that you would think that you would want in a neighbourhood. I fought a concerted battle against the member for Wanguri to have that in the electorate. I know what they were saying: ‘You do not want Housing Commission here because Housing Commission means b-l-a-c-k people. You do not want that here in Leanyer’. I went to public meetings - and there are people around who can verify that was the scurrilous campaign that was being run: ‘You do not want a Housing Commission facility here because it is like Kurringal’.
It is a beautiful facility. The government admits it is beautiful because they have assisted in opening it. However, this tribal war about ‘We are Labor and we are with the underprivileged and you have this snobby attitude towards them’ is something I thought we were past.
The member talked about how he went to visit people who lived in squalid circumstances and he blamed us, the CLP. No, they were living in squalor, sorry. Squalor in the dictionary is ‘filth and misery’. He has been around visiting constituents living in filth and misery, and he believes that this is a legacy of the CLP government. This is a nonsense. Whether your wash basin is coming away from the wall and the wall has not been painted for a while, I do not think it is right to talk about visiting people living in filth and misery as being the province of the policies of the previous government. It is a divisive, wedge politics-type of argument to run.
Housing Commission residents are in all our electorates. That is probably not true; there are some where there are a lot less than others. I have lived in a Housing Commission house. I have lived in probably four or five Housing Commission houses. The current Housing Minister has lived in a Housing Commission house. I would venture to say that half of this Assembly have lived in a Housing Commission house. Therefore, before you start running some case that the CLP is against people who live in Housing Commission houses and those poor people who live there live in filth and misery - and running it as a case against us - please, please, have another think.
If someone lives in filth and misery it is probably not a lot to do with their landlord. I suggest that might be so in New York and various other notorious ghettos around the world, but not here in Darwin. There are lots of people who have meagre means and small incomes. There are many single mums who live in housing like this. It does not necessarily follow that, because their means are meagre, their surroundings are filthy and that they live in misery. To use a word like ‘squalid’ in this debate either means he does not understand what it means, or he is trying to run some tribal flag up the flagpole to make some assumption about a class war that is not there.
It had not been my intention to contribute to this debate, but I have been on the receiving end of a whispering campaign by Labor people. The whispering campaign was: ‘Do not let the seniors village go ahead in Leanyer Drive’. It is there; I am glad it is there. I hope those people vote against their current member, Mr Henderson. I also hope they are aware of some of the things he said, because they will be made aware. They will made aware that they were not welcomed by the then minister. He believed that what we were doing was wrong and terrible, and an erosion of some of the great and fine amenity for the people who live in that area. I have been on the receiving end of it. There were signs put up around with black plastic that had my name on it. I am quite proud that I fought for that. I am quite proud that I fought for a seniors housing estate in the electorate of Leanyer, which is no longer anything to do with me. However, I do live around the corner. I am proud to go past and to see how good it looks.
If members opposite want to run some argument that says: ‘We are Labor, we are for the underprivileged, the underdog. The CLP is directly opposed and, by the way, they left you in squalid circumstances, which is filth and misery’, I object to that strenuously. It offends me, and I hope that the member, at some future time, thinks about his words and the effect they have on people who have a long history of living next to Housing Commission people. Do not run these generic debates where you accuse us – who happen to be opposite and members of the CLP – of somehow denigrating people who live in Housing Commission houses.
The policies are pretty good. We know that because they are pretty much borrowed from ours. They live on with different names and different glossy pamphlets. However, there is not a lot new here. The various things that have had a bit of extra money put into them – good; I applaud that. Various homes schemes to allow people to buy their own homes - good, I applaud that. Initiatives to get people to stop bashing each other up, and the rampant crime that is on our streets at the moment - good, I applaud that. In fact, I believe the government should do more, because there are certainly problems in the electorate of Karama, where one poor chap got bashed up for his pie, which was half-eaten at the time.
Before you run some Good Neighbour policy, have a look at the headlines of the day and let us have a bit of empirical evidence. I hoped to see the empirical evidence; he was holding it in his hand - some statistical tables - but he was very shy about tabling them. I was hoping that we could sit here and be convinced by the previous speaker, the member for Sanderson, that things were sweet out there, and that people were not being bashed up for their half-eaten pie, and young blokes going home from work at night were not getting bashed by gangs.
Do not run a case that there is a tribal thing out there because people in Housing Commission are low and under-trodden, and we do not support them – ‘Oh, and by the way, we have these policies in place to make everything good, and we are going to paint the houses and nobody will ever live in filth and misery again’ - because it is a nonsensical debate. I hope next time he contributes to debates like that he attributes them properly to the author, the Brothers Grimm, who have written fairytales of this type before, where they have a whole series of crazy notions they pile in and come up with a little takeaway line - so you can take away some maxim for your life. The Brothers Grimm should not be writing those speeches. The maxim that he has come up with, I guess, is something like, ‘Death or vote Labor’, which is a nonsense. I hope the member gets the opportunity to read his words, particularly the word ‘squalor’, which he should look up, perhaps in the Macquarie Dictionary, which is available on the Deputy Clerk’s desk. He would see that those words offend many of us, including me.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering in the last couple of minutes where I should start in my response in wrapping up this statement that I tabled much earlier. I thought I would go to an interview of the new leader of the CLP, the Opposition Leader. He talked to Paul Miles on 8KIN in Alice Springs yesterday. The compere, Paul, questioned him about Terry Mills who, when appointed leader flagged a change in the Country Liberal Party. One of those changes was a working relationship with Aboriginal people in the Territory. He said:
That is what Denis Burke, the Leader of the Opposition was asked, and he said:
He went on and said at the end of that comment:
He went on:
Mr Dunham: Hear, hear! Well put. Well put.
Mr AH KIT: Yet we hear comments on my paper that was tabled earlier entitled A fair go for all in Territory housing. On the one hand, your leader is saying this and you say: ‘Well put’. Then, on the other hand, you completely ignore him and contradict him. He says he is a changed man, and I can accept that. But, by crikey, he needs to change some of your views in regards to your contribution to the debate tonight on housing. I would have liked to have thought that we could move forward together. There is one thing common we should be wanting to do as Territorians and as legislators: take this issue of housing and address it - not just the whole-of-government and whole-of-community, but whole-of-parliament. Obviously, that is not the case.
We know what the situation is out there. We know that we need $1bn to fix the backlog. We know why people are coming to town. I understand concerns raised by the members for Braitling and Araluen. You called a meeting on the Tuesday. The member for Braitling knows, as an ex-Cabinet minister, that Cabinet is held on Tuesdays. I wonder whether, when that meeting was called, was that deliberate to have it on the Tuesday so that I and my colleague, the minister for Central Australia, were not going to be there and would not be there because we had Cabinet? Or do they think we should have approached the Chief Minister to put Cabinet on another day so we could attend that meeting? I just wonder whether that was a ploy. I said that in this House and told both the members for Araluen and Braitling. However, we have a situation where I tabled earlier today the paper that I put together with my department in regards to the need for additional dollars for indigenous housing nationally. In that paper - if people read it - they will see that I am asking for an additional $100m. We need to start fixing that problem.
In Adelaide at the Ministerial Council Meeting on Housing, the federal minister, Kay Patterson, chose to go the easy path, which was not to go to federal Cabinet and ask for an additional $100m of new money. If we had received that, we worked out that, on a needs basis in the Territory, we would have had an injection of somewhere in the vicinity of $46m. This would have helped enormously throughout the Territory in being able to not only build more houses, but to have crews trained so that we have them hands-on learning the skills, with those skills staying around forever in that they continue. Even if there is no program for building of the houses, then there is repairs and maintenance work - not necessarily for each community but for the region, something similar to what is happening in the Western MacDonnells.
However, I came away from that meeting with a feeling of some hope, in that she had made a statement that she would look at and address the needs argument that we had been putting to her for some two to three years, and that she may - she may - take money away under the Aboriginal Remote Housing Program from states like Victoria, New South Wales and, possibly, Tasmania and reallocate additional dollars into our program in the Northern Territory and, probably, Western Australia, Queensland and the top part of South Australia, no doubt. So, fingers crossed, we will keep pushing and see if we can get additional dollars to address a lot better the indigenous housing needs throughout the Territory.
In regard to some of the comments that were made, let me firstly thank members on this side - the members for Sanderson, Millner, and Karama - for their contributions. They, obviously, see benefits from the housing program.
The department has worked hard. We have worked hard in my ministerial office to ensure that we have a track record of being able to deliver something in regards to Housing 2010. It is disappointing, however, that CLP members and Independent members were critical that things are not happening enough. I remind the member for Braitling that she was a Minister for Housing, as was the member for Greatorex. I just cannot believe that everything was rosy then and, when we won government, all the problems surfaced. I just cannot subscribe to that view. It is easy now once that you are out and not the minister to say: ‘Fix it, fix it, fix it’. Well my staff in my ministerial office have responded on all occasions to the member for Braitling. I encourage her to keep contacting them, whether it is by corresponding, phone, or seeking briefings. She is unlike other members opposite, who seem to know everything. They do not need briefings: ‘Why do we want briefings? We just get in there and criticise’.
Ms Carney: Because it takes three months to get an answer, Jack.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you have not rung or corresponded with my office. It is similar to the Wizard Cup match. I got some criticism from the member for Macdonnell. When did he make representation to my office by way of a phone call, a fax or correspondence?
Mr Elferink: The AFL did months ago and you did not answer them.
Mr AH KIT: When did you seek a briefing? Nothing at all – nothing - and that is the way you operate. I can understand the politics in this as we move towards an election; however, it disappoints me that that is the view they take - that they do not need to get a briefing on it. We saw it earlier today with our Treasurer and the taxation and union legislation. If that is the way that they think they can be good members of the opposition - representing their constituents by being lazy and not seeking briefings, to at least get their heads around the issues that are coming before parliament - then it is a sad state of affairs for them and their supporters.
I also pick up on the member for Katherine who said a couple of interesting things. She said she worked at Semrite - fine, I understand Semrite and I used to know, the boss. I think his name is Peter?
Mrs Miller: Peter and Greg.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, okay. You refer to hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent at Ngukurr, Lajamanu, etcetera. Do you understand housing?
Mrs Miller: Yes, that is right.
Mr AH KIT: I do not think so because …
Mrs Miller: Yes, it was.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: … it was IHANT’s responsibility. That is Commonwealth government responsibility …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not public housing responsibility; that is IHANT, the Commonwealth and ATSIC. Obviously, the member for Katherine is out of her depth because she does not understand …
Mrs Miller: It was not ATSIC.
Mr AH KIT: You are tying it to public housing, as you would with Housing Commission in the major centres and you have it wrong. Do some homework and seek a briefing. Do not be lazy like your mates.
I also want to raise another issue that she raised in regards to the situation with Bernard Street. She raised the issue of a waste of taxpayers’ money. I will just find that because it is very interesting. Once again, she has it wrong. The member for Katherine also said that the Bernard Street complex was renovated after the Australia Day flood in 1998. She expressed her concern that it was renovated again 12 months later. The member for Katherine is absolutely right! I am wondering when she is thinking of changing sides because, yes, this was a shameful waste of public money, and the CLP did it. Thank you, member for Katherine; thank you very much.
I also take issue with the member for Macdonnell, the shadow minister. He said that the government’s policy direction for Home Territory 2010 - and this is it here. I hope members opposite have read it. Maybe the member for Macdonnell was away that day. Let me tell him that the housing research which the member for Macdonnell seems to believe is the basis for my policy direction, came out in November 2004, three months after I launched this. I will repeat myself. I clearly stated early in the house that the four points I referred to from the research papers are strategies we are pursuing, which pre-date the research paper. Get your facts right. You got it wrong again. That is what happens when you do not seek briefings.
The member for Macdonnell also made allegations about the budget allocations, displaying another gross lack of understanding of how Territory Housing operates. Territory Housing is not budget funded. Ask your mate next door to you; he used to be a minister. Its revenues are from rents; mostly rebates and community service obligations. The Auditor-General is about to report to parliament that Territory Housing has been increasing its revenue, increasing its expenditure on upgrading its assets, and reducing its losses which derive largely from its interest bill on borrowings made under the previous government. Member for Macdonnell, please get your facts straight because you do not know as much as you think you do, and you are not as intelligent as you love to believe you are.
I pick up on the point of his argument about when he is the new Minister for Housing. I am hoping that he thinks this is happening after the next election. His policy is that they will fix it by going out and selling more stock. He really needs to understand that that is not going to help the situation at all. In fact, it will be interesting to see the detail of your housing policy – in fact, all your policies - after you workshop this weekend. Get busy this weekend; get real. Do not be lazy like the last three-and-a-half years. Do some real work and represent your followers properly.
The member for Macdonnell has this false assumption that, if you sell everything, it makes it easier; that people will always find somewhere to live. Just sell the house, do not worry about the asset, just get rid of it. We have been through that exercise, and that is definitely not the way we wish to go.
The situation in regards to the issue raised by the member for Braitling about the lady who was camping on the floor in Alice Springs, I am concerned …
Mr Baldwin: Wasn’t living in squalor, was she?
Mr AH KIT: Well, hang on. Just listen to this; this is interesting. I am concerned that she wishes to publicise this. I feel for her. In fact, I know that family well. I want to be helpful, as does my office, my ministerial staff and the department. However …
Mr Elferink: Get a briefing.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. Person 1 on the list - you tell me which one I kick out. Person 1 has diabetes, arthritis, incontinence and is living in a makeshift dwelling with 12 people. Person 2 has final-stage renal failure, living in a tent. These people are in crisis. Which person is the member for Braitling - or you - suggest that I kick out, and chuck her in over the top? I would love to just take her to the top of the list. We have to work through and see what the options are and how best we can get her into a house that is liveable, that is going to be repaired and maintained, and can accommodate her family. It is not a matter of finding that there is somebody who is in dire straits, ring the minister’s office, shout at his or her staff, and then you will be able to twist some arms and get accommodation. We are helping as much as we possibly can and, as soon as there is a place to accommodate her that is convenient and will cater for her kids, then we will be moving her into it as quickly as possible. If the member for Braitling wishes to publicise this - and I certainly hope that she has this lady’s permission to do that. The last thing I would think that she would want is to have this publicised without her permission, because that puts added stress on her, and is something, I believe, that she may prefer to do without.
I thank members for their contribution. I am sad, in a way, that the members opposite, including Independents, have heavily criticised the statement. I see, in a positive note, that it is a reflection of my statement and good, tireless work from the department and Housing staff. They work very hard and need to be acknowledged, as do my ministerial staff. It sets out clearly the steps we are taking to ensure that we alleviate as many of the housing problems as possible. There are never enough resources or finance, but at least we believe we are going down the right path with Housing 2010, and we will continue down that path.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In the week before Christmas, the Territory had some very sad news. I would like to formally say goodbye to a man I have known as long as I have lived in the Territory; that is, Peter Spillett.
It is almost impossible to list all the organisations he was associated with and the contributions Peter made in his life in the Territory. He was a Member of the Order of Australia, Fellow of the Federation of Australian Historical Societies, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, active layperson in Christ Church Cathedral, Member of the National Trust of Australia (NT), Life Member of the RSL, founder of the Pensioners Association, alderman on the Darwin City Council, Churchill Fellowship recipient - and the list goes on.
Peter Spillett died suddenly in Bali, Indonesia, at the age of 78. Peter has been a part of our lives in the Territory for nearly 55 years. He came here as a young man who had seen experience in active service during World War II and that, together with his enquiring cosmopolitan outlook, made him love post-war Darwin so well - the rough, multicultural and frontier town it was then. Peter was the first historian I know of to recognise and document the close and longstanding ties between the indigenous people of the north coast of Australia and the seafaring peoples of the Indonesian archipelago. His history of the settlement of Victoria at Port Essington, Forsaken Settlement, published more than 20 years ago, is still in print and still the best reference on this subject. He published prolifically, and his intense love of history shone through all of his activities. I remember how kind he was to me as a young journalist in sharing his knowledge of the Territory, and how inspirational.
Peter had friends everywhere. If you ever went out with him, all sorts of different people would come up to him. Maybe he did not know them exactly because, perhaps, it was their fathers and mothers, or even grandparents that he had known, but everyone seemed to know him.
It was the same when he went to Indonesia. A pioneer of oral history, Peter’s painstaking work throughout the 1980s and 1990s recording the histories of people, families, dynasties and communities, is unique. His love of Indonesia and the Indonesian people was strong. I said at his funeral: ‘We talk about strengthening ties with our neighbours to the north, but Peter has been doing this for decades’. As his wife Muriel remarked: ‘Peter died doing what he loved’.
I have not done justice to Peter’s extraordinary contributions to the Territory. I do not think anyone could. Next time you are in town, just look at a few of the plaques and signs around the place. It is hard to see a monument, park or walk that is not a testament to Peter’s contribution.
I will always think of Peter at Friday lunchtime, having a meal at the RSL with his great friend Reg Wilson, or a beer with Ray Chin. Peter did not just write; he was a big part of our history.
I was lucky because Peter lived in my electorate and I was able to catch up with him from time to time and hear the news. I remember the last time I sat down and had a cup of tea with him and Leo Izod and Tom Birtenshaw, Peter said: ‘This is really good. I really love to sit down and talk about the old days of Darwin’. Well, so did we, Peter. You are sadly missed and our sympathy to Muriel and family.
One of the roles of my position that I do enjoy and embrace each year is that of President of the Australia Day Council. This year, Territorians celebrated Australia Day in typical Territory style. There were official flag raising ceremonies, a huge number of well-attended sporting events - including the run/walk which this year attracted over 1000 people - a patriotic and loud ute run, and a number of fun and very Aussie family events held in communities all around the Territory.
On Australia Day, we have the opportunity to acknowledge some wonderful young people with the presentation of the Australia Day Student Citizen Award. This award is part of the Australia Day family of awards, and is given to one student from each school. That student is selected by the principal and, sometimes, by a panel of teachers, on the basis of their contribution to the school community; sometimes their working achievements; but always their participation and presentation of leadership qualities. This year, students received awards at school functions and others at major events such as the Darwin City Council flag raising and citizenship ceremony.
I would like to name the Darwin-based students who received their awards from my colleague and Deputy Chief Minister, and Heather Sjoberg, who is Chairman of the Australia Day Committee, and congratulate them once again on being recognised for their qualities of leadership and citizenship. From St Andrew’s Lutheran School, there was Stephanie Alm, Daniel Banfield from Leanyer, Sarah Beames from Millner Primary School, Hannah Blaikie from Anula, Liam Blakeley from Wanguri Primary, Stephanie Breuer from Alawa, Denise Clark from St Mary’s, Libby Collins from St John’s College, Jamie-Lee Farrow from Karama Primary, Alexander Fegan from Henbury, Jennifer Fluri from Holy Spirit Primary School, Jessica Heffer from Ludmilla Primary School, Martin Holzwart from the NT Open Education Centre, Shaun Hutchinson from Holy Family Primary School, Emmeke Jones from Parap Primary, Emily Macmillan from Kormilda, Michael McMahon from Jingili Primary, Grace Murphy from Nakara Primary, Aniello Natasi from Darwin Adventist Primary School, Sarah Rann from Nightcliff Primary, Clare Simpson from Stuart Park, Aimee Slocombe from Sanderson High, Josefa Tchong from Manunda Terrace Primary and Shaun Washington from Litchfield Christian School.
I know, even thought I was not there this year, that those children just glow with pride when they receive those citizenships award. I encourage our students this year to aspire to achieve one of those awards for their contribution to their school and community.
I would also like to talk more about my electorate and report to this House some of the variety of news that has come from the electorate. I would like to talk first about Bob Scheer who is head of arts and drama at St John’s College which, following the redistribution, is now part of Fannie Bay electorate. Bob has been awarded a National Excellency in Teaching Award. Just 32 teachers across Australia have received this award, and Bob is the only Northern Territory recipient. Judging of this prestigious award was arduous. Bob had to go through three rounds of interviews and speeches and it involved a fair bit of travelling. The award is being presented to Bob in Melbourne on the 18th of this month. The school, to celebrate, is holding a special morning tea in his honour on the 22nd. Many will know Bob Scheer as a great acting talent in the Territory. Last year, he appeared in the successful Darwin Theatre Company production of Tin Hotel. He was the voice of many in the hilarious version of Dorothy does Darwin, and produced and directed Shakespeare in the Park.
At the end of last year, on 10 December, we celebrated the 85th anniversary of the first flight from Britain to Australia and that celebration was held at the memorial site on East Point Road. Never to be underestimated for the way that he can contribute to an event like this, former Administrator and Chief Justice, Austin Asche, gave a most fascinating account of that first flight, and had the students and the rest of us who attended engrossed in what was involved. We had representatives from 13 Squadron representing the RAAF and I thank the airmen and cadets for attending. I also thank Squadron Leader Robert Graham and Peter Radtke for coordinating their attendance.
Also attending were primary students from Parap and thanks to teacher Geoff Gillman for organising that. There were also students from Darwin High and, not surprisingly, the teacher who organised that was Judy Boland, a woman with a great love for Territory history. The students joined members of the public in a minute of silence remembering this significant event.
The details are that, in 1919, the Australian government held a competition for the first flight from Britain to Australia. The winners would receive 10 000 if they could complete the journey in less than 30 days. The Smiths, with Ross as first pilot and Keith as navigator and co-pilot, as well as two mechanics, set off on 12 November 1919. Conditions were difficult, with the aircraft having to land frequently due to bad weather, repairs or to refuel. They arrived in Darwin on 10 December 1919 and, quite appropriately, became national heroes. I congratulate all members of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage group, ably led by Judy Boland, for organising this event. I look forward to attending more events commemorating the historical significance of the Fannie Bay electorate.
Finally tonight, many in here would know of Dr Arun Mahajani. Dr Mahajani is a healthy and energetic 75 years old. Many a time, as I walk along the foreshore of East Point, Dr Mahajani passes me on his run. He could well be our only Territory representative at the World’s Masters Games to be held in Edmonton, Canada in July this year. He is certainly the only one to compete in the half marathon. As Dr Mahajani points out, not many 75-year-olds compete anymore. If Dr Mahajani does get to the World’s Masters Games in Edmonton this year, I certainly him all the luck. He is someone who is very light on his feet. He is very fit and did very well in last year’s Masters Games in Alice Springs. It is just onwards and upwards for the redoubtable Dr Mahajani.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I put right a misconception that the Minister for Sports and Recreation, the minister for fun, indeed, has been peddling in the community about him being saviour of the Wizard Cup in Alice Springs.
He said to us earlier at the previous debates that all I had to do is to get a briefing from him and he could have told me everything that would happened in relation to the events leading up to the Wizard Cup being cancelled, and then being resurrected, if you like. The reasons I did not bother with a briefing from him is that (1) it is very difficult to organise one through his office; (2) more importantly, he disavowed any knowledge of it because he was on the back page of the Northern Territory News kicking the hell out of the NTAFL because of how useless they were, and he had nothing to do with it. He disavowed any knowledge of his role in the Wizard Cup game.
Why would I go and talk to him? What I did was respond publicly to that and say the minister should do something - make some effort, go the extra yards. I could show the media release if you like, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I said he should make every effort he can.
I made a few phone calls to both the NTAFL and CAFL to find out what was going on. In the process of making those phone calls, I discovered the series of events which does not paint a glorious rescue by the minister in a favourable light at all. Basically, it sounds like a breakdown in communication, because the CAFL approached the minister months ago regarding the Wizard Cup. They were going to seek his advice and help in relation to making this happen. They approached his office and did not receive any form of communication back - no fax, no e-mail, no telephone call, no carrier pigeon.
So the CAFL continued on their way trying to organise this and, yes, they did run into problems. When those problems became more apparent, the CAFL approached the Minister for Central Australia who, to his credit, made an effort. However, the effort was unsuccessful as he was obviously unable to convince the government of the day.
Consequently, the CAFL became aware that the whole thing was going to fall in a big heap so, again, they contacted the minister’s office and said: ‘Dear minister, we have a problem. The whole thing is going to fall into a big heap. We want your help in putting out a joint media release so that we might be able to rescue this or manage the fallout from this properly’.
The minister’s office, I am advised, got back to the CAFL and said: ‘Absolutely, we will sort that out’. They hung up the phone, issued a media release, and that is when the story broke. The substance of the media release was the minister’s outrageous attack on the NTAFL, and the subsequent press that flowed from that. That was the minister trying to cover his derriere. He was trying his hardest to attack the NTAFL, to shift all blame away from himself and the Northern Territory government. Why else would the minister issue a media release attacking the NTAFL if he was not trying to cover his tracks? The tracks he was trying to cover were that he failed to respond, in the first instance, to a call from the CAFL in relation to this matter.
The minister suddenly realised he is in seven shades of the proverbial, so what does he do? He realised he has to be seen to be doing something. He finally contacted the CAFL, they sat down and – lo and behold! - after a little cajoling by the opposition, a lot of bad press around the traps - and, worse, you ought to hear heard some of the things that both the NTAFL and the CAFL have had to say about the minister - he knew he had to respond finally. It was not that hard.
He had a curator fly from Adelaide who was going to sort out the pitch problem. The hotel problem was not going to be a problem after all. It was all sorted and it was do-able and, all of a sudden, the minister claims ownership of it all. That is the spin. It is a tragedy that this is the way he is going to treat sporting bodies in the Northern Territory.
Frankly, being the minister for fun would have to be one of the easiest ministerial portfolios around. One of the hardest would have to be Health. One of the easiest would have to be the minister for handing out cheques. That is all he has to do. All he has to do is be a little responsive, a little active and – lo and behold! - he can be a minister for fun and everybody thinks he is doing a great job. To stuff-up being the Minister for Sport and Recreation would be almost impossible, except in the hands of this minister. He has been unable to see an issue coming up, to respond to one of the major sporting organisations in the Northern Territory and then, when he realises the depth of his mistake, he even has to be badgered into it publicly.
How on earth he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like this minister has done on this occasion, to me is nothing shy of astonishing. I urge this minister to come clean and deal with the people in the NTAFL and the CAFL in a way commensurate with dealing with these decent people who are trying to do the right thing - not blaming them for his shortcomings.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with deep concern that I address this House tonight regarding the handling of the clean-up of toxic waste at the Mt Todd mine. The Mt Todd mine has been idle now for some five years and, while there was some talk in the early stages that a new mining venture was going to take over, I do not foresee that will ever happen, and I have no expectation for Mt Todd reopening. In the meantime, the equipment and holding tanks on site continue to deteriorate.
In November 2004, the Environment Centre NT issued a media release calling for a commission of inquiry into cleaning up the fiasco. The Environment Centre stated the obvious:
I can understand the Environment Centre’s concern about the site, as there were 700 000 litres of cyanide stored at the site - a dangerous quantity by anyone’s calculations. Since that time, our worst fears have been realised, with the finding in January 2005 of dead fish in the Edith River, into which drainage lines from the tailings dam at Mt Todd run.
This incident highlights the sensitivity of the surrounding environment and the ongoing concerns that we have, and is a very serious situation, indeed. In the short time since then, we have had cyanide erupting from a storage tank, which is leeching into the surrounding area, and urgent action needs to be taken.
Another very serious threat is to the endangered Gouldian Finch, of which the region around Mt Todd is the largest known colony in the world. The Gouldian Finch has had some serious challenges in recent years and that includes, of course, the Mt Todd mine development and the construction of the railway corridor. The current threat to the Gouldian Finch is that the leeching from the retention pond into the area of the Triodia grass species, which is a prime food source for Gouldian Finches. This magnificent bird is extremely vulnerable and cannot afford to be exposed to such hazards.
It was announced in January this year that a cyanide neutralising process would be carried out by Minitech Chemical Industries. That led to another bungle, in that the neutraliser that Minitech used caused a chemical reaction, which resulted in a rupture of the tank holding the cyanide. This, of course, allowed some 500 litres of cyanide to spill out onto the surrounding areas. While it was supposed to be contained in the bund, that apparently even has holes in it and could not contain all of the spill. The incidents go on and on.
This latest incident has been blamed on a lack of communication at Mt Todd. The minister cannot allow this to happen again. Last night, I listened to the Minister for Mines and Energy talk on the ABC News, and could not believe my ears when I heard him blame the disastrous situation at Mt Todd on the previous CLP government. Instead of accepting the responsibility of his portfolio and addressing the seriousness of the debacle at Mt Todd as soon as he was aware of it, he chose to try and shift the blame elsewhere. Well, minister, the responsibility lies squarely with you, and urgency is required to deal with the seriousness of incidents at Mt Todd, not tardiness - so just get on with the job.
John Carroll, the General Manager of DBIRD, talking on ABC radio this morning, stated that the cyanide at Mt Todd was being stored according to Australian standards, so the discharge cannot be blamed on substandard storage tanks. I should not need to remind this House that the member for Arnhem, before he became a minister in parliament, was instrumental in his position as chief executive officer of the Jawoyn, in the negotiations that determined the arrangements for operating Mt Todd which, of course, also included the amount of money that was held in reserve for rehabilitation. This agreement was endorsed by Zapopan, Jawoyn, the federal government and the Northern Territory government, and was fast-tracked to allow production to proceed. Perhaps the member for Arnhem should have a discussion with the Minister for Mines and Energy and fill him in on the agreement and how it was implemented.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy to advise this House if he will now hold a commission of inquiry, as a matter of urgency, into Mt Todd mine. We cannot afford to waste any more valuable time in correcting the inaccuracies and the damage that is happening to this site. I also ask the minister to take into consideration stringent guidelines to be put in place for Maude Creek mine site, should that be reopened, so that the waterways which directly flow through Katherine are not under any threat.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about concerns expressed to me by constituents, essentially, about the fate of St John Ambulance. The concerns are widely held - and I am sure many members on both sides of the House have received expressions of concern from constituents - whether St John will continue to operate in the Northern Territory.
It seems to me that there has been inaction on the part of government, and that has created a situation where the outstanding service provided to Territorians by St John for decades may be at risk. Staff risk losing their jobs and, in turn, Territorians may risk losing this outstanding service. From the outset, I commend all the staff and volunteers at St John all around the Territory for consistently doing a great job for our community, and often under difficult circumstances. However, they and the community at large are very concerned about the future of St John.
Members might be aware that the annual report of St John was presented at the annual general meeting in November. It was a pretty grim read, frankly. It is a public document. I invite members to read it, if they have not done so already. I am sure the Health Minister has. In fact, it would be unbelievable if he has not. The bottom line is that the figures contained in the report, and the comments of the accountants and auditors who did the audit, show that there is a financial crisis at St John. Put simply, this magnificent Territory service needs additional funding in the order of between $1.7m to $2.4m - and it needs it now. It needs that money in order for it to continue to provide the quality service that Territorians both expect and deserve.
I am aware that there have been talks about this funding crisis between St John and government. It seems, to me at least, that in November last year there was an expectation that government would provide the necessary financial assistance. I am troubled, however, by the fact that there has been no announcement by government. I invite the minister to come into the Chamber tomorrow to assure all Territorians by way of a ministerial report that matters are in hand, and that the Labor government will provide assistance. If he fails to do so, I can only assume the government does not propose to provide assistance, even at the beginning of an election year. A cynic might say, in fact, the beginning of an election year is a great opportunity for government to announce assistance. However, we are deeply troubled that no announcement has been made, and here we are on 9 February. Various questions arise as a result of the government’s inaction which, of course, above all sends a message that government does not care about the service being at risk.
If one has a good look at the annual report one will see a number of troubling comments. In particular, at page 20 the auditors say:
My question is: does the minister agree that this is a warning of insolvency and what does he propose to do about it? Further, at page 28 of the report, the auditor says:
We ask whether it is government policy to wait until St John goes under before government steps in to help, or does it propose to wait until the election is even closer? This is negligent politics at its worst and cynical at its best.
We do know that government commissioned a report from Walter Randall into the financial aspects of St John Ambulance. However, what we want to know is what that report said and what government response is going to be. We would also like to know when the minister proposes to act; why it is that he has delayed making any announcement about saving this well-respected organisation which is, on the facts, on the brink of financial collapse; and whether, in particular, the minister is concerned at all - let alone whether he has a strategy or a rescue package plan. We would also like to take this opportunity of asking the minister to provide us with answers regarding whether this government has provided any additional funding for St John Ambulance in the Northern Territory apart from CPI increases during Labor’s time in government, and whether any funding has been over and above that provided by the Country Liberal Party.
The seriousness of the financial crisis that faces St John cannot be underestimated, not only by way of even a rudimentary analysis of the auditor’s report, but also gauged by the extent of the concern and anguish in the community. I suspect that we, as politicians, probably see St John out and about more than many other people in the community. I say that because we all go to an array of functions on a regular basis. They tend to be, by their nature, community functions at which representatives - a lot of the time volunteers - of St John are in attendance, being on call to assist those at these various community events. We, as politicians, see St John more, I would suggest, than anyone else. Our collective radar should be up and alert and responsive to their needs. The government should be indicating to the Territory community at large and St John in particular that a rescue package is required.
The consequences of not assisting St John are very serious. Frankly, I do not want to see a situation in the Northern Territory where the ambulance service is privatised. We all know that in some jurisdictions it is, and the evidence is that it does not work satisfactorily. I do not think that the Northern Territory is big enough to privatise an ambulance service even if we wanted to, which I do not. If St John goes under, then all of us in the community will suffer and we, as politicians, will suffer not only because constituents will come to us expressing their anxiety, but we will be at these community functions and it may well be that we will see people of the Northern Territory not being aided and assisted and, in some cases rescued, by St John Ambulance. I am sure, as politicians, we have all seen at some of these community events the fine work that St John Ambulance staff and volunteers perform.
It is very serious. I am deeply troubled that there has been no indication from the Minister for Health, the Treasurer or the Chief Minister, for instance, that this government will come to the aid of St John. I note the irony that St John has been coming to the aid of Territorians for decades yet, in a time of crisis, the government is not coming to the aid of St John.
I raised my concerns about St John in a media release in November 2003. We knew at the time that St John representatives were having discussion with government. I recall I said in a radio interview that, for my part, I was very happy to step back and allow those discussions to continue because it was understood by me and others that, perhaps, there was a way forward and that St John might obtain financial assistance from government.
Well, here we are in February and there has been no announcement. I said earlier that I invited the Minister for Health to make a ministerial report tomorrow. I repeat that. Perhaps he could make it next week. Alternatively, he could make it by way of media release. He is very good at issuing media releases; he issues a lot. He is also very good at organising various media conferences and stunts. Therefore, he has ample opportunity to produce the goods and to advise Territorians generally, and St John in particular, of what he and his government propose to do.
I strongly urge him to announce what he proposes to do. I do not believe that government would simply sit by and allow this anxiety to continue to fester. I feel confident, with fingers crossed behind my back, that this government will be responsive to the needs of St John. I do not believe that this government is responsive to the needs of Territorians in every area, and this parliament is an excellent forum for us to debate those sorts of issues. However, at the end of the day, I do have a personal confidence that this government is willing to demonstrate a commitment to St John and, through them, to all Territorians. Therefore, I am confident that it will produce the goods; that it will come up with a financial package to assist St John. If they do not, then we will probably see demonstrations on the streets the likes of which we have not seen before.
The opposition should not be raising this issue in parliament tonight because the government should have acted before now. The anxiety is out there and it has been allowed to fester. Interestingly, there is no criticism of St John. The feedback I am getting is that all the criticism is directed towards government because people cannot understand why it is that government did not step up to the plate and say: ‘We will assist St John’.
The opposition is forced to raise it tonight. Of course, I do so primarily in the capacity as shadow minister for Health, but also as the member for Araluen. I go to lots of community events, and I see St John representatives at them. St John Ambulance in Alice Springs is located in my electorate, and I have been there and know many of the staff and volunteers. Therefore, I have more than a passing interest in this.
As I said, I invite the minister to tell us - either inside or outside the Chamber - what is going on. Can he please do it as soon as possible; this is a crisis. St John, on the basis of the auditor’s comments, is on the brink. His silence is deafening. He should allay the concerns and fears of Territorians by telling us what he is going to do. St John has been serving the Territory for decades. This minister needs to assure all Territorians that St John will continue to do so. I urge the minister in the strongest possible terms to produce the goods and tell us what his plan is for rescuing St John.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Bees Creek Kennels
Bees Creek Kennels
Mr MALEY (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 30 petitioners relating to the Bees Creek Kennels in Horne Road. It does not bear the Clerk’s certificate as it does not conform with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- The members of Litchfield Shire Council; we the undersigned respectfully showeth that the scale and
level of dog noise created by the Bees Creek Kennels, 40 Horne Road, Bees Creek, is unacceptable.
Barking begins each and every day between 6 am and 7 am and continues with intermittent breaks
until 9 am or 10 am. There is sporadic noise throughout the day before residents returning from work
must listen to barking from around 4.30 pm through to around 7 pm. There is further periodic barking
at night. Noise is clearly heard on all our properties and volume levels increase during school and
public holidays.
This continuing noise has a significant detrimental impact on our lives and wellbeing. Over a number of
years, attempts to discuss this matter with the proprietors of the business have been met with aggression
and hostility.
We wish to stress that we do not want to see a local business closed, but believe that changes could be made
to the practices and structures of the kennels to reduce the excessive noise and impact upon surrounding
residents.
We petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that council should attempt to alleviate this problem by means of
dialogue with the proprietors and any other appropriate action as deemed necessary.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Payment for Student Nurses
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 54 petitioners praying that student nurses in the Northern Territory are paid at a suitable level. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conform with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable Loraine Braham, Speaker, and honourable members of the Northern Territory
Legislative Assembly.
Student nurses in the Northern Territory are currently working without pay. These nurses are making
exceptional contributions to patient care at all Northern Territory hospitals, (Alice Springs, Royal Darwin,
Gove, Katherine and Tennant Creek). These nurses are dedicated health care professionals; they are
currently working without salaries and this is unacceptable. Student nurses should be paid an amount
during their training that recognises the contribution that they are making to our health care system.
Apprentice workers and other student workers are being paid for their time in other fields. Student nurses
should be no different.
We, the undersigned, request immediate action by ensuring that student nurses in Northern Territory
hospitals are paid at a suitable level.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
AustralAsia Railway – First Year of Operation
AustralAsia Railway – First Year of Operation
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on the operations of the AustralAsia Railway following its first year of operation.
After one year, FreightLink, the private sector owner and the operator of the railway, report that they have successfully carried more than 600 000 tonnes of freight, which well exceeded their original forecast of 360 000 tonnes for the same period. This highlights that the Territory now enjoys a competitive model for its domestic freight task, with access to high quality road and rail systems. In doing this, FreightLink have, essentially, offered a wholesale service to the major domestic freight forwarders including Toll, the Scott group of companies and SCL.
New terminal operations have been established at Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek and, at this stage, the train is operating five daily services between Adelaide and Darwin.
Domestic freight has included all forms of consumable products, both dry and refrigerated, being moved in containers. It has also included some military shipments between Darwin and southern Australia for the Australian Defence Force.
From an international perspective, as at the end of January, FreightLink report that they have moved some 18 500 tonnes of international freight. Exports commenced in March last year and, to date, some 16 000 tonnes of export cargo from southern Australia to Asia has been shifted by rail. These exports have predominantly consisted of South Australian products destined for South-East Asia, a diverse range of containerised commodities including base metals, wheat, malt, machinery and chemicals. Imports commenced in August last year and, as of the end of January, some 2500 tonnes of imports have been shipped by railway. These consisted primarily of raw timber, plywood, stone, furniture and steel sourced from Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Hong Kong.
The achievement of this international freight is ahead of target, as FreightLink had not planned to commence international operations until the second quarter of 2006. It is generally accepted that the Territory government’s efforts to secure new international shipping links in advance of the railway commencing operations has enabled this international freight to be captured ahead of schedule. Initiatives pursued by the government to stimulate this trade include persuading Swires to establish a new NT express between Singapore and Darwin in November of 2003; successfully initiating and delivering the Global Freight Connect conference in Darwin in February last year; establishing the 50 ha Stage 1 business park adjacent to the domestic rail terminal in April last year; negotiating and securing an $80m investment by Toll Holdings for the development of state-of-the-art distribution facilities in the business park; facilitating a major national pre-retail processor supply link to establish a capability in Darwin in conjunction with local company Geminex; facilitating full commercial trial of a new Shanghai-Darwin shipping link in November last year; supported sea freight trials of north Australian mangoes from Katherine and Kununurra to London via the new trade route in December last year; and allocating $11.2m for the development of a new bulk handling facility at East Arm which, in the first instance, will service 600 000 tonnes per annum of bulk manganese exports from the Bootu Creek development near Tennant Creek, to China.
These initiatives were supported by detailed market research and analysis completed on key commodity sectors - imported timber and automotive tyres, for example; strategic marketing and promotion of the new trade route delivered to key shipping lines; and global logistic operators; and major importers and exporters throughout Australia and Asia which included my trade and investment missions to Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia and then Hong Kong and China in April last year and to Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne during 2003-04. This work was also supported by direct face-to-face interviews conducted by my Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation, with over 150 major importers and exporters during 2003-04.
Another major benefit of the railway has been its contribution to Territory tourism. Great Southern Rail, the operators of The Ghan, report that they have carried in excess of 70 000 passengers since the commencement of the passenger service in February last year. Government has supported this development through the provision of new passenger terminal infrastructure in Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek. As a government, we are committed to the development of the AustralAsia trade route and the expansion of new tourism business using the rail. We continue to take a whole-of-government approach to achieving all of these priorities via the AustralAsia Trade Route Task Force that I established early last year. My government’s wider trade and transport policies also clearly reflect the strategic importance of the development of the AustralAsia Trade Route for the Territory. The Territory government is driving economic growth because, Madam Speaker, it means jobs for Territorians.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Chief Minister, if the government’s objective in building the railway was to bring tourism to the Northern Territory, we would have bought an airline. That is the fact of it. That railway was never designed to bring tourists; that is an added bonus.
What I do hear from your report and what I can fairly deduce is that you know how to read a script. However, when it comes to making this railway work, this government has failed - and failed dismally. In answer to a question yesterday, the Chief Minister said that the railway is going very well, at the same time that FreightLink issued a media release which any financial analyst who would read it, would know that they have had to put more asset into the railway line because the banks are not happy. Anyone knows that. The banks are not happy because the return on investment is too skinny for the banks, and that means that the railway is not going well.
You can stand here and talk about carrying freight in tonnes as long as you like. The reality is, first, the return on investment is not occurring and, second, anyone who knows what is happening in the road transport industry knows that they are buoyed up. They are buoyed up because they are buying new trailers, they are buying new prime movers because they know that freight is moving from rail to road.
This was the government that, because of their inexperience, asked for the steady guiding hand of Bob Collins to help them. What is clear from this report today and the actions of this government, is that you do not know how to manage the economy or these projects.
Members interjecting
Mr Stirling: You sent us broke!
Mr BURKE: You cannot manage – sent you broke! You are …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The GST could have filled the black hole four times over! You are into your own Treasurer’s Advance now.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Police budget is into infrastructure funding to try to fund operational costs. Anyone who has their ear to the ground knows that as well; and Treasury is not happy. You know, Treasurer, from your own Treasury …
Mr Stirling: Make it up! No one believes you!
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, order!
Mr BURKE: You have failed with this railway. You have absolutely, abysmally failed!
Mr Stirling: You have no credibility.
Mr BURKE: Any project you try to get up has failed, including the …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Baldwin: Bring on a statement!
Mr Henderson: Are you still here, Tim?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, enough!
Mr Baldwin: You! You were away for three weeks and your office was closed. You had the lights off!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr Henderson: Are you still here? Good to see you.
Mr Baldwin: Three weeks you were closed for.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business! You are on a warning, both of you! And Treasurer, settle down!
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, what an extraordinary …
Madam SPEAKER: No, Chief Minister, I am waiting for everyone to settle down! Yes, I know your time is running out. Now, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, what an extraordinary outburst from the Leader of the Opposition - yesterday’s man with yesterday’s story - bagging the facts of how the rail is working: 600 000 tonnes of freight on the rail when we expected 360 000. The Opposition Leader can continue to bag this major piece of infrastructure, but it is working.
It has import and export when there was no intention to have it before, say, the second quarter of 2006. What we have, much to the chagrin of the opposition, is something that is working - a major infrastructure that is working, delivering for Territorians and creating jobs. What do we get from the Opposition Leader? Bagging it, bagging it and bagging it!
NT Hospitals – National Accreditation
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, one of the key priorities of this government is building a better health system and providing better hospital care for the people of the Territory. We committed, in the Building Healthier Communities framework, to building effective, innovative and sustainable health services and enforcing high standards of accountability and quality. We have linked our five hospitals in a Territory-wide network, which has strengthened quality services throughout these hospitals and improved recruitment, retention and career prospects.
This government is committed to supporting the high quality of service provided by staff of our hospitals, and I am very proud of the high quality of service that the staff in each of our five hospitals provides to the community. However, I also want to ensure that we have independent experts assess the standards of these hospitals against national standards.
To this end, it gave me great pleasure to be able to announce in January this year that, for the first time ever, all five of the Northern Territory hospitals received Australian Council of Healthcare Standards accreditation against rigorous national benchmarks. The Australian Council of Healthcare Standards is an independent not-for-profit organisation, dedicated to improving the quality of health care in Australia. The council provides national accreditation for hospitals and health care organisations.
The council’s Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program, EQuIP, is about improving consumer/patient safety by introducing mandatory evaluation of those areas of health care which have high safety risks. Surveyors from the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards conducted these reviews as part of the ongoing accreditation cycle. This is a process of external peer review against national standards, which facilitates the award of accreditation status.
All Northern Territory hospitals have now been reviewed against the latest version of the Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program (Version 3) which includes 19 mandatory criteria, fully effective as of 1 January 2005. Last year, four of the five Northern Territory hospitals successfully underwent a review against the standards and criteria contained in the EQuIP program. Katherine Hospital is currently accredited and will undergo a scheduled review in November 2005.
The accreditation process ensures continuous improvements in the areas of leadership and management, continuum of care, information management, human resource management, safe practice and environment, and evaluation of improving performance. Staff and patient safety and quality is assessed and evaluated, giving strong support to the Building Healthier Communities commitment to providing better hospitals and accreditation across the Northern Territory hospital network.
The Royal Darwin Hospital has been accredited with the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards for a number of years. Now, all other Northern Territory hospitals have reached this level of achievement and, in January, the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards Chief Executive Officer, Mr Brian Johnston, presented certificates of accreditation to the general managers of Royal Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Gove Hospitals.
All Territorians can now be assured that all five of our hospitals meet these painstaking national benchmarks for quality services. This is something that was never achieved under the previous government. This Territory first can be attributed to this government’s $150m boost to health, which has been increasing services and nurse numbers across the Territory.
The government has exceeded its promise to create and fund an extra 75 hospital-based nursing positions. Today, we have over 100 additional nurses across the health system. These include a range of specialist positions, such as clinical nurse educators, nurse managers, and renal, critical care and midwifery nurses. With more hospital-based nurse positions yet to be recruited for the hospice and birthing centre, this figure will be increased even further.
This achievement clearly recognises the efforts of staff in all of our hospitals in reaching this historic milestone, and demonstrates the ongoing commitment to safety and quality in health care in the Northern Territory. I congratulate the staff of all five hospitals for this achievement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in two minutes, I do not have enough time to adequately respond to the minister’s comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … so I will refer to the Alice Springs Hospital in reply, if members on the other side give me the courtesy of so doing.
The facts are these: On 26 February 2002, the former Health minister announced to the parliament that the Australian Council of Healthcare Standards (ACHS) would undertake the accreditation process. There is a confidential report, dated April 2003, which revealed a list of defects and problems, some of which were highlighted in the NT News last week, provoking the headline ‘Sick Joke’ in the NT News and ‘Oops, Hospital Not Fireproof’ in the Centralian Advocate. The ACHS inspected the hospital on 25 and 26 May 2004, and prepared its report in 2004.
In a ministerial report on 6 October 2004, the minister said in this Chamber that it was revealed that there was a failure of the redevelopment to meet Building Code of Australian standards. In your media release on 19 January this year, you proudly announced that the Alice Springs Hospital, along with others, had gained accreditation for, amongst other things, ‘meeting rigorous national standards’. In your media release of 2 February, three weeks later, you said that there had been 24 studies and assessments into problems at the Alice Springs Hospital. A number of questions arise, minister, and we are by no means at the bottom of this. You will be hearing much more from us.
However, we have some obvious questions. Was the ACHS review team given access to those 24 reports and assessments; if not, why not? Did you proceed with undue haste to gain accreditation for the hospital? Did you deliberately ensure that the 24 reports were not provided? Did you deliberately wait to attain accreditation before announcing the problems and extra costs amounting to $10m, only three weeks after accreditation? Minister, this has a dreadful smell, and could be your undoing.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I will tell you what we have done for the Alice Springs Hospital: we recruited to all vacant consultant positions; we have 90% of the junior doctor positions now filled; we have considerably closed the gap in nursing numbers since last December through to now; we have now recruited all of the senior clinical positions so there is now a very affective senior clinical leadership within the hospital, if you include the offer that has been made for paediatrics; and we have now recruited a Director of Corporate Services who will be bringing financial and corporate management skills to the hospital’s staff.
That is what we are doing; we are building the capacity of Alice Springs Hospital against all the carping that the opposition might want to make.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about the fire hazard?
Dr TOYNE: I will tell you what they have done: between 1998 and the year 2001, all those holes appeared in the firewalls of Alice Springs Hospital. I wonder who knew about that?
Members interjecting.
Mr Baldwin: Let us have the report then. Show us the report on the table. That is what we …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Baldwin: I am happy to look at the report.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, are you going to be like this all day? Settle down.
Mr Baldwin: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Oh, good!
Mr Stirling: He is having one of those days, Madam Speaker. He is going to be a problem child today; I can see it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, you are being problem child yourself at the moment.
________________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call on the Minister for Mines and Energy, I draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of representatives from the Northern Territory Construction Unions. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________________
Mines and Energy Cadetship
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the award of the first Minister for Mines and Energy Cadetship in earth science and geology, an award for young Territorians to support university studies leading to a degree qualification in geology.
I launched the cadetship scheme at Charles Darwin University in October last year. The main objectives of the scheme are to encourage young Territorians to study earth sciences/geology; to assist young Territorians in the first year of their studies in the Territory at Charles Darwin University and, subsequently, at a university elsewhere where an earth sciences/geology degree is offered; and to contribute to the retention of earth sciences/geology professionals in the Territory so as to assist in the development of the Territory’s mineral and energy resource base.
The cadetship provides an annual stipend for three years of $12 000, paid quarterly in advance, to assist with living and other expenses; and guaranteed employment in the Territory at base casual rates during each of the long university vacations. This will be provided either by DBIRD, or by a major mining or exploration company operating in the Territory. The first year of the cadetship will be undertaken at Charles Darwin University, with the following two years to be completed at an appropriate interstate university that offers earth sciences/geology courses. The cadet will also be provided with a mentor in the Northern Territory Geological Survey in DBIRD.
The scheme was promoted to Northern Territory school leavers through schools and media advertisements, and it attracted an enthusiastic response with a number of queries received prior to the applications closing in November. Applications were considered by a committee which had representatives from DBIRD, the Charles Darwin University, and the Northern Territory Branch of the Geological Society of Australia. The selection committee considered the following information in assessing applications: first, the applicant’s academic record and whether he or she has been accepted for study in science-related subjects at Charles Darwin University; second, the level of knowledge and interest in working professionally in the earth sciences/geology areas; third, the level of commitment to gaining practical work experience in Northern Territory Geological Survey, or exploration or mining operations in the Territory - this could include working at remote locations in the Northern Territory; and lastly, the applicant’s interest in the minerals and energy industry in the Territory.
I am delighted to inform the House that the successful applicant was Ms Susan Farquhar. I presented the award to Ms Farquhar at a reception here last week. Susan is a 19-year-old former Dripstone High School and Casuarina Secondary College student who has been working at Charles Darwin University over recent months. She is very excited to be the first recipient of this cadetship and thankful for the opportunity this will provide for her.
The maintenance of an appropriate skills base is essential to assure that innovation continues to drive mineral and petroleum exploration and development in the Territory, and it is very important that we find ways of encouraging young Territorians to be part of that drive for innovation. Keeping the Territory moving ahead is our top priority and, to do that, we must encourage young Territorians to study here and put their skills and knowledge to use in the Territory.
I am sure that all members will join in congratulating Ms Farquhar on the award, and wish her well with her future studies.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report and congratulate him because I actually heard every word today; so we are going somewhere.
I welcome the introduction of the science and geology cadets to Darwin University. The mining industry plays a significant part in the Northern Territory economy and, of course, it needs as much support as possible. For too long, the Territory government has not been addressing the mining industry and the interests of the Territory people.
Exploration licences are down in the Territory and, obviously, we need to support that more. If we are going to introduce science and geology cadetships to the university, we need to look at the introduction of more exploration licences in the Northern Territory, and I would encourage the minister to do that.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her contribution. I would like to advise her that, in its first term, this government actually approved more than 700 exploration licences in the Territory compared with the very few that the previous administration approved.
On the other hand, I fully agree with the member regarding the contribution the mines and energy sector has made to the economy of the Territory. I wish to encourage more exploration in the Territory. If we do not have exploration today, we are not going to have mines in five or seven years. However, to carry out the exploration, we need geologists. We did not have many geologists in the Territory. The purpose of this cadetship is to attract young Territorians to this particular field, train them here and keep them here so they can work in the mines and energy sector in the Northern Territory.
Youth Initiatives Funding
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Assisting the Chief Minister on Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is the youngest jurisdiction in Australia, and the Martin government has been responsible for many new initiatives which support and nurture young Territorians. We are a government for all Territorians, and helping our young people is all about supporting families to get ahead.
Today, I am pleased to announce the outcomes of the government’s youth initiatives funding. This funding results from the commitment made by government in 2001 when new funding was allocated to introduce and expand youth programs across the Northern Territory.
Two successful programs in Nightcliff and Borroloola were established in 2002 and 2003, and the additional funding in 2004 has allowed for new services to be developed in other locations. In Alice Springs, last year we expanded the services of the youth drop-in centre with increased funding.
The quality of the submissions for this round was very impressive, and I am pleased to inform members that there are seven new services being funded through this initiative across the Northern Territory. They are: in Belyuen, transport services and youth activity programs; in Gunbalunya, for the Youth and Wellbeing Program; the youth drop-in and activities zone for Nhulunbuy’s Ski Beach and Yirrkala; Bush Mob’s Adventure Therapy for remote communities in Central Australia; Willowra Community Youth Development Program; Young People Keeping Strong at Timber Creek; and the Cultural Knowledge Program at Angurugu.
The government is working with these services now to get them up and running, and some of them have already started delivering services to the community. These new services will assist young people who normally have very little access to any types of services. We know that when young people get bored trouble often starts, and these projects play a role in delivering our promise to attack the cause of crime. We have already put 100 extra police on the street and this has led to a reduction in property crime, and these youth projects will continue to help cut crime further.
In Darwin and Alice Springs, services for young people are now well established, and additional funding over the last three years has allowed for increased access and coordination. In Katherine, Family and Community Services is in discussion with the stakeholders to finalise details of the Katherine Youth Centre.
The Martin government has the long-term plans that stand up for youth of the Territory, and the projected funding towards new youth initiatives by 2006 will be in the vicinity of $20m. By providing youth with opportunities, supporting them with comprehensive services, and protecting them with effective legislation, this government is moving the Territory ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the information provided to the House of the range of projects and programs which are running across the Territory to support our youth. It is very important that, particularly, reference is given to regional youth. I acknowledge the need to focus more attention on engaging regional youth who are particularly disadvantaged.
More importantly, we need to attend to issues that allow our young people to be gainfully employed and that speaks of the Jobs Plan, apprenticeships and training, and the raising of the value and status of trade and technical skills within education. That is the core issue that must be attended to.
This is a very significant area that requires deep thinking when we are faced with the information, recently released to the Northern Territory community through ABS, of the 71% increase in youth suicides in the Northern Territory. That is an issue that must be attended to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Assisting Chief Minister on Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his words, and I agree. I do not think any of us disagree, but we are moving on with this. The Office of Youth Affairs in the Department of Chief Minister, the Office of Crime Prevention, the Department of Sports, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and my department, all agree that sometimes we forget about youth. However, we are all working together to try and tackle these people who are sometimes left in the cracks by government.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill 2005 (Serial 278) passing through all stages of this sittings.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition strongly opposes this motion. The one thing we agree with in the wording of the motion is the name of the bill because it is called Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) (Revival) Bill, and ‘revival’ is really what this is all about.
We simply cannot have a situation in this House that, yesterday, the minister for Education said: ‘We do not have a mandate from Territorians to deal with 11- to 14-year-olds. Because it is such an important issue, we have to go back to the people to discuss whether or not they are comfortable with what we might be doing with middle schooling’ ...
Mr Stirling: Because we are inclusive, not because …
Mr BURKE: You did not have a mandate from the people to deal with middle schooling so, therefore, you are going back to the people for further consultation. Madam Speaker …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition can point to the words in Hansard where I said that, I will go he. I never said anything like that. Find the words, put them on the table, otherwise withdraw the nonsense that you are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: I will not be misrepresented in this Chamber. I am not on the record as saying anything like that.
Mr Dunham: Make a personal explanation. You know the rules!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, a little less from you. Leader of the Opposition, have you finished? You want to finish?
Mr BURKE: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is in that context that the government, on that issue, feels insecure to proceed without the opinion of the wider populous - the opinion that they have already consulted on for 18 months - and are now going back for further consultation. Put that in this context …
Mr Stirling: You blokes do not like talking to people. We know that. That is why you lost government.
Mr BURKE: Oh, will you shut up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, that is not parliamentary.
Mr BURKE: Well, he is speaking at the same time as me, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That happens all the time, I am afraid, with both sides. You know that anyone …
Mr Stirling: I thought you had changed! I thought you had changed!
Mr Baldwin: It’s all right, is it, Syd?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I am trying to! I am losing weight and I am trying to change, for God’s sake!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Let me be the genteel human being I would like to be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, will you withdraw that remark? That was most unparliamentary.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw telling him to shut up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Now could we have a little less interruption from both sides.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I am trying to present the context of the opposition’s objections. We have a situation where the government has consulted for 18 months for some changes to the secondary education scheme. After 18 months, they feel that they are unsure of the Territory families’ opinion on this issue of middle schooling and, therefore, in press releases, press conferences and answers in this Chamber, the government feels that it has to go back to Territorians to further consult on this issue.
Let us get that in context. In context, we now have the handing over of the parks estate in the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Like Nitmiluk?
Mr BURKE: … to Aboriginal interests. No, it is not like Nitmiluk - not like Nitmiluk! Do you know whose words those are? Norman Fry’s, not mine. Not like Nitmiluk. It is the greatest con to Aboriginal people that has ever been ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell! Leader of the Opposition, just wait.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as Leader of Opposition Business, I seek some guidance from you. Two members are currently on a warning for minor interjections across the room. The Treasurer is screaming and he does not have the floor. I ask that all members contain themselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for your assistance, member for Macdonnell.
Mr Stirling: Mr Deputy Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, you are on a warning. I will reinforce that to you. I do not think you are going to last the morning. Leader of the Opposition, get on with your speech.
Mr BURKE: Despite the assistance I am giving, I have great confidence in your ability to control this Chamber.
The member for Johnston says, ‘Like Nitmiluk’. It is not like Nitmiluk. If you want to talk about Nitmiluk, that is what the CLP put in place with the Jawoyn. Talk to your member for Arnhem …
Mr Ah Kit: Okay, whatever.
Mr BURKE: Whatever.
It is not like Nitmiluk, because the Nitmiluk deal had greater advantages for Aboriginal people than this lousy deal has. Aboriginal people know that. The reason they know it is the reason why they are not signing up. That is evidenced by the fact that this is the third or fourth piece of legislation that is trying to get a deal. And you will not get a deal, because Aboriginal people are far smarter than to be conned by smart words. They know that this is not Nitmiluk, and that is why you will not get a deal. That is why five parks have fallen out already. That is why you have four pieces of legislation in this House trying to stitch it up.
My argument though, is that this should not be rushed. If the government follows its own logic, this should not be rushed. How, possibly, could this government say that they have a mandate to put through the handing over of the parks estate, on urgency in this Chamber? Never did it appear in a policy document of the ALP. No one - no Territorian - is a party to these consultations. It is the prerogative of the Chief Minister alone to hold secret negotiations to get a deal. Territorians have no idea what the Chief Minister is proposing. However, that is par for the course for this government; they have the same deal going on for the waterfront. No one will know until the deal is done and, then, it will be a done deal. The government hopes they will be also be past the election by that stage, and they have another four years to recover. Well, you are not going to get that either.
This is a deal that never had any authority from any Territorian to progress it. This is a deal that should be the subject of an election. If you are confident, Chief Minister, that you can go to Territorians and say: ‘I am doing the right thing by Territorians’, you do it and go to an election. You go out there to Territorians and say: ‘I am confident that I can hand over the parks estate with this deal, and you will vote us back into government’. You know what I bet? I will lay you money that Aboriginal people will not vote for it, because they know this is a lousy deal. It is a lousy deal for Aboriginal people because it does not do anything like Nitmiluk. It does not give them any real commercial interests or any real say in what is going on, and they know that. So do not use the word ‘Nitmiluk’. Someone advisor said: ‘You just tell them Nitmiluk, just like the CLP and Nitmiluk’. The thing you ought to remember is that the CLP did Nitmiluk, not you. The other thing you want to remember is that the CLP did and the Larrakia people …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could the member for Brennan address his remarks through the Chair?
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Because you are a bully!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Do speak to me, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I will, Madam Speaker. However, the member for Johnston was happy to join the debate through interjection; I was simply responding.
They are happy to say ‘Just like Nitmiluk’, but it is not; so you want to give that one away. However, I will tell you what it is like. This deal is like no other deal which has ever been put before Aboriginals before, and they know it. If you want to talk about Nitmiluk, the CLP proudly did that deal with Aboriginal people. Perhaps the member for Arnhem was involved at the time – I cannot recall, I think he was. It is a good deal and they know it …
Mr Ah Kit: It certainly was.
Mr BURKE: I know. It is a good deal and they know it is a good deal. If they want to talk about deals in the future, let us start looking at that Nitmiluk model, and Aboriginal people may join in.
The second thing is, if you want to talk about the CLP’s track record, look at Darwin. It is now in Stage 3 of development. My government did that and I, as Chief Minister, negotiated that. The Larrakia are benefiting in the millions from it. This is not words; this is not soft ‘we love you and the CLP hate you’ stuff; this is dollars in Aboriginal people’s pockets. This is the Larrakia becoming a strong and robust organisation that is involved in other projects. That is giving a hand-up, not a hand-out. All you mob know about is hand-outs.
The other thing you have learnt very quickly is ‘let us try and get as comfortable as we can in those chairs’. However, when it comes to substance and doing deals with Aboriginal people, I will lay money that they are more comfortable with the directness of the CLP because they get results. The other thing they also know – this is the track record of the ALP - there are more Aboriginal people in Territory gaols now under the ALP than there were under the CLP. That is a fact, and you point proudly to it. You, member for Millner, sit there proudly as an ALP member, with a government that is locking up Aboriginal people at a great rate …
Mr Baldwin: At a rate never seen before.
Mr BURKE: At a rate never seen before …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member continues to address his remarks away from the Chair trying to provoke members of government. We want to get on with business.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I need to say to you that you must keep to the motion. You are digressing off on a tangent that has nothing to do with this motion. Please address your remarks to the motion.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The importance of my comments is that this fourth piece of legislation should not be rushed. That is the first point.
The second point is that this House has no ability, on a rushed piece of legislation which is going to pass through on urgency, to get across what is going on with this parks hand-over. We do not know what is happening, because there are secret negotiations with the Chief Minister and the parties concerned. Let us get a little history – let us get it simplistically down for Territorians.
There were approximately 47 parks which were thrown in doubt in the Northern Territory by virtue of the Ward decision. I may have a number here or there incorrectly.
A member: Forty-nine.
Mr BURKE: Forty-nine – I am corrected. Forty-nine parks were in the Ward decision. The Chief Minister said: ‘We are not going to go through the litigious situation the CLP are in; we are going to deal outside of the court process with Aboriginal people and everyone will dance happily ever after, and we will all be economically well off’. However, the Chief Minister did not put the 49 parks into the deal; she took out around 27 parks, as I recall, from the deal. Some of those parks are going through the court process. When I asked the member for Johnston in estimates why the government was going forward with the parks hand-over, he said to do otherwise would create enmity, division, wedge politics and bad feeling with Aboriginal people.
The reality is that the government is litigating on a large number of those parks; therefore, this business of ‘we will not use the court process’ is an absolute lie. You are using the court process. The Chief Minister said in estimates that she will, quite rightly, use the court process where she feel they can do it. However, she came in to this Chamber and said: ‘We are going to set up this deal for about - how many? - 27 parks. We are going to set up this deal where we will have a combination of joint management, Aboriginal freehold and parks freehold in this whole deal’. However, from the average Territorian’s point of view, if you get rid of all of the clutter it means for a great deal of the parks estate that is currently owned by all Territorians - by everybody - will now be given, not to owners, but to claimants - the people who claim that they own it under the Native Title Act. ‘We will forget about the process of Native Title Act. We will forget about the fact that you have to prove that you have some legitimacy to your claim. We are just going to do a deal - and, by the way, no one knows what the deal will be except the Chief Minister, who is doing the deal - until it is done’.
The Chief Minister also said: ‘I will rule a line in the sand. These are all the parks that are in the deal and, if we cannot do the deal with all those parks, it is all off’. That was the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill. She put a trip mechanism in the bill that said it gave her until about 31 July, as I recall, to withdraw some of the parks. That was because she knew then she could not get the whole lot in there. So, she has this line in the sand that they are all in but a trip mechanism so she can withdraw some of them. By 31 July, she withdrew three or four of the parks because the Aboriginal people who were claimants on those parks were telling her they were not going to get conned in this. They knew - if you want to talk Nitmiluk - they wanted a Nitmiluk deal, not the deal she was trying to stitch up. Therefore, some of the parks were withdrawn.
The legislation lapsed on 31 December last year. Therefore, the Chief Minister, under her own legislation had until 31 December to decide on the number of parks involved and do the deal with Aboriginal people, or all bets were off. These are her words, not mine: ‘… or all bets are off’. The 31 December has come and gone. Prior to 31 December, the Chief Minister knew she could not get the deal, so she inserted the amending bill on the Notice Paper of 2 December at No 1 - it is at No 9 today - which was called the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. That bill was to give life to a dead bill that died on 31 December.
This government was expecting this parliament to debate a bill this week to give lie to a bill that died last week. What sort of a government do we have here? I rang up Parliamentary Counsel and I said: ‘I think this is ultra vires. I do not think you can do this. I do not believe that you can do amending legislation after the event to bring a bill to life that is dead.’ Parliamentary Counsel said: ‘Government can do whatever they like. It is all correct. We have had legal advice’. ‘Thank you, I believe you are wrong but, thank you’.
Interestingly, new bill. A new bill appears on the Notice Paper today that kills the amending bill, brings in a whole new bill to amend the original act. Therefore, the act that the Chief Minister said was dead - all bets are off, the deal is raw - had to be done by 31 December, and, by the way, it is bringing to life less parks than were in the original deal because Keep River has already dropped off as well - that has been withdrawn.
That is the situation that the government thinks Territorians will cop: secret negotiations by her; undertakings to Territorians that she will do a deal that she cannot do and has not been able to do; legislation that makes objectives to be achieved that were not achieved; and, at the end of the day, a deal that hands over the parks estate to Aboriginal people that Aboriginal people do not want and that Territorians know nothing about. However, when they get to know what it is about, I reckon that, at the very least, you should challenge Territorians to support you at the next election. If you do not have the courage to do that, you should not be in government and you should not have the gall to suggest that, somehow, you have the authority of Territorians to rule.
That is all I ask. This legislation should not even be in this Chamber. However, given that it is in the Chamber, it should not be on urgency. There is no reason other than the numbers that the government has that would allow this legislation to pass in this House today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, one of the very first motions I spoke to in this House was a matter of urgency. I voted against it based on the principle that legislation, unless it is shown for some extraordinary reason that it needs to be rushed through, should go through the proper process. I still believe that to be the case.
This is not a matter of discussion about whether we have too many Aboriginal people in gaol or mandates because, I must admit, mandates is one of those things that governments throw around after an election. They might have had 200 different policy items that they put to the electorate. However, I am sure that not everyone, when voting, necessarily believed that they were voting for every one of those 200 policies. Therefore, it is something that governments can twist around and say they had or did not have a mandate. In this case, that is irrelevant. This case is rushing legislation through, which is important legislation.
Mr Dunham: We have not seen it yet.
Mr WOOD: Well, I am presuming it is important, because it is being rushed. However, I do not believe in the principle of rushing it through. If it is important, then it needs plenty of time for people to discuss it.
The parks issue is one that has raised a lot of debate in this parliament. In general, I support what the government is trying to do, but I do have some concerns. I did have a briefing recently. I would be interested in what the opposition is proposing because it is a debate about different philosophies on how our parks are run. The debate is difficult for many of us to get our heads around. For some of us, like myself, what opinion I had on parks 20 years ago may be different today simply because circumstances have changed, especially with matters like native title which did not exist as we know it today. As a member of parliament, there are other issues that I have to take into account that, perhaps years ago, I would not have even given any thought to at all.
Madam Speaker, I oppose it being rushed through on urgency simply because this is not the proper way to deal with important legislation like this. We need adequate time. The process is there; I spoke yesterday about correct processes when I talked about the Lake Bennett bill. Processes are important. We are the peak body that makes laws in the Northern Territory and we should set the example. We should make sure we do things properly. I realise that you could say: ‘Well, we are doing things properly because the parliament does allow things to be passed through on urgency’. However, in this case, we should not do that; we should to through the normal process and allow proper discussion and debate.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I am surprised, Madam Speaker, that no government members are speaking on this urgency debate. I would like to make a short contribution on a couple of counts:. First, the orthodoxy of the current process - the process itself - and the need for the people’s parliament to take the people with it.
However, I draw the government’s attention to Standing Order 179 about urgent bills. I will read it in its entirety:
The Speaker may, on the application of the Chief Minister, or a minister acting on his behalf, declare a bill
to be an urgent bill if he is satisfied that the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could
result in hardship being caused.
We have not seen this bill. We had notice of it yesterday. We do not know the detail of it. We do not know the details of the hardship that could be caused by a delay of this bill until March - 30 days. The Chief Minister has had some many months - close to two years - to negotiate this behind closed doors. This is the first opportunity the parliament will get to see some of the detail behind those confidential negations. It is imperative that the 30 days - the mere 30 days - is available to us parliamentarians to go back to our constituencies and talk to them about the government’s intention.
If the Chief Minister can have years to sit around board tables and behind closed doors and discuss it, I would have thought 30 days for us to go back to our electorates and talk about what the government intends should be a matter that is foremost in the government’s mind. It is incumbent on the government to enter this debate - rather the Chief Minister rising to close it, which she is intending to do - and describe the hardship. She has to be able to describe, in graphic terms, how a 30-day delay to this bill will cause hardship.
I can tell her some of the hardships that will be caused. The hardship will be to government because, once this bill is out there for debate among the people and they see some of the details in it - and we are surmising, because we have talked to some of the players who are sitting behind closed doors; not government, I might add - one can see that there will be some hardship caused. It will be hardship caused to the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, one can see why that particular clause is being invoked by the Chief Minister.
I turn now to orthodoxy. This is a very unusual set of circumstances. We have the Chief Minister carrying a bill that is not within her purview under the Administrative Arrangements Order. We have a bill which had two kill clauses in it, both of which were activated and rendered that bill obsolete. We had a further bill that was tabled in the December sittings that sought to bring this matter forward. We had a period that was talked about in that bill, which was Friday last week. Therefore, on Friday last week, we had an activator under a bill which had not even been debated in this House. We how have a third bill.
This is a highly unorthodox process. We already have a set of circumstances with the Ward High Court decision that caught people by surprise, so we should progress slowly. Why? Because we are talking about a 99-year lease. We are talking about the Chief Minister saying: ‘I am going to sign over these various estates for 99 years’ - which will be, God knows, how many terms of parliament in this House - ‘But I cannot afford to give you 30 days to talk to your electorates; to talk to the people about it’. That cannot sit comfortably with anybody in this parliament. The fact that we are quite happy to talk about a time span of 99 years and, yet, 30 days is somehow going to render some terrible hardship to somebody. Therefore, I would talk about the orthodoxy of the process.
The minister who has responsibility is, obviously, highly ignorant about this matter, given his interjection about Nitmiluk. You have the minister with carriage having been gazumped by the Chief Minister and told to keep out of the debate - and you can see why, given his level of ignorance. You have the Chief Minister carrying secret negotiations on a bill which went through this parliament which has been rendered obsolete on two clauses in her bill. You have a bill on the Notice Paper that has slipped right down the bottom. You also have the Chief Minister seeking urgency on a bill she has yet to table.
This is the worst ‘trust me’ case I have ever seen. The matters that we are talking about here will not be resolved, I believe, in - don’t look to the heavens, because your solution is really going to come from your mouth. That solution will be undertakings to the people that you will include them in matters that are important. The schedule of parks in the bill we are talking about here are well known to many Territorians: Arltunga Historical Reserve, Chamber’s Pillar, Corroboree Rock, Davenport Range, Devil’s Marbles, Emily and Jessie Gaps, Ewaninga Rock Carvings, Finke Gorge, Gregory National Park, Keep River National Park, Elsey National Park, Native Gap, Watarrka, Alice Springs Telegraph Station, Black Jungle, Flora River, Fogg Dam, and Harrison Dam, to name a few. Do not assume that those parks are not well known to Territorians.
Do not assume that you can make secret negotiations behind closed doors, rush something through this parliament so that we do not have the ability to get back to the people and tell them what you intend and then, somehow, hope that all these matters will go away and we will live happily ever after. The reason this is called a parliament is because we are supposed to speak. We are currently speaking about a bill which has yet to be tabled. You have a very sorry history with this matter; you have used emotional rhetoric to describe why you have chosen to pursue this matter, including by the minister who is supposed to have line carriage. He was very dismissive of the approach of previous governments in estimates, to the extent that he virtually said that, if you want to talk about elements of this you are virtually running a divisive process.
Ward talked about 49 reserves. I would be very surprised if the Chief Minister’s act introduces any more than 27. Therefore, there is a whole other debate about the things that are not covered in her act. Assuming the act, when we eventually get to see it, will cover 27 parks and reserves, there is still a another whole debate about the other 22 that Ward talked about in his High Court decision.
Chief Minister, you have a problem on your hands here; which is we want to be participants. We are making the assumption that, having been elected by people, they want us to participate in this debate and take them with us. The rhetoric that was used for stalling matters relating to the Education Department - which has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition - is something we would like you to employ in this case. Therefore, please take the leaf out of the Education minister’s book: please consult. Please make sure that you call meetings in various communities and that you identify some of those parks in the schedule that are very difficult to identify unless you have various bits of paper. Also, please ensure that when you stand, you ask the attendants to bring the bill out so we have at least 30 seconds to peruse it before you use your numbers to ram this thing through.
Chief Minister, before you seek urgency, please tell us what the hardship is. Please tell us why we cannot have 30 days to talk to our electorates when you want to give our parks away on a 99-year lease. Please tell us why this is a racial matter rather a matter of interest to Territorians. Please tell us why you can use the court processes in a way that is not racist and antagonistic and all the rest of it; however, at the same time, if we chose to use such a process, we would be called racist. Chief Minister, you have some explaining to do, and please start with hardship because that is the requirement under standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I find that the position into which the Chief Minister has placed this parliament is extraordinary. When a member brings a motion before this House, the member is supposed to explain to this House the purpose of the motion. I will give you an example.
If a member on this side of the House seeks to censure a member of government, the words are: ‘I move that this House do censure …’, and then you explain what you are censuring for. Then you spend 40 minutes prosecuting that case. What we have heard from the Chief Minister today is: ‘I move that we do this on urgency’, and she sat down. What she has asked members of parliament to do is to accept from her: ‘I ask that the motion be moved, we have to put it through on urgency’. Yet, we hear from the Leader of the Opposition extensive problems as to why this motion should be resisted. She has in no way endeavoured to explain and convince this parliament why this motion should be supported. I suggest, by the silence of the minister who has carriage of parks in the Northern Territory - which is not the Chief Minister - he has not had it explained to him as well. The minister for parks is utterly silent on this particular issue.
The former governments, through their years of governance, built up a parks estate which is the envy of the world. The Chief Minister has been proposing, by her legislation from last year, as a solution to the problems outlined in the Ward decision, to transfer the title of those parks to private hands. That is essentially what is happening. Then we have the privilege of losing – and when I say ‘we’, I am talking about all Territorians - whatever the value of those parks is in cost dollar terms. I have no idea what the costing is because the Chief Minister, when questioned, has refused to answer how much the parks estate is worth. She is also going to rack up a debt which she has also refused to tell Territorians about, which is the cost of leasing those parks back from the owners who have it in private hands.
The negotiation process which the Chief Minister forced through this parliament the last time around so she could negotiate privately, has been done behind closed doors. I have no idea - and nor does any other Territorian – at what stage those negotiations are. Those negotiations came with a time limit. The list of parks attached to that negotiation process has been pared off, contrary to the ‘take it or leave it’ deal that the Chief Minister announced. The deadlines that the Chief Minister set have passed, and the legislation has, essentially, collapsed as a result of it. The Chief Minister has reintroduced legislation which has dropped from No 1 to No 9, I think, on today’s Notice Paper – it was No 11 on yesterday’s Notice Paper - and she introduced a new bill on urgency and then asked me as a lawmaker in the Northern Territory to say: ‘Well, without explanation, we will allow the stuff to go on urgency’. That is a fascinating position to put somebody in.
One can only guess why the Chief Minister is trying to achieve this. Quite simply it is this: she does not want to draw attention to this issue. Why is the parks minister utterly silent on this issue? He has been told that no attention should be drawn to this issue. Why is no other member of the Labor Party in this House speaking on this issue? Because they have to try to push this through as quickly as they can. My alarm bells are going off. Why? Because this minister touted this particular solution to the Ward decision as the solution for all Territorians. Yet, we find that this thing has been done secretively and, now, the secrecy is percolating through this Chamber as: ‘I want this through on urgency today, and I am not going to even bother explaining to you why I want the urgency’.
That is not good enough. I, and any other sensible lawmaker in this House, could not support the Chief Minister’s position. She has not bothered to explain why this is urgent. She simply stood up and said, ‘I move this on urgency’, and sat down. It would be reprehensible and irresponsible of any legislators in this House to say: ‘That is good enough. That is the reason we are going to push this through on urgency, without consulting widely in the community: because the Chief Minister said so’. Now, you start to understand why parliaments exist: to pare back the power of people who do not want to explain to the people that they represent exactly what they are doing.
Yesterday, we had dropped on the Table, after two years of consultation, a DVD and policy document that had wide consultation. The Treasurer and Education minister said they had to talk to lots of people about these important issues in education, and: ‘We consulted widely as we know that Territorians need to be consulted’. Why, then, does the Chief Minister not only not consult Territorians through her legislative arrangements, but seeks to push through this parliament an urgency motion which will prevent any Territorian, other than herself and the other participants in the negotiations, from knowing what on earth is going on? An outrageous request, and an outrageous demand. I demand in return that the Chief Minister explains to this House, in proper fashion and in due course, exactly what it is she is doing so that we know what the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the parks estate is going to look like in a couple of years time. This outrage is the lowest pit of this government’s approach. If the negotiations are falling apart, then this government needs to explain to all Territorians in here why they have fallen apart; not try to dodge and weave their way around the issue.
I cannot, will not, support what the Chief Minister is trying to do. There is nothing urgent in this - there is nothing urgent at all. The only urgency that the Chief Minister must be feeling is that her glorious solution is now nothing more than an attempt to save face. That attempt to save face is going to be paid for by the parks estate which is the property of all Territorians at the moment - Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put. However, I will say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot speak to a procedural motion.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The standing orders say that when the motion to be put has been moved, there is no further debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. There is no further debate. You have moved that the motion be put.
Ms MARTIN: I said I would like to move …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I will qualify it; okay.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points about …
Madam SPEAKER: You have put a procedural motion which we must now put. Once that is over, you can then make your …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I cannot speak to this?
Madam SPEAKER: Not to the motion you put. However, you can speak to a motion you have put up …
Ms MARTIN: I can speak to the motion?
Madam SPEAKER: … after the motion you put is resolved.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, can I get some clarification.
Madam SPEAKER: I will clarify it for the Chief Minister. You have put the motion be put. We will now ask that question. When that is completed, you can then speak to your original motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: We will actually be very generous. Chief Minister, were you foreshadowing that you were going to put the motion? We will be very generous so that we can …
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, to clarify. In terms of what I moved, can I speak to what has happened, to what has been said so far?
Madam SPEAKER: Let me say it again. Were you foreshadowing that you would put a motion?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, all right. Now you may speak to your motion. We are being very generous to you.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I thought the opposition might like to hear the explanation.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, in my second reading, I outlined the nature of what is being put to this parliament. It has been put into the public arena through media releases on 1 January that the opposition could have asked more about. This is an issue that we debated in here in November 2003 for, I think, six hours. This is, in essence, the same bill that has gone through a very transparent …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: This is the most transparent legislation we have had here because all the terms were laid out in this parliament in a most extraordinary way. The opposition is saying ‘secretive government doing deals behind closed doors’. This has been talked about, explained through newsletters to Territorians - and I thank the opposition for their contributions to explaining. It was not accurate, but I have seen a lot of electorate newsletters that dealt with this. To say that we have not had discussions with Territorians about this and there is no mandate, is simply untrue.
We discussed the terms of this bill in 2003 in November, as I said, for six hours in this parliament. We discussed it in detail. We discussed the terms of what would happen on 31 July last year, and we that three of the parks had come out of the proposal. Then, there was an extension until 31 December and one more park was not included.
As I will say in the second reading, I had a choice: I could either let the whole the whole proposal lapse for one park, or I could move with what was contained in the bill. That is what I have decided to do. It is simply, as the bill says, a revival. The policy has not changed, neither have the fundamentals, except for four parks.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: That is what is there and that is what will be explained. In this, it is only one park difference.
The opposition does not support this; they made that very clear. The policy is there; we have explained it to Territorians. We have had booklets, web site, and newsletters. There is nothing secretive here.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Everything you see is on the Table in the bill, and I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: We now have the original question on suspension of standing orders.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
PARKS AND RESERVES (FRAMEWORK
FOR THE FUTURE) (REVIVAL) BILL
(Serial 278)
FOR THE FUTURE) (REVIVAL) BILL
(Serial 278)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In November 2003, the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was passed by this parliament. This legislation provided the framework for settling Aboriginal land and native title issues associated with a large number of the Territory’s parks and reserves, and reconciled Aboriginal interests with the government’s commitment to retain existing parks and reserves in the Territory for public use and enjoyment, while also expanding and enhancing the Territory’s parks system.
The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act set down a time frame for Aboriginal traditional owners to agree to the framework offer set out in the legislation, and ensured any such agreements occurred in a transparent manner. From the beginning, the government has adopted an open and transparent approach to dealing with this issue. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was an important part of this approach to make it clear what was on the table, and to bind all parties to core principles agreed to before the government entered the negotiations.
A deliberate part of this transparent approach was to authorise me, as Chief Minister, to do certain things only if a number of pre-specified conditions were complied with by the defined deadline of 31 December 2004, otherwise the framework offer would lapse. One of these conditions was that the agreement would be reached on all of the 28 parks and reserves specified in the act. By the end of the year, successful agreements had been reached with traditional owners of 27 of the 28 parks and reserves, which is a testament to the overwhelming support for the package as a whole. Only the traditional owners of Keep River National Park had not accepted the government’s offer.
I am not prepared to allow this whole package to flounder due to the inability to secure agreement with one group of traditional owners. Therefore, I present this bill which will provide the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act to ensure that the public benefits of the government’s offer are enjoyed by all Territorians.
Let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. Section 2 defines the dates on which various sections of the act commence. Sections 3 and 4 revoke the notice published pursuant to section 16(4) of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act in Gazette No S1 on 1 January 2005. Sections 5 to 7 amend the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act to allow for the extension of the date of compliance from 31 December 2004 to 2 February 2005. Finally, section 8 removes Keep River from Schedule 1 of the act.
The decision to extend the date of the compliance will not affect the integrity of the overall package, and will result in a win/win situation for all Territorians. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act provides the foundation for a new era in park management in the Territory which will be reinforced by the implementation of a comprehensive master plan currently being developed with extensive stakeholder participation.
The Ward decision of 2002 resulted in uncertainty over the validity of the grant of many of the Territory’s national parks and reserves. The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act provides a resolution of the legal situation, and also presents a prime opportunity to establish a world class joint management system of the Territory’s unique natural assets.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
HOUSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 277)
(Serial 277)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Housing Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill that will greatly increase our ability to keep the HomeNorth home loan scheme responsive to the needs of Territorians. Honourable members will recall that, on 1 July last year, we introduced a number of new HomeNorth products. At that time, I indicated publicly that we would be moving to make the administration of the HomeNorth scheme more flexible through amendments to the Housing Act. I am pleased to introduce those amendments today.
Under the existing provisions of the Housing Act, changes to the HomeNorth schemes - whether by amending an existing scheme or introducing a new one - can only be done through regulation. This is a slow and cumbersome process which seriously restricts our ability to respond quickly and effectively to shifting housing market conditions and the changing needs of our population. Instead, the Chief Executive Officer, Housing, with endorsement from the Housing Minister, will be able to approve and amend housing purchase assistance schemes. This will mean that the schemes will be governed by business rules rather than regulation, allowing us to make strategic and timely changes to HomeNorth as market conditions dictate. This will bring the management of HomeNorth into line with commercial lending sector standard practice, including that of the Territory Insurance Office.
Members will be well aware of the quite dramatic shifts that have occurred in the Territory housing market in the past year or two. Unfortunately, we have had limited ability to keep HomeNorth loans abreast of those changing conditions as, to date, we have lacked the flexibility to do so. For instance, when average Territory house prices went beyond HomeNorth’s upper limit of $180 000, it became very hard for applicants to locate a suitable property to buy, especially in the northern suburbs of Darwin and Alice Springs. Under the new arrangements, we will be able to respond quickly and effectively to market changes of this type. Territory Housing will be reviewing the upper limits for the maximum purchase price, loan amounts and household incomes annually to ensure that the schemes remain consistent with current conditions.
It is important that we make sure that the people who took out a HomeNorth loan in the past, under an old scheme, may have the benefit of huge improvements to the administration of HomeNorth loans. For this reason, the amendment bill repeals the majority of the regulations governing existing and former HomeNorth schemes. This will allow us to manage all HomeNorth loans under relevant business rules, and to incorporate important new features into existing loans. For instance, we can allow Territory Housing to purchase an additional share in a property when the borrower is in financial difficulty, or give borrowers the ability to access funds which they have paid over and above the minimum repayments, to assist with home improvements. These are features of the new products which may be extended to existing borrowers as a result of these amendments.
The only loans which are now covered under this bill are those held under the Housing Loans Act and its associated regulations. This is simply an administrative matter, and we will be moving to amend that act and repeal the regulations in the near future.
Part 3 of the amendment act deals with a consequential amendment to the Stamp Duty Act. This amendment will allow Territorians who purchase, in partnership with government under the new home purchase assistance schemes, to benefit from the stamp duty first home owners concession, or the principal place of residence rebate. Under the Stamp Duty Act, these concessions are currently restricted in the application to former home purchase assistance schemes. The amendment will extend the concessions to the new products which came in to effect on 1 July 2004, and will operate retrospectively to that date.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE AND BENEFITS BILL
(Serial 272)
(Serial 272)
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this bill as the new Leader of the Opposition. Whilst the carriage of this legislation’s detail is the responsibility of the shadow minister for employment, the member for Greatorex, I feel it is incumbent on me to make comment so that the CLP’s, and my position, is fully understood.
Dr Burns: That is a compliment to you.
Mr BURKE: You want to join the debate again? Happy to? What is the interjection this time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: If I was you, I would zip up. You do not do any good when you open your mouth.
The position is that, when it comes to this particular legislation, the Construction Industry and Long Service Leave and Benefits Bill, the CLP supports the principle of the legislation. In fact, I support the principle that any worker should receive long service leave and the associated benefits, no matter what work they are engaged in. That is something that, in the 21st century with a mobile work force, we should all strive to achieve. That is the CLP’s position, which will remain unchanged - certainly whilst I am leader.
The issues with this particular legislation only involve concerns about the way the government has gone about putting in place the benefits for the construction industry. If it is the intent of the government that the construction industry is the first cab off the rank, that is fine, because we can all point to other workers for whom the nature of their work in a mobile work force in Australia means that they are, in many respects, itinerant workers and have to move from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in order to obtain work. That is a simple fact of the world and economy we live in nowadays. However, the principle that they should be rewarded for the work that they do and given long service benefits that other workers enjoy in a more stable environment - for example public servants - is a principle that should be upheld, and I will hold to that.
The problems with this legislation revolve around who is and is not caught in the reasons why the government has only chosen the construction industry. On the one hand, if you look at this industry that now has, with this legislation, long service benefits that will accrue, how does that sit with the current redundancy entitlements that industry enjoys? Are there issues where the employers who are paying into the fund and the fund itself could, in fact, be ripped off by individuals who would see a scheme that they could use for their own benefit in coupling up long service and redundancy benefits on multiple occasions? There is a problem in that respect.
There is also a problem with consultation. I raise not the fact they there may have been consultation with some sectors of the industry but, certainly, other sectors of the industry feel that they have not been consulted, particularly in relation to their concerns. For example, why are developers only contributors to the fund and builders are not? What about the developer builders? There are many of them. Are they caught or not caught? Why are builders in certain incidences not caught as contributors to the fund? Clearly, there is an argument from the developers that they feel that the levy is punitively biased towards them paying rather than others. That is an issue with which the opposition has problems.
Who is a worker? The legislation goes to the definition of a construction worker, but that definition, in itself, does not seem sufficient in that a person working as a bricklayer on a site may be entitled, but a person who provides the bricks and then lays the bricks may not be entitled. There is a problem, to my mind, in this bland definition of the construction worker, which does not appear to be clarified in the bill.
Why are single dwellings excluded? It seems fair to say that the government wants to ensure that the cost of introducing this legislation only falls on a few people - and, therefore, a few votes – and, therefore, many Territorians are not caught up in having to contribute to this levy. If the principle is sound - and I believe it is - that a worker, in whatever capacity, is entitled to long service leave - I agree with it - therefore, we should not be sensitive about where those workers actually work and where their levy should be applied.
It seems, on the face of it, to be a pretty quick vote-catching exercise to appease one section of the industry; therefore, probably, then nullify what is a strong voice, and rightly so. Some of them are in the gallery today, and that is good to see. They obviously feel strongly about this, and they are ready to argue that case, and have argued it very successfully. I applaud them for that. However, there are also many who have no voice, and the government, in this legislation, does not seem to have provided any comfort for those people who are clearly not going to be caught up, either in the benefits or, certainly, the many who will enjoy building houses and not fairly contribute to the levy.
It is in that context that I ask the minister to understand the opposition’s concerns with this bill - certainly not with the principle of it. Whilst we will not oppose its passage in this House today, we will do so with the reservations regarding its actual implementation and its equity across the board. That is the reason why we have concerns with the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Brennan. I also support the bill and the whole concept behind it; that we allow benefits for most other workers. We should also apply that to construction workers as well.
I also believe it will stop deterring workers coming to the Territory. I spoke to the TCA, and one example they gave me was, for instance, of someone who may have eight years of LSL who wanted to come to the Territory, but found out that they could not get any more long service leave points, and could decide not to come to the Territory for a particular construction project. That will certainly remove any deterrent that existing lack of legislation could apply.
There were a couple of issues that the TCA raised, and the member for Brennan cut across some of those. There were concerns about the transition period. For instance, if a building had a development permit issued, and the timing of whether the building got a building permit was determined by pre-sales - for instance, if you were building a large unit complex - when you decided to build would depend on whether you thought you had enough sales to get the thing off the ground, literally. You might have had a development permit before this legislation was put through, but you might get your building permit after. What would happen to the builder there? He might have determined a price for the sale of the units based on having no levy, and then, if he is caught in a situation where he has to pay a levy, that might cause a problem with the sale price of those units.
The other question is: why should all housing be excluded? What the TCA was trying to get at here is that, whilst they understand that you do not want housing included as you do not want to increase the price of housing, maybe that should be applied just to first home owners. There is a difference between the average three-bedroom house in Farrar and a $1m house being built in Cullen Bay. You would have to ask if someone can afford a $1m house, why they could not afford a levy, as the $1m house could be the same as the $1m block of flats? I believe that is a fair question to ask.
The other point raised is that, I gather, project homes are only allowed if the project will carry over more than 12 months. The problem TCA had is that you could have a very expensive project, but it could be finished within 12 months and, for someone to come up with the levy at one hit, might be very difficult. I believe they are saying that it should perhaps be looked on in relation the value of the project, rather than the time taken for the construction of the project.
The other area that was of some concern is that, if you are not under the Construction Award, such as electricians or plumbers, you may have to pay the levy, and you would not receive long service leave. In the example I was given, for instance: if they wish to fit out the entire airconditioning for the casino - which will certainly cost more than $200 000 - the company will pay the levy, but the workers will not receive the benefits. I am interested to see what will apply there.
Another issue I have raised in a previous question to you, minister, is the case of a company - and I use Bechtel as an example - in Palmerston which has a job to build cupboards for Bechtel. They are a cupboard manufacturing business which has loyal workers. They not only put cupboards into construction sites, they put them in house kitchens, Parliament House – they do all that sort of work. They are permanent employees who have been working for a number of years. That employer would normally pay them long service leave when the time came, and that is a requirement by law. One of the reasons we have long service leave is also to recognise the loyalty of workers who have stayed with a business for a long period of time. The question is: why should a company be drawn into this scheme when it is already covered for its workers? This company just happens to be building a range of kitchens and other things for Bechtel, and they might cost over $200 000. At the same time, those same workers are going out to Mr and Mrs Smith’s place and putting in a kitchen there. They are standard workers for that company and they will receive long service leave. That long service leave is something that shows the workers that, by being loyal to that company, the employer is recognising that fact. I know one particular person who used to work at the 11 Mile who will be very interested in your answer, minister.
The other philosophical question is that, whilst I agree with the principle that construction workers should receive long service leave and we should set up a program such as this because construction workers do move from state to state, we should at least be looking at workers in other industries. I do not think we should be singling out one group of workers. For instance, ringers on pastoral stations - or any of those people who have a job for six months in the Dry Season - have to go and find work elsewhere and then come back to the pastoral property the next year. A lot of commercial fishermen are working in the prawning industry and have work for a period of time, and they work with someone else the next year. The hospitality industry is also a very mobile industry. When it is the tourist season, they have plenty of work here; however, when the Wet Season arrives, they have to find work elsewhere.
The principle behind what you are doing is to be applauded. I certainly believe that construction workers should receive the benefits that other workers get. However, at the same time, if you are going to apply that principle, then the government should look at the bigger picture of all workers who come under similar circumstances and apply this type of legislation for everybody to benefit, not just one particular group.
I support the legislation; however, along with the member for Brennan, I do have some concerns. It is probably legislation which we will have to ‘suck it and see’ and, as it goes along, we will see what happens in the meantime. I welcome the legislation and will be interested to see how it operates in practice.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Bill. This bill is part of a series of reforms to the construction industry, and such reforms come about after 27 years of neglect and complacency by the previous government. The reforms include builder’s licensing and indemnity insurance …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Listen, member for Greatorex, you might learn something. … builder’s licensing and indemnity insurance, contractor payments, construction industry long service leave and benefits - all things introduced by the government, not by 27 years of CLP complacency! All these reforms were long overdue, along with many legacies of the previous government.
The Territory lagged behind the rest of Australia, construction industry long service leave and benefits being no exception. The question needs to be asked: why? There is no doubt in my mind that the CLP is not inclined to workers, workers’ rights, or to unions. I am proud to be a part of a party that grew out of the workers’ movement and fights for workers. I am proud to put on the record, once again, that I have been a unionist for much of my working life. This is also a government that has a proven record of driving economic development in the Territory, and having productive partnerships with industry, and valuing views of industry, on a whole range of issues.
Being cognisant of the broad range of reforms to the building industry, this government set about extensive consultation with industry, peak bodies and unions. In March 2004, we set up a Construction Industry Reference Group comprised of these groups as well as relevant government departments. This group met at least five times in 2004, and I was privileged to attend three of these meetings. I believe that the Treasurer attended two of those meetings. I also met with a number of industry groups as part of my normal round of stakeholder meetings. Issues relating to these reforms were raised and discussed in those meetings. I am pointing to extensive consultation and engagement by this government with industry groups, unions and workers, and government departments. In essence, there has been a great deal of consultation on these matters. Whilst there has been some differences of opinion within the CIRG, there has also been substantial agreement and understandings reached through this process.
I would also like to point to the fact that I do not think unions have ever been engaged in this sort of forum in the Territory with employers before, and that is a productive step forward and shows the consultative way that this government engages with the community and with industry and with workers.
Turning specifically to the legislation at hand, I believe that it was very overdue, not only because of 27 years of inaction by the CLP, but also because there is burgeoning economic and construction activity. This activity includes the LNG project, the Alcan expansion and trans-Territory pipeline, the waterfront development, the Lee Point housing development …
Mr Burke: As well as the railway?
Dr BURNS: … as well as high levels of residential construction. Well, the Opposition Leader can laugh, but everyone out there knows the real story that business and the construction industry is doing very well in the Territory at present. Although you might try to deny it, Leader of the Opposition, that is the fact.
However, we are also aware of skill shortages contributing to escalating construction costs.
I believe that the provisions of this bill will remove barriers for construction workers to come and live and work in the Territory without fearing that they will lose long service leave benefits accrued in every other state and territory in Australia. Many construction workers saw the lack of provision of these benefits by the former government as a disincentive to come to the Territory. Also, for many workers, this issue is a matter of equity.
Through the CIRG, this government has listened to industry and implemented the project levy model where long service leave for construction workers will be levied on projects over $200 000, excluding houses, garages, sheds, fences, etcetera. I will emphasise again, as I am sure the Treasurer will, that this model of a project-based levy was the model that industry wanted - that the industry pointed to and requested. Whilst I understand that industry is reticent about any cost impost, I also understand from my discussions with peak bodies and individual companies, that they also recognise the benefits of such legislation bringing the Northern Territory into line with the rest of the nation.
These are very important reforms. There have been questions asked about why housing is not included. Basically, it was decided that the people working in the housing sector are primarily subcontractors. Also, the government did not wish to add to the cost of residential housing, which has undergone substantial increases as a result of the introduction of the GST and real estate boom. There is a reason why government has done this.
I commend the Treasurer on his second reading speech. He very concisely set out the system of administration and the processes that are involved in determining who is a worker when projects are being started, and just how the whole situation will work.
Madam Speaker, in summary, I believe this is a great step forward for workers in the Territory. I believe that this bill will remove disincentives to construction workers moving to the Territory. It is part of a whole raft of overdue reforms that this government has introduced for the construction industry. These reforms are things we have consulted very closely with industry on, and I am proud to be part of a government that is introducing this bill, which I commend to the House.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I just seek your guidance before I commence. I note the time, and that committee meetings are scheduled for 12 o’clock. I am more than likely to take the whole 30 minutes. Shall we recommence this after Question Time?
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was not …
Dr LIM: I asked your guidance earlier, but never mind, I will proceed with the debate, Madam Speaker.
What a zealot is this member for Johnston. He was the member of a union; he is a unionist. I wonder whether he has any conflict of interest in this legislation. I wonder.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition articulate the CLP’s position on where we stand with this legislation. We understand the mobile work force that we experience in the 21st century, and we need to take this into consideration.
I have lived in this country well over 40 years, and I recall the days when long service leave was introduced. It was introduced to reward an employee who had long service with an employer - a reward for loyalty. We understand, especially in the construction industry, that many people move from place to place to work as work becomes available and, somehow, there has to be a balance. This legislation may have addressed some of this balance. However, it is interesting to note that this was introduced when every state across Australia is in Labor hands. We have to be a little cynical and say: is this a union move to try and now bring in the thin edge of the wedge to increase their pay scale? Is this going to bring in a disparity between the construction industry and other industries? You need to ask those questions.
By introducing legislation such as this, you create a domino effect. We did ask if the government is doing this as a first step to address all other industries across the Territory. Then, it is a good first step - a very good first step. The minister needs to understand there are nurses who come to the Territory, and they move in and out regularly. The Minister for Health struggles to get enough nurses for our hospitals; they have to employ agency nurses. Are they on long service leave with an agency? What do they do?
The member for Nelson spoke of ringers and commercial fishermen. Fruit pickers! Regularly, we have fruit pickers in the Territory to help us with our fruit season. Where do they go for long service leave? If this government proposes to do this as a first step to introducing portability of long service leave across industries, then this is a very cautious way of doing it.
I spoke to industry people about it, and the TCA has been quoted as supporting it. However, their comment to me was that they support it with caution. That is the crux of the matter; it is all with caution. There are issues in the legislation that will go through. I hope that the minister will provide enough time for a committee stage where we can go through the legislation bit by bit to ensure that we understand where we are.
One of the difficulties is: how do you define construction worker? What is it? What is a construction worker? In the bill …
Mr Kiely: Any of you blokes know? Go up there; they will tell you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Sanderson!
Dr LIM: In the bill, ‘construction worker’ is defined as:
- … a natural person who carries out construction work either as an employee or as a contractor.
I have been in private enterprise all my life. If I were a contractor, I would contract my service to somebody who wants it. I am self-employed; I have my ABN. I have my own superannuation and my own sickness and accident insurance policy. I also, obviously, put money aside to take long service holidays, or long holidays, if I want to. That is all within the gambit of me being a self-employed as a contractor. I would organise the contract price with the developer at a level that provides cover for all those things.
If a construction worker is then a contractor, is he then defined as an employee? I understand not, and I am not a lawyer. I understand that, when you are an employee there is always a master/employee relationship. I do not know where this contractor comes into it. It is those sorts of things that really worry us on this side of the House.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr Burke: You are racist, do you know that? You are! Every time he gets up to talk …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that!
Mr Burke: Every time he gets up to talk, you guys have a go at him! Every time he gets up to talk in this House!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I am speaking to you! Withdraw that remark!
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely: Ask him to withdraw it.
Mr Burke: Well, you are. You are a bloody hypocrite!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark, and you are on a warning.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: The member for Johnston got up and said: ‘Oh, we have been consulting widely. We have been there three, four, five times’. If the CFMEU and people in the constructing industry have lobbied this government well - well done. You have achieved your aim, and keep on doing that. I suggest to you that, when we are in government, we would like to have conversations and dialogues with you as well, to your needs.
Let me read you a letter that one person in industry wrote. The minister has also received this letter, so he knows who I am talking about:
- We have recently been given a copy of the proposed portable long service leave act and parliamentary
readings, and are appalled and completely disillusioned in the government with the matter of the proposed
scheme’s introduction. We firstly must say that very little consultation with our industry has been done by
your government.
Minister, you might have done your consultation selectively, and that is your choice. However, there are people in industry who had no idea about this until I wrote to them, and they have voiced their concern. Minister, just be a bit cautious with what you are doing.
This person is a developer and a builder …
Mr Burke: And a big one.
Dr LIM: Yes, and a big one in the Northern Territory. He said that he is captured as the developer, but if he were just solely in the building game as the builder, he would not be. The developer that he is building for will then be captured by this matter. Because he is a developer and likes to put up quality buildings, he is doubly captured. He is captured by this not only because he is the developer, but because the cost of his development is more in the expensive material that he uses than in the labour cost. Another developer would use cheaper materials; the labour cost would be the same. You would lay the same number of bricks and put in the same amount of plumbing. However, if you use cheaper material, the project would cost less. If you are a quality builder, you are using more expensive material, therefore, your project will cost more. What happens to the levy on that project then? Is it 0.5% or is it 2%? At the present, nobody knows what it is and, when you ask the question: ‘Oh, it will be in regulations’ is the answer. Regulations do not even get to see light of day in this House, so we do not know what it is.
Let us move along to the wharf precinct that this government is involved in. In a $1bn project, 0.5% equates to - what? - $5m? If it is 2%, it is $20m. That is the exposure that project has with this levy. What does it cover? It covers people in the construction industry. Does it mean the carpenters? Does it mean the bricklayers? What about the people who drive the earthmoving equipment? They are involved in the construction of the project itself; they are constructing the roads within the project. Are they captured by this? We do not know. I believe this government needs to really show how it proposes to delineate who is covered and who is not. If I were a developer and I have a $m project …
Mr Stirling: If you are worried about it, why did you not seek a briefing?
Dr LIM: … and I am worried about the …
Mr Stirling: Why did you not come for a briefing if you had these questions?
Dr LIM: I know that if I went to …
Mr Stirling: Too lazy to come for a briefing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, minister!
Ms Carney: I had a briefing with Toyne and it took him three months to answer the question. So, don’t you come in here saying things like that, Syd.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you.
Dr LIM: If I was the developer and it cost $1m and I have to pay 0.5% levy, I would assume that the levy they I pay covers the long service leave of every person who works in that project. But, no, it does not; it covers only those people who are actually hands-on, provided they do not supply material. If I were a plumber and supplied and then installed the piping; if I were the bricklayer and supplied and also laid the bricks; if I were a carpet layer and supplied and laid all the carpets myself - am I going to get my long service leave from this levy? As a developer, who has paid the levy – is he covered or is he not covered? I propose to you that, under the bill itself, probably half of the people working in the project would not be covered by this long service leave levy, where the other half may. Why am I paying all that money for half of the work force on the project? Is that fair?
Industry has also raised concerns about the idea of long service leave being available after 10 years of employment with a single employer. Under this bill, potentially, a person who has worked only five years in this industry can access their long service leave. Somehow, you eroded the principle of the long service leave by half. Most employers, when they put somebody on their work force, would probably not start making provisions for long service leave until about the sixth or seventh year of the employment of that person because, under current awards for long service leave, you cannot access any privileges for long service leave until you have been there for a minimum of seven years. Therefore, many employers do not even make provisions for that until about the sixth year of the employee’s association with the business. With this levy, you are going to make everybody pay up-front. As member for Nelson asked earlier, what happens to all these projects that are dependant on pre-sales before a project commences? All those people are going to be under significant hardship.
The issue of redundancy payments - which have been already mentioned by the member for Nelson - is already in the award. By bringing this in to ‘complement’ redundancy measures, potentially, a person could get their money in about four years. I put myself in the shoes of an employee and then have an employer or a developer looking in. A construction worker comes to the Territory for the first time and works for three years on a project. The project developer has paid the levy for the three years the person has been working. At the end of that time, the construction worker decides to move interstate and the money from the Territory follows the construction worker – let us say to South Australia. That construction worker then works in Adelaide for one year and says: ‘I am sick of this work. I am not going to work any more’, and moves out of the construction industry altogether. He drives a taxi, or whatever. He has done only four years so is not entitled to long service leave. The money has left the Territory; it has gone to South Australia, sits in South Australia …
Mr Stirling: No, it hasn’t.
Dr LIM: It sits in South Australia …
Mr Stirling: No, it does not.
Dr LIM: Then he had better explain that, minister, because that is what he said; the money moves with the employee ...
Mr Stirling: Why do you not take the time to get a briefing so you will understand these issues? You come in here and make it up.
Dr LIM: … from state to state. Or are you suggesting there is going to be a national pool of money? Well, it is going to be controlled by the registrar and his board in the Territory; however, when the employee moves interstate what happens? Exactly the same thing as you would expect – when somebody from interstate moves from New South Wales or South Australia to the Northern Territory, the money will come in, otherwise the Northern Territory will be forced to fund the full entitlement of long service leave of a construction worker who has lived in the Territory for only a short time. The money has to follow the construction worker. There is no other way to do it, otherwise you cannot do it. However, if the employee comes and works here and the money does not follow them, we are going to be out of pocket. If the minister is going to say: ‘No the money does not follow the employee’, then you have even more problems.
Before actuarials have been done on projects, and the government has come up with the percentage of levy, you have decided already it is going to happen. It is going to start as from 1 January. This type of retrospectivity causes a lot of hardship for a lot of developers, and it should not be so. I suggest to the government that, if you bring this in, it should commence on the day the legislation is passed.
The minister needs to explain about the qualifying period of service. In the bill it says the registrar is required to take into account service in the 12 months preceding registration. Does that mean fully crediting claimed service? How is this going to be verified? If somebody moves to the Territory from interstate, and says: ‘I have been in the building game as a construction worker for the last 12 months. Are you going to credit me with those 12 months of service?’ How do you verify that? Somebody working as a construction worker in the Northern Territory may only work for six or nine months and have three months off, or work six months on, and six months off. How do you calculate that? Is the registrar going to be following every construction worker and say: ‘No, you cannot do that’ …
Mr Stirling: If you are not prepared to get a briefing that is one thing; however, read the bill, please! At least read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, patience. Patience …
Dr LIM: These are questions posed through me by industry.
Mr Stirling: Have a read of the bill over lunchtime and you will answer your own question.
Dr LIM: These are questions which have been put to me by the industry …
Mr Stirling: You have not read the bill! You have not read the bill, member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Settle down. Member for Greatorex, I will stop you at quarter past.
Dr LIM: Okay. It is strange. As members of parliament we are messengers on behalf of the community. I am bringing …
Mr Stirling: You have a responsibility to read the bill before you get in here.
Dr LIM: It is not my job to explain the legislation to industry.
Mr Stirling: It is your responsibility to read the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, enough!
Dr LIM: Industry posed questions to me, which I then put to the minister. If the minister is not prepared to answer, that is fine; that is his call. Let me just go to the legislation item by item. It is probably easier so that I can show the minister that there are issues that he needs to consider.
Obviously, funding for the board is going to come from the money that has been levied against developers. However, I recall the minister saying that the Northern Territory government would put seed funding to get the board and the registrar’s office working. The government needs to explain how much is going to be put into that and how long the government proposes that the money will be available because, if suddenly within the first 12 months of this scheme several construction workers decide to take their long service leave, would there be enough money in the scheme to provide for that long service?
The government also needs to explain what happens if, through the contribution by all the developers, there is a large pool of money. Would the government then say: ‘Yes, there will be a moratorium on the levy. There will be no more levy required because there is more money in there than needed because the actuals worked out that there are not enough construction workers who will be taking long service leave and, therefore, the fund does not need any further money’?
Those are the questions that the industry has put to me. That is why the TCA said: ‘We support this cautiously’, because they do not know the answers. If the minister suggests that they know all about it, then why would they be saying those things to me?
One of the questions that industry has also put to me is the obligation for the employer to register their employees. Employers are obliged to report in respect of registered construction worker employees, but not registered subcontractors. The employer’s record is then used to determine the long service leave credit of each employee. How does the registrar determine the credits applicable to a registered contractor? There is no obligation for reporting by a registered employer, nor does there appear to be any obligation for the registered contractor to report. There is also no verification of service other than site inspection or the auditing role of the registrar. Therefore, there is a huge potential for abuse. Not that I am suggesting there will be, but the potential is there.
As I said earlier, the registered construction worker or subcontractor could be drifting in and out of the industry - travel interstate for a while, come back and do some more work - and then claim 260 days credit per year. Is that right? How are you going to prevent that from happening?
Then there is the other issue of the government …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, perhaps I could interrupt you at that stage. Would you mind continuing your debate after Question Time?
Dr LIM: Yes, I will continue at a later time.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. We will continue this after Question Time.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Brennan
Member for Brennan
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on to government business, the Leader of the Opposition has asked me if he could make a personal explanation on remarks that were attributed to him yesterday. I have said he can, as long as he remembers that no such other matters may be debated.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I make a personal explanation in regards to comments which the Chief Minister made in Question Time yesterday. The Chief Minister said:
- When we came to government in August 2001, those discussions were at rock bottom, basically because,
for local politics, the then Chief Minister had decided to spend a lot of time bagging East Timor, creating
difficulties with any negotiations. He can pretend that was not the case, but let me tell you, it certainly was
the case! When there was a change of government, you could almost feel relief in East Timor from Darwin!
Those talks went ahead quite smoothly after that.
I strongly believe that these comments reflect negatively on me and the then CLP government, of which I was leader. I wish to place on the public record, many of the initiatives and projects that I, as Chief Minister, and the CLP government, were part of and demonstrated that our government had a real and valuable relationship with the people of East Timor. I want to briefly outline just a few of the many things that the CLP government was able to do to support the East Timorese during their time of need, something the Chief Minister seems to have forgotten.
Firstly, Chief Minister Shane Stone had a very good relationship with East Timor. He met with Bishop Bello and the Caritas Catholic relief movement to offer government help to alleviate suffering in East Timor. I met Bishop Bello on many occasions.
As well, the then CLP government was involved in a reconstructive surgery program; provided funding to the NT School of Health for a cerebral malaria program in East Timor; and government support for the 600 personnel that were preparing to be deployed to East Timor, including the use of the old Reserve Bank building for the United Nations and other affiliated agencies. The CLP also provided funds to help fundraising efforts by the East Timorese Association in Darwin …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A personal explanation is available for a member to correct the public record in terms of remarks being misquoted.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, clarify remarks.
Mr HENDERSON: The Leader of the Opposition is listing a whole raft of government initiatives; not personal initiatives of the member. I do not believe this is the appropriate form of debate to put that list of achievements on the paper. It is not personal; those were actions by government.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you did agree that you would address the remarks made and that it was for you personally. Please confine your remarks as we agreed.
Mr BURKE: The remarks made were that I bagged East Timor, and that there was a sense of relief amongst the East Timorese people when the government changed. That was the allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr BURKE: I am laying on the record what the CLP government did …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we talked …
Ms Martin: You should have heard what they said to me.
Mr BURKE: If you had a cup of tea with Mr Alkatiri and that made you feel warm and fuzzy - fine. You are making allegations against my government and the East Timorese people …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we agreed that it was your personal explanation.
Mr BURKE: I will try to stay with the script if they would stop interrupting, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying: confine your remarks to those incidents that are personal - not the government’s of the day. That is what you asked me.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In terms of Standing Order 54:
- A member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to explain himself in regard to some
material part of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood ...
How does this fit Standing Order 54 …
Madam SPEAKER: We are talking about Standing Order 57.
Mr STIRLING: … ‘By way of a personal explanation’.
Madam SPEAKER: 57!
Mr STIRLING: 57?
Madam SPEAKER: Personal explanation.
Mr STIRLING: Of a personal nature? Where does it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has claimed that the remarks made about him reflect upon his relationship with East Timor. I agreed that he could make a personal explanation. However, I did also agree, Leader of the Opposition, that you would confine your remarks to personal matters. Could we not have any further interruptions so we can get on with it?
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As Chief Minister, I:
- employed qualified and expert people to assist in the lobbying in the United Nations in New York to
ensure that Darwin was the step-off base for operations in East Timor;
funds for the Darwin committee for aid to East Timor;
place for refugees to stay - an initiative of the Northern Territory government that combined federal
government and many agencies that resulted in those people being given safe haven;
in Darwin;
which the CLP government was the only government invited to give a presentation in response to the
reconstruction needs of East Timor;
for East Timorese who needed it;
presence in East Timor;
sent PAWA experts to help with the reconstruction and getting back into operation the power house in Dili
that had been ravaged by the Indonesians; and
from East Timor, to personally thank my government for our involvement in the East Timorese effort.
the Secretary-General of the United Nations …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order again, Madam Speaker! You have asked the member to confine his remarks to those of a personal nature.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have.
Mr HENDERSON: He is talking about the United Nations thanking his government. This is nothing to do with the personal comments that may have been attributed to him. This is an attempt at re-writing history. It is not an appropriate personal explanation. If he wants to do this, he can do it by way of a substantive motion or in an adjournment debate; not by way of a personal explanation. I believe he is misusing this standing order.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have allowed a lot of leniency so you should wrap up quickly. You have given many examples of what you feel that you have done to support East Timor.
Mr BURKE: I feel offended when the government says that the East Timorese people were glad to see our government go. I am putting on the record what we did.
- in an unprecedented visit, the Secretary-General of the United Nations felt it important enough to visit
Darwin personally and thank the Chief Minister and the CLP government for their help and support.
the CLP government worked with the Darwin City Council to donate excess books to East Timor, the
Northern Territory University …
Madam SPEAKER: Wind it up, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: … became heavily involved in vocational training on the ground – I only have a little bit – in East Timor.
- Primary Industries and Fisheries acted as the agents for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
both in Darwin and Dili …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The actions of Primary Industry and Fisheries have nothing to do with a personal explanation to this House.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Leader of the Opposition, you are …
Mr BURKE: I stand proudly on my record, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is all you need say.
Mr BURKE: I take personal offence to the comments by the Chief Minister who has done nothing, as I understand it, to assist the East Timorese, apart from having a cup of tea with Mr Alkatiri.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would also like you to come and speak to me privately in a minute.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE AND BENEFITS BILL
(Serial 272)
(Serial 272)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us get on with Government Business of the day. Member for Greatorex, you were on your feet.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, continuing from what I said before the luncheon adjournment, Part 4 of the bill deals with funding of the scheme. There is some confusion. I will read clause 32(2) of the bill:
- The levy is imposed on only so much of the construction work as is not -
- (i) carried out for or by a body (whether incorporated or not) formed or carried on
for a purpose other than pecuniary gain to its members; and
(ii) attributable to voluntary labour or donated materials;
Suppose the government was building, let us say, the hospice being built at the moment. That is a government project. Is the government going to pay a levy on the project because the people who are building it are construction workers? That is something I hope the minister will deal with when it comes to the committee stage.
Then, when you go to the next section about who must pay the levy, section 34(1)A, it says:
- (1) If
- (a) construction work is to be carried out for one or more of the following entities (an “interstate
government entity”):
(i) the Commonwealth;
- (ii) a State;
- (iii) a body corporate established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth
or of a State; and
- (b) one contractor is engaged by the entity or entities to carry out the work,
- the contractor is liable to pay the levy imposed on the work.
Therefore, you have one head contractor, who engages other contractors to construct this on a contract price. How do you divvy up who is then liable for the levy? Those are the sort of things I believe the minister needs to really consider clearly before we pass this legislation. Again, I hope he will be able to respond to those questions during the committee stage.
I recall the minister’s earlier interjection about the money not leaving the Territory. I know that in his second reading speech he did mention that, but it then does not make sense to me. If you do not bring the money into the Territory, and somebody goes on long service, the Territory will be responsible. I want to know where the money is going to come from to pay for that. I will not go any further, Madam Speaker; my time is nearly up. In the committee stage, I have quite a few clauses that I would like to interrogate the minister on in greater detail.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank members for participating in the debate. It is somewhat of a proud day for me, because I undertook this commitment to construction workers in the Northern Territory as far back as 1995. Government probably looked a fairly dim prospect in those days, having come through a pretty solid 1994 election. Of course, in 1997, things did not get any better. Therefore, my commitment stood and became part of the Labor Party’s platform and policy: that the election of a Labor government in the Northern Territory would see this legislation come through. From that point of view, 10 years on, I am proud to stand here today and have carriage of it through the House, given that it was a commitment that I undertook after discussion with members of the unions.
It is interesting, and quite appropriate, that the Leader of the Opposition took first spot in speaking to the bill in the second reading debate, and put clearly on the record the opposition’s support for the principle of the bill. We welcome that support. It begs the question, of course, why the CLP is keen to support this bill today when they had 26 years in which to bring this legislation into this House and pass it; notwithstanding, of course, the member for Brennan had a couple of years as Chief Minister. Chief Ministers, usually, if they have a mind to do things with their party and want to put legislation into effect, will usually get it through their parliamentary wing and into the parliament; probably with some degree of priority and urgency attached to it.
It is interesting that that support is there today notwithstanding the attempt by the member for Greatorex to suggest that this is the thin edge of the wedge and, ‘Where does it go after this? Why the construction industry? Why not the fruit pickers, the hospitality workers, or the cleaning industry?’ Well, let me be very clear to the member for Greatorex and everyone else in this debate, the reason for the construction industry. It is very simple: every other jurisdiction in this country has had reciprocal arrangements around portable long service leave for many years. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction outside those arrangements. Workers in the Northern Territory construction industry were discriminated against - discriminated against by your government - for many years. There already was a national scheme in relation to this to match, unlike those other industry areas that the member for Greatorex - in his weasel-like words - suggested the government might be looking at next.
Let me assure him we have no plans to go anywhere else with this. It was a commitment - and a proper commitment - to bring the Northern Territory into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia. I am proud, as I said, to take this bill through today.
I go to this question of CLP support. I refer to a sheet put out by Wendy Green, the CLP candidate for Casuarina:
- Electorate Alert to the householder.
Portability of long service leave - construction industry.
If passed through government, it will effectively destroy the construction industry in the Northern Territory.
They are pretty supportive words. That is pretty strong support from a CLP candidate for Casuarina in this forthcoming election:
- … will effectively destroy the construction industry in the Northern Territory.
I will go over to the back:
- Who will manage this fund? Is it the Construction Union? Such a plan will further add to the already
crippling burden placed on construction companies by the Martin government.
And in bold black:
- The long service portability legislation is the last straw. The industry is already overtaxed and overregulated.
Well, if the CLP is supporting this bill, then someone ought talk to the candidate for Casuarina, whose support seems to be somewhat lacking:
- The Territory was once a place of opportunity and growth. Under a Labor government, we are being forced to
comply with the greater national Labor planned shadow identity, and become part of a national socialist identity.
Like all the controversial legislation, it is happening by stealth. We, as voters, are being treated with contempt
and are being denied a voice in the process of government.
I put that on the record because, today, the opposition tried to convince us that they are all for this bill and support it. Yet, they allow their candidates to put out rubbish like that, which is absolutely contemptable of this legislation and what it is trying to achieve.
I was happy to hear the member for Nelson also support the bill. He had a couple of questions about the case of the developer who gets the permit, but it is some time before construction starts. In any case, actual payment does not start until 1 July - the scheme kicks in from that point - and there is an ability to pay over time. At clause 48 of the bill - which I could find fairly quickly unless my colleague is able to put his hands right on it, and he is:
- 48. Board’s power to extend time for payment etc.
… the Board may, in special circumstances, direct that –
(a) the time for the payment of an amount of the levy by a person be changed to a later time
decided by the Board;
(b) an amount of the levy be payable by a a person in instalments, and at intervals decided
by the Board.
I believe the question came up somewhere else in debate: what if the project subsequently did not go forward at all? Having paid or be paying instalments in the expectation that the project would proceed, there then is the ability for the project proponent to get that back. There is a review process available to the project developer.
In the example put forward by the member for Nelson, the cabinetmaker is the employer. Therefore, under the terms of this bill and who pays, it is not the employer. At the moment, of course, under the normal provisions of the Long Service Leave Act, that employer is responsible for those payments. For example, if the employee, up until the time of the bill, had worked nine years for that employer, they would have been up for that anyway. If the employee left, they would have been up for pro rata. If the employee saw 10 years out, they would have been up for the full amount. Under this, we would expect that they go into and are registered with the scheme, and the employer would be responsible, in the sense of that particular employee - as they would have been under the provisions applying now - to put what they would have owed that employee into the scheme.
When it goes forward, of course, under the new scheme, it is the developer, the proponent of the project, not the employer, who pays the levy. Of course, that would be a rate set by the board itself into the future, before the scheme gets going, on the advice of actuaries. They will try to get a picture of what it is going to cost over time and what a fair rate, a fair levy, will be, to see that this fund continues into the future. It is an industry controlled and maintained fund; it is not a government tax. This revenue will not accrue to government. It will go into the fund. There is provision, of course, for the actuaries to have a look every three years at the scheme, and how it is going.
In order to get it up and running, of course, with no money in it at all, government is putting $1.5m into the kitty. At some point into the future - we are probably looking at around five years - government would expect to draw that $1.5m back. It is simply a seed fund in order to get the scheme going and, as it becomes self-funding over time, government will get that back.
There are a couple of issues around the definition of an employee, as defined in clause 6. It is the same as used anywhere else, or a labour-only contractor. They must apply for registration under clause 10, and it is the registrar who will register, if the registrar thinks that a worker does, in fact, fit the bill.
Regarding the entitlements that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about - and I think he was crossing to redundancy - of course, we are talking about two different purposes here. Long service rewards service to the industry; redundancy or severance pay is to tide the employee over until the next job. In every other jurisdiction, those two entitlements do exist side by side. In any case, severance pay is provided for by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and beyond the control of this parliament.
It is interesting regarding this concept of long service reward to the industry. The member for Greatorex was saying that long service leave was only ever about reward for loyalty to the employer, suggesting that we were stretching the definition here and that it ought not apply to these people. Well, the very reason the portability arrangements came into place around Australia was because it is the nature of the industry, where construction workers go from job and job, change employers quite frequently as a job completes in one area, and often interstate. That is why the portability came into being. It beggars belief that the CLP failed to recognise this over all the years that they had an opportunity to fix it.
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition says he supports it, I thought the member for Greatorex found it very difficult, in his contribution in the second reading speech, to say that he actually did support the bill. As I said, he is trying to suggest a broader agenda here; that we will move to cover other areas. This was a commitment - a clear commitment - to major construction workers in 1995. There is no intention for it to go anywhere else – neither then, nor now – to bring these provisions to any other industries.
The facts, of course, are that whilst you are employed in the construction industry in the Northern Territory, you missed out on accruing entitlements under long service leave, such as you would have accrued working in any other part of Australia. It was a disincentive - and for some people it would have been a strong disincentive - to come to work in the Northern Territory. It was a disincentive that industry could ill afford over all of those years, and a disincentive that they certainly cannot afford now, in view of the advent of the major projects under way in the Northern Territory. It is a provision that brings equity to these workers, removes that disincentive that was on workers to come to the Northern Territory, and it will strengthen the ability of these major companies to recruit. It will strengthen, of course, beyond recruitment, the retention of those workers in the NT.
The member referred to a letter to me that had been copied to him, which said that there had been little or no consultation. Well, way back last year, the government created the Construction Industry Reference Group. It included the TCA, civil contractors, an architect from Alice in that group, contractors’ accreditation and HIA. Portable long service leave was very much on the agenda of that forum. That met from April 2004. At times, there were monthly meetings because there was a whole range of matters - including builder licensing and other matters before government - that were all being pushed through this Construction Industry Reference Group for the very purposes of consultation with industry. You cannot have every builder and developer in the room. That is why you work through the peak bodies, as we did. It is the responsibility of the peak bodies to inform their members of the consultative process: what is happening, where government is going and what the likely decisions are to be.
I attended a few of those meeting. My colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning attended many more than I, including as late as November last year, when I believe there were 40 people in the room. This was an ongoing process, and I am pleased to see that the Construction Industry Reference Group itself will be an ongoing body for any number of issues that come up in the industry. They will have the ability, through that forum, to bring them straight to government.
In terms of consultation, the discussion paper was posted on the web site, and that goes back a fair way. Arising out of that discussion paper, the government went to face-to-face consultation with TCA members at a TCA meeting in which major contractors, builders, the Chamber of Commerce and the member for Nelson, and the Minerals Council were involved. That is a snapshot of the consultative process that we went through.
Where does the money come from for funding of the scheme? In the consultative process, it was a direct result of consulting with industry that government did change its views from levying an employer to a developer levy. The advice from actuaries, so far, is that the fund will be viable in a very short time. As I mentioned before in the example of a cabinet maker, the previous liabilities do exist – nothing changes there – for existing employees under the existing Long Service Leave Act; so nothing changes there.
Why a developer levy? That was a question in that letter. Well, that was close consultation with industry. We went into the process in the early stages thinking it ought be an employer responsibility, but it was the consultative process that convinced us that a developer levy was a cleaner and simpler approach. It was considered the least onerous in terms of impact on the industry as well.
Why do we exempt housing? Not many employees work in the housing sector. It is more often the case that they are subcontractors in the housing sector. We did not want to add, quite deliberately, to the cost of residential housing. The GST did its own work there, in pushing the price of housing construction up, and it continues to rise through general property increases and the price of labour and materials over recent times.
Redundancy I did cover, but it is covered by the award. It is an award of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission so it is outside the capacity of this government to deal with. Those redundancy provisions exist alongside portable long service leave in every other jurisdiction in Australia. They deal with different conditions of employment. All employees covered by awards are entitled to both redundancy and long service leave.
The point on the way we are going to go about collecting the levy reflected the position through the consultative process, as I said, that was put very clearly to us.
I believe the letter called for at least a six-month notice before it comes into effect. Well, that is almost there. It is 30 June or 1 July before it kicks in to action, so having the 1 January, we are talking about five weeks, and that is all. We are quite happy with accruals to commence from 1 January and the scheme in full to kick in from the 1 July.
There is a question in that letter regarding whether the contractor gets the money back if an employee leaves in five years or sooner. Well, clearly not, because it is not the contractor who paid it in the first place; it would be the developer.
Regarding the allegation that it is a government rip-off or a further tax, well, it is clearly not. It is a levy to fund the cost of the provision of portable long service leave to construction workers in the Northern Territory. It is not money that accrues to government, so it is not a tax in any way. It is an industry levy to go into a bucket which will become an industry fund to pay these provisions into the future. We expect that the industry will pick it up, will own it, will run it and run it very properly, for and on behalf of all the workers in the construction industry in the Northern Territory.
I thank the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment for their work in this area. Of course, they are charged with the responsibility of looking after the public sector, by and large. This task or project went beyond that brief somewhat, into the realm of the private sector. However, they are the one area inside government that has considerable industrial relations expertise, notwithstanding that it is the Office of the Public Service Commissioner. We did load them up with this task and they have done a very good job in bringing this forward.
I also thank Mr Gerard Butler for his work in the Construction Industry Reference Group – a robust forum, and rightly so, where people were very able to speak their mind and put their issues on the table. I enjoyed getting along to that industry reference group, and I will continue to do so as they meet in the future. It is a very worthwhile forum for an industry to be able to put their concerns on the table. Gerard Butler was charged, not only with that chairing that group through, but with looking at schemes around Australia: how other jurisdictions did it, and what particular scheme lent itself best to the needs of the Northern Territory and the size, scope and scale of the industry here. He has made contacts all around Australia with practitioners inside long service leave schemes, and he has been able to make those high-level contacts and get support for us going forward in advice and seeing that the scheme gets up and running. I value the work that Gerard Butler has done, and I thank him for it.
I thank again the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment which has, on this occasion, gone quite strongly into the private sector in pursuit of an objective of government. As I said before, I am very proud to stand here today and see this bill go through, even if it took 10 years from the time I made that commitment on an individual level and, subsequently, got the Australian Labor Party to support it and embed it in policy platform. We are bound, and a future Labor government - even if I was not part of it – is always going to be bound by that commitment. I am privileged, 10 years later, to still be here to see it through.
I thank all members again for their contribution. We will work through any clauses that the member for Greatorex or anyone else wishes to raise. I have people well versed with the bill and its construction who can take us, quite quickly, to any issues of concerned or, indeed, issues that require clarification.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, in my second reading response, I asked the minister to define what he meant by ‘construction worker’ and he mentioned that it would be left up to the registrar to determine. I asked because this is where the intention of the legislation is meant to be delivered, so at least the registrar will have some guidance when he struggles to determine who a construction worker is. I would like to hear the minister’s intent on this matter.
Would he call the pipe construction workers on the Alcan pipeline ‘construction workers’ or are they not? The people who build roads or dams are in construction. If you build a big dam, it is a construction project. Would you classify them as construction workers, or any other civil project you choose to name? It would be good for the minister to define exactly what he meant when he wrote in clause 6, Definitions, for ‘construction worker’, because all it says here and I quote from it:
- ‘construction worker’ means a natural person who carries out construction work either as an employee
or a contractor.
That is very wide. It means just about everybody who rolls up his sleeves and does some work.
Mr STIRLING: It is going to be up to the employee. The employer, as well, will register their workers with the registrar. The registrar will have a look at that through the operation of the company and the nature of the work carried out: is it construction work? It is not intended that it will cover the office worker on the fourth floor or the manager or those sorts of issues. It is up to the registrar in the first instance and, if there is a serious question beyond the registrar’s decision, the board, to clarify whether that person is a construction worker for the purposes of the act and deemed to be registered.
Dr LIM: It is fine for the employer to define the type of work an employee is doing and say: ‘This employee is a construction worker’. At least there is a second or third party to put the definition to it. However, in your definitions you say a contractor can also be registered as a construction worker. A contractor in your definition here means ‘a person who carries out work for a fee or a reward on the person’s own account’. Hey, I am a contractor, I am a construction worker, I am defining myself.
You have left it wide open here, minister. You have to give clear guidance to the board and the registrar as to what you mean a construction worker to be under this legislation. That has to be clear. Otherwise, well, I am a contractor; I contracted my work to Peko Mines many years ago - definitely not as a construction worker. However, if I had been underground constructing a mine shaft, am I covered by this legislation?
Mr STIRLING: I refer the member for Greatorex to clause 10(2)(c). It is page 7 in this draft and I do not know whether that would relate to the bill; it probably would. Yes, it says:
- the person is not engaged to carry out the work in the capacity of a contractor who –
(i) supplies materials for construction work; or
(ii) provides services while supplying such materials ..
Therefore, if they are supplying materials along with their labour, they are not in.
Dr LIM: Minister, we are now going to confuse clause 6 with 10. I would rather go one clause at a time, otherwise ...
Mr STIRLING: Okay. I was just taking you to where the answer is to that question.
Dr LIM: Yes, I will be coming to clause 10 eventually. We are dealing with clause 6 at the moment. If you want to say to me that you cannot define the construction worker any better than what you have there, then your intent is not clear. I want to be on record that your intent is not clear and that, therefore, leaves wide open as to who can be classified as a construction worker. I have issues with clause 10 also, in terms of who can apply to be registered. However, I would rather not go to clause 10 first if I do not have to, because it really will confuse the issue.
Mr STIRLING: If the member is seeking clarity and not just trying to muddy the issue, Mr Chairman, the answer is here under clause 10:
Application for Registration
- A person may apply to be registered as an employee if –
(a) …
(b) …
(c) …
(d) …
And so on. That is where the answer lies in relation to the question that the member for Greatorex is seeking to have answered. Either he wants to play games or we move through this.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, obviously what the minister is telling me is that clause 6 definitions are subject to clause 10. The way he is going to answer clause 6 is to go to clause 10 and we will get the answers there. I will accept that. However, on record, the definitions in my mind are not clearly defined.
Clauses 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, regarding clause 10, the minister quoted all the subsections that are in there. I draw his attention to clause 10(2)(c). That was the section he read out earlier:
- (2) A person may apply to be registered as a contractor if …
- (a) …
(c) the person is not engaged to carry out the work in the capacity of a contractor who –
(i) supplies material for construction work, or
(ii) provides services for supplying such materials …
In that clause, it still does not define what a construction worker is, except that that person does not supply materials. Again I ask: what about the guy who is working to build the Alcan pipeline? Is he a construction worker, or is he not? Is this about building buildings or is it about building a pipeline? Are they construction workers? You cannot tell me that.
Earlier in my second reading response, I said to you a plumber could come along and supply all the copper pipes for a building project and then installs the plumbing. Is he now, outside of this, still covered for the portability of long service leave, or is he not? A bricklayer who lays bricks for a building; that is fine. However, if he happens to be a manufacturer of the bricks as well, and brings the bricks and then lays them for the project, is he out of the contention here? Can he claim long service leave?
Mr STIRLING: Let us take the welder on the pipeline. The registrar would ask whether he is supplying the pipe for the pipeline?’ No. Is he supplying the gas for the welding of the pipeline? No.
Dr LIM: Probably would. A welder would bring his gear.
Mr STIRLING: Is he supplying the gas for welding of the pipeline? No. Is he supplying anything in relation – is he supplying his labour and his skills? Is he providing that? Yes. Anything else? No. He is a construction worker and he is in.
Dr LIM: Minister, I need to go further. There are not many welders I know who do not own a utility with a couple of gas bottles strapped to it, and all the welding rods that he owns. He supplies that material when comes to do the work. When he bills you for his labour, there are usually materials costs in the invoice. They supply material. What are you talking about? You have to be clear with your definitions.
Mr STIRLING: If he has bottles in the back of the ute, he might have the dog and the work boots as well. It matters naught. If he is working on the pipeline, they are providing everything else. He is providing his skills, his expertise as a welder. He is in - whether he has a ute, a dog and the work boots is irrelevant.
Dr LIM: Fine. So, the welder is in. The bricklayer who supplies the bricks; is he in?
Mr STIRLING: The bricklayer who supplies the bricks as well as his or her labour is not in. It is ‘supplies materials for construction work’. Supplying bricks to the site and laying them means ‘supplying materials to the construction work’. Not in.
Dr LIM: Minister, the way I read this, CSR would supply concrete to a project and that is a supplier. That should not be covered. That supplier should not be covered by this bill. However, if it happens to be a concreter who brings the concrete to the site, supplies the material, and then proceeds with his four or five associates - brothers, cousins, employees - to spread the concrete that he has supplied, he has provided his labour at the same time as he has supplied the concrete. Is he covered?
Mr STIRLING: I do not know if we are talking semantics here. The person who drives the truck which supplies the cement to the site - are they supplying the cement or are they supplying the labour to drive the truck? The cement is actually owned by CSR, is being sold to the company building at the site. These are semantics. The question of whether the worker driving the truck and supplying that labour - they are in. What are you talking about? If they own the company and supply the material in their own right, they are not.
Dr LIM: I am, obviously, not making myself clear. I am not talking about the truck driver. I am talking about somebody who owns a concrete plant who also has a group of people working at the concrete plant. They load the concrete into a truck, they bring it to the site, they all get out of the truck, pour the concrete, spread the concrete. They supply material, but they also supply the labour. I am not talking about a truck driver; I am talking about a guy who has to screed out, trowel out - whatever you use - to lay the concrete. Are these people covered by this bill? It is not a truck driver I am talking about. I am talking about the people who actually lay the slab. Are they covered?
Mr STIRLING: If they are providing their labour to lay the slab, they are in; however, if they are selling the concrete, selling the cement, they are not.
Dr LIM: Therefore, say I am one of 10 people in a group who happen to own a concrete mixing plant, who are also concrete layers. You have bought the concrete off my company - or my associates, my group - so we supply you with the raw material. We bring it to your site. We 10 people will now put the concrete slab down for you. We are now providing our labour to lay the concrete slab. What I am saying is, I supply and I lay the concrete at the same time. Where do I stand?
Mr STIRLING: Well, the workers for that particular organisation may be in. If they are a part of that contract to supply and lay, that has to be looked at by the registrar. If they are simply providing labour only - no question, they are in.
Dr LIM: If they are the layers only, they are in, I accept that, and do not have difficulties with that. However, you are not clear with your intention whether the person who supplies and lays is in or not. You are saying: leave that to the registrar. Well, let us give the registrar some guidance. What is your intention in this? Is the person who provides the material as well as the labour covered or not covered? Just tell us your intention, and the registrar can sort it out from there.
Mr STIRLING: The person is not covered.
Dr LIM: He is not covered?
Mr STIRLING: I cannot see how that can be clearer. He supplies materials for construction work.
Dr LIM: All right, I now have your intention clear. What you are saying now then is that, say, every planning company in the Territory who bids for a project has either to bid for just supplying the material or just the labour; they cannot do both. If they do both, they will not be covered by this. Right?
Mr STIRLING: That is a question for the registrar.
Dr LIM: What is your intention, minister?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Any more questions on that?
Dr LIM: Obviously, the minister is not going to respond to that and he is going to leave it right up to the registrar and the board to decide. I suppose the decision could, potentially, be following the bias of the registrar or the board.
Mr STIRLING: Just on that, if you want to go to the board - and he says we are just going to leave it to the registrar and the board - he needs to be clear about what the board is. Its composition will be two members that represent the interests of employers in the Territory, two members who represent organisations that represent the interests of employees in the Territory, an independent chair, and the minister may appoint two additional board members. If that is not as fair a representation of the industry that you could get in the composition of the board, I will go he. They will have their expertise and work through this accordingly.
Dr LIM: Again, I do not have any difficulties with what the minister has just said to describe the board; the board will do its own thing. What I am saying is that, usually in legislation, government gives guidance as to how it wants legislation to be implemented. The second reading speech is when the guidance, the intention of government, is clearly articulated. Here I can see the minister is not quite clear. Anyway, let us move on.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr LIM: With regard to clause 13, I refer to the minister’s second reading speech when he said:
- It is important to note that the reciprocal agreement does not actually transfer entitlements across or
between jurisdictions …
I see from that, that the levy the developer contributes will stay in the Territory, full stop, and will not get transferred out if the employee moves interstate.
I give an example of, say, an employee who works in the Territory as a construction worker for only three years, and a developer contributes towards that long service leave. That particular person then moves interstate and goes and works as a construction worker in another place, but only does it for one year. Under this legislation, that person is, obviously, not covered by us anymore so it does not really matter. However, if that person leaves the industry, that money that has been provided by a developer for that person’s long service leave is - what? Does it go back to the developer because that money is not being used by the worker because he is no longer in the industry and not entitled to long service leave?
Mr STIRLING: No, the member is right, the cut-off is five years. However, it is not intended that, if someone does not make five years, it is refunded. It goes into the big bucket that goes on to pay entitlements for workers forever and a day. I do not see that you have to give all that back because the worker did not make the five years - in which case they might have left the industry or retired and are eligible for a pro-rata benefit. There is no intention and it would be nightmarish, I would have thought, to be refunding along those lines.
Dr LIM: The money then stays in the board? Okay. You can imagine, if the projects keep coming along and the levy keeps being imposed on projects, the money keeps accumulating. Will there be a time when you might have a moratorium where you do not need to contribute any more to the levy. This pool is going to – I suggest to you - increase at a greater rate than long service leave entitlements are being paid out. That is how I would see it happening, which means this pool is going to grow very large. (1) What are you going to do with that money; and (2) is there going to be a moratorium that future projects will not have to be levied? If that is the case, how do you balance the equity between current and future projects?
Mr STIRLING: I welcome the member for Greatorex’s enthusiasm and positive nature that it will accrue at such a rate. Certainly, the actuarial advice is that it will be viable. That is our bottom line; that it will be viable in covering entitlements into the future.
The scheme has an inbuilt review mechanism. Every three years, the independent actuaries look at it - how much it has accrued, what it entails and what are the likely outgoings - and they will make recommendation to the board. I would not put any suggestion about a moratorium. However, it may be that, if it was going that well into the foreseeable future, there was a way to reduce the levy for that next three-year period. That is a question for the actuaries after the experience of three years. That would probably take three years to start to get a fix on the flow of revenue; both into the scheme and how that is accruing, and out of the scheme in entitlements owed. That would be the appropriate time, and every three years thereafter, to have a look at it. It is not for me to say exactly what would happen. However, the provision is there and it would be independent actuaries who look at it and advise the board accordingly.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, the minister was a little sceptical about my enthusiasm that the number of projects and the levy that would be imposed on these projects will increase the funds to such a level that you might require a moratorium. I know that several interstate boards have so much money they do not know what to do with it; it has become an embarrassment. That is true, and there is every likelihood it will happen in the Northern Territory also.
That is as far as we can go with the money. What I am concerned about is that, if you start having - whether it would be 0.5% or 1% - a project levy now, in the future years when you have a lot of money and you start dropping the percentage of the levy down, whether it is equitable for future projects to assist current projects which would be funding it up-front first. It is the next two or three years of projects that are going to be ‘penalised’ versus what can happen in the future when you have a lot of money in a pool.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, were we dealing with clause 13 or 30?
Dr LIM: Clause 13.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which was deregistration?
Dr LIM: We are talking about the money anyway. Sure, okay.
Mr STIRLING: We should probably pass those, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I like to know where I am. Are you talking about LSL credits? That is where you are up to? Do you have anything more on that?
Dr LIM: No, I have nothing further on that.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which is the next clause you would like?
Dr LIM: Clauses 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Mr CHAIRMAN: But LSL was clause 16. We are going backwards.
Clauses 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Dr LIM: In regards to the qualifying service, clause 15(4)(a) speaks about a period of 12 months immediately before the worker becomes a registered worker, and that period is to be taken into consideration. How are you going to determine that, particularly if that person comes from interstate? How are you going to determine that, for the previous 12 months, this person has been a construction worker?
Mr STIRLING: I am advised that the clause is to cover the eventuality of, in a year’s time, a worker in the industry now or around about now, or in the near future, who did not realise that they needed to be registered, who puts their hand up and says: ‘Hey, I have actually worked here since March last year; no one ever told me that I needed to register’. There is a provision there to allow for a backtracking. Obviously, the record of employment has to be substantiated to the satisfaction of the registrar and the board. However, it is simply to allow for an oversight where a person who, perhaps through no fault of their own, failed to register and could risk losing out on accruing that time. It is a safety gap, and only designed for that 12 months.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Dr LIM: Clause 16 talks about 6.5 days for each qualifying services of 260 days. In other words, when you talk about a person being entitled to start claiming the credits once they have accrued - this goes with clause 18 as well. By your leave, Mr Chairman, can I incorporate those two together?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be all right.
Dr LIM: It says that a person who has accrued 32.5 days of long service leave can start claiming it. That, effectively, brings the entitlement down to a five-year period of engagement in the industry whereas, currently under all awards, it is a minimum of seven years to get pro rata of a 10-year long service leave. By using 32.5 days, you are effectively reducing down to five years. Do you follow my argument?
Mr STIRLING: The member for Greatorex is right; however, it only applies after they have actually done 10 years. Therefore, you are talking about a 15-year mark. In clause 18 that a registered employee who is employed by a registered employer is entitled to a grant of long service leave if any of the following occurs:
- (a) the employer has been credited with a total of 65 days of LSL credits for the first time …
The first time has done 10 years:
- (b) … has been credited with a total of 32.5 days of additional LSL credits after the employee was credited
with 65 days of LSL …
Credits for the first time. Therefore, it is a 15-year clause in that sense.
Dr LIM: Does not clause 18(2)(b) say that you can claim after five years?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, but you have to read that in conjunction with clause 18(1)(b) on the previous page; that is, only eligible after the first 10 years has ticked over.
Dr LIM: Obviously, the way I am reading it - but if you assure me that is what it is - that after 10 years they can access it - I am happy with that. If I may have the indulgence, Mr Chairman, and go to clause 17.
Clause 16 agreed to
Clause 17:
Dr LIM: Clause 17 is in regards to credits for a person registered as both employee and contractor. I suppose I come back to the issue of definition. A contractor, as I understand it, is someone who is self-employed, has an ABN, can supply labour, materials, and anything he likes. A contractor is responsible, because he is self-employed, for his own superannuation, his own sickness and accident insurance, workers compensation or whatever you want to call it, and other work-related entitlements. He is responsible for that himself. How do you now bring this contractor into a situation where he can then be eligible for long service leave under this scheme?
Mr STIRLING: Again, on advice, if they were an employee for five years and, subsequently, become a contractor, perhaps for three years, this is to ensure that there is no double-counting across the categories.
Dr LIM: There is a lot of whispering going on here; I did not quite catch it. A contractor is a contractor. He could have been working as an employee for a period and that is not a problem. In that period, you are entitled to accrue the long service leave. If you then become a contractor after that, are you still entitled to accrue long service leave while working as a contractor?
Mr STIRLING: Again, we go back to that question before. It is a question for the registrar and, perhaps, the board to make that call, depending on the circumstances and the merits of the case.
Dr LIM: What is your intention, minister? That is what I am asking.
Mr STIRLING: Well, that is for the registrar and the board to make that call, depending on the circumstances around the individual.
Dr LIM: I do not know whether you appreciate the confusion that is there at the moment amongst the contractors in the Northern Territory. They know in their minds that they are fully responsible for their business enterprise. They are a contractor. They are registered as self-employed people with their own ABNs. If somebody wants a service to be provided, they do it on contract. The price of the job they do incorporates all the on-costs that are not normally there when you are just the employee. The contractor puts in all the extras like superannuation, workers compensation, and all that, into the contract price, so that has already been covered. How does the contractor then become covered by a developer’s levy when, in his own contract price, he has that already built into it? Can you see that the contractor is double-dipping?
Mr STIRLING: I will probably need to have that one put past me again, Mr Chairman.
Dr LIM: Okay. A developer of this building lets the job out to several contractors who are putting up the panels, or whatever. The contractor will put a price to the developer and say: ‘Okay, to do these panels is going to cost you this much money’. That price that the contractor puts to the developer will include workers compensation, superannuation, whatever you like, because that is what contractors do. You have your own ABN; you submit a price that covers all your other costs.
Then another person comes in who is an employee of the developer and puts up other things. The developer pays a levy for the project. Okay? The project covers the contractor and the employee. The contractor already is paid by the developer for the work that a contractor does. The price that the contractor has asked for has included workers comp, superannuation, leave, whatever you like.
Mr STIRLING: I would not be so sure that they would be paying it.
Dr LIM: Oh, if were properly employed, you would be doing all those things, minister, I assure you - you would. Okay? Believe me. Ask anybody out there who is on private contracts. They would include all those things in their contract price that they put to a developer. The employee does not, of course. Therefore, the employee deserves to have the long service leave.
Mr STIRLING: I am not quite sure where the member goes with this. It is the contractor who is the labour-only contractor, who is selling their labour - they are in.
Dr LIM: Correct.
Mr STIRLING: The contractor who is supplying all manner of material to this building, is not.
Dr LIM: Correct. I do not want to labour this. We will move on after this.
Yes, you are correct, minister. A person who provides the material, provides the material. I am talking about a contractor who provides labour. Right? I am a carpenter, so I am a construction worker under this bill. However, I am also self-employed. The developer of this building has come to me and said: ‘Look, I need you to work on this project; come to me as a contractor. Give me a price to sell your labour for this project’. I say: ‘Okay, that is fine’.
He is consulting. Okay, I will lead you through again. I am a contractor engaged by the developer of this building to sell my labour only. Okay? But, I am self-employed. I am a self-employed labourer, a construction worker. I have my own ABN, so you pay me the money and I pay the tax; you do not take any tax out of my money. Okay? You pay me what I am billing you for, for my contract work, and I pay my own tax. In my bill, built into that fee that I charge you, will be enough money to cover my workers comp, my sickness and accident insurance, my superannuation, my sickness, my medical insurance – all those little add-ons to keep me in viable business. You pay me the whole lump sum, and I will pay the tax man my just taxes and sort it out. I am a contractor. Okay? So, I have money that you paid me that I can put away for long service leave already. You, as the developer, at the same time, have paid a levy which is supposed to cover my long service leave, so I am entitled to the long service leave from the developer. At the same time, in my contract price, I have received money that I have earned that I am putting aside for long service leave, because that is how I billed my contract price. I am double-dipping.
Mr STIRLING: Very much a case for the project developer to be on their guard against that. When they look at the tenders put before them as to which contractors they may or may not engage, they are probably going to be a wake-up to that and say: ‘Well, we are not paying you for that because I have already had to put in a part percentage point of a levy towards long service leave and, if you are a registered contractor – providing labour only – you will be picked up under that over time. So, that bit of your claim goes out’.
It is a matter for the state of the industry and the going rate - all of those questions that the project developer is going to look at - whether they accept it or not.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister. I think I understand that what you are saying now is that the developer would pay whatever rate the levy is set at, and will go back to the contractor and say: ‘Your price is now too high because I have already paid for your long service leave. Your price has to be reduced by a certain percentage and that is the contract price I will accept, or go away’. Contractors, in fact, now will not be able to charge what they used to charge - per hour, per day or whatever – for the services they provide. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: The state of the industry, at any time, will dictate the outcomes and negotiations like that; they are commercial arrangements. The project developer will know what the going rate is for a contractor providing labour only, and they will meet the bid accordingly.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 20, by leave, taken together:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I withdraw clause 20 as I have already argued in the previous clause. It is the same thing.
Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Dr LIM: I need to talk about clause 22 at the same time because it seems to go one with the other. Clause 21 talks about long service leave benefits on deregistration, which applies to somebody who has accrued something like 32.5 days of long service leave. Then, clause 22 talks about one who has accrued 45.5 days long service leave. If you only can derive benefits after 32.5 days, what is the 45.5 days for? If you can already get your entitlements up to 32.5 days, the 45.5 days is of no relevance at all. Should it be there?
Mr STIRLING: If deregistered under clause 13(1)(b) or (c), the person no longer carries out construction work - possibly on retirement - or applies to the registrar for deregistration on the basis that they retired or (d) that they actually died and had worked over five years, they are entitled to that pro rata.
Dr LIM: If I may ask the question again, minister: what does clause 22 achieve that is not covered by clause 21? What is the point of requiring seven years service for entitlement on leaving the industry, when the employee can simply apply for deregistration on leaving the industry after five years?
Mr STIRLING: I am advised it is necessary to have the two different clauses, member for Greatorex. Clause 21 is a permanent departure, as in leaving the industry at retirement or death. Clause 22 is if you want to take your leave - that is, on a pro rata basis after seven years – and not necessarily leave the industry.
Dr LIM: The title of clause 22 is ‘Long Service Leave Benefit on Ceasing to Carry out Construction Work’. Clause 21 says ‘Long Service Benefit on Deregistration’. You get deregistered because you are no longer in that industry or you seek to be deregistered yourself. Clause 22 says ‘Long Service Benefit on Ceasing to Carry out Construction Work’. Therefore, if you cease construction work, you are deregistered.
Mr STIRLING: No, clause 21 covers leaving the industry permanently; that is, died, not coming back, or retired.
Dr LIM: Or deregistered for whatever reason.
Mr STIRLING: The deregistration, that is it; you are out. This is ceasing to carry out construction work; that is, for 45.5 days. I would grab my long service leave that I am entitled to and, on the 46th day, could well be back at work in the industry.
Dr LIM: Okay.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 32:
Dr LIM: I drew the minister’s attention to my second reading speech response. The way clause 32(2) of the bill is written it says:
- (2) The levy is imposed on only so much of the construction work as it is not-
- (a) considered by the Board to be –
- (i) carried out for or by a body (whether incorporated or not) formed or carried on for a
purpose other than pecuniary gains to its members; and
- (ii) attributable to voluntary labour or donated materials ..
Does that include government projects sponsored by government or benevolent organisations, charities, not-for-profit organisations and the like?
Mr STIRLING: Could the member for Greatorex just put that past me again? I cannot see what the problem is there.
Dr LIM: Well, on reading clause 32(2), it suggests to me that, apart from the issue of $200 000 for a home - it has already been covered by that - projects that are sponsored by government such as charities, not-for-profit organisations and the like, may not have to pay the levy. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: The member is reading it exactly right. If that is what the board’s consideration is, then the levy is not payable.
Dr LIM: Then I would put this to you, minister. The government is building the hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a project with lots of construction workers. Why are those construction workers not entitled to long service leave for working on that project?
Mr STIRLING: Quite clearly, they are; the government would pay the levy. The government is not a charitable organisation. Are we? Do we get tax-free status? I do not think so. Look, in the case of any government project over $200 000, the government pays the levy and those workers registered and working on that site would benefit in the long term.
Dr LIM: I ask you then, minister, in the words that you have in the bill:
- (2) The levy is imposed on only so much of the construction work as it is not-
- (a) considered by the Board to be –
- (i) carried out for or by a body (whether incorporated or not) formed or carried on for a
purpose other than pecuniary gains to its members …
Of course, there is no pecuniary gain for government members to build a hospice, but what about benevolent organisations? There is pecuniary interest for the organisation; that is why they build it in the first instance. Do they pay or do they not? Each individual member of the board or its members have no pecuniary interest in the project, but the organisation does.
Mr STIRLING: I believe the member for Greatorex explained it himself ...
Dr LIM: Sorry?
Mr STIRLING: I believe you explained it yourself. It is ‘formed or carried on for a purpose other than pecuniary gains to its members and ‘voluntary labour or donated materials’. It is not in; does not get levied.
Dr LIM: All right. Therefore, what you are saying is every project that comes forward after passage of the bill will be captured by the levy in this bill provided it is more than $200 000 - other than the exceptions - every project built, whether it be by a benevolent organisation or otherwise?
Mr STIRLING: After 1 July when it cuts in, over $200 000 in the first instance, and not the private home and the other categories that are ruled out earlier in the bill - they are in.
Dr LIM: Let us move on.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think you got an answer.
Dr LIM: I believe the minister has answered the question. That is fine.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Dr LIM: Minister, can you give us an indicative rate at which the levy will be struck?
Mr STIRLING: It has to be in the order of 0.45% to 0.5% of 1% of the overall project cost. That will become clearer. A great deal of work was done on this by an actuary leading up to this, who, unfortunately, died in the process. Another actuary had to then come in and pick it up. That is not that easy; picking up someone else’s work. That is as far as I could go. It will be around that 0.5% of 1%. That will be much clearer in the couple of weeks or months ahead before this kicks in on 1 July.
Dr LIM: Do you have an actuarial person who is coming in from interstate to do this work, or do you have somebody in mind lined up ready to go?
Mr STIRLING: I understand that it is an interstate firm that has been looking at those figures.
Dr LIM: Can you give us an indication of what the government’s exposure will be regarding the waterfront project? That is going to come in after 1 July.
Mr STIRLING: No, I could not give any indication whatsoever.
Dr LIM: Have you, as Treasurer, worked out what it is?
Mr STIRLING: I could not give any indication whatsoever at this stage.
Dr LIM: Well, would you agree that 0.5% of $1bn is something like at least $20m exposure?
Mr STIRLING: I am not going to give any forecast, predication, projection whatsoever at this stage. One would have thought that, if this does not cut in until 1 July, that project may well be off and running before that.
Dr LIM: Sorry, someone coughed – may well be?
Mr STIRLING: I would expect that project to have made a commencement well before 1 July.
Dr LIM: are you suggesting that anything that gets off before 1 July is exempt from this levy?
Mr STIRLING: I am not saying that absolutely everything around a particular project. It might depend on the stages of it and whether it stands eligible to come into the scheme. However, I would not rule totally out, totally in. You are asking me to look in the crystal ball and say that I know what date it is going to start; that we might capture Stage 2, No, I am not in that forecasting game.
Dr LIM: Okay, I am not asking you to forecast. This bill backdates the long service leave entitlements to 1 January 2005 for all construction workers. You are now saying that projects will not be levied until 1 July. Therefore, anything that starts before that will not be levied. So, workers are covered, there is no money, the government puts $1.5m …
Mr STIRLING: That is …
Dr LIM: Hang on, let me finish. The government will put in $1.5m seed money, which it will then withdraw after five years. What happens to all the people working at the waterfront if they started before and where is the money going to come from to cover them? You are talking about a $1bn project out there, and your $1.5m is not going to cover much of that.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I said I will not enter into any conjecture around what parts or stages of a project may or may not be captured. He is asking me to look into a crystal ball and say when Stage 1 and Stage 2 will start, what might be in, what might be out. I am not doing it. I have told him that and, I will not entertain that conjecture.
Dr LIM: At least if you were to say to me that you will leave the $1.5m in the pool and not take it out after five years, I might believe you. You are looking at, potentially, up to $20m exposure. You are now saying to me that you do not know what you are doing - no idea whatsoever. Maybe there might not be enough money in there to cover the employees on the project.
Mr STIRLING: The member is forgetting, it requires 10 years of work in the industry in order to qualify. If someone works on that project for two years and they had eight years in other jurisdictions, then other jurisdictions pay their share of that. Quite clearly, looking forward for the Territory worker who is only starting work in the industry in the Territory, it is 10 years before that would be due. In any case, they are not liabilities and, a little like superannuation, never all falls due on one day. It is a far-flung thing all the way into the future.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
In so doing, I raise one point for the member for Greatorex. In any of the legislation that comes through my office - be it through Treasury, Education or, in this case, an employee entitlement scheme - we do invite members opposite for briefings on aspects of the bill. There are some complexities. This is not an overly complex bill, but with all legislation, it does take time to come to grips with the various clauses and how they interrelate. It strikes me that, whilst going through committee stage is a valuable exercise – that is what it is for; seeking clarification, probing aspects of the bill and making sure that it reflects the intent of government and authors – and is a process that lends itself well to this Chamber, and is usually carried out in a pretty positive fashion as it was today.
However, I urge the member for Greatorex, because we do have a number of dealings in common - I do not understand the intransigence in failing to accept an offer to brief on any legislation …
Dr Lim: At lunchtime? I had other things to do.
Mr STIRLING: Your job is to prosecute your side of politics’ arguments in relation to the bill. If you do not go out and get the views of industry, constituents and whoever may be impacted upon by this legislation, you ought to - get their views, round them up, round up your colleagues and get a party position view on it. You are also charged with having some understanding, I suppose, of the legislation all the way through. As I said, this committee stage is a valuable exercise; that is what it is for.
However, it does make it difficult when there is this intransigence about coming to government, the people who have put the legislation together - not the authors in the sense of drafting, but the authors in the mind sense of seeing the bill through to getting its aims and objectives in it. That opportunity is there and I would urge the member for Greatorex to take it in future. We encourage you to come forward for the briefing. It is an opportunity to test your own understanding, to test and probe the parameters of the bill, and get as good an understanding as possible before we come into the House. Notwithstanding that, I welcome committee stage; it is good. I always welcome walking the bill through the committee stages. However, I do not understand this refusal or inability to take up the offer of briefings, and I would recommend that people do.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his patronising discussion on how I should do my work. I have had many briefings from the minister’s office, and some are better than others. Others are sometimes pretty slack and, when you ask for information, there is not much forthcoming. Also, the briefings are pretty thin in information provided and, when promises are made that ‘I will get the information to you’, it is never followed through. That has happened in many of the portfolios that the minister carries, which I share with him.
As for today’s lunchtime offer of a briefing, I do not have the luxury, as the minister might have, of spending his two hours at lunch. I am flat out at committee meetings - two of which I had today at lunchtime - plus I have many phone calls to make. That is what I do with my lunchtime; I work hard. I thank the minister for trying to give me a lesson in how to do my job. Sure, I concede he is probably the longest-serving member of parliament in this Chamber, but I am not that far behind either, minister.
With regard to this legislation, the opposition does not oppose it. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this is something that needs to come. It has now arrived in the Territory; we will go along with it and not object to it. However, let us watch it cautiously over time and see how it goes. I am glad to hear the minister say that this legislation and the levy will all be reviewed in three years time. I look forward to seeing how this legislation will work in bringing about some equity to what is normally a very transient population of construction workers.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 274)
(Serial 274)
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, from the outset, I thank the minister for the briefing that was provided to me and my colleagues, the members for Daly and Port Darwin. I also thank those who provided the briefing, John Gronow, Fabio Finocchiaro and Jim O’Neill for their obvious depth of knowledge about these issues, and commitment to addressing what seemed to be a series of problems. I note that minister, in his speech, talked about some of the legal conundrums, and they have done a reasonably good job in addressing those issues.
Members would be aware that, only last sittings we passed a Building Bill which was No 1 of the tranche, I guess. Now we have a Building Amendment Bill (No 2). If you look to the critical year of 1993 and to the fact that the source of these amendments come from both Magistrates Court problems, High Court problems, and legal advice that has come to the department from its own independent legal counsel, you can see that there has been an effort to provide remedies to those problems that have beset this bill, unbeknownst to original drafters and those practitioners who have had to work with it. I believe when the minister said in his second reading speech in December that legal complexities abound, it must have been a speech written by some poor person the department has severely battered by the various legal issues that have come sailing in from the blue on this bill.
From the outset too, I should say the opposition supports this bill. We are aware of some of the issues that have been talked about. In the second reading speech, the minister eloquently described the issues. Without going to the actual details of the case, the opposition is aware of some of the matters that have been discussed in this bill. We are also aware of the difficulties with conveyancing and Certificates of Compliance and how there is a dependency upon those certificates; how there is a misunderstanding sometimes from the client about what those certificates convey. There is a notion that they are provided a sense of the engineering worthiness of the place. We can understand the necessity for the amendments the minister will be bringing on in committee, and we will support those also.
The ambition, I suppose, of the department and the minister is to continue with an orderly method for regulating those who build our houses, providing consumer confidence, and providing a robust system to make sure that what people get in terms of certificates and other devices gives them confidence that their home will accord with the standards of the day. I believe this bill achieves that and, from the briefings we have received, there are no major departures in the direction of government. The government, like us, will look to issues relating to self-certification. We will look to issues relating to ensuring there is adherence in matters under that purview.
I understand that these tranches will come together, that is Building Bill (No 1) and Building Bill (No 2), and that there are various issues that are called up in each that will require some fairly fancy footwork in timing for early next year. I am quite confident that the capacity of the department and those practitioners who work with these bills will make sure that the meshing of the issues across those two bills will mean that there is little impact for the consumer. There is a great necessity for education of those people, including tradespeople who are involved in the industry, and I am very confident that will take place.
With those few words, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we support the bill. We support its intent as a look-back mechanism to remedy some of the problems of the past that were unanticipated. We look to it as an instrument which, in the future, will require some further communication devices with the industry, with practitioners, with home owners and home builders. We are very confident that the department has the capacity, the willpower, and the practices to be able to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. There has been a long history of how this bill came before us. I recall headlines from the Litchfield Times where some engineers said that, basically, to do what the government was going to require them to do would mean they would have to demolish a home. I remember Stringer’s cartoon in the Litchfield Times that had an engineer who had just finished more or less demolishing the home and telling the homeowner: ‘Look, I have to tell you the sad fact is that your home was up to code,’ but he had to demolish it to tell him. It certainly did put the fear in a lot of people regarding what was going to be required. The changes the government has proposed will, hopefully, allay those fears now.
I was contacted by some people who were not particularly happy with some of the processes. I have since, after having a briefing, contacted other people who believe that the government has done a good job in talking to industry: the conveyancers, the Law Society, the Real Estate Institute and certifiers. Of course, not everyone is going to be happy about the changes.
I have taken onboard some of the issues that were of concern to the certifiers. Those issues still need to be looked at. One issue concerns building status reports and that there is some assurance that there will be uniformity in the way those status reports are carried out. Another issue was that they believed there is a shortage of certifiers. My understanding is that there is a shortage of certifiers throughout Australia, so I am not sure how we can overcome some of those issues. Perhaps we should look at a cadetship similar to the one the Minister for Mines and Energy talked about today to encourage some of our young people to get into that area. There are not a lot of certifiers; therefore, if we can encourage young people to think about going into that industry, it would be good.
Minister, there will need to be more discussion. I realise that you have had quite a few meetings with industry. You did talk - and I was alluding to this some time ago - about meetings with the community. I realise it is a complex issue. The last thing I want is a public forum or a public meeting which confuses people more than it assists them. Is it possible for a meeting in the future, perhaps when the regulations - especially on issues regarding substantial compliance and those sorts of issues - are ironed out? Could we arrange a meeting, at least in the rural area? I imagine there are still quite a few homes in the rural area that were built pre-1974, pre-1983 and pre-1993 when plenty of them were built. People would be happy to determine the status of their houses and, if they are selling their house, what sort of certification they are required to have.
Minister, in your reply, you might be able to expand on issues about insurance and the ability of banks to grant loans on houses now under these new requirements. There has always been a fear that you could not get insurance on a house unless it was up to code, or you could not get a loan if your house was not up to code. I am interested to hear what the government has to say on something that many people want to hear about. It was certainly an issue when this first came up for debate. Therefore, minister, if you could allay people’s fears that they still can get insurance and a bank loan under this system, that would also be good to hear.
I welcome the bill. I believe if it clears up what has certainly been a very messy area for a lot of people, it would be welcomed. I wonder whether the government will look at reviewing how it is working after 12 months, and perhaps report back on whether adjustments need to be made to it. I know you can adjust things to the regulations, but it would be nice to see a report saying the act is working satisfactorily, or that we need to do some changes to it because of some technicalities that we have not quite worked out or some practical problems. Again, it would be nice to see the minister report on the status of this bill after it has been in operation for, say, 12 months.
As I said before, I support the bill. I will talk to those certifiers about some of the issues they raised and see whether we can sort those issues through. With that, I will finish my debate on the bill and wait for the committee stage.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I thank the member for Drysdale for his contribution and, also the member for Nelson. No doubt, it was the extensive briefing given by the very experienced members of the department which played a pivotal role in moving through these issues.
Just to recap, there are actually three issues covered under this Building Amendment Bill (No 2). One of them is to do with the Building Practitioners Board and another is to do with building control areas. Both of those issues arose out of court cases, as the member for Drysdale alluded to. Similarly, the Certificates of Occupancy and the impasse over them, was linked to some legal proceedings and uncertainties over the whole issue of liability of the Building Services Branch in issuing Certificates of Occupancy that may be open to challenge and, I guess, further litigation. I will focus on the Certificates of Occupancy and the Certificates of Substantial Compliance which are suggested in this bill and the amendments to the bill.
When I took over this portfolio area a little over 12 months ago, it was one of the main issues that was flagged to me. There was a lot of uncertainty, and people were not sure what was happening. The member for Nelson alluded to some newspaper articles which, frankly, were a little bit over the top. However, there certainly was a lot of uncertainty and angst, I suppose, and representation from people who felt they should have been able to have a Certificate of Occupancy but were told by the department, for various reasons due to the timing of their building and some of the paperwork which existed - or did not exist, which is probably more to the point - that a certificate really could not be issued to them. What I endeavoured to do was to bring the main players together within the industry - the certifiers, the lenders, the insurers; a whole range of people - to talk through the issue and try and come up with a solution. I believe the solution that has been put forward in this legislation about buildings of a certain age - pre-1993 and further back beyond that - is really a good solution. It comes about through taking time to talk the issues through with the industry groups in a number of meetings I was able to attend.
The member for Nelson has raised a number of issues about further consultation, and that will be appropriate once the regulations are drawn up. The regulations will be all about how people apply for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, what the processes are, and how it actually all works. I believe that is where we need to engage further with the industry, particularly the certifiers. The real estate industry is a very important group that I omitted to mention before, which has been involved in these discussions. We can flag some further discussions, certainly in the rural area as the member for Nelson has requested.
However, I say to the member for Nelson and any prospective buyer of a house that what really counts - and you can have a Certificate of Occupancy for a building that might be 20 years old and that would give some people some comfort - and is a major comfort for people is getting a structural report from a licensed person about the current state of that building. That is what lending institutions require. Some of the interstate lending bodies are particularly interested in Certificates of Occupancy, and that caused some of the hassles. However, most lending institutions are interested in the structural report to see about the integrity of the building at that particular point in time. Basically, the Certificate of Occupancy or the Certificate of Substantial Compliance should not be seen as replacing buyers going out and getting those reports that I have alluded to.
Given the nature of the Territory and some of the back blocks of the rural areas that the member for Nelson talked about, there will always be some buildings that, basically, have no certificates for anything; they have not started off with the building permit. I suppose people can still buy and sell those buildings, depending on the lending institution and, as I say, the state of that building. They can still get loans against that building.
I point out to the member for Nelson straight up that there is no way that a person who owns a building with no certification can expect to get a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, because they are really complying with nothing. However, this legislation does provide a way forward for the majority of buildings that have fallen into this phantom zone through the court case that we have mentioned. I hope that clarifies some of the issues for the member for Nelson.
Once the regulations are settled and there have been negotiations, it is incumbent on us to launch a public education campaign, and continuing education for professionals such as those in the real estate industry. There are people who probably move in and out of that particular profession who may come from interstate, or be new to it, who need to know what is required to expedite sales.
Having said that, I have really summed up most of what I want to say, except that, leading into the committee stage now, I want to advise members that there are a number of committee stage amendments. I want to explain the reasons why those committee stage amendments have arisen. The first one is regarding, as the member for Drysdale pointed out, this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) which is linked to Building Amendment Bill (No 1). There were committee stage amendments with (No 1) which resulted in re-numbering quite a number of clauses and parts of that particular act. To make sure that the two acts really can work together, the amendments are about renumbering so that the two acts can line up. Therefore, renumbering will come up during these committee stage amendments, particularly after the amendments to Building Amendment Bill (No 1).
A number of the amendments also relate to the fact that this particular Building Amendment Bill (No 2) actually starts before Building Amendment Bill (No 1). To get the flow and the activation of the various parts of the legislation, basically, there have to be committee stage amendments to specify the starting dates. Those are two categories of committee stage amendments. There are going to be lots of numbers and clauses, but I can assure members that the intent of the original bill and this one is not altered at all by these committee stage amendments.
There are some amendments which, I guess, the parliamentary draftsmen has come across some things that may have been minor omissions in the first act, and I praise the draftsmen for their diligence. I understand that, to some degree, because of some of the issues I have outlined, these amendments created a bit of a nightmare for the parliamentary draftsmen. They have acted very professionally and, basically, created these committee stage amendments. They have worked very hard on this legislation.
There is one small part in the bill which clarifies some definitional aspects of the Certificate of Substantial Compliance. That is a clarification of meaning rather than any change about the thrust of the legislation. Having said that, I hope we can go into committee stage and expedite this legislation, which is being supported by the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) 2004 (Serial 274) together with schedule of amendments No 97 circulated by the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Burns.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.7.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 22:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 22A to 22D:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.9.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 22A to 22D agreed to.
Clause 23:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.10.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.11.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new Clause 23A:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.12.
Proposed new clause 23A agreed to.
Clause 24:
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.13.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 97.14.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on something the minister mentioned about the bill in his second reading. I am hoping that the government will come on board with it. He mentioned that the person buying a house would be required to obtain the certificates. Of course, last year, I proposed a bill in parliament in which responsibility for those certificates would rest with the person selling the house.
The minister, in his second reading speech, mentioned that some of the responsibility when selling a house at the moment falls back on the old adage of ‘buyer beware’. I hope that part of this package of reforms to the building industry will include changes to the way we sell property. I hope the government is considering getting rid of what I call ‘buyer beware’ and introducing the reforms that I tried to introduce last year, which will make sure that all the certificates that are required when one is selling a house are up-front for those who wish to purchase what, in many ways, is their biggest purchase of their life - their home. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. I believe he is referring to legislation regarding vendor disclosure in real estate. After talking with the Attorney-General, my knowledge is that that reform is moving through the system. It is a very important reform, and takes on board the member for Nelson’s comments for the need for further reform.
Finally, I thank both opposition and Independent members for their contributions and support for this bill. I would like to thank those public servants who have worked very tirelessly to bring these bills to fruition, both Building Amendment Bill (No 1) and (No 2), Mr John Gronow, who is very experienced, Fabio Finocchiaro, and Gale Jamieson from Parliamentary Counsel. They have done a fantastic job on some very complex issues with these interconnected bills. I have to confess, as we often talk about briefings in this place, it took me three briefings. I was around each and every one of those amendments, as I wanted to be very clued up on it. They showed a lot of patience with me over these issues, right from day one when I became minister of this portfolio, and they have briefed me extensively. I know they have briefed the opposition and Independent members. I commend them for their hard work in the consultation process and in framing this legislation. With that, I conclude my remarks, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (OBJECTIONS AND
APPEALS) BILL
(Serial 263)
APPEALS) BILL
(Serial 263)
Continued from 1 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this Taxation (Administration) Amendment (Objections and Appeals) Bill essentially sets up an appeals tribunal. I hope the Treasurer would understand that I have recently assumed the responsibility for Treasury matters, and there are some issues that I am more across than others. However, the issue with regards to this particular legislation picks up an extant problem that exists.
I have been briefed by my former shadow Treasurer, the member for Greatorex, on the issue, who advises me that the bill, in its entirety, achieves the objectives that appear to need to be rectified. Essentially, where there is an appeal against payroll tax applications, that appeal previously was to the Commissioner for Taxation, and the opinion of the Commissioner for Taxation stood. An appellant could then, as I understand it, go to the court - whether it be a Supreme Court or a Magistrates Court, depending on their choice - to proceed with what was a very costly appeal. Therefore, in practical decision-making, the situation essentially rested with the Commissioner for Taxation - a fairly unsatisfactory situation in the opinion of some. A better mechanism was sought to be put in place.
This mechanism puts in place a tribunal which has the responsibility to not only hear objections, but also to mediate as well as make decisions. The accommodation still remains with the appellant to go to court if they so wish. However, for all practical purposes, one would expect this legislation to attend to a fair system whereby a person can make an appeal to a tribunal consisting of a magistrate and - who else?
Dr Lim: They can go to the Supreme Court to appeal if the decision is not satisfactory and …
Mr BURKE: They can appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal mediates and makes a decision; if the appellant is not happy with that decision, they can go to the court. That is what, for practical purposes, those who felt aggrieved with the previous process expected. I believe this bill accommodates those wishes and, therefore, the opposition supports it.
Mr HENDERSON (Industry and Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this bill this afternoon. The genesis of this bill came as a result of a government that is actually out there meeting with business and listening to their concerns. About 18 months ago, as I went around the business community, the concern was issues in regards to the capacity of particularly small business in the Northern Territory to appeal Treasury’s rulings in complex areas, such as stamp duty and payroll tax in particular.
The existing avenue was, yes, an appeal could be lodged with Treasury and it would be heard within a separate division of Treasury. I have every confidence, as I am sure members of this House have, in the integrity of Treasury and its officers who do a great job on their rulings. However, the perception – right or wrong - was that the agency here assessing its own evaluation, even though done by a separate division or arm within the agency, was less than the best way to go. The only other avenue left for small business, in particular, was to appeal to the Supreme Court at significant cost.
Examples were pointed out to me by a number of business people. What may seem to be an item of contention would be, where around $15 000 or $20 000 might be subject of debate between the business and Treasury on what was owed - particularly with companies that may have some complex structures - the cost of actually going to the courts was far in excess of the amount in dispute. Therefore, business would pay up rather than take their chances with the expense of legal action. Business argued with me that a simple administrative appeals tribunal where they could go as a first point of contact to have their concern heard, would be a greater benefit than imposing the cost of going to the Supreme Court. I took those concerns to the Treasurer and got a very supportive hearing at Treasury, and I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to see this tribunal come into place on behalf of small business in the Northern Territory. It shows that this government does listen and respond to the concerns of small business. Certainly, those business people I spoke to said that they had tried for a number of years under the previous government to get this same facility, but without success.
I am pleased to see this in place today, and I will be sending copies of the second reading debate to those business people who raised this issue with me. At the end of the day, I am very pleased to see this legislation come in. Again, it gives business the reassurance that taxation judgments that are issued and lodged on them by the Tax Commissioner are transparent and appealable at no cost. This does not stop, ultimately, for the business if they lose in the appeals tribunal; they can still go to the Supreme Court if that is what they choose to do. However, this is in direct response to advocacy from the business community and, as business minister, I am very pleased this tribunal come into place. I congratulate the Treasurer for bringing this to the House today.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to just add a few words to what the Leader of the Opposition has already said about the support that we give to this bill. The Treasurer made a promise when he handed down the budget in May last year, and has taken a little longer than I would have anticipated to get this up and running. However, the sooner it is up the better, so the last businesses who have any conflict with Treasury assessment can go through an appeal process.
The minister, in his second reading, drew the line on the sand using the date 18 May 2004. I wonder whether there is any room for him and his department to, in fact, extend that line on the sand to some of the cases that are already afoot with their appeals or discussions with Treasury. I am aware of many cases where people have felt that they have been unjustly assessed. Maybe these are the ones also that need to be looked at, rather than just drawing 18 May as a firm date.
Once this appeal process is in place, it will be good that appellants can go, and the magistrate can do it just as a desktop exercise to start off with. The magistrate can call for hearing if he wants to, with or without legal representation. Quite often, business people are flat out trying to manage their own business; they do not have legal expertise – whereas, I am sure, Treasury officials will have at least the capacity to deal with that a lot better than the business person can. However, having the option of being able to bring in legal representation would be a help.
What troubles me a little is that I know that magistrates across the Territory are all flat out as it is with the workload that they have; putting this job onto the Chief Magistrate or his delegate adds another layer of work onto the magistracy. We have to make sure that the magistrates have time to consider the issues, and the technicalities of the issues, of each individual case in a timely fashion so that things are progressed quickly. We must make sure that the magistrates have the technical expertise to deal with it. In many other jurisdictions where such tribunals exist, they use taxation officers who really are across taxation law. Those are people who have the specific expertise to do that. Our magistrates in the Territory may not have that expertise. I wonder if the government is going to provide instruction, training or in-service training for the magistrates so that they have a level expertise that will enable them to do the job a lot more easily and quickly.
The minister might also want to consider reviewing the caseloads and the outcomes of the magistrates’ arbitration in 12 months time. Review that in 12 months to see if the skills of magistrates are adequate, that they are all done in timely fashion, and that the cases are reasonably dealt with. Otherwise, we will find that we might be back in the same situation in spite of the tribunal.
I do not believe that this is something that can be brushed off by saying, ‘Well, we have a tribunal now; that is the end of that, business can deal with it’, and they are left to deal with it the best they can. This is designed to be cost saving, to expedite appeals by appellants who feel that they have been unjustly taxed. Therefore, the process has to be made easy, but also handled with the expertise that is required. I am not saying that magistrates here do not have the expertise. I know they are busy but, if they do not have adequate expertise then they should be provided with the training. This must be part of the first priorities this government must have to ensure that what they will do with this legislation will work and work efficiently.
I was pleased to see that if an appellant is not happy with the decision made by the tribunal, there is an option to go to the Supreme Court with a de novo appeal. That is good because other information that has become available can be presented to the Supreme Court for assessment. In previous times, what happened in an appeal was that only the relevant information that was presented to the first appeal may be heard. It meant that any other useful and relevant information would not be considered. That might place a significant bias to a decision made by the Supreme Court.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I repeat the words of the Leader of the Opposition that we support this bill and we look forward to working properly and helping industry with the tax. However, I also ask the minister to consider putting in place a training program for magistrates and to have a review of the process in 12 months time to see how it is going.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members for contributing in a positive fashion to this debate. It was my colleague, the Minister for Business and Industry who first bought this issue to my attention, but I did pick it up subsequent to that from Business Round Tables and agreed to go forward with this.
At different times I have met with groups of business people, and individually, where people have raised it and said we have to have a system that has more independence stamped around it than what we have at the moment; no matter what regard they have for Treasury. We certainly hold Treasury in high regard and we never questioned their integrity in the way that they dealt with appeals through Treasury. However, the perception was that it was Caesar to Caesar and, no matter how independently you drew it within Treasury, that perception was always there.
I was taken with those arguments, notwithstanding that we never had a question about Treasury’s integrity. This is all about a perception, about putting it at arms length away from Treasury who make the original decision. It is a low-cost, no-frills process that we expect will resolve a lot of these questions before they go on to the Supreme Court. In any case, failure to satisfy at this level does not prevent the matter going on to the Supreme Court.
In relation to the question of resources for magistrates, we do not know how many of these will come before the tribunal. However, at any time that there is a question of overload or blocking up the system, the Office of Courts Administration is well placed to take those concerns to Justice. Justice would raise them with the Attorney-General and they would come to government as a issue of greater resources needed to deal with matters before them.
In relation to questions around the expertise of magistrates in dealing with taxation and financial related matters, one thing magistrates are very good at is reading law. That is their expertise, and their lifelong occupation in most cases. They are very learned when it comes to reading and understanding the law. At the end of the day, financial laws are still laws. The same question, of course, could be raised - but was not raised by the member for Greatorex - in relation to the Supreme Court. They are expected to hear cases and make decisions accordingly. Again, they are well versed in the law; that is their game. Therefore, we see magistrates in the same position as judges of the Supreme Court when it comes to working through these types of issues.
I thank members for their comments. We also look forward to it being in place. We will watch it and see how it rolls out. If there are any wrinkles in the system, we will be alerted to that and will respond accordingly. However, but let us get it up and running and see it in operation. I look forward to it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s
Mid-Year Report 2004-05
Note Paper - Treasurer’s
Mid-Year Report 2004-05
Continued from 1 December 2004.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said for some time - and will continue to make and reinforce the point to Territorians - that this government has squandered opportunities that were presented to them in the almost four years now that they have been in government. They have wasted the opportunities that have been provided by the GST. They have missed out on the economic boom that other states have experienced. That, in total, is a demonstration that this government has failed in managing the economy of the Northern Territory.
One does not need to be an economist to look at some simple facts, and those facts are reflected very clearly in this mid-year report. These are almost Percy Allan’s words, in some respect: if your revenue is high, your population growth should also be skidding off that revenue, because it is a simple indicator of how your economy is going; that is, you are generating the wealth, and that wealth is attracting people to come to the Northern Territory.
What we have in this mid-year report is just further evidence that revenue growth has been very strong in the Northern Territory, and population growth has been very low. Population growth being low is also compounded by jobs being low. The Treasury script in the mid-year report talks about lower employment. However, look at the population figures and compare them to other states in Australia, and read Commonwealth Treasury comments, which say things such as: ‘Population growth in the Northern Territory has fluctuated over the past few years. In 2002-03, nett interstate migration was at its lowest level in the past decade’. That is people leaving the Northern Territory. They are people who could be looking for jobs in the Northern Territory who are looking for jobs elsewhere. That, in itself, has been interpreted by government as lowering the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory. The simple facts are that it is not; that this period of the Labor government has been really evidenced by poor economic growth, higher than even they forecast growth in GST revenue - of which the Northern Territory government can claim no credit - an inability to manage their own budget targets under the strategy that they set themselves when they came to government despite revenue far in excess of the revenue that was predicted for them to get, poor population growth, the direct effect of which is now going to impact on future Commonwealth funding, which is laid down in the report.
If one turns to GSP, and I say at the outset that I accept the Treasurer’s obvious answer that GSP is a poor indicator of economic growth, I accept that. However, the issue of GSP, reflected in the mid-year report, needs to be seen in context with what is actually happening; that is, that the GSP predictions that the Treasurer has continually trotted out has been GSP growth of 3.7% for 2002-03, when they have actually achieved 0.2% and, for 2003-04, 3.4%, when the government has actually achieved 0.3%. I accept, as I said, that GSP growth is volatile and affected by many things, much of which is outside the government’s control. However, the point I am making is that when the government has a budget forecast projection of 5.8% growth in GSP, and reinforces that projection in its mid-year report, that has no substance when all of their projections have failed to be met by numbers of percent - not points of percent - in the past. One can have no faith at all in the GSP predictions that are in this mid-year report and were in the budget. The report says these are unchanged, the inference being, therefore, things are good. The reality is that the predictions have never come anywhere near the actual fact over the last few years since this government has been in power.
On page 7 of the mid-year report it says the 2004-05 budget papers outline the three fiscal challenges that led to the government revising the fiscal strategy. It then points to the fact that, with these revised fiscal strategy objectives, the government is on course. What Territorians need to be reminded of is that the fiscal strategy that was set by Percy Allan - the guru the Treasurer and others applauded who said that this was the blueprint for the government fiscal management of the Northern Territory during this term in office and beyond if it was elected - has been abandoned. It is one thing to abandon the fiscal strategy when there are issues that are outside of your own control; however, on my calculations, the GST revenue to the Northern Territory provided by Commonwealth government which was forecast by Percy Allan, has outstripped his predictions by $66m at least. Therefore, we have a situation where, on the one hand the government is provided with a fiscal strategy that says ‘You will receive this much money in GST from the Commonwealth on my forecast, and you will receive this much taxation revenue from your own sources over the next few years’. If one compares the mid-year report, the 2004-05 budget and Percy Allan’s report - which I did – it is very clear that the projections and the reality in revenue coming to the Northern Territory has far outstripped those projections.
Therefore, when we sit in this Chamber and listen to the government saying, ‘We are spending this and we are doing this and that’, the reality is that it is all John Howard. John Howard has provided this government with the ability to strengthen the Northern Territory economy, and he has done it in a way that is far out and above what the economic expert predicted. However, that economic expert, in his predictions - even with his lower predictions - expected this government to be in budget balance by 2005-06. It is a damning indictment of the Labor government whose members, in this Chamber only yesterday, could not point to anything of substance that they have actually done to strengthen this economy in a real sense - no infrastructure projects of substance on the ground that the people can see, a damning …
Mr Henderson: Lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia.
Mr BURKE: ‘Lowest taxation’, the business minister says. I can tell you one bit of scuttlebutt going around, minister, that you proudly boast of cutting the business budget by about $6m. Well, it is good scuttlebutt, I can tell you, because a lot of public servants think it and you proudly boast it …
Mr Henderson: Businesses love not paying tax that you used to levy.
Mr BURKE: Also, he is a business minister who can sit here and watch a community services minister call on the Commonwealth to allocate $10m to petrol sniffing and another $10m of Territory money to petrol sniffing, when the most he can do for businesses in the Northern Territory is $6.7m. It is a disgrace! No one denies the importance of those social programs, but it is certainly an indication of where the priorities of this government are.
Mr Henderson: We know what your policies were: you ignored it.
Mr BURKE: Petrol sniffing has been in the Northern Territory since World War II, introduced by the American servicemen. If you go and talk to the health people, they will show you the graphs going up and down since the 1940s. It is a problem, of course, but it is obviously a bigger problem to you than fixing Territory businesses and making them competitive with other states and businesses in Australia.
If you also look at the Commonwealth data on where Territorians are going, you will find they are fleeing the Northern Territory to the states of - in priority order - Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia, which are experiencing better economic times in the Northern Territory. They are going there for the jobs, lifestyle, and to try to make a better lot for themselves because this government is not delivering on the capacity that John Howard gave you through the GST to deliver with.
Therefore, this mid-year report can be looked at fairly simply. As I said, if you look at the amount of GST that has come into the Northern Territory, you can very quickly see that, in generating real money through its own programs that have grown the capacity of the Northern Territory government and, therefore, to provide that wealth to Territorians, there is nothing there to show effort - nothing. The effort has come from John Howard; the effort has come from the GST.
The other thing that is really damning is the fact that the predictions in the mid-year report are that the GST revenue will decrease. Do you know why the GST revenue is going to decrease? Because the Territory’s share of the overall pool will decrease. Do you know why the Territory’s share in the overall pool will decrease? Because our population is going down. Therefore, under the methodology of the GST of the Commonwealth, you will get less money. If you want to spin it another way, you can spin it this way: the Territory is saying: ‘Our share of the national pool will be decrease because the national pool is going to decrease’. This is another way of saying the only reason we can sit back and say we have $37m more than we predicted is – why? It is because the other states are doing well. That is why Bob Carr and the others are complaining that we get too much; because the other states are going gangbusters.
The Northern Territory has, essentially, missed out on the economic boom that has grasped the whole of the rest of Australia. We have become middle rankers when we used to be in front of them. We used to be able to stand up in the Northern Territory and say we have the highest disposable income of any state or territory. We had the highest growth rates in population and economy of any state or territory. We also had a reasonable engagement reality that was the envy of any state and territory including the Commonwealth. That was what we had in the past. All of those things are gone, and we have a government that points proudly to the fact that we have a - I forget the words that were used in here – ‘a rebound in population’. That is what it says in the mid-year report, a rebound - a rebound of 0.3%. If you look at what this government has achieved on pretty blunt figures, you have all of this revenue - massive amounts of revenue coming in from the Commonwealth - but what have you done to grow this population, this Territory, this economy? ‘We have a rebound in population of 0.3%’ which is probably less than 1000 people - much less than 1000 people.
We can go through the figures in the mid-year report. I have read the Treasurer’s statement when tabling this report. It skirts around the simple facts that any person who is not expert in reading budget papers will look for; that is, let us look at revenue, how that revenue was grown, who provided that revenue growth, how much of it can we give credit to the government for, what they have done with that revenue - what are the things that they have done that we can see impacting on the economy with that revenue growth. There is absolutely nothing there, and the quickest way to see that is to look at population departure, not population growth.
It is interesting also that, in talking about small numbers of population, the mid-year report states:
- The Territory has revised its 2004-05 population growth estimate upward by 0.2% to 0.5%. … The
Territory’s estimated share of national population has been increased accordingly, from 0.9832%
to 0.9868%. If realised, this increase will translate to an additional $4.9m in GST revenue for the
Territory in 2004-05, with a flow-on effect for the forward estimates.
We have an amazing situation in the Northern Territory where revenue growth is astronomical and real growth in the economy, evidenced by one factor – population - is going the other way. Anyone who looked at that would say: ‘There is something drastically wrong in the way this Territory is being managed and this economy is being run’. It begs the question: what has happened to all of that money? What has happened to it in real terms? I know you have spent it and continue to spend it. The figures will show that you are spending it, but it does not really show that you are spending it any real sense.
You talk about a reduction in debt to revenue. You say that the ratio of debt to revenue has gone from 134% down, we hope, to about 118%. However, what you are not saying is where those two methodologies fit with what the debt to revenue was, and would be, if you had the same factors existing years ago. I have not done the figures yet, but I would imagine that you have not done as much as the CLP did in terms of your capacity - you have a massive amount more capacity - to reduce debt and your effort is almost non-existent in real terms. That was one of the big promises that you made. I remember you saying you were going to, very quickly, make sure that superannuation liabilities for public servants was all costed and paid for, and that is barely even bumping along, if at all.
That is my take on this mid-year report. I look forward to the Auditor-General’s report that is coming out next week, because I have more and more indications - and part of it is reflected in this mid-year report - that Treasurer’s Advances are being used for recurrent operational costs. It is an amazing situation, when you find how far out of sync this budget is in spending on top of budget by department, considering that the budget was only brought down on 1 July and spending by the departments - police is one - on top of their budget is well out of sync. Something like $27m out of the Treasurer’s Advance gone like that, and that is only what is revealed here, which was put out some time ago.
I bet Treasurer’s Advances are being used incredibly liberally. It is supposed to be only used for one-off items that are urgent. It seems to me that this Treasurer and this government bring down a budget, puts out all the PR gloss and, then, has no capacity, no ability and probably no intention of staying anywhere near it. All you do is keep spending as items come along.
Our ability - and anyone’s ability - to analyse the budget in what it projects to achieve and what it actually achieves is almost non-existent because, frankly, you cannot even keep up with the GST. You have $39m in GST more than you predicted just for the year alone since the budget. There is also a note in there that you expect about another $32m as well. This is on page 13:
- For 2004-05 the estimate of total collections has been revised upwards by $808m ...
This is Australia wide.
- This increase is partly offset by a $45m reduction to correct for an over payment of GST revenues … The
higher collections reflect continued strength in levels of national consumption ... If realised, the additional
collections translate to an additional $32m in GST revenue for the Territory in 2004-05.
Therefore, $37m came in out of the blue, on top of even the amounts that were far in excess of what Percy Allan predicted. Then, on top of that, there is another $32m going to drop down. No wonder you have money to spend. No wonder you can stand up here and say: ‘We bring out the biggest spending budgets that the Territory has ever seen’. No one has ever been in a situation where they have had so much disposable income coming in that they can spend. The reality is, when it comes to what this government actually does, all you do is hold your hand out. John Howard provides, you spend - you do. You are spending far in excess of your ability to meet your own fiscal targets. Ditto, ‘We have revised our fiscal strategy to achieve a fiscal balance’. Not for 2005-06, but 2012-13 I think it is now.
I believe this mid-year report is just another indictment of this government’s inability to manage the economy. It is a heralding statement of wasted opportunity for Territorians, and of the inability of this government to improve the economic prosperity of Territorians. That is what we will be taking to the election, and that is what I will be making sure that Territorians understand over the coming weeks and months.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, really, I would have thought that, after 14 months out of the position, the Leader of the Opposition - or the new recycled Leader of the Opposition - probably would have spent a bit more time out in the community to see actually what is happening in the economy. His contribution this evening would have us believe that the economy is somehow in a hole or going backwards and that people are leaving the Territory in droves. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why the opposition keeps talking down the economy and perpetuating the myth that people are leaving the Territory in droves is beyond me, because the sentiment I get when I am out and about in the community is that people are doing very well, the economy is going well, and private sector investment in the Territory is the strongest that it has ever been. The business community is certainly showing that they have confidence in the economy, and they are investing. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the way back to government is to talk the economy, the Territory, and the confidence that there is around the place at the moment down, then I believe that he really is on the wrong track.
I was not going to speak in this debate tonight, but I could not leave aside an opportunity to demonstrate very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition how dangerous is the path he is taking. If you look at some fundamental economic indicators, they show you how wrong the Leader of the Opposition is.
I will look at the property market, the real estate market. Real estate is a fundamental barometer of how any economy is performing. Transactions in investments in new real estate is a fundamental barometer of the economy. That the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite do not know that real estate is going gangbusters at the moment; that we have seen about a 20% growth in property values across Darwin and Palmerston in the last 12 months - how that can occur when the population of the Territory is leaving in droves? - is absolutely confounding. I urge members opposite to go back to uni and study Economics 101.
I urge members to get - and I am sure the Opposition Leader’s office subscribes to this - the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory’s Real Estate Local Market Analysis December 2004 Quarter:
- House prices continue to grow. Vacancy rates lowest on record for the December period.
Vacancy rates lowest on record. The population, according to the Opposition Leader, is leaving the Territory in droves, but we have the lowest vacancy rates for the December period on record. I will read from this analysis:
- Overall vacancy rates for both houses and units in Darwin were the lowest recorded for a December quarter.
… While vacancy rates increased from the September 04 quarter of 3.8% to 4.1% in the December 04 quarter,
this is a reduction of 2.5% from the December 03 period of 6.6%. This is, indeed, heartening when compared
with the December 01 quarter …
When the Leader of the Opposition was the Chief Minister:
- … when vacancy rates reached 12.7.%.
Mr Burke: You were there then.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, within a couple of months.
There are some other graphs in there that show what vacancy rates were around the Territory. If we are looking at about 4% now, it was nearly 13% when we took government. The analysis that, all of a sudden when the Labor government came to power, people left the Territory in droves - well, the fundamental economic barometer, which is real estate, does not show that. It goes on to say:
- … couple this with the abundance of rental stock that have come on to the market since 2001 …
Therefore, not only do we have the market as at 2001, we have had an enormous amount of residential construction since then. Who is living in all of these units and houses that have come onto the market?
- REINT would suggest that this is another indication that the economic climate in the Northern Territory
continues to be strong.
The Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory is not some sort of Labor think tank propaganda glossy brochure machine; this is the fundamental barometer of what is happening in our economy. The myths that the Leader of the Opposition believes that he can win the election on, to try to convince Territorians that somehow the Territory economy is not performing and people are leaving in droves - who are investing in property like they never have before, who are seeing their property values go up, and vacancy rates at an all-time low - well, go out and try and sell that message, because Territorians are not fools.
I will quote other pieces in here. The Leader of the Opposition should get a copy of this. I would have thought that he would have been pleased that the Territory economy is doing well:
- The house sales market:
- Overall … the median house price was steady from the September quarter …
That is for Darwin:
- … that comes off the back of six consecutive growth quarters. Interestingly, the lower quartile is now at a
record high that demonstrates the growth in house prices at all levels of the housing market.
How does that work in an economy? If you believe the Leader of the Opposition people are leaving in droves; the economy is in free fall; we have missed the boat; and everybody else is on an economic growth, but not the Northern Territory. How come housing prices are at a record high and vacancy rates are at a record low?
- Vacant land sales market:
- Land releases Territory wide continue to draw interest and are selling rapidly.
It goes on to talk about all the subdivisions where land is for sale. All these land releases are testament to consumer confidence in house/land packages. Why does the Leader of the Opposition insist on talking the Territory down when Territorians have confidence in our Territory?
There are a couple of interesting charts here, if you want to look at comparisons in the economy between when the Leader of the Opposition was last on the Treasury benches and where we are today - again, a very significant barometer of the economy. We have house vacancy rates here. Here is a graph - again, a real estate monitor, not some Northern Territory ALP publication - that shows in June 2001 in Darwin, when the Opposition Leader was last in government, house vacancy rates were somewhat over 20% as opposed to around 4% now. Again, if you look at unit vacancy rates around the same time – this is your record, Leader of the Opposition - we have unit vacancy rates at around 25%. How on earth all these people have just left the Territory since we came to government is beyond me.
Again, we can see why the Opposition Leader, when in government, was fixated about government building this and that. Fundamentally, as business minister, I am very pleased to see that the private sector is investing - and investing with confidence because they will know they will get a return. By cutting taxes, providing the capacity, and making the Territory business community competitive, we can see that investment is returning strongly to the Northern Territory. It is private sector investment that will lead this economy. The public sector is there to build infrastructure and to boost the economy during slow periods, but it is good to see private sector confidence out there and strong at the moment. The private sector is not silly. Business people are not silly. They do not park money in investments and expect to lose. They can sniff the breeze, read the economic indicators and understand what is happening out there in the economy.
Again, I was not particularly prepared for this debate, but I could not believe the planning notices in last Friday’s paper. Everybody you talk to at the moment wonders why all these units are going up and where all these people are coming from. Well, they are obviously here, given the vacancy rates. In last Friday’s paper, we have approvals for another 61 units to go up in Darwin. There are some business people out there with confidence. They are not proposing to build those units and have them sit empty because people are leaving the Territory in droves. They are building with confidence because they know the economy is growing and will grow for many years to come, given the investment in the large projects, the rebound in tourism and the Territory’s competitive position.
If the Leader of the Opposition really believes he can go to the election and try to convince Territorians that black is white and white is black, and the prosperity that is here at the moment with people sitting on rising asset values is somehow some sort of myth, well I say bring it on. The people I talk to out in my electorate are very pleased with how the economy is growing at the moment. Yes, we have problems; there are skills and labour shortages. We are looking at strategies to address that. However, there are much better problems than having no work, which was the economy we inherited when we came to government just over three years ago.
Madam Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s statement today. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to get out there a bit more, understand what is happening, and look at some of the independent commentators and analysts who are completely at odds with his blinkered view of the world. I support the Treasurer’s statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it needs a couple of ministers on the other side of the House to try to talk up the government’s position on this economy - not about the economy out there. Business people out there now exactly how they are faring and they are not faring well at all. I have more opportunities than many across the Chamber to meet with business people. I will not , say every one of them, but the bulk of them are bemoaning the fact that this government does not seem to know how to manage the business of governing.
You have $2.5bn, or thereabouts, to spend each year and you do not even know how to use that sort of money to create an environment where business will prosper. That is your responsibility and that is what you should be looking at. Instead, you spend it on things that do not seem to show any benefit for Territorians. We have had years and years of zero economic growth, a population decline until just recently when you can claim a 0.3% population growth. That was based, primarily, on a lot of babies born in remote Northern Territory. For them to become productive, it is going to be at least a minimum of 15 years of growing before they can get anywhere there.
The high unemployment is for everybody to see. We all know it is there. For the last 10 months straight, we have had increasing unemployment. Industry cannot get workers because they are not here in the Territory; people are leaving the Territory. We know that Alice Springs loses a family a week, and that is why the community suffers. The turnover of trade has decreased because of the lack of population. The GST is flowing to the Territory at such a level that some commentators have said it is akin to the level of federal funding that came to the Territory in the early days of self-government. What happened in those days? The money was spent on infrastructure, on building the Territory. Today, we see none of that.
I do not dispute that social and welfare programs need to be supported, but do it so that we can see some real benefits for Territorians. We have not done that at all.
This side of the House does not talk down the economy. This side of the House is critical of the government, asking the government to produce the goods for Territorians. If you do not do that then, obviously, as business improves, the multiplier effect improves the whole scene. However, if it does not, you create the reverse spiral.
The minister for business talked about property sales and how well property prices have risen; it has risen in Alice Springs and in Darwin. A lot of that property is sold to interstate investors where they see they are getting properties at much lower price than they can ever pay for in New South Wales or Victoria. That is how the properties are moving. When you ask a Territorian whether they are going to do the same thing, that is another question.
Over the last few months, the government has announced increased expenditure. They have decided to spend money on the Alice Springs Hospital - $8m. I am sure my colleague, the member for Araluen, will speak more about that. In education, this minister is going to spend another $10.5m this financial year in the new program of his. Petrol sniffing is to get another $10m. That is nearly $30m of extra money. Where is it in the budget? Nowhere to be seen.
As the Leader of the Opposition observed earlier, when you create a budget, you plan to stick to the budget. You plan to stick to it in a way that is open, transparent, and accountable so that everyone in the Territory can follow where the money is going and where it is coming from. Right now, we have no idea. All we know is that, obviously, the Treasurer’s Advance is going to fund some of this. It gives you an impression that every cent that John Howard sends, this Treasurer in the Northern Territory tosses it into a pool in the Treasurer’s Advance and then feeds off it as he feels that these projects need to be funded.
The Bayu-Undan project, as reported by the media, peaks at 2004-05 or this year. It means that on the graph that you see, it starts to come downhill, the downward side of the graph. So what else is on the horizon, minister, to keep your economy going? I do not see anything there. If you do not improve the population in the Territory over the next few years, things are going to look really bad. We need figures about GST. Obviously, GST is based on population figures and, as the Northern Territory’s population growth is slower than the rest of the states and territories, our share of GST is going to decrease. Then you are going to be in big trouble because you are not going to have the flexibility of the GST flow that is coming in now to fund your unplanned expenditure.
Our gross state product has shrunk, as has been noted by a few people, while, in the rest of Australia, it has grown. For the last two years, if you look at other states and territories, all their businesses are prospering. Here we are, missing out on the growth that Australia has. We are the frontier, we should be looking at the fastest growth of the lot because we have 100 years of catching up to do with other states and territories. Yet, we are not. While under the CLP in the early years of self-government and later, we were catching up with the rest of Australia. That is why the economy of the Territory was improving. Suddenly, over the last three years, the whole thing has stalled and now we are not getting very much.
When the Auditor-General tells us what is going to happen us next week, I am sure we will have a lot more questions to ask the minister and we shall bring them forth after that.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I can assure members that I will not be terribly long. It is important to put on the public record the blow-out in the health budget, so I stand in my capacity as shadow minister for Health.
It is abundantly clear to anyone who knows figures that the health budget has again blown out; this time it is in the vicinity of $9m. Members will recall that, compared to the mid-year report in December 2003 and the subsequent May budget in 2004, there was a blow-out of $50m. The spending on health in the health budget is now $644m. If this minister’s stewardship of his department continues, that figure will increase, and will increase dramatically.
What highlights the government’s performance when it comes to operating its budget is an irrational and, at times, inconsistent approach to money management. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about. On the one hand, we are seeing truckloads of money being poured into the Northern Territory from the GST revenue - the GST, incidentally, that Labor Party members throughout the country so vigorously opposed when it was proposed and introduced by the Liberal government. This money is coming in truckloads and, yet, for some reason, the irrationality of the government is such that it seems not to be spending it or, if it is spending it, it is not spending it in areas where people can see the results. The money management by this Treasurer and, in particular, the Health minister, is irrational.
Only today, I did an interview, and then the minister followed, about the hospice. I do not know if all members heard that interview, but I do not think I have heard the minister so evasive. I made the criticism that the hospice is not going to be fully fitted out. I have been provided with a list of furniture and fittings, and it includes things like clocks, radios, microwaves, crockery, cutlery, beds, bedside tables, curtains - Madam Speaker, curtains! This morning, the minister was asked specifically, by Julia Christianson who said:
- All right then, let us list them. Curtains: does the community have to find curtains?
The minister:
- Look, I think that the things that the volunteers, Friends of the Hospice, are raising, are human things that
need to go into a building with the function that is intended for it.
I would suggest that was a completely meaningless answer. The interviewer must have thought the same thing. She went on
- Things like curtains?
The minister:
- They are aesthetic things. Essentially, if people want us to provide functional curtains, we will provide
functional curtains.
The interviewer, like me, clearly frustrated, said:
- Hang on, hang on, what does a curtain mean?
- Now the curtains could be seen as an aesthetic feature within a building or room.
This is arrant nonsense. When I bought my house, the curtains were part of the fittings and fixtures. I would suggest that is the case anywhere in the Northern Territory. Yet, in light of the increasing blow-outs and the truckloads of GST revenue that has been pouring into the Northern Territory courtesy of John Howard and Peter Costello, this government will not even make the concession about the curtains. It is this irrational spending or non-spending of money that just beggars beliefs. Can you get them the curtains, Treasurer? I reckon you would look at yourself in the mirror at the end of most days, and you would reckon that you were a pretty generous sort of a bloke. Well, can you please get the hospice people their curtains?
Mr Stirling: Least we can do. The member for Port Darwin knows all about those curtains, I am told.
Ms CARNEY: Perhaps, in the spirit of Christmas cheer - and we have not long moved on from Christmas, and I note the Leader of Government Business conceded yesterday that he still had a bit of Christmas spirit - Treasurer, that might be extended to pay for the clocks, the radios, the bedside tables.
Mr Henderson: He said ‘yes’.
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up on that interjection. Treasurer, are you saying, right here, right now, that the hospice will have its curtains paid for?
Ms Carter: The beds.
Ms CARNEY: I will come to the beds, member for Port Darwin. Treasurer, we can have the discussion here or outside. Will you pay for the curtains?
Mr Stirling : Just let me assure you, the fit-out will be funded, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Well, with great respect, I still think that that is perhaps not quite as evasive as the minister was this morning, but vaguely similar to it. In any event, that is just one thing. That was an issue that, although it has been around for a while, was current today because the minister and I talked about it in parliament yesterday, and we did it again on radio today.
There are other instances of what I describe as irrational and inconsistent expenditure of monies. We have, for instance, one of many issues in health, but an issue that the minister made comment on when he was in Alice Springs last week; that is, the question of agency nurses. We know that a memorandum from the Department of Health was sent to all nurses on the 28 January advising of changes to pay rates for agency nurses which would commence on the 24 February. A memo was sent to employment agencies saying that the changes would be effective immediately. Despite that minor inconsistency, the fact of the matter is that businesses that are in the business of providing agency nurses have been told that the rates of payments of agency nurses will be cut.
Curiously, the minister knows – well, we assume he knows – that his department have sent around a memorandum talking about the reduction of pays. When asked by the Centralian Advocate about the difficulties that this would create because of the shortage of nurses in Alice Springs - and we know about that because we know that some nurses in Alice Springs are working double and, sometimes, triple shifts - double and triple shifts. Therefore, there is a shortage of nurses; we know that to be the case. What the minister was reported to have said - and I note that there has been no correction - was this: he would prefer the pay cut to be delayed until more permanent staff were employed. My response was: it is an appalling time to reduce the rates of agency nurses. It is appalling because there are not enough nurses. Why is government - or the department at least - insisting that the pay rates of the agency nurses go down? Could it be what appears to be this curious obsession from this government on occasion of wanting to save money? At a time when there are not enough nurses on the ground, the minister, with the implied consent of the Treasurer, is wanting to save money by paying agency nurses less. This has serious consequences for the health profession because what it will mean, I am told, is that fewer agency nurses will make themselves available. Members will appreciate that agency nurses are paid handsomely - some would say – or certainly at a higher rate than permanently employed nurses. If it is not made worth their while, then they will not drop everything to go to work.
This is but one example of the irrational approach to spending: lots of money, huge budget and, yet, there is an obsession with reducing with the pay rates of agency nurses. We are not seeing the results for close to $650m. There are, again for example in Alices Springs, 1500 people - 1500 people - waiting for elective surgery. Some of them have been waiting some time. One, a constituent of mine, as he was so frustrated that his wife needed elective surgery and she was in a great deal of pain, decided to head south. This is the sort of stuff that a government - any government worth its salt - should be able to fix. Yet, 1500 people are waiting for elective surgery just in Alice Springs. The breast screening clinic is closed much of the time in Alice Springs. We have patients waiting in trolleys, some for as long as 15 hours, at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I would have thought that, with a budget of $644m, we would see better results and better services. However, we are just not seeing it. Ultimately, my view is that the responsibility lies with the Minister for Health, but I would have thought that the Treasurer, having been a long-time Territorian, would know enough people to receive the message that the punters are not seeing the results. For $650m, where are the results? We cannot see them, and I am sure that that information has come to the Treasurer.
However, the Minister for Health has said publicly, and I quote: ‘My life is such a blur sometimes I do not know where I am going next’. I suggest that the Minister for Health should do something about his health to ensure that his life is not a blur. If he is not up to the job then he should stand down. I believe that his stewardship of Health has been utterly appalling, so I rest the blame with him. There have been irrational and inconsistent approaches to money management. He gloats, on the one hand, of $650m for Health. Well, we want to see results. All of us in the Chamber want to see results. However, the difficulty is that we cannot see them. We have bizarre situations like the Hospice and Palliative Care Association will need to fundraise for curtains.
Treasurer, can you do something about this? Can you please grab the Minister for Health and say: ‘$650m - where are the results? We cannot see them’. I really wanted to confine my comments to health issues so, accordingly, I will finish.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for contributing to this debate, particularly the member for Araluen whose contribution I did enjoy. I do not often enjoy what she has to say in here but it was relayed, I thought, in fine spirit tonight, which is good to see.
The Leader of the Opposition was somewhat less positive and enthusiastic and talked about squandered opportunities and the Northern Territory having missed out on the economic boom. One wonders. We know he was out of action a little for a couple of years. Even so, as a member of this House, whether you are on the front bench, the leader, or sulking on the backbench, one would have thought that you would have seen and paid some acknowledgment to the efforts that this government has put in to rebuilding the Territory and its services after the condition he left it in, in mid-2001.
The papers all show us over $120m extra has gone into health in the time that this government has been in place. Why was it necessary to inject that level of extra funding? It was because the service had become so run down under the previous government. Similarly, there is $75m to police over a period of years and an extra 200 police into the service - a service that was almost brought to its knees by a recruitment freeze in the early 1990s and a failure to lift the funding to the requisite levels to provide for a decently manned and properly resourced police services. There is $27.5m into tourism to put the Territory back onto the map after 11 September and SARS and terrorist attacks to our immediate north. In those three budgets that we have brought down, there were record infrastructure spends in each year. There is an extra $42m into education announced yesterday to strengthen outcomes in secondary education. This is not a squandering of the GST, as the Leader of the Opposition would have it.
In terms of growth, the LNG plant is well under way, the G3 expansion at the Gove has made an absolute flying start - over 600 people employed. That will build to a peak work force of 1700, which we will not even see until into next year. The waterfront development is not far away. That is going to change the face of Darwin forever, providing jobs in construction over a long period of time, and permanent jobs in the precinct as each of the stages are completed.
The Leader of the Opposition has made a couple of comments over the past few days about disposable income, and that Territorians had the highest disposable income under the CLP and now no longer enjoy that. Well, we need to put this on the record and get it straight. The Territory has consistently, throughout the mid-1990s until today, had the second highest disposable income per capita in Australia. In 1999-2000 under Chief Minister Burke, it was $23 428 per capita compared to the ACT with $30 961. In 2003-04 under Chief Minister Martin, it was $28 029 with the ACT at $38 173. The relativity has not changed one iota. Gross household income per capita is also interesting. In Chief Minister Burke’s time, we were No 4 in Australia behind the ACT at $39 912; New South Wales, $29 972; Victoria, $29 457; and the Territory at $29 287. Today, in 2004-05, we remain fourth behind the ACT at $48 900; New South Wales at $35 900; Victoria at $35 500; and the Northern Territory at $35 211. The problem we have with statistics and records like that is that they are always available, so if you want to reinvent history a bit and say: ‘We used to be the highest and we are now no longer the highest’, the record is there for all to see. The Leader of the Opposition needs to recognise that those facts can be dug up fairly readily.
It is always good to have a third party endorsement when you are talking about the health of the economy. Access Economics is a noted economic forecaster and commentator in the community, and their December quarter findings tell us that the population is once again growing, the tourists are back in numbers, and a recent lift in job vacancies points to better news on the employment front in the next year so. Most substantively, new projects are already taking the slack including the LNG plant at Wickham Point, while Gove and the Darwin waterfront will kick into gear in 2005, suggesting investment ratios will recover:
- We suspect the Territory’s housing construction recovery has a way to go and that retail may also outperform
its national equivalent, with both these key demand components underwritten by an expected continuation
of the lifting population growth seen of late.
Access Economics sees good average output growth rates ahead for the Territory:
- Prospects for the Top End’s housing sector appear to be brightening just as the national picture turns sour.
Housing finance levels have nearly trebled in the past two years. Building approvals have surged through the
second half of 2004, both reflecting the long expected pick-up in population growth, as does the recent decline
in rental vacancy rates. We, therefore, expect 2005 to be the best for some time for NT housing construction activity.
- Several large resource projects have turbo-charged the engineering construction sector, including the second stage
of the Bayu-Undan development, including Wickham Point LNG plant and the associated pipeline valued at $3bn, and
Alcan’s $2bn Gove aluminium refinery expansion. With those in the bag, the value of resource projects under way
will exceed the value of those in active planning and, yet, the outlook still contains further potential including the
methanal production facility, development of the Blacktip gas field, and an onshore gas pipeline from Blacktip
gas field to Gove. The latter may cost $560m and has been dubbed the trans-Territory pipeline.
Access Economics, December quarter last year - not a bad story that they have about the Northern Territory economy.
The Opposition Leader also has been on the record the last few days saying: ‘What sort of a government is this that gives just $6.7m assistance to business and has the audacity to spend $10m and $10m of Commonwealth money as well on petrol sniffing programs for Aboriginal youth?’ He cannot even get the base facts right.
The payroll tax shifts over the past two years alone, including this year, to take effect on 1 July, are $7.2m in their own right, so his base figure is wrong. I do not know what he considers $160m in training over three years from the government, including the Jobs Plan and the apprentice incentives up to $7700 per employer is. How does he consider that as not in some way assistance to business in skilling the work force and giving business an opportunity to have those skills come into the work force for them to utilise productively? Of course, it is assistance to business and industry that they readily appreciate.
We do not, as in other states and territories around Australia, levy land taxes, fire services, and ambulance levies. In New South Wales alone, a land tax on business is levied at around $7000. Therefore, if you want to consider what it might add up, to applying them across the Northern Territory, we get to a figure of many millions of dollars, which is not there on the top of business. It does represent a real saving to business in that sense, because it is revenue that accrues to every other state and territory government in Australia, but not here.
Regarding population growth, the Leader of the Opposition talked about declining population. Well, he is now five quarters out of date. We have had five consecutive quarters of population growth, that suggests we have turned the corner. They are modest increases, I acknowledge, but it does show, after five quarters, that the trend is reversed. That is in the face, of course, of some very questionable methodology about population measures. The mid-year report also turns up growth factor from 0.3% to 0.5%, but we are now running at 0.7%. That may be the figure, and perhaps even higher, into the future if they do not get too optimistic.
It is a bit rich also for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest this is a government that cannot live within its means. He was the leader of the government which falsified budget estimates inside the Health budget. He blew his last budget when he was in office to the extent of $126m, when he told Territorians and this parliament that the deficit would be just $12m. All of this at a time when the Northern Territory economy had all but collapsed.
The member for Araluen said: ‘A massive blow-out in the health budget’. We are talking about a budget of $635.362m, and she says there is a massive blow-out because it shows that they are $9m over. If she read a little more closely, she would see that $6.9m of that is a carry over of funding from 2003-04; therefore, hardly a blow-out there because it is monies that were not expended in 2003-04. Why not? In part, they could well have been - and would have been - late receipts from the Commonwealth received by the Territory very late in the 2003-04 financial year, too late to expend and acquit, so they carry forward into the 2004-05 financial year. They could have been items ordered in the 2003-04 but not received or paid for by 30 June, the end of the financial year, and simply carried forward into 2004-05. However, to describe a ‘massive blow-out’ of $9m in a Health budget of $635m when, in fact $7m of that is a straight carry over – and I refer her to where it says quite clearly ‘carry over of funding from 2003-04’. That is what that means, for the benefit of the member for Araluen: that is money that was there for 2003-04, it was not spent in 2003-04 and carried over into 2004-05.
In relation to the hospice, let me assure the member for Araluen that this government will fund any fit-out that is required, including the curtains, if they are of a concern. I would imagine that curtains would be a normal standard part of the fitting.
I thank Treasury for the job they do in the support that Treasury gives to government, in general, and to me in my role as Treasurer, is very much appreciated. I am certainly no economics brains trust but, under Treasury’s steady hands, I have to admit I have learned a few things in the last couple of years. It is never easy, but things do get more readily understood over time. Treasury are, by nature, conservative in their approach. I believe it is a good thing, because you never know quite what is around the corner. If we go back to about March or April last year, with just a flick of the relativities that came into play, the feds suddenly removed $48m out of our budget - not just that financial year, but each financial year into the future until the relativities are renewed again. The opposition, of course, conveniently forgets when things like that occur, but occur they do, and that is why I believe a conservative approach to budget matters is a good approach to take.
Madam Speaker, I thank members who contributed this evening and, again, thanks to Treasury for the work that they do.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
STATEMENT
Explanatory Statements to Bills
Explanatory Statements to Bills
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, honourable members will be aware that, since October 2004, the Standing Orders Committee has been considering a reference from the Assembly which was moved by the member for Nelson as follows:
- The need and effectiveness for an explanatory memorandum/statement to be signed off and presented by
the relevant minister or member when a bill is tabled in the Assembly.
As Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, I inform the Assembly that the committee met during the lunch suspension today and has authorised me to advise that the committee, in reporting on this reference next week, will recommend the publication of explanatory statements at the time of the presentation of bills. It is anticipated that the report and recommendations will be debated in the Assembly next week, and at the regional sittings in Alice Springs next month. However, I am pleased to advise honourable members that the government has initiated the process to provide explanatory statements with bills commencing during the current period of sittings.
The explanatory statements are intended to assist members and the public to better understand the policy intent and key provisions of each bill. Statements will be tabled by the sponsoring minister at the time of presentation of the bill, and will be incorporated in the Parliamentary Record. The proposed format is for statements to consist of a statement of the policy intent together with the brief explanation of each clause. The statement should also serve as an intrinsic aid in future interpretation of legislation. I thank the Standing Orders Committee and the member for Nelson for their contribution to this initiative, and look forward to the debate on the report of the committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the government for converting to this idea. It has the wholehearted support of the CLP. During the Standing Orders Committee meeting today it was discussed. I want to put on the record the CLP’s appreciation to the member for Nelson, as well as to the government, for agreeing to this process. Hopefully, it will make things a lot more simple. I look forward, Madam Speaker, to reading these notes. Let us see if it makes the process simpler.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I also would like to put on record my gratitude for the Standing Orders Committee in allowing these notes to occur in legislation. It will certainly help people reading legislation. It may only be a little matter, but if we can improve the way we understand legislation, and if this change helps that, it is all for the best. Certainly, the Independents support it. We are very pleased that the government has backed it.
When it was put presented on the last General Business Day, I was probably disappointed that it was the only thing we had passed. However, it is now well and truly passed, and it is something that I hope will help members and the public in their reading of legislation and, in the long run, make for better lawmaking and legislation
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
A Fair Go for All in Territory Housing
A Fair Go for All in Territory Housing
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Speaker, one of the defining things about being a Territorian is our commitment towards moving ahead together as a community, based on social inclusion and mutual benefit. It is for this reason that the Martin Labor government has subscribed to the principles of social justice. It is on that basis we measure our success in developing the kind of community in which the idea of a fair go for all is at the heart of public policy. As I said in this place just under three years ago, a critical element of social justice policy is that the people of the Territory should have access to the essential services, in which there is fair access to employment, education, training, health care, housing and child care.
Of these, access to adequate housing is of critical importance to a social justice policy, as housing is fundamental to our people’s capacity to enjoy good health and take advantage of educational opportunities and, thus, achieve positive employment outcomes. If we are all to enjoy the benefits of our unique Territory lifestyle, access to decent adequate housing must be a prime objective of government. That is why this government, and I as minister responsible, have concentrated significant public resources to the issue of housing in the Northern Territory and why, in turn, those resources had been picked up by the private sector in building enterprise and employment. Furthermore, the increased private home ownership that has been fostered under this government will make significant contributions to social stability and a sustainable population base.
In 2001, we took on a legacy of neglect of social housing - a neglect that has been directly reflected in social problems. Over many years, thousands of tax and rent paying Territorians have been living in substandard houses that have never been the subject of any kind of formal policy of concerted upgrade renovation, or even half-decent maintenance. Added to that a policy - if you can call it that - was in place of selling off public housing stock willy-nilly. Indeed, between the years 1997 and 2001, 622 public housing buildings were sold in Alice Springs alone, without a single dwelling replacing them. In that period, 46 one-bedroom dwellings, 57 two-bedroom, 476 three-bedroom and 43 four-bedroom dwellings were sold out of the public housing market in Alice Springs - a total of 1760 bedrooms were removed as a resource for the people of Central Australia.
The fact that many properties were through sales to public housing tenants was one thing; the fact that there was no attempt to replace Alice Springs housing stock was a travesty of good management of our public assets in the Northern Territory. What is truly alarming is the social and moral bankruptcy of the approach taken by the opposition to social housing. They behave as if treating our fellow Territorians who are public housing tenants as human beings is a crime. The kind of knee-jerk responses that the opposition would encourage - like the indiscriminate sale of public housing - simply will not work. It is unfortunate that the members opposite prefer to arm themselves with flimsy opinions and wild assertions, rather than facts.
Recent independent and authoritative research identified four principles relevant to the circumstances of the Northern Territory:
- selling off public housing does not reduce crime or antisocial behaviour;
social strategies such as community policing, family/community conferencing and domestic violence
programs are associated with strong reductions in crime;
effective social strategies work through whole-of-government and integrated collaborations; and lastly
areas with falling crime had strong community partnerships in place. This can mean greater police presence,
a range community-involving strategies and early intervention programs.
These are precisely the strategies we are pursuing.
When we formed government, I was deeply concerned about the state of housing and the approach that had been taken. I wanted to see a strategic direction, a way of thinking about housing that rightly placed it as integral component of economic and social progress, not as an afterthought. That is why I developed a new direction for housing in August last year: Home Territory 2010.
Home Territory provides direction for increasing the supply and range of affordable housing options across all tenures. Home Territory has provided an avenue for encouraging a significant increase in the number of people in home ownership. Home Territory has increased the level of support for ‘special needs groups’ in our community through flexible service provision, working across sectors and improved service delivery. Home Territory has improved the way we do business through partnerships across public and private sectors, using good communication and long-term strategic planning with industry. A perfect example of this is the new Housing Round Table that I chair. For the first time, the Northern Territory government has formalised a mechanism for actually talking to industry and the community about strategic housing issues.
The Northern Territory has, by far, the lowest levels of private homeownership in the nation - 44.6% compared to the national average of 66%. There are a number of historical explanations for this, as well as contemporary obstacles. For these reasons, the Martin Labor government has sought to transform the marketplace for new home buyers in our towns and cities, as well as to begin the slow process of creating new marketplaces in the bush.
Owning your own home is an incredibly satisfying experience that has far-reaching benefits. This government recognises that the person who enjoys the stability of home ownership is also more likely to be able to access employment, education and health. In turn, this increased participation in the community makes for stronger regional economies.
A major achievement in housing that has had a significant impact on the economy and on people’s lives is the new suite of home purchase assistance products that were announced on the 1 July 2004, HomeNorth. It is because we know and believe in the importance of home ownership that we launched the new scheme.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the take-up rate of home ownership in the Northern Territory is almost twice the rate originally estimated when the revamped HomeNorth scheme commenced. Its combination of low deposit rate and shared equity regimes, fee assistance loans and liberalised income levels make first home ownership the most accessible and affordable in the nation.
The new schemes have generated extensive interest, with an excellent take-up rate to date. The number of new home loans has increased by 95%, and the value of the new home loans is up by 156%. Up to 31 January 2005, 238 new home loans have been funded to the value of $33.3m, and 229 fee assistance loans for $1.8m. This is a significant increase from the previous financial year when there were 122 new home loans for $14m over the same period.
In the first seven months of the new scheme, the total loans funded – final approved loans and approved in-principle loans – have totaled 350, with 284 funded and final approved loans. The total value of these loans stands at $61 052 047, of which $43 093 584 has been actually expended. This compares to the estimate at 1 July 2004 of 250 loans in the entire year.
There have been 16 construction property loans and new units; 231 loans have gone to new home buyers, with 53 re-entering the market after partnership break-up or financial difficulties and the like - 21 of the properties were previous Territory Housing properties. Further highlights in the first seven months have included 65 new clients in Alice Springs, 98 new clients in Palmerston, and 20 new clients in Katherine.
In remote areas of the Northern Territory, the lack of private home rental and purchase markets and, indeed, commercial sales and rentals, are seen as severely limiting the amount of capital available for housing. My department has commenced discussions with land councils and other stakeholders to determine the kinds of regimes that might be developed within remote indigenous townships to overcome these problems. In turn, some traditional owner groups are also exploring ways in which they might undertake commercial housing developments on their lands. At this point, most discussions are centred around ways that section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act might be utilised for such purposes. In any case, this will be a slow process, and one in which traditional owner groups must be fully satisfied that their rights are not deleteriously affected.
While an increasing number of Territorians are enjoying the rewards of home ownership, we also recognise the importance of providing decent homes and support to those people who reside in public and community housing. The program of neglect that public housing has copped over the years before we came to government means that addressing the shortfall is huge.
In 2003, the government committed $45m over five to seven years to start the work. Works include internal and external painting, floor covering replacement, kitchen and bathroom refurbishment, bedroom and linen cupboard replacement and solar hot water system replacement. Where they do not exist, carports and driveways are being added to bring dwellings to a decent standard. We have prioritised those properties that are in the worst condition which are occupied by longer-term tenants.
During 2003-04, upgrades to 73 public housing dwellings were completed at a cost of $4m. Cabinet approved $5.7m against this program for 2004-05. So far during 2004-05, upgrades to 79 houses and units have been completed at a cost of $5m. Another 26 houses are in progress, estimated to cost $1.81m, and 140 houses are being assessed at an estimated cost of $6.56m.
The importance of feeling safe in your own home cannot be overestimated. The Martin Labor government recognised this and, on coming to office in 2001, commenced an accelerated program to provide security screening for all accessible windows on Territory housing properties. We started with the aged, the disabled, victims of crime, and have gradually worked through to the point where the program is due for completion in the 2004-05 financial year. Indeed, the final houses in Jabiru will be completed within a matter of weeks. A contract has been let to provide security screens for 61 houses in Jabiru, and the contract for Katherine has been completed. In Alice Springs, a contract for 203 houses for the Racecourse, Eastside and Gap areas has been completed.
An additional initiative of this program is to provide smoke detectors to all housing stock. Although the Building Code does not require smoke detectors to be fitted retrospectively, Territory Housing has taken this extra step to complement the security program. The installation of smoke detectors in all Territory Housing properties is expected to be completed later this year.
Over the past three years, Territory Housing has undertaken a program to upgrade or redevelop a number of major public housing unit complexes across the Northern Territory. We understand the importance for residents of having an environment that they can feel comfortable in - one that feels safe, clean and liveable. The upgrades to these complexes have included consultation across the community and with other agencies. For instance, the upgrades to Keith Lawrie are being planned through discussion with the Quality of Life Project, the Pmere Housing Group, residents, the Gillen Primary School, Holyoake and other residents from the area. These projects generally involve renovating the units, landscaping gardens, erecting high fences and redesigning hidden public spaces that tend to attract antisocial behaviour.
The biggest and most recent of these upgrades is Fannie Bay Seniors Village. The project was completed, at a cost of $7.7m, in November last year. This was an election commitment and I was proud to open the new seniors village, together with the member for Fannie Bay. Further work is to be carried out with upgrades to the remaining Kurringal complex.
Other redevelopment projects currently under way are Keith Lawrie in Alice Springs, Blain Street in Tennant Creek and Bernhard Street in Katherine. Works at Blain Street in Tennant Creek are targeted for completion by October 2005. The works at the Keith Lawrie flats complex are being planned, with a contract due to be awarded in April 2005. Works at the Bernhard Street flat complex in Katherine have been slightly delayed due to contractual difficulties, but we are under way with a new contractor for completion later this year.
The government takes a serious view of noise and nuisance complaints. While we are very keen to allow people the space to enjoy their own home environment, if they start impacting on people around them because of relentless nuisance behaviour, we want Territory Housing to take a tough stand. It is a difficult job, and I know that sometimes it can be difficult to bring about the kind of immediate solutions that some might wish. However, through clear legislative and policy guidelines and good proactive stock and tenancy management, we have a good chance of stopping problems before they start.
In the event problems occur, our Good Neighbour policy - which is a tool to promote the message that everyone is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their home - kicks in. It provides advice on who to contact for assistance when problems arise. A Good Neighbour brochure has been widely distributed to tenants, Territory Housing offices and electorate offices, and it covers such topics as the responsibilities of a good neighbour; suggestions on resolving problems and minor disputes; how Territory Housing can help and who to contact; when to contact the police who are the first point of contact to respond to neighbourhood disturbance; provision of useful contact numbers - for example, police, Day and Night Patrols, Territory Housing Client Relations Officers, local councils and indigenous housing assistance services.
Where necessary, and from time to time, Territory Housing utilises private security operations to augment support from the Northern Territory police. A security presence is maintained at the following Territory Housing unit complexes: in Darwin we have Kurringal, Tomaris Court, Pitcheneder Court, Wirrina, Hudson Fysh, Bill Harney Place, John Stokes Square, and Runge Street; and in Alice Springs Keith Lawrie flats, Jim McConville flats, John Gorey flats and three complexes in Lyndavale Drive.
Indigenous Community Liaison Officers have recently been employed in Palmerston and Alice Springs with the express intent of working with tenants, Territory Housing tenancy teams and support agencies, to address issues as they arise. Service providers in each urban centre of Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs are contracted to support indigenous public housing tenants in a culturally appropriate manner to obtain and retain their tenancies. Tenant responsibilities are explained and, in instances where noise/nuisance issues arise, all parties work together on a resolution and ways to avoid a recurrence.
Two temporary positions have been created at Territory Housing for Environmental Health Officers. One male officer has commenced and recruitment processes are currently under way to employ a female officer. The role of the Environmental Health Officers will be to provide living skills assistance to public housing tenants who are encountering difficulties in maintaining their tenancies. The officers will also be required to liaise with community-based service providers regarding the needs of the client, and work in with the environmental health workers employed by the Alice Springs Town Council.
The Community Harmony strategy has been a hugely successful model for finding pathways out of the itinerant lifestyles. It is a direct success in the number of people it has been able to assist in different ways, but it is also a success because of the way that it has drawn people together from across community and government, getting advice and ideas from the ground up. One of the most successful strategies of the Community Harmony strategy has been the Return to Country, which has thus far assisted 2171 people to return home from Darwin and Katherine. This is a program based on a full cost recovery through repayment of travel costs from Centrelink. The government is exploring options to expand Return to Country to other regional centres.
The Referrals Centre has assisted 805 people needing short-term accommodation in the Darwin and Palmerston regions. These are people who, without this assistance, would have slept in the long grass, adding to homelessness and, potentially, antisocial behavioural problems. The Referrals Centre has also provided 1754 proof of ID cards. For these recipients, an ID card may be the only way that an individual can verify who they are, enabling them thereby to access vital health care, accommodation and other services.
Some of the noise and nuisance complaints received are related to antisocial behaviour displayed by people who are living itinerant lifestyles. The longstanding difficulties experienced with people camping and behaving in antisocial ways around housing in addition to shopping centres, parks and other public places in our regional centres, has concerned residents, the business community, organisations and government for a number of years. The rationale of the Community Harmony strategy is to find pathways out of itinerant lifestyles towards a return to home, or towards appropriate services and interventions to live more productive lifestyles in town.
The Community Harmony strategy is a whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. In 2003, I announced that the itinerant’s project in Darwin would be extended Territory-wide. Recognising that local issues and concerns require local responses, regional Community Harmony groups have been established in each major centre to identify and prioritise local initiatives. These regional harmony committees are comprised of community organisations and industry representatives, peak Aboriginal organisations and representatives from the three tiers of government.
There are number of initiatives working to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour displayed by itinerants including the delivery of the intervention strategies such as information referrals; return to home programs; community patrolling services; elder strategies and research; providing adequate infrastructure such as accommodation options, day activity centres and health facilities; and the provision of health treatment and care, such as assessment, withdrawal and rehabilitation.
As an initiative of Home Territory 2010, to assist in the improvement of coordination between housing tenures, the Housing Round Table was established. The Housing Round Table is a strategic, collaborative forum that provides an opportunity for stakeholders to gain input into the direction of housing, a platform to develop private/public partnerships that is consistent with the aims and objectives of Home Territory 2010, and the opportunity to obtain feedback on housing matters and establish ongoing dialogue from a broad cross-section of the community. The round table is not limited to public housing but includes home ownership initiatives, housing affordability issues and community and government employee housing. Participants represent a broad spectrum of the community and include banking and finance, construction, public sector and Australian government representatives. The round table also provides a significant opportunity to link housing outcomes to economic and regional development.
The inaugural Housing Round Table was held in Alice Springs on 18 November 2004 and the second round table was held in Nhulunbuy on 24 January 2005. I chaired the meetings which were attended by traditional owners, and invited representatives from the banking and finance sector as well as from the relevant housing stakeholders from the construction industry and non-government organisations. At these meetings, there was significant dialogue with participants and a wide array of constructive and positive issues were discussed.
Another key element of Home Territory 2010 is the development of a homelessness strategy to provide coordination and direction for a whole-of-government and community-based response to homelessness. Agreement has been reached between my department and the Department of Health and Community Services on a joint approach in the development of such a homelessness strategy. The terms of reference are being prepared for a collaborative working group to develop options for a Northern Territory homelessness strategy in consultation with officers from within government and the community sector.
Proportionately, indigenous housing construction is one of the Territory’s key industry sectors with $100m going into capital and recurrent funding in the current financial year.
More importantly, new developments being undertaken in the life of the current IHANT agreement with the Australian government has an increased focus on indigenous employment and training in the bush, where the need is so acute. The IHANT budget for this financial year has been increased to $70m through the receipt of additional Australian government funds. These increased funds will allow IHANT to achieve the following: construction of an additional 70 houses; conduct of a $5m upgrade/renovation program in five major communities; spot purchasing of land and housing in both the Alice Springs and Darwin regions; and the development of a new subdivision in the Port Keats-Thamarrurr region.
The efforts of the Northern Territory to highlight the indigenous housing crisis have also been recognised on the national front. In December last year, I tabled a Northern Territory position paper National Issues in Indigenous Housing 2004-05 and Beyond at the Housing Ministers’ Conference held in Adelaide. Madam Speaker, I table that document for the benefit of members of the House.
These three key strategies were identified by the Northern Territory government and are being actively pursued with the Australian government: improving indigenous access to mainstream housing and infrastructure programs such as the Commonwealth Rental Assistance Program; an increased focus on improved housing management practices aimed at improving housing quality within communities and increasing housing asset life spans; along with substantially increased financial resources available through the indigenous-specific housing programs.
IHANT has made significant inroads through the implementation of its housing management program. This program ensures that housing organisations, regardless of whether they are local governing bodies, regional authorities or resource centres, adopt and maintain good housing management practices. Currently, 46 out of a total of 70 organisations have approved management plans in place and are receiving IHANT funding, together with the accrued benefits of improved housing management practices. A key element of this program is the enhancement of the home living skills of people moving into community and urban housing.
For the first time, I have issued more than $10m to assist indigenous community housing organisations to undertake repairs and maintenance to their housing stock. These IHANT funds were matched with rental funds collected by the indigenous community housing organisations. In all, over $20m was spent maintaining community housing during the 2003-04 financial year.
Congratulations are due to IHANT - ably led by Des Rogers and, more recently, by Michael Berto - on the leadership role it has taken in the areas of indigenous employment and training. The central remote training and employment strategy has moved into its third year, with 16 apprentices currently undertaking Certificate III in general construction. A new building team has been established at the Amoonguna community, and a further four building teams are currently being recruited to work in the Thamarrurr region.
A further IHANT initiative involving the progressive implementation of a regional construction model will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction program and provide greater opportunities for indigenous employment and training.
Over the last 12 months, IHANT has been looking towards the future with a view that it be well positioned to continue to provide quality housing and housing-related services. Indigenous leadership and participation is critical to the success of our indigenous housing programs. While there is considerable uncertainty about the future of ATSIC and indigenous representation through ATSIC, there will continue to be an important role for indigenous community housing organisations, community government councils, and regional authorities in the planning and delivery of sustainable indigenous housing services.
In conclusion, as I have stated before, a house is more than just a roof over your head. It is a place where you and your family should feel secure. The role of government in housing is twofold: first, to provide the kind of economic climate in which the take up of private home ownership is made easier; and second, the provision of a helping hand to those who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to access that market. This is at the heart of what this government has been doing over the past three years, and what we shall continue to do.
Since this government came to office, we have delivered substantial progress in the housing sector for all stakeholders. We have begun the process of addressing years of shameful neglect of our public housing assets. We have delivered tangible benefits to both Territory Housing tenants and to industry through our extensive upgrade and urban enhancement programs. We have opened up new and exciting pathways to home ownership through the extraordinary and continuing success of HomeNorth. We have addressed antisocial behaviour constructively and robustly through the Territory-wide rollout of the Community Harmony project. We have started to develop solutions to the vexed and troubling issues of housing shortages in the bush. Importantly, we have developed a visionary and comprehensive policy framework, Home Territory 2010, which will underpin this government’s continuing commitment to social housing in the next decade and beyond.
This government’s coherent and visionary policy framework and array of innovative program initiatives contrasts with 20 years of neglect, short-sighted policies, inadequate budgets and reactive dodging and evasion in the face of enormous housing needs across all sectors of the Territory community.
In contrast to the previous government’s shameful record, I am proud to assert that the Martin Labor government’s housing policies speak for themselves. However, we recognise that there is still much to be done.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House, and move that the statement be noted
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the minister, of course, has followed the standard pattern of abusing the old CLP government: ‘They did nothing. I will get on saying what a great deal I am doing and go through the statement, all the stuff I am doing, and then I will finish it off with a quick swipe of the former CLP government. So everything that goes wrong is not my fault, and everything that goes right is’. Okay, fair enough, that is politics. Let us actually start to investigate what we are talking about here and what is going on.
I begin with rejecting, absolutely, the whingeing about the former CLP government the minister has decided to engage in. Rewriting history for purely political purposes is not going to solve any problems. I am not suggesting that the minister is not doing things right. The HomeNorth stuff that is happening is very good. It was a policy that was started originally by the CLP government and, to the credit of this government, they have expanded it, lifted thresholds, etcetera, to make it work in the current environment. I am delighted that so many Territorians are taking up the opportunity to own their own homes.
It is worth investigating here, looking at the statement in its entirety as a starting point, because what we are talking about here is the philosophy. The minister started out by making philosophical comments about the principles of social justice; this is what his position is going to be in relation to the development of his housing policy. Good. A great place to start, stating your direction, because what happens is that the social commentary, the vision statement, ‘This is what I am going to do’, then forms a direction for the bureaucracy that works under the minister. That bureaucracy then has to put the minister’s vision into place. Sadly, the problem with setting a vision like that and then expecting the bureaucracy to kick in behind is that, from a ministerial point of view, what I would expect the minister to do is make an effort to actually examine what is going on.
The minister said these are the principles that guide him. He believes in social justice and those are the principles he then set down for his bureaucracy, and he expects the bureaucracy to pursue the principles of social justice as he has outlined them. Then, what has the minister to do? What the minister has to do after that is revisit, examine and inspect how those principles are working. However, to do that you need a minister who is actively involved in setting policy directions for his department. This is where the minister is not quite coming up to scratch. I believe it is worth examining the statement to give you an idea of what I am talking about.
The ‘recent independent and authoritative research’ that the minister refers to is actually a report called Linkages between Housing, Policing and Other Interventions for Crime and Harassment Reduction in Areas with Public Housing Concentration. Volume 1. Main report, a 107-page document. Mind you, there are probably about 70 or 80 pages of substance to it. I do not have the whole report in front of me. It is a report I read a while ago, and it is upon this report that the minister is basing his whole approach to housing in the Northern Territory. It is important to know why the minister is making a third ministerial statement in relation to housing in the Northern Territory in the space of 12 months. It is because the minister is reacting to pressure that he is feeling - especially coming out of Alice Springs – from the failure of public housing to effectively settle itself down into the rest of the community. Of course, what he is responding to is the stated position of the CLP - me - saying that I am prepared to sell off housing stock until the problem goes away.
This is the barb for me, as far as the minister is concerned because, in the conclusions to this document - this ‘authoritative research’ that the minister refers to - it quite clearly states that selling off housing stock in isolation does not fix your social problems. Very good. So far, from the minister’s perspective, everything is going swimmingly. My policy, according to the minister, is not going to work because ‘authoritative research’ clearly demonstrates that selling off housing stock does not work. This is where I urge the minister to start using some of the old grey matter and burrowing back into the philosophical approach.
The minister has to understand that, once he sets that agenda, the bureaucracy will find ways to make that agenda work, and then serve up to the minister those things which demonstrate the minister’s correctness. If the bureaucracy is worth its salt, it will also point out those areas where the minister is falling short. The minister, ultimately, makes the decision as far as policy is concerned but, at least the bureaucracy, I would expect, is being honest. The minister is clearly saying: ‘This is the path I want to go down’.
The policy document that we are relying on was, basically, looking at high concentration of public housing in urban areas in different places in three states of Australia. In that particular document, they did surveys, walk throughs, crime reports, and a tick-tack with the coppers to give them statistical information on what was happening in these areas. Clearly, simply selling off the housing stock into private hands does not fix the problem.
Never have I stated it is part of CLP policy that selling off the housing stock is just what we are going to do, without suggesting that there are going to be further responses. What I have said is that we will sell the housing stock to the point where the crime problem is alleviated, and then use the proceeds from that to put in place programs and other stock which is appropriate to the environment particular to Alice Springs - or wherever it is happening in the Northern Territory.
The fact is that this report talks about major metropolitan areas. Therefore, what the minister is trying to convince us to do is to cut and paste out of this report - which was done in major metropolitan areas down south in three different states - and then template that straight across the top of housing policy in the Northern Territory. I pause there briefly because I want to come back to that approach.
When I looked at the problems in Alice Springs and at the history of Alice Springs, it was clear that housing stock has been sold off in the past. As the minister quite correctly points out, large amounts of housing stock were sold off by the former government. I point specifically to three locations: the Bloomfield Street addresses, 109, 111, 107, if memory serves me correctly; the South Court flats; and Madam Speaker will, doubtlessly, be aware of Nicker Crescent and the flats that used to be there, Cawood Court. Those were the three government housing stocks that were sold off.
If the assumptions in the report on which the minister bases his whole policy are correct, crime problems in Bloomfield Street, South Court flats and Cawood Court should be as bad as they ever were or worse. Curiously, that is not the case. I have spoken to many police officers. I was a police officer at the time when we had to police those places and, on some occasions, those places would have deserved their own police force in their own right. Yet, in spite of what this document says, the premises show much, much improved rates of crime. Indeed, Cawood Court - which was a disaster area at one stage - is now a rather swish, privately-owned bunch of flats. Therefore, why is there a difference between what the minister asserts based on this report - and I believe you have a copy of this particular report floating around somewhere, Madam Speaker - and the results in Cawood Court, South Court flats and Bloomfield Street? The fact is that templating a report from large areas of southern states into Alice Springs is not so clever.
Why would the sale of private housing stocks in places like New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia lead to unchanged or worse crimes rates, and why would it, in Alice Springs, work better? The fact is that, if you think about the mechanics of how this works, the people who purchase these flats and houses in these tenancy schemes down south have no intention of living in them. These premises are often purchased so that the landlords can put their own tenants into them. By virtue of the fact that they are already in low socioeconomic areas with low values, the tenants you are going to get into these private dwellings are, generally, going to be the sort of tenants that you get in low socioeconomic areas - fact of life. It is certainly outlined in this report that the outcomes you get when you put large numbers of people into one place in low socioeconomic areas is poor social outcomes. It makes sense that selling off the private housing stock in large tenant areas down south is going to provide worse outcomes.
Therefore, what is the difference in Alice Springs? Well, many of the people who have purchased South Court flats, in Nicker Crescent, and in the Bloomfield Street flats bought to move in there. They move in there and they own the premises. That is quite different to what has occurred in these places down south. Also, if you look at the Lyndavale Drive area of the Larapinta area - which is really the thing that has driven this minister to report to this House on these particular issues and state his position - in amongst all of those - let me think - 100, nearly 200, publicly-owned dwellings, there are private dwellings. It was those people in those private dwellings who own them and live in themselves - we are not talking about other tenants - who became very angry at some of the outcomes of having large amounts of people coming into town and living in these public houses or even visiting in these public houses.
The other thing about this particular report upon which the minister bases his whole policy approach, is that nowhere in it does it deal with tribal or traditional people from Central Australia moving - in large numbers, often against their tenancy agreements - into houses in Alice Springs. It is a completely different social environment. Therefore, the minister is templating the report from down south into the Alice Springs environment without any regard whatsoever for the environmental change and the social differences.
For a minister who spends so much time criticising, carping and focussing on the social differences between indigenous and non-indigenous people, surely he could turn his mind to the issue of what is going to happen in Alice Springs when some old women, for argument’s sake, are moved into public housing in Alice Springs. The cultural demands on those women - and I can give an address: 11 Zeil Street, up until about 2002. For a couple of years, there were some old women who lived in 11 Zeil Street. How do I know this? I lived at 42 Zeil Street, just down the road. I watched them. There was no problem with those tenants; they were quiet, well behaved and worked very diligently trying to keep the place under control and clean. Good, not a problem. The problem was on the weekends when half of Yuendumu would turn up - or half of Willowra or wherever they would come from - to this house. There were some 60 people on a weekend evening or on a week night, suddenly living in and around this house - in the front yard, the backyard. There were camp fires going, cars parked all over the place, alcohol, screaming and yelling, and those sorts of things.
This is where the problems are occurring in Larapinta. When you have people in Larapinta who suddenly say, ‘I have an invasion of people into the house next door,’ they are talking about huge numbers of people turning up and camping at these places and causing all sorts of trouble and damage.
To base your policy on a report which takes none of these things into account, and then say, ‘This is what I am going to do about in accordance with the report’s conditions’ is a case of comparing apples with oranges. This is the problem. What the minister needs to do now is go back and inspect the results of this policy. He is choosing not to because, if he does, he might find some conclusions which confront some of the underlying expectations that he has in relation to the social outcomes that he wants.
The minister’s response from the last time that this was introduced in this House was to complain about black bashing, basically. His response was to say: ‘So long as the people who move in next door are not Aboriginal ...’. I do not care what colour a public housing tenant is; what I care about is the outcomes for (1) the housing stock, (2) the people who live in the area and, (3) the people who are the genuine tenants of those houses.
My policy approach - the one that the CLP will take forward to the next election - is to find an appropriate way to deal with this. The minister says we have to have a whole-of-government approach. It involves Community Harmony project, the police, and other government agencies to focus on getting these things sorted out. I agree that is the approach you have to take but, in this instance, you have to go one step further. You have to create an environment by using the income from the sold housing stock that is much easier to control and, then, through all of those processes the minister is talking about, you create an environment which is controllable. At the moment, it is not controllable in Alice Springs. It is the failure to control and to effectively plan that is causing the minister’s department and the minister to pull up short.
I urge the minister to re-visit this issue and say: ‘Right, we are going to find a way in which the interventions we plan are going to be effective’. At the moment, they look like a bandaid on an amputation rather than an effective way of dealing with the shortcomings in the environment which it occurs.
Here is another little furphy that I wish to touch on very quickly in relation to the minister’s statement. It is the claim in the statement that he has increased resources through his diligent work. Well, frankly, I do not know what he is doing in budget Cabinet, but I often get the impression that he must be asleep. I would like to investigate, very briefly, and demonstrate to this House, the minister’s track record in gaining funds for his department. It is true that, in the last financial year, the minister enjoyed an increase in the amount of money he was able to obtain. If you look at the estimate from 2002-03 for Public Rental Housing Assistance, and compare it to what was in the budget in 2003, it shifts from $85m to $87m. The budget has increased by that much over that period.
However, what is interesting is that the minister, although claiming increases in funding in the last year, did not turn his attention to the year before, where he was receiving much greater funds. The minister has basically said: ‘Look, the four-storey building got knocked over by the Treasurer two years ago, but I will not mention that. Last year it was a vacant block, this year I have a one-storey building’. Well, the fact is that the minister is not increasing funding in the long term at Territory Housing, or through housing assistance and the like. He has actually lost money from two years ago and he has made a little back. This is his great defence of housing in the Northern Territory for the job that he is doing. When he finds that he does not have enough money to achieve things, his first thing is to scream at the federal government: ‘You owe us $850m so that we can build houses in remote communities’.
The minister needs to start being realistic rather than just playing politics, saying what a great job he is doing, and bashing up on the CLP. Let us get some real outcomes. Let him go into budget Cabinet and get some real dollars for the people of the Northern Territory and the housing assistance programs that he wants to run. That way, when you go to operating expenses from the Budget Paper No 3 of the 2001-02 year, which is over $100m, to the next year, which drops to $95m, and, the year after, goes up to $98m, he will not have to sit here and try and make up stories about what a great job he is doing. He might be able to report that he is doing a great job and he is getting more money for his particular department. It reflects on the quality of the minister on how much he is able to extract out of the Treasurer during the budget Cabinet process.
The processes that the minister is also talking about regarding his social justice processes seems to put most of the pressure on government to provide most of the services. However, in these days of mutual obligations - hands up, not hand outs and those sorts of things - further pressure has to be put on the tenants as well. I believe simple things like keeping your house clean and keeping the peace in your community should lead to incentives, and penalties if you fail to do those sorts of things. I am not afraid, as the next minister for Housing, to stand up here and say I will apply penalties for those people who will not comply with their tenancy agreement.
The Tenancy Act is something that needs review. You have given notice, Madam Speaker, of a proposal to change the Tenancy Act. I have given notice of a proposal to change the Tenancy Act. Even on the Notice Paper, the minister has actually mentioned something, if I am not mistaken, about changing the Tenancy Act. Therefore, clearly, it is an act that requires review.
Here are a couple of other furphies that I want to talk about. The minister has said what a great success the Community Harmony project is, and we are flying 2000 people back to their communities, and they are paying for the cost of transport. Well, the fact is, minister, that they are coming back. That is another problem that you have not addressed; that you have gone to all this trouble to get people back to their communities, but they are coming back. If the minister thinks that his strategies are working, I urge him to have a look at page 141 of the police annual report. It is interesting to note that in 1999-2000, 11 000 people were taken into protective custody; the next year 13 000; the next year - when they came into government - nearly 16 000; and the year after that 16 000 - this is while the Community Harmony project was running and this has been reported to the parliament - and last year, nearly 20 000. We have an increase in the last four years of 8000, an increase of nearly 100% - 80% let us say - in the number of people taken into custody. If the minister’s programs are working so well, why are the police arresting and taking into custody 80% more intoxicated people under the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act than they were four years ago?
If the Community Harmony project is working so well, why are there more Aboriginal people in custody now than there ever were under the so-called mandatory sentencing regime? Why is it that the Attorney-General has to boast in this place about how many Aboriginal people he has in custody? Why is it that all of these inconsistencies exist between what the minister says in relation to the great job they are doing in Community Harmony and, when you inspect the cold hard figures, the Attorney-General comes up with a different story, and the minister for police provides a different one again. That is something that causes me some concern.
Something that leapt out of me was a little phrase in relation to liberalised income levels. I am not entirely sure what the minister means here but, on my first reading, I thought it actually meant that liberalised income levels meant that everybody was getting liberally more money. I presume that liberalised income levels means that thresholds have been changed to the HomeNorth scheme to allow more people to take advantage of it. I seek the minister’s clarification on that.
However, it is worth noticing the ABS figures from 1994 to 2004, the last 10 years, since we are talking about liberalised income levels. I have a graph that comes from ABS figures from February 2001, which has two lines on it. There is a red line and there is a black one. On the red line, that was the Territory average income level for February. The black one shows, quite clearly, the Australian income level for that period. You will notice that, up until about August 2001, the Territory’s income levels line was above the national average. In August 2001, it goes dead flat whilst the Australian average keeps going up. All of a sudden, they cross. For the first time in seven years, the two lines cross - shortly after the election of the Labor government. Then what happens is that the red line, the Northern Territory’s average income levels ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the member please table the graph he is talking about?
Mr ELFERINK: Of course, I will. I am intending to.
Ms LAWRIE: I have just asked the member to table the graph.
Mr ELFERINK: I am happy to, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You can table it when you finish your comment.
Mr ELFERINK: With great relish, I will. Hopefully, the government will pay attention to it.
The black line continues to be Australia’s average income level, average weekly earnings; the red line remains the Northern Territory’s average weekly earnings. Guess what? Since they were elected, the Territory’s average weekly earnings have fallen consistently and completely below the Australian average. Here is where the rub is in the ministerial statement. The minister says the government has two roles in getting people into houses, and one of those roles is to ‘create an economic environment in which people can afford housing’.
Well, the teachers, as we saw on the news tonight, are screaming for pay increases and talking about strike action against the Labor government so that they can afford to live in the Northern Territory more effectively. Why is it we are starting to see more industrial action under a Labor government than was happening under the CLP government? The industrial action and more disharmony is because of figures like this. This is the problem that this government is running into. I urge the government and the minister to pursue exactly what he was suggesting that he had to pursue; to create an economic environment in which people can buy their own homes.
Would it not be amazing and wonderful if they chose to sell off the housing stock in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs and the current tenants would buy them as their own homes? Would that not be great? Then, I tell you, they would look after it a whole lot better than it is being looked after now. However, sadly, of course, if those people want to buy their own homes, they have to part with $120 000 to buy a block of desert in the middle of the largest island in the world and the smallest continent.
This government likes to dress things up but, when you start looking at cold hard figures and move between the rhetoric that ministers and this government, and particularly this minister, bring in here, and drill into what they are actually talking about like social outcomes - well, here is a social outcome that I would like to see improve: home ownership. You are doing some things in those areas. Let us do more.
There is another thing, while I have a few minutes. I read a book over the Christmas period called The Birth of Plenty by a fellow by the name of Bernstein. He has no political persuasion which is apparent at all, and does not much care what people think about what he writes. He does a very good job examining the world economy and how plenty - wealth - is generated. It requires four things. All four must exist. Scientific rationalism I do not want to touch on; democratic rights is not something that is absent; and communications and transport infrastructure is not absent. There is one pillar that is missing in so many places in the Northern Territory; that is, property rights. Individual property rights is essential to the growth of wealth, and that is something that the system of land management on Aboriginal land trusts deprives people of because they cannot have individual property rights.
I congratulate the minister’s steps on trying to do some long-term leases. I look forward to the day when people can buy their own homes in places like Hermannsburg, Wadeye and Utopia.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the graph.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to talk on the statement from the minister; basically, on two issues. I will not be talking about all the issues that the minister has covered.
Adequate housing must be a prime objective of the government. That is true and is a fine objective. However, to have a house you need land. It seems there are problems in relation to that very issue. Firstly, it seems that although Aboriginal people own at least 50% of the Territory, they have the lowest home ownership. Aboriginal people own all this land that they do not have to purchase. You would think they would easily be able to own a house because they would only have to purchase it, and not the land as well as most of us have to.
A number of times, I have said in this House and in the media it is time that the mechanisms were devised where Aboriginal people could take advantage of what the rest of us can do; that is, obtain a loan and buy their own house. They should not wait in a never-ending queue to get the next available house or live in a house with other families all crammed in, in appalling unhygienic and dilapidated conditions. They should live in their own home, where they can make their own decisions, live their own lives, and be proud of what they own.
The minister has made great mileage out of the HomeNorth scheme. I am not saying that cynically. I believe it is a great scheme, minister. However, very few Aboriginal people can take advantage of that scheme. Therefore, I welcome the minister’s statement where he said that his department has commenced discussion with stakeholders to overcome some of these problems. Then the minister said: ‘This will be a slow process’. Whilst I realise that traditional owner groups need to be protected, I ask why this program has taken so long to get going. After all, the minister was in the Northern Land Council for many years and would know the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act backwards. It is disappointing that something has not happened earlier, because the queues are getting longer and Aboriginal living conditions are still appalling.
Perhaps the whole issue of Aboriginal land and the way it can be used by the owners needs to be looked at. We are still waiting for the outcome of proposed changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. What are they going to be about? We have issues about the ownership of parks before us in parliament, but are there other options or does the land rights Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act make it impossible to think outside the square? All I am saying is perhaps it is time to give Aboriginal people more say in what they want to do with their land and allow more them opportunities to use for their economic advancement, including owning their own home.
Even if there are no changes to Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which presently would not allow personal ownership of land, why cannot land be leased from traditional owners? Surely, there must be a way to make it happen? If it should mean radical changes, why not discuss it? What is the point of owning your own land just to live in dilapidated conditions of abject poverty and poor hygiene? Maybe if there was more housing in the bush there would be less of the need for people to come the urban area and try and find accommodation in public housing or someone else’s public housing.
Minister, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has been around for a long time, but the world moves on. Perhaps it is time to do some radical rethinking to allow some innovation that, hopefully, will allow for solutions to the acute housing problems in our communities. Why should Aboriginal people not have the same rights as the rest of us? Why can’t they own their own home? Why can’t they pass their home onto their children? I get the feeling that we rightfully gave people back their land, said goodbye and then left Aboriginal people to live on that land courtesy of welfare.
Mr Kiely: Aboriginal people live in Wanguri and can buy their own house, Gerry. You should not generalise so much.
Mr WOOD: The member for Sanderson knows to whom I am referring.
Mr Kiely: Well, say it, Gerry. Anyone living in an urban property can buy it, be they Aboriginal or Italian.
Madam SPEAKER: You can talk later, member for Sanderson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Sanderson. That is bleeding obvious and, if you were listening to my total argument, I am referring to people on Aboriginal land. You just have to keep in tune.
I reckon it is time to ask Aboriginal people what they want, give them options and see whether we can make some changes that will produce positive changes, especially in regards to housing. If we do not do something, Aboriginal people will be on waiting list forever.
The second aspect about land is its price - and this refers to people outside of Aboriginal communities, member for Sanderson. As I said before, you cannot own a house if you do not have land. It is the price of that land that I am concerned about, especially in the rural area. Land prices had sky-rocketed over the last couple of years. This may have been due to a shortage, high demand from people wanting to get out of the Delfin lifestyle, or developers knowing that they can now get high prices for land and charging what they like. Land prices, for instance, at the far end of Herbert in Bennington Road - which is upper Humpty Doo if you do not know the geography of the rural area - are now being advertised at between $100 000 to $120 000 per two hectare block. Only a few years ago, it would have been half that price.
I do not believe that the cost of developing subdivisions has doubled over the last five years. However, when I see the developer put on the development consent form that the cost of subdivision will be about $800 000, and know he is going to subdivide the land into about 60 to 80 blocks, each selling for at least $100 000, I have to wonder if the price of land is a rip-off. A return of $8m on an $800 000 investment is a mighty big return. There may be some amongst you who say: ‘Well, that is market forces. That shows our economy is growing; that the real estate industry is booming. Isn’t it great?’ But is it?
Real estate is not really an industry. It does not produce anything; it just sells and resells land, which can be chopped up into smaller bits and sold again - and subdivided until we get down to 300 m2 blocks if we are not careful. The real estate industry makes its money out of land sales and the higher the price, the more money they make. Fair enough, but is that good for a young couple trying to buy their first home? The booming real estate market may be good news for investors and for sellers, but it is making it harder for families to buy a home in a reasonable price.
The minister might say there are record numbers taking up the HomeNorth scheme, and that is great. However, if you have to put half the loan into buying just the land, then you have to have a very small house or, if you want a bigger house, you have to stretch your loan repayments so that both partners are working flat out to cover repayments. Does the government have a role to play, influencing the price of land and helping first home buyers? May I suggest that the government develop some of its own land, such as the Howard Springs forestry land, and make that land available with conditions for first home buyers. Surely, government does have a role to play in making land available for its citizens.
I have never agreed to the change by the government some years ago to sell off Crown land to developers to then develop. Land automatically became dearer, blocks became smaller, and brochures became glossier. The price of land was higher because the developer had to add the cost of the original purchase price of the land to recover costs. Previously, the government would design the subdivision, engage a company to build the infrastructure, and then auction off the land with a certain number of blocks to be set aside for first home owners, which were capped at a certain price. This certainly happened in Palmerston, and I think it happened in most of the northern suburbs. This meant land was available at reasonable prices, and the blocks were a lot larger than they are today.
I believe the government should go back to opening up some of the land it owns, and give people an opportunity to buy land at a reasonable price. I do not believe they are inappropriately interfering in the market; they are assisting the market by allowing more people to spend less on land and more on a home, which will do more for the economy than just sitting on a piece of land. We may brag about the booming economy and think it is great to have high prices; however, with all the land in the Northern Territory, surely affordable housing land should not only be achievable, but a right. To get back to what your heading of tonight’s statement says, we need a fair go for all in Territory Housing.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I participate in debate to thank the minister for this statement, A fair go for all in Territory housing because, surely, as Territorians, we do believe intrinsically in a fair go. History speaks for itself in that there have been large sectors of our community who really have not received a fair go in housing in the Territory. It is not blame that I will sheet home to any individual. I know that, in the past, there have been ministers responsible for the portfolio of Housing who have gone into Cabinet and fought very hard for a fair go and a better deal in Territory Housing. Unfortunately, their voice was not always heard. I am really pleased that, in our government, the voice of our Minister for Housing has been very loudly heard and, importantly and critically, responded to.
Housing is one of our basic needs in life. It is right up there with education and health. If you have adequate shelter, you have a far better ability to cope with what life presents. People who do not have shelter - our homelessness in society - are among the most disadvantaged. Depending on the type of shelter, it really does set your social circumstances, and often affects issues such as health and access to education. Underpinning a fair society and equity within society, is the need to provide housing to our society’s most disadvantaged. In providing housing to the most disadvantaged, we call it public housing.
I represent a community in Karama and Malak that has a significant swathe of public housing. The public housing is in the vicinity of 600 homes. Living in those homes are our aged on pensions, people with disabilities on pensions, young families, single mothers with kids, and husband and wife with kids, doing it tough. We have indigenous, non-indigenous, Filipino, Thai, Timorese, and Chinese. Truly reflecting our multicultural society are the tenants of the public housing in Karama and Malak. There is diversity in the public housing we have. We have single-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, three-bedroom houses, and four-bedroom houses.
The range of public housing that is in the electorate has been there for 20 years. The densities have been, to my view, too high in the past. I have enjoyed working with the minister and his department to get some of those densities down to what I believe to be socially acceptable levels. The minister has provided us with figures in his speech and in document, to indicate that, where you have a reduction of densities, you have a reduction in social issues. That is accepted throughout Australia. I have seen it apply in a very practical sense in my electorate in the last three years. Streets that had in the vicinity of 12 or so public houses and are now down to almost half that amount, are far more presentable and a lot quieter now. Enjoyably, it has given young families who have difficulty meeting the financial access to home ownership the opportunity to buy public housing at the cheaper end of the housing scale. People have been picking up dwellings for around $160 000. It has crept up in the last two years; you are looking at around $200 000 now to purchase a public housing home. However, it really has given young families who are starting out in home ownership the opportunity to enter into ownership.
I have seen the minister encourage his department in managing, quite appropriately, the housing stocks to provide an opportunity for families to enter into home ownership, while looking at the mix of densities amongst our community and throughout our suburbs, and, particularly in a micro-management sense, within our streets. I congratulate the minister and his department for what is an incredibly difficult job of managing those housing stocks, as previous Ministers of Housing would appreciate. I have seen a growing awareness, not only of just how to manage the housing stock, but the real need to manage the tenancies, the people within the housing stock. It is people we are here to serve as elected members of parliament. I have been delighted to see that there has been an increase in the appropriateness of managing people.
I have had concerns in the past about how people from non-English speaking backgrounds were managed: was there cultural appropriateness in how they were spoken to and treated by various managers within housing? I have a great joy to stand here this evening and report to the Chamber that, in my discussions with public housing tenants from a culturally diverse background, they are saying that it is vastly different treatment they are receiving today in 2005 to what they were receiving under previous policies - treating people with dignity and accepting that they have issues in their life that might, from time to time, cause the tenancy managers to have to come and talk to them about whether they have slipped into arrears, whether there is a change in the numbers of people living in the house, and a whole range of changes within policy. The Good Neighbour policy has been explained to tenants. It is how you approach people. The feedback I am getting is that there is a great deal more fairness within the system regarding how people are being treated.
Karama and Malak have a large number of indigenous Territorians living in public housing in the electorate. I have found that, on the whole, it has been an harmonious environment. I have heard, with interest, in the debate in the Chamber the concerns about Alice Springs and what happens there. Obviously, I represent a quite different constituency because, on the whole in Karama and Malak, even though we have high densities, we do not seem to have the degree of antisocial behaviour issues. I am not saying that we do not have any. I do know that, from time to time, we have real antisocial behaviour issues within specific tenancies in the electorate. I also know, though, that we get in there and manage it. Residents come to me and highlight that the neighbour at No X has family coming in, there are loud parties, the grass has not been mown, the house is looking trashy – all of those issues that people present to their local member. Obviously, straight away, I am on to the Department of Housing and am alerting them to the concerns. I watch Housing go in and manage that tenancy and, importantly, the tenants within the tenancy. The tenants are clearly told that they have a great deal of responsibility about their behaviour and how they keep the house and yard. Over the last couple of years, I have seen real improvements in the responsiveness of tenants to that management.
I want to thank Yilli Rreung. I know they do a great job in helping the Department of Housing manage indigenous tenancies within our Darwin urban environment. They work very closely with HOME a Centacare program that assists indigenous tenants to understand how to live in an urban home environment and care for those homes. I have found both those programs have been of significant assistance in managing antisocial behaviour within the suburbs. I know the staff in Yilli Rreung and those HOME programs are very dedicated to working with people through the myriad of social problems that they might be enduring; whether it is mental illness issues with members of their family, which have been acquired through years of substance abuse, or whether it is children who have gone in and out of the education system and have problematic behaviours because of the challenge in trying to deal with an education beyond their capacity and their age level. Those programs, I know, are intrinsically linked now into the way tenancy managers manage tenancies in my electorate, and they have been enormously useful and helpful.
I want to also thank the Danila Dilba social wellbeing service. I know the counsellors in that service have assisted quite a few of my residents in public housing tenancies to deal with anger management issues and rowdiness, and to accept their responsibility to be good neighbours within our urban environment. The staff in those programs are doing a great job. Importantly, the staff in Territory Housing recognise that they are at the coalface, the front end, and they are very much needed to do the appropriate referrals to those agencies.
However, this comes about through policy change and it is a policy change of Home Territory that brought this about. I really do thank the minister for Home Territory 2010 because it gave the agency of Housing the ability to say: ‘We must do these referrals. These are the triggers we have to deal with. These are the agencies we are bringing in’. Home Territory 2010 underpinned that approach and provided the resources and funding for the staff to pursue that approach. I am seeing real improvement in my electorate as a result of that approach.
Importantly, though, you do have to look at your housing stock and the condition of that stock. Anyone who has gone doorknocking around the suburbs - whether it is Darwin, Alice Springs or, indeed, Katherine where I have doorknocked in the past, member for Katherine - the housing stock is embarrassingly dilapidated. I have been shocked at the physical condition of some of the housing stock that I have seen in those centres. Fortunately, the government has recognised that. We are sticking our hand up and saying, ‘Unacceptable’, and we are going to improve the housing stock. $45m over the next five to seven years will be spent on improving the public housing stock. It is called urban renewal. I want to indicate in a real sense and reiterate what the minister said that means.
Works that will be undertaken in homes include: internal and external painting; floor covering replacement; kitchen refurbishment; bathroom refurbishment; bedroom and linen cupboard replacement; solar hot water system replacement and, where they do not exist, carports and driveways are being added to bring dwellings to a decent standard.
Prior to this program, I did not see carports in public housing. I certainly had to fight like anything to try to get a cement driveway, because they were all dirt in my area. If you were lucky, you got a bitumen driveway. Now, they are putting in decent cement driveways. What does that mean to a family? What that means to a parent is that, when it rains, the kids are not trudging through mud, and you no longer see toddlers sitting out playing in mud. As we know, mud is dangerous in the Territory. You can pick up diseases and have absolutely horrifying health consequences with melioidosis and the like. Something as simple as a cement driveway actually means significant improvements to health and a reduction in the risk of horrendous diseases.
As we know, whether we are living in Darwin, Alice Springs or Katherine, a shaded carport area makes a world of difference to the standard and quality of your day-to-day life. There is nothing harder than getting a group of kids out to a car that has been baking out in the hot sun for about six hours, and literally pile everyone into what amounts to an oven. That makes your life difficult. As well, in Darwin, we have the issue of all-weather access to our front door. Things as simple as a carport make a huge difference to people’s day-to-day lives. If you lift people’s physical environments and the conditions in which they live, and improve those conditions, sociological studies show and have borne out and proven to be the case, that behaviour improves.
We are not just willy-nilly going around and fixing up every house we can see. I know that Territory Housing is very closely managing this urban renewal program. They are not rewarding bad behaviour. People who have failed to meet their responsibilities as tenants in the past are not going into significantly renovated homes. However, good tenants who are doing everything they should in the responsibilities as tenants of public housing are the recipients of these renovated homes. They are the mums and dads, the battlers with the kids out there. They are the aged pensioner who has been doing it tough. They are the disabled person in the wheelchair. Yes, they are the recipients of these renovated homes. Isn’t that a wonderful scheme?
In Karama in 2004-05, we have benefited from six homes being renovated and three homes in Malak - a total of nine homes with an expenditure of $720 000. That is a fantastic spend within just the small communities of Karama and Malak. We have one home being renovated in Malak at the moment, with work under progress, at a cost of $65 000.
It is a fair program and it is being spread around. For example, in the electorate of Blain, held by the opposition, 17 houses have been renovated in 2004-05 at a cost of $1m; in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate of Brennan, six houses at a cost of $425 000; in the member for Araluen’s electorate, three houses are under way at the moment at a cost of $478 000. Therefore, it is not a program that is being treated unfairly; it is a program that being appropriately managed throughout the Territory and the spin-offs are enormous.
You are seeing streets physically improving. Where there was a run-down house, an eyesore, next to people who had private ownership who really tend to their garden and improve their houses, and you renovate that eyesore, the entire street looks good. People are then proud about where they are living and the sense of community is lifted. I have seen that, in a real sense happen, within the streets, courts and places of the electorate of Karama.
Importantly, also, the subcontractors out there are getting great jobs. I have had feedback from tilers, painters, cleaners, cement layers who are all saying they love this urban renewal program because the tenders are being let out in bite size, small size amounts, that gives all of them the chance to get the work. They absolutely sing the praises of this program. It has kept a lot of the subbies who live in my area in decent and sustained work since it was introduced in the 2003-04 budget. Let us face it: it has about another five years to run. That is fantastic. I hope that this sort of program never finishes because you will always need significant maintenance to public housing.
It is great that this comes off the back of a government commitment to provide security screens to all Territory public houses. That commitment has practically been met, with final security screens going into Jabiru, Katherine and Alice Springs this year to finish that program. On top of that, the department, with the minister’s encouragement, has put smoke detectors into all Territory Housing properties. Again, this is expected to be completed by late this year.
Security in your own home is a fundamental right. People ought to feel safe in their homes, and to be given security screens and smoke detectors is a very basic need. I thank the minister for this. I remember in 2001 when I was doorknocking, I spoke to a young mother and asked what she really needed. She said: ‘Please, if you are elected, can I have security screens? I am a mum on my own with young kids and, at night, we are scared. If we had security screens, we would feel a whole lot better’. It is the mums like that I think of now, when I know that we have met that promise. Her and her neighbour’s houses are screened. The aged person living in the unit has a security screened home. Importantly, they also have smoke detectors which, as we all know, are critical lifesavers. I congratulate the minister on that fantastic program, which has also put a lot of money into the local economy.
I also congratulate the minister on the Good Neighbour policy that we have initiated, and the brochure that has been distributed. It is something I know has to be built upon. The minister is quite up-front about the fact that antisocial behaviour exists and that there is work to be done. I am delighted to see the amount of work that has already been done and continues to be done on a daily basis by the department and the minister’s staff.
Hand-in-hand with that goes the Community Harmony project about which the minister spoke. I have seen Community Harmony work at a very local level. In 2001, Karama Shopping Centre was a problematic area. There was a lot of antisocial behaviour in and around the shopping centre, and was also the case at Malak Shopping Centre. People come up to me now and say it is so vastly different. They can go the shops and it is quiet and pleasant, and the antisocial behaviour that we saw over the years past has just dissipated enormously. From time to time, there is still the odd hot spot. There will be antisocial behaviour from time to time; we are not living in nirvana. We will not be a perfect society ever, irrespective of the resources of government that go into it. But has it improved? Out of sight, absolutely! I will stand on that at the election, and I will take on anyone who tries to say that Karama and Malak have not improved. Absolutely they have, and they are pleasant suburbs in which we live.
It is really interesting to see business showing a great deal of confidence. We have businesses moving into Karama Shopping Centre, and agencies moving into Malak Shopping Centre. They are acknowledging the work that has been done by Community Harmony by moving into areas that, in the past, they found less attractive. I thank the minister; there has been a real boost to our area and it has made a world of difference.
I encourage the minister in the work that he has announced in the Northern Territory homelessness strategy. There is not a jurisdiction in Australia without homelessness. It is, unfortunately, a part of every society and the world. However, I believe it is a true testimony to the nature of good government to have a strategy to reduce homelessness. Unfortunately, a lot of our homeless are children. I commend the minister for his statement and his actions. Yes, we have a way to go, but we are finally providing a fair go for all in the Territory.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I reply to the minister’s housing statement. I agree with him when he said we need to have a fair go for all in Territory Housing. However, when I read the statement, I was expecting to find something new and very exciting, but it was not to be, minister. Of course, the minister, as usual, takes every opportunity to project the illusion that absolutely nothing was ever done in Housing - or in any other portfolio for that matter - in the Northern Territory until he and his colleagues came along like knights in shining armour. Well, the minister, obviously, was not very observant in his younger years. Where did all the Housing Commission homes and units come from in the first place? Certainly, not from out of the sky. They were built by the CLP government.
Regarding the minister’s claim of lack of maintenance and neglect, my experience with public housing and the amount of money that has been spent on it, began when I first arrived in the Territory and began living in Katherine, which was late 1989. I began work for a construction and maintenance company in 1990 - Semrite Constructions - and was their office manager for five years until I left to begin business with my husband in private enterprise. During the time I was working for Semrite Constructions, they were the maintenance contractors for Transport and Works throughout the Katherine region, which included not just Katherine itself but such distant communities such as Ngukurr, Lajamanu, Keep River, and all in between. The hundreds of thousands of dollars that was put into the repairs and maintenance of public housing during the five years that I worked for Semrite Constructions was incredible. The minister needs to refresh his clouded memory about the history of public housing in the Northern Territory.
For the past 10 years, my husband and I have lived in an area of Katherine where we have public housing neighbours directly and diagonally behind us at both corners. Up until just after the 1998 floods, we had had great public housing neighbours, especially Nan and Don Lockley who lived at the same address over our back fence for over 20 years, with another couple who lived next door who had lived there for several years. The houses and yards of those two houses and those of the rest of that street, which were mainly public housing, were always maintained to the highest standard. Following the 1998 floods, unfortunately, things changed. There were deaths in both of our neighbours’ families which resulted in them, under local public housing agreements, of course, to be relocated to smaller houses. Other residents in that street also moved to other locations, which changed the whole face of the street. Since that time, the deterioration in the presentation of those houses is visibly evident. The present tenants, unfortunately, do not have the pride that the previous long-term tenants had. This reflects sadly for the residents in the street who take pride in where they live.
The minister also spoke of the Bernard Street flats in Katherine. The business my husband and I have been operating for nearly 11 years has the Bernard Street flats directly over the back fence of the caravan park. These flats have a colourful history, and most of it is not of the happiest kind. The amount of money that has been spent on this area just in the time we have been next door is staggering. Following the 1998 floods, of course, each one of them was completely renovated as they had been severely damaged during the flood. Unfortunately, it was within 12 months of those complete renovations that some of those units looked as though they had been through another disaster, and required massive amounts of money to be renovated once again, which was a disgraceful waste of public money. It would be very interesting to know exactly how much those particular flats in Bernard Street have cost the government over the years. I am sure it would come as a shock to everyone. I am glad to see that there are going to be some changes with these Bernard Street units, with some being demolished to, hopefully, make the area a much better place to live.
Public housing in some areas of Katherine East is causing problems with neighbours where the tenants have no respect for the property and it has become an eyesore which, in turn, devalues the neighbouring houses. Interestingly, public housing that has been sold privately is hardly recognisable now after the new owners have completely renovated them. Therefore, it was well worthwhile to have those bought privately.
The member for Macdonnell talked earlier this evening of an issue that effects housing tenants in his electorate; that is, the number of indigenous people who come to town from outlying communities, arrive at the doorstep of somebody they know who lives in public housing, and stays there indefinitely. This scenario is repeated throughout the Territory, I am sure, and it creates so many additional social problems with the additional members living in one house. It is not fair on those people who were first living as tenants in that house.
All the programs that the minister has highlighted that tenants are supposed to read and adhere to - to respect their neighbours etcetera - are really great on paper, but not too many of them are adhered to. If you do not believe me, minister, you need to come back to the real world just to see how many of those are adhered to.
I am very much in favour of the indigenous communities being as self-sufficient as possible. To achieve that, they must have an economic base and be skilled at a trade that is appropriate to their community. In the case that the minister has described in his housing statement, that would be the Indigenous Community Housing Organisation. I believe that is one way that houses could be built in communities and be occupied. The ongoing maintenance would be the responsibility of those people in the communities as well. I am sure that we would find that those buildings would be much more easily and better maintained and respected if they were responsible for the building and maintenance of them.
On another positive point, the HomeNorth scheme allows people who are on a lower level of income and would not otherwise be able to afford to buy their own home, to now have the opportunity under this scheme. It is good to see people taking that opportunity, although I agree that the price of land is definitely an issue within the Northern Territory. We seem to be matching up with the southern and eastern states now, unfortunately. However, if we can keep those prices at a reasonable level, we will be able to retain and maintain families here. It will give families stability and keep them in the Territory - and heavens knows, we are still losing so many good people.
All in all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the minister still does not understand what some of those issues are that we have in our community. I am referring especially in Katherine to the problems that we have with indigenous housing. It has not improved at all in the time that I have been living in Katherine.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister Ah Kit’s statement, A fair go for all in Territory Housing. I have gone through the statement. It is probably without doubt one of the best written statements that has been presented in this House. It outlines the philosophy behind the need for improvements in Territory Housing. It also deals with facts and figures about what the Territory government and the residents of the Territory face in housing shortages, and needs in remote and urban areas. It also deals with how we can approach that in a whole-of-government approach. Words used such as ‘social inclusion’ and ‘mutual benefit’, ‘principles of social justice’, ‘a fair go for all’, and quoting directly from the statement:
- … there is a fair access to employment, education, training, health care, housing and child care.
- Of these, access to adequate housing is of critical importance to a social justice policy, as housing is
fundamental to our people’s capacity to enjoy good health and take advantage of educational
opportunities and, thus, achieve positive employment outcomes.
I mentioned last year in another ministerial statement on Home Territory 2010, that my father was a fireman. He often said that there was a need for food, shelter and fire, basically, for people to survive. Shelter, unfortunately for many Territorians, is at the moment of poor quality and not even an option. In fact, many people, as we know, are living in over populated areas. I have done a little research on this matter. There is a document that I was able to find by the Queensland government Department of Housing. It is called The Social and Economic Impacts of Unmet Housing Needs prepared by Dr Peter Phibbs, University of Sydney. On page 7 of this document it talks about housing, health and poverty:
- In general, individuals with unmet housing needs tend to be socio-economically disadvantaged.
The National Health Strategy found that persons who are socio-economically disadvantaged
have much higher death rates compared with persons from advanced areas …
have the poorest health;
of preventative services;
- The link between poverty and health
- The literature review revealed quite a number of studies investigating the relationship between
socio-economic status and health status …
And it gives a list of different authors over many years:
- These studies all found a significant relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and higher rates
of morbidity and mortality. A key finding of one of these studies … was that the availability of public
housing tends to alleviate health problems. It was stated that ‘groups of low socio-economic status with
access to public housing tend to have rather better health outcomes than otherwise similar groups in
private … accommodation.
In another document prepared for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia – We can do it! The needs of urban dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - the conclusion said:
- The Committee believes that as a first preference and where possible, Indigenous people in urban areas
should be encouraged and assisted to enter the private housing … either as renters or purchasers.
I believe that the actions of the minister over the last few years, particularly with the HomeNorth scheme, has been fantastic. I have often spoken about it to constituents of mine in the Millner, Coconut Grove, Ludmilla/RAAF areas, Bagot communities and, generally, right across the Northern Territory. I will go into those figures that the minister has provided to this House, which reflect the uptake of the HomeNorth scheme.
The Commonwealth report goes on to say:
- … given the Indigenous population growth and its increasing urbanisation, demand for Indigenous access
to affordable housing in urban areas is likely to increase. This, in turn, will place further pressure on public
housing. The pressure will not fall until the chronic levels of poverty and unemployment also decline and
more Indigenous people can take up rental or purchase options in the private market.
The challenge for planners and housing organisations will be to balance the housing priorities of urban
and non-urban households and allocate the scarce resources accordingly ...
This is what the issue is all about. Unfortunately, the member for Macdonnell, as the opposition shadow for Housing, has come in here and tried to deflect 26 years of neglect and blame to the current minister and government. If he had a really good look at statement, it outlined all the positive things that are happening with the resources available.
The committee found that the real issue, unfortunately, is scarce resources provided for indigenous housing. How do we tackle the problem? The minister outlined the fact that we have to maximise the resources that we have available in urban and remote areas in providing private and public housing.
I will touch on the statement further, but I want to mention that, unfortunately, it is often easy for the opposition to criticise, criticise, criticise. The minister, in Home Territory 2010 last year stated that:
- … in the bush there is no private market and therefore complete dependence on community housing or
government employee housing as the only housing choices. The stark tragedy of this is that there is an
estimated $850m shortfall of housing stock in the bush. This has resulted in substantial homelessness
and gross overcrowding, with all the related social and health problems ...
- At current expenditure of around $40m a year, we are barely keeping up with demand. At this rate, it
will take over 20 years to meet unmet needs by which time the population will have virtually doubled.
It is for this reason the Northern Territory is the lead agency among the states and territories in
developing major new policies ...
He went on to talk about how he delivered a ministerial statement to the Housing Ministerial Council. In this statement, he referred to that. I believe that will add to this debate across the Northern Territory regarding housing for indigenous people who are Australian citizens. We must not forget that.
This was recognised by the member for Macdonnell in the same debate last year. He said:
- What I would like to touch on is a very small fraction of what the minister had to say because I agree that
we need to find new ways to deal with public housing in the Northern Territory. The minister has pointed
out that it is going to take $850m to get the stock up to the standard that he would like. This is not a new
problem.
- In fact, it has been raised by former Housing ministers as far back as Steve Hatton. I think $850m is a touch
on the conservative side; it would be close to $1bn required. We will take the $850m as standard.
The member for Macdonnell criticises the minister and carries on like a two-bob watch yet, last year, he had the good grace to admit there have been serious ongoing problems under his former governments which continue to this day.
How do we deal with these problems? Again, I would like to go to the minister’s statement, which describes adequately what the issues are. One of the things that he has had to address over the last few years - and I have seen the results in my electorate of Millner, which many people would know is an electorate with high density Territory housing. Many people have lived in this housing for 20 to 30 years, if not longer.
The issues the member for Macdonnell raised are substandard housing, upgrades, renovations and maintenance. Well, I have houses in my electorate that have not been renovated for up to 17 years with leaking rooves, paint falling off, and stoves not working. The reality is these guys are paying rent. If you lived under a private landlord, you would expect a private landlord to maintain and upkeep the residents he is renting. Unfortunately, the Territory government, in the past, has not been able to do this.
We are also talking about situations where people have brought up their families now, and have children who are still living in the area and contributing to the paying of top commercial rate that they would in private accommodation, and they are still not getting the proper maintenance. They are on listings and they are waiting for it to happen. I look forward to that $45m flowing out over the next few years for the urban renewal.
In the previous statement, Home Territory 2010, the minister spoke about his background, and I spoke about the fact that I was lucky enough to grow up in a house where my parents were professional workers, in an area in Millner where people lived in public housing. In reality, maybe a bit naively, I did not realise what Territory housing was until I was in my late teens. However, that housing provided people with the option to go to the Millner School, Ludmilla School, and Nightcliff High School; it gave people somewhere to live; and it definitely gave them a head start in life. Many people - black, white, brindle and purple - in the Millner electorate have gone on and become a success.
That brings me to one of the points that I want to talk about, which is the shift of indigenous and non-indigenous people from rural and remote areas to urban areas. There is an interesting document here, by Margaret Alston, called You don’t want to be a check-out chick all your life: The out migration of young people from Australia’s small rural towns. It talks about populations in rural and remote areas of New South Wales travelling to the coast and to cities. It gives some of the reasons why this, I believe, will continue to happen also in the Northern Territory, as it happens in every continent in the world, and as it happens in every culture and every country in the world. There is a shift from rural and remote areas to urbanised areas because of the resources available in the cities. In the conclusion, it says:
- If rural communities are described, economic capital development is but one ingredient. Equally important are
human, institutional and social capital. Key stakeholders should abandon their reliance on a market-led recovery
and communities helping themselves, and address the strategies needed for rural revitalisation. A message that
community self-help is the key to a community’s future is particularly simplistic, as it cannot be effective without
government and non-government support for real community development. It ignores the real need for
government and non-government investment in human, institutional and social capital in rural areas.
I often speak to my Caucus members and to government as a whole, and have said in the debate last year, that the real issue is that we have $850m shortfall in housing in remote areas, and in urban areas as well. This can only be addressed when you consider that, as I said in last year’s debate:
- One-third of the total budget of the Northern Territory is required to address these issues …
If we use the figure of $850m:
- This is on top of the fire brigade, police, education, health, etcetera. What has become apparent to me is
that the Northern Territory has a limited budget and needs to assess how best to maximise those resources
to address issues facing Territorians …
Which I believe the minister has reflected in his statement:
- It cannot fix the problems, and we cannot hide behind the reality - we cannot fix the problem. However,
what we can do is maximise the dollars we have to try to get the best return.
The real issue is how, as a parliament - members on both sides; both the opposition representative and the minister realise the enormous task in front of us - do we come together as a parliament to lobby the Commonwealth? We had a debate earlier this evening about how much money the Commonwealth is providing - or how little they are providing. Well, we can certainly see by this example of housing that they are not providing enough. Somehow, we have to campaign to make this a national issue of shame.
Regarding indigenous people being Australian citizens, we often see many examples of how we help people in third world countries overseas - which is fantastic, and the Australian community is proud of the help that they give overseas. However, we have a crisis in our own backyard - a generational crisis to do with housing and the result of the unavailability of appropriate housing. I will give an example of Bagot Community, a community in my electorate.
I was a bit frustrated, I suppose, with how to get monies to renovate houses to what people expect to have in Ludmilla, Millner, Coconut Grove, Wanguri, Fannie Bay, etcetera. We brought in someone who had the Defence Force contract. I said to him: ‘Assess this house on the requirements that you would for the Australian Defence Force families in the Northern Territory’. He came back with the figure: to fix X amount of houses it would cost between $30 000 to $50 000 per house. I said to the then building manager of Bagot: ‘How much money do we have?’ He said: ‘We have $1600 per house on CDP’. The minister spoke about the increase in the amount of money from IHANT and that is fantastic, but that money has to go to all the communities across the board.
I have a paper here called Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Australia 2004 by Dennis Truman, Australian Statistician. It says about permanent dwellings:
- In 2001 across Australia, a total of 16 960 permanent dwellings were reported as being located in 1216
discrete indigenous communities. In the CHINS …
Which is Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey:
- … an increase of 5% since the 1999 survey. These permanent dwellings which are managed by
indigenous housing organisations (IHOs) accounted for 9% of all permanent dwellings located in
discrete communities, with the remainder being government owned and managed, privately owned,
or owned by other organisations.
Therefore, right across Australia, we have this whole issue and close to 17 000 permanent dwellings that are under-funded. CDP, IHANT - all these programs - are designed to deal with these issues which is fantastic and noble. We should be continuing to maximise what we do have in dealing with that reality and try to assist and fix all the problems that we can with the tools that we have. However, as a whole parliament, we need to go hand-in-hand - and we have heard that across the Chamber from both sides - to lobby the Commonwealth government, to get proper assistance to deal with our housing needs both for non-indigenous and indigenous Territorians who, most importantly, are Australian citizens.
To wrap up, I would like to just quickly speak on the fantastic effort the minister has made on HomeNorth. This has had an incredible effect on people who are friends of mine - many of those, obviously, I grew up and went to school with who are my age; a bit older, a bit younger - buying their first house. It is a fantastic initiative. I know that, in buying my first house a few years ago, it was a great feeling. I can assure people that young Territorians and first home owners are really enjoying owning their own house.
I like the fact that the minister talked about numbers. There is often the accusation that the government can be secretive. Well, this statement is definitely far from the fact. On page 6, he said:
- The new schemes have generated extensive interest, with an excellent take-up rate to date. The number of new
home loans has increased by 95%, and the value of the new home loans is up by 156%. Up to 31 January 2005,
238 new home loans have been funded to the value of $33.3m, and 229 fee assistance loans for $1.8m. This is a
significant increase from the previous financial year when there were 122 new home loans for $14m over the same
period.
The minister went on to talk about all different regions and all different loan packages. He did a fantastic job of providing the figures needed.
I have tried to cover as many issues as I can. I love this issue of housing because it causes very complex and interesting debates about how we should deal with it as a parliament and as a government. The minister should be congratulated. With what resources he does have at his disposal, he is definitely trying new ways and is being as creative as he can be. We, as a parliament and a government, need to really focus on getting the Commonwealth to assist us in dealing with a national problem facing indigenous Australians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, members are well aware that we debated the issue of housing as a result of a matter of public importance brought on by the member for Macdonnell late last year. Members of the government may be relieved that I do not propose to parrot everything I said in that speech. However, I may revisit some matters and I do so as a local member of parliament, because I take my electorate, above everything else, very seriously. To the extent that we can judge these things, I believe that I am as in touch with my electorate as some of the best politicians in this place. As an effective local member, part of my job requires me to raise matters in the Northern Territory parliament on behalf of the people of Araluen.
Not for a moment do I suggest that every single constituent of mine shares the view of their neighbour. However, after a while, when a consistent message is being put to me, I have no choice other than to express it. In that respect, this job is not very dissimilar from the job I had prior to this as a lawyer. As an advocate, one duty is to go into court to argue a case and present facts or elicit evidence. I suspect that members of the government will not like some of the things I have to say, but I will say them because it is my duty to do so.
Having said that, in a general sense, I was really disappointed with the statement. When I heard last night that there was a statement on housing, I thought: ‘Terrific, there is going to be some initiatives in here, some attempts by government to solve the problems of bad public tenants’. I reiterate bad public tenants. Not all public housing tenants are bad. In fact, there are some excellent public housing tenants. Some of them are friends of mine; they are great public housing tenants. They actually live in the member for Braitling’s electorate. I was at their house last weekend. I believe it is appropriate that I state very clearly that not all public housing tenants are bad. In fact - and I do not know what the figures are - I suspect relatively few public housing tenants are appalling. However, the fact is that the people they affect come to me and to the member for Braitling. They probably go to most members in this Chamber to raise their concerns.
In any event, as I say, I was excited when I heard that there was a statement on housing. When I read it, it was very ho-hum indeed. I know that we are in the game of politics and political puffery, especially for this government, seems to take precedence above a whole lot of other considerations. However, I expected more than political puffery from this statement.
In the second paragraph, I was amazed that the minister says that the Martin Labor government has subscribed to the principles of social justice. From comments he makes further on that page and others, the inference is that the CLP does not subscribe to social justice. That inference is offensive, not just to me, but to my colleagues and my party. The minister should not, for a moment, take the view that social justice is the domain of the Australian Labor Party. Spare me, minister! This sort of political puffery is garbage and very insulting to people on the conservative side of politics. He goes on to talk about a fair go for all. Well, the Country Liberal Party believes in a fair go for all. The minister said that people of the Territory expect access to decent, adequate housing, and it must be a prime objective of government. Indeed, it must. I suggest that it was also a prime objective of the former government. At the same time, the fact is that people, in my electorate at least, expect that not only do their fellow Territorians have access to decent and adequate housing, but that they maintain decent and adequate housing. They take the view, as do I, that that is the responsibility of the people who live in public housing.
I am offended by the minister’s comment on page 2 where he asserts that he took on a legacy of neglect of social housing that has been directly reflected in social problems. To suggest that the Country Liberal Party neglected public housing is fraudulent, to say the least. I note, in passing, that the minister himself has availed himself of public housing in the past. I also note that the member for Nhulunbuy availed himself of public housing when the Country Liberal Party was in government. I also note that former member Maurice Rioli availed himself of public housing under the Country Liberal Party. Therefore, it must not been that neglected.
The member for Arnhem, I would imagine, probably sets himself fairly high standards. I cannot imagine him living in a little humpy with a couple of bits of tin and no running water, no bathroom, no toilet and no kitchen. Therefore, it must have been, I reckon, a pretty decent public house for him and, presumably, his family, though I do not know. Presumably, it was a fairly decent public house for him to move into.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The minister is twitchy on this point. I actually cannot hear what he is saying. Can I suggest, minister, if you are going to be fair dinkum about making an interjection, then do it in a serious way. Otherwise, it just amounts to noise on the other side, and I will press on regardless.
The minister, in his statement, also said that there have been substandard houses that have never been the subject of any kind of formal policy of concerted upgrade, renovation, or half-decent maintenance. I asked the minister to provide evidence of that, and note with interest that he has not done so. It is offensive in the extreme to come in here, as the Chief Minister did yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about projects and how she never said that gas was going to be all done and dusted by 2007 and, yet, the very next day, we produced her own document that indicated that oh, yes she did.
These statements made by government ministers in particular, should involve checking of facts. If it is a fact - if the minister seriously asserts that there was substandard houses that were never the subject of concerted upgrade or renovation - then I defy him, I urge him, I invite him, to produce the evidence. In the absence of any evidence, I can only conclude, as will others who will one day read this transcript, that there is none.
I propose to flick through the statement and pick out the parts that I believe, as the local member for Araluen, that I should refer to, and also as a member of this parliament, generally. For those reasons, I say that I am deeply offended by the assertion that:
- They …
That is the opposition:
- … behave as if treating our fellow Territorians who are public housing tenants as human beings is a crime.
Minister, as I have said earlier, I have friends who are public housing tenants, so don’t you dare try to verbal us and try to spin what you think we are saying. Clearly, you are not listening. The concerns we raised are legitimate, and to use your oft-used line: ‘Listen and you might learn something’. What we do is represent the people who are often living next door to bad public housing tenants, and we will continue to do so. The suggestion that people who live in public housing are criminals is nothing short of outrageous.
The minister then goes on, on page 3, to assert that we have flimsy opinions and wild assertions, rather than facts. Well, I will tell the minister a fact that he conveniently omitted from his report, and I am sure the member for Braitling will talk about this. The fact is that over 200 people - and I was up the back and I counted - attended a public meeting in Alice Springs as a result of their frustration with public housing tenants. The fact is these people, courageously in my view, stood up at the public meeting and told their stories. Some of them said they were being driven out of their mind, and out of Alice Springs, as a result of their outrageously offensive neighbours. Some of them were concerned about their declining property values, because the bad public housing tenants next door had a very detrimental effect, not only on their enjoyment of life but their property values. Other people stood up and said simply that their neighbours, bad public housing tenants, were making their lives a living hell. That is a fact, minister, that was not contained in your statement.
There is also a reference on page 3, to the social strategies such as community policing, family/community conferencing and domestic violence programs. Apparently, accordingly to the minister, they are associated with strong reductions in crime. Well, under this government, we have seen an escalation of crime against the person; namely assaults and domestic violence, and violence against women - sexual assaults. I do not know; I suspect it is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing because, to suggest - as I understand he is trying to say - that programs for domestic violence are working and that is reducing crime and, somehow, that is having an effect on public housing tenants, is spurious to say the least
The minister said on page 5 that the government has formalised a mechanism for actually talking with industry and the community about strategic housing issues. I say again, that neither the Minister for Housing nor the Minister for Central Australia were at that meeting. I do not care about the reason; the fact is, they were not at the meeting. I invited the Minister for Central Australia when we debated this in December to call another meeting. I think he is on the Parliamentary Record, but I certainly heard that he said he would not do that, and that he would meet with stakeholders. Well, you can meet with all sorts of people, but why do you not meet with the punters? Why do you not meet with the people who were at that meeting? I know who some of them are and the member for Braitling certainly knows who some of them are. It could be said by some - although I suspect I could not possibly say it - but some might take the view that there is a cowardice on the part of these two ministers in particular, that they refused to meet with the very angry people. I have urged them to do so because there is a filtering process with this government. Lots of people communicate with government staffers, and then the staffers filter the information to government. Well, these government ministers need to actually hear from the people on the ground.
On page 8, the minister talked about monies dedicated to improving housing. I simply make the point, and I have seen some of these houses because I have doorknocked them. I doorknock every house in my electorate unless I feel unsafe. He says on page 8 that there is various refurbishment ‘to bring dwellings to a decent standard’. The suggestion is that they are not of a decent standard or they were not when they were handed over to the tenant. I also have friends in the building industry in Alice Springs. They build and renovate public houses.
When I go doorknocking, in various streets people say to me: ‘That house up there has been renovated half a dozen times, and bad tenants move in; the place just turns to ruin, and then, the builders or the people charged with the responsibility of renovating it, have to come back and fix it all up’. I would have thought that a lot of taxpayer money - the money of Territorians - could be saved by a firm policy - and I will come to that shortly – of dealing with these tenants, rather than indulging them in the way that this government seems to do.
On page 9, under the heading of ‘security screening’, the minister referred to the importance of feeling safe in your own home. Territorians can remember a time when they did feel safe in their own home, and it was certainly prior to August 2001. The facts are that - I do not have the figures with me or readily at hand - crime against the person has risen under this government. People do want to feel safe in their own home, but the people at that meeting in Larapinta - some of whom were my constituents - say they do not feel safe in their own home - some of them in a physical sense, some from an emotional or mental point of view. They do not feel safe because they feel as though are being plagued, hounded, harassed and ground down by really bad public housing tenants living next door. I am not quite sure why it was that the minister wanted to get into the puffery of ‘the importance of feeling safe in your own home cannot be overestimated’. Indeed it cannot, but the minister refuses to deal with the facts; that is, that a lot of people do not feel safe in their home, either under this government or because of appalling public housing tenants living next door.
However, I digress. On page 10, the minister said that he understands ‘the importance for residents of having an environment they can feel comfortable in - one that feels safe, clean and liveable’. My experience is that all public housing houses in the Territory are clean and liveable when tenants go into them. Bad public tenants make them unclean and barely liveable because of their outrageous and appalling standards. However, I note with interest that the minister did not refer to that.
On page 11, there is a subheading called ‘responding to antisocial behaviour’. I was terribly disappointed with this because I actually thought there was going to be something new - something that, perhaps, vaguely resembled a bit of action on the part of government, or some ideas at least or perhaps even a strategy group who might get together to see if it can come up with some answers. However, alas, that was not the case. All we have is a statement that I will quote:
- While we are very keen to allow people the space to enjoy their home environment, if they start impacting on
people around them because of relentless nuisance behaviour, we want Territory Housing to take a tough stand.
These are real weasel words, I reckon. The minister wants Territory Housing to take a tough stand. Excuse me, but I thought the minister was the Minister for Housing. I thought that, as a minister, he might have said that his government will take a tough stand. This is delegation to public servants in a way that I do not think I have seen as obvious as this for some time. I invite the minister, in his reply, to say whether he or his government will take a tough stand, and not simply toss it over to the very hardworking public servants who work for Territory Housing.
He than made some peculiar comment about having a good chance of stopping problems before they start. I ask how, because the minister does not provide any information on that other than the reference to the Good Neighbour brochure – that is good; I look forward to receiving detailed information as to whether it has been a success – and a reference to a security presence. Well, the presence of security guards is hardly stopping problems before they start. Can I have an extension of time, please?
Ms CARTER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be allowed a 10-minute extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: I will not be long and I thank the member for Port Darwin. I am coming towards the end of the statement and, in particular, the comments I wanted to make.
The minister at page 14 refers to the Return to Country program. One paragraph is devoted to that and it borders on dishonest, really, because it says it has ‘thus far assisted 2171 people to return home from Darwin and Katherine’. I would have thought that the average Territorian would want much more information than that. The inference, or the political spin is: ‘Oh, yes, it has helped people’. All governments want to project the image of helping people, but I would have thought that Territorians would want to know the cost, what sort of response the minister makes to the allegation that we all hear, I am sure, on both sides of the Chamber, that the Return to Country program is a taxi service and that people use it as a taxi service to move regularly from their communities to Darwin and Katherine. I would have thought that a ministerial statement about housing should, in the normal course of events, provide detailed information. However, it is a bit of a common theme that we are seeing with this government. It is like the statement on child abuse,: full of statements but, if you scratch below the surface, very little in facts. I am very disappointed to see that.
The minister, elsewhere on page 14, said and I quote:
- Some of the noise and nuisance complaints received are related to antisocial behaviour displayed by people
who are living itinerant lifestyles.
That is the case - we all know that that is the case. However, it is also the case - and he did not say it really - that some of the noise and nuisance complaints received are related to antisocial behaviour displayed by people who are the tenants. Whilst we all know that members of family, in the case of indigenous public housing tenants, can create problems, the fact is that some, not all, of the bad public housing tenants - certainly in my electorate - are not good tenants themselves. I would have liked the minister to have commented on that, but note that he did not.
The minister, on page 17, talked about indigenous housing. He referred to $100m going into capital and recurrent funding. That is a lot of money - a lot of money. My view is that the government, because it is spending that sort of money, needs to account to all Territorians how it is being spent and where it is being spent and, most importantly, why it is that there are - and I see them in my electorate, and I am sure the member for Braitling does in hers as well - obviously bad public housing tenants who are allowed to remain in their houses. I said when the matter of public importance was debated in December last year that this government, like all governments, has a responsibility to all of its citizens, not just some of them.
Yes, it is the case that governments in this country have a responsibility to provide housing for people, but the responsibility cuts both ways. There is so much money, $100m, being spent on housing that those who avail themselves of public housing for whatever reason, must surely have some responsibility to ensure that they look after their housing and that they allow their neighbours to fully enjoy their lives and they do not interfere with their lifestyle.
I am disappointed with the statement. I would have loved to have seen some answers, in particular to the sorts of public housing issues that I see in my electorate. Unfortunately, none were contained in the statement.
The HomeNorth stuff is terrific, obviously. It was a CLP initiative and it is great to see this government picking it up. However, there is a difference, though, between this government and the CLP in that, with the escalating crisis - and it is fair to say that - in public housing that bad public housing tenants cause to their neighbours, results in huge public meetings such as the one we saw in Larapinta. I would have thought that the minister would have come up with an answer, that the minister would say yes, he is going to take some action, he is going to do something. For my money, this statement falls well short.
I also make the point that I wonder whether the minister is going to make a statement about housing in Alice Springs. I invite him to do so. I suspect that he will not. I would have thought - and I am sure the member for Braitling will agree - that he may make a ministerial statement at the Alice Springs sittings about housing generally. I know only a part of that is bad public housing tenants and that is the part of the statement that I am talking about tonight. As I said at the outset, I do so as an effective local member. However, if the minister reckons that everything he is doing is that good, then I invite him to make a statement at the Alice Springs’ sittings, because the people of Alice Springs should see and hear for themselves what this minister is doing in this area. At present, I know what they are saying he is doing; that is, nothing.
Good citizens require, or expect of their government, assistance with problems, the likes of which see declining property values, people taking medication to get to sleep at night, and people being afraid in their own homes. I invite the minister to comment on that in reply. If he does not make a statement on housing at the Alice Springs’ sittings, I do not think I will be surprised; if he does, I will be very interested to hear what he says.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, a fair go for all in Territory housing. Well, how about a fair go for all those who live next door to people in Territory housing? That would have been something interesting if you had included that in your statement, minister, because that is what is wanted out there in the general public.
I do not intended to dwell too long on the social problems that we have in the electorate of Braitling; I believe the minister is more than aware of them. However, I do need to put on record clarification of some of the claims that he made. Might I remind the minister, I was Minister for Housing from November 1999 to November 2000 and I acknowledge it is a very hard portfolio; it is a hard ministerial role. However, you get great satisfaction out of some of the things you can do, particularly when you solve people’s problems. That is probably the joy of being a minister in any portfolio; that you can help people and do things that change their life and make it better.
I want to give you an example of how this minister could have changed a person’s life and made it so much better. I am frustrated because I spent hours bumping into brick walls at Territory Housing, in the minister’s office, and hours trying to console people who come to me for assistance. This was a really sad case.
This is a lady whose son was in a car accident. When she rang me she was sleeping on a mattress in her son’s room in the Alice Springs Hospital because he had serious injuries – which I will not go into - and she was spending 24 hours a day by his side. The hospital was great. They allowed her to stay there and use their facilities; they even gave her three meals a day. They were doing everything for her. She had three school-aged children in Tennant Creek. She came to me and said: ‘I need to have these children with me. I need to get my family together again’. You can imagine the stress that woman was under.
I am well aware of the fundraising by their good local member that was occurring in Tennant Creek to assist this family. I know the father was coming down on a weekly basis to see his son in hospital. Here we have probably one of the most genuine cases of needing assistance that I have ever come across. This lady took leave without pay from her job at a Tennant Creek school. She is now on a supporting mother’s pension. She is there looking after her son, hoping that some improvement will happen.
When we went to Territory Housing, what do we get? Well, we eventually got: ‘Yes, you can go on the priority housing list …’, which is great, ‘… but it will be six months before you get a house’. We went to the minister’s office and what did I get? Nothing but a lot of abuse, and I am very disappointed in the ministerial staff that acted in that way, because this was a chance for the minister to be seen to be doing something, if he really cares about his people in the Northern Territory.
St Mary’s Village have come to her rescue and offered her a house for three weeks. However, at the end of three weeks, what happens? What is the point in bringing her children down from Tennant Creek if she then has to go back to sleeping on the mattress in the hospital room? Surely, even this minister could understand this was one of those cases where he should have raised all hell to help her, because it was - and still is - one of the saddest cases I have ever come across.
At the moment, she has been given bond assistance, so she is able to get private rental. However, anyone who knows about private rental in Alice Springs knows you just cannot walk in and do it like that. We have people from the Aboriginal Information Referral Service negotiating with real estate people to get her a home. There are homes that are vacant in Alice Springs. We have suggested to public housing people: ‘Why don’t you just get one of them fixed, painted, cleaned up, repaired and offered to this lady?’ However, as of the moment, unless the minister can tell me something happened within the last few hours, that mother is still without a future - still without a home that she can take her children to, and still beside her son’s bed, waiting for him to come to and recognise her, and do all those things you do as a mother. I have to admire her so much for what she has done. Of course, she is suffering herself from the stress and the anguish of what has happened to her.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree, if you were the minister, you would have done something. You would have moved all heaven and hell to help this mother. You would have cared for this woman and done something. However, this minister chose not to, and that is really sad.
In one of the areas in his statement, he said that the previous governments sold off housing stock, willy-nilly. Well, minister, that is not true, and your department should have told you that. In February 1999, we introduced income testing for public housing. We were well aware that, in the past, the only housing that was available to many Territorians was public housing. In fact, the first house we ever bought was an old Commonwealth public house – as far back as that. When we introduced income testing, there were many people living in public housing who were not eligible for it and would have had to pay full rent.
The minister talked in his statement about how many houses were sold. Yes, we sold hundreds to people who were tenants in public housing, who bought what they considered to be their home, their castle. And yes, they did it through the home loans program that the minister has continued and, yes, that is a great program. Many people could have never bought their homes if those home loans programs had not been introduced. What you have to understand is that those people who are living in public housing, who bought their homes as a result of that policy change, are now increasing the percentage of home ownership in the Territory. That is what is the minister is saying; we need to increase home ownership. Of course, this is one way of doing it.
As well as that, there were people in public housing who, in fact, moved out because they did not want to pay full market rent. They freed up houses that people on the waiting list could go into. Therefore, there was a double benefit. Although the minister says ‘willy-nilly selling off houses’, it was part of the policy and it did good things. It increased home ownership, it gave people a chance to have their own home and, in many cases, it freed up housing for other people to move into.
The minister also referred to this report. I know members probably have seen this report. He said that it identifies four principles relevant to this circumstance of the Northern Territory. I have to admit I found that a little hard to swallow, particularly as one of the examples that he leaned on was to do with Georgia in America. However, he did say that selling of public housing - according to this report - does not reduce crime or antisocial behaviour. Well, I searched through here. It does say one page:
- De-concentration is a long-term strategy but with possible short-term negative effects.
Decentralisation they call it. On another page it says:
- Crime is strongly associated with public housing concentrations.
Neither de-concentration or …
And it refers to the American example:
- … are associated with reductions in crime. Possibly, benefits were not yet apparent given the time scale
of this research. Future research should reflect on this.
Therefore, one of those statements about selling off public housing does not reduce crime or antisocial behaviour has been selectively worded from that report. I say, minister, that what you are claiming is not totally accurate.
One of the other things is that he talked about Aboriginal people purchasing their homes. I guess that is something that has been going on for many years. I am glad that the minister is pursuing it. I believe he is correct. We have to look at the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act. I am quite sure that there must be some ability to do this by offering a lease agreement, the same as we offer lease agreements on parks or something like that. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are keen for that to happen and I was keen for it to happen when I was minister. We have to find a way whereby people on communities can actually lease their piece of land, get a loan to build their own home, and enjoy the security of having that home. Perhaps that is probably one of the major steps this minister could do if he was able to achieve that: to get some sort of lease agreement.
The minister mentioned security screening. Well, can I remind the minister that security screening started in early 2000 when I was minister. However, I am pleased that he is continuing – that is good. We did not quite have the GST slush funds you have at the moment; so that is good. He also talked about the seniors village that you opened at Kurringal. Well, I am pleased because, if I recall, Kurringal redevelopment was first put forward in May 2000 when I was minister - might I add at the persistence also of the member of Fannie Bay, who was happy about that. I also opened the seniors village in October 2000 in Dick Ward Drive at Coconut Grove. Minister, it is good that you are continuing the things that are important for this Territory. However, please do not brag that you had done it all. That, perhaps, is not quite true.
You talked about antisocial behaviour and your Good Neighbour brochure. That is a joke! Community Harmony - community disharmony as far as I can see. I want to give you an example. This was not in my favourite street of Lyndavale; it was actually over in another part of Braitling. Police attended - according to the constituent who e-mailed me - on Saturday the 22nd; again on Thursday, the 20th; as well as on the 24th - all in three short nights or days. I rang Territory Housing and said: ‘Hey, there has been another disturbance in this particular street. I believe there about 40 people involved in this fight. What you going to do about it?’. They said: ‘The police did not inform us that this happened’. I really thought that one of the agreements we had was that the police would refer these matters to Territory Housing when they were called to a disturbance so they could follow up and find out exactly what was going on - whether the disturbance was caused by the tenant or again by visitors. At least let us find that out so people who are living with all this can know that Territory Housing is reacting to it.
You say the Indigenous Community Liaison Officers that you have employed are there with the expressed intent of working with tenants and it is great. I have said many times when you put someone in public housing do not wait for them to fail before you react; give them that helping hand to begin with. Make sure that when they go in they are aware of their responsibilities, their duties, the things they have to do.
This was another case, minister, which was to me really very sad. This gentleman who was in his 60s was put into a unit about six weeks ago. He is sleeping on a mattress, but that is okay, that is the way he likes it. He does have a fridge and he gets Meals on Wheels. The container from every meal that he has received is on his floor. He also smokes inside which is worse, and his fridge is full of the unfinished meals that were delivered to him. When I ring up and ask if someone could go and see this gentleman who is struggling with his tenancy, I get an e-mail back saying he was not at home. Where is this caring government? Where is this caring minister? This gentleman should not be living like this. He is old; he needs help. The funny remark they made was that his rubbish bin was spotless but, certainly, his house was not. The latest I have is that his cleaning service starts next week – his cleaning service! That is the way we solve this problem. I believe you are actually buying him a bucket, a mop and a broom.
Minister, if your Indigenous Community Liaison Officers were employed with the expressed intent of working with tenants, why are they putting a tenant in a house and waiting for this to happen before they do anything? Why can you not say: ‘I will have higher expectations of the service we are providing than what I am getting’? I know your ministerial people do not like it when I say, ‘Fix it’ because, to me, that is the simplest thing I can say …
Mr Ah Kit: What are you suggesting? Chuck them down the river?
Mrs BRAHAM: That is part of your job as minister to fix it ...
Mr Ah Kit: What do you suggest?
Mrs BRAHAM: I suggest that, when this gentleman went in, you should have made sure that he knew what his roles and responsibilities were …
Mr Ah Kit: Oh, well, put him down the creek, down the river.
Mrs BRAHAM: … that you went back and made sure that he knew on Monday night - do you want to hear the answer or not?
Mr Ah Kit: You want him down the river?
Mrs BRAHAM: … that he knew to put the rubbish bin out and put his rubbish in it; that you did not leave him to live in this filthy mess. It is as simple as that. Is it not your job as a landlord to ensure that your tenants are comfortable and doing the right thing? I am sorry, I really think you are letting many of your own people down, and that is the sad part about it.
Minister, I know it is not easy in Alice Springs. We do have that drift coming into town. We do have a number of people coming to town and we know why. I do not blame them; some of them live in terrible conditions out there. You are right; if you could get some more money through the IHANT program for the feds to build more homes for them, we would be behind you all the way. Goodness only knows that I fought long and hard for that. You would get a little and a little more, but never enough. Therefore, of course. the shortfall is there. We are all aware that that is the sort of things that is needed; they need more housing. Until we get them a house, you are probably always going to have these problems of people intruding upon the privacy of tenants and, perhaps, spoiling their whole pleasure of having a house. Minister, I say again that a fair go from all Territorians, as you said in your statement, means a fair go. I really do not think that you are taking that as seriously as you should.
Minister, I must spend hours on public housing. I really do not want to. Two of the cases I just told you about were, in fact, not even in my electorate. People come to me and I am not going to turn them away, because that is my job as an elected member: to help people when they come to me. However, that is also your job as minister: to help people who come to you and ask if you solve a problem for them.
I ask you to please do something constructive. Go out of your way to make sure that your ministerial and departmental people, if there is a really serious case, let you know. Perhaps you can think about how you can solve the problem for them.
The Territory is a good place. We have many people in public housing who are great people. We have many people in our suburbs who enjoy the town. However, I really become very concerned when I hear about people who leave Alice Springs for the simple reason that they just cannot put up with the dysfunctional areas any more. Minister, that that is something you have seriously have to think about. On the other side, you should say to your department and officers to tell you when there is a case that you think requires intervention. Do not let them make the decisions for you. You be the minister; you fix it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, as we have heard, the Martin Labor government is committed to moving the Territory ahead as a community based on social inclusion and mutual benefit.
As I get around my own electorate and, indeed, all over the Territory, no finer examples of this government’s commitment can be found in the policies and work that Territory Housing has undertaken with the guidance and foresight of a minister who has excelled in one of the most challenging but rewarding portfolios in Cabinet.
In the electorate I have the honour of representing, there is quite a diversity of households: first home owners, high and low income home owners, dual and single income families, sole parent families and the more traditional family with both mother and father. There are owner-occupied homes, as well as private and public housing rental properties. There are clusters of private units and street upon street of conventional three-bedroom homes. What we do not have in the electorate of Sanderson are estates of units under the control of Territory Housing, such as we find in other suburbs in regional centres across the Territory.
Territory Housing is tasked with a lot more than just being a tenancy manager. If you go to the government web site, I believe you will find their role very well encapsulated on the very first web page. It is a role we all need to dwell on for a moment, so that we fan fully grasp the breadth of influence that this organisation can have on all our lives; be it if we are in a government-owned home, a private rental property, or are fortunate enough to own our own home.
Territory Housing proudly and accurately proclaims that solutions to the housing needs of disadvantaged Territorians are not always simple or easily found. Housing requires a broad range of responses, and for all levels of government and the community sector to work together. A collective effort is required. We are committed to working with the community to provide access to safe, secure and affordable housing.
I would like now briefly to discuss how three fantastic initiatives, the HomeNorth home loan scheme, the Urban Renewal Renovation Project and the Good Neighbour initiative are working in my electorate of Sanderson. In July 2004, in my newsletter, I proclaimed good news on the home front when I let my constituents in Sanderson know about the HomeNorth initiative. I opened with the paragraph:
- I am proud to be…
Ms Carney: Did you tell them it was the CLP’s?
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I gave the courtesy of not interjecting on the member for Araluen. I wish that she would extend the same courtesy to me in this debate.
Ms Carney: If you interject tonight.
Mr KIELY: As I was saying:
- I am proud to be a member of the Martin Labor government, which recently announced some exciting
new changes to the HomeNorth home loan scheme - changes that make it easier and more affordable
for people to buy homes in the Territory.
Now more Territorians will be able to buy their own home, with the new package also expected to attract
more people to the Territory to boost the building industry.
I went on to say that the maximum value of a home that can be purchased under the scheme has been raised from $180 000 to $240 000, which is a 33% increase; that we changed the gross income ceiling from $800 to $1100 per week; and expanded the eligibility to include people who had previously owned property, but no longer owned a home, including people who had been in relationship break-ups or had been victims of business failures.
Not long after that, a sole parent contacted my office. They were renting a Territory Housing home, and were looking to purchase, and they were talking to me about it. This person was a sole parent with a single income, of course, and had a couple of kids who were growing up and in their mid-teens. The person had just gone through university and had their qualification and had taken up first year in their chosen profession. They were looking at growing their wage but, at that stage, did not have enough cash for a decent deposit under the old scheme. They did not have enough income to make them eligible for a bank loan - no lending institution would go near them - and the Territory Housing tenancy that they had been in for quite some time, which was their home, where they were well-known in the neighbourhood, was where they wanted to stay. Quite fortuitously, our scheme came onto the market and this person was very happy with what this government had done.
Her story is a reflection of what was going all throughout the Territory, because this whole HomeNorth scheme was such a good thing for sole parents who might not have been on a large enough income to be able to afford a house through any other scheme, to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where the kids are growing up. They were able to purchased their place because of the flexibility of the loan.
Another couple, around the corner as a matter of fact, or a few blocks away. This family unit is comprised of a husband and wife, and a grown-up, adult son living at home. They are on a pension. They could not afford to purchase their home in any other way. These are long-term Territorians. They have been around for a long time and raised their family I believe their grown-up son is in his mid-thirties, perhaps forties. They had little to no hope, unless they won lotto, of purchasing their home in any other way. Thanks to the guidance and the spirit of equity and inclusion of this government, and the flexibility that we brought into the HomeNorth scheme, they are also now investigating, very strongly, the options of purchasing their house. How are they going to be doing it? Their income levels, plus their son’s income level will, in all probability, come together to make an income in the household enough for them to purchase. That is fantastic. Those are just a couple of stories of Sanderson people who are able to buy.
I am also aware of younger, single adults buying into the unit market around Northlakes. This initiative of the HomeNorth loans has opened up the housing market to people who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to get into their own property. It is, indeed, a great and wonderful program that the minister has steered through the department. Yes, it is similar, and it has built on the previous government’s program, but it is built on in a much more productive and meaningful way. I am very happy about that - so, good on you, minister.
There is also the matter of the boon to business and to contractors, with the raising of the limit of first home owners to $240 000. From memory, there was an item in the paper of a chap from Beare Homes. Beare Homes specialise in building homes for the first home buyer. It has been a boon for their business. They have been able to create new lines and new products for their market. It has been great. Beare Homes have been doing okay out of the first home loan scheme, as have other contractors. They are a great company. They are very appreciative of what this government has done in regard to revamping the HomeNorth loan scheme, and the injection of that money straight in at that level has truly been a great boon to the economy.
When we talk about the HomeNorth scheme, available in Territory Housing offices, in TIO, and also from most MLA’s offices - leastways, the government MLA offices - is a booklet entitled Own Your Own Home. It is a great overview of just how you go about getting the loan. As I said in my newsletter, I advertise this home purchase product for people to become aware of it. I have to the shopping centres in Palmerston, and I have not seen anything in the windows of the MLAs out there notifying their constituents of this great product. I wonder whether these messages from the government about great things for all people of the Territory are actually getting out to people who live in their electorates. It is a bit of a shame if they are not, because they are disadvantaging those people they should be representing. I urge opposition members, when the product comes up that is of benefit to their constituents, to advertise it. Just because it comes from the NT government does not mean that you have to hide it from them. I do not think you do any one any advantage out of that …
Mr Elferink: We agree with you. I actually said that HomeNorth was a good plan.
Ms Carney: So did I.
Mr KIELY: I am glad to see that members of the opposition are actually promoting this amongst their constituents in their newsletters. No doubt they are.
I would also like to talk about the urban renewal renovation project …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I wonder whether the member could table the document that he is referring to; namely his newsletter.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you table your newsletter, member for Sanderson?
Mr KIELY: I tabled it once before, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have actually spoken – oh, I am happy to. If the member for Araluen is so interested in my newsletter, I will happily put her on the mailing list.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Dear me, dear me, they must have had a big, long lunch.
Ms Carney: You tell your public housing tenants to open their windows now, or what?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: I shall not bite. Once again, I ask that I am shown the courtesy that I extended to them.
The urban renewal project is a fantastic project that has been going on for some time now, addressing the poor condition that we found the Territory housing stock in when we came to government. The member for Araluen seems to be terribly blinkered about the state of Territory housing. She said: ‘Come on, show me, tell me, give me examples of just one person, one house that was neglected and the address’. Well, I can give the member for Araluen the address …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Sanderson. Have you tabled the document, because the Clerk is waiting there.
Mr KIELY: Certainly. I can advise the member for Araluen that, when I was out doorknocking as candidate, I was taken into houses where nothing had been done - nothing had been done - where people were asking for security screens. The CLP’s policy on urban renewal seemed to be to offer tenants a can of paint and a paint brush so they could paint over. This is a really good policy that was in vogue with the CLP at that stage. If the housing stock was not in such poor condition, how can the opposition members explain away over $1m spent in the seat of Blain on fixing up 17 houses? How can they explain away in total something in the vicinity of $7m being expended on urban renovation of these homes. There have been something like 17 houses in Blain, and nine in the Sanderson electorate, where we have quite a large …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am not sure if it is actually a point of order but, once again, the member is referring to a document. I ask that he table that once he has finished with it …
Mr KIELY: No, these are my speaking notes, I am not tabling them.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures …
Mr Ah Kit: They are his speaking notes. It is not a point of order. Sit down.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures. Can I be heard, please?
Mr KIELY: No, I do not intend to table it.
Mr Baldwin: Hang on, she is on point of order. You cannot talk over the top of her.
Ms CARNEY: He is reading figures from a document; that is obvious. I ask that he table it at the completion of his speech.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point, but it is up to the member if he wishes to table it or not.
Mr KIELY: These are my research notes.
Mr Dunham: No, it is not his prerogative.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not the case. If he is quoting from a document, he can be asked to table it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member is speaking from his speech notes, as he said, I am not sure they have to be tabled.
Ms CARNEY: It is a table - you can see it. He is telling porkies again, then.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just wait one second, member for Sanderson. I will ask the Clerk. I will use a commonsense ruling. If he is speaking from his own notes, they do not have to be tabled.
Mr KIELY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, this government has spent nearly $7m on fixing up Territory Housing stock. For the member for Araluen to say that all the housing stock was in tip top order prior to 2001, I …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not say that. The member well knows it.
Mr KIELY: The member for Araluen can make a personal explanation; that is an option.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have been doing fairly well up to about the last 10 minutes. Can we …
Mr Dunham: He is being provocative.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I believe there is a bit on both sides here. There just happened to be a chorus come in here at a particular time.
Mr KIELY: I am happy to continue, Mr Deputy Speaker. The housing stock in Sanderson that I have had a look at - as I have said I have tenants ask me to come in. They have shown me the bathroom where the washbasin is separating from the wall. Places have not been painted for years, for decades. Roofs leak ...
Mr Baldwin: Decades! Ha! A little over-exaggeration.
Mr KIELY: The outgoing member for Daly may well laugh, but let me say that tenants in these houses are not laughing. Why should they be forced to live in that squalor? Why should those houses have been allowed to run down? We are addressing that. Unfortunately, the condition of those houses with funds we have available to do it, means that there has to be a prioritisation of homes to be done. We are rolling through. We are going through as best we can with the funds that we have for this job.
However, let me say that half of these funds would not have been required if a proper maintenance program had been in place years and years ago. You see, once again, we have been forced to pick up and clean up the mess that the CLP government left. The opposition can cry and whinge and say this was not true. Well, there is every tenant in all this Territory Housing stock who know the truth.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: The opposition can make all the noises they like. The truth is out there; the people in those homes knows exactly what is going on. I am more than happy there.
The urban renewal renovation program, I believe, is one of the best programs that we have going as far as Territory Housing is concerned. It certainly is enjoyed by all the people in those homes. To say to people that they should not have cement driveways and carports in the Top End because that is some sort of luxury - I really do not understand where the opposition came from on those aspects. Oh well, I do, because I believe that it gets back to their treatment of what they think of low income earners. It really is what they think of low income earners.
Ms Carney: Who is ‘they’?
Mr KIELY: It is no better reflected - that is the CLP, and it is all their policies of the past. We have had to go in readdress …
Ms Carney: Name one, name one.
Mr KIELY: … these policies - if the member for Araluen wants to be so blinkered about the housing stock then …
Ms Carney: Oh, facts will do.
Mr KIELY: … it is her approach to a whole range of shortcomings of the CLP. We know it is out there. The tenants in the houses know it is out there. I am very certain that anyone who has lived in suburbs or lived near Territory housing would know. The member for Araluen is so busy telling us that she knows one person who lives in a Territory housing …
Ms Carney: No, that was a friend. I know lots, they are called constituents. I do not know whether you are in contact with yours but, anyway ...
Mr KIELY: Yes, yes, and I am sure they know you.
I would also like to talk about the Good Neighbour initiative which is being run by the department. This is a great initiative. For the last, I would probably say, about two or three hours, we have heard from the opposition about Territory Housing clients and what poor tenants and how disruptive they are. Well, I am working with constituents on two neighbourhood conflicts at the moment. One is for a Territory Housing tenant and the other is for people who are renting privately, who are causing a few difficulties. Bad neighbours are not only to be found in the low income bracket; bad neighbours can be found anywhere. It is how they are handled by the landlords. That is what this Good Neighbour initiative sets out to do. It sets out how Territory Housing, as a landlord, will handle complaints and deal with tenants, just as Raine and Horne and KG Young and any other tenancy management companies should be looking after their tenants. Poor behaviour and bad neighbours is not the province of low income earners living in Territory Housing.
You say in Alice Springs, the place is going to rack and ruin. It may well have its genesis in the great sell-off of housing stock without any consideration …
Mr McADAM: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended for a further 10 minutes.
Leave denied.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Sanderson, there were insufficient people to agree to the motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, the tribal war is alive and well. The member for Sanderson is living in some mythical world if he thinks that, when people talk about problem tenants - ah! - they are talking about the underprivileged, under-trodden. A bad neighbour is a bad neighbour. Nobody talks about whether they are Housing Commission or whatever - with the exception of the member for Wanguri.
I had the unfortunate experience of attempting to find in my then electorate - which was opposite from his then electorate - some room for a seniors village. It has turned out to be a beautiful seniors village. The streetscape is lovely, the clients are lovely; it is one of those things that you would think that you would want in a neighbourhood. I fought a concerted battle against the member for Wanguri to have that in the electorate. I know what they were saying: ‘You do not want Housing Commission here because Housing Commission means b-l-a-c-k people. You do not want that here in Leanyer’. I went to public meetings - and there are people around who can verify that was the scurrilous campaign that was being run: ‘You do not want a Housing Commission facility here because it is like Kurringal’.
It is a beautiful facility. The government admits it is beautiful because they have assisted in opening it. However, this tribal war about ‘We are Labor and we are with the underprivileged and you have this snobby attitude towards them’ is something I thought we were past.
The member talked about how he went to visit people who lived in squalid circumstances and he blamed us, the CLP. No, they were living in squalor, sorry. Squalor in the dictionary is ‘filth and misery’. He has been around visiting constituents living in filth and misery, and he believes that this is a legacy of the CLP government. This is a nonsense. Whether your wash basin is coming away from the wall and the wall has not been painted for a while, I do not think it is right to talk about visiting people living in filth and misery as being the province of the policies of the previous government. It is a divisive, wedge politics-type of argument to run.
Housing Commission residents are in all our electorates. That is probably not true; there are some where there are a lot less than others. I have lived in a Housing Commission house. I have lived in probably four or five Housing Commission houses. The current Housing Minister has lived in a Housing Commission house. I would venture to say that half of this Assembly have lived in a Housing Commission house. Therefore, before you start running some case that the CLP is against people who live in Housing Commission houses and those poor people who live there live in filth and misery - and running it as a case against us - please, please, have another think.
If someone lives in filth and misery it is probably not a lot to do with their landlord. I suggest that might be so in New York and various other notorious ghettos around the world, but not here in Darwin. There are lots of people who have meagre means and small incomes. There are many single mums who live in housing like this. It does not necessarily follow that, because their means are meagre, their surroundings are filthy and that they live in misery. To use a word like ‘squalid’ in this debate either means he does not understand what it means, or he is trying to run some tribal flag up the flagpole to make some assumption about a class war that is not there.
It had not been my intention to contribute to this debate, but I have been on the receiving end of a whispering campaign by Labor people. The whispering campaign was: ‘Do not let the seniors village go ahead in Leanyer Drive’. It is there; I am glad it is there. I hope those people vote against their current member, Mr Henderson. I also hope they are aware of some of the things he said, because they will be made aware. They will made aware that they were not welcomed by the then minister. He believed that what we were doing was wrong and terrible, and an erosion of some of the great and fine amenity for the people who live in that area. I have been on the receiving end of it. There were signs put up around with black plastic that had my name on it. I am quite proud that I fought for that. I am quite proud that I fought for a seniors housing estate in the electorate of Leanyer, which is no longer anything to do with me. However, I do live around the corner. I am proud to go past and to see how good it looks.
If members opposite want to run some argument that says: ‘We are Labor, we are for the underprivileged, the underdog. The CLP is directly opposed and, by the way, they left you in squalid circumstances, which is filth and misery’, I object to that strenuously. It offends me, and I hope that the member, at some future time, thinks about his words and the effect they have on people who have a long history of living next to Housing Commission people. Do not run these generic debates where you accuse us – who happen to be opposite and members of the CLP – of somehow denigrating people who live in Housing Commission houses.
The policies are pretty good. We know that because they are pretty much borrowed from ours. They live on with different names and different glossy pamphlets. However, there is not a lot new here. The various things that have had a bit of extra money put into them – good; I applaud that. Various homes schemes to allow people to buy their own homes - good, I applaud that. Initiatives to get people to stop bashing each other up, and the rampant crime that is on our streets at the moment - good, I applaud that. In fact, I believe the government should do more, because there are certainly problems in the electorate of Karama, where one poor chap got bashed up for his pie, which was half-eaten at the time.
Before you run some Good Neighbour policy, have a look at the headlines of the day and let us have a bit of empirical evidence. I hoped to see the empirical evidence; he was holding it in his hand - some statistical tables - but he was very shy about tabling them. I was hoping that we could sit here and be convinced by the previous speaker, the member for Sanderson, that things were sweet out there, and that people were not being bashed up for their half-eaten pie, and young blokes going home from work at night were not getting bashed by gangs.
Do not run a case that there is a tribal thing out there because people in Housing Commission are low and under-trodden, and we do not support them – ‘Oh, and by the way, we have these policies in place to make everything good, and we are going to paint the houses and nobody will ever live in filth and misery again’ - because it is a nonsensical debate. I hope next time he contributes to debates like that he attributes them properly to the author, the Brothers Grimm, who have written fairytales of this type before, where they have a whole series of crazy notions they pile in and come up with a little takeaway line - so you can take away some maxim for your life. The Brothers Grimm should not be writing those speeches. The maxim that he has come up with, I guess, is something like, ‘Death or vote Labor’, which is a nonsense. I hope the member gets the opportunity to read his words, particularly the word ‘squalor’, which he should look up, perhaps in the Macquarie Dictionary, which is available on the Deputy Clerk’s desk. He would see that those words offend many of us, including me.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering in the last couple of minutes where I should start in my response in wrapping up this statement that I tabled much earlier. I thought I would go to an interview of the new leader of the CLP, the Opposition Leader. He talked to Paul Miles on 8KIN in Alice Springs yesterday. The compere, Paul, questioned him about Terry Mills who, when appointed leader flagged a change in the Country Liberal Party. One of those changes was a working relationship with Aboriginal people in the Territory. He said:
You know that the bad old days are gone and you know there is a new sort of breed within the
Country Liberal Party that wanted to instigate changes. What changes can we expect now,
Leader of the Opposition? I mean, will we be revisiting the past?
That is what Denis Burke, the Leader of the Opposition was asked, and he said:
- Well, I can promise Aboriginal Territorians a new beginning in Aboriginal relations; a new
Denis Burke. And, in the policies that I bring forward in that regard, they will quickly see that.
It has always been my desire to put the past behind us, and I do not want to revisit it again.
He went on and said at the end of that comment:
- They will see me with, no doubt, firmness, but also a real desire to ensure that we all work
together, live together and prosper economically together.
He went on:
- When it comes to Aboriginal Territorians’ interests, no doubt we have argued and fought in the
past on land rights issues and others. Those days are over. I can assure Aboriginal people that
those days are over with me; there will be no more fighting. There will be a firm desire from me
and the CLP to make sure that we all prosper economically together.
Mr Dunham: Hear, hear! Well put. Well put.
Mr AH KIT: Yet we hear comments on my paper that was tabled earlier entitled A fair go for all in Territory housing. On the one hand, your leader is saying this and you say: ‘Well put’. Then, on the other hand, you completely ignore him and contradict him. He says he is a changed man, and I can accept that. But, by crikey, he needs to change some of your views in regards to your contribution to the debate tonight on housing. I would have liked to have thought that we could move forward together. There is one thing common we should be wanting to do as Territorians and as legislators: take this issue of housing and address it - not just the whole-of-government and whole-of-community, but whole-of-parliament. Obviously, that is not the case.
We know what the situation is out there. We know that we need $1bn to fix the backlog. We know why people are coming to town. I understand concerns raised by the members for Braitling and Araluen. You called a meeting on the Tuesday. The member for Braitling knows, as an ex-Cabinet minister, that Cabinet is held on Tuesdays. I wonder whether, when that meeting was called, was that deliberate to have it on the Tuesday so that I and my colleague, the minister for Central Australia, were not going to be there and would not be there because we had Cabinet? Or do they think we should have approached the Chief Minister to put Cabinet on another day so we could attend that meeting? I just wonder whether that was a ploy. I said that in this House and told both the members for Araluen and Braitling. However, we have a situation where I tabled earlier today the paper that I put together with my department in regards to the need for additional dollars for indigenous housing nationally. In that paper - if people read it - they will see that I am asking for an additional $100m. We need to start fixing that problem.
In Adelaide at the Ministerial Council Meeting on Housing, the federal minister, Kay Patterson, chose to go the easy path, which was not to go to federal Cabinet and ask for an additional $100m of new money. If we had received that, we worked out that, on a needs basis in the Territory, we would have had an injection of somewhere in the vicinity of $46m. This would have helped enormously throughout the Territory in being able to not only build more houses, but to have crews trained so that we have them hands-on learning the skills, with those skills staying around forever in that they continue. Even if there is no program for building of the houses, then there is repairs and maintenance work - not necessarily for each community but for the region, something similar to what is happening in the Western MacDonnells.
However, I came away from that meeting with a feeling of some hope, in that she had made a statement that she would look at and address the needs argument that we had been putting to her for some two to three years, and that she may - she may - take money away under the Aboriginal Remote Housing Program from states like Victoria, New South Wales and, possibly, Tasmania and reallocate additional dollars into our program in the Northern Territory and, probably, Western Australia, Queensland and the top part of South Australia, no doubt. So, fingers crossed, we will keep pushing and see if we can get additional dollars to address a lot better the indigenous housing needs throughout the Territory.
In regard to some of the comments that were made, let me firstly thank members on this side - the members for Sanderson, Millner, and Karama - for their contributions. They, obviously, see benefits from the housing program.
The department has worked hard. We have worked hard in my ministerial office to ensure that we have a track record of being able to deliver something in regards to Housing 2010. It is disappointing, however, that CLP members and Independent members were critical that things are not happening enough. I remind the member for Braitling that she was a Minister for Housing, as was the member for Greatorex. I just cannot believe that everything was rosy then and, when we won government, all the problems surfaced. I just cannot subscribe to that view. It is easy now once that you are out and not the minister to say: ‘Fix it, fix it, fix it’. Well my staff in my ministerial office have responded on all occasions to the member for Braitling. I encourage her to keep contacting them, whether it is by corresponding, phone, or seeking briefings. She is unlike other members opposite, who seem to know everything. They do not need briefings: ‘Why do we want briefings? We just get in there and criticise’.
Ms Carney: Because it takes three months to get an answer, Jack.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you have not rung or corresponded with my office. It is similar to the Wizard Cup match. I got some criticism from the member for Macdonnell. When did he make representation to my office by way of a phone call, a fax or correspondence?
Mr Elferink: The AFL did months ago and you did not answer them.
Mr AH KIT: When did you seek a briefing? Nothing at all – nothing - and that is the way you operate. I can understand the politics in this as we move towards an election; however, it disappoints me that that is the view they take - that they do not need to get a briefing on it. We saw it earlier today with our Treasurer and the taxation and union legislation. If that is the way that they think they can be good members of the opposition - representing their constituents by being lazy and not seeking briefings, to at least get their heads around the issues that are coming before parliament - then it is a sad state of affairs for them and their supporters.
I also pick up on the member for Katherine who said a couple of interesting things. She said she worked at Semrite - fine, I understand Semrite and I used to know, the boss. I think his name is Peter?
Mrs Miller: Peter and Greg.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, okay. You refer to hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent at Ngukurr, Lajamanu, etcetera. Do you understand housing?
Mrs Miller: Yes, that is right.
Mr AH KIT: I do not think so because …
Mrs Miller: Yes, it was.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: … it was IHANT’s responsibility. That is Commonwealth government responsibility …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not public housing responsibility; that is IHANT, the Commonwealth and ATSIC. Obviously, the member for Katherine is out of her depth because she does not understand …
Mrs Miller: It was not ATSIC.
Mr AH KIT: You are tying it to public housing, as you would with Housing Commission in the major centres and you have it wrong. Do some homework and seek a briefing. Do not be lazy like your mates.
I also want to raise another issue that she raised in regards to the situation with Bernard Street. She raised the issue of a waste of taxpayers’ money. I will just find that because it is very interesting. Once again, she has it wrong. The member for Katherine also said that the Bernard Street complex was renovated after the Australia Day flood in 1998. She expressed her concern that it was renovated again 12 months later. The member for Katherine is absolutely right! I am wondering when she is thinking of changing sides because, yes, this was a shameful waste of public money, and the CLP did it. Thank you, member for Katherine; thank you very much.
I also take issue with the member for Macdonnell, the shadow minister. He said that the government’s policy direction for Home Territory 2010 - and this is it here. I hope members opposite have read it. Maybe the member for Macdonnell was away that day. Let me tell him that the housing research which the member for Macdonnell seems to believe is the basis for my policy direction, came out in November 2004, three months after I launched this. I will repeat myself. I clearly stated early in the house that the four points I referred to from the research papers are strategies we are pursuing, which pre-date the research paper. Get your facts right. You got it wrong again. That is what happens when you do not seek briefings.
The member for Macdonnell also made allegations about the budget allocations, displaying another gross lack of understanding of how Territory Housing operates. Territory Housing is not budget funded. Ask your mate next door to you; he used to be a minister. Its revenues are from rents; mostly rebates and community service obligations. The Auditor-General is about to report to parliament that Territory Housing has been increasing its revenue, increasing its expenditure on upgrading its assets, and reducing its losses which derive largely from its interest bill on borrowings made under the previous government. Member for Macdonnell, please get your facts straight because you do not know as much as you think you do, and you are not as intelligent as you love to believe you are.
I pick up on the point of his argument about when he is the new Minister for Housing. I am hoping that he thinks this is happening after the next election. His policy is that they will fix it by going out and selling more stock. He really needs to understand that that is not going to help the situation at all. In fact, it will be interesting to see the detail of your housing policy – in fact, all your policies - after you workshop this weekend. Get busy this weekend; get real. Do not be lazy like the last three-and-a-half years. Do some real work and represent your followers properly.
The member for Macdonnell has this false assumption that, if you sell everything, it makes it easier; that people will always find somewhere to live. Just sell the house, do not worry about the asset, just get rid of it. We have been through that exercise, and that is definitely not the way we wish to go.
The situation in regards to the issue raised by the member for Braitling about the lady who was camping on the floor in Alice Springs, I am concerned …
Mr Baldwin: Wasn’t living in squalor, was she?
Mr AH KIT: Well, hang on. Just listen to this; this is interesting. I am concerned that she wishes to publicise this. I feel for her. In fact, I know that family well. I want to be helpful, as does my office, my ministerial staff and the department. However …
Mr Elferink: Get a briefing.
Mr AH KIT: Hang on. Person 1 on the list - you tell me which one I kick out. Person 1 has diabetes, arthritis, incontinence and is living in a makeshift dwelling with 12 people. Person 2 has final-stage renal failure, living in a tent. These people are in crisis. Which person is the member for Braitling - or you - suggest that I kick out, and chuck her in over the top? I would love to just take her to the top of the list. We have to work through and see what the options are and how best we can get her into a house that is liveable, that is going to be repaired and maintained, and can accommodate her family. It is not a matter of finding that there is somebody who is in dire straits, ring the minister’s office, shout at his or her staff, and then you will be able to twist some arms and get accommodation. We are helping as much as we possibly can and, as soon as there is a place to accommodate her that is convenient and will cater for her kids, then we will be moving her into it as quickly as possible. If the member for Braitling wishes to publicise this - and I certainly hope that she has this lady’s permission to do that. The last thing I would think that she would want is to have this publicised without her permission, because that puts added stress on her, and is something, I believe, that she may prefer to do without.
I thank members for their contribution. I am sad, in a way, that the members opposite, including Independents, have heavily criticised the statement. I see, in a positive note, that it is a reflection of my statement and good, tireless work from the department and Housing staff. They work very hard and need to be acknowledged, as do my ministerial staff. It sets out clearly the steps we are taking to ensure that we alleviate as many of the housing problems as possible. There are never enough resources or finance, but at least we believe we are going down the right path with Housing 2010, and we will continue down that path.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In the week before Christmas, the Territory had some very sad news. I would like to formally say goodbye to a man I have known as long as I have lived in the Territory; that is, Peter Spillett.
It is almost impossible to list all the organisations he was associated with and the contributions Peter made in his life in the Territory. He was a Member of the Order of Australia, Fellow of the Federation of Australian Historical Societies, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, active layperson in Christ Church Cathedral, Member of the National Trust of Australia (NT), Life Member of the RSL, founder of the Pensioners Association, alderman on the Darwin City Council, Churchill Fellowship recipient - and the list goes on.
Peter Spillett died suddenly in Bali, Indonesia, at the age of 78. Peter has been a part of our lives in the Territory for nearly 55 years. He came here as a young man who had seen experience in active service during World War II and that, together with his enquiring cosmopolitan outlook, made him love post-war Darwin so well - the rough, multicultural and frontier town it was then. Peter was the first historian I know of to recognise and document the close and longstanding ties between the indigenous people of the north coast of Australia and the seafaring peoples of the Indonesian archipelago. His history of the settlement of Victoria at Port Essington, Forsaken Settlement, published more than 20 years ago, is still in print and still the best reference on this subject. He published prolifically, and his intense love of history shone through all of his activities. I remember how kind he was to me as a young journalist in sharing his knowledge of the Territory, and how inspirational.
Peter had friends everywhere. If you ever went out with him, all sorts of different people would come up to him. Maybe he did not know them exactly because, perhaps, it was their fathers and mothers, or even grandparents that he had known, but everyone seemed to know him.
It was the same when he went to Indonesia. A pioneer of oral history, Peter’s painstaking work throughout the 1980s and 1990s recording the histories of people, families, dynasties and communities, is unique. His love of Indonesia and the Indonesian people was strong. I said at his funeral: ‘We talk about strengthening ties with our neighbours to the north, but Peter has been doing this for decades’. As his wife Muriel remarked: ‘Peter died doing what he loved’.
I have not done justice to Peter’s extraordinary contributions to the Territory. I do not think anyone could. Next time you are in town, just look at a few of the plaques and signs around the place. It is hard to see a monument, park or walk that is not a testament to Peter’s contribution.
I will always think of Peter at Friday lunchtime, having a meal at the RSL with his great friend Reg Wilson, or a beer with Ray Chin. Peter did not just write; he was a big part of our history.
I was lucky because Peter lived in my electorate and I was able to catch up with him from time to time and hear the news. I remember the last time I sat down and had a cup of tea with him and Leo Izod and Tom Birtenshaw, Peter said: ‘This is really good. I really love to sit down and talk about the old days of Darwin’. Well, so did we, Peter. You are sadly missed and our sympathy to Muriel and family.
One of the roles of my position that I do enjoy and embrace each year is that of President of the Australia Day Council. This year, Territorians celebrated Australia Day in typical Territory style. There were official flag raising ceremonies, a huge number of well-attended sporting events - including the run/walk which this year attracted over 1000 people - a patriotic and loud ute run, and a number of fun and very Aussie family events held in communities all around the Territory.
On Australia Day, we have the opportunity to acknowledge some wonderful young people with the presentation of the Australia Day Student Citizen Award. This award is part of the Australia Day family of awards, and is given to one student from each school. That student is selected by the principal and, sometimes, by a panel of teachers, on the basis of their contribution to the school community; sometimes their working achievements; but always their participation and presentation of leadership qualities. This year, students received awards at school functions and others at major events such as the Darwin City Council flag raising and citizenship ceremony.
I would like to name the Darwin-based students who received their awards from my colleague and Deputy Chief Minister, and Heather Sjoberg, who is Chairman of the Australia Day Committee, and congratulate them once again on being recognised for their qualities of leadership and citizenship. From St Andrew’s Lutheran School, there was Stephanie Alm, Daniel Banfield from Leanyer, Sarah Beames from Millner Primary School, Hannah Blaikie from Anula, Liam Blakeley from Wanguri Primary, Stephanie Breuer from Alawa, Denise Clark from St Mary’s, Libby Collins from St John’s College, Jamie-Lee Farrow from Karama Primary, Alexander Fegan from Henbury, Jennifer Fluri from Holy Spirit Primary School, Jessica Heffer from Ludmilla Primary School, Martin Holzwart from the NT Open Education Centre, Shaun Hutchinson from Holy Family Primary School, Emmeke Jones from Parap Primary, Emily Macmillan from Kormilda, Michael McMahon from Jingili Primary, Grace Murphy from Nakara Primary, Aniello Natasi from Darwin Adventist Primary School, Sarah Rann from Nightcliff Primary, Clare Simpson from Stuart Park, Aimee Slocombe from Sanderson High, Josefa Tchong from Manunda Terrace Primary and Shaun Washington from Litchfield Christian School.
I know, even thought I was not there this year, that those children just glow with pride when they receive those citizenships award. I encourage our students this year to aspire to achieve one of those awards for their contribution to their school and community.
I would also like to talk more about my electorate and report to this House some of the variety of news that has come from the electorate. I would like to talk first about Bob Scheer who is head of arts and drama at St John’s College which, following the redistribution, is now part of Fannie Bay electorate. Bob has been awarded a National Excellency in Teaching Award. Just 32 teachers across Australia have received this award, and Bob is the only Northern Territory recipient. Judging of this prestigious award was arduous. Bob had to go through three rounds of interviews and speeches and it involved a fair bit of travelling. The award is being presented to Bob in Melbourne on the 18th of this month. The school, to celebrate, is holding a special morning tea in his honour on the 22nd. Many will know Bob Scheer as a great acting talent in the Territory. Last year, he appeared in the successful Darwin Theatre Company production of Tin Hotel. He was the voice of many in the hilarious version of Dorothy does Darwin, and produced and directed Shakespeare in the Park.
At the end of last year, on 10 December, we celebrated the 85th anniversary of the first flight from Britain to Australia and that celebration was held at the memorial site on East Point Road. Never to be underestimated for the way that he can contribute to an event like this, former Administrator and Chief Justice, Austin Asche, gave a most fascinating account of that first flight, and had the students and the rest of us who attended engrossed in what was involved. We had representatives from 13 Squadron representing the RAAF and I thank the airmen and cadets for attending. I also thank Squadron Leader Robert Graham and Peter Radtke for coordinating their attendance.
Also attending were primary students from Parap and thanks to teacher Geoff Gillman for organising that. There were also students from Darwin High and, not surprisingly, the teacher who organised that was Judy Boland, a woman with a great love for Territory history. The students joined members of the public in a minute of silence remembering this significant event.
The details are that, in 1919, the Australian government held a competition for the first flight from Britain to Australia. The winners would receive 10 000 if they could complete the journey in less than 30 days. The Smiths, with Ross as first pilot and Keith as navigator and co-pilot, as well as two mechanics, set off on 12 November 1919. Conditions were difficult, with the aircraft having to land frequently due to bad weather, repairs or to refuel. They arrived in Darwin on 10 December 1919 and, quite appropriately, became national heroes. I congratulate all members of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage group, ably led by Judy Boland, for organising this event. I look forward to attending more events commemorating the historical significance of the Fannie Bay electorate.
Finally tonight, many in here would know of Dr Arun Mahajani. Dr Mahajani is a healthy and energetic 75 years old. Many a time, as I walk along the foreshore of East Point, Dr Mahajani passes me on his run. He could well be our only Territory representative at the World’s Masters Games to be held in Edmonton, Canada in July this year. He is certainly the only one to compete in the half marathon. As Dr Mahajani points out, not many 75-year-olds compete anymore. If Dr Mahajani does get to the World’s Masters Games in Edmonton this year, I certainly him all the luck. He is someone who is very light on his feet. He is very fit and did very well in last year’s Masters Games in Alice Springs. It is just onwards and upwards for the redoubtable Dr Mahajani.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I put right a misconception that the Minister for Sports and Recreation, the minister for fun, indeed, has been peddling in the community about him being saviour of the Wizard Cup in Alice Springs.
He said to us earlier at the previous debates that all I had to do is to get a briefing from him and he could have told me everything that would happened in relation to the events leading up to the Wizard Cup being cancelled, and then being resurrected, if you like. The reasons I did not bother with a briefing from him is that (1) it is very difficult to organise one through his office; (2) more importantly, he disavowed any knowledge of it because he was on the back page of the Northern Territory News kicking the hell out of the NTAFL because of how useless they were, and he had nothing to do with it. He disavowed any knowledge of his role in the Wizard Cup game.
Why would I go and talk to him? What I did was respond publicly to that and say the minister should do something - make some effort, go the extra yards. I could show the media release if you like, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I said he should make every effort he can.
I made a few phone calls to both the NTAFL and CAFL to find out what was going on. In the process of making those phone calls, I discovered the series of events which does not paint a glorious rescue by the minister in a favourable light at all. Basically, it sounds like a breakdown in communication, because the CAFL approached the minister months ago regarding the Wizard Cup. They were going to seek his advice and help in relation to making this happen. They approached his office and did not receive any form of communication back - no fax, no e-mail, no telephone call, no carrier pigeon.
So the CAFL continued on their way trying to organise this and, yes, they did run into problems. When those problems became more apparent, the CAFL approached the Minister for Central Australia who, to his credit, made an effort. However, the effort was unsuccessful as he was obviously unable to convince the government of the day.
Consequently, the CAFL became aware that the whole thing was going to fall in a big heap so, again, they contacted the minister’s office and said: ‘Dear minister, we have a problem. The whole thing is going to fall into a big heap. We want your help in putting out a joint media release so that we might be able to rescue this or manage the fallout from this properly’.
The minister’s office, I am advised, got back to the CAFL and said: ‘Absolutely, we will sort that out’. They hung up the phone, issued a media release, and that is when the story broke. The substance of the media release was the minister’s outrageous attack on the NTAFL, and the subsequent press that flowed from that. That was the minister trying to cover his derriere. He was trying his hardest to attack the NTAFL, to shift all blame away from himself and the Northern Territory government. Why else would the minister issue a media release attacking the NTAFL if he was not trying to cover his tracks? The tracks he was trying to cover were that he failed to respond, in the first instance, to a call from the CAFL in relation to this matter.
The minister suddenly realised he is in seven shades of the proverbial, so what does he do? He realised he has to be seen to be doing something. He finally contacted the CAFL, they sat down and – lo and behold! - after a little cajoling by the opposition, a lot of bad press around the traps - and, worse, you ought to hear heard some of the things that both the NTAFL and the CAFL have had to say about the minister - he knew he had to respond finally. It was not that hard.
He had a curator fly from Adelaide who was going to sort out the pitch problem. The hotel problem was not going to be a problem after all. It was all sorted and it was do-able and, all of a sudden, the minister claims ownership of it all. That is the spin. It is a tragedy that this is the way he is going to treat sporting bodies in the Northern Territory.
Frankly, being the minister for fun would have to be one of the easiest ministerial portfolios around. One of the hardest would have to be Health. One of the easiest would have to be the minister for handing out cheques. That is all he has to do. All he has to do is be a little responsive, a little active and – lo and behold! - he can be a minister for fun and everybody thinks he is doing a great job. To stuff-up being the Minister for Sport and Recreation would be almost impossible, except in the hands of this minister. He has been unable to see an issue coming up, to respond to one of the major sporting organisations in the Northern Territory and then, when he realises the depth of his mistake, he even has to be badgered into it publicly.
How on earth he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like this minister has done on this occasion, to me is nothing shy of astonishing. I urge this minister to come clean and deal with the people in the NTAFL and the CAFL in a way commensurate with dealing with these decent people who are trying to do the right thing - not blaming them for his shortcomings.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with deep concern that I address this House tonight regarding the handling of the clean-up of toxic waste at the Mt Todd mine. The Mt Todd mine has been idle now for some five years and, while there was some talk in the early stages that a new mining venture was going to take over, I do not foresee that will ever happen, and I have no expectation for Mt Todd reopening. In the meantime, the equipment and holding tanks on site continue to deteriorate.
In November 2004, the Environment Centre NT issued a media release calling for a commission of inquiry into cleaning up the fiasco. The Environment Centre stated the obvious:
- The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory … says chronic problems with the clean-up and
rehabilitation of the Mt Todd mine near Katherine are so serious that an independent Commission
of Inquiry under the Northern Territory Inquiries Act is needed to investigate and provide
government and the public with a full, open and honest report.
‘Such an inquiry should be headed by a judge, assisted by a mining engineer and an environmental
scientist or hydrologist (both with no links to the NT Mines Department or the Northern Territory
mining industry), and have the power to call witnesses and subpoena documents.
I can understand the Environment Centre’s concern about the site, as there were 700 000 litres of cyanide stored at the site - a dangerous quantity by anyone’s calculations. Since that time, our worst fears have been realised, with the finding in January 2005 of dead fish in the Edith River, into which drainage lines from the tailings dam at Mt Todd run.
This incident highlights the sensitivity of the surrounding environment and the ongoing concerns that we have, and is a very serious situation, indeed. In the short time since then, we have had cyanide erupting from a storage tank, which is leeching into the surrounding area, and urgent action needs to be taken.
Another very serious threat is to the endangered Gouldian Finch, of which the region around Mt Todd is the largest known colony in the world. The Gouldian Finch has had some serious challenges in recent years and that includes, of course, the Mt Todd mine development and the construction of the railway corridor. The current threat to the Gouldian Finch is that the leeching from the retention pond into the area of the Triodia grass species, which is a prime food source for Gouldian Finches. This magnificent bird is extremely vulnerable and cannot afford to be exposed to such hazards.
It was announced in January this year that a cyanide neutralising process would be carried out by Minitech Chemical Industries. That led to another bungle, in that the neutraliser that Minitech used caused a chemical reaction, which resulted in a rupture of the tank holding the cyanide. This, of course, allowed some 500 litres of cyanide to spill out onto the surrounding areas. While it was supposed to be contained in the bund, that apparently even has holes in it and could not contain all of the spill. The incidents go on and on.
This latest incident has been blamed on a lack of communication at Mt Todd. The minister cannot allow this to happen again. Last night, I listened to the Minister for Mines and Energy talk on the ABC News, and could not believe my ears when I heard him blame the disastrous situation at Mt Todd on the previous CLP government. Instead of accepting the responsibility of his portfolio and addressing the seriousness of the debacle at Mt Todd as soon as he was aware of it, he chose to try and shift the blame elsewhere. Well, minister, the responsibility lies squarely with you, and urgency is required to deal with the seriousness of incidents at Mt Todd, not tardiness - so just get on with the job.
John Carroll, the General Manager of DBIRD, talking on ABC radio this morning, stated that the cyanide at Mt Todd was being stored according to Australian standards, so the discharge cannot be blamed on substandard storage tanks. I should not need to remind this House that the member for Arnhem, before he became a minister in parliament, was instrumental in his position as chief executive officer of the Jawoyn, in the negotiations that determined the arrangements for operating Mt Todd which, of course, also included the amount of money that was held in reserve for rehabilitation. This agreement was endorsed by Zapopan, Jawoyn, the federal government and the Northern Territory government, and was fast-tracked to allow production to proceed. Perhaps the member for Arnhem should have a discussion with the Minister for Mines and Energy and fill him in on the agreement and how it was implemented.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy to advise this House if he will now hold a commission of inquiry, as a matter of urgency, into Mt Todd mine. We cannot afford to waste any more valuable time in correcting the inaccuracies and the damage that is happening to this site. I also ask the minister to take into consideration stringent guidelines to be put in place for Maude Creek mine site, should that be reopened, so that the waterways which directly flow through Katherine are not under any threat.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about concerns expressed to me by constituents, essentially, about the fate of St John Ambulance. The concerns are widely held - and I am sure many members on both sides of the House have received expressions of concern from constituents - whether St John will continue to operate in the Northern Territory.
It seems to me that there has been inaction on the part of government, and that has created a situation where the outstanding service provided to Territorians by St John for decades may be at risk. Staff risk losing their jobs and, in turn, Territorians may risk losing this outstanding service. From the outset, I commend all the staff and volunteers at St John all around the Territory for consistently doing a great job for our community, and often under difficult circumstances. However, they and the community at large are very concerned about the future of St John.
Members might be aware that the annual report of St John was presented at the annual general meeting in November. It was a pretty grim read, frankly. It is a public document. I invite members to read it, if they have not done so already. I am sure the Health Minister has. In fact, it would be unbelievable if he has not. The bottom line is that the figures contained in the report, and the comments of the accountants and auditors who did the audit, show that there is a financial crisis at St John. Put simply, this magnificent Territory service needs additional funding in the order of between $1.7m to $2.4m - and it needs it now. It needs that money in order for it to continue to provide the quality service that Territorians both expect and deserve.
I am aware that there have been talks about this funding crisis between St John and government. It seems, to me at least, that in November last year there was an expectation that government would provide the necessary financial assistance. I am troubled, however, by the fact that there has been no announcement by government. I invite the minister to come into the Chamber tomorrow to assure all Territorians by way of a ministerial report that matters are in hand, and that the Labor government will provide assistance. If he fails to do so, I can only assume the government does not propose to provide assistance, even at the beginning of an election year. A cynic might say, in fact, the beginning of an election year is a great opportunity for government to announce assistance. However, we are deeply troubled that no announcement has been made, and here we are on 9 February. Various questions arise as a result of the government’s inaction which, of course, above all sends a message that government does not care about the service being at risk.
If one has a good look at the annual report one will see a number of troubling comments. In particular, at page 20 the auditors say:
- There is significant uncertainty whether St John Ambulance will be able to continue as a going concern
and, therefore, realise assets and extinguish liabilities in the normal cause of events.
My question is: does the minister agree that this is a warning of insolvency and what does he propose to do about it? Further, at page 28 of the report, the auditor says:
- Either additional funding will be provided by the Northern Territory government or the association will
cease to operate an ambulance service.
We ask whether it is government policy to wait until St John goes under before government steps in to help, or does it propose to wait until the election is even closer? This is negligent politics at its worst and cynical at its best.
We do know that government commissioned a report from Walter Randall into the financial aspects of St John Ambulance. However, what we want to know is what that report said and what government response is going to be. We would also like to know when the minister proposes to act; why it is that he has delayed making any announcement about saving this well-respected organisation which is, on the facts, on the brink of financial collapse; and whether, in particular, the minister is concerned at all - let alone whether he has a strategy or a rescue package plan. We would also like to take this opportunity of asking the minister to provide us with answers regarding whether this government has provided any additional funding for St John Ambulance in the Northern Territory apart from CPI increases during Labor’s time in government, and whether any funding has been over and above that provided by the Country Liberal Party.
The seriousness of the financial crisis that faces St John cannot be underestimated, not only by way of even a rudimentary analysis of the auditor’s report, but also gauged by the extent of the concern and anguish in the community. I suspect that we, as politicians, probably see St John out and about more than many other people in the community. I say that because we all go to an array of functions on a regular basis. They tend to be, by their nature, community functions at which representatives - a lot of the time volunteers - of St John are in attendance, being on call to assist those at these various community events. We, as politicians, see St John more, I would suggest, than anyone else. Our collective radar should be up and alert and responsive to their needs. The government should be indicating to the Territory community at large and St John in particular that a rescue package is required.
The consequences of not assisting St John are very serious. Frankly, I do not want to see a situation in the Northern Territory where the ambulance service is privatised. We all know that in some jurisdictions it is, and the evidence is that it does not work satisfactorily. I do not think that the Northern Territory is big enough to privatise an ambulance service even if we wanted to, which I do not. If St John goes under, then all of us in the community will suffer and we, as politicians, will suffer not only because constituents will come to us expressing their anxiety, but we will be at these community functions and it may well be that we will see people of the Northern Territory not being aided and assisted and, in some cases rescued, by St John Ambulance. I am sure, as politicians, we have all seen at some of these community events the fine work that St John Ambulance staff and volunteers perform.
It is very serious. I am deeply troubled that there has been no indication from the Minister for Health, the Treasurer or the Chief Minister, for instance, that this government will come to the aid of St John. I note the irony that St John has been coming to the aid of Territorians for decades yet, in a time of crisis, the government is not coming to the aid of St John.
I raised my concerns about St John in a media release in November 2003. We knew at the time that St John representatives were having discussion with government. I recall I said in a radio interview that, for my part, I was very happy to step back and allow those discussions to continue because it was understood by me and others that, perhaps, there was a way forward and that St John might obtain financial assistance from government.
Well, here we are in February and there has been no announcement. I said earlier that I invited the Minister for Health to make a ministerial report tomorrow. I repeat that. Perhaps he could make it next week. Alternatively, he could make it by way of media release. He is very good at issuing media releases; he issues a lot. He is also very good at organising various media conferences and stunts. Therefore, he has ample opportunity to produce the goods and to advise Territorians generally, and St John in particular, of what he and his government propose to do.
I strongly urge him to announce what he proposes to do. I do not believe that government would simply sit by and allow this anxiety to continue to fester. I feel confident, with fingers crossed behind my back, that this government will be responsive to the needs of St John. I do not believe that this government is responsive to the needs of Territorians in every area, and this parliament is an excellent forum for us to debate those sorts of issues. However, at the end of the day, I do have a personal confidence that this government is willing to demonstrate a commitment to St John and, through them, to all Territorians. Therefore, I am confident that it will produce the goods; that it will come up with a financial package to assist St John. If they do not, then we will probably see demonstrations on the streets the likes of which we have not seen before.
The opposition should not be raising this issue in parliament tonight because the government should have acted before now. The anxiety is out there and it has been allowed to fester. Interestingly, there is no criticism of St John. The feedback I am getting is that all the criticism is directed towards government because people cannot understand why it is that government did not step up to the plate and say: ‘We will assist St John’.
The opposition is forced to raise it tonight. Of course, I do so primarily in the capacity as shadow minister for Health, but also as the member for Araluen. I go to lots of community events, and I see St John representatives at them. St John Ambulance in Alice Springs is located in my electorate, and I have been there and know many of the staff and volunteers. Therefore, I have more than a passing interest in this.
As I said, I invite the minister to tell us - either inside or outside the Chamber - what is going on. Can he please do it as soon as possible; this is a crisis. St John, on the basis of the auditor’s comments, is on the brink. His silence is deafening. He should allay the concerns and fears of Territorians by telling us what he is going to do. St John has been serving the Territory for decades. This minister needs to assure all Territorians that St John will continue to do so. I urge the minister in the strongest possible terms to produce the goods and tell us what his plan is for rescuing St John.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016