2002-09-17
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 9 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that pursuant to the order of the Assembly dated 20 August 2002, the Estimates Committee will commence hearings at 11 am today for the purpose of examining and reporting on the estimates of the proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation Bill 2002-03.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, this day on account of ill health. I advise members that I am very hopeful that Ms Scrymgour will be able to attend the sittings of the Assembly on Thursday.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, for the remainder of this sitting, the routine of business be as follows: ministerial reports, notices, Government Business Order of the Day No 1, Nitmiluk National Park Plan of Management and Summary of Public Representations, and Government Business Order of the Day No 2, the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 (Serial 89).
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): I assume that ministerial reports will not be occurring?
Mr STIRLING: No, ministerial reports still occur - ministerial reports, notices, and then Government Business Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, today I inform honourable members of strategies being put in place by this government to encourage and support women as they take their rightful place in the economic development of the Northern Territory. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this important topic today, as I will later in the day represent the Chief Minister at a function celebrating the 2002 Telstra Business Women of the Year Awards.
I start by sharing with honourable members some facts about women in business. Recent ABS statistics indicate that, in Australia, over one million small businesses are run by men and over 500 000 run by women; although less Australian women are now entering small business. The number of women in the work force is increasing dramatically, although the participation rate for women is still less than that of men. As honourable members will know, women face different workplace related issues to their male colleagues. In fact, it is likely that it will take up to another 50 years to have equal numbers of men and women in the work force. Additionally, women are often clustered in the service industries and comprise the largest number of part-time casual workers. For example, in the Northern Territory 44% of women are predominately involved in the retail industry, with the nearest other industry recorded as personal and other services at 13%. The NT has three times the proportion of women under 30 years of age who are small business operators, compared with males. 37% of Northern Territory female small business operators are reported to work less than 35 hours per week, compared with only 9.2% of males. This could well indicate the many family, community and business responsibilities that women balance.
This government has achieved a number of changes that address small business needs and these will have direct and beneficial impact on women in business: by introducing new measures to reduce the rate of payroll tax to 6.3% which is now fairer to employers; by offering risk management seminars to provide information on current public liability insurance issues; and by introducing regional Cabinet meetings, new community engagement approaches and business round table meetings. These are new ways of listening and learning from Territory women in business. More specifically, this government has introduced new programs to specifically recognise and provide opportunities for Territory women, including the Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women, which makes available $16 000 each year for women for a tertiary study program, and $6000 for women to undertake vocational studies.
The NT has a vibrant, growing economy that provides the scope and opportunity to establish or grow new business, and this government is committed to supporting small business through a range of programs and services. As members well know, to further its commitment to business, government recently released our vision statement for the Territory called Building a Better Territory, the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory. The overall aim of the strategy is to build a united Territory moving forward on social and economic improvements, in partnership with all Territorians.
In addition, I share with the Chief Minister a real sense of pride in the government’s first full budget, which is aptly labelled ‘Delivering Today and Investing for Tomorrow’. It delivers real increases in the areas of most importance to Territorians, including health, education and assistance to business. I am pleased to say that we have been able to deliver tax cuts to business, and provide the overall economic framework which we know will help Territory business flourish and grow. We are aware that the past few years have been difficult with the introduction of the GST, 11 September, and the collapse of a number of significant corporations nationally. This time, more than any other, has presented challenges for business, but it is turning around.
It is pleasing to report that there are positive signs that our economy is on the way to recovery. Under this government, 3600 new jobs have been created, and 2200 of those are full-time positions. The Territory’s official trend unemployment rate is down to 4.2%, equal to the lowest in the nation - down from more than 7.5% when we took office. Overall, for the medium term, the Territory’s coming growth prospects are strong, with growth forecast to average 5% over the next five years. This is good news for business, and good news for the Territory budget.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in my capacity as shadow minister for women’s policy, I thank the minister for his statement. It is interesting, however, that no mention was made of the decision made by this government fairly early on in this term to abolish the Business Women’s Consultative Council. That, along with the Women’s Advisory Council, was an organisation put in place by the former government. Both organisations worked well. The Business Women’s Consultative Council provided women with the opportunity to have their voices heard by government. Of course, we know that there are issues in the workplace that have specific and particular relevance to women including but not limited, of course, to paid maternity leave, child care and superannuation. I note with interest that none of those matters were discussed by the minister in his statement.
In relation to the Telstra Business Women’s Awards, I take this opportunity to congratulate all the nominees. The business awards have always been a highlight of business women’s calenders. It is with a degree of disappointment that I will be unable to attend the awards later this week.
I notice that the minister referred to the Chief Minister’s study award. No great brownie points awarded to that; after all it is a rebadged idea arising from the women’s scholarship which was, again, put in place by the former administration.
Woman of the Northern Territory are waiting with interest to see what this government can do for women in business. It has much to live up to because the former government broke new ground in a number of areas across the board of women’s policy. For the sake of all Territory women, I hope that this government does well for and on behalf of women.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen for her comments.
In regards to the former Business Women’s Consultative Council, we have explained before the reason for the cessation of that particular organisation. What we have done is create the Business Round Table which meets far more regularly than the previous organisation did; in fact, 10 times a year around the Northern Territory. Through that process we are ensuring that women get equal representation on that particular round table. That is a round table that has direct access to the Chief Minister. We are working with the Women’s Advisory Council and, recently, they included a half-page feature in their June newsletter calling for submissions for businesswomen to attend that particular forum. We think that we have broadened access for businesswomen to have access and dialogue with government, particularly directly to the Chief Minister. That is a vast improvement on the previous organisation.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I rise to give an updated report on the organising of the Masters Games. The Masters Games will be held in Alice Spring from 19 to 26 October, as I told the House at a previous sittings.
The games were established in 1986 and are held every two years in Alice Springs. The games were Australia’s first multi-sport festival for mature aged athletes, and have grown to attracting from throughout Australia almost 5000 competitors in 38 sports. Entries have closed for the games and, as at 17 September, it is nice to report that the games office has received 3412 competitor registrations. At this same period last Masters Games, a total of almost 3800 registrations were to hand. So we are down just over 300 registrations. However, considering the competition from the World Masters Games in Melbourne, where that event is to be held two weeks before the Alice Springs Masters Games, and that the World Masters Games have something like 15 000 to 20 000 competitors registered, the Office of Sport and Recreation and the games advisory committee are very pleased with the final numbers for our Masters Games coming up next month. No doubt, so are the members from the Central Australian region and also, more importantly, the business community.
A large number of volunteers have been recruited and staff seconded from other government departments to assist during the week of the games. Over 420 volunteers will participate in these games. The Opening Ceremony will be held on the evening of Saturday, 19 October 2002, at Anzac Oval and is expected to attract some 5000 to 6000 people. The Closing Ceremony will be on the 26 October at the same venue and will attract a smaller crowd as it has done over the years. Jon English will be the lead act in a great line-up of Australian talent selected for the Opening Ceremony, and Richard Clapton has been secured to perform at the mid-week concert at Lasseters Hotel Casino. The Closing Ceremony will be led by the Australian Blues Brothers Show which is now established as one of Australia’s top bands.
I am proud to report that the operational planning of the Masters Games is on track. The Office of Sport and Recreation, the advisory committee and the sports coordinators are confident that Alice Springs will be host to another highly successful games this year.
That is a really top effort when we have to take into consideration the collapse of Ansett, the 11 September events that happened almost 12 months ago in New York, and competing against the World Masters Games happening two weeks prior to this event. So, it is really good to see that support for the games is there. The competitors really enjoy it and it is a boost for the business community and the economy in Central Australia.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, yes, it is a good thing we have the Masters Games coming up, and we acknowledge some of the difficulties there have been in bringing it together. I make a couple of points; one being government advertising has highlighted the fact that two members of this Chamber are participating - they happen to be two government members. There are other members of this Chamber who are also actively involved in the Masters Games: the members for Nelson, Greatorex, Brennan – he is considering, I am not sure whether the member for Brennan has submitted his registration - Macdonnell, and Blain.
I understand the numbers are down and we have an explanation for that, but I do make an inquiry: do the registrations of 3412 actually equate to the number when you compare it with the 3800 at the same time last games? Are they individuals or registrations in multiple sports? You can very easily provide some spin there to create the impression that it is only slightly down when, in fact, 3800 could, in my understanding as to the last games, actually be real numbers of individual participants as opposed to 3412 registrations in multiple sports. I know that some members of this Chamber are involved in a range of sports and, therefore, each of those would be counted as a registration.
I make this point because – not that we are downing the games, as the charge may come from the member opposite - we want it to be fairly supported and rightfully acknowledged for what is actually the case. I do support the Masters Games wholeheartedly.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the opposition spokesperson is not talking this up; he is talking it down and …
Mr Mills: Rubbish! You are talking it up; you are inflating it.
Mr AH KIT: You started talking this down when I began talking about this about three sittings ago. Talk it up. Invitations are going out to members opposite to share in the medal presentation …
A member: You never invited us.
Mr AH KIT: I do not know how many invitations we have. But, look, talk it up instead of talking it down. If you want a briefing, I can arrange that; Bob Corby is there …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You are laughing because you see it as a joke, you idiots. You want to get down there and participate instead of staying in your comfort zone in Katherine.
Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the opposition continues to talk it down and that there is laughing and giggling from the members from Central Australia. We take this seriously. The Masters Games are important to Central Australia and we will see you in some of the sports. Hopefully, Denis, you can accept that you will not be captain in a couple of the events that you are participating in.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of measures I announced last week to reform the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. In the next session of parliament, I will introduce legislation which represents one of the most significant public health initiatives in the Territory in the past decade. The legislation will address such areas as smoke free public places, discouraging people from smoking - particularly young people - and tobacco retailing and licensing.
It is estimated that tobacco consumption costs the Territory community around $60m a year. It could, however, be double that when intangible costs such as welfare, absenteeism and carers are added to the equation. Territorians have the highest smoking rates in Australia. The latest figure showed 27.9% of those over the age of 14 smoke, compared to the national average of around 20%.
One in five Territorians die of smoking related illnesses, yet we have had the most outdated legislation in Australia. The Territory has long been criticised for its inaction in this area. The government is committed to ensuring the health of Territorians is given the same protection as other Australians, and that we will do all we can to stop children taking up the habit. The legislation will be designed to reduce the long-term health problems associated with smoking and the bring the Territory into line with the rest of Australia. From 1 January 2003, smoking will be prohibited in all indoor restaurants, cafes, eateries and shopping centres. From 31 May 2003, which is World No Tobacco Day, all workplaces will become smoke free. Hotels, clubs and casinos will need to provide equal amenity in their licensed areas. Casinos will also need to provide equal amenity in gaming areas. Hotels and clubs will be required to provide equal amenity in gaming areas where they have more than 25 gaming machines, and then only for the machines in excess of 25. The interpretation of equal amenity will be guided by an industry code to be co-developed by the government and the Australian Hotels Association. A panel comprising union, industry and government representatives will investigate breaches.
These new smoking regulations are the result of widespread community, worker and industry consultations. One thousand copies of the discussion paper outlining the proposals were distributed throughout the Northern Territory. This does not include the number of site visits to the online discussion paper available on the Internet. Targetted consultations were also held with such stakeholders as the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Australian Education Union, the Property Council, Lend Lease, the Shopping Centre Council, the Australian Hotels Association, the Australian Medical Association and such other health groups as the Cancer Council and the National Heart Foundation.
Over 190 submissions were received, with more than 90% supporting change. Workers who are subject to environmental tobacco smoke will benefit under these laws, as will patrons of sport and community events which have fixed seating. Venues with fixed seating, such as sports stadiums, will be required to provide 50% of their seating as non-smoking. Delaying workplace restrictions, including for the hotels, clubs and casinos until the 31 May 2003, will ensure affected premises will have time to prepare for the changes.
Other venues where smoking will be prohibited on 1 January 2003 include halls and community facilities such as libraries, theatres and galleries; confined areas of common access such as stairways, corridors, lobbies, waiting and ticketing areas, toilets and staff amenities in public buildings; public transport, such as taxis, buses, vessels and their stations and waiting areas; the buildings and grounds of school and child-care facilities, except where staff agree to designating an outdoor smoking area concealed from view of children and restricted to adults; shared accommodation, such as hostels and nursing homes, except where the rooms are shared by couples; and within two metres of entrances to buildings and three metres from outdoor airconditioning inlets.
There will be an extensive public education campaign, including media advertising, brochures and booklets, workplace visits and face-to-face information centres to inform Territorians of the new legislation prior to its becoming law. There will also be new restrictions on the sale of tobacco and restricting supply to minors, including changes to advertising and marketing, and removing the ability to sell single cigarettes. We will also be introducing a licensing system for the retailing of tobacco products. It will be fee free, but will introduce a regulatory system which enables us to remove licences from retailers in breach of the act. I have also written to Territory businesses to explain the changes and most businesses should be receiving a letter from me in the next few days.
To conclude, I will say again that these changes are the most significant public health initiative in the Northern Territory in the past decade and, as Health and Community Services Minister, I am proud to be associated with their introduction.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I applaud the minister on this initiative. This is a significant issue for health ministers around the world, particularly in the Northern Territory where rates of smoking and of illness associated with it are very high.
The previous government had moved in some way to address this matter. I applaud the fact that the government took the time to consult with the community. It is a vexed issue; it is an issue of a consumption of a legal, licit drug. However, I would say that there is more potential to save lives with this initiative than there is with the various gammon drugs initiatives that have come from the Minister for Justice. In fact, the lives that will be saved through some restrictions on tobacco - particularly the uptake among young people - will vastly outweigh some of the chest-beating rhetoric that has come out in relation to illicit drugs.
The industry has been aware of the changes that have been coming, not only through the litigious aspects attending on tobacco smoke and the need to have a safe workplace for employees but, also, in relation to matters like community and consumer expectations.
I applaud the casino in already moving to have Aqua, a place set aside in the casino which I attended only the other day. I think it is very well done. I know the Australian Hotels Association has been educating its members about the inevitability of legislation such as this. I know it would be a rare member of the community who would not - whether they are smokers or not - agree that our young children should be dissuaded from this habit, and some regulation put in place to make sure that they do not have ready and easy access to tobacco.
I applaud the government and I thank the minister for the offer of a briefing. Unfortunately, it was fairly late notice and, as members know, we have fairly significant and momentous events on today so I could not attend. However, I thank her for the offer and I look forward to working with her to address the issues related to tobacco legislation.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his comments, and I look forward to the support of the opposition when we introduce this legislation. If the member for Drysdale would like a further briefing on this, I would be happy to offer that to him.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order
AGENTS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 99)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. I also advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
The main purpose of this bill is to implement reforms identified as a consequence of the National Competition Policy review of the Agents Licensing Act. It is well known that it has been previously stated in this parliament in respect of many other bills that, in April 1995, the Commonwealth, states and territories signed three intergovernmental agreements that comprise the National Competition Policy reform package. Compliance with agreed National Competition Policy reforms is a prerequisite for a series of competition payments to the Territory from the Commonwealth. These payments have been estimated at over $7m per annum from 2001-02.
One of the National Competition Policy agreements, namely the Competition Principles Agreement, obliges the Territory, along with the states, to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive. Within the context of the Competition Principles Agreement, a very broad approach is taken as to what provisions are anti-competitive. A provision may be anti-competitive if it does any of the following:
This examination requires that the objectives of the legislation be identified and confirmed as to their current application. It then requires that each restriction on competition be assessed to determine if it is in the net public interest. Thus, it is plain that competition policy does not require the removal of all provisions that may be anti-competitive. Rather, it requires that all state and territory governments reach a judgment as to whether the anti-competitive provision can be justified as being in the public interest after regard is had to the costs and the benefits of the restriction.
In summary, the guiding principle underpinning each review is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the costs of the restriction; and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The Agents Licensing Act was identified as possibly containing anti-competitive provisions. This act has been reviewed by consultants; namely the Centre for International Economics, CIE. The consultants were overseen by a steering committee established by the former Department of Industries and Business and comprising representatives from the former Northern Territory Attorney-General’s Department, the former Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory Treasury and the Chief Minister’s Department. CIE produced an issues paper in June 2000, and conducted wide-ranging consultation with persons and organisations that might be interested in the operation of the act. CIE produced its report to the former government in October 2000.
CIE reported on all matters required for the purposes of the NCP review. I will now summarise both the findings and the governments responses to these findings. The most significant issue to be resolved by an NCP review is that of: what is the objective of legislative intervention in the market? CIE found that the main objective of the act is to protect consumers of real estate, business and conveyancing services from agent misconduct or negligence. The government accepts that finding.
The next most significant matter is that of identifying the restrictions in the legislation. CIE found that the act’s main restrictions are restrictions on entry through licensing and registration, and restrictions on mode of operation of agents. In respect of these restrictions, CIE recommended that:
first, the restrictions on entry be maintained subject to the ‘fit and proper’ test should be
amended so that it sets out objective criteria on which compliance can be tested.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 8 of the bill sets out a detailed definition of ‘fit and proper’; and
second, that the education requirements for agents should be determined by the Agents Licensing
Board in conjunction with the industry.
The government has partially accepted this recommendation. In coming to this conclusion, CIE noted that there was dissatisfaction with the current requirements as set out in the regulations. The apparent assumption is that permitting a licensing authority, rather than the executive government, to prescribe educational standards might lead to a different outcome. The Northern Territory government is not convinced that this would be the case. The current requirements in the regulations are the outcome of a long period of negotiation involving local industry, the local board and their interstate peers. In fact, the prescribed course has not been delivered. Instead, the main educational provider, the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, has delivered its own course and the board has accepted this.
Across Australia in a variety of industries and occupations, there are tensions between licensing authorities such as the Agents Licensing Board, industry bodies such as the REINT, educational providers such as the REINT and the Northern Territory University, and education regulators such as the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority, arising from the overlap in various roles. It does not seem appropriate to vest responsibility in any one of these bodies. The government takes the view that there may sometimes be national considerations or whole-of-government decisions that can only be made by government.
third, CIE recommended that the education requirements for agents’ representatives should be
left to agents to decide.
That is, there should be no setting of educational standards in the act or regulations. At this stage, the Northern Territory government has not accepted this recommendation. The NT government takes the view that the focus of licensing of real estate agents should be on those persons who have the greatest level of dealings with the public.
should be reviewed in light of national based approaches to training, but that the substitution
issues between formal training and experience should be left with the Agents Licensing Board.
The government accepts this finding, though it is anticipated that competency-based training should, over time, lead to either the elimination of the post-training practical experience period or, at least, a considerable reduction of the current four years.
the Fidelity Fund for the purpose of providing realty education. CIE also suggested that there is the
need to investigate the possibility that sole rights to deliver realty training be subject to tender.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 26 of the bill will facilitate open access to funding of educational courses.
The government has accepted this recommendation. Clause 31 provides simply that the agent have an office in Australia. This amendment recognises the simple fact that all business should have the capacity to operate nationally. This provision does not, however, affect the various other compliance requirements; for example, that of having an account or trust monies that are in the Northern Territory. These practical requirements will mean that the vast majority of agents will have an office in the Northern Territory if they engage in any significant activity in the Northern Territory.
office in the situation where there are two or more offices in the same town or city.
The government accepts the generality of this recommendation. Clause 31 provides for a new section 110A. This section will provide for business managers who will have responsibility for each office. However, one such manager might have the responsibility for more than one office. The bill provides for severe penalties if a business manager does not have appropriate control. Additionally, Rules of Practice can be made, spelling out the duties of a branch manager when the manager is not physically in the office.
and business sale contracts, subject to having the appropriate qualifications to provide such services.
Clause 14 provides for the implementation of this recommendation. In essence, a conveyancer who has obtained the appropriate qualifications will have the right, on the endorsement of the Agents Licensing Board, to provide the range of services recommended by CIE.
the minimum level being set by the board, and that industry bodies be permitted to arrange such insurance
for those of their members who wish to participate. However, participation in such a group scheme is a
matter for industry, not licensing.
The government accepts these recommendations concerning indemnity insurance. The relevant amendments are contained in clause 29.
reviewed along with the current cap on claims.
The government accepts this recommendation. A detailed review has yet to be made. However, the bill provides for the nominal cap on claims to be lifted to $200 000. As with the current provision, the Administrator retains the right to set a higher figure.
minimum standards required for consumer protection.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clauses 21 and 22 amend the provisions dealing with the Rules of Conduct. Such rules will now be contained in regulations, and will be developed by the Department of Justice in consultation with the Agents Licensing Board, the various industry and peak consumer bodies. Until such regulations are developed, the rules in the Agents Licensing Act and the Agents Licensing Regulations will apply.
the Law Society Northern Territory be removed.
These references are in the Agents Licensing Regulations. New regulations will be drawn up in due course.
thirteenth, CIE recommended that the real estate members of the Agents Licensing Board should be
drawn from all of the industry and not just from persons nominated by the REINT.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 5 provides for the appropriate amendment.
not appoint any conveyancing agents to the Agents Licensing Board.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 5 provides for the necessary amendment.
The bill also provides for certain other reforms and revisions. These include:
a review of the penalties in the Agents Licensing Act and the conversion of them, so that they
are stated in terms of penalty units rather than in monetary amounts. The review has resulted in
substantial increases in the maximum penalties that might be imposed;
minor revisions to remove sexist use of language; and
some restructuring of the act so that it is somewhat easier to follow.
I also mention that the Agents Licensing Board and various industry bodies have drawn the attention of government to a number of other issues related to the operation of the Agents Licensing Act. The Department of Justice is currently preparing an issues paper on these issues.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): I move that the bill be now read a second time, and advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the prescribed property provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act as they apply to Aboriginal community living areas excised from pastoral leases.
Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act provides a legislative regime whereby eligible Aboriginal applicants can gain excisions from the pastoral lease for community living area purposes. The legislation, initially contained in the Crown Lands Act, is based on a memorandum agreement signed in 1989 between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The establishment of the community living areas legislation resulted in consequential amendments to other legislation, including the addition of sections 26A(5), (6) and (7), to the Associations Incorporation Act. These sections prevent the minister from consenting to a disposal, charge or dealing with all or part of such land registered to an incorporated association or Aboriginal corporation, other than for the purposes of registering an easement or having an abandoned community living area reincorporated into the pastoral lease from which it was excised.
The wording of sections 26A(5), (6) and (7), whilst giving effect to the intention expressed in the agreement that there be statutory protection against alienation or encumbrance of the land, is now considered overly restrictive. For example, solicitors acting for one community have requested ministerial consent to the transfer of land held by that association to a newly incorporated association formed by the residents of that community solely for that purpose. This request was a culmination of an extensive restructuring of the affairs of that community following recommendations from both ATSIC and the then Department of Local Government. The transfer, while supported, is not permitted under the current wording of sections 26A(5) of the act.
Another community secured funding from the Commonwealth funded organisation for the building of a health centre. The funding was jeopardised, as the community was not able to legally grant a lease in favour of the funding body, for the premises to be occupied by the health centre. I understand the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations, under the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976, faces similar problems when dealing with Aboriginal corporations. The proposed amendment would overcome these difficulties while preserving the original intention of the restrictions; which is to prevent the loss of the land through financial mismanagement, sale of the land, or the lease of the land for purposes outside the original intent of the grant of the title.
The proposed amendment will permit the minister to consent to a dealing in the land, but only in limited circumstances. The first of these circumstances is where it is proposed that the land be transferred to an incorporated association, or Aboriginal corporation that has similar objects and substantially the same members as the incorporated association or Aboriginal corporation that intends to transfer the land. The second circumstance is the granting of a lease for the purposes of the provision of health, education, housing or financial services to the members of the incorporated association, or Aboriginal corporation. The proposed amendment would permit the minister some discretion to consent to a dealing in the land for those restricted purposes, which will be of benefit to the Aboriginal persons for whose benefit the land was granted.
In keeping with the spirit of the 1989 agreement between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister, the then Minister for Industries and Business provided a copy of the draft bill in early 2001 to the then federal Minister of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Hon Philip Ruddock MP, for comment. I am pleased to advise that the federal minister indicated his agreement with the provisions of the proposed amendments in March 2001.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. I advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
At the Council of Australian Government’s meeting of April 1995, heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP Agreements. Under the National Competition Policy Agreements, all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with the timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricts competition.
Initially, the former Department of Transport and Works identified four pieces of legislation that required review under the National Competition Policy requirements. These were: the Motor Vehicles Act; the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act; the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act; and the Marine Act. These reviews have been completed.
In addition to the legislation I just referred to, three other pieces of legislation have been identified as requiring National Competition Policy reviews. One of these is the Aerodromes Act. By way of some background, the Aerodromes Act was assented to on 27 July 1993, and was legislated principally to provide the Northern Territory government with powers in relation to Connellan Airport at Yulara. In subsequent years, other areas were declared to be aerodromes pursuant to the act. This included airstrips at Batchelor, Borroloola and Timber Creek. The leasing of Connellan Airport to the Ayers Rock Resort Co Ltd in 1997 subsequently ceded responsibility for the administration of the airport to this corporation and that, in turn, obviated a need for the Aerodromes Act to prescribe the necessary administration requirements. Repealing the Aerodromes Act would not affect any contractual obligations that are currently in place. A specific saving provision is inserting clause 4 of the bill to preserve all contracts entered into under this act. This contract will continue even after the Aerodromes Act Repeal Act comes into force. The term ‘contract’ is defined broadly to mean a contract, lease, license or authority that is referred to in section 6(2) of the repealed act.
I must mention that, when the Aerodromes Act is repealed, the Aerodromes Regulations which were made pursuant to this act, will also be repealed. At present, the Aerodrome Regulations address a range of matters such as aerodrome security, the parking of aircraft at aerodromes, the control of trading and advertising of aerodromes, and safety matters such as smoking. These matters are all addressed in other Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation. For example, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau have broad powers and responsibilities under both the Civil Aviation Act and the Air Navigation Act with respect to aviation accidents and/or incidents, including the provision of various requirements and remedies with respect to aerodrome use and misuse.
The Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, under the Police Administration Act and Fire and Emergency Act, provide avenues for remedial action in the event of an aircraft posing a threat to public safety. There are also various civil remedies available to landowners, - in this case the Northern Territory government - for inappropriate actions on aircraft landing areas. In addition to the above, an extensive range of mandatory aviator requirements are also contained in various publications ancillary to this act including Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation advisory publications, Civil Aviation Orders and Aerodromes Manual.
In closing, there is no increased risk of liability that attaches to the Northern Territory in respect of incidents occurring at currently regulated aerodromes if the Aerodromes Act is repealed. This is because there are no statutory provisions in the present act that exclude or limit liability on the part of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in adjourning the debate, I make the point that it is most unusual that a series of bills be introduced in this way without notice. I am not sure that it is unprecedented but it is certainly most unusual and it is worthy of note. I move the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Honourable members, during the last sittings of the Assembly I had pleasure in placing before the House a plan of management for Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. The plan of management has been endorsed by the Nitmiluk Board, which is satisfied that the objectives and actions set out in the plan are consistent with the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. This endorsement is critical because it means that the Aboriginal traditional owners of the gorge have had full involvement in drafting this plan of management. This plan replaces the original plan which became ineffective in September 1999. Since it was tabled, the plan will come into effect immediately after seven sitting days of this House.
Nitmiluk National Park is owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal Land Trust, and jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government. The park is a major tourist icon in the Katherine region, attracting in excess of 250 000 visitors per year. Together with its natural beauty, the park is also regarded as a model for successful joint management. The involvement of the park’s traditional owners in the operation and management of the park has enhanced its character and appeal to visitors. Joint management is clearly the way to go with parks which are of such significance. It is of cultural significance to Aboriginal people and of environmental significance to all Territorians – indeed, all Australians. Under the joint management arrangement, Parks and Wildlife will take day-to-day management of the park, whereas the Nitmiluk Board, of which the majority of members are Jawoyn, direct the overall management of the park under the guidance of the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act.
This second plan proposes no radical change to the way the park is being managed but, instead, aims to build on past successes. This plan gives emphasis to a number of significant management directions, such as the implementation of procedures to improve prospects for Aboriginal people to gain employment in the park. This is critical. This government is determined to ensure that Aboriginal Territorians become an important part of the economic life of the Territory. To be part of the economic life requires people to be employed. Not only does this build skills in the community, it provides important role models for Aboriginal children in the future; a fact identified by the Collins report as being of major of importance in ensuring young Aboriginal children see education as important in their lives. Enhanced training and employment programs will be developed to facilitate this.
The plan also identifies a need to increase visitor awareness of Jawoyn culture and heritage through better promotion and interpretation of Jawoyn culture, park owners and management. Recognition of prior ownership and the relevance today of Aboriginal culture, is important to both the Aboriginal people themselves and to tourists to the area. The Northern Territory has a diverse cultural base, and Aboriginal culture is the oldest living culture in the world. This is a matter of great pride to our community and, I believe, should be showcased wherever and whenever possible.
In relation to the management of the park’s natural resources, the plan aims to enhance decision-making abilities in regard to biodiversity conservation through continuous comprehensive fauna and flora survey work. The plan also outlines the way in which the landscape can be better managed through integrated environmental monitoring programs and the development of geographic information system technology.
In terms of visitor management, the plan aims to develop updated site master plans for the park’s intensive use areas, in anticipation of increased visitor numbers over the next decade. Park staff will continue to liaise with concession operators within the park to ensure that high standards in visitor service, safety and environmental protection are maintained. The plan also recognises the need for increased emphasis on cultural interpretation within the Nitmiluk Visitor Centre. The second plan of management aims to strengthen conservation management, enhance visitor enjoyment and further increase the level of Aboriginal involvement in all aspects of park management.
The Nitmiluk Plan of Management attempts to intertwine a range of issues which I have discussed. Nitmiluk has proved that joint management is a successful model for working together and one which, I believe, needs to be examined more closely in relation to other key parks in the Northern Territory. I believe the Nitmiluk model has lessons which could also be learned by our federal colleagues in the joint management arrangements of Kakadu and Uluru. It is a model which proves that, with goodwill and a preparedness to set aside differences, government and Aboriginal organisations can achieve a great deal. I commend my predecessor for making this arrangement in a successful way; I intend to build on their work.
Madam Speaker, I commend this plan of management for the information of the Legislative Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 21 August 2002.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to deliver the Treasurer’s comments in reply closing debate. The Treasurer was in Katherine this morning to participate in the opening of the rail bridge, and quite clearly has not made it back.
Leave granted.
Mr Reed: This is for and on behalf of.
Mr STIRLING: For and on behalf of the Treasurer, I thank honourable members for their comments. We remain extremely proud of this budget - Labor’s first - and even prouder of how it has been received by the community we have been elected to govern. I also acknowledge the dedicated efforts and support of Cabinet and parliamentary colleagues in putting together the budget; the tireless efforts of Treasury in particular; all NT agencies and the public servants within them; and the government’s own team of advisors. Despite predictable comments from the other side, this is a budget that delivers today, and invests for tomorrow.
Labor went to the election last year with a fully costed plan for a four-year term. We spelt out in detail our proposals and the costs of the budget each financial year. The policies were refined in their costings and delivery schedule in last year’s November mini –budget, which was forced on us due to the appalling financial circumstances this government inherited - one distinctly at odds with the picture painted in the last budget papers of the former CLP administration. But the full four-year plan was there for all to see. This stands in marked contrast to our predecessors, who never provided a comprehensive four-year plan. We promised to Territorians four key priorities in the lead-up to last year’s election - education, health, community safety and jobs - and our first full budget delivers on that commitment to all Territorians.
The move to accrual accounting and budgeting delivers a policy my colleagues have supported for many years. Given the way in which many of our commitments have been spelt out to the community and this parliament, there was perhaps no better time to introduce the new budgetary format. We have not used the new budgetary presentation to hide bad news; we have not used it to deceive Territorians. We have done it because it was the right thing to do. We have done it because it provides more information for the public, the parliament and our public service than ever before. We have done it to bring ourselves up to date with what every other Australian jurisdiction is doing. We have done it at a time when our plans to build a better Territory are well understood. Territorians have seen our cash-based plans, now they are simply seeing those same plans in an accrual format.
I am at a loss, therefore, over the confusion the opposition demonstrates in its budget replies. They have known for months that the 2002-03 budget would be delivered in accrual terms. There was plenty of opportunity to come to grips with what that would mean. Did any of them seek a briefing? No! When the Treasurer, while Opposition Leader, requested before each budget information from the then Treasurer as to potential changes in budget presentations, he never obliged; but at least the now Treasurer tried. Did any of other members opposite try that novel approach? No! Did of any of them view the Treasury web site on Working for Outcomes prior to budget day on the 20 August? It does not seem like it. Did any of them talk to interstate or federal colleagues who have worked under accrual budgets for years? Again, on the evidence of their budget replies, it would seem the answer is no. The Opposition Leader wants to smell a rat wherever he turns. We wonder why.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding the opposition seems to have concerns the shift to using net appropriations. They claim that we have wiped $1bn from the amount being authorised by the parliament for agencies to spend. But we are at a loss to see what the problem is. Under the old system, the parliament approved the gross appropriations for each agency, regardless of whether each agency was spending money provided by Commonwealth FPP’s through private sector sponsorship of research, or whether the expenditure related to the provision of goods and services being provided to Territorians. There was also a major element of double counting in the gross appropriation method due to the substantial levels of inter-agency payments, which did not affect resource allocation decisions and had no real effect on the government’s total expenditure with individuals and companies outside the public sector.
What the parliament is being asked to approve now is the use of Territory taxpayers’ resources in meeting the expenditure requirements of government, not those funds that have already been approved by someone else that will be spent by our agencies, nor the runaround monies within government. Nevertheless, the growth level of spending of each agency is still provided, both in terms of output statements and the accrual statements of financial position. You cannot get to the net appropriation without a thorough understanding of both the gross revenues and the gross expenditure of each agency. That is precisely what is provided in these budget papers.
The opposition laments the fact that these budget papers do not provide ready comparisons between last year’s mini-budget and the outcome for 2001-02 year. I remind the opposition that we have adhered strictly to the process that they practiced for many years, particularly following the introduction of the Financial Management Act in 1995. That is, the budget papers are a forward looking set of documents. They enable the budget for the new year, and the forward estimates, to be compared on the same basis as the estimated outcome for the previous year. It is not the purpose of the budget books to be looking backwards. That is the job of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and agencies’ annual reports that will be progressively tabled in this parliament over the rest of the year.
The Opposition Leader made a number of specific criticisms of the budget and I would like to deal with a few of those. First, his alarming claims about the declining net worth of government. By focussing on the general government sector, he deliberately ignored the impact of public trading enterprises and the Treasury Corporation on the bottom line, via the substantial assets that they hold on behalf of Territorians. Rather than criticising us for attempting to provide these figures, he ought to be ashamed that, under his government, no attempt had been made to include appropriate asset and depreciation values for agencies.
Provisional depreciation expenses have been included, based on the methodology used in other jurisdictions. That methodology is, however, being progressively revised and improved in conjunction with the Valuer-General, and we would expect to see some changes to these valuations in the transitional phase of accrual accounting. That is one of the reasons why cash appropriation has been adopted until depreciation expenses become more stable.
Second, that net debt is increasing while operating expenses are decreasing. Clearly, the Opposition Leader has mixed and confused these two concepts. He has ignored the impact of capital expenditure, which is not part of operating expenses, and this is clearly explained on page 52 of Budget Paper No 2.
Third, that the increases from 2002-02 to 2002-03 are not real because of the inclusion of accrual items such as depreciation, which is just a book entry. The accrual items are included for both years so comparisons are valid.
Fourth, the different treatment of repairs and maintenance in 2002 has resulted in the increases between 2001-02 and 2002-03 being overstated. The government has clearly listed the inclusion of repairs and maintenance expenditure within each agency from 2002-03 in Budget Paper No 3, in significant variations, and also in the statement of financial performance for those agencies which have repairs and maintenance expenses. The increases in expenditure that I announced in budget speech excluded the change in treatment associated with repairs and maintenance and are, therefore, genuine increases.
We went out of our way, in this parliament, to ensure Territorians were presented with reliable information, but it seems the opposition is hell-bent on supplying misinformation. Opposition members also claim that, as the deficit in 2002-03 was similar to that in 2001-02, any black hole is the government’s own making. Let me assure the House the black hole we inherited does exist. The government could have used the additional revenue to achieve a balanced budget more rapidly than had been planned, but it choose to increase the level of capital works spending because the capital works program we had inherited from the former government had been so severely under-funded by them. We also needed to introduce programs in areas of substantial need, as reflected in the increased relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. What we have done is responsible, economic and financial management. We are sticking to our deficit reduction strategy, but over a time frame that will not send the Northern Territory economy back into the doldrums that it was in during the last two years of CLP administration.
However, what really comes through in the opposition comments on the budget is a lack of any sense that they are a team pulling together. There is no strategy apparent; there is no vision of what they, so recently a government, would do differently. Several members complain we are not getting the budget deficit down fast enough, and yet, those same speakers then suggest we need to spend more, particularly in their own electorates. The member for Goyder prattled on about the need to protect the wealth producers, the business sector, by restraining spending on the social areas because business has to pay for this. He then proceeded to complain about the lack of business assistance in this budget. So, he wants lower business taxes and higher spending on business. Where will those businesses get their employees without adequate education and training? Where will their employees and their families turn to for help without adequate health care and hospitals? What costs do business bear if we cannot improve community safety or reduce the problems caused by occurrence at their shop doors?
As well as delivering on its priorities in health, education, and community safety, this budget has been a remarkable one for business in the Territory: no new taxes. Quite the reverse; we have reduced or abolished existing ones. We have provided a substantial boost to the construction sector by spending a record amount on infrastructure across the spectrum of small, medium and large projects. We have given the residential sector a wonderful boost through the increased stamp duty concessions. We have increased tourism marketing and are assisting the provision of Virgin Blue air services into the Territory.
This is a pretty good business budget and business agrees with the Treasurer; the TCA calls it a strong budget:
The Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry:
We are about to embark on the final stages of the passage of this budget. We still have the Estimates Committee processes to go, but this is an opportunity, unique so far in the history of the budget, for greater scrutiny of the budget. I hope all members make effective use of this process to clarify issues of concern to them, on behalf of all Territorians. The ministers of the government will approach this process in the spirit of openness, transparency and cooperation that is the hallmark of this government.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, at the sitting of the Assembly on Thursday, 19 September 2002, after petitions and notices, intervening business be postponed until after:
(a) consideration of the report of the Estimates Committee in Committee of the Whole and the
remaining stage of the Appropriation Bill in accordance with the resolution of the Assembly
dated 20 August 2002; and
(b) Government Business Notices and Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until 7 pm on Thursday, 19 September 2002 or such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hours notice given to government and opposition Whips and members by Madam Speaker, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Estimates Committee –
Commencement of Hearings
Estimates Committee –
Commencement of Hearings
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that pursuant to the order of the Assembly dated 20 August 2002, the Estimates Committee will commence hearings at 11 am today for the purpose of examining and reporting on the estimates of the proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation Bill 2002-03.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, this day on account of ill health. I advise members that I am very hopeful that Ms Scrymgour will be able to attend the sittings of the Assembly on Thursday.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, for the remainder of this sitting, the routine of business be as follows: ministerial reports, notices, Government Business Order of the Day No 1, Nitmiluk National Park Plan of Management and Summary of Public Representations, and Government Business Order of the Day No 2, the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 (Serial 89).
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): I assume that ministerial reports will not be occurring?
Mr STIRLING: No, ministerial reports still occur - ministerial reports, notices, and then Government Business Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Government Support for Women in Business
Government Support for Women in Business
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, today I inform honourable members of strategies being put in place by this government to encourage and support women as they take their rightful place in the economic development of the Northern Territory. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this important topic today, as I will later in the day represent the Chief Minister at a function celebrating the 2002 Telstra Business Women of the Year Awards.
I start by sharing with honourable members some facts about women in business. Recent ABS statistics indicate that, in Australia, over one million small businesses are run by men and over 500 000 run by women; although less Australian women are now entering small business. The number of women in the work force is increasing dramatically, although the participation rate for women is still less than that of men. As honourable members will know, women face different workplace related issues to their male colleagues. In fact, it is likely that it will take up to another 50 years to have equal numbers of men and women in the work force. Additionally, women are often clustered in the service industries and comprise the largest number of part-time casual workers. For example, in the Northern Territory 44% of women are predominately involved in the retail industry, with the nearest other industry recorded as personal and other services at 13%. The NT has three times the proportion of women under 30 years of age who are small business operators, compared with males. 37% of Northern Territory female small business operators are reported to work less than 35 hours per week, compared with only 9.2% of males. This could well indicate the many family, community and business responsibilities that women balance.
This government has achieved a number of changes that address small business needs and these will have direct and beneficial impact on women in business: by introducing new measures to reduce the rate of payroll tax to 6.3% which is now fairer to employers; by offering risk management seminars to provide information on current public liability insurance issues; and by introducing regional Cabinet meetings, new community engagement approaches and business round table meetings. These are new ways of listening and learning from Territory women in business. More specifically, this government has introduced new programs to specifically recognise and provide opportunities for Territory women, including the Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women, which makes available $16 000 each year for women for a tertiary study program, and $6000 for women to undertake vocational studies.
The NT has a vibrant, growing economy that provides the scope and opportunity to establish or grow new business, and this government is committed to supporting small business through a range of programs and services. As members well know, to further its commitment to business, government recently released our vision statement for the Territory called Building a Better Territory, the economic development strategy for the Northern Territory. The overall aim of the strategy is to build a united Territory moving forward on social and economic improvements, in partnership with all Territorians.
In addition, I share with the Chief Minister a real sense of pride in the government’s first full budget, which is aptly labelled ‘Delivering Today and Investing for Tomorrow’. It delivers real increases in the areas of most importance to Territorians, including health, education and assistance to business. I am pleased to say that we have been able to deliver tax cuts to business, and provide the overall economic framework which we know will help Territory business flourish and grow. We are aware that the past few years have been difficult with the introduction of the GST, 11 September, and the collapse of a number of significant corporations nationally. This time, more than any other, has presented challenges for business, but it is turning around.
It is pleasing to report that there are positive signs that our economy is on the way to recovery. Under this government, 3600 new jobs have been created, and 2200 of those are full-time positions. The Territory’s official trend unemployment rate is down to 4.2%, equal to the lowest in the nation - down from more than 7.5% when we took office. Overall, for the medium term, the Territory’s coming growth prospects are strong, with growth forecast to average 5% over the next five years. This is good news for business, and good news for the Territory budget.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in my capacity as shadow minister for women’s policy, I thank the minister for his statement. It is interesting, however, that no mention was made of the decision made by this government fairly early on in this term to abolish the Business Women’s Consultative Council. That, along with the Women’s Advisory Council, was an organisation put in place by the former government. Both organisations worked well. The Business Women’s Consultative Council provided women with the opportunity to have their voices heard by government. Of course, we know that there are issues in the workplace that have specific and particular relevance to women including but not limited, of course, to paid maternity leave, child care and superannuation. I note with interest that none of those matters were discussed by the minister in his statement.
In relation to the Telstra Business Women’s Awards, I take this opportunity to congratulate all the nominees. The business awards have always been a highlight of business women’s calenders. It is with a degree of disappointment that I will be unable to attend the awards later this week.
I notice that the minister referred to the Chief Minister’s study award. No great brownie points awarded to that; after all it is a rebadged idea arising from the women’s scholarship which was, again, put in place by the former administration.
Woman of the Northern Territory are waiting with interest to see what this government can do for women in business. It has much to live up to because the former government broke new ground in a number of areas across the board of women’s policy. For the sake of all Territory women, I hope that this government does well for and on behalf of women.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen for her comments.
In regards to the former Business Women’s Consultative Council, we have explained before the reason for the cessation of that particular organisation. What we have done is create the Business Round Table which meets far more regularly than the previous organisation did; in fact, 10 times a year around the Northern Territory. Through that process we are ensuring that women get equal representation on that particular round table. That is a round table that has direct access to the Chief Minister. We are working with the Women’s Advisory Council and, recently, they included a half-page feature in their June newsletter calling for submissions for businesswomen to attend that particular forum. We think that we have broadened access for businesswomen to have access and dialogue with government, particularly directly to the Chief Minister. That is a vast improvement on the previous organisation.
Masters Games - Update
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I rise to give an updated report on the organising of the Masters Games. The Masters Games will be held in Alice Spring from 19 to 26 October, as I told the House at a previous sittings.
The games were established in 1986 and are held every two years in Alice Springs. The games were Australia’s first multi-sport festival for mature aged athletes, and have grown to attracting from throughout Australia almost 5000 competitors in 38 sports. Entries have closed for the games and, as at 17 September, it is nice to report that the games office has received 3412 competitor registrations. At this same period last Masters Games, a total of almost 3800 registrations were to hand. So we are down just over 300 registrations. However, considering the competition from the World Masters Games in Melbourne, where that event is to be held two weeks before the Alice Springs Masters Games, and that the World Masters Games have something like 15 000 to 20 000 competitors registered, the Office of Sport and Recreation and the games advisory committee are very pleased with the final numbers for our Masters Games coming up next month. No doubt, so are the members from the Central Australian region and also, more importantly, the business community.
A large number of volunteers have been recruited and staff seconded from other government departments to assist during the week of the games. Over 420 volunteers will participate in these games. The Opening Ceremony will be held on the evening of Saturday, 19 October 2002, at Anzac Oval and is expected to attract some 5000 to 6000 people. The Closing Ceremony will be on the 26 October at the same venue and will attract a smaller crowd as it has done over the years. Jon English will be the lead act in a great line-up of Australian talent selected for the Opening Ceremony, and Richard Clapton has been secured to perform at the mid-week concert at Lasseters Hotel Casino. The Closing Ceremony will be led by the Australian Blues Brothers Show which is now established as one of Australia’s top bands.
I am proud to report that the operational planning of the Masters Games is on track. The Office of Sport and Recreation, the advisory committee and the sports coordinators are confident that Alice Springs will be host to another highly successful games this year.
That is a really top effort when we have to take into consideration the collapse of Ansett, the 11 September events that happened almost 12 months ago in New York, and competing against the World Masters Games happening two weeks prior to this event. So, it is really good to see that support for the games is there. The competitors really enjoy it and it is a boost for the business community and the economy in Central Australia.
Members: Hear, hear.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, yes, it is a good thing we have the Masters Games coming up, and we acknowledge some of the difficulties there have been in bringing it together. I make a couple of points; one being government advertising has highlighted the fact that two members of this Chamber are participating - they happen to be two government members. There are other members of this Chamber who are also actively involved in the Masters Games: the members for Nelson, Greatorex, Brennan – he is considering, I am not sure whether the member for Brennan has submitted his registration - Macdonnell, and Blain.
I understand the numbers are down and we have an explanation for that, but I do make an inquiry: do the registrations of 3412 actually equate to the number when you compare it with the 3800 at the same time last games? Are they individuals or registrations in multiple sports? You can very easily provide some spin there to create the impression that it is only slightly down when, in fact, 3800 could, in my understanding as to the last games, actually be real numbers of individual participants as opposed to 3412 registrations in multiple sports. I know that some members of this Chamber are involved in a range of sports and, therefore, each of those would be counted as a registration.
I make this point because – not that we are downing the games, as the charge may come from the member opposite - we want it to be fairly supported and rightfully acknowledged for what is actually the case. I do support the Masters Games wholeheartedly.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the opposition spokesperson is not talking this up; he is talking it down and …
Mr Mills: Rubbish! You are talking it up; you are inflating it.
Mr AH KIT: You started talking this down when I began talking about this about three sittings ago. Talk it up. Invitations are going out to members opposite to share in the medal presentation …
A member: You never invited us.
Mr AH KIT: I do not know how many invitations we have. But, look, talk it up instead of talking it down. If you want a briefing, I can arrange that; Bob Corby is there …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You are laughing because you see it as a joke, you idiots. You want to get down there and participate instead of staying in your comfort zone in Katherine.
Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the opposition continues to talk it down and that there is laughing and giggling from the members from Central Australia. We take this seriously. The Masters Games are important to Central Australia and we will see you in some of the sports. Hopefully, Denis, you can accept that you will not be captain in a couple of the events that you are participating in.
Reform of Tobacco Act
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of measures I announced last week to reform the Northern Territory Tobacco Act. In the next session of parliament, I will introduce legislation which represents one of the most significant public health initiatives in the Territory in the past decade. The legislation will address such areas as smoke free public places, discouraging people from smoking - particularly young people - and tobacco retailing and licensing.
It is estimated that tobacco consumption costs the Territory community around $60m a year. It could, however, be double that when intangible costs such as welfare, absenteeism and carers are added to the equation. Territorians have the highest smoking rates in Australia. The latest figure showed 27.9% of those over the age of 14 smoke, compared to the national average of around 20%.
One in five Territorians die of smoking related illnesses, yet we have had the most outdated legislation in Australia. The Territory has long been criticised for its inaction in this area. The government is committed to ensuring the health of Territorians is given the same protection as other Australians, and that we will do all we can to stop children taking up the habit. The legislation will be designed to reduce the long-term health problems associated with smoking and the bring the Territory into line with the rest of Australia. From 1 January 2003, smoking will be prohibited in all indoor restaurants, cafes, eateries and shopping centres. From 31 May 2003, which is World No Tobacco Day, all workplaces will become smoke free. Hotels, clubs and casinos will need to provide equal amenity in their licensed areas. Casinos will also need to provide equal amenity in gaming areas. Hotels and clubs will be required to provide equal amenity in gaming areas where they have more than 25 gaming machines, and then only for the machines in excess of 25. The interpretation of equal amenity will be guided by an industry code to be co-developed by the government and the Australian Hotels Association. A panel comprising union, industry and government representatives will investigate breaches.
These new smoking regulations are the result of widespread community, worker and industry consultations. One thousand copies of the discussion paper outlining the proposals were distributed throughout the Northern Territory. This does not include the number of site visits to the online discussion paper available on the Internet. Targetted consultations were also held with such stakeholders as the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Australian Education Union, the Property Council, Lend Lease, the Shopping Centre Council, the Australian Hotels Association, the Australian Medical Association and such other health groups as the Cancer Council and the National Heart Foundation.
Over 190 submissions were received, with more than 90% supporting change. Workers who are subject to environmental tobacco smoke will benefit under these laws, as will patrons of sport and community events which have fixed seating. Venues with fixed seating, such as sports stadiums, will be required to provide 50% of their seating as non-smoking. Delaying workplace restrictions, including for the hotels, clubs and casinos until the 31 May 2003, will ensure affected premises will have time to prepare for the changes.
Other venues where smoking will be prohibited on 1 January 2003 include halls and community facilities such as libraries, theatres and galleries; confined areas of common access such as stairways, corridors, lobbies, waiting and ticketing areas, toilets and staff amenities in public buildings; public transport, such as taxis, buses, vessels and their stations and waiting areas; the buildings and grounds of school and child-care facilities, except where staff agree to designating an outdoor smoking area concealed from view of children and restricted to adults; shared accommodation, such as hostels and nursing homes, except where the rooms are shared by couples; and within two metres of entrances to buildings and three metres from outdoor airconditioning inlets.
There will be an extensive public education campaign, including media advertising, brochures and booklets, workplace visits and face-to-face information centres to inform Territorians of the new legislation prior to its becoming law. There will also be new restrictions on the sale of tobacco and restricting supply to minors, including changes to advertising and marketing, and removing the ability to sell single cigarettes. We will also be introducing a licensing system for the retailing of tobacco products. It will be fee free, but will introduce a regulatory system which enables us to remove licences from retailers in breach of the act. I have also written to Territory businesses to explain the changes and most businesses should be receiving a letter from me in the next few days.
To conclude, I will say again that these changes are the most significant public health initiative in the Northern Territory in the past decade and, as Health and Community Services Minister, I am proud to be associated with their introduction.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I applaud the minister on this initiative. This is a significant issue for health ministers around the world, particularly in the Northern Territory where rates of smoking and of illness associated with it are very high.
The previous government had moved in some way to address this matter. I applaud the fact that the government took the time to consult with the community. It is a vexed issue; it is an issue of a consumption of a legal, licit drug. However, I would say that there is more potential to save lives with this initiative than there is with the various gammon drugs initiatives that have come from the Minister for Justice. In fact, the lives that will be saved through some restrictions on tobacco - particularly the uptake among young people - will vastly outweigh some of the chest-beating rhetoric that has come out in relation to illicit drugs.
The industry has been aware of the changes that have been coming, not only through the litigious aspects attending on tobacco smoke and the need to have a safe workplace for employees but, also, in relation to matters like community and consumer expectations.
I applaud the casino in already moving to have Aqua, a place set aside in the casino which I attended only the other day. I think it is very well done. I know the Australian Hotels Association has been educating its members about the inevitability of legislation such as this. I know it would be a rare member of the community who would not - whether they are smokers or not - agree that our young children should be dissuaded from this habit, and some regulation put in place to make sure that they do not have ready and easy access to tobacco.
I applaud the government and I thank the minister for the offer of a briefing. Unfortunately, it was fairly late notice and, as members know, we have fairly significant and momentous events on today so I could not attend. However, I thank her for the offer and I look forward to working with her to address the issues related to tobacco legislation.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his comments, and I look forward to the support of the opposition when we introduce this legislation. If the member for Drysdale would like a further briefing on this, I would be happy to offer that to him.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order
AGENTS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 99)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. I also advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
The main purpose of this bill is to implement reforms identified as a consequence of the National Competition Policy review of the Agents Licensing Act. It is well known that it has been previously stated in this parliament in respect of many other bills that, in April 1995, the Commonwealth, states and territories signed three intergovernmental agreements that comprise the National Competition Policy reform package. Compliance with agreed National Competition Policy reforms is a prerequisite for a series of competition payments to the Territory from the Commonwealth. These payments have been estimated at over $7m per annum from 2001-02.
One of the National Competition Policy agreements, namely the Competition Principles Agreement, obliges the Territory, along with the states, to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive. Within the context of the Competition Principles Agreement, a very broad approach is taken as to what provisions are anti-competitive. A provision may be anti-competitive if it does any of the following:
- governs the entry or exit of firms or individuals into or out of markets;
restricts the quality, level or location of goods and services available;
restricts advertising and promotional opportunities;
restricts price or type of input used in the production process;
is likely to confer significant costs on business; or
provides advantages to some firms over others by, for example, shielding some
activities from pressures of competition.
This examination requires that the objectives of the legislation be identified and confirmed as to their current application. It then requires that each restriction on competition be assessed to determine if it is in the net public interest. Thus, it is plain that competition policy does not require the removal of all provisions that may be anti-competitive. Rather, it requires that all state and territory governments reach a judgment as to whether the anti-competitive provision can be justified as being in the public interest after regard is had to the costs and the benefits of the restriction.
In summary, the guiding principle underpinning each review is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the costs of the restriction; and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The Agents Licensing Act was identified as possibly containing anti-competitive provisions. This act has been reviewed by consultants; namely the Centre for International Economics, CIE. The consultants were overseen by a steering committee established by the former Department of Industries and Business and comprising representatives from the former Northern Territory Attorney-General’s Department, the former Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory Treasury and the Chief Minister’s Department. CIE produced an issues paper in June 2000, and conducted wide-ranging consultation with persons and organisations that might be interested in the operation of the act. CIE produced its report to the former government in October 2000.
CIE reported on all matters required for the purposes of the NCP review. I will now summarise both the findings and the governments responses to these findings. The most significant issue to be resolved by an NCP review is that of: what is the objective of legislative intervention in the market? CIE found that the main objective of the act is to protect consumers of real estate, business and conveyancing services from agent misconduct or negligence. The government accepts that finding.
The next most significant matter is that of identifying the restrictions in the legislation. CIE found that the act’s main restrictions are restrictions on entry through licensing and registration, and restrictions on mode of operation of agents. In respect of these restrictions, CIE recommended that:
first, the restrictions on entry be maintained subject to the ‘fit and proper’ test should be
amended so that it sets out objective criteria on which compliance can be tested.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 8 of the bill sets out a detailed definition of ‘fit and proper’; and
second, that the education requirements for agents should be determined by the Agents Licensing
Board in conjunction with the industry.
The government has partially accepted this recommendation. In coming to this conclusion, CIE noted that there was dissatisfaction with the current requirements as set out in the regulations. The apparent assumption is that permitting a licensing authority, rather than the executive government, to prescribe educational standards might lead to a different outcome. The Northern Territory government is not convinced that this would be the case. The current requirements in the regulations are the outcome of a long period of negotiation involving local industry, the local board and their interstate peers. In fact, the prescribed course has not been delivered. Instead, the main educational provider, the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, has delivered its own course and the board has accepted this.
Across Australia in a variety of industries and occupations, there are tensions between licensing authorities such as the Agents Licensing Board, industry bodies such as the REINT, educational providers such as the REINT and the Northern Territory University, and education regulators such as the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority, arising from the overlap in various roles. It does not seem appropriate to vest responsibility in any one of these bodies. The government takes the view that there may sometimes be national considerations or whole-of-government decisions that can only be made by government.
third, CIE recommended that the education requirements for agents’ representatives should be
left to agents to decide.
That is, there should be no setting of educational standards in the act or regulations. At this stage, the Northern Territory government has not accepted this recommendation. The NT government takes the view that the focus of licensing of real estate agents should be on those persons who have the greatest level of dealings with the public.
should be reviewed in light of national based approaches to training, but that the substitution
issues between formal training and experience should be left with the Agents Licensing Board.
The government accepts this finding, though it is anticipated that competency-based training should, over time, lead to either the elimination of the post-training practical experience period or, at least, a considerable reduction of the current four years.
the Fidelity Fund for the purpose of providing realty education. CIE also suggested that there is the
need to investigate the possibility that sole rights to deliver realty training be subject to tender.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 26 of the bill will facilitate open access to funding of educational courses.
The government has accepted this recommendation. Clause 31 provides simply that the agent have an office in Australia. This amendment recognises the simple fact that all business should have the capacity to operate nationally. This provision does not, however, affect the various other compliance requirements; for example, that of having an account or trust monies that are in the Northern Territory. These practical requirements will mean that the vast majority of agents will have an office in the Northern Territory if they engage in any significant activity in the Northern Territory.
office in the situation where there are two or more offices in the same town or city.
The government accepts the generality of this recommendation. Clause 31 provides for a new section 110A. This section will provide for business managers who will have responsibility for each office. However, one such manager might have the responsibility for more than one office. The bill provides for severe penalties if a business manager does not have appropriate control. Additionally, Rules of Practice can be made, spelling out the duties of a branch manager when the manager is not physically in the office.
and business sale contracts, subject to having the appropriate qualifications to provide such services.
Clause 14 provides for the implementation of this recommendation. In essence, a conveyancer who has obtained the appropriate qualifications will have the right, on the endorsement of the Agents Licensing Board, to provide the range of services recommended by CIE.
the minimum level being set by the board, and that industry bodies be permitted to arrange such insurance
for those of their members who wish to participate. However, participation in such a group scheme is a
matter for industry, not licensing.
The government accepts these recommendations concerning indemnity insurance. The relevant amendments are contained in clause 29.
reviewed along with the current cap on claims.
The government accepts this recommendation. A detailed review has yet to be made. However, the bill provides for the nominal cap on claims to be lifted to $200 000. As with the current provision, the Administrator retains the right to set a higher figure.
minimum standards required for consumer protection.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clauses 21 and 22 amend the provisions dealing with the Rules of Conduct. Such rules will now be contained in regulations, and will be developed by the Department of Justice in consultation with the Agents Licensing Board, the various industry and peak consumer bodies. Until such regulations are developed, the rules in the Agents Licensing Act and the Agents Licensing Regulations will apply.
the Law Society Northern Territory be removed.
These references are in the Agents Licensing Regulations. New regulations will be drawn up in due course.
thirteenth, CIE recommended that the real estate members of the Agents Licensing Board should be
drawn from all of the industry and not just from persons nominated by the REINT.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 5 provides for the appropriate amendment.
not appoint any conveyancing agents to the Agents Licensing Board.
The government accepts this recommendation. Clause 5 provides for the necessary amendment.
The bill also provides for certain other reforms and revisions. These include:
a review of the penalties in the Agents Licensing Act and the conversion of them, so that they
are stated in terms of penalty units rather than in monetary amounts. The review has resulted in
substantial increases in the maximum penalties that might be imposed;
minor revisions to remove sexist use of language; and
some restructuring of the act so that it is somewhat easier to follow.
I also mention that the Agents Licensing Board and various industry bodies have drawn the attention of government to a number of other issues related to the operation of the Agents Licensing Act. The Department of Justice is currently preparing an issues paper on these issues.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
(Serial 97)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): I move that the bill be now read a second time, and advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the prescribed property provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act as they apply to Aboriginal community living areas excised from pastoral leases.
Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act provides a legislative regime whereby eligible Aboriginal applicants can gain excisions from the pastoral lease for community living area purposes. The legislation, initially contained in the Crown Lands Act, is based on a memorandum agreement signed in 1989 between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The establishment of the community living areas legislation resulted in consequential amendments to other legislation, including the addition of sections 26A(5), (6) and (7), to the Associations Incorporation Act. These sections prevent the minister from consenting to a disposal, charge or dealing with all or part of such land registered to an incorporated association or Aboriginal corporation, other than for the purposes of registering an easement or having an abandoned community living area reincorporated into the pastoral lease from which it was excised.
The wording of sections 26A(5), (6) and (7), whilst giving effect to the intention expressed in the agreement that there be statutory protection against alienation or encumbrance of the land, is now considered overly restrictive. For example, solicitors acting for one community have requested ministerial consent to the transfer of land held by that association to a newly incorporated association formed by the residents of that community solely for that purpose. This request was a culmination of an extensive restructuring of the affairs of that community following recommendations from both ATSIC and the then Department of Local Government. The transfer, while supported, is not permitted under the current wording of sections 26A(5) of the act.
Another community secured funding from the Commonwealth funded organisation for the building of a health centre. The funding was jeopardised, as the community was not able to legally grant a lease in favour of the funding body, for the premises to be occupied by the health centre. I understand the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations, under the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976, faces similar problems when dealing with Aboriginal corporations. The proposed amendment would overcome these difficulties while preserving the original intention of the restrictions; which is to prevent the loss of the land through financial mismanagement, sale of the land, or the lease of the land for purposes outside the original intent of the grant of the title.
The proposed amendment will permit the minister to consent to a dealing in the land, but only in limited circumstances. The first of these circumstances is where it is proposed that the land be transferred to an incorporated association, or Aboriginal corporation that has similar objects and substantially the same members as the incorporated association or Aboriginal corporation that intends to transfer the land. The second circumstance is the granting of a lease for the purposes of the provision of health, education, housing or financial services to the members of the incorporated association, or Aboriginal corporation. The proposed amendment would permit the minister some discretion to consent to a dealing in the land for those restricted purposes, which will be of benefit to the Aboriginal persons for whose benefit the land was granted.
In keeping with the spirit of the 1989 agreement between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister, the then Minister for Industries and Business provided a copy of the draft bill in early 2001 to the then federal Minister of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Hon Philip Ruddock MP, for comment. I am pleased to advise that the federal minister indicated his agreement with the provisions of the proposed amendments in March 2001.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
AERODROMES ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. I advise members that it is our intention to proceed with this legislation during the November sittings.
At the Council of Australian Government’s meeting of April 1995, heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP Agreements. Under the National Competition Policy Agreements, all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with the timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricts competition.
Initially, the former Department of Transport and Works identified four pieces of legislation that required review under the National Competition Policy requirements. These were: the Motor Vehicles Act; the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act; the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act; and the Marine Act. These reviews have been completed.
In addition to the legislation I just referred to, three other pieces of legislation have been identified as requiring National Competition Policy reviews. One of these is the Aerodromes Act. By way of some background, the Aerodromes Act was assented to on 27 July 1993, and was legislated principally to provide the Northern Territory government with powers in relation to Connellan Airport at Yulara. In subsequent years, other areas were declared to be aerodromes pursuant to the act. This included airstrips at Batchelor, Borroloola and Timber Creek. The leasing of Connellan Airport to the Ayers Rock Resort Co Ltd in 1997 subsequently ceded responsibility for the administration of the airport to this corporation and that, in turn, obviated a need for the Aerodromes Act to prescribe the necessary administration requirements. Repealing the Aerodromes Act would not affect any contractual obligations that are currently in place. A specific saving provision is inserting clause 4 of the bill to preserve all contracts entered into under this act. This contract will continue even after the Aerodromes Act Repeal Act comes into force. The term ‘contract’ is defined broadly to mean a contract, lease, license or authority that is referred to in section 6(2) of the repealed act.
I must mention that, when the Aerodromes Act is repealed, the Aerodromes Regulations which were made pursuant to this act, will also be repealed. At present, the Aerodrome Regulations address a range of matters such as aerodrome security, the parking of aircraft at aerodromes, the control of trading and advertising of aerodromes, and safety matters such as smoking. These matters are all addressed in other Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation. For example, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau have broad powers and responsibilities under both the Civil Aviation Act and the Air Navigation Act with respect to aviation accidents and/or incidents, including the provision of various requirements and remedies with respect to aerodrome use and misuse.
The Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, under the Police Administration Act and Fire and Emergency Act, provide avenues for remedial action in the event of an aircraft posing a threat to public safety. There are also various civil remedies available to landowners, - in this case the Northern Territory government - for inappropriate actions on aircraft landing areas. In addition to the above, an extensive range of mandatory aviator requirements are also contained in various publications ancillary to this act including Civil Aviation Regulations, Civil Aviation advisory publications, Civil Aviation Orders and Aerodromes Manual.
In closing, there is no increased risk of liability that attaches to the Northern Territory in respect of incidents occurring at currently regulated aerodromes if the Aerodromes Act is repealed. This is because there are no statutory provisions in the present act that exclude or limit liability on the part of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in adjourning the debate, I make the point that it is most unusual that a series of bills be introduced in this way without notice. I am not sure that it is unprecedented but it is certainly most unusual and it is worthy of note. I move the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note papers - Nitmiluk National Park Plan of Management, August 2002 and
Summary of Public Representations 2002
Note papers - Nitmiluk National Park Plan of Management, August 2002 and
Summary of Public Representations 2002
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Honourable members, during the last sittings of the Assembly I had pleasure in placing before the House a plan of management for Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. The plan of management has been endorsed by the Nitmiluk Board, which is satisfied that the objectives and actions set out in the plan are consistent with the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. This endorsement is critical because it means that the Aboriginal traditional owners of the gorge have had full involvement in drafting this plan of management. This plan replaces the original plan which became ineffective in September 1999. Since it was tabled, the plan will come into effect immediately after seven sitting days of this House.
Nitmiluk National Park is owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal Land Trust, and jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government. The park is a major tourist icon in the Katherine region, attracting in excess of 250 000 visitors per year. Together with its natural beauty, the park is also regarded as a model for successful joint management. The involvement of the park’s traditional owners in the operation and management of the park has enhanced its character and appeal to visitors. Joint management is clearly the way to go with parks which are of such significance. It is of cultural significance to Aboriginal people and of environmental significance to all Territorians – indeed, all Australians. Under the joint management arrangement, Parks and Wildlife will take day-to-day management of the park, whereas the Nitmiluk Board, of which the majority of members are Jawoyn, direct the overall management of the park under the guidance of the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act.
This second plan proposes no radical change to the way the park is being managed but, instead, aims to build on past successes. This plan gives emphasis to a number of significant management directions, such as the implementation of procedures to improve prospects for Aboriginal people to gain employment in the park. This is critical. This government is determined to ensure that Aboriginal Territorians become an important part of the economic life of the Territory. To be part of the economic life requires people to be employed. Not only does this build skills in the community, it provides important role models for Aboriginal children in the future; a fact identified by the Collins report as being of major of importance in ensuring young Aboriginal children see education as important in their lives. Enhanced training and employment programs will be developed to facilitate this.
The plan also identifies a need to increase visitor awareness of Jawoyn culture and heritage through better promotion and interpretation of Jawoyn culture, park owners and management. Recognition of prior ownership and the relevance today of Aboriginal culture, is important to both the Aboriginal people themselves and to tourists to the area. The Northern Territory has a diverse cultural base, and Aboriginal culture is the oldest living culture in the world. This is a matter of great pride to our community and, I believe, should be showcased wherever and whenever possible.
In relation to the management of the park’s natural resources, the plan aims to enhance decision-making abilities in regard to biodiversity conservation through continuous comprehensive fauna and flora survey work. The plan also outlines the way in which the landscape can be better managed through integrated environmental monitoring programs and the development of geographic information system technology.
In terms of visitor management, the plan aims to develop updated site master plans for the park’s intensive use areas, in anticipation of increased visitor numbers over the next decade. Park staff will continue to liaise with concession operators within the park to ensure that high standards in visitor service, safety and environmental protection are maintained. The plan also recognises the need for increased emphasis on cultural interpretation within the Nitmiluk Visitor Centre. The second plan of management aims to strengthen conservation management, enhance visitor enjoyment and further increase the level of Aboriginal involvement in all aspects of park management.
The Nitmiluk Plan of Management attempts to intertwine a range of issues which I have discussed. Nitmiluk has proved that joint management is a successful model for working together and one which, I believe, needs to be examined more closely in relation to other key parks in the Northern Territory. I believe the Nitmiluk model has lessons which could also be learned by our federal colleagues in the joint management arrangements of Kakadu and Uluru. It is a model which proves that, with goodwill and a preparedness to set aside differences, government and Aboriginal organisations can achieve a great deal. I commend my predecessor for making this arrangement in a successful way; I intend to build on their work.
Madam Speaker, I commend this plan of management for the information of the Legislative Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2002-03
(Serial 89)
(Serial 89)
Continued from 21 August 2002.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to deliver the Treasurer’s comments in reply closing debate. The Treasurer was in Katherine this morning to participate in the opening of the rail bridge, and quite clearly has not made it back.
Leave granted.
Mr Reed: This is for and on behalf of.
Mr STIRLING: For and on behalf of the Treasurer, I thank honourable members for their comments. We remain extremely proud of this budget - Labor’s first - and even prouder of how it has been received by the community we have been elected to govern. I also acknowledge the dedicated efforts and support of Cabinet and parliamentary colleagues in putting together the budget; the tireless efforts of Treasury in particular; all NT agencies and the public servants within them; and the government’s own team of advisors. Despite predictable comments from the other side, this is a budget that delivers today, and invests for tomorrow.
Labor went to the election last year with a fully costed plan for a four-year term. We spelt out in detail our proposals and the costs of the budget each financial year. The policies were refined in their costings and delivery schedule in last year’s November mini –budget, which was forced on us due to the appalling financial circumstances this government inherited - one distinctly at odds with the picture painted in the last budget papers of the former CLP administration. But the full four-year plan was there for all to see. This stands in marked contrast to our predecessors, who never provided a comprehensive four-year plan. We promised to Territorians four key priorities in the lead-up to last year’s election - education, health, community safety and jobs - and our first full budget delivers on that commitment to all Territorians.
The move to accrual accounting and budgeting delivers a policy my colleagues have supported for many years. Given the way in which many of our commitments have been spelt out to the community and this parliament, there was perhaps no better time to introduce the new budgetary format. We have not used the new budgetary presentation to hide bad news; we have not used it to deceive Territorians. We have done it because it was the right thing to do. We have done it because it provides more information for the public, the parliament and our public service than ever before. We have done it to bring ourselves up to date with what every other Australian jurisdiction is doing. We have done it at a time when our plans to build a better Territory are well understood. Territorians have seen our cash-based plans, now they are simply seeing those same plans in an accrual format.
I am at a loss, therefore, over the confusion the opposition demonstrates in its budget replies. They have known for months that the 2002-03 budget would be delivered in accrual terms. There was plenty of opportunity to come to grips with what that would mean. Did any of them seek a briefing? No! When the Treasurer, while Opposition Leader, requested before each budget information from the then Treasurer as to potential changes in budget presentations, he never obliged; but at least the now Treasurer tried. Did any of other members opposite try that novel approach? No! Did of any of them view the Treasury web site on Working for Outcomes prior to budget day on the 20 August? It does not seem like it. Did any of them talk to interstate or federal colleagues who have worked under accrual budgets for years? Again, on the evidence of their budget replies, it would seem the answer is no. The Opposition Leader wants to smell a rat wherever he turns. We wonder why.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding the opposition seems to have concerns the shift to using net appropriations. They claim that we have wiped $1bn from the amount being authorised by the parliament for agencies to spend. But we are at a loss to see what the problem is. Under the old system, the parliament approved the gross appropriations for each agency, regardless of whether each agency was spending money provided by Commonwealth FPP’s through private sector sponsorship of research, or whether the expenditure related to the provision of goods and services being provided to Territorians. There was also a major element of double counting in the gross appropriation method due to the substantial levels of inter-agency payments, which did not affect resource allocation decisions and had no real effect on the government’s total expenditure with individuals and companies outside the public sector.
What the parliament is being asked to approve now is the use of Territory taxpayers’ resources in meeting the expenditure requirements of government, not those funds that have already been approved by someone else that will be spent by our agencies, nor the runaround monies within government. Nevertheless, the growth level of spending of each agency is still provided, both in terms of output statements and the accrual statements of financial position. You cannot get to the net appropriation without a thorough understanding of both the gross revenues and the gross expenditure of each agency. That is precisely what is provided in these budget papers.
The opposition laments the fact that these budget papers do not provide ready comparisons between last year’s mini-budget and the outcome for 2001-02 year. I remind the opposition that we have adhered strictly to the process that they practiced for many years, particularly following the introduction of the Financial Management Act in 1995. That is, the budget papers are a forward looking set of documents. They enable the budget for the new year, and the forward estimates, to be compared on the same basis as the estimated outcome for the previous year. It is not the purpose of the budget books to be looking backwards. That is the job of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and agencies’ annual reports that will be progressively tabled in this parliament over the rest of the year.
The Opposition Leader made a number of specific criticisms of the budget and I would like to deal with a few of those. First, his alarming claims about the declining net worth of government. By focussing on the general government sector, he deliberately ignored the impact of public trading enterprises and the Treasury Corporation on the bottom line, via the substantial assets that they hold on behalf of Territorians. Rather than criticising us for attempting to provide these figures, he ought to be ashamed that, under his government, no attempt had been made to include appropriate asset and depreciation values for agencies.
Provisional depreciation expenses have been included, based on the methodology used in other jurisdictions. That methodology is, however, being progressively revised and improved in conjunction with the Valuer-General, and we would expect to see some changes to these valuations in the transitional phase of accrual accounting. That is one of the reasons why cash appropriation has been adopted until depreciation expenses become more stable.
Second, that net debt is increasing while operating expenses are decreasing. Clearly, the Opposition Leader has mixed and confused these two concepts. He has ignored the impact of capital expenditure, which is not part of operating expenses, and this is clearly explained on page 52 of Budget Paper No 2.
Third, that the increases from 2002-02 to 2002-03 are not real because of the inclusion of accrual items such as depreciation, which is just a book entry. The accrual items are included for both years so comparisons are valid.
Fourth, the different treatment of repairs and maintenance in 2002 has resulted in the increases between 2001-02 and 2002-03 being overstated. The government has clearly listed the inclusion of repairs and maintenance expenditure within each agency from 2002-03 in Budget Paper No 3, in significant variations, and also in the statement of financial performance for those agencies which have repairs and maintenance expenses. The increases in expenditure that I announced in budget speech excluded the change in treatment associated with repairs and maintenance and are, therefore, genuine increases.
We went out of our way, in this parliament, to ensure Territorians were presented with reliable information, but it seems the opposition is hell-bent on supplying misinformation. Opposition members also claim that, as the deficit in 2002-03 was similar to that in 2001-02, any black hole is the government’s own making. Let me assure the House the black hole we inherited does exist. The government could have used the additional revenue to achieve a balanced budget more rapidly than had been planned, but it choose to increase the level of capital works spending because the capital works program we had inherited from the former government had been so severely under-funded by them. We also needed to introduce programs in areas of substantial need, as reflected in the increased relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. What we have done is responsible, economic and financial management. We are sticking to our deficit reduction strategy, but over a time frame that will not send the Northern Territory economy back into the doldrums that it was in during the last two years of CLP administration.
However, what really comes through in the opposition comments on the budget is a lack of any sense that they are a team pulling together. There is no strategy apparent; there is no vision of what they, so recently a government, would do differently. Several members complain we are not getting the budget deficit down fast enough, and yet, those same speakers then suggest we need to spend more, particularly in their own electorates. The member for Goyder prattled on about the need to protect the wealth producers, the business sector, by restraining spending on the social areas because business has to pay for this. He then proceeded to complain about the lack of business assistance in this budget. So, he wants lower business taxes and higher spending on business. Where will those businesses get their employees without adequate education and training? Where will their employees and their families turn to for help without adequate health care and hospitals? What costs do business bear if we cannot improve community safety or reduce the problems caused by occurrence at their shop doors?
As well as delivering on its priorities in health, education, and community safety, this budget has been a remarkable one for business in the Territory: no new taxes. Quite the reverse; we have reduced or abolished existing ones. We have provided a substantial boost to the construction sector by spending a record amount on infrastructure across the spectrum of small, medium and large projects. We have given the residential sector a wonderful boost through the increased stamp duty concessions. We have increased tourism marketing and are assisting the provision of Virgin Blue air services into the Territory.
This is a pretty good business budget and business agrees with the Treasurer; the TCA calls it a strong budget:
- It is a major boost for our industry and a major boost for the provision of infrastructure throughout
the Territory.
The Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry:
- We are really pleased with what has come down. We have seen that there is a forecast steady 3.7% growth,
the continuation of tight fiscal management, and a steady debt reduction.
- We are very pleased with the proactive stand the government has taken.
- This is a growth budget. The anticipated growth of 5% coming over the next five or six years - one of
the fastest in the country - is very positive for government and for the community.
It is a very good start in terms of education reform, and the additional per capita funding for schools is
long overdue. Schools have been waiting 10 years for that.
- This is a really positive budget for us. It shows a real commitment by the Northern Territory government to
reinvest in what was a previously neglected area.
- For the first time in a while, we have had a real increase in health spending.
- The Head of Treasury is now required to sign-off on the budget numbers as being professionally prepared.
This is consistent with the new practice in the United States where all corporate chiefs have to swear on the
veracity of their financial pronouncements. Hopefully, other governments in Australia will follow the Territory’s
lead and legislate for their Treasury’s secretaries to vouch that the numbers in their budgets are strictly kosher.
We are about to embark on the final stages of the passage of this budget. We still have the Estimates Committee processes to go, but this is an opportunity, unique so far in the history of the budget, for greater scrutiny of the budget. I hope all members make effective use of this process to clarify issues of concern to them, on behalf of all Territorians. The ministers of the government will approach this process in the spirit of openness, transparency and cooperation that is the hallmark of this government.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Order of Proceedings – Consideration of Estimates Committee Report
in Committee of the Whole
Order of Proceedings – Consideration of Estimates Committee Report
in Committee of the Whole
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, at the sitting of the Assembly on Thursday, 19 September 2002, after petitions and notices, intervening business be postponed until after:
(a) consideration of the report of the Estimates Committee in Committee of the Whole and the
remaining stage of the Appropriation Bill in accordance with the resolution of the Assembly
dated 20 August 2002; and
(b) Government Business Notices and Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Next Meeting of Assembly
Next Meeting of Assembly
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until 7 pm on Thursday, 19 September 2002 or such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hours notice given to government and opposition Whips and members by Madam Speaker, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016