2001-11-29
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 192 petitioners relating to a home ground for the Palmerston Magpies Football Club. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we all know the creation of infrastructure in the Territory has been a recent process in comparison to the rest of Australia. As such, there is a greater need and demand for new infrastructure investment in the Territory than in other states. On top of this, we have seen significant population growth in the last few decades and we look forward to greater population growth in the future. This means that we must be prepared and plan for future infrastructure needs.
I wish to advise the House that tomorrow I will be guest speaker at the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development in Sydney. This is the principal industry association representing the interests of investors, financiers, constructors, operators and maintenance providers for public infrastructure. AusCID members have wide-ranging interests spanning airports; rail; toll roads; waste; waste water; power generation, transmission and distribution; gas pipelines; telecommunications; ports and emerging social infrastructure opportunities like public housing, schools, hospitals, prisons and justice facilities. Currently there are 101 members of this council. I am delighted that this organisation has shown sufficient interest in the future of the Territory to invite me to address them.
This expected population growth is due to spin-offs from the building of the railway and port and the anticipated development when Timor Sea gas comes onshore. We are looking forward to an exciting period in the Territory’s development, but one that will bring increasing demands on government and the business community. Basic infrastructure will be needed to ensure that Territorians can reap the benefits of future developments and continue to enjoy a high level of service from government.
Projects associated with rail and gas developments bring with them demands for factories, power, water, sewerage, gas and roads infrastructure. Providing for these needs presents a challenge, but also opportunities. On top of that there is no doubt huge potential exists in exploration for minerals. We can look forward to significant developments in this area which, in turn, will present another set of demands for new infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and police stations. There is also no doubt that investment in this infrastructure, at least in part, will need to come from outside the Territory.
As such, I recognise that part of my role as Chief Minister is marketing this great Territory of ours, and I welcome any opportunity to carry out this task. I intend selling this Territory as a great place to invest. I want to encourage companies to come to the Territory and join with local investors and developers to help build the infrastructure we will need.
I was pleased to see, as an example, that the recently announced Mitchell Street Plaza Development is a partnership between the local company Randazzo Investments and the large superannuation company C+Bus. A number of developers have shared with me their concern that superannuation payments of Territorians are finding their way into southern markets instead of staying in the Territory. Part of the issue here is presenting suitable vehicles in which they can invest. Hopefully, the involvement of C+Bus is an omen for the future. I also hope that my address to the Australia Council for Infrastructure Development will encourage other companies to consider the Territory as part of their future.
Tomorrow afternoon is an important step in selling the Territory as a business market to the national business community. I will be selling the Territory as the gateway to Asia, and I am confident of encouraging investment, building strong business links, and enjoying the benefits of those new relationships for years to come.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her comments, and I applaud the fact that she has the opportunity to speak to the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development.
There is no doubt that the words ‘exciting’ and ‘challenging’ for the Territory’s future should be said in one breath because I believe that we are entering extremely troubling times, notwithstanding the fact that in the medium- to long-term, there is no doubt there are wonderful opportunities for the Northern Territory. In order to get private sector investment into the Northern Territory, we need to demonstrate clearly that that investment will be rewarded.
I agree with the Chief Minister that large superannuation investment funds should be encouraged to invest more in the Northern Territory. It has always been an aim of the previous CLP government that we would have set up a property trust for Territorians to invest in property in the Northern Territory. That opportunity exists through large superannuation organisations such as C+Bus and also the opportunity to encourage those organisations and others to get involved in, say, the development of the Stokes Hill Wharf. I am sure that is much on the Chief Minister’s mind.
Putting party politics aside, one should recognise the very good relationship that the new member for Solomon has with those superannuation organisations, and extremely good contacts in terms of encouraging investment. One could not dismiss the fact that he was, in part, instrumental in that investment in the Mitchell Street development. So he is a valued operator in that area.
I will take very quickly the opportunity to ask the Chief Minister to please go away from this notion of the stick with regards to leases for Timor Sea gas developments. I have considered the comments of the member for Wanguri. I do not believe that is the best approach for this government. I think we should be using every incentive we can to encourage the Commonwealth to provide greater incentives for Timor Sea investment rather than a stick approach with regard to those leases. It is true to say, and we should say it honestly to investors down south because they are keenly aware of the situation that exists, that gas coming onshore in the Northern Territory is extremely problematic. The issue of the floating LNG plant is likely to proceed, in my opinion, and that will proceed, unfortunately, without a gas pipeline ashore. The focus should be, I believe, on encouraging Bayu-Undan. Therefore, the relationship that the Chief Minister has with the East Timor government is something that I believe investors down south would be extremely interested in and, in terms of encouraging the East Timorese to see the value of Bayu-Undan with good fiscal arrangements to encourage that development, I believe would be something of interest to them, amongst others. I thank the Chief Minister for her statement.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, just responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s words: on the issue of gas, I am very much hoping that we will see a dramatic change about how the Territory deals with the potential from the Timor Sea. We have seen it politicised in the past, and I think that has been very unfortunate. There was a lot of damage done to a very important relationship that needed to be nurtured rather than hit around, and that was with the newest nation to our north, East Timor. Certainly, we would like, and I think the Territory needs, a bipartisan approach to this major investment for our future. I am bewildered a little by the Opposition Leader trying to lecture us with: ‘Don’t use the stick approach’. If anyone was using a stick and belting around the head, it was the former Chief Minister.
We have put a bottom line in and now we are working in a bipartisan and much more mature way. I am confident we will achieve the outcomes we need for the Territory if we can have bipartisan support from this parliament.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to formally advise the House of my decision to sign an instrument freezing the issue of new licences for taxis, private hire cars and mini-buses. I did not take this decision lightly. The effect of the instrument is to set the numbers of the above vehicles at their current levels and to keep them at those levels for six months. It is the intention of the government, in that period of time, to convene meetings to discuss the future of these industries and the way they operate in the Territory.
It is my view that the previous government’s attempts at deregulation have failed. The taxi industry, in particular, has degenerated. I am extremely concerned about the significant drop in wages earned by taxi drivers. I am also concerned about the consolidation of a number of leases into the hands of fewer and fewer people. I am particularly concerned about the work health and safety issues of having taxi drivers out on the streets for 18 hours a day for very little return. Because of these wages, the industry cannot attract sufficient drivers. When the CLP deregulated the industry, they used millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to implement their policy. The result has been a reduction of service to the public, a typical CLP approach to economics: more expense, less service.
I am concerned that the differing sectors of the industry are now at each other’s throats in a way which will lead to real problems. It is fair enough to say that a breakdown in relationships between a small number of taxi drivers and mini-bus drivers has already resulted in violence, and this would have got worse.
I am also concerned that, given the importance of the role that this industry plays in the tourism industry, a proper and compulsory driver education program must be put into place. My intention in freezing the issue of licences is to give us all time to sort these issues out. It will allow the industry and myself time to sit down and sort through matters without having the additional impact of licence buying occurring. We are not preventing new players from coming into the industry or for existing players to add to their numbers in the short term, but they will need to obtain these leases from within the existing numbers. When one licensee gives up their lease, it will be available for another to take up, provided they do not breach the existing numbers.
The exemption to this limit is in the form of multipurpose vehicles, in particular for vehicles fitted out to carry people with disabilities. I am concerned about the low number of these vehicles in the fleet, and I was made aware of efforts by one operator to increase the numbers. I decided to allow this to proceed in its current form, though I wish to stress that I will be monitoring this closely. There is a lot of work to be done in this industry. It was left in an appalling state by the previous government. I intend to fix it.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): This is a government initiative. We look forward to see how that government initiative transpires. It would appear that with this initiative, what the government is now doing is essentially regulating the industry for six months which begs the question: what they will do after six months? I assume that after six months, if they will then lift the embargo, the industry will scream again. If they do not lift the embargo, what you essentially put back in place is a regulated taxi industry, and an industry where the price of each licence will rise again. I look forward to seeing how this initiative transpires in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, we needed six months to sit down with the industry and discuss the various issues and we will closely monitor the situation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, we must avoid the mistakes of the past and we must avoid mistakes in the future. So, we will work very closely together with the industry, and I am pleased to say that every sector in the industry agrees with our moratorium and they are prepared to sit down with us and have further discussions.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, today I report on this government’s commitment to cooperative partnerships between the government and the historically neglected disability sector. Since my appointment as the minister responsible for Disability Services, I have witnessed much anger and frustration from a sector that is used to being ignored or placed in the too hard basket. People are frustrated about the lack of day options for young people graduating from school, or services offering 24-hour respite in our regional centres. They know there is not much money; they are used to that message. But people are angry at the previous lack of consultation on the distribution of the scarce resources that are available.
It is my pleasure to say that consultation with disability stakeholders has already begun. I take this opportunity to draw attention to the efforts of the member for Karama, Ms Delia Lawrie, who has worked closely with me and my department to consult with people with disabilities, their families, carers and service providers on establishing funding priorities.
Under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, we have an additional $1.2m to allocate for the 2001-02 financial year. It is not sufficient funding, given the service gaps and levels of need that exist, so we established community forums to ensure that expenditure decisions are based on the advice of people with a disability, their carers and service providers - in short, the experts. Disability Services Community Consultation Forums have been held in Darwin and in Alice Springs, with people from remote and regional centres attending. I am delighted to report that there were in excess of 90 people in attendance, and I would like to personally thank all participants for their valuable contribution.
I have also received valuable preliminary advice on the forum priorities which cover the need for service responses for early childhood intervention, post-school options, remote area school service delivery, people with high support needs, school therapy services, accommodation options and respite care. Both forums clearly indicated the provision of services to people with disabilities is not the sole responsibility of the Disability Service Program within the Department of Health and Community Services.
A person with a disability does not just have a health issue. The issues they face are whole-of-life. It is about finding decent work, getting a good education, being eligible for training and lifetime learning opportunities. It is about being able to move freely, to enjoy leisure and entertainment activities, to be physically active, to play an economic role and to have independence. For their carers, it is about receiving ongoing support and access to essential services such as therapists, aids and equipment, to avoid plunging into crisis.
Disabilities affect all the portfolios of government and beyond. To this end, I will seek a commitment from my Cabinet colleagues to achieve a whole-of-government response. This government has already started working on some of the identified priorities. We have instigated an early childhood intervention review to assess services for children aged up to six years. The family unit can dissolve under stress. We are about assisting families in their caring roles to maintain the family unit.
We have also commenced development of a post-school options program for young people with high support needs. This is another area that has been neglected for too long. The previous government clearly had no plans in place for school leavers with disabilities. When I came to office, several parents and carers came to me in great distress, extremely worried about the service void that awaited their children. Some of them had children leaving school this year. I have asked my department to provide one-off funding to enable affected families to access community-based programs for six months until a program for school leavers with high support needs is developed. Work has also commenced on a range of accommodation options for people with disabilities and a submission will be considered by Cabinet in the new year.
I was very encouraged to hear that the forums supported the development of sustainable services in rural and remote areas, particularly in Central Australia and the East Arnhem region. Issues such as remoteness should not be a barrier to the development of appropriate and ongoing services for people with disabilities.
To summarise, I am delighted that the forums have established a basis on which the additional unmet needs funding can be allocated. I am confident that we are steadily progressing the vision of creating a more sustainable and robust service network for people with disabilities, their families and carers in the Northern Territory and I look forward to keeping my fellow parliamentary members informed of this progress.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, again we are starting to see the new health minister start to hone up what are the real priority areas and this is, indeed, one of them. I am happy to put on record my intention to try and work collaboratively with the health minister in this area, unlike the predecessors that once sat on this side who sought to politicise and divide on this issue. It is my intention to try to be a constructive and participative opposition spokesman in matters relating to disability. I agree, too, that there were significant unmet needs and shortfalls and I agree that there is an enormous amount of work that still needs to be done.
The opposition will continue to query this area, but in a constructive way. I start with the budget papers that were presented just this week where there is a promise of a 24-hour call service in Darwin for people with disabilities living independently, in conjunction with the NGO sector. This is a good initiative and involves people in after hours situations who often have to rely on ambulances; having somebody come to their house. Unfortunately, as with many of the initiatives in here, it is totally uncosted and comes in at a zero and says this initiative will be undertaken within existing resources. I can tell you that to have somebody attend a house with appropriate qualifications in the middle of the night in Palmerston or Darwin does come at a cost, and it is duplicitous in the extreme to have documents like this parading out as assistance with a budget allocation of zero attached to them.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the member for Drysdale is looking at this as a bipartisan issue. Certainly, disability services are very important to this government and will be a priority in this portfolio. In relation to the service to which he was referring, my department has already started planning on that and is doing it within existing resources.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go with government business of the day, I might remind members this microphone in front of you is for Hansard purposes. Yesterday Hansard staff had much difficulty because there were people ripping pages off their pads as they spoke, and pouring water next to their microphone. Some people are not pressing the red button so some of the side conversations were audible throughout the building. Please remember these microphones are not for amplification in this Chamber. They are for Hansard purposes. Remember that when you are speaking, and bear it in mind when you are crunching up paper and so on. Hansard staff have to wear all those sounds and sometimes it makes it very difficult for them.
Continued from 25 October 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the government has introduced this legislation and from the opposition’s point of view, we won’t be opposing it. In terms of the government pursuing its own initiatives in relation to its responsibilities, then we acknowledge that you will be doing things differently than did the previous government.
In saying that, can I say that over the past quarter of a century plus, CLP governments delivered to the Territory a very strong and sound economy, and that was pretty well for the whole period of the CLP government. There were some quiet years and it is interesting to note that within those quiet years, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were initiatives that were put in place to stimulate, for example, building activity. The building that we are now working in is a fine example of that.
I would suggest that the judgment of Territorians of the new Labor government over the next few years is not going to be: ‘Oh, good! There was a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act put in place’. But rather, comparing their performance in terms of maintaining and assisting a strong economy, creating jobs for Territorians, future prospects and opportunities, and continuing to deliver services to all Territorians, and doing that in a way that won’t impose on them, personally, to the extent that we experienced last night with the passage of legislation that will dip into pretty well every Territory family’s home to the tune of at least $90 and, in many cases, double that or more depending on how many vehicles they own. So that is going to be the target of the judgement of those in the electorates across the Northern Territory in the next few years rather than a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
The arguments that are being put forward by the government are now being received as somewhat tiresome in relation to blaming everyone else and, of course, at the same time doing nothing in terms of generating activity as a government themselves, and making the sorts of decisions governments have to make. If they have to make decisions, they should at least have - if they’re going to use the word integrity - the integrity to stand up and take responsibility for them, clearly enunciate what the broad detail of the intent of the government’s action is, and be proud enough to espouse it. We have seen, at least in the case of that legislation, that they neither did that, nor did the Treasurer or Chief Minister understand the scope of the legislation and the range of people that it would impact upon.
In terms of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill itself, I believe the government is off to a very poor start because the first thing they did with their budget books that the Chief Minister and Treasurer tabled in this House earlier this week was to eliminate a very important piece of information, and that was the staffing numbers per agency. It is interesting to note that the Chief Minister is being very coy, particularly on radio and television in relation to this matter. She has a stock standard answer which is: ‘There will be no forced redundancies and no sackings’. She is always very careful, of course, to either change the subject, having stated that, or point out to the person asking the questions that the numbers are not going to change. Of course, the numbers are going to change. Even the unions now have recognised that there is going to be change and they are talking about up to 1400. They are pretty close to this issue.
The very suspicious aspect of this is underlined by the fact that, whilst the Chief Minister has admitted that she has directed CEOs in relation to the staffing levels that will be applied to the reorganised agencies, and, of course, has a monetary figure that is going to be extracted from all agencies, that is across government - that is, knows what the dollar figure is and knows what the staffing figure is - she not only won’t talk about it beyond saying that there will be no forced redundancies, but she has now - because it would expose her position - eliminated the reference to staffing numbers in the budget documents all together.
It goes without saying that the comments made by the Chief Minister in relation to efficiencies will be easier gained - and she made this remark in her letter to public servants - that efficiencies will be easier to obtain in larger agencies. Of course they will be. But she cannot, on the one hand, say that and think that public servants are going to think: ‘Well, our jobs are safe’, as she also says in her letter, and not be aware of the fact that public servants can see through this charade. They can see through the fact that, in a larger agency, there will be staff efficiencies because there will be duplication of operational duties once those agencies are brought together, quite apart from the other impacts that will flow from it.
If we are talking about integrity, it is about time the Chief Minister started telling the public service precisely what the new staffing numbers are going to be, and why she was so deceitful in that she made sure that the staffing numbers were excluded from her budget documents - not a good way to start fiscal integrity. The Chief Minister gave us an answer yesterday in relation to this: ‘Oh, the numbers have not changed. They are the same as they were in the budget documents brought down in May this year’. If that were the case, the answer would have been quite simple. That is, the figures are there. In terms of knowing what agencies have been amalgamated into another and what the new structure of the agencies are, it is simply a matter of adding all those together for those respective new agencies and, if not breaking them down into areas operationally in the budget paper, to at least have included a global figure for each new agency. That would have conveyed to the public service that the numbers are sound and they are going to be retained as such, and there won’t be a 1400 reduction as indicated by the Public Sector Union. It would have been a very easy exercise but, of course, the government has been somewhat more deceitful in doing that, and that is regrettable.
If we are going to embark on this course, I would suggest that the Chief Minister and Treasurer starts to answer some of those questions so that, even in that area, people can be reassured that indeed ‘no forced redundancies’ does not mean that vacancies will not be filled and that contracts will not be renewed, because that is the only consequence that is going to flow from this. The savings that are going to be taken out of the public service are very large and, whilst the government has made that decision, that is fine. But if they have made that decision, they should at least be open enough with the public service and all of those people who work hard in those agencies to say: ‘These are the revised figures’ so that people are not left in any doubt. It is not good enough for the Chief Minister simply to write the public servants and say: ‘There will be no forced redundancies’. They know that is code for: ‘Vacant positions will not be filled and contracts will not be renewed’. In terms of where that leads us, they should be aware of it. It not only affects the morale of the public service which the Chief Minister, in her letter, asked be maintained, notwithstanding these changes that are about to take place, but it also affects the broader economy because if there are some 1400 positions that over time, through attrition, are going to be lost - and I remind the Chief Minister that she was on ABC radio only a couple of days ago, and it was put to her by the interviewer that this is going to be the case. The Chief Minister responded by saying: ‘There will be no forced redundancies’. Even the interviewer was getting a bit tired of the stock standard answer and said: ‘What about attrition?’ ‘Yes, it will be achieved by attrition’ and the Chief Minister agreed that attrition is at about the rate of 10%. It is much higher in some areas. I expect she was talking about an average when she was talking about 10%. That being the case, the interviewer very smartly worked out that that is about 1400 jobs. It was not denied by the Chief Minister, very smartly as she has done, as has been her practice in relation to talking about these matters. She quickly side-stepped it and moved onto another subject.
That is one aspect of the overall scene in terms of employment. Of course, the other side of it is that the government has announced that they will be, in other areas, taking on additional teachers, nurses and police. We can then extrapolate from that. Unfortunately, the public service is having to extrapolate and so, too, are we, because of the lack of information that is being provided - indeed, as I say, even being removed from the budget papers. We can then assume that if there is going to be no overall reduction in the public service, then through attrition, some 200-plus jobs are going to be lost to make way for the new ones in the areas of police, teaching and education. If that is the case, that is fine. It was a stated policy by the opposition leading up to the election that that is what they would do. But they have to demonstrate how they are going to do it. Will, through attrition, those 200-plus positions be lost and then transferred to another agency in terms of the cash that is available to be able to fill those positions?
She just cannot go on saying that there will be no forced redundancies because the public service is very nervous, morale is dropping, notwithstanding that she has asked CEOs to maintain it. I do not know how they will under those circumstances. Of course, we have to take into account that those public servants left in the service have to do the job with fewer numbers, and they have to do the job with fewer resources. If that is the case, that is fine. It is the position of the government and if it were adequately explained, it could be better understood. But when you have public servants coming to you, as a member of parliament, saying that they are already going through quite dramatic restructures in their agency, and that they are very concerned about the impacts of service delivery and, indeed, then the consequence of the additional pressure that is going to be placed on the remaining public servants in terms of having to fulfil the Chief Minister’s demands that ‘there will be fewer people, you will have less money, but you will have to do more work to provide either the same or better levels of service, and while you are doing all that, please do not forget to maintain high morale’.
That is the sort of issue that is being talked about across the public service. The Chief Minister, I feel sure, will deny it and that is the mode she has been in. She has been in: ‘Well, no, there will be no forced redundancies’. She has the stock standard answer. But I do say to her that that is not washing in the public service, that public servants are very concerned. Madam Speaker, I would surprised, as a local member, if you have not had approaches in that regard because it is not isolated to Darwin. The impact, of course, flows on down the track with the reduction in public service jobs in relation to these matters and the consequences of the government’s new policies that there will be fewer people working in the regional centres. That is going to impact on an economy that is already declining.
So it is important that we get an unqualified and clear enunciation of just what the staffing numbers are going to be. Is there going to be an overall reduction or not? If the figure of 1400 is incorrect, what is the correct figure? Once the reduction has been achieved, are those vacant positions then going to be used to be able to fulfil the wishes of the government in other areas? Public servants are owed this explanation. The Territory generally is because of the potential impact of the economy of the loss of up to 1400 jobs. It would be significant in terms of the loss of economic activity because of the loss of disposable income in the workforce.
If the Chief Minister wants to embark on fiscal integrity, there is a place where she can start. She can correct the wrong that she has incorporated in her mini-budget papers of this week, whereby she has reduced the information that is available to Territorians in a very important area and become more secretive than the previous budget documents were. I thought the whole exercise would have been about making more information available or ensuring, at least, that the amount of information was maintained. They will be the type of judgements that Territorians will make in relation to fiscal integrity and transparency.
The legislation in many ways, if you look at similar legislation elsewhere in the country, is deficient in that there are issues that have been eliminated. Again, that is the choice of the government . They have decided to pursue this line and the way that they formulate the legislation is up to them. The former system served well and that is what they are going to be judged against in terms of the performance of a government. I don’t think in a couple of years time - or even in a day’s time or a week’s time - if you slipped around to do a bit of doorknocking from house to house in different areas of the Northern Territory, whether people would even know what a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill was. But I do know that they know what job creation is, they know what a strong economy is, and they know that both of those things go together to give them and their families a future in the Northern Territory. They will be comparing the performance of this government with those sorts of measures rather than the legislation of this kind which is no doubt being portrayed as nice, comfortable, motherhood stuff by the government. That is their right. We won’t oppose that. They are in government and they are going to take that course. That is their right. But I think the measures that are going to be applied by Territorians will be quite different from that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill presented today, but I do have some queries. I wonder whether this bill could be avoided by the government making a statement to this Chamber that it believes in honest, open and transparent government and will guarantee that it will involve the community before budgets are presented and during the life of the government.
My problem is that this document is not easy to read and it doesn’t fit in with the objects of clause 1(3)(a) which says:
The reason I don’t think it is a very friendly document is that, in the 12 pages of the document, the word ‘fiscal’ is mentioned 112 times. We have the terms ‘fiscal policy’, ‘fiscal strategy’, ‘fiscal reporting’, ‘fiscal integrity’, ‘fiscal management’, ‘fiscal strategy statements’, ‘fiscal outlook’, ‘fiscal outlook reports’ and they can be pre-election, mid-year and final, ‘fiscal results reports’, ‘fiscal objectives’, ‘fiscal indicators’, ‘fiscal performance’, ‘fiscal information’, ‘fiscal implications’ and ‘fiscal transparency’. If I were to hand that document to the local plumber, he would say when he finished he knew ‘fisc-all’.
It is a difficult document to understand. I also notice that there are no penalties on the government if they do not adhere to their own act. My suggestion is that -- maybe this could boost the construction industry - as we are part of the Westminster system, a small tower be built on the west wing with split windows similar to the one in London and if any of the proponents of this act fail to adhere to what is stated in it, they should spend some time there.
Madam Speaker, regardless of all that, I support the bill.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the key words to this legislation are ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency’. These are both words that were echoed to me by many Johnston electors as I doorknocked the electorate prior to the August election - or rather the lack of it on the part of the then CLP government. There was a very loud message and, along with freedom of information legislation, this legislation is delivering a major part of our promise for open and accountable government for the Territory.
As members here would be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is currently examining a serious charge that was brought before this House by the health minister from the CEO of Territory Health Services in relation to the alleged manipulation of budget estimates.
Many Territorians, like myself, wondered why, over the past three years, successive budgets were blown out of the water by ever-increasing deficits. I will repeat my statement of yesterday about the way in which the Territory public purse was caught in the CLP crocodile jaws. These jaws were formed when the CLP government allowed actual expenditure to exceed targeted expenditure and keep rocketing upwards in an ever-widening gap; a dangerous situation of ever-increasing debt, all based on mismanagement, lack of honesty and facilitated by a lack of transparency. In other words, the final responsibility for financial projection with the related information lay with the former Treasurer and not with the Under Treasurer.
Most members here today would be aware of the article on page 13 in today’s NT News on the crocodile jaws, and I quote from the caption below the graph:
I have annotated this graph with a little mark of my own, the little red mark there that says ‘Burke/Reed’ because that’s when they, as a partnership, took over the Chief Ministership and under that Chief Ministership, you can see the jaws just keep on getting larger. I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: In contrast, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill is an integral part of the Labor party’s pledge to the electorate for open and accountable government. It also enables the Territory to have equivalent standards of fiscal integrity to most Australian jurisdictions. It is based on best practice from the Commonwealth and Western Australian jurisdictions, but tailored to suit our own Territory needs.
Also in today’s paper, Assistant Under Treasurer Jennifer Prince comments on this legislation. She was reported as saying: ‘The new transparency laws have kept politicians at arms length’ and she was referring to the formulation of the mini-budget handed down this week. The direct quote from the Assistant Under Treasurer is as follows:
I really question what sort of review the former Treasurer had. Was he dyslexic? Was he myopic? What was happening? Maybe he needs a new pair of glasses because there was a difference between $12m and $107m. Maybe that is where that review process came in. The basis of our bill is to require the government of the day to clearly state its fiscal strategy through a formal statement and to include indicators that will enable Territory taxpayers to judge the performance of the government in reaching its stated goals.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification advice - perhaps from the Clerk as well - on this point: we have listened to not a member of the Assembly speaking, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee speaking, a committee of this Parliament that is supposed to be unbiased in its deliberations. What I am hearing is the chairman of that committee, prior to the receiving of the full wealth of evidence with regard to allegations that are being made - not only against myself, the former Treasurer and the former minister for health - standing in this Chamber and clearly demonstrating that he is totally biased in his opinion. I believe that by his comments - sit down - so far, he has demonstrated his incapacity and ineligibility to continue on that committee. I believe by virtue of Standing Order 263 at the very least, a member who has a personal interest should withdraw from that committee.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Clerk to give me advice on this. It is my understanding that he is speaking as the member of the Assembly.
I have been advised that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition should be taken into account. Even though I cannot rule on what the member is saying, the member must realise the position he has as Chairman of the PAC and in his comments in this House, he should be careful to phrase them in such a way that they do not reflect any bias on his part. So, you should take note of those comments and what you are saying, remembering your dual role, that you need to present statements in this House in such a way that they do not reflect any sort of bias in your other role.
Leader of the Opposition, your point was valid, but I cannot say to the member that he shouldn’t make such comments. It is up to him, it is up to his own judgment what he does. Obviously, if you feel that he has gone past the point, then you have the opportunity to say so within the House.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take your words to heart, but also I would say that I have been careful in what I have said here today, and I believe that my words recorded in Hansard will stand scrutiny. So that’s the challenge.
The basis of our bill is to require the government to clearly state its fiscal strategy through a formal statement, and to include indicators that will enable Territory taxpayers to judge the performance of the government in reaching its stated goals. The legislation requires current budget projections to be published twice a year, mid-year, budget time and, very importantly, prior to elections. Such reports will be able to be audited by the Auditor-General, and this latter point about prior to elections is a very important point. We know now that if the Under Treasurer had been able to truthfully report the real budget situation that the CLP government had led us to was unsustainable, this was a very important fact that Territory voters should have been informed about.
In conclusion, I am glad to support this legislation because it gives Territory taxpayers certainty about the veracity of final estimates made by Treasury in the budget process. It will also make the government of the day more accountable for its performance. This Labor government welcomes such transparency.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on record some observations and some comments in relation to the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
I can say from the outset that I support the bill, on balance, I support the bill. But if we have a close look at the second-reading speech which was given by our Chief Minister, she quite clearly goes through some of the rationale behind the legislation and in the second paragraph talks about the scope of similar legislation in other jurisdictions and, of course, the Commonwealth. About two-thirds through that second paragraph, in an attempt to explain why certain other safeguards are not in this legislation - and they are, of course, the requirement for pre-budget consultation with community groups and, second, explicit provisions, particularly for parliamentary scrutiny processes aren’t here. These additional features, to use her words, aren’t required in the Northern Territory, and none were envisaged in Professor Allan’s recommendations. So the accountant has given some legal advice as to what should or should not be incorporated into this legislation. On the basis of that advice, some of the safeguards which exist in other jurisdictions have been jettisoned.
Whilst I have copies of the Western Australian and the federal legislation, I am not going to labour the point and walk you through it. If you look at some of the comments which were made when those bills were introduced, and I’d even go to Labor members in the Commonwealth parliament and what Jenny Macklin said - Jenny Macklin is now the Deputy Opposition Leader, I understand. She said:
A similar criticism can be levelled at this legislation.
Ms Martin: Go and look at clause 5, will you? Take a look at it - Part 3, clause 5.
Mr MALEY: I will pick up on the interjection. It may avoid going to the committee stage, depending on what the response is. Part 3, clause 5, says:
That goes nowhere near what Jenny Macklin was talking about, that is providing a clause which imposes a positive obligation on government to spell out in plain and simple terms the effect on a change in the budget or a change in forecasting the budget.
In fact, just taking the interjection a bit further - and I am indebted to the Chief Minister for raising it - clause 5 is Principles of sound fiscal management. There are four very broad brush statements. Indeed, there are a number of motherhood statements contained in this legislation; compelling and powerful legislation that says things like:
That is certainly clear. The it goes onto to say:
Then it goes on to outline in the broadest possible terms what are the principles of sound fiscal management. I am not sure how far that assists anybody. Indeed, there has been a great deal of criticism across Australia of such general motherhood statements.
His Honour Mr Justice Mahony, President of the Court of Appeal, was addressing the New South Wales Law Society and he said - I am quoting from an article which appeared in the Law Society Journal in September 1996. He was talking about generalities contained in legislation:
It went on to give some advice to lawyers who draft such legislation. But ultimately, of course, the responsibility for the conciseness or otherwise of this legislation falls on the shoulders of the Chief Minister.
I touched upon this last night in the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act. The legislation is peppered with - and the member for Nelson touched upon this - a number of phrases. The name of it indicates the political nature of the legislation, the fiscal integrity and transparency framework. The government is seeking to infuse these admirable qualities into the title of the legislation and the wording of the legislation in an attempt to construct some sort of moral gulf between her government and the opposition. The Chief Minister should consider that what she is constructing, perhaps, is more closely akin to a crucifix, and if integrity and transparency are going to be the new battlefield for the next election, then I for one am happy to accommodate her.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is interesting to note the number of denials which are coming from the other side of the House from the Chief Minister and her followers. They are coming quicker than those of the apostles. Indeed, Peter the Apostle denied Christ three times before the cock crowed, but compared with the rate at which the Labor Party are breaching and breaking its core and non-core promises, Peter the Apostle makes ...
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not understand the relevance of the apostles to the discussion and debate on the fiscal integrity bill.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: Lack of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please do not keep raising points of order because they have no relevance to the debate.
Mr MALEY: I am happy to amplify for the member for Karama.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I have spoken to you once this morning.
Mr MALEY: I can pick up very briefly on the comments of the member for Karama. The reason the analogy has been made, and I think properly so, is that here we have legislation which has adopted a high moral ground using such powerful terms as ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency’. Yet, in recent times, we have seen the government, whilst they made promises that there will be no sackings, indeed sack a public servant. Just like the promise that there would be no new taxes and charges, we saw quite clearly last night that there is, in fact, a new tax introduced into this Chamber. So, just like the apostles, well, indeed this government is making the apostles look like amateurs in terms of the number of lies - I withdraw that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I can say that, can’t I? Yes. The number of lies and promises that are broken ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, would you rephrase that? Rephrase it.
Mr MALEY: The number of promises that are being broken is something that should be placed on the record and will come back to haunt this government.
There is an interesting article which was written recently and it summarises my qualified support for the legislation. The article comes from the Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library and it was written by a couple of lawyers, Bob Bennett and Bernard Poole, on 3 March 1998. These two people reviewed the charter of budget honesty bill and its counterparts around Australia, and put together in a succinct way some of the difficulties as they foresaw them, and some of the issues which parliaments who, in the future, considering such legislation, should closely look at.
Their conclusion is - I’ll read this; I think it’s important that it be placed on the record:
Arguably, the legislation in most respects is unnecessary. What is to be achieved under the bill can
be achieved administratively for the life of the present parliament i.e. within existing directions.
Not even regulations are required to allow the government to provide the electorate with the sort
of information that the bill seeks to guarantee.
They are talking about a bill, of course, which seeks to guarantee the supply of even more information than what’s contained in this very lame Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
And this is the important bit:
Hence it may be argued that the bill of itself is a relatively poor indicator of the government’s capacity to
govern and the workability of the parliament. As a test of government’s capacity to maintain parliamentary
support or compliance, the defeat of the …
And it goes on to talk about the act
… would not self-evidently present itself as a failure to pass a proposal vital to the execution of the majority
of the ministry …
and quotes Sir Garfield Barwick.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: In other words, these two people - and if you listen you might actually learn something here - say:
So they are saying that you can do all the things contained in the act without an act of parliament and if you can’t govern and you don’t have the capacity to govern, then perhaps it may be necessary to introduce such a bill just to remind you of your obligations.
Another matter I want to put on the record which is of some concern to me and some of my colleagues outside this Chamber. When I was discussing this matter with them, it seems - and it is reflected in the second-reading speech - we have the situation where the government has sought the advice of an interstate consultant, and this is Percy Allan. Some of the advice he has given, which is reflected in the second-reading speech, is that he has given legal advice. So here we have a government accepting advice on legal matters from an accountant, and I am sure it’s something that his professional indemnity insurance certainly did not envisage.
A member interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is interesting that the member for Johnston stands up and articulates some of the virtues of the legislation and he used the words: ‘it’s an integral part of Labor’s platform’. Well, it is an integral part of Labor’s platform if they are concerned about their capacity to govern, yes, I agree with that. It is interesting to see that it became an integral part of Labor’s platform once they sought legal advice from an accountant after the election. They used the advice from the accountant to justify tailoring to suit Northern Territory needs and deleting two important safeguards which their southern counterparts, their comrades in Canberra, say are necessary and should be incorporated in this sort of legislation. It is really a case of don’t do what I do, but do what I say. With those observations on the record, I can indicate that I will be supporting the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the shadow Attorney-General has completely missed the point. If he had taken the time to understand where this bill came from - there was a corruption of the processes of the presentation of the last budget that went through this Chamber, a corruption of the processes. That is what this bill will prevent ever occurring again. It simply won’t occur under this bill. Now, if you understood very clearly - I appreciate you weren’t here when this budget went through parliament, when we were told all of the way that we were headed for a $12m deficit for that financial year.
Had there been any integrity in the presentation of that budget, the actual figure rather than $12m would have been somewhere between $110m and $140m. That was the problem that we were confronted with, and we have this condescending tone of ‘how dare you take advice from an account?’ This man was Under Treasurer for three governments of different persuasions in New South Wales for quite some years, and the member for Goyder wants to impugn both the reputation of Professor Percy Allan and, in some way, this government because we dared to take advice from this ‘accountant consultant’, as he so contemptuously dismisses the man. Percy Allan is one of the leading lights in government financial accounting methods and certainly in budget presentation.
There was a need for this bill, as other jurisdictions have found. There would not have been a need for this bill if the previous government had done the right thing in the presentation of its accounts and the presentation of its budget, and its passage through this Assembly.
We have been through this ad nauseam, the shock we, as the new government, experienced when we had the Under Treasurer say: ‘The budget is in an unsustainable position’, 12 weeks after it passed through this Assembly, headed for a $12m deficit. That is what this bill is about, so that the dodgey figures - manufactured figures in order to give a better light to the forthcoming budget than otherwise would have been possible - can never occur again. I suggest the shadow Attorney-General should take more care and more note of how these things arise. It is no secret. It has been said a dozen times by members on this side.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate members of this government for showing the leadership and courage to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. This is, yet again, an example of the massive legislative changes this government has taken in its short existence. There are a number of other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that have introduced similar legislation, in particular Western Australia and our friends across the sea in New Zealand.
This bill will allow budget documents that are prepared to represent the best estimates of Treasury, a concept this CLP opposition is still coming to grips with. This will protect Territorians from dangerous manipulation of the previous government’s calculations on budget figures, which has led to the extraordinary budget deficit estimated to be around $12m, which the esteemed Professor Percy Allan argues is closer to a $107m black hole.
We sat in this most noble parliament this week and watched members - the member for Katherine, the member for Brennan and other CLP members - continue to deny what everyone in the Northern Territory knows about the budget under their regime. Under the CLP, the budget figures were created for political purposes and that political purpose was to maintain power by any means possible. Well, you have been found out.
In today’s NT News, 29 November 2001, page 13 - I would like to just read three paragraphs from this article entitled Law to Keep Budget Safe. I repeat: Law to Keep Budget Safe. It is right next to the now infamous crocodile jaws which the member for Johnston explained to members of the opposition, the effect, and when the mouth started opening. It states:
Found out! Shame on you, CLP. Shame on you, and that is the truth. I seek leave to table this document, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BONSON: No other incoming government in the Northern Territory will have to suffer an inheritance like the one the ex-CLP government left us.
This government has taken steps to ensure the budget figures will be real figures that Territorians can rely on. As the member for Goyder stated, the next election will probably be fought over budget figures. But this Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill will allow open debate, and I look forward to that. The Percy Allan report confirmed the previous government had a habit of adjusting budget data for its own ends - have you no shame? - therefore withholding the truth from Territorians in regards to the previous government’s financial arrangements.
The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s report - which the member for Macdonnell should know, if he had read the report - has 44 pages. The member for Macdonnell should know that 44 kangaroo tails can help win an election, but 44 pages of the Auditor-General’s report can assist in discrediting him and his party forever. I would like to read an extract from page 22, which is half way through the report:
This is the interesting part:
Shame! This legislation ensures that the despicable habits of the past government become a thing of the past, forever returned to the stone age where habits of this kind belong. From here on in, government will set the policy and the Treasurer will be responsible for certainty. This is why the Labor government was elected: to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill and freedom of information legislation which will forever protect Territorians from governments.
The CLP, such as the previous …
Members interjecting.
Mr BONSON: … and their dangerous accounting practices. I put you clowns on notice that I will hunt down every crooked deal and fabricated deceit you have perpetrated on Territorians.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do you believe that ‘clowns’ as a label to address members of the Legislative Assembly is an appropriate word?
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I cannot hear anything that is going on at the moment with all the noise from both sides. What is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: My point of order is that the member speaking used the label ‘clowns’ to address members of the Legislative Assembly, and I am merely asking if you believe that to be an appropriate word.
Madam SPEAKER: I find it a little unparliamentary but we will accept it.
Mr BONSON: Just to finish and repeat myself for Hansard, I will put you clowns on notice that I will hunt down every crooked deal …
Mr ELFERINK: A point or order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps you could clarify it for me.
Madam SPEAKER: I said I considered it to be unparliamentary but I would accept it. It is up to the member’s own judgement whether he makes comments like that and uses those terms. It is more a reflection on him.
Mr BONSON: To finish, Madam Speaker, on that note that I will attempt, in my efforts over this term of government, to hunt down every crooked deal and fabricated deceit which the former CLP government perpetrated on Territorians. I look forward to the next election where accountable government and transparent government will lead to a more open discussion on budgetary figures under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. I look forward to the implementation of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and freedom of information legislation.
These are two topics that I spent many weeks campaigning on throughout my electorate. I sat down and explained to people about the requirements of a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. I was, like many members of this government, quite surprised and shocked about the deficit left to us and the deceit about it.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to start where the previous speaker left off. He talked about going out campaigning on various positions that the Labor Party put in terms of whistle blower legislation, FOI and, even though he included this legislation, it was not widely put in the document that they paraded out to the public under the guise of Good Government. I have a copy here if it has been lost in Labor archives. It is interesting to revisit this document because it does go to issues of your platform, what you tell the people, the hours that the member for Millner spent discussing, I assume this document was the one he was talking about in his closing debate.
It is interesting to read into Hansard some of the things that mere months ago - if we are 102, 103 days - this was part of the platform, and I quote from the Good Government paper:
That was their definition of the problem. Now let’s look at what they were going to do about fixing it, and one of the little fixes we are discussing here today. I thought it was pretty interesting, being on the PAC, that we looked at what they were going to do about that particular organ of this parliament. The Parliamentary Committee System:
And we saw that as one of the first decisions of this government.
And we have yet to see these. So the status of committees is raised.
Hmm. I’m not sure they met that promise.
Hmm. ‘Don’t think we met that one.
Now, we have a situation here where we have a committee system …
Dr Burns: We have four years to do it.
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t give us the four year thing. This says ‘when in government’. You are in government. So we have here a system where a statement has been presented to this House - and it will be debated later - which asks for us to approve, to give the imprimatur of this House, to some millions and millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars. If you compare this open, transparent government and all these words, if they are to mean anything, it should be subjected to the scrutiny of this parliament.
We did it year after year after year as a government that enabled the committee system, and it was the committee of the parliament of the whole, not the PAC or anybody else. All of us sat in here, as the Committee of the Whole, went through it, every member could ask questions and we interrogated our budget at great length. Now compare that with what is before us. If any analyst, including the NT News, wants to parade that the previous system was deficient and the current system with legislation with a cute name is better, I suggest they merely go to the Hansard record and have a look at which system provided better scope for interrogation of the budget.
Those opposite, many of whom are new, who run this case that, ‘Oh, we couldn’t get information’, or ‘the information was wrong’, or ‘we couldn’t trust it’ or whatever, should be a bit careful about making those allegations because the investigations into those matters have yet to occur. Indeed, it is well and truly very shaky ground for the Chairman of the PAC to be exhibiting such partiality in this matter.
He said: ‘If you go to the parliamentary record and look at my words, I am sure it will clear me’. That may well be the case. I don’t believe it will. But his interjections over the last couple of weeks have been notoriously biased. I have chosen not to pick them up on the basis that I had hoped that when the PAC does meet, we can interrogate some of these issues that are causing them so much angst. Some of the debates we have had here have had so much of the mantra about what we have done and how terrible it all is - all based on one memo. One of the members even chose to talk about that memo and said that he had been advised that this was terrible and it was good that the Under Treasurer had signed off. It is the same person.
When we start talking about what the old system was and what the new system will be, we should talk to the person because you might well find that there is a reasonable explanation for why some of these events have occurred. I still would like to believe that the Under Treasurer would have totally signed-off on our budget. I believe that the input they had was significant. I believe the budget was a budget that I would have worked with, notwithstanding the difficulties …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Drysdale is talking on subjects and matters going before the Public Accounts Committee. A member of that committee he is, and I believe it is in accordance with the point of order raised by the member for Brennan previously. He is showing a bias now in his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: My comments to the member for Johnston apply: in all your comments, it is your call but you should always be mindful of your position in this parliament and on committees.
Mr DUNHAM: As I would be, Madam Speaker. I will leave that subject because perhaps other speakers could look at it, but eventually commentators will and they will see that there is some difficulty with reconciling some of this stuff.
The famous crocodile jaws. We were talking about the crocodile jaws saying: ‘If you spend more money and you are not bringing much in, you have a problem’. The budget papers we have here before us would indicate that there are some $34m in extra appropriation for the now Department of Health and Community Services. That is a pretty big jaw. This budget has seven months to run and that is about 1% per month. We are talking about 12% growth. I applaud it; I think it is good that there is additional money for health, but that is as a parochial interest of somebody who has a strong interest in it. There has to be a whole-of-government interest and there have to be people that ask questions like: Question 1, Territory Health: Is this sustainable?
We could use the same word. We could break the word down and say: ‘Under Treasurer, when you told us the budget that the incoming Labor government inherited was unsustainable, on what basis?’ He may well say things like: ‘Well it is not sustainable if you guys decide not to sell the NT Fleet’. Or he might say things like: ‘It is not sustainable if you want to keep those stupid promises intact’. Or he might say: ‘It is not sustainable unless you do this or that’.
I am sure there would have been conditions on the use of that word. I, for one, would be very interested to know whether the growth inherent in the portfolio area I am responsible for, Health and Community Services, is sustainable. It is a word that I would ask to be applied to the budgets that are in the papers before us. I think that’s somewhere we should go.
While we are on NT Fleet, perhaps we could go to the budget papers to talk about it, because we know it’s now worth $59m. We know these budget papers say that in there is an asset floating around worth $59m. It is arguably not the core business of government. Should government be in the business of hiring cars when there are other people out there that do this stuff? The trite comment about GST has changed things. Yes, GST has changed things. It has made it more saleable, not less saleable because when we could get the high yields with our second-hand cars because we were sales tax exempt, it yielded a tidy profit. With GST, that profit is not so evident any more. So, it could well be that this $59m lump of investment maybe shouldn’t sit on our books. Maybe we should go to ABC Car Hire Pty Ltd, or XYZ Car Hire Pty Ltd.
These are the questions for government. Now, whether it costs money or not, and we do know it’s a once off-er - it’s a little bit like the tax. The tax is a three year once off-er and it yields $24m. The sale of NT Fleet is a once off-er and it yields $59m. So if you can do that in one hit, without all the pain of dipping into peoples pockets, I would analyse that. That is something I would expect the Under Treasurer to come back to us and say: ‘Remember I told you not to sell it, well compared to the tax, all the angst of the kids with the dirt bikes, and all this stuff, and all the bookkeeping we have to do with giving pensioners back money, and the girls on the counter who don’t know whether it is a caravan or a motor home, it could be much easier if you just flogged this thing off’.
Now, what say we put an ad in the paper that will cost us $300 and we say: ‘Is anybody out there interested?’ Then if people come back and say: ‘Nup. It’s a dumb idea’, okay, you don’t have to go ahead. But if you decide not to sell it, that is a government decision. That is a government policy decision, and you can’t lay that at our feet and say: ‘We’ve decided not to harvest $50m out of an asset that is not the core business of the Northern Territory government, and you are terrible buggers’. You can’t say that. It is just a nonsense to assume that your decisions can be visited on us, particularly when it is as large as $50m.
In the papers I note that the words are ‘removal of $50m asset sale’ and this is a quote for the benefit of Hansard:
So it’s possible; others have done it.
So, this is saying: ‘Whoops, we might have another look’. It goes on to say: ‘On this basis the sale and lease back proposal was suspended’. Not cancelled. Not terminated. Not jettisoned. What we have here is government inertia. We have the government saying: ‘We can pluck $50m out of the system. Whoop, that’s in suspension. Put it on ice over here and we’ll consider it another time because it provides a very convenient excuse. We have made the decision, the decision is totally of our authorship and making, and we can use it to call Mike Reed naughty names in parliament’. If we were going to go to this thing, we should really go to it on the basis that the fundamentals of Percy Allan’s $107m, half of it you can blow out of the water with one ad this big in the national papers.
I suggest that Labor possibly do that, and I suggest they possibly come back and say: ‘Okay, maybe it’s a bit less attractive’, but I can tell you your $90 tax isn’t that attractive either. If you are working on the basis that this has some warts on it, have a look at the warts on the thing that was brought in here last night. The thing was leaking all over the place. If the sale, the once off clean sale, $50m - $59m possibly – chucked into your bank account in one hit, it is all sitting in there, I suggest they look at it. Stop the rhetoric …
Mr Henderson: The cost of leasing them back?
Mr DUNHAM: I will pick up the interjection because it just shows how foolish this argument is. ‘The cost of leasing them back’. We lease them now. There is a thing called the Government Business Division. We pay the leases now. The critical issue is: will we lease them for more? That is the issue. It is already recurrent. It is already sitting in budget. So lease costs are in there. Could be less. You are not going to know until you get these people coming along saying: ‘I’ll buy the asset from you. These are the lease rates; this is what its all about’. If you haven’t looked, you don’t know; you haven’t got a clue. You are just making a speculative judgment here on the basis that it’s a good thing to blame Reedy about.
I reckon you should have a bit more of a look at that. $50m is a nice little yield, Madam Speaker. I can recall, when it was brought to this parliament, when it was asked, and the question having been asked, I think most of us sort of nodded our heads and said: ‘Well, it’s worth a go’. All we are doing is calling for expressions of interest. We can still come back and say: ‘We thought it was a good idea. We thought we might try that, but, gee, they are going to charge us double the lease rate’. Or for people who are ignorant and foolish and don’t understand it, you could say: ‘Guess what, Paul? We are already paying the lease rate. It is already in there, mate’. So all you are talking about is the bit on top. It will be an educative exercise if nothing else. It will educate them and it might educate us that there is a better way to go here. So there’s $50m. Easy done. Three years to get $24m, six months to get $50m. I think that’s a reasonable thing.
We have been told that with the advent of this act these figures are so tickety-boo that they are beyond reproach. We have been told that it is an act of parliament and it has words on the title like ‘fiscal integrity’, and sweetness and light, and all that stuff so therefore, nothing will ever go wrong again. ‘Trust us’. You don’t even need to read these papers because they are straight up and down.
We know HIH isn’t in it. We know, talking about black holes, they have to pick up $50m. It is not in here. It is nowhere around. Not in this bit of paper. We are also being told that the $3m provided by the previous government, the $6m provided by this government, $9m will take us through this year.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Whatever it is. Let’s talk quantum. $9m is going to cover it; it will eat it. We should get through into next year with the $9m. My memory is pretty good and I seem to recall the numbers were bigger than that. So I would be going to the people who advise you, and I would be saying: ‘We’ve printed a number in here and we’ve been told that we can’t tell lies in this document’ - and the Chief Minister has also gone on the public record saying that the buck stops with her if there are any errors in this piece of paper - ‘Now, I need to know, Under Treasurer, I need you to assure me that this man here will not be coming to the Cabinet, or anybody else, to seek additional funds for HIH this year’.
So this financial year, we are making the assumption that the $9m is going to cover it. I don’t think we should be making that assumption. The other thing that should be made …
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It’s $6m. So if you then go to the out years where the zeros are painted, that is an absolute distortion of the facts. There is no way any of us in this House believe that HIH is going to cost us nothing in the out years. No one, but no one, believes it. So we have a situation where we know they are going to have to harvest $50m. We know, by virtue of the NT News, that great document the member for Millner believes is a foundation of truth, we know that it’s going to be done on the basis of a T-A-X. We know they are going to do this. We know it’s going to be based on the community, a broad based tax on the community to yield …
Mr Henderson: We are considering the options.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, whatever option you consider, the answer has to say: ‘I’m going to do things and there is $50m comes out the other end’. Whatever factory you build, it has to have a $50m sausage come out the other end. We don’t care what it is. We don’t care. What we don’t want you to say is: ‘This $50m sausage is going to come out some little sneaky way’, because we know it will be a tax. We know it will be a tax on the community, and we know it is $50m. What we don’t know is where it is. We don’t know that these transparent, whatever they are called, documents can show us where the $50m is. Pretty big lump of money. I would have said that if I was going to parade these out in light of the bill that is before parliament, I’d be pretty careful about having such a big hole. There are a lot of little holes and I can go to them. I have plenty of time to do it. I mentioned one this morning where we were going to have a brand new service, where we were going to visit people with disabilities in their home in the dead of night and it wasn’t going to cost us anything. That’s a bit of a long shot.
We know we have Oncology Departments that have being touted about how wondrous they are to build and nothing in there to run them. We know we have hospices that are going to be built and no recurrent. We know we have renal dialysis going to Tennant Creek at probably a number that is a bit below what it should be, and these are matters I think we should be discussing. I will certainly be raising them again because they have been raised in correspondence over some weeks and weeks. You can’t say: ‘Oops! Oops. We didn’t know about it’. You do know about it. If you are going to spend $15m building a dedicated facility to treat people’s cancer, the hope is you will actually have people in there working. You will have the lights on and water coming out the tap when you turn the tap on. That’s called recurrent.
If you have capital in there to build a building for $15m and you have no recurrent, that is a patent falsehood - that is a falsehood. You can say that we are making an assumption that we will be able to claw back travel from interstate, claw back this and we know that that will give us some savings and we will deploy those savings for those people who previously had to travel in to this facility. That might work. But I notice in the budget papers travel has gone up. Is the Health Minister telling us that the growth in travel is sustainable? This massive growth we have in hospital activity: $16m in hospitals in seven months. In seven months they are going to need another $16m. Get your calculator out, work out what the growth rate is. It is pretty high. You are talking over 10% on some of these growth rates.
If you want to run the case that the crocodile jaws are unsustainable, this budget doesn’t deliver it. If you want to run the case that this has no fibs in it, I think they have to be very careful of putting their hand on their heart and saying: ‘You will never find an error in this. No, no, no, no. Not us guys. We got Clarkey to sign the front, we have an act of parliament. That thing is tickety-boo’. Now, if you are saying with this bill that that is the length you will go to, to guarantee the veracity of this document, I would caution you against it. If you are saying: ‘Well, there could be other circumstances and the bill really doesn’t apply that much’, it is a charade. It is one or the other.
If this bill gives them such total connection to this document that we will never find a mistake in it, I would suggest that maybe we do put some penalties in it. If it is merely a device, a charade for public consumption, we as the opposition are happy for them to do that. If that is how they do their politics, that’s how they do their politics. We won’t be interrogating them on this bill that is before the House. We will be interrogating them on outcomes, on what happens. We won’t be going to people saying: ‘They have brought in an act of parliament, that was an end point’. This is a start point. This is where we are starting from. The budget documents that are sitting on this table are what we have to go from and the end point for these budget documents is 30 June next year. I suggest they be really careful about having a nexus between this bill and the fact that this thing here is carved in stone to the extent that we can use this document without any problems for the rest of the year.
Let’s talk about open and transparent government in terms of what the documents don’t tell us. We know they don’t tell us about the $50m for HIH. We know they put a lie to the vehicle fleet being unable to be sold even though it is valued at $59m and we know also there are no staff numbers in there. Now, when you start to talk about the resources that are available to you as a minister, you have money, you have an intellectual repository out there, you have machines, you have vehicles. The most valuable resource in the public service is the people. That is what drives it. In some instrumentalities, that is the big outgoing. They don’t have many machines. They don’t have many pieces of office equipment. It’s the people. To have a document that doesn’t tell you where the people are is the biggest hoax perpetrated on this parliament. We hear this morning from the Chief Minister that it is a bit tricky getting the numbers together. Right? Well, she has a lot of them in here. Which numbers are tricky? So, these ones are okay. We knew how to amalgamate all their electricity bills. We knew how to amalgamate all their TA. We knew how to amalgamate all their other activities, but we don’t know how many people are there. Not to be able to reconcile your human resources, or even not to have control over them to the extent that you don’t know the number means that this is a runaway tram. If they haven’t got a clue who’s what where, their most valuable resource, which is their human resource, is sitting there being neglected. That is the best spin we could put on it, that they don’t know where they are, they don’t know what they are doing, and it is hard to add them up.
There is another spin that could be put and that is that no matter how the Chief Minister portrays the black holes and all that stuff and how nasty Mike Reed is, I suspect the number of public servants that would be printed in this book and the year following would probably differ. My suggestion is that Treasury know that difference. They know, on the crocodile jaws that are so famous, that they have to bring the top jaw down. Now, when you bring the top jaw down, it means you have to spend less. This budget doesn’t spend less; this budget spends more. So we don’t want to look at this one. We want to look at the one that improves the budget. The budget improvement strategy. The top jaw is sitting up there like that and next year we know it’s going to come down because this is what you want. This is the economic theory according to member for Johnston. Down comes the top jaw. The top jaw comes down when you stop spending lumps of money.
Mr Henderson: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: It doesn’t come down when you stop spending lumps of money?
Mr Henderson: Slows. Growth slows. Revenue catches up.
Mr DUNHAM: Aha! So, the top jaw doesn’t come down when you stop spending money. Another theory, I guess, but I can’t figure it out myself. I would have thought that if your expenditure starts coming down, the top jaw starts coming down. But still, let’s stay with the little they know. We think that if you look at this budget and you see there is more money in it…
A member: You’re a joke.
Mr DUNHAM: I pick up the interjection. If you look at the budget and you see there is more money in it, you are a joke. You are a bunch of clowns. You are a bunch of clowns. If you look at this budget and next year’s budget and you look at the abridged figures - the secret figures, the hidden figures that in good government, we don’t know about this - you might find the number of public servants is fewer. That is called a cut to the public service. It doesn’t matter if you say: ‘It’s up to the CEOs, it’s attrition, nobody will lose their job, blah, blah, blah’. What we want to know is: will the gross numbers, net numbers, bums on seats, whichever numbers you want to use, will those numbers be more or less? We know they will be less. What we want to say to public servants - and you accuse us of scaremongering – is: ‘Look, it’s only 500’. At the moment you have the unions saying it is 1400. We suspect …
Mr Henderson: Your mates.
Mr Burke: Our mates?
Mr Henderson: Yes, your mates. You’ve discovered single mothers, the unemployed, unions.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, the point I am making is whether they are our mates or your mates, they are an enlightened commentator so we would assume that the unions have some commentary to make. The commentary they’ve made, whether they agree or disagree with it, is that there are 1400 public servants going to go missing – AWOL, no pay cheque next year. We think that that might be wrong and these guys probably think it is wrong, too. What we want is the number. Give us the number. It has to be between 0 and 1400. Must be between 0 and 1400. Maybe it is more. Maybe they are going to cut more. All we are trying to get from them in this open, enlightened, educated budget - and everybody knows what is going on. All we want to know from them is how many public servants will lose their jobs. Yes/No. The whole argument about what Reedy did and motor cars and all the rest of it - cut to the chase. In your closing response, I would ask the Chief Minister to tell us …
Ms Martin: What did you do when your CEO came to you and said they’re fudging the figures for health? Yes? Come on, you are on your feet. Tell us.
Mr DUNHAM: Come on. When I went to school, Madam Speaker, ‘come on’ used to be a thing to get people to fight. They would say: ‘Come on, come on’. This one here says it all the time. I know she is new to the Territory, but it is actually an enticement to fight. I do not know how you did it in Sydney where you went to school, but up here, I can tell you, that was a pretty - ask my colleagues who went to school here - offensive thing to be saying to people. When you start saying: ‘Come on, come on’, what it meant was: ‘We’re outside and we are on with it’. That is fighting language and …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development) Madam Speaker, it is an appropriate time for me to join this debate following on from the member for Drysdale because election to this parliament brings us a huge sense of responsibility and a level of trust that our electors put in us, as members of parliament, to come into this House to represent their interests, be it from opposition or in government. What we are talking about today is the introduction of legislation that is going to bring back a level of trust that the public have certainly lost in terms of this institution in regards to the way that the previous government put together budgets and misled and betrayed the trust of Territorians.
In government, as the previous government were here just six months ago, the primary responsibility is appropriating monies and expenditure on services and infrastructure within a fiscal framework that is responsible, to deliver economic growth and services to the Northern Territory. That is essentially what our job is as members of parliament.
The people who elect us expect us to do it honestly, expect us to do with a level of integrity and expect that when budget papers are brought before the parliament to the people of the Northern Territory, that they are truthful and honest accounts of the state of the budget and where government is seeking to raise revenue and expend money over the next 12 months. What we have seen from the previous government is consistently underestimating final consumption expenditure in those budget papers to the tune of $65 to $70m a year and therefore masking, when they bring the budget down, what the previous government was saying was an increase in the budget but were actually cuts to budget.
For a number of years, we wondered what was going on but it was finally brought home when we came to government and when, within the first two to three days of the Chief Minister and the Treasurer coming to government, the Under Treasurer came to her office and said: ‘I have some bad news for you’ – paraphrasing - ‘The $12m that is in the budget papers as the deficit for this financial year …’ - and this was eight weeks after the budget had been tabled in this parliament - ‘… it is not really $12m. It is around about $100m’. Nine times more. This is within eight weeks.
Obviously, we smelled a rat - a very big, stinking rat at that. And in terms of getting an independent assessment, commissioned Percy Allan, an esteemed person who was the Under Treasurer in New South Wales, who audited the books independently and yes, he came up with $107m. How did these numbers come to get into the budget papers? Was it Treasury? Was it Treasury that was so incompetent that they could not actually estimate final consumption expenditure? They got it so wrong? The public service got it so wrong - these budget papers were so badly flawed, or was something else happening? Obviously, we have complete faith and integrity in our public sector. A lot of us on this side spent many years in the public sector, have been here for a long time. In government, as responsible ministers, we started questioning public servants about what was going on in terms of the preparation of these budget documents. How could they have been so wrong so consistently since the previous Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Katherine, now the shadow Treasurer, got their hands on the tiller of the great ship of state, the Northern Territory budget?
The first indication that we received that something was very wrong in terms of the way that the stewardship of our financial accounts were being managed, was when the CEO of Territory Health Services presented a memo that was tabled in this House in the last sittings which laid very clearly on the table exactly what was going on with these budget figures. I quote from the memo from Paul Bartholomew, the CEO of Territory Health Services, that was previously tabled in this parliament:
Presented falsely!
So here is a very serious allegation that the budget papers were false, and they were false in order to present an illusionary increase in the health budget of 2.5%. He goes on to say, and I quote again:
I received a telephone call from the Under Treasurer who informed me that the Treasurer …
The Treasurer, the member for Katherine.
Artificially, falsely, misleadingly!
the member for Drysdale,
serious alarm,
on instruction from the member for Katherine, the previous Treasurer
So, the member for Drysdale, caught up in this deception, went to water, betrayed the trust of the people of the Northern Territory, the people who elected him, failed to stand up to the deception that the member for Katherine was seeking to perpetrate on the people of the Northern Territory and on the budget process, and did absolutely nothing. Strike one in terms of where this consistent underestimated final consumption expenditure was coming to. What have we seen since then?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, may I suggest you address your remarks also to the bill. We seem to be very repetitious.
Mr HENDERSON: In terms of the bill, Madam Speaker, I am seeking to outlay why this legislation is so important, so this betrayal of trust, in terms of the confidence of the people of the Northern Territory, in terms of the budget processes of this parliament, needs to be restored, and this bill certainly gives effect to that.
The second piece of evidence, if we go consequentially, is in the current budget papers. I quote again from Budget Paper No 3, Fiscal and Economic Outlook, which have been prepared by Treasury as opposed to being written in the former Treasurer’s office. Again, I will not read the whole statement because I did last night. In terms of the deficit being closer to $102m than the $12m - and if we take out the $50m for the sale of NT Fleet - I quote from Budget Paper No 3, the second reason was that:
not the previous Treasurer’s assessment,
Strike two: evidence now that the problem was not confined to health, but we have problems in education and in some of the law and order functions. Strike two.
Now we go to strike three. We have the CEO of Territory Health Services, the Treasury documents in terms of the budget paper and now we have a third source of evidence of this: the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory and the current report before this parliament, Analysis of the 2001 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I take members to page 22, Department of Education, and I quote:
During the term of the CLP government.
Here we have Cabinet appropriating and approving $6m to the department to shore up their operational costs. But the forward estimate in the government’s 2001-02 budget papers still showed $204m, not $210m, because you had kicked in the extra $6m. These are the budget papers that came down in May this year. It still showed the figure at $204m. What happened here in the Department of Education? I suspect exactly the same thing has happened where the Treasurer, in the lead up to the Northern Territory election, didn’t like the fact that if we actually put in the budget papers the estimated outcome for the financial year, which was known because additional monies had been allocated to it, any increase in the budget would not appear as an increase going into an election. It would appear as a cut. So what you do - smoke and mirrors - you underestimate the estimated outcome to make it look as though, going into an election, you are allocating more money to education.
Here we have three independent sources, and Professor Percy Allan, proving, I would say pretty conclusively, and it will be interesting to see where the Public Accounts Committee goes with this, that there was deliberate interference by the ex-Treasurer, certainly by the member for Drysdale, the previous health minister, in deliberately misrepresenting and misleading Territorians in the presentation of those budget papers. And they have obviously been doing it consistently. You have to ask why. Why would they be doing this? They have been caught red-handed. Politically, they were so desperate going into an election, so desperate in terms of maintaining power, power at absolutely all costs, that they were prepared to mislead the people of the Northern Territory deliberately to mask their total failure in terms of prudent fiscal management, their total failure to provide a sustainable budget framework for the people of the Northern Territory, and they did it with only one motive in mind which was to stay in power. This is political desperation at its most appalling such that the legislation that we have before us today, when it is passed, will prevent any future government from attempting to get involved in it.
So for members opposite - and I would like to think for members opposite who weren’t in that previous Cabinet, because if the Cabinet did not know, then they were obviously asleep through half of the budget preparatory framework that we go through. If they didn’t know, I just can’t believe it. I think they are all up to their ears in what was going on. But certainly for people who were on the back bench at the time and for the new members, I hope that people opposite will look and see the fraud that was perpetrated by their colleagues and they will judge them accordingly. The evidence is there. You can’t walk away from it.
The legislation that is before this House is so important to actually return the trust of Territorians in terms of these budget processes. That’s why it is so important. And, yes, the member for Katherine may be a bit half smart and he’s right: doorknocking, people are not going to raise this bill as being a matter at issue, but what they will know as a consequence of this legislation coming down is that the trust that was betrayed by the previous government will never occur again as a result of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I heartily commend the bill to members of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I will suspend the sittings for lunch at this stage. We will continue this debate after Question Time.
Continued from the morning session.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a couple of comments fairly quickly in relation to this. My concern arises out of the comments by the Minister for Industry and Business when he made comments to this House in relation to the approach by the new government to the open and accountable and honest way that they were going to deal with Territorians, and that the bill that is before this House is a representation of their wonderful approach in this area.
Indeed, if we listen to the member for Wanguri and the way he talked about it, quite frankly I was left with the impression that the only thing that would prevent him walking across my swimming pool is the fact that the holes in his feet would let the water through. He has clearly demonstrated to this place that his memory, as far as the promises made by his side of the House while they were in opposition, are the promises that the voters of the Northern Territory have relied upon when they came into government.
They went out to the people of the Northern Territory and they said to the people of the Northern Territory: ‘Look, guys! Look what we’re going to do for you’. I draw the minister’s attention to a debate which occurred on 22 April 1999 in which his new leader had this to say in relation to how open and honest and accountable the new processes of the new government are going to be. I quote from the speech on that date. She said:
at which point Mr Lugg interjected and said: ‘True’, at which point Ms Martin said:
She was being quite sarcastic, obviously, at the time and then she went on to say:
and Mr Lugg said: ‘What?’ and she said this:
That was the now Chief Minister. I find it curious that she then comes into this Chamber and we hear comments from her ministry that the process of the Public Accounts Committee is going to be better under their leadership. Certainly under their position paper Good Government they made it very clear that they intended to have a fair and balanced PAC. Yet what do we have this morning? We have the Chairman of that PAC clearly taking a position which is partisan prior to an investigation into matters relating to what the former government did. Now, if the Chief Minister and the government opposite wants to have any form of credibility, then I urge the Chief Minister to instigate what she said she would instigate while she was in opposition, and create a Public Accounts Committee which is 3:2 in favour of the opposition. I hear no calls from the members opposite.
She was also very disparaging of back benchers who simply toed the party line. She said as much in that speech. ‘You’ll get no good out of a government which runs the parliament in that fashion’, she said. ‘Those back benchers who have aspirations are not going to be fighting for you’, she says. Well, now that the boot is on the other foot, what do we see? A deceit; a clear and utter deceit. I think it’s cute in the extreme that they come in here, robed in their innocence and robed in their blame free environment, when in actual fact they said stuff in this Chamber, they’ve said this stuff to Territorians which they never had any intention of, at the time, acting on.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I welcomed all the contributions to this important debate, but I think many of them have been, well, they have not been on the legislation in front of us, so it is difficult to welcome contributions when they haven’t actually tackled the subject.
It is very disappointing to know that the opposition Treasury spokesperson didn’t even seek a briefing on this, so the contempt with which he holds this legislation - didn’t even bother to have a briefing on this legislation. It is very disappointing, and I think it reflected through the words he had to say about it because he didn’t actually address what this legislation is about. He gave a general harangue and said we won’t be opposing it, then talked about everything else but this legislation.
It was interesting to note that one of his key themes was that he thought the former system, meaning the way they did our budgets, had served us well, which means that not only did he not have any briefings, he did not read the second-reading debate, he didn’t read the introduction and he really has no idea what this is about.
We need this legislation to restore the confidence of Territorians in our budget process. I won’t go again through the distortions and deceit, through the manipulation of figures that we’ve seen by the previous administration and, specifically, the former Treasurer. This legislation was dramatically needed by Territorians, and by this parliament, to make sure that in future there is a very clear define between who produces the figures and who produces the policy. This legislation says very clearly Treasury produces the figures. So these documents, we can say proudly, are figures produced by Treasury. That is how it should be rather than the style of the previous administration where we know what the Treasurer did up in his office, got a dose of the bottom line and didn’t like it. And because he’d been Treasurer for a while, thought: ‘I can fix this’, and just rewrote it. A man of enormous fiscal integrity: didn’t like the figure of over $100m, so wrote $12m.
It was a fraud on Territorians and it has to stop. That is exactly what this legislation is about. It is about fiscal integrity and transparency, and it is disappointing that none of the members of the opposition who contributed to the debate actually tackled what this legislation is about. Talked about everything else, made political rhetoric, but didn’t talk about what was encompassed in this legislation.
Before I finish referring to the member for Katherine, it is interesting - and he roamed around a lot of different areas, obsessed again with numbers in the budget. I say to the member for Katherine and to members of the opposition, the figures for salary costs which are really the critical thing when it comes to numbers of public servants are there in the budget papers. Take a look at them. The salary costs are the critical component. They are there. They are stable.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: So don’t get obsessed about numbers against - they’ll be back. They just aren’t there this time. This is an amendment to a budget. The salary costs are there. The salary costs you’ll be very comfortable with, but read your budget papers, for heaven’s sake. Stop getting into massive conspiracy theories and read your budget papers! We produced them for you, we made sure Treasury put the right numbers in them. We gave Treasury the licence and said: ‘Do your best, Treasury, because they’re your figures. You’re the experts’, and they’ve done it.
Mr Elferink: They are merely notional figures, we were reassured by your Minister for Community Development who, by the way, misled this House
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member for Macdonnell is going to accuse the Treasurer of misleading the House, he has to do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the fact that I suggested a member misled this House, but I wasn’t referring to the Treasurer. I was referring to the Minister for Community Development.
Madam SPEAKER: But you do know you can’t do that.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the now Deputy Opposition Leader talk about this kind of new-age self, about his new relationship with the unions ...
Mr Stirling: Single mums.
Ms MARTIN: Yes! With people we had never seen associated with him in the past. In recognition of his new relationship, I’d like to give him a membership form for the CPSU. I think it would help. I’m sure he would be very keen to join the CPSU and really cement that relationship that he is now talking about, and recognising the importance of unions in the Territory and recognising the real contribution that unions and union membership makes, particularly in the public sector.
So that is for the member for Katherine. Anyone else we can give copies to? You can join a terrific union. I’m a member of the CPSU. It’s interesting. We are waiting for the next contribution from the member for Katherine just to see what other kind of areas that he hasn’t really engaged in previously where he’ll be demonstrating this new warmth for the Territory parliament.
The member for Nelson. We had a brief discussion about this during the lunch time adjournment. He is worried about the number of times that ‘fiscal’ appeared in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. It’s a fact of life. It is about fiscal management and I am pleased that you have bought two parts of the Macquarie Dictionary. I believe that you are supporting that we need to have open, honest and transparent management of our budgets and will appreciate over time and come to know and love the word fiscal and its importance in the Territory’s future.
The member for Goyder made a very unimpressive contribution to this debate. He, again, had not had a briefing. We have had a number of weeks between the last parliament and this, and yet the member for Goyder did not have that briefing. The best he could do was be supercilious and insulting, which I think is a very poor contribution to any debate. To call a man who has been Under Treasurer in New South Wales to four Premiers, both Labor and Liberal, a man whose credentials are recognised around the world and whose advice is sought around the world, to say ‘the accountant’ in a sneering way is really unbecoming when it comes to Professor Percy Allan. I say to the member for Goyder: get your briefing, come in here and make a contribution to the bill rather than spending your time trolling through the different clauses and trying to find something that you consider to be a mistake. We have excellent parliamentary drafting. Occasionally there are needs for amendments, but we will take amendments, after you’ve had your briefing, in writing. So don’t come in and say: ‘The best I can do is troll through the bill and make a few idle and supercilious comments’. We expect better than that.
He had gone and read a few law journals about it. The most he could really contribute to the debate was that he didn’t like the title ‘Fiscal Transparency and Integrity’; he thought it was political. I have no comment on that. The title of this bill says what it means. It says that we will have fiscal integrity and transparency in the Territory and that is what it is about. It is quite simple. If he considers that political and somehow political is a dirty word, I don’t know what he is doing in politics.
Then he also quoted from two lawyers who had done some level of analysis of similar legislation but he was referring to it in a Commonwealth context. The Commonwealth has a different regime from us. There is a two Chamber parliament and there are more checks and balances on what happens. This is the Territory jurisdiction; we have one Chamber, we don’t have those same checks and balances as yet, but let me assure you this legislation is one of those checks and balances and it is very important for the Territory. The member for Goyder also does not seem to understand that it is important that we say strongly to Territorians that there will be a separation in how budgets are done, that the figures will be done by Treasury, they won’t be done by Treasurers who are desperate to try and win elections and that the honest state of our budgets will be spelt out to Territorians, and you have seen that this week. The member for Goyder distinguished himself by empty rhetoric and supercilious comments. I hope that in future debates he does a lot better.
The member for Drysdale made a lot of play about the fact that we should be having full appropriations. He said this somehow is an exception. I do not know whether the member for Drysdale understands that this is actually an amendment to the previous budget. It is an amendment.
Mr Henderson: Did he ask for a briefing?
Ms MARTIN: He didn’t ask for a briefing. This is an amendment. Let me just take you back historically, member for Drysdale, to what your own party did. In 1987, the then Treasurer, the member for Palmerston, made a ministerial statement called Northern Territory Economy, and in that there was significant expenditure in revenue decisions which addressed the changed financial circumstances at the time from what had happened in the previous budget and then went on, after making a major statement, a few months later there was a budget. So, this has happened before. It was not an amendment to the budget, it was not a mini-budget but there have been major statements made here that changed direction and made major financial decisions and then there were budgets later. That was 1987.
Then there was 1991 with the Expenditure Review Committee, one of the most dastardly deeds perpetrated on Territorians, and certainly not made clear that it was going to happen to Territorians. It would have been what had to happen if you mob had got back into government. You would have turned around and had the most vicious slash and burn of our public sector that we have witnessed in a decade.
Mr Dunham: You’re speculating.
Ms MARTIN: It would have been! Even the member for Drysdale with his poor attempts to make crocodile jaws understands the difference between expenditure and revenue. It was just travelling apace and those crocodile jaws were just opening by the month. The CLP would have done a dramatic slash and burn of our public sector.
In April 1991, the then Chief Minister made a ministerial statement relating to what had happened through the ERC which involved a very substantial examination of government activities and led to public sector staff cut backs and addressed major revenue and expenditure issues. A major statement not done in the form of a budget, but a major statement to this House. Then followed Planning for Growth. Again, the same process happened by statement.
This is an amendment to the budget in May which was such a dishonest budget. We are doing it by amendment which is quite proper and we will have a full budget come in to this House next year. I think you should get a little bit of clearance on the history before you start coming in here and making idle comments because they are simply ill informed.
This really is straightforward legislation. It works in other places. We have looked at the best models and we have incorporated a model that suits the Territory. It suits our circumstances and it suits the framework that we want. It sets out a fiscal strategy and you will see in the mini-budget that came down this week a demonstration of what that fiscal strategy should be all about underpinned by a deficit reduction strategy. It will restore confidence in budgets in the Territory because it has been sadly undermined by the performance of the previous administration. Sadly undermined, both in the business community and in the wider community.
It is a great bill. It has been well drafted and it should certainly be welcomed by this House. I hope it gets proper bipartisan support. The indications we have are that it will have that support and I certainly thank those in Treasury who put the hard work into formulating this Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. I thank all those involved in the drafting.
While I am on my feet I would like to thank Treasury for the hard work that they did in preparing the mini-budget. It has been terrific work. It works within the parameters of this legislation even though we haven’t yet passed it. All credit to those who worked so hard in Treasury to get this mini-budget together in a very short timeframe. I thank Jennifer Prince, who is sitting here in the House, and I thank Ken Clarke and all those others in Treasury who have worked for hours and hours to demonstrate that the people who should be putting the figures into the budget are the Treasury.
Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that this very important legislation for the Territory has full support from this House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
Continued from 24 October 2001.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I note that there are some minor amendments that will take us into committee on these bills. There are a few comments that should be made at the outset. The Government Owned Corporations Bill and the Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill are cognate bills. Members who wish to contribute to this debate can not only go to the second-reading speech but in Budget Paper No 3, starting at page 69, it is addressed under chapter 5, Structural Reform Issues, where there is significant discussion of the issues at hand and broadly replicates the Chief Minister’s second-reading speech.
Additionally, there are some other documents that will inform members who wish to contribute to the debate and one of them is the budget paper that deals with the freeze on electricity prices and the other is recommendations in Percy Allan’s second paper entitled Independent Review of Northern Territory Financial Position by Professor Percy Allan AM, Part II - The Future. I will be talking to all of those documents.
In the first place it should be said that the opposition actually supports this move and that the move has been forecast for some time. There is great merit in progressing in this way and it places the Power and Water Authority or the new PAWC, Power and Water Corporation, in a position where they can compete in a rapidly changing marketplace. It gives governments the capacity to have some control, albeit via two ministers, and it gives a very transparent route for government via those ministers to inform and direct the corporation. It sets them up in a business sense by stripping them of their protection of Crown immunity and it also sets them out into the big wide world in terms of borrowings and competing with the private sector.
We believe philosophically that this will drive competition. It will put a competitive tension that is already there to some degree into the new Power and Water Corporation and we believe that the current board, which indications would suggest will continue on, will do an admirable job in advising the government.
I turn to some of the issues that I think are critical, and these bills turn on. One is the fact that there are two ministers which is pretty unusual in our Cabinet structures, particularly when they both carry substantial roles under this legislation. There will be a shareholding minister and a portfolio minister. The shareholding minister has the very avaricious task of trying to drive the authority to produce as much from its resources as would form a good return to the shareholders, that is the taxpayers. So, foremost in the mind of the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, would be: ‘I want maximum returns on the benefits. I want this business to really churn’. The portfolio minister should be looking to more domestic - if I could use that word - arrangements relating to the innards of the portfolio, its operations, how it goes about doing business, and all of that sort of stuff.
What we have here, notwithstanding the last bill before the House and the rhetoric about how transparent the budget is and how it is devoid of any error, is a massive error. We have a massive error in the budget statements that come from these two bills. In the first place, it is necessary to make a short excursion into history with some of the documents I have provided. For the benefit of Hansard, this document that I will be quoting from first is Labor’s Financial Statement which has been audited by Access Economics. It was published prior to the election and it says, on page 25:
that is, notwithstanding those factors:
The fully-costed Access Economics document has that promise as a zero. It has no financial impact on the budget. In fiscal terms, zero means that is a neutral decision.
Professor Percy Allan entered on the scene not much later and he talked about what could be done to repair the NT’s finances, and I quote from page 12 of his report. I will start with his recommendation:
So, Professor Allan is talking about something that was foreign to those opposite when we debated, some years ago, the drive to make the Power and Water Authority more efficient and to corporatise it. It was seen as a very stealthy operation to flog it off. It was seen as anti-worker. It had a lot of problems associated with it notwithstanding that this world-leading man has now convinced those opposite that this is actually a good way to go. His recommendations are:
Towards this end introduce a Government Owned Corporations Act …
Aha! We have it.
Mmm Hmm. This bill will get us somewhere there.
This is a little problematic for the government in that some of the arms of the Power and Water Authority, particularly water and sewerage, are heavily subsidised in terms of the rate of return on those assets. For instance, if you look at the investment in a place like Manton Dam - the power and water infrastructure, the sewerage infrastructure and reticulation - it could be argued that these figures could be increased if you adopted Percy Allan’s recommendation.
Continuing:
What he is getting to here is that if the government treats this as yet another department and says: ‘We would like to task you with this particular effort or program’, then the Power and Water Corporation can quite rightly put its hand out and say: ‘Well, we do not think it is our business, we think it is your business, and we think it is good business. We will do it as a contractor for you in that you have to pay us a CSO’.
This is an interesting one, the next one. Percy Allan says that it should be run on commercial and not political lines. This bill, as it stands before the parliament, has politicians at arm’s length from the day-to-day management and governance of the Power and Water Corporation through the board. It has a series of devices where, if ministers want them to undertake a particular task, not only is the Community Service Obligation evident, not only does this parliament get involved by virtue of the fact that it has to be tabled in this place - those directions - but it does set the instrumentality up as very independent and very separate from politics.
It has a couple of other recommendations. One is of some interest and that is:
So Professor Percy Allan is saying: ‘This thing has to make money. You have to drive the assets to maximise the cash you can get out of it. It has to run on strictly commercial lines, it should not be a political plaything, and it should not be running issues that are political rather than commercial’. There is a direct conflict between these two documents. Here is the political promise saying: ‘Forget what the commercial realities are, forget what the yields from your assets are, don’t raise power costs’. And this document is saying quite the opposite. This should not come as a surprise that there is a conflict between these two documents, because I actually did write, fairly soon after the election, to the then Minister for Essential Services and asked him to reconcile this seemingly difficult position that these two documents had put to government in if they had been portraying that they were going to adopt both of them.
It appears we’ve gone for Percy Allan, so it appears that Percy’s won out and Labor’s Financial Statement signed by Access Economics is the loser. The difficulty you have then, in trying to have it both ways, is the money is not in here. You now have a situation where you are setting up the Power and Water Authority to go and forage for as much cash as it can, turn a good profit on the assets that have been taxpayer provided, and yield that back to the coffers so that, as Professor Percy Allan says, you can fix the budget. You can do all the things that we talked about this morning.
I have a feeling in my bones that this will be another one of those things that fall from the sky, that government did not anticipate, that they can probably blame us because a large part of the authorship of the drafting of this actually did come from us, and they can say: ‘Look, power has got to go up. We have this new corporate structure, we cannot tell them what to do. We would have loved to have kept it down, we would have loved to have kept our promise, but we think that we are just stuck because legally, we have nowhere to go’.
I want it made very clear that with the passage of these bills, the political promise of holding down domestic power is not a problem for the Power and Water Corporation, it is a problem for the government. For the government to address it, it has to address it in the means that are available in the bill. It provides them there, you have to provide them with the cash. So if we are talking fiscal – I am glad the Chief Minister has read what that word means - foregoing revenue, not collecting revenue, has a value. You cannot say because we are not collecting revenues the same, that it is zero. You are foregoing revenue; you are not collecting it, you are not picking it up. This is the bottom jaw of the fictitious crocodile.
We have a dilemma here. What has to turn up in these budget papers is a CSO, and the CSO has to be roughly equivalent to that yield on the assets which the board would put in its Statement of Corporate Intent. I will get to that later because it’s a very important document. We know the budget papers are deficient in that respect, and we look forward to an amendment which would bring that to book because its not a matter that can be tucked away in the Power and Water Authority. It is not a matter for them to be delivering on a political promise when they are supposed to be acting in a commercial fashion.
I want to make it very clear in case this is being subtley put in place as an excuse for a future time that we have to renege on the freeze on domestic electricity because we didn’t realise the ramifications of the bill. I am saying now in this debate that is a ramification and its remedy is very evident. Its remedy is to bring to the budget the CSO amounts that are necessary to remunerate the Power and Water Corporation to hold power at those low prices. There is a route through if the government chooses not only to pass these bills but also to adhere to their promise. So there we have it. That’s the dilemma we have with the budget in not finding these figures.
We move now to three big issues. There is the matter of whether the two ministers are totally aware of their roles and don’t trip over each other, that is the shareholding minister and the portfolio minister. It is essential that both of them contribute to this debate so that they can describe their roles as they apply to them. The other big issue is the transitional arrangements and the second-reading speech is silent on it. It is not until you go to the budget papers where, right at the bottom of page 73 of Budget Paper No.3, it says:
We are waiting for this thing called a Statement of Corporate Intent, a very important document. It is a document, for instance, that is so independent that it may differ from the government’s documents. It is a document, for instance, that talks about the risks that the enterprise faces. It’s a document that talks about the economy the enterprise finds itself in and some of its competitors and those sorts of issues. Go to Budget Paper No 4, the Economic Overview of the Territory economy, where at page 1 it says:
I don’t believe that figure. It goes to the integrity of this budget. It is a Treasury figure, 5%. It is certainly viewed sceptically by business. Treasury, who have prepared this document totally devoid of any fingerprints from ministers, have said: ‘5% We are going to hang our reputation on that’. The Power and Water Corporation not only have to hang their hat on it; they have to hang their solvency on it. This is a pretty serious matter. They are going to come to this parliament with a Statement of Corporate Intent which will talk about what they believe the growth factors will be. It will be very interesting when they drop this document whether it accords with this document, the Treasury the document.
It will also be interesting when you look at issues that are very critical to the Power and Water Authority like, for instance, confidence and continuity in energy supplies – gas - what those issues might be. I am glad that the Chief Minister is upbeat about gas coming onshore. The optimist in me would like to believe that it is inevitable also. But it is a very important issue for the Power and Water Corporation because without gas, they are in deep do-do. They have to rely on much more expensive alternative fuels, and they have a very limited range of suppliers if they wish to continue to use gas.
These are big issues, big issues that loom to the criticality of life or death for this organisation. They are going to have to come to parliament. They will be called to task on this. They will be in the corporate community where they can’t trade while insolvent, they can’t just say: ‘Well, look, we’re government’. The board can be prosecuted. It is a very serious business we are dealing with here. The numbers must be accurate; they can’t be rubbery and they can’t hide government fudge factors.
I am going to be interested when the Statement of Corporate Intent drops that it is 5% and it is signed off by the board, and that it has some basis other than appearing in this document because that is not foot noted, and I would like to know whether it is plucked from the air or whether it actually is sourced by some reputable economic advisor. I am also going to be very interested to see the cataloguing of the various risks that they will face. If you go to the bill, it deals with what those might be in terms of where the organisation finds itself in the sector, so issues like competition, government regulation, the monopoly powers it has and whether government has an intention to strip if of some of those.
The big issue, though, is: are we still going to get the gas to turn the turbines to keep the lights glowing? When the Statement of Corporate Intent comes to this parliament, it will make very interesting reading because its going to have to say: ‘To keep this business afloat, this is our yield. This is our yield of revenue’. It is going to have to declare what the dividend is to Treasury because that’s really the only transaction Treasury get. They put their CSO money in and they take their dividend out and they leave them to their own devices. It will be very interesting to see whether this organisation, which has to do a similar job to Treasury in some ways but much more focussed and much more life and death, will actually give a budget tick of approval to statements like the gas statement – sorry, I’ve already read it into Hansard, the statement about gas coming onshore which is in …
Mr Kiely: Read it again. You’ve read everything else twice.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall read it because its actually incorporated in one of Labor’s documents: ‘… and the arrival of Timor Sea gas onshore’. That’s a pretty bullish sort of a statement. When you are talking about the millions of dollars this area represents, don’t forget the operating revenue of this instrumentality is $350m. Its expenditure is $333m, so you are talking about a very significant enterprise, indeed one of the larger enterprises here in the Territory.
I go to Budget Paper No 3 where there is a better discussion of the bills before our parliament at chapter 5 than there is in the Chief Minister’s second-reading speech because it gives much more - I suppose it’s a bit more objective in one way:
Shareholding minister, Treasurer, that’s your job. Your job is to improve the performance and get more cash out of them. That’s what you have to do. You really don’t care about the other stuff.
Maximise the return. What you have to do is to get in there and drive this thing hard so that you can get the best possible yield out of those taxpayer funded assets. Further on it talks about ministerial responsibilities.
So its quite evident what the Treasurer’s job is. That is the main task.
in contrast, and I am reading again from Budget Paper No 3:
So what we need to know in the answer is: have you two talked about this? Has the shareholding minister, who wants us much cash out of this that she can get, talked to the portfolio minister about whether there is a necessity to have a Community Service Obligation to cover the promise? And if you have talked about that, I wouldn’t mind some heads up - doesn’t have to be that specific - in your rejoinder to this debate because in any event, the Statement of Corporate Intent will tell us in very sharp detail. It’s one of those things that, having brought the stuff in here, I assume you’re nearly ready to drop the Statement of Corporate Intent; I assume it is one of those documents that the two relevant ministers have talked about; I assume your level of Community Service Obligation is in there, and I’d just like to know if it does pick up what would otherwise be a black hole in Labor’s budget papers.
The other thing is about other players coming here. If we decided, for instance, to corporatise something, put it into the commercial field and then say: ‘And you can charge this level’. So in other words we say to the Power and Water Authority: ‘Out you go. This is your rate of domestic electricity tariff’. And then you give them a big CSO. It’s pretty hard for a competitor to come along compete with that. It’s pretty hard for someone to come along and say: ‘Well they’re getting subsidised 10% from the government. It’s going to be pretty hard for me to flog it and make a profit out of it’. It should be remembered that right through this debate, one of the fundamental aims of this is to ensure a level playing field with the private sector. We have to make sure that in using the Power and Water Authority in a way to run a political agenda that we don’t corrupt the competitive field out there, that we don’t imbalance the playing field, and we don’t also expect them to do something that is not within their corporate capacity to do. The schizophrenic policy position of the Chief Minister and Treasurer is now to say: ‘Aren’t we good because we’re going to give you no rises in power’ and, at the same time, she’s obliged by this legislation she’s brought to parliament to derive as much income as she can. She’s obliged to be cracking a whip and saying: ‘Give me more. I want more’.
If you look at some of the other factors in here, the existing board of directors will become directly accountable for performance. Now, this current board of directors, no slouches in this stuff, they’ve been around a bit, but they realise that this means that they are exposed in the sense that they may be trading while insolvent if they are given charges from government, tasks to do which are not commercial. So setting up this commercial thing, setting up the Treasurer as the person who’s going to derive as much cash as possible, setting up the company directors so that they are liable in the true sense of the word in the big wide world outside, means that you can’t play games with it.
I would like to make sure that Labor is very transparent about this transfer of the CSO. I’d like to make sure, on the record in the debate tonight, that they say that there will be no increase to power arising from this as some unforseen consequence. It is very clear to us that these budget papers are deficient in the outgoings that have to go to the Power and Water Authority to meet that promise, and it is foolish in the extreme, if we are continuing to talk about fiscal issues, to say that not picking up revenue is a zero and therefore doesn’t impact on the budget because your job is to pick up as much as you can. You are supposed to be a very avaricious person in this little detail, and it’s something you could probably set your mind to pretty well.
The Power and Water Authority Bill, coming through as a cognate bill, is fairly straightforward. Most of it is changes to nomenclature, changes to some of the structure about what the chief executive officer does, and the real power of what’s going through now is the Government Owned Corporations Bill, so I shan’t devote many of my comments to the Power and Water Authority Bill, but rather to the bill which eventually we would hope would wrap up several other corporations. It is possible the Port Authority might sit there. If the government is mad keen on retaining the NT Fleet and the assets, you could even put that there. So the overarching legislation could well wrap up three or four government agencies over time, who we would see as operating in a commercial way in the wider Australian environment.
I commend the bill. It is fairly familiar to me, as I said, in that I had seen some of its ancestors come through in terms of draft. I’ve also had the great fortune to talk to the board members about this and, as I said, people who have been through similar processes in other jurisdictions and I would commend anybody who needs a briefing on this sort of stuff to spend an hour or so with these very enlightening people. They’ve been through it, among the three or four of them, on four or five occasions I guess. So they are people who are very knowledgeable about the steps that are necessary, and I would ask that in the contributions of both the shareholding minister and the portfolio minister that they alert the House to their great understanding of their new roles under this legislation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, it looks like I will be the portfolio minister, so I speak on the bill. I support the Chief Minister’s introduction of the Government Owned Corporations Bill and the Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill.
I would first like to direct my comments to the men and women of PAWA. To them I say: your employment conditions do not change under this legislation. The terms and conditions of the PAWA Enterprise Bargaining Agreement do not change. You will continue to be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act by the Commissioner for Public Employment. He will delegate his power under the Act to the CEO of PAWA.
The government has a clear commitment to public ownership of PAWA. This legislation is not a precursor to privatisation. Establishment as a government owned corporation provides for a clearer relationship between the government, which is the owner of the enterprise on behalf of the Territory community, and the Power and Water Authority. Employment conditions and staffing levels will remain matters for negotiation and agreement within PAWA’s Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. The government clearly rejects any notion of management performance contracts that are linked to workforce reduction targets.
The aim of the legislation is to improve PAWA’s capacity to react appropriately and flexibly in providing high quality services in the most efficient manner. The most obvious effect of this legislation for most staff will be that PAWA’s trading name will become the Power and Water Corporation from January 2002. PAWA is currently working on a corporate image strategy that will address trading name and logo issues at a later date. Under this legislation, the Power and Water Authority Board of Directors will be held more accountable for the performance of PAWA, both in terms of financial and service performance. Performance targets for the corporation will be negotiated annually between the shareholding minister and the board. The primary mechanism for setting accountability will be the Statement of Corporate Intent. The document is a negotiated contract between the shareholding minister and the board, setting out what the shareholder can expect from PAWA over a three year period.
The Statement of Corporate Intent contains information regarding PAWA’s objectives, the nature and scope of activities, performance targets, risks and associated strategies. Also it provides details showing how the capital investment program is to be financed, and the proposed borrowing program. This will provide government with a great deal more information about PAWA’s activities and performance management than at any time in the past. It will also require greater rigour in planning and in performance reporting on the part of the agency than has been the case in the past. The Statement of Corporate Intent will be tabled by the shareholding minister at the beginning of the financial period to which it applies.
The PAWA board was appointed in April 2000. They have been providing both PAWA and the government with invaluable advice consistent with the government’s broader objectives.
Honourable members recognise that running PAWA as a successful commercial organisation is of benefit to all Territorians. The dividend paid by PAWA to the Northern Territory government is available to fund general government services. The higher the dividend provided to government, the more service can be provided and the more debt that can be retired or managed. The government supports the continued process of reform of PAWA that is possible through the model provided in this bill. The accountability mechanisms provide for a much clearer focus on achievement against financial and operational performance indicators. The board will closely monitor achievement against financial and operational performance targets and PAWA’s strategic objectives.
These will be reported to the shareholding minister on a quarterly and annual basis and results included in PAWA’s Annual Report which will be tabled in this Assembly. The maintenance of continued efficiency gains through time is an important element in containing upward pressure on tariffs and charges. Increased profitability will see increased dividends paid to the Territory government. Service levels will not be compromised under this legislation. In fact, it is expected that levels will be maintained and improved over time in both urban and remote communities.
Operational performance is already proving to be improving due to strategic focus on planned maintenance activities across the organisation. For example, the system average outage duration in Darwin for the electricity network has decreased from 475 minutes in 1997 to 171 minutes in the current year. The increase in planned maintenance which has occurred this year will further reduce the incidence of unplanned outages and the requirement for large amounts of planned maintenance in the coming year. The strategic focus will continue across all of PAWA’s systems. PAWA’s operational units are also benchmarking themselves against other utility providers and coming up with a very favourable result. The board will continue to focus on maximising PAWA’s value to Territorians.
In August last year, the board identified a number of strategic issues which required addressing. One of these was changing the governance arrangements to make the board clearly accountable for the performance of the organisation. This will now occur through this legislation where the board will be answerable to the shareholding minister for the performance of PAWA through the Statement of Corporate Intent.
The board also indicated that PAWA required a new financial management system able to provide financial information which would enable the organisation to be operated on a more responsive and more commercial basis. After an extensive pre-evaluation process, tenders were let earlier this year. It is anticipated that the new system will be implemented by March 2002 and be able to provide information as required by the government, the board, senior management, the Utilities Commissioner and Treasury. Financial data will be immediately available in order to better manage the affairs of the organisation.
Another current strategic issue is the positioning of PAWA to compete in the open electricity market. In this respect, PAWA’s image with its customers is an important deciding factor in whether or not they would choose PAWA as their electricity supplier. PAWA wishes to thrive in the electricity market and, as mentioned before, honourable members will recognise that this will benefit all Territorians.
In the past months, a lot of work has been done with PAWA staff to identify how they feel about the organisation and with customers to identify how service can be improved. These issues will be developed further in the coming months.
The board is building on the previous two years of reform which saw PAWA restructured on business lines and respond to the first demands of competition. During this time the PAWA-specific Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was negotiated with staff and the staff performance system implemented across the organisation. Training needs for all staff are identified by annual reviews. Support for training has been expanded. These initiatives are aimed at developing a skilled workforce able to meet the challenges of competition and deliver excellent service to the Territory community. PAWA has won a prestigious Australian national training award in the utilities industry category. This has been awarded in recognition of PAWA’s commitment to the training and development of staff. The staff and management are justifiably proud of this achievement.
As the Territory’s largest trading enterprise, PAWA acknowledges its role in supporting the Territory’s growth. This will be achieved in part by containing costs in order to maintain pressure on tariffs, but the other part of the equation involves building partnerships with Territory business. PAWA is uniquely placed by virtue of the skills available across the organisation and its ability to partner Territory organisations. Already it has laid fibre optic cable to extend the Optus network. PAWA entered into an arrangement with Powercorp to enable both organisations to explore commercial opportunities in power generation, electricity supply and automated control systems in remote areas throughout the Territory and elsewhere.
Integrated Technical Services and PAWA installed a digital radio system to serve the offshore gas recycling project in the Bayu-Undan. The work included the supply and commissioning of the system for communication between platforms and floating storage facilities. PAWA will continue to explore opportunities to work with local business to keep work and jobs in the Territory. This is important if the Territory is to manage the benefits from Timor Sea gas.
A significant part of PAWA’s business involves the delivery of essential services to remote communities across the Territory. The team of dedicated and tireless officers in this area of the business will continue to seek ways of delivering these services more efficiently. The recent restructure of the public sector will see these services provided under a client/service provider model with the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
One of PAWA’s most important business objectives is the minimisation of any impact of its operation on the environment. It is good corporate citizenship to perform activities in an environmentally sensitive manner and good business practice to use resources efficiently. The board also takes this matter seriously, with one of the board members directly and actively participating in PAWA’s Environmental Committee. As a user of natural gas to generate electricity, PAWA is already one of the cleanest generators of electricity in Australia. Nonetheless, PAWA is looking for continuous improvement in levels of greenhouse gas emissions by installing increasingly efficient generation plants in its major centres.
The continued introduction of the Darwin Sewerage Strategy will see the improvement of environmental discharges into Darwin Harbour and the increasing potential for effluent reuse. PAWA is working with the community in Alice Springs to develop a strategy to manage the use of available and scarce resources including examining options for effluent reuse in productive enterprises.
PAWA is also a supporter of viable alternative energy options. This year will see significant advances on the construction of solar technology at King’s Canyon and Bulman. Also, the use of the noxious weed Mimosa pigra to generate electricity will be trialled near Windows on the Wetlands. PAWA has completed its first annual environmental management plan which encourages further integration of environmental duty of care into business planning and day-to-day activities. I will be proud to table PAWA’s second Environment Report during the course of these sittings.
The government, PAWA’s board and PAWA staff are committed to making the introduction of this legislation work. We are committed to making PAWA more commercially successful and able to deliver improved services to the community and increasing dividends to the shareholders, the people of the Northern Territory.
The passage of the Government Owned Corporation legislation will provide clearer accountability mechanisms for PAWA’s board and facilitate the more commercial operation of PAWA.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer on introducing this legislation, and I commend this bill to honourable members. The government is proud of the men and women of the Power and Water Authority. This legislation will help refine PAWA’s identity for the modern era and place it on the path to even greater improvements in service delivery to Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first of all I thank the government for allowing me a detailed briefing from Treasury. It was quite an informative briefing. Corporations are something I have not studied, but I learnt a lot from that briefing.
The idea of making our government departments more efficient and cost effective is certainly one we all would agree on, but there are some questions that first need to be answered. For instance, who will check that profitability and efficiency do not override safety and maintenance and workers’ legitimate rights? Who will protect the rights of the contractors, especially the subcontractors, from low wages? Recently I was quoted $11.50 an hour as a means of PAWA obtaining greater profitability. Will the corporation operate with a 40-hour week and four weeks annual leave as in private industry, bearing in mind that the Chief Minister has said that the objectives of government owned corporations will be to perform at least as efficiently as any comparable business and to maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment? Will AWAs be allowed?
I also take up the issue of sewage disposal into the harbour that the Minister for Essential Services just raised. Will the corporatisation, whose main focus will be profitability, therefore look at the cheapest way of disposing sewage? I understand that trying to put sewage into a reusable form is probably a fairly expensive way of reusing sewage. So will PAWA in a corporate form be reluctant to go down that path and look for the option which might be to dump the water in the harbour?
Will the board - and I am not sure of the makeup of the board at the present time, but presuming that we have now a new corporation - will any new board include consumers and workers? As this is a government owned corporation, here is an ideal opportunity for representatives from both residential and commercial users of electricity as well as workers - and here I refer not to middle management, but workers on the ground - be represented on the board to give the board broad representation.
I also ask how will the FOI legislation work in relation to this corporation. Will commercial-in-confidence be used as an excuse for public scrutiny of the corporation’s finances? I note a report by the Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in March 2000 which said:
It seems that a corporatised PAWA could be seen to be a case of having its cake and eating it, too, by trying to be a private company dressed in government clothes. It should be an interesting experiment. I hope the sometimes negative sides of privatisation are balanced by the fact that PAWA is still owned by the government, and it has Community Service Obligations as well as its commercial obligations to provide power and water to the community. As a Labor government enterprise, it has obligations to listen to legitimate concerns of workers, whether government workers or contractors, and making sure that those rights are not diminished below the rights of workers in the private sector. I would also include here the safety and adequate maintenance of PAWA’s assets. I hope that none of these are put at risk for the sake of efficiency and profitability.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate as we see another step being taken towards the corporatisation of the Power and Water Authority. It has been a long, very complex and sometimes difficult road, but one that had to be taken in terms of making sure that the Power and Water Authority would continue to be a viable operator that could serve the needs of the people of the Northern Territory and also become established on a commercial basis and to be able to compete with commercial entities, more of which I expect will emerge in the future.
The first point - I would like to ask the Chief Minister in relation to this, if she could respond in her response - given that this legislation has been under development for some time and was probably finally drafted before the change of government, and has now been given consideration by the new government is that they are prepared to accept full and open ownership of it. I ask that because we have seen a couple of examples, only recently, where a minister has not even been able to fully understand a brief that he has received, signed it without reading it and understanding it, and then had to blame someone else. This legislation is too important for that. The government has to be able to acknowledge that it does fully understand and fully accept the total extent of this legislation. It is very extensive, it is far-reaching and will have considerable implications for the government and the Power and Water Authority and, in turn, Territorians, especially if it goes turkey.
We do, on behalf of Territorians, require that undertaking from the Chief Minister. If she cannot give it, there is no alternative than the government has to put this legislation back for reconsideration while they go through the bill again and make sure that they do fully understand it and can accept full ownership of it. That may not be necessary. It is an important point. We do not want to be seen in a position here in a month, year, two years or a decade where there is someone blaming someone else because: ‘Oh, we only introduced legislation that was drafted before we came into government’. That is not the type of thing that can be accepted in relation to some far-reaching legislation like this.
Another point I would like to pursue with the Chief Minister, or perhaps the minister: with the amalgamation of a number of agencies, the former CEO, Mr Chambers, of the Power and Water Authority, is now the head of a number of agencies or a much larger agency. I wonder if the Chief Minister will be able to advise the House whether or not there will be a CEO put in place of the Power and Water Authority to replace Mr Chambers. The reason I ask that is the position of CEO of the Power and Water Authority is a very important one, more so as this body becomes a corporate body. It has been a very difficult path that the organisation has had to follow in terms of becoming a commercial entity and progressing further down that road, and it is going to be one that I do not believe anybody, not even Barry Chambers - and he is a very capable officer, and would throw every piece of energy that he could muster at his newly acquired responsibilities and tasks, as well as his former ones - if he had to also fulfil the role of CEO at the Power and Water Authority. I think both this organisation - and in fairness to Mr Chambers, he should be able to expect that there will be a replacement CEO put in place of Mr Chambers, and that that person will have the sole responsibility as the Chief Executive Officer of what is a very large entity, albeit government-owned, but nonetheless one that is going to be, day by day, more commercial., and having to adopt more responsibilities in terms of the commercial nature of its operations, and indeed being able to return a dividend to the shareholders, the people of the Northern Territory. That is a very important point to consider at this time, and perhaps the Chief Minister will be able to advise us of that in her closing remarks.
The legislation in some ways creates a bit of a dilemma for government - and the former speaker from the opposition touched on this matter - in that there is a need for the performance to be increased, improved and the returns enhanced. Indeed, the Chief Minister made particular reference to that in her second-reading speech. The dilemma is, of course, that - to give but one example - the government has given an undertaking that electricity prices will not be increased over this four year term. For the government then to receive a recommendation or advice or a request from the authority that prices be increased for commercial reasons, that is to meet the needs of the positions stated by the Chief Minister in her second-reading speech that a good return has to be obtained on the investment. As commercial operators, the board, I would be surprised, over perhaps this term of parliament, might be recommending to the government that electricity prices be increased. The Chief Minister’s dilemma, or the government’s dilemma, is then going to be: how do we meet that need because they have made that recommendation or request to us on a commercial basis, and we, on a political basis however - and for obvious reasons - would want to keep the cost of electricity down - that is, not see it increased?
We do not argue with that approach, that is capping the cost of electricity, however the implications of that reach beyond the operation of the Power and Water Authority itself and the commercial basis on which we will be expecting it to operate. For if the answer to their request or recommendation is no, they are then faced with being in breach of their Statement of Corporate Intent and it could lead them into insolvency because their position will be hindered by the shareholder, being the Northern Territory government on behalf of the taxpayer.
The other implication of that is if government does take the political route and say: ‘We will not allow the prices to increase’, then that places pressure on the open market and other competitors because they would be faced with the prospect of having to supply electricity at a competitive rate which would be a false rate, that is not a commercial rate, because it would have been capped for political reasons not market reasons albeit that if those prices were capped by government, that the electricity authority could charge, I would expect - and the Chief Minister, again, might like to provide this advice - that the government would be covering that anticipated extra income with the proposed increase in tariff by a CEO.
So very complex, and perhaps I have been a bit cumbersome in terms of putting that proposition. I think you can generally see where I’m coming from. In terms of the transition that the Power and Water Authority has progressed through over the last couple of years, I take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to all of the workers at the Power and Water Authority. They have a very difficult task. What was formerly a fully operational government agency, changing from that operational ethic, which is something quite different from where they are now and where they will be perhaps in five or 10 years will be quite different from where they are today as they further progress to become a full corporate entity in the real sense. They have undertaken that change remarkably well, not without great difficulty.
On behalf of Territorians, they should be congratulated, especially when we bear in mind when frequently we are sitting at home, especially at this time of the year and over the next few months, in the comfort of our lounge rooms perhaps watching the cricket or something like that, even in air-conditioned comfort, many of these employees are out climbing up poles in a raging storm with branches blowing all over the place and teeming rain to fix a fault on a power distribution line so that Territorians might be able to be reconnected to an electricity supply that might be temporarily ceased because of the fault they are addressing at the time.
It is very easy for us to overlook some of those circumstances when we are just sitting at home and taking for granted the electricity that comes up the wires and not thinking about those who, on our behalf, work hard in sometimes not only very difficult but exceedingly dangerous circumstances to be able to maintain that supply. All of that and the other huge gambit of operations and duties that are undertaken by employees of the Power and Water Authority - and it is not just electricity of course; it is water and sewerage. The officers in those areas are just as committed as the electricity officers - demonstrates the capacity of these employees to be able to adjust to change and to become a corporate body but still maintain a high standard of service that perhaps rightly we expect, but sometimes unfairly complain about when the lights do go out and we don’t think of the dangers those employees are undertaking to reconnect the supply to us under those circumstances.
I have been involved over the last few years with this transition of the Power and Water Authority. It has been very complex and I recall contributions to former debates as we have gone down this line with past legislation which has moved us on to this stage. I can recall the then opposition spokesman, the member for Nhulunbuy, making remarks that this legislation that is before us today is exceedingly complex. He had briefings on it and grappled with the need to get to know it and understand it and to be able to put this House in a position where the legislation could be passed and the transition continued and that is very much the circumstance we find ourselves in today.
With those words, and I suppose I might have a few of some detail in the committee stages because of the complex nature of this legislation, I do express my support for the legislation and look forward to seeing further progress of the Power and Water Authority and its main operational areas of water, sewerage and electricity continuing to successfully transit to a higher level of corporatisation and to provide the wonderful services that historically they have and still do to the Territory people.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, in reply closing debate, I thank members for their contributions. This is important legislation for the Territory and has bipartisan support. It is disappointing that the Deputy Opposition Leader would preface his comments by saying: ‘It is somebody else’s legislation. If it doesn’t work, we’ll blame them’. That is a very poor attitude to have, and certainly insulting to this government which has looked carefully at this legislation and accepts that it is good legislation. It is detailed. It goes to the heart of moving from a Territory government business through to one that has a corporate governance framework. It spells it out very clearly. It is a move that this government has embraced. So let’s just put the cynical, unnecessary comments behind us. This has bipartisan support.
I will go through the issues raised by opposition members. I thank the Deputy Opposition Leader for his support for the Power and Water Authority. It is an organisation that, particularly over the last three years, has achieved a big turnaround. It is logical that at first it becomes our first GOC. It does have a most impressive CEO and in the interim, he does continue in that position but it is something that we are monitoring because he does have an enormous task with the new department but has a very strong commitment to the Power and Water Authority, and that is being monitored on a regular basis. We are very confident that the Power and Water Authority is in the excellent and continuing hands at this stage of Barry Chambers.
Mr Reed: They have also lost their deputy, of course.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry?
Mr Reed: They have also lost their deputy, Bree, who has gone to your office, which is not a criticism. It is a fact of life.
Ms MARTIN: It’s a gain, actually.
Mr Reed: So their expertise, you know, it’s really serious.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, we are very aware of that and I think Barry Chambers is as well. I recognise the enormous contribution that this government’s Chief of Staff, Mr Bree, has made to the Power and Water Authority over many years.
Mr Reed: Considerable, yes. Very professional.
Ms MARTIN: Having met with the board, just taking up the point of the member for Drysdale, they are a most impressive board and when you think that part of this legislation, when it does come to play probably in another 12 months time, that it is the kind of board that you would want in place.
I pick up the point from the member for Nelson, though. Increasingly, if you look at boards around the country, they do represent a whole range of interests, and those of consumers are certainly something that I think should be addressed. Boards try to be as broadly based as they can, to have the expertise they need both in the fiscal - sorry to mention fiscal again - in the finance areas and in the legal areas and the industry, but also really should represent consumers and represent a wide range of interests. So that is something that should be addressed when the board is under consideration in due time and something that we as a new government are also addressing as we look at boards that are currently formed around the Territory and what kind of diversity of interest should be on those boards.
A point that the member for Katherine made, also the member for Drysdale, about this new government’s commitment to freeze power prices over our first term and how on earth is that going to work with the new corporate governance framework for the Power and Water Authority? It is a simple fact that negotiations will take place, and government will have to accept a lower rate of return from the Power and Water Authority if it doesn’t want to increase the cost of power charges. These are negotiable. These are not things that cannot be negotiated on a month by month or six month or annual basis. If you have looked closely at the legislation, you will see that that is incorporated within it.
Mr Reed: And what about the reverse side of that, though: the impact on the open market and its competitiveness?
Ms MARTIN: These are all dealt with carefully within this legislation, and there will be a level playing field. When you look at the operation interstate of equivalent GOCs, and particularly the ones that work well in New South Wales, that is in place and it does work.
I would like to address some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson specifically, and one of those was in terms of our draft Freedom of Information Bill, where does a GOC sit with that? As you are aware, the draft Information Bill was tabled in the October sittings and it’s out there for public consultation until the end of February. It doesn’t specifically cover GOCs because it was drafted before we had this GOC legislation in here. The treatment of GOCs will need to be addressed in this period, how we actually put them into the freedom of information framework. However, the draft information bill does deal specifically with GBDs, government business divisions, and it says for the purposes of the information bill, a GBD is only a public sector organisation with respect to personal information, that is the rights of access to personal information, protection of that information. So while it will be expected that GOCs will be treated in the same manner, the precise treatment will need to be determined following public consultation. So, it is a very good point that the member for Nelson raised, and one that we need to address.
The second is the issues you raised about safety and maintenance, about wages and conditions for workers in the Power and Water Authority. They will still be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the delegation will go from the Public Service Commissioner to the CEO of the Power and Water Authority as their employer.
Mr Wood: What about subcontractors who are outside that public service?
Mr Dunham: Work Health, mate.
Ms MARTIN: They come under Work Health. Thank you, member for Drysdale. So in terms of the employment conditions, they will still be the same as they are. So that delegation will happen, their conditions will be determined under the current Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and that will continue, renegotiated and continued. We are very concerned, and that is the role of the portfolio minister, that those policy issues to do with the Power and Water Authority as it becomes, over the next 12 months, a government owned corporation, that they are certainly maintained and supported. In terms of the maintenance issues, a very high one for this government, and in terms of safety of workers and good conditions for workers, again a very high one for this government. But they are very good issues you raise.
The two ministers who will be involved in this new arrangement, the government owned corporations, there is the shareholding minister which would normally be the Treasurer. The Treasurer or the shareholding minister is the one who is tasked with improving the performance of the government owned corporation. Some members of the opposition seem to think this is akin to having Dracula in the blood bank. But actually the terms for the shareholding minister are for improving performance. It is not about whipping every last cent out of the GOC. It is about a responsible attitude, but of course looking after Territorians who are our shareholding interests in a GOC. The portfolio minister looks after the policy areas of the GOC and so it is a balance. As you look through the legislation, you see that whatever happens between the ministers, the board - which is responsible for the GOC - and all those arrangements are subject to many levels of approval and accountability, but not interference. That kind of negotiation will be done, and will be done openly and through the Statement of Corporate Intent. That is the format for those kind of negotiations and those agreements between government and the GOC. But any direction that is given by either a particular shareholding minister must be made public in this place. So there is a real accountability built right through this legislation.
The move to being a GOC for the Power and Water Authority is not going to happen overnight. It has the best part of 12 months in it, so the Statement of Corporate Intent will actually be tabled in this parliament to the extent that we don’t breach the important aspects of commercial-in-confidence. That is important to state. I know it is an issue about what then becomes commercial-in-confidence, but in a contestable market we have to be able to have some aspects of a government owned corporation that we don’t put out publicly. So that is a balance, and one that this new government is very determined to get right. That is another thing that we will be working towards: open and accountable, but certainly not compromising the ‘commercialability’ of this new corporation to be able to operate effectively. It is exciting legislation.
Mr Dunham: What was it that you were going to say about the time it was going to be introduced, the Statement of Corporate Intent? You were going to tell us a time it will come to this parliament.
Ms MARTIN: There will be another 12 months before we actually see that move, so it is within that 12 month period, depending on how quickly the Statement of Corporate Intent can be put together. They are complex things and they have to be right.
I think I have addressed most of the issues raised by those who contributed to the debate. The member for Drysdale recognised the importance of Community Service Obligations and how they would be used to make sure that anything that the government owned corporation was asked to do, because of the public interest, they didn’t suffer commercially because of that. If you look through the legislation, you will see that balance is achieved right throughout what is quite complex legislation.
I thank the House for the support for this. It moves the Territory into areas where other jurisdictions have been very successful and allows our largest entity to be able to operate commercially and to operate responsibly in the interests of all Territorians. It is a good day for the Territory and I thank you for the bipartisan support.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Government Owned Corporations Bill (Serial 21):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I note that the Treasurer has indicated a desire to amend clause 20 and prior to clause 20, I have a question. It really goes to the transitional arrangements. The question I have is that we are now in a period where this act is passed. Some of the act is triggered off the Statement of Corporate Intent which will not be available for 12 months, so there is a difficulty where particularly the directors are operating under a statute which has been passed by this parliament, but some of the triggers, for instance the Statement of Corporate Intent, won’t be available for 12 months.
Specifically, if I go to clause 15(3) just to demonstrate that, on page 7 of the bill:
It goes on to deal with issues that they think are important and might significantly affect the achievements of targets, it’s their job to immediately alert the shareholding minister. Now, that could happen tomorrow. They are statutorily obliged under this, but without a Statement of Corporate Intent on foot, it could well be matters that we raised during the discussion on this bill where, for instance, they may not agree with the forecast of 5% or they may not agree with the quantum of the CSO to address the commitment to hold electricity prices.
What I am seeking from government is a very clear statement that really is not in the second-reading speech about the detail of the transitional arrangements wherein we have an act of parliament which has been passed, but some of the triggers - and they are more evident when you get on further in the bill when we start talking about a Statement of Corporate Intent - have yet to come to this parliament.
Ms MARTIN: Having just taken advice on quite a good question, and I thank the member for Drysdale for it, we are today passing the Government Owned Corporations Bill and also the Power and Water Amendment Bill. Now, the Power and Water Authority does not become a GOC until that is assented to and that has the capacity in it at a date to be fixed.
Mr DUNHAM: This will be held in abeyance?
Ms MARTIN: This is generic and the PAWA one is held, okay? So I think that addresses your concerns.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. I thank the Treasurer for that answer.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move that we omit Part 2D and substitute Part 2D.1 of Chapter 2D.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: I have further discussion on clauses subsequent to clause 20, Mr Chairman. They are in two parts: the Community Service Obligation which starts at clause 28 and matters relating to the Statement of Corporate Intent which is at clause 40. They are the two issues I personally will be addressing. Perhaps other members will address other issues. If we go to clause 28, Community Service Obligations, I would ask if in the transitional arrangements where we already have identified the portfolio minister, the shareholder minister, the instrumentality already receives Community Service Obligations and most of those issues that are there can be done in an administrative way notwithstanding that this bill has no status for the Power and Water Authority until it is activated by the Statement of Corporate Intent being tabled in here. I am seeking clarification that for all intents and purposes, clause 28 will form the basis for the government’s arrangements, and I say it in terms of for instance our contact with the relevant ministers and whatever, in the interim period until such time as the Power and Water Authority or Corporation formally comes under this bill.
Ms MARTIN: To answer your question, the current CSOs stay in place. Until we enact the Power and Water Authority Amendment, then none of this comes into action. So you still are just dealing with the portfolio minister, the current Minister for Essential Services.
Mr DUNHAM: So that would mean that if there is a new Community Service Obligation that comes to the attention of government, I am asking would they go through the processes enshrined here - that is, they have identifiable community or social benefit; would not be undertaken if only commercial considerations are applied; the portfolio minister and the shareholder minister would agree generally to undertake it - so what I am saying is: will this form an informal process subject to it being a statutory process?
Ms MARTIN: The current arrangements to do with CSOs were actually put in place by the previous administration. They are the ones that will be worked that any new CSOs will be made in relation to. I think they’re outlined in Budget Paper No 3 a couple of years ago, and they are the ones, until the Power and Water Amendment Bill comes in to force, anything will happen guided by that context. So the Treasurer does not become the shareholding minister in relation to the Power and Water Authority or whatever it is going to be called in the future until that bill is assented to and that is at some date in the future.
Mr DUNHAM: That means there will be no new CSOs, basically.
Mr REED: On a question of the timing, then, will the government maintain the effort in relation to this so that the Statement of Corporate Intent can be finalised, can be presented to the House and this legislation then assented to so that the progress and the momentum is not lost and we continue down the road with a nice even flow rather than having some hiatus now between this and the next steps?
Ms MARTIN: I think the House can be confident that we are committed to the Government Owned Corporation legislation, moving the Power and Water Authority into that. It will be done as appropriately and as responsibly as possible. There is no intention to stall it and we are moving forward at a steady pace, but there are complex negotiations.
Mr REED: I appreciate that.
Ms MARTIN: It is being worked through for the first time and I am certainly not going to rush it any faster than the best advice is that we should do it.
Mr REED: I thank the Chief Minister for that. I understand the complexity of it and it isn’t something that can be rushed but notwithstanding that, is the Chief Minister able to give us a rough timetable?
Ms MARTIN: I have. The timeframe I am given is probably is about 12 months.
Mr REED: 12 months, yes.
Mr DUNHAM: I take it then from the Chief Minister’s answer that the Community Service Obligations that currently flow to the Power and Water Authority will remain in pretty much the same quantum and style of delivery as it has done historically, and that there will be a moratorium on new Community Service Obligations until such time as the act is active for the Power and Water Corporation?
Ms MARTIN: The current CSOs are determined by the guidelines you established as a government and we will be operating appropriately and dealing with circumstances as they emerge. But as I said in my previous answer, we are moving towards this new Government Owned Corporation framework as - I don’t want to say quickly, but as responsibly as we can. It is exciting legislation and represents real opportunities for the Power and Water Authority, not to say greater dividends for government in the dividends repaid and the tax paid to government, but in terms of being able to deliver services for Territorians. We are moving as fast we practically can.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to move to clause 40 which are the last of the groupings of concerns I would like to have elaborated here. That goes directly to the contents of the Statement of Corporate Intent. It is acknowledged by this side of the House that it should be done properly and should not be rushed. It is acknowledged that it should not be just pinched from elsewhere, that it should be directly applicable to the Northern Territory situation.
I would ask if there is some capacity for a briefing - I have seen an early draft of the Statement of Corporate Intent, so I think it is in a fairly ready state. I would seek an undertaking that we could be kept involved so that we have a knowledge of this prior to it turning up in parliament.
Ms MARTIN: Absolutely.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill (Serial 22):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move that before the item relating to sections 14A(3), 14B and 14C there be inserted section 14A(3) Authorities and Corporations.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business) Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 26 February 2002 at 10 am or such other time and or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 16 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that codified portion of the law such as the Northern Territory Criminal Code needs to be constantly reviewed by parliament to keep in touch with changing times and changing technologies. I have carefully read through the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 3) and I am able to put this on the record: that there is a need for an update in the legislation relating to computer-related offences. The proposed divisions which the Attorney-General has introduced in the form of Division 10 – that is from section 276 to 276F - certainly filled that void. I can indicate that the opposition supports this portion of the bill unconditionally.
The proposed bill includes some other changes and one of them is to section 189 of the Criminal Code, Unlawful Stalking. Whilst the opposition supports the thrust of the change, that is taking seriously these type of offences - and the provision contained in the new section 189(1)A will remedy an ambiguity which currently exists - there are some observations I wish to make in relation to the new drafting which will appear in subparagraph (1).
Before I go on with that, I remind the member for Stuart that this is a penal statute and that any ambiguity will generally be decided in favour of an alleged defendant. Under the original provision, before the introduction of this amendment, there was a requirement for the act which constituted the stalking, to occur on at least two or more occasions. The new provision refers to ‘repeated incidences of’, or ‘a combination of any of the following’, and then goes through to particularise some of the conduct which is, of course, reprehensible and unacceptable. It is my view - and it is important that all honourable members of this Chamber draw their attention to this - having the term ‘repeated’ in the new section 189 creates an ambiguity. There is no finality in terms of the number of times which an alleged offender, an alleged defendant, is required to commit or conduct itself in the requisite way, before the charge of stalking is properly made out.
Another concern I have is the use of the words ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ in this type of legislation. Ian Barker QC gave some seminars to law societies around Australia. I think he even spoke to the Law Society of the Northern Territory a couple of years ago. He certainly made an address to the Queensland Bar Association. He talked about the concerns he had about using the type of emotive words such as ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in this type of legislation. A person is, of course, an alleged offender. A better example might be under the assault provisions. If someone unlawfully assaults another, you are not automatically a victim because you have made a complaint, the charge not yet being made out; it is still an allegation. Indeed, the person who is alleged to have committed the offence is an alleged offender, or he is the alleged defendant, but he is certainly not an offender. So incorporation of terms like ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ into this type of legislation, which is serious legislation, should not be part of the new language which we hear so often from the champagne socialist elite in our community.
The true purport of what I have said may be lost on the government, but I can assure you that it won’t be lost on you if you or a member of your family are ever charged with an offence. Suddenly the person who made the allegation - this is way before you go to court and it is proved against you - you are the offender and the person who made the allegation is the victim. Nothing has been proved. Of course, as a society, we should do all we can to assist victims of crime and we should do all that we can to ensure that our Code reflects conduct which is reprehensible and perpetrators should be brought to justice. But there is a requirement for balance, and there is a requirement for at least some sort of procedural fairness even to alleged offenders.
There are other mechanisms which the Attorney-General could use to properly reflect the proposed changes which are contained in (1)A and would make the necessary and, we say, quite useful amendments to section 189 as a whole without using the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’. I can indicate that after making those general observations, when we move to the committee stage I will be asking very specific questions about some of these subparagraphs and, hopefully, the Attorney-General can clarify some of the issues I raise and the matter can be finally determined.
Madam Speaker, that is all I intend to say at this stage. I indicate that I will be asking that the matter go to the committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. Cyberstalking is indeed a very serious offence that has been occurring and is recognised in jurisdictions overseas and interstate. I applaud the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for seeking to recognise the seriousness of the nature of cyberstalking in our legislation.
I will read extracts from Cyberstalking by Emma Ogilvie in The Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 166 of September 2000.
Victims. It goes on to say:
Further in this - and I seek leave to table this document because I believe the member for Goyder could well improve his education by reading it.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: It refers to the case of a magistrate. It says:
It refers to a Victorian case where a charge of stalking was dismissed because the victim lived overseas despite the fact that the alleged stalking had been occurring over six years and involved repeated – there is the use of the word - unwanted emails, phone calls and letters. It was stated that:
I commend the legislation. I say to the member for Goyder that his sometimes brash search for amendments can be somewhat misguided. The National Centre for the Victims of Crime (US) provides the following definition:
It is a reality, unfortunately, that people suffer the result of unwanted attention by stalkers. I refer the Chamber to an article in the Sunday Times on 19 November 2000:
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Justice and our Attorney-General for updating the legislation in the Territory, something I note that previous governments failed to ever do, and I look forward to seeing the advancement of the legislation through this Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the intention of this legislation is something I support wholeheartedly. I agree with the member for Karama in relation to her statements that this sort of offence should be pursued most rigorously. However, I do remind the member for Karama that there is a thing in law called the presumption of innocence and I believe that is really what the shadow Attorney-General was driving at.
I would also like to pass comment in relation to this legislation, and what irks me about it is that I have a passionate desire to see it pass this House, but it is incumbent upon us in this House not only to pass good law in spirit, it is also incumbent upon us in this House to pass good law in fact.
Unfortunately, what is occurring here is of great concern to me. I will go to clause 4 of the proposed amendments. It is the primary function of this House to pass law. That is what we do. That is what we are elected to do in this House. Inasmuch as any member who brings a bill before this House, in this case the Attorney-General, has an opportunity to explain it to the House. This is what we intend to do. That is what the second-reading speech is all about and that is why on the completion of the presenting member’s second-reading speech, we then adjourn the debate, we go and look at it and we come back to it at the next time it appears on the Notice Paper.
The problem I have is that the Attorney-General has 45 minutes to explain to this House what changes he wants to effect to the legislation. In that 45 minutes allotted to the Attorney-General, he presented a second-reading speech which can be condensed to two pieces of paper. I imagine that it would have taken no more than two or three minutes to deliver the second-reading speech in which he describes the intent of this bill. Once again, I congratulate the Attorney-General on the intent behind what he is trying to do, but I remind honourable members that it is a duty upon this House to pass not only law in spirit, but good law on paper. This is where I run into a problem because this morning, I checked the stalking provisions under Section 189 of the ...
Mr Kiely: I’ll just bet you did.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I have heard a couple of interjections from the member for Millner and one of the interjections was: ‘Be positive’. I am trying to be positive because either by deception or by inadvertent omission, what we are actually planning to do is water down this legislation, and I will demonstrate how that occurs. Because of the concentration in this process of trying to make electronic stalking an offence, we have gone to section 189 of the Criminal Code in such a way to make it almost a consequential amendment to that section. Indeed, we introduce - and I am reading from clause 4 of the proposed amendment – (1)(b) and (e) which are the two sections designed, from what I can make out, to create the offence of electronic stalking, for which I congratulate the minister. But the problem is that we have redrafted subsection (1) to go from the original section on at least two separate occasions, so the bottom line for stalking at the moment is ‘two or more’. From ‘two or more’ separate occasions to what the minister wants to change it to, which is ‘repeated incidents’.
The member for Karama gave us a demonstration before of what ‘repeated’ means, and she demonstrated how a person had been stalked by way of letter, email and telephone call. So what we got was multiple instances. The effect of creating the offence of multiple instances of stalking in subsections (b) and (e) is good. But the effect in the real world, the non-cyber world, is we now have a watering down of the requirements of the intention of this parliament in the original section 189 inasmuch as the stalking which is referred to in the electronic format is watered down, because in subsection (a), the person who is the ‘victim’ now has to be followed repeatedly. Not twice, but on a multiple of occasions and it is up to the court to decide what the multiple of occasions should be. I suggest to members that ‘repeatedly’ conjures up, in my estimation, a number of occasions which is greater than two. In that context then, we have this problem: the government has tried to bring to this Chamber legislation which is intended to bring about a result but brings about a completely separate effect.
The problem is that legislation is a very intricately woven mesh and if you adjust something in one part of that mesh, it has a flow on effect to other parts of that mesh, and that is what we see happening here. There is no mention in the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech of this consequence. Now, he has either: (a) not turned his attention to the matter at all; or (b) chosen to neglect the matter because the ALP has decided to be soft on crime.
I would be interested to hear the member for Karama’s opinion at a later date, and I look forward to this going into the committee stages, because that is where it has to go now. I look forward to seeing whether the member for Karama supports a toughening of the burden of proof on the prosecution to prevent this sort of stalking from occurring because if she feels as passionately about this as she said, then she should be very concerned about the changes that the Attorney-General is trying to bring into this place.
The other thing that I draw members’ attention to is that the Attorney-General has, on this occasion, quite deliberately tried to institute a change in subsection (b) of the existing act by creating a further section, and I refer to clause 4, the last section, subsection (1A):
For the purposes of this section, an offender has the intention to cause physical harm or mental harm to the
victim, or to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim is for his or her own safety or of that person or if the
offender knows, or in the particular circumstances a reasonable person would have been aware, that engaging
in the course of conduct of that kind would be likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear.
My concern about this is that I have no problem with the intent of the legislation. What we are saying, or what the Attorney-General will be saying to the court, is that in the original legislation, the person who was stalking had to intend to cause physical or mental harm to the other person, the third person, or apprehension or fear. So there was an actual and full pressure on the prosecution to demonstrate that it was the clear intention of the person who was doing the stalking to cause physical or mental harm to the other or third person, or to cause apprehension or fear.
The way that I read the new clause is that the court is now allowed to apply the test of a reasonable person, so that it may not be the intention of the person who is stalking to cause actual physical harm or apprehension or fear, but any reasonable person, similarly circumstanced as the person stalking would have expected to cause such fear. That way it prevents a villain standing up in court and using a technicality saying: ‘I didn’t intend to do it’, because the state of mind of a person is very hard to prove unless you can apply the reasonable person test.
This is a good amendment. But, unfortunately, when I turn to the second-reading speech, I can’t find the Attorney-General’s intention in relation to the amendment. What the Attorney-General is trying to do is structurally change the Criminal Code in a way that is not intended by himself in his second-reading speech. He is quite clear that he wants to change the Criminal Code to introduce offences relating to electronic crimes. I applaud him for doing so. My problem is that the Attorney-General has come into this Chamber quite deliberately and used his position as Attorney-General, and this particular series of amendments, to structurally change an offence in the Criminal Code which is completely away from cyber-related offences. So it is, effectively, a deception of the members in this place to come into this Chamber and say: ‘Look, all I’m going to do is change the electronic crimes, and what I actually started doing, honourable members, is that I’m going to use it to change the structure of separate offences which have nothing to do with electronic crimes’. And it is a deception.
The problem we are now presented with is that we have good legislation in terms of its intent, excellent legislation in terms of its intent but accidentally or deliberately watered down by changing the meaning of the act or changing the wording in the act. On the second hand, he is trying to use legislation which deals with electronic offences to deal with issues of burdens of proof or standards of proof which are required by courts. This is just shoddy. This is not good law making procedure. The Attorney-General has the right to come into this Chamber and present laws to us, and we can either choose to support them or not support them, but we must present to our courts laws which are unequivocal in their nature and we must present to our courts laws which are not watered down when we don’t intend to water them down.
I wonder if the Attorney-General, in putting this bill together, has spoken to the victims of crime group, VOCAL. Has he spoken to women’s groups? Has he discussed the issues with the Law Society of watering these issues down?
Dr Toyne: We have. And the DPP.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection, from the Attorney-General. He says: ‘Yes, I did discuss the issues with the Law Society about watering this down’. Why didn’t you tell us in your second-reading speech? It is your job to inform this House about the law that you are bringing in here, and you, either by incompetence or by deception, will be trying to change the law so that the law surrounding stalking will be diminished and the protection to victims will be diminished by virtue of the fact that you will be winding back the weight and the gravity of their responsibility by changing the wording of the legislation. I urge the Attorney-General to turn his attention to this matter, and when we go into the committee stages, to do something about it.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, how interesting. Before I deal with the matters raised in the second-reading debate, I’d like to again state - we keep hearing about amendments that should be made to the legislation - this has been out for one month. You have had the legislation in your hands for one month. You have had the opportunity to come and get a briefing from my department at any opportunity that you wanted to request it. So you come in here, make points in the second-reading debate within minutes of going into committee, and you expect us to take a serious look at amendments that we have never seen and will never be seen. They will never be seen because you are simply not …
Mr Kiely: Prepared to do the work.
Dr TOYNE: Well, exactly. That as well.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: You continue to ignore the structure that I have put in front of you and it is probably the first time that someone on the government side of this House has made a genuine offer to the opposition that you can have input to the forming of the draft legislation that comes before us in this House. I am very serious that if you give us formal amendments before we go into the debate in the House, I will give them serious attention. If they have merit, there will be changes made to the draft legislation. That is a completely genuine offer.
I do not know how many times I have to say this: there is no point in coming into the debate on the floor with half-baked ideas about amendments. You have to do your work when you have access to the legislation. If we are debating something on urgency, fair enough, you have a point and the amendments should be considered from the floor. This is not on urgency. This bill was presented to this House in October. You have had plenty of time to do your homework on this and come back to us with some formal suggestions on any changes that you feel.
Let’s deal with matters that have been raised by members during the debate. Turning to the member for Goyder. Section 189, e-stalking provisions. ‘Repeated’ in any reasonable dictionary ever known to man means doing something at least twice, perhaps more. So in terms of our use of ‘repeated’ instead of ‘two or more’, we believe that not only conveys exactly the same meaning as ‘two or more’, but you will see that in the bill we are also saying ‘repeated instances of’ - in other words, doing the same thing two or more times – ‘or a combination of any of the following’ offences. Now, the member for Macdonnell has made a big point about saying: ‘This is weakening the legislation’. The existing act …
Mr Elferink: It has the potential to do that.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish here. You have made your point. I have listened carefully and I have taken advice on this. I want to give you an answer. Far from weakening the coverage of these stalking offences, we have actually strengthened it considerably by including the possibility of a combination of these activities being taken as a repeated offence. In other words, the existing act requires that one of those various forms of stalking be repeated, be done two or more times. In this case, in the new act as it will be when it is amended, just by simply following the victim or another person and then subsequently telephoning them, you have repeated the offence and therefore it is actually a wider net to catch offensive behaviour.
In terms of the so-called watering down of the actual intent of the offender, the original and existing act contains the word ‘covert’ behaviour, covertly and intending to do something. There have been cases fail in court because the act was not covert, it was overt. It was very open and it was very much intended. The offender got off because the act was not covert, it was overt. We have taken out that restriction on the type of behaviour on the offender and widened again the net by which to catch this type of behaviour.
To the use of the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in the bill. These offences are very complex in many cases and in fact someone stalking a particular target person will often operate through one or more third parties. For example, it is possible that an offender might stalk the children of a target person in order to put pressure on the actual target. So it is not an offence that will simply involve a stalkee and a stalker if you want to use some other way of describing it. By using the word ‘victim’ in addition to using the word ‘person’, we are able to distinguish in the bill between the actual target of the offender, and the people that may be involved in the commission of the offence. That is the purpose of having those.
When those people go into court, they are not an offender and a victim; they are an alleged offender, they are an alleged victim. Once the court has heard the case, if the offence is proven, they then become the victim and the offender. The tags in the bill are simply there to indicate that if that sort of behaviour has been properly proven in a properly constituted court, you can then refer to the different players within the offence as being a victim proven by the court, an offender proven by the court, a person who is neither a victim nor the offender who may have been involved in the commission of the offence.
That is the purpose of having these terminologies. It would be in no way detrimental to a person taken into a court for the law under which that court is operating to apply those tags to the proven offence. We have charges for murder. We talk about people who kill people or murder people, but that does not mean that a person coming into the court is in any way labelled as that prior to a proper hearing of the case. I don’t accept the idea that this is in some way detrimental to the interests of the people who may come before that court hearing.
Madam Speaker, I have dealt with the substance of the second-reading debate matters. I suggest we now move on into second reading and committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 2 and 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I rise to ask a very simple question of the Attorney-General. He went to some lengths in his closing debate of the second-reading speech to explain what the intent of these changes to section 189 of the Criminal Code was. Why did he not do it in the second-reading speech?
Dr TOYNE: Sorry, could you repeat that? I missed it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I will repeat the question. Why didn’t the Attorney-General use the second-reading speech to explain to the House fully the changes he intended in this legislation?
Dr TOYNE: To some extent the words in the legislation speak for themselves. If you are suggesting that there is some inherent merit in taking a full 45 minutes when we are presenting bills in this House - I presented eight bills yesterday and I do not think the other members in this Chamber would thank me for taking 45 minutes on each bill.
There is an inherent process here that the member should be very aware of, and I have outlined it in the second-reading debate, and that is that there is a process by which any member of this House can acquaint themselves in detail with the issues involved in draft legislation. Some of them lie within this House and some of them lie in the actual process such as getting briefings, such as coming and seeing the minister who has carriage.
The ideal form this should all take is an ongoing dialogue between the shadow, the minister and other members who have and interest in the matters embodied in the legislation. It would be impossible to second-guess maybe thousands of different aspects that may be of interest to the 25 members of this House in any second-reading speech. The second-reading speech is meant to be a very clear synopsis of what the legislation is dealing with. In some cases, a bill may be 200 pages. How are you going to possibly go down - in the kind of detail you are continuing to raise in these types of debates in the House - to the meaning and alternative meanings of words and the possibility that anything within that bill could be amended? It is unreasonable to expect that within a second-reading speech you are going to deal with all those aspects. The important part of this process is that every member of this House who has interest in the sort of laws that we are passing in this place should pursue their interests and objectives within the legislation through the processes that I have outlined.
Mr ELFERINK: The Attorney-General should be aware, while he gives us spankings for not seeking briefings in relation to this, that he is quite right, we have to be guided by the contents of his second-reading speech. I am not asking him to visit every issue in infinite detail, I am simply asking him to tell us what laws he is planning to change and, on this occasion, he simply has not told us. He has not referred once in his second-reading speech to section 189. You would think he would because of the profile those types of offences carry in the community. There is also a potential, with the changes of wording, to change the meaning of section 189 outside of the scope of the first line of his second-reading speech. I am guided by the first line of his second-reading speech: ‘The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide for computer-related offences’.
The scope of these amendments are broader than that because they have a carry-on effect to other offences which can occur outside of the parameters of computer-related offences. I have to be guided by the Attorney-General on many of these issues. That is why he makes second-reading speeches. Brevity is not a reason to introduce inaccuracy. The Attorney-General has simply been inaccurate for the sake of brevity. He complains about time wasting in this House and having to torture each piece of legislation as we do because as we turn our minds to the legislation that is brought into this House, we discover that there are major problems. I was guided by the first line of his second reading speech in relation to computer-related offences. I will be the first to confess that I did not read this bill until this morning. Perhaps I am remiss in that, but I have to be guided by an incompetent dill who does not know what a second reading speech is for …
Mr Stirling: You had a month to look at it. Show pony. You had a month to look at it. You could have requested a briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: … and who would quite happily, Leader of Government Business, mislead this House in terms of the contents of his second-reading speeches.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Direct the questions through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is an extraordinarily frustrating process we had to go through yesterday.
Mr Stirling: Well, how do you think it feels from this side, you goose?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, if you did your job right, you goose, you would not be in here! We could have had this thing done yesterday, just as easily if it had been thought about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Macdonnell, order! Direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, if the members opposite had done their job properly and brought themselves into this House with legislation that was immediately workable, and had explained it to us, taken the time allotted in standing orders - there is a reason we give 45 minutes, so that we can address the contents of it, even if a bill is 200 pages long, and the way it is going to affect Northern Territorians. Now what we are seeing is brevity; two pages on legislation which casts a much wider net than simply dealing with computer-related offences.
The fact of the matter is I support the thrust of this. The Attorney-General was on his feet for less than 10 minutes when he explained several of the issues that he could have raised in his second-reading speech. That is what it is there for. He stood up here and said: ‘We wanted to deal with the issue of covertness; we wanted to deal with the issue of the complexities of the use of the word “victim”; we wanted to deal with the possibility that repeated offences may occur in different fashions’.
They are good explanations, but the problem is he did not tell us in his second-reading speech at all and none of what he just talked about in terms of explanation to the comments raised in the second-reading debate - none of it - relates to computer-related crimes. These are real world crimes that happen to people in the real world as well. Yet when I read his explanation to this House, he is talking about computer-related offences.
All I am asking the Attorney-General to do is, for pity’s sake, if he is going to bring legislation into this House, then he explains to the House what on earth he is doing. Changing the test of intent to ‘reasonable person similarly circumstanced’ is a good move, as I said in the second-reading debate. But he has not explained it to this House. It is a major change to the legislation. It does not primarily restrict itself to the effects of section 189 in terms of computer-related offences. It expands far beyond that, and he did not bother to explain it. He is the senior law officer of this Territory and, unfortunately, he is utterly remiss in his slapdash approach to this legislation. The members opposite laugh, but the fact of the matter is …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … how many of them had read the legislation before they came in here, and how many of them understood it?
Mr Bonson: We got briefings.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection ‘We got briefings’, and I find it curious that they, in their briefings, did not ask about the second-reading speeches. If they did, stand up here and tell us. Tell us that you asked about the second-reading speeches and why the Attorney-General, through a change disguised to deal with computer-related offences, why didn’t they ask questions about changes to the operation of section 189 in the real world, not just the cyberworld?
I am getting frustrated with the approach of the Attorney-General. We saw it in the Chief Minster yesterday. The risk, in my opinion, is because of the broader definition or repeated instances in the act will lead a court away from two or more. I disagree with you. I simply think you are wrong. I can tell you now that I find it very difficult to throw my weight or support behind legislation which will have the effect of watering down very important legislation which is there to protect Territorians.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I want to point out to the member and put on the record his pathetic hypocrisy in this matter. For him to stand in here and admit that he read the bill this morning, or yesterday morning - the first time he bothered to read it - if he was genuinely interested in this bill, instead of getting in here and grandstanding like the show pony that he is and burning up the valuable time and resources of this parliament – he has a right to do it, he has every right to do it - but he has also got a duty to be informed. If he is fulfilling his duties properly as a member, he would be taking the bill from the Chamber when it was tabled in this House a month ago, you would have read it and you would have noted the concerns you have in this so-called watering down fantasy in your head, and you would have approached the Attorney-General for a briefing, you would have had that briefing, and you would have had every opportunity to raise every one of those concerns in a briefing.
If you were not satisfied then, at the briefing, you had the opportunity to take it to your party room and say: ‘This is not good enough. I am going to prepare amendments here, and I want party support for these amendments’. Go and do your amendments, put them through the party room and then get them into this Chamber because the Attorney-General has already said that if you do the work and you come with genuinely considered amendments that will address where you think there is some deficiency in the legislation, he will listen. He will listen, and he is speaking for government when he says that and every minister on this side of the Chamber.
But we are not going to accept amendments from a member who hasn’t bothered to take the legislation home from the Assembly a month ago, hasn’t bothered to read the bill and hasn’t bothered to seek a briefing; all your responsibility. If you are interested in passage of legislation, the foremost responsibility of a member of this Chamber, the member said so himself, Mr Chairman, and I don’t disagree with him, the foremost responsibility as a legislator. Yet he gets in here, admits he read it for the first time this morning and wants to storm over the legislation, complain bitterly about the length of the Attorney-General’s speech. I stood on that side of the House as shadow Attorney-General for years, two paragraphs in many cases from ministers with quite complex legislation.
But, I tell you what: at least I went to the briefings. At least I went to the agency responsible for the bill. At least I gave myself the opportunity, in the paucity of information given by the minister, in a second reading. At least I went and asked my questions. I did not come in here trying to trot across measly, hypocritical amendments at the last minute, and never once did I ever admit to having read the legislation on the morning before because as shadow Attorney-General, I took my role responsibly, as I had to because on that side of the Chamber it was me in the opposition between government and the people of the Northern Territory as to whether it was a good or bad law. There is no second Chamber here. There is no House of review.
If he is serious about his responsibility, if he believes in what he says about the primary responsibility of a member of this Chamber being a legislator, he would get his act together, he would take the bills, they’re tabled, get all the bills that were tabled during these sittings, take them home, have a read, request a briefing from the minister responsible for the legislation, jot down your questions, work it out with your colleagues, is there an amendment here, if you have support, get the amendment across to the government, to the minister responsible with enough time for it to be considered, and it will be.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have to respond to some of the comments by the Leader of Government Business.
Mr Stirling: No, you don’t. You have just spoken. Sit down.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, I’ll give the minister the right to reply.
Dr TOYNE: I want to clear up some matters here. The first thing I would like say is that you want to go on about second-reading speeches, but it’s not the only bit of paper you do get during a second-reading speech. Simultaneously, the attendants bring around the bill we are talking about. So it is taken that the information you are given on that day about intended legislation is the legislation itself plus the second-reading speech. If you had have gone, as my colleague the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, to the documents when you were given them, you would have seen very clearly on page 3 of the draft, or maybe it was a different draft from the one I have here, same words though, on page 3:
Section 189 of the Criminal Code is amended by omitting subsection (1) and substituting the following:…
That would have told you pretty clearly that there was going to be some amendment made to that part of the principal act. The other thing you could have done, and you can do it any time, is get on the web site or go and borrow one of these which is the principal act. That would have told you immediately what changes, if any, the bill was visiting to the different parts of the principal act.
Mr Elferink: I have the copy here. I referred to it.
Dr TOYNE: Well, you might have got that this morning. You should have had it about a month ago if you were going to do this properly.
If you had have looked at the principal act, section 189, you would have been able to read through line for line exactly what changes have been made to the wording of the act as a result of the bill’s intended inclusion in that act. As it turns out, you are talking about radical major new changes to this section of the act. Item (1) of the original act ‘follows another person’. In our bill: ‘(a) following the victim and any other person’. Yes, there is a change there. We have added ‘and any other person’ because as I have very clearly pointed out in second-reading debate, it is not always the victim or target of stalking that has the activity applied to them. It can be an intermediary person: it can be a child in the family; it can be the spouse or partner of the intended victim.
Equally, for you to be talking about ‘Oh, that’s not an electronic form of crime’, the point is that in a significant majority of the cases, there is going to be a combination of traditional stalking and e-stalking. That is the pattern of these sort of crimes, the stalker using electronic means to extend the act of stalking a victim. That is why the code has to do a renovation through the whole crime of stalking. We have to look at the existing conventional forms of that crime, and we have to add to it the new electronic forms of that crime. That is why some of these areas have been modified: to better reflect the actual pattern of the crime and the combination of activities that currently exist in this type of criminal behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, despite what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say, I am curious to know if he was briefed on every piece of legislation that was ever laid on the Table on all portfolio areas. As the member for Nhulunbuy is fully aware, the shadow Attorney-General who has carriage of this, has pursued this matter. I, as a member of this House, am entitled to stand up in this Chamber and discuss issues of legislation. The fact of the matter is that you as the Attorney-General have the responsibility of guiding the House through this and you haven’t done so. That is the embarrassing part about this, not when I read the legislation. I don’t have carriage of it. You are supposed to convince everybody in this Chamber of what you are trying to do. When I read your second-reading speech, your two little bloody pages here, all you have achieved …
Mr Ah Kit: This morning.
Mr ELFERINK: And no, not this morning. I pick up on the interjection.
Mr KIELY: A point of order! Yesterday there was a similar incident of swearing in this Chamber and the member was held up.
Mr CHAIRMAN: It is a minor issue, but it should be retracted.
Mr ELFERINK: If I did, I withdraw, Mr Chairman. I apologise.
The Attorney-General has a responsibility as first law officer. I have a responsibility as a member of this Chamber. Now the fact is that I found what I believed and still believe to be problems with the process that he has chosen to bring before this Chamber. The process that he has chosen is wrong. It is a short cut. It’s just slack work. That’s all it is, Mr Chairman.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Chairman, I didn’t plan to speak in this debate, but what concerns me is that the members opposite are finding it very hard to understand clearly and concisely that we have set up a process with our government in respect of briefings and the way we want to do business. That is something that was never afforded to us when we were in opposition …
Mr Dunham: Don’t tell a lie in parliament, mate. You’ll get into trouble.
Mr AH KIT: Let me finish, let me finish. … on many occasions. Yes, there were a few briefings that ministers agreed to. On many occasions, they were not. They had the audacity to slip in under our doors, at midnight, ministerial statements that were going to be brought on the following day at the following sittings. This is the way they operated.
Here we are. We are saying we have a better system and we are offering that to you. But we have seen, in the last two sittings, members opposite too lazy to organise a briefing from the minister that they are shadowing. They are not showing any keen interest, no real keen interest. The member for Macdonnell, as my colleagues have pointed out, had one month of opportunity. Now, I wonder what you were doing in that one month. Today, you come in here, you admit you only read it this morning and you want to grandstand because you like listening to yourself talk, and you are trying to big note yourself and impress the two lawyers that you have on your side of the Chamber.
When are these mob going to learn? We are learning to govern, and govern properly and effectively for all Territorians. They apparently have a problem with working out what they really need to do in opposition to be a good opposition. It is really a sad indictment that the Christmas message I give them, besides looking after themselves and their families, is to make sure they understand that this government will give them briefings if they make the time available to present themselves.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I make one point before the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. We are drifting away from the bill. We have moved on to greetings. I realise it is a wonderful thing to present people at Christmas time, but I think we are moving away from the bill a bit, so if we could come back to the bill, I would appreciate it.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, the reason I rise is to inform the member for Arnhem that if I hear any more of this patronising pap in terms of how you lecture the opposition ...
Mr Ah Kit: What are you going to do, big boy?
Mr BURKE: What we will do, I inform the member for Arnhem, is stay here all night and continually question this legislation to ensure we are satisfied that it meets our parameters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Government Business was very clear in this House, and I would have thought the Attorney-General who will experience the fact, as he is already experiencing …
Mr Ah Kit: You have nine shadow ministers to seven ministers.
Mr BURKE: And it would help if you could quieten your own mob down because that is what keeps us here much longer. The Attorney-General, I am sure, has realised by now that legislation can pass painlessly through this House or it can be extremely painful, depending on the attitude of the members in the House. It is the Leader of Government Business himself who said that this new government would raise the issue of debate of legislation to its highest priority. He would change the way the day’s table was laid so that legislation could be fully debated. Don’t be so patronising as to turn on individual members of the opposition, some of whom don’t hold responsibility for these portfolios and not allow them to raise issues of clarification on the legislation as it comes to their mind. That is the purpose of this House. That is the reason it is set up and if anyone can comment on this matter and be patronising, it is the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy Speaker himself. But if we hear continually patronising comments from you, we will continue, and I encourage the member for Macdonnell, if necessary, to stand here all night until he is satisfied with the replies that he is getting. That is our agenda, so as long as you understand it.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The second thing I would say to the member for Nhulunbuy, who was so strident in pointing out responsibilities of the members of this side of the Chamber, it may have missed his mind that on the program at Palmerston High School today it was the Minister for Education who was down to hand out prizes to the hundreds of people who were assembled, including Year 12 students. I was there, the member for Blain was there, the minister was missing. So don’t tell us about where our responsibilities lie in this House. You attend to your own responsibilities in the electorate and attend to your responsibilities in this House. And part of that responsibility is to ensure that legislation is fully debated and clarified for the benefit of individual members. When that occurs, then we’ll be able to pass this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Where is the relevance? He is just rambling.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. I will make the comment now that the issue of whether people have been briefed or not briefed or whatever is not central to the legislation. We should now come back to the bill we are here to debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Then I will make the point quickly. The Leader of Government Business knows perfectly well that I, as a legislator in this House, can choose to contest this legislation in this House in the public domain, not in his office where his incompetence and his Attorney-General’s incompetence won’t been seen by the public.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Macdonnell, do you have anything more on the act?
Mr Kiely: He didn’t have anything in the first place.
Mr Elferink: I did, actually.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Attorney-General. You talked about some procedural matters earlier, before the slight distraction, and before I say anything, I just put on the record that any comments I make about the legislation or about the advice you were given is certainly no reflection upon the legal practitioners who are in this Chamber and also the people employed by your department.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong if you think for a moment that when a person goes before a court charged with this type of offence, that the term ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ won’t be stated publicly because part of the procedures involved in a jury trial, or a matter which is heard and determined summarily, is that the charge is normally put to the person who is accused of committing it. That means the prosecutor will have to draft the charge, he is probably going to have to say - the usual form is to stick as close as possible to the words contained in the legislation, and that means that it is almost going to be impossible for him to avoid using the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’. When the judge prepares an aide memoire for the jury, he normally gives the jury a breakdown of the section, element by element, and he will go through the evidence that relates to the particular subsection in each element of the section.
So we have the situation where the charge is not only read out, the words will, in some situations, be reduced to writing and given to the tribunal which is, in the Supreme Court, a jury. I hope I am not misquoting what Ian Barker QC said, but if my memory serves me correctly, he talked about this type of language as ‘trendy slop’, and that’s it what it is. It is very, very sloppy. It is the government’s political philosophies, champagne socialist philosophies, political correctness creeping into our legislation which should be sacrosanct. I want to put it on the record so that the Attorney-General is aware and makes an informed decision that when he includes these references in legislation, it will invariably be referred to in court and these titles will attach to people who have merely made the allegation before a charge is proved. It will attach to people who will be acquitted and discharged completely and that does not accord with any type of procedural fairness which is, of course, the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.
So, my question is: can the Attorney-General stand up and explain to me, and explain to the honourable members of this Chamber, how the words ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ which appear both in subsection (1) and some of the subsections, will not be uttered and won’t be said in the course of a criminal trial until the end of a trial when the charge has either been made out or dismissed? Can you explain that clearly for the many criminal lawyers who I imagine will read this with some interest?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, what I will say is that what the member for Goyder has expressed is a personal opinion. It is not shared by the DPP. It is not shared by the drafters. It is not shared by department staff who were responsible for the preparation of this bill. In the reality of the court that you are describing, the charges would be couched in the terms of the name of accused and the name of the victim, rather than using a generic term. We don’t agree with you. We could stand here for three hours and we still won’t agree with you. So, let’s move on.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Attorney-General. I don’t want to, of course, go down the line and try and discuss the nature of the advice you have received, but the Attorney-General is wrong because I have also spoken to my friends and colleagues who work at the Director of Public Prosecutions and, sure, there is support for your amendment 1A, but there is also serious concern about the sloppy way that you use the word ‘victim’ and ‘offender’, and people who work at the coal face know that what you have said is incorrect. It might be justification for a press release and the subject of some philosophical comment to make you feel good in terms of political correctness, but I am telling you it is not right. It is wrong. I just hope that you or a member of your family are never in the position to be charged with an offence containing these types of references because you will feel the burden of what it is like to be described as an offender and the person who made the allegation against you whether it is true or not is the victim, irrespective of what evidence they have or what happens in the course of that criminal matter. So, I put that on the record.
The other matter I wish to raise and I am mindful, Mr Chairman, of your direction and not to raise the questions of briefings again but if I can just add in a coherent way a few words. The Attorney-General and, indeed, other members of the government have publicly and in this Chamber invited all honourable members to contribute in a vigorous way to debate. I have heard on several occasions the catch cry ‘open, accountable and honest government’ and I have heard the catch cry that legislation will be a priority. I respectfully take the government to some provisions which I have a difficulty with or am raising an ambiguity on behalf of people I have spoken to about the legislation, it is met with resistance and disdain. They whine and they squirm and it is really certainly not in the vein of what they are saying in terms of encouraging this type of healthy and vigorous debate. That is what it is all about, and if you do not like the job or you cannot govern, then perhaps the Attorney-General can pass the portfolio on to someone else.
In relation to briefings, indeed I did not seek a briefing on this legislation. It is straight forward on the face of the document. Briefings are required if you do not understand it and you need to clarify an ambiguity and there is lots of latitude. I am not going to take you to the …
Mr Ah Kit: Are you the top legal eagle in the Territory?
Mr MALEY: Well, Mr Chairman, the number one legal person in the Northern Territory is the Attorney-General. It is his responsibility. If he is not comfortable with the responsibility and the capacity and the latitude to amend legislation, if the Attorney-General is not comfortable with the responsibility and the latitude that exists to amend legislation …
Mr Henderson: Very comfortable and very good at it.
Mr MALEY: If you’re not comfortable with the responsibility and the latitude which exists to amend legislation on the floor of this Chamber or take on board what is said and adjourn a matter so he can get the necessary advice if he sees fit, then that is the government’s problem. Indeed, with that type of attitude, I think the government is doing a disservice to the people of the Northern Territory.
I will reiterate what I touched upon and perhaps you can think about this. The term ‘repeated instances’ - well, I agree it is a change and it is fairly obvious; it used to say ‘two or more’. Now it has been changed to ‘repeated instances’. One of the tools which a court will use when they come to consider the words in this legislation that if there is any benefit of the doubt or any ambiguity, it will be resolved in the favour of the defendant. That is our criminal justice system. It is a safeguard. So, if I was, hypothetically speaking, representing the Attorney-General and he was charged with this type of offence and he had done something which fell within the scope of subparagraphs (a) to (g) on two or three occasions, one of my very vigorous submissions on behalf of my hypothetical client would be that ‘repeated instances’ is not clear enough and the previous legislation said ‘two or more’ and parliament through this legislation has changed that. So, clearly, it is more than two; it might be three, it might four. And, for what it is worth, I would give it my absolute best shot to try to create a reasonable doubt on the basis that my hypothetical client, the Attorney-General, partook in the conduct on two or three occasions, not the necessary four or five or six or whatever. So, there is an ambiguity there. The very fact that I have raised it is something worth considering.
The other proposition I put to the Attorney-General is that it is a defect which is inherently capable of being remedied by inserting the words ‘two or more’. I can do that just by looking the legislation: ‘Conduct that includes two or more instances or a combination of two or more…’, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I don’t think we have to move mountains to understand what is occurring and I am certainly happy to sit down while you take advice from as many lawyers as you want, but I am directing my question to the Attorney-General to consider such an amendment.
Dr TOYNE: I have been speaking English for 55 years now, and if you can find one credible person who can say that ‘repeated’ is not ‘two or more’, I will buy you lunch. I really will. Similarly, if you can show me any way you can make a combination of things that is not two or more then, again, I will buy you lunch with cream on the top. It is a ridiculous, vacuous point you are putting because, quite clearly, ‘repeated’ means a minimum of two. Repeated can mean more than two. It can mean that the same thing has happened more than once. Show us the dictionary if you think that there is any other way that you can construe ‘repeated’ than two or more.
To your earlier point, I have had it pointed out by my advisors that the use of the term ‘victim’ is in extant law within the Northern Territory. I refer to the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Section 4(5)(b) refers to where evidence is given:
Again, in the Evidence Act, Part VIA, Confidential Communications, section 56, Definitions:
and it goes on. And in (a)(ii):
So, it is extant in our laws. That would be used similarly in the procedures in a court. In fact, probably in some ways a very similar offence to the one that we are talking about. Perhaps stalking and sexual offences do have some parallel.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, does the Attorney-General understand that what he just referred to was the Evidence Act and the Sexual Assault (Evidence and Procedures) Act? They are not the substantive offences for which someone is charged. They are very important legislation and fill an important void that would exist without them. But they are not the very charge which the person who the allegations are made against stands accused of. They are facilitatory legislation which assist, or give the court the power and some guidance in relation to evidentiary matters and some procedural matters.
So the point is really clear. Under the Criminal Code you have the offence of assault, if a person unlawfully assaults another. Adopting your mentality and terminology, you would have us believe that it is appropriate to say that if the offender assaults the victim that he is guilty of an offence. It is putting the cart before the horse. It is incorrect. Can you please explain to me and answer this question: is it a drafting tool which you intend to instruct your Parliamentary Counsel to use when dealing with and amending further acts under the Criminal Code?
Dr TOYNE: I reject the assertions the member for Goyder has been making and I have very little more to add. We put our position on it. There is not point in having merry-go-round debates in here. It eats up time for no value to the debate. I have put forward examples where extant law is using the term ‘victim’ to identify a player in an activity which is seen as a criminal activity within a hearing. The daily references made to players in an alleged crime in a court gets down to the point of saying: ‘So and so…’ named ‘…is alleged to have done…’ such and such ‘…to…’ so and so, also named. You are not saying ‘victim’ is alleged to have had a crime perpetrated on them by ‘offender’.
On the weight of the opinion that has been expressed about this bill by the quite wide circle of people that have contributed to it, on the weight of the evidence of what is in extant law at the moment, on the weight of the changes that have been made to section 189 which are merely combining electronic forms of stalking in with the existing, more conventional forms, on the weight of the fact that no reasonable person would take ‘repeated’ as meaning anything other than doing something at least twice, perhaps more. So I really do not accept your points as being substantive reasons to change the bill before us.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I advise the Attorney-General that he may very well owe the shadow Attorney-General lunch with cream on top. I have taken his advice. I presume that the Macquarie Dictionary would be an acceptable provider of a definition. I go to the definition of ‘repeated’:
Mr Chairman, this is the reason that we are raising this. He has taken a perfectly clear expression out of the legislation and replaced it with something that is ambiguous. He has then guided us to a dictionary, and the dictionary tells us that what we are worried about is exactly what will occur. He is the chief law officer. He has just told us that the Macquarie Dictionary is the one he has accepted to take a definition out of. He has now put a victim of stalking into a position where it has to happen to them again and again, more than twice. This is the problem. If there is no problem with the legislation as it exists, then why is he fixing it?
Dr TOYNE: If you do something, and you do something again, how many times have you done it?
Mr ELFERINK: I am fascinated by this. He has asked us to go to a dictionary. I have gone to a dictionary, found the result, which is different. The problem is that he is introducing an ambiguity which is not necessary. And where the ambiguity exists, the presumption of the innocence will fall …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Last night, you did indicate you were prepared to make a ruling about questions asked over and over again. This issue has been dealt with by the Attorney-General. It does not matter how many times they dress the question up in a different guise, it has been raised repeatedly, and I would ask you to consider your ruling from last night so we can move this on.
Dr TOYNE: I am certainly getting sick of answering it, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order at the moment, because now I am not sure what ‘repeated’ means. I will let it go a bit longer. I think it is an important issue, but I will keep an eye on it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am utterly convinced that this goes to the heart of the whole argument. If the Attorney-General is so comfortable with the fact that it did not change, why is he changing it?
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I believe that the Macquarie Dictionary explanation of ‘again and again’ is, indeed, reflective of two or more. ‘Again’ is two, and ‘again’ is more. Whether you refer to the Macquarie, whether you look in our legislation, the effect is clear. The judiciary are smart enough to deal with it. It is a shame that you cannot sit down and let us get on with the legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the Attorney-General one question: if he is quite convinced that it means the same thing, why is he changing it?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I presume that the Attorney-General is getting advice.
Ms Lawrie: He has already given him the explanation of the combination of …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The Attorney-General is taking advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am sure that he has not heard my question.
Dr TOYNE: The longer this goes round and round, the more evidence we are finding in extant law that you are actually whipping up a storm about nothing here. Let us have a look at what the Petroleum Act has to say about the use of the word ‘repeated’. They use ‘repeated’, it is amazing. It must be a proper word in the English language. This is section 89Q, Minister may issue improvement notice:
If the Minister is of the opinion that a person:
(a) is contravening this Part; or
(b) has contravened this Part in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention
will continue or be repeated.
Why do they use ‘continued’ and use the word ‘repeated’ as two separate sections in that area of the law? Because ‘continue’ means continuous and ‘repeated’ means it starts, it stops, and then it repeats. That is why those two words are used side by side.
Similarly, in the Work Health Act …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, can you repeat what act that came from?
Dr TOYNE: That was the Petroleum Act, Division 3, Improvement and Prohibition, Notices, 89Q, Minister may issue improvement notice:
That gives you some idea of why ‘repeated’ refers to something that happens, stops, happens again. It has happened twice. If you are referring to a particular offence, then the word ‘repeated’ is inherently meaning at least two. We keep dredging up more offenders in the legislation. Surveillance Devices Act, section 11, Consideration of Application for Warrant:
Guess who!:
So, if you believe that we are making new use of the terms in law, you are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I would repeat my question for the Attorney-General: if he is satisfied that the change in the wording doesn’t change the effect, then why is he changing it at all?
Dr TOYNE: Your voice went down with your backside.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Attorney-General is satisfied that there is no change in the effect of the wording, why is he changing the wording?
Dr TOYNE: To be more inclusive, basically, of a cluster of offences. If we are going to have both a mixture of conventional and electronic forms of stalking or a particular form of it repeated, two or more is simply putting a front end to the thing. It then runs on into more which could mean any number of them. ‘Repeated’ says exactly the same thing: that if you are repeating something. If something is repeated, it has to happen at least two times but it could happen as many times as you repeat it. I feel like I am in a dictionary review class here.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the second last answer the Attorney-General gave was the most unpersuasive rhetoric I’ve ever heard. Out of all the legislation in the Northern Territory, some 400 offences in the Criminal Code, literally dozens and probably hundreds of others in the Summary Offences Act, all the Attorney-General could do to justify using the terms ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ is find a couple of examples of offender in an obscure Petroleum Act or something - and I apologise for mangling the citation - and also the Surveillance Devices Act. If that is the justification which the Attorney-General seeks to use to contaminate the Northern Territory Criminal Code with this type of trendy slop, then he is sadly mistaken.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I say from this side of the House, we welcome the report of the Auditor-General and his interesting comments on a number of issues. I will briefly look at a couple of them.
In his remarks on the Department of the Chief Minister, he points out that in his view, performance measures underpinning the desired outcomes for the six Foundations For Our Future areas have not been identified, that is on page 57. While he acknowledges that ministers did report back to the Assembly on progress some 18 months after the Foundations were outlined, he argues that more specific key result areas should be identified, and once again the Auditor-General returns to his advocacy of a system that exists in the Canadian province of Alberta of triple line reporting.
I would note and agree with the comments of the department that a comprehensive whole-of-government reporting system was operating to measure progress against all foundation areas. I can assure him that had the government continued, I would have ensured that the implementation of these extensive blueprints for the future development of the Territory would have happened and they would have been rigorously checked by both the Chief Minister and the line ministers. I also commend the Auditor-General for his constant references to Foundations For Our Future. Throughout this report he has, where appropriate, included the heading ‘Linkages to Foundations for our Future’. It is a clear demonstration of how my government’s blueprint was adopted and was being pursued right across the public service. One can only speculate whether this government will allow them to continue to pursue such obvious fundamental development objectives. This government’s record so far suggests that they are more concerned with shuffling the deck chairs, with imposing their will on the public service rather than achieving anything positive for the Territory.
Another area the Auditor-General reports on is the Alice Springs Convention Centre and Alice in Ten, pages 35 to 37 and 105 to 107, respectively. Again, it is not so much criticism as a shot over the bows that such a development must, in his view, have strict reporting criteria to ensure that the contribution to the economic future of the Alice can be measured. Similarly, his comments on Hidden Valley, pages 49 to 51, are more to do with his desire of having a tangible and detailed bottom line report than any criticism of the event or how it is run or how much the government contributes.
The Auditor-General’s concern relates to the economic benefit realised by the staging of this event, but as he notes, the estimate of the benefit was based on a 1999 economic impact study. However, his key finding does state:
and I note he says:
… to the expected standard.
I hope that this new government continues the commitment to the Supercars and continues to maintain that expected standard. I note in casual comments the Chief Minister has been making around the place to interested parties that she applauds the Supercars and intends to continue ensuring that event is maintained to that standard.
Another area I would like to comment on is the Auditor-General’s report on the format of the budget itself. As he notes, the previous government did offer in its budget books two reporting frameworks and indicated that it was moving closer to a uniform presentation format. He shows that all the figures were there for anyone to make an accurate assessment of the economic state of our economy. He shows that Labor’s shock-horror comments after their election to government was the result of either total incompetence on their part in not being able to read the budget papers or a cynical political exercise to score points and blame the previous administration. Given their comments in the budget debate, the latter is the most obvious explanation.
Many of the major findings of the Auditor-General in this report relate to how he would like to see the public service reporting on its activities, and it will be interesting to watch his reports next year on how successful this new public service will be in achieving the Auditor-General’s desired outcomes. We are concerned, and I would suggest that the public service will be so hampered by the need to bed down the enormous changes this government has wrought on their structure and so busy dealing with the staff and funding cuts this government is imposing, that they will have little time to consider outcomes, let alone audit them in the way the Auditor-General wants to see.
The Auditor-General has an important role, I have always acknowledged, to play in our system of government. His regular reports to parliament are a source of independent advice and inquiry into the processes of the parliament. In government, we welcomed his input and efforts and even acted on his recommendations in many cases.
I hope the Auditor-General will continue to pay heed to the comments in this parliament and will continue to instigate investigations because of the level of, as he says, interest expressed by the members of the Legislative Assembly. I can say now, that there are at least 10 members of this Legislative Assembly who are expressing great interest in this new government’s plans, particularly to ram through this parliament a completely new financial plan for this year without proper scrutiny or debate. I am sure he will heed our interests and inquire into just how the Appropriation Act passed by the previous parliament only a few months ago has been changed by this new government without recourse to the parliament. Equally, I am sure the Auditor-General will find it necessary to investigate just how many public servants will be left without substantive jobs following the restructure of the public service, and I look forward to reading those reports in the coming months and years.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is an important one in our democratic process, and one of the crucial checks and balances in government accountability. The responsibility of the Auditor-General is to audit the public account and to audit the performance management systems of agencies to determine whether they enable the agency to assess whether its objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. The Auditor-General reports to the Assembly each February and August on matters arising from audits conducted by his office in the previous six months. There are some issues in his August report relating to the Chief Minister’s department that I would like to speak to.
The Auditor-General has concluded that an adequate internal capacity is not being demonstrated in most agencies. Under the provisions of the Financial Management Act, the CEO of each agency has responsibility for ensuring there is an adequate internal audit program. It is the role of Risk Management Services in the Department of Chief Minister to provide assistance to CEOs in this area. Risk Management Services has been restructured over the past two years so that it can better meet the needs of CEOs and their organisations. It now provides risk management, business consulting and internal audit services through a customer focussed strategic business approach that uses risk as the driver. The unit services include:
It also does reviews designed to improve business management and practices. The unit has established panels and external consultants who can conduct review projects, but it also uses in-house staff for the more complex business consulting assignments. It has self-assessment workshops to improve business processes and raise awareness of risk management among staff of agencies.
The unit has recently completed a recruitment process to secure staff who have the expertise to better deliver these services. Early in each financial year, the director of the unit aims to meet with each CEO to discuss the past year’s program, the program in the year to come and any issues that need resolution. This has been very useful as it raises the profile of the services and ensures that they are aligned with what each CEO requires. Risk Management Services is now in a better position to assist CEOs to meet their accountability under the Financial Management Act to have an adequate internal capacity. At times, demand by agencies will exceed the capacity of the unit, in which case it is most important that the focus be on the top priority risk areas.
I now turn to the finding of the Auditor-General that the economic benefit of the government’s commitment to the V8 Supercar Race has not been reliably determined. Hidden Valley Promotions, a 100% government owned company, was established in 1997 to represent the Territory government for the staging of the Territory’s inaugural round of the V8 Supercars held in Darwin on the weekend of 17 to 19 July 1998. The Darwin round is one of 13 of the national V8 Supercar Championship Series. The Australian V8 Supercar Company this year has taken the championship to New Zealand, and there are plans to take a round of the V8 Supercars to Asia by 2003. The Asian round would add very significant economic value to our local economy.
The Australian V8 Supercar Company has confirmed that they will use Darwin as the launch pad to Asia, effectively lengthening the Darwin stay of their 800-strong personnel who make up the travelling V8 Supercar Championship. ASCO consider that the long term commitment with the Territory government through the V8 Supercar event is essential in establishing a round in Asia. In April this year, an agreement was reached between the Territory government and ASCO which secured the V8 Supercar championship until 2007. Economic impact studies, prepared by Peter Anderson of Australian Research Associates during the 1998-99 V8 Supercars, indicated that the event was achieving remarkable awareness among Territorians. The impact statement indicated a gross expenditure ranging between a high of $2.7m to a low of $1.3m.
Now, moving on to the Alice Springs Convention Centre, I would like to touch on another topic commented on by the Auditor-General. In relation to the Alice Springs Convention Centre, the Auditor-General found that the performance goals and a performance measurement system had not been established to show if the Centre will contribute to the Alice in Ten project. It is well known that convention centres were themselves not commercially viable. However, it was expected to provide benefits to the wider community of Alice Springs and it has been supported by the Alice Springs community. It is seen as positively contributing to the objectives set for the face of Alice Springs in Ten Years project, otherwise known as Alice in Ten.
The objectives for the Alice Springs Convention Centre, as developed by the Alice in Ten Project Committee, are to stimulate economic growth in the region generally, in particular strengthen the identity of Alice Springs as a tourist destination and provide job opportunities, particularly for the youth of Alice Springs. Measures for the convention centre objectives will be formally agreed upon and systems to capture that information will also be developed. Once the convention centre is operating, measures should provide appropriate performance information to assess the contribution of the centre in meeting the objectives of Alice in Ten in terms of effectiveness, and when related to the government’s financial support for the project in terms of efficiency.
I thank the Auditor-General for his efforts, his opinions and his recommendations. They will certainly be given serious consideration by this government. We took seriously the Auditor-General’s recommendations when we were in opposition and certainly think that his office is a vital part of accountable government in the Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in relation to the Auditor-General, and particularly positive comments and his commitment that there would be 10 on that side of the Chamber watching and reading with interest each of the Auditor-General’s reports, and a commitment that they would indeed be following them up. It is an interesting change of attitude from what we saw previously from the government, although I do not include the Leader of the Opposition in that because I do recall him as Chief Minister responding to concerns put in the Auditor-General’s report on those occasions that the reports came into the parliament, unlike many of his ministers who disregarded them for most of the 11 years that I have spent in this Chamber on the opposition benches.
So it is refreshing to see a change of attitude on so many fronts, including, as we have heard over the last two days, a remarkable interest in unions and what their views might be. And some concern for single mothers. I do not know that I have ever heard concern for single mothers from the CLP in this parliament, again, over the almost 11 years in opposition. But I welcome that new widespread view that the opposition is taking in the Northern Territory. They recognise already in opposition their need to be far more inclusive than they were as a government, a very tired government, at the end of an almost 27 year rule. One of the key things that led to their defeat was that they had become so exclusive and increasingly so, particularly over the last four or five years, that eventually Territorians had had enough of them.
So if that is a conscious decision by the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition to be more inclusive, we welcome it. I note that he has failed to sustain the interests already on behalf of his 10 colleagues in the Auditor-General’s report. It seems to have been a rather short lived commitment, but unable as I am to comment on the presence or otherwise of members in the Chamber, I will leave that unstated. It was a commitment that lasted for about the six minutes that it took him to comment on the report.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Auditor-General’s report and to discuss particularly the associated comments about Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority’s performance management systems to support railway training. The Auditor-General commented on a working document entitled Employment and Training Initiatives for Support Jobs Created by the Railway. The audit found that the agency needed to continue work on the document and translate its outcome objectives into measurable performance indictors to regularly assess whether the strategies employed are achieving outcome objectives, and how achievement of outcome objectives will be reported to stakeholders in response. I can advise that performance indicators have been linked to objectives, monitoring of effectiveness of strategies through monthly reports by client liaison officers in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek is in place, and systems to report achievements are being established. I join with my colleague the Chief Minister in commending the work of the Auditor-General.
I take the opportunity to wish him a Happy Christmas and a refreshing break so that he is back on deck in the new year continuing to monitor the activities of government as he has for so long.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, the August 2001 report of the Auditor-General was tabled in this House during the October sittings. The report provides details of two audits undertaken by the Auditor-General within what was then known as Territory Health Services. The audits were of the Alice Springs Hospital capital works program and managing social policy delivery for disability services. The purpose of the audit regarding the Alice Springs Hospital was to establish that the government’s total asset management principles have been followed in the Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment project. The key finding by the Auditor-General was that the Alice Springs hospital redevelopment is being managed in accordance with a master plan and the government’s total asset management guidelines. There were no other issues raised in the audit report.
The purpose of the audit regarding disability services was to determine whether the performance management systems in my department enabled management to assess whether the government’s policy objectives in relation to disability services are being achieved effectively and with regard to efficiency and economy. In his report the Auditor-General detailed three key audit findings, the first finding stating that during 2000-01, my department did not have in place systems to capture, measure and report performance information in terms of the performance indicators established for the key result areas identified in the Disability Services Five Year Strategic Plan 1997-2001.
As I stated earlier today in my ministerial report on the disability forums, disability is an extremely complex area which this government will prioritise. I was very alarmed to read the comments in the Auditor-General’s report and have discussed them with my department. Regarding the inadequate reporting mechanisms within the disability program, my department has acknowledged that there have been issues with reporting in the past. Together we have moved to rectify this problem. Recently we held two consultation workshops with the non-government service providers, one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin, with the aim of improving data collection so that we are able to comply with national requirements and in the future meet the Auditor-General’s very necessary reporting requirements.
The second issue raised in the Auditor-General’s report was that rather than report on outcomes, performance reporting in Territory Health Services Annual Report for 1999-2000 is mostly the listing of outputs such as the achievement of specific projects and tasks undertaken. Against this funding, the department has advised that since the Auditor-General’s report, program and action plans have been developed across the department including for disabilities which will ensure that future reporting meets the Auditor-General’s requirements.
The final finding by the Auditor-General stated that Territory Health Services is developing new disability services program plans and action plans to guide the agency after 2001. These plans identify the objectives and actions to be achieved although these are not expressed in clearly measurable terms as had the key results areas in the 1997-2001 plan. The department is addressing this issue and the CEO will be reporting back to me regarding this matter.
I share the Auditor-General’s interest in ensuring that government activities are outcome focussed. I am taking a close interest in the development of the new reporting arrangements which should enable government to be confident that the department is achieving its objectives and intended outcomes and is able to report on its activities accordingly.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the Auditor-General, I take this opportunity to advise the findings of the report, in particular audit findings in relation to financial assistance to industry and findings in relation to policy and management processes for the then Department of Industries and Business Major Projects Unit in the former Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
My department, through the Territory government, provides a variety of grants and other financial assistance to industry and business, in particular through the former Department of Industries and Business, peak industry associations are supported with operational funding, sponsorship and award events and individual Territory businesses are assisted financially from the department’s Industry Development Fund. For example, the enterprise improvement program, Business Growth, is an innovative package of assistance programs specifically structured to meet the unique needs of Territory business, and the Export Marketing Assistance Scheme is designed to assist small Territory businesses and industry groups to pursue and or increase export opportunities.
In addition, loans have been provided to businesses affected by the Katherine floods in 1998. These loans were provided under the National Natural Disaster Relief arrangements. Other loans have also been provided to businesses to assist in the Territory’s development.
The current Northern Territory loans management system is being modified. The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development have held discussions with the Territory Loans Management Advisory Committee to improve the current system so it provides useful data to enable proper management of the entire loans portfolio. It is hoped the revised system will meet loan management requirements and be in place in early 2002.
A manual for all of the above programs covering existing policies, internal guidelines and procedures is also in the process of being developed. Performance measurement indicators are now contained in all offers of financial assistance. These indicators are generally aimed at financial viability and the ongoing positive benefits to the Territory economy. Due to the variety of grants and loans programs identified, the department is unable to standardise the performance measurement indicators. In the past, the former Department of Industries and Business identified funds drawn down during the reporting period. Commencing with the annual report for the last financial year, the department now provides more comprehensive details of the financial assistance provided. This includes details of the impact of grants provided over more than one reporting period.
The Auditor-General’s findings relevant to performance management systems audits addressed two areas of my portfolio. This included the management of implementing the fisheries policies. I have been advised that the Fisheries Division will be implementing the identified improvements for 2002-03 and will include clear links between the outcomes for NT Fisheries sought by government, the outputs agreed with Fisheries in the performance against those outputs.
In addition, the Major Projects Unit within the former Department of Industries and Business was identified. This unit consists of one full time person who, in support of his activities, utilises resources provided from elsewhere in the department including regional offices in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. In response, it should be remembered that the unit was established at a time of considerable uncertainty and delays in financial closure and great care was taken not to waste valuable resources until the project was well defined. It was also important to have the unit work with the business community in a way that did not unreasonably raise their expectations of opportunities that might present themselves.
The role of securing business opportunities from the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway was part of the Defence, Tourism Infrastructure and Major Projects Support Group which had prepared a detailed business plan which included components of major project support work. Given the nature of the tasks undertaken, the unit prepared a detailed action plan which was very specific in the tasks that were to be achieved and the timeframe in which those tasks had to be completed. A report against the progress of each of these tasks was prepared monthly and provided to the minister at the time and currently, and used as a management tool to ensure that activities were properly targeted and being completed in a timely fashion.
While I concede that there were no performance measurements as such for the unit, the action plan clearly identified what was being done and who was responsible for its completion. I would agree that the next step of physically tying the action plan to the outcomes detailed in the unit’s business plan was not completed. However, I believe that this was not a significant issue and I am confident that the activities undertaken by the unit actively contributed to the objectives of the unit. The unit continues to work diligently at linking opportunities for the construction of the railway to local capability through a proactive facilitation role in ensuring that information is readily available to the private sector and that business capabilities are properly registered on the NTISO database.
I will undertake to ensure that the Chief Executive Officer implements appropriate policies and monitoring processes to address the issues raised by the Auditor-General. Certainly, from opposition it was a very valuable reporting process. In government, as a minister I give the Auditor-General this undertaking: I do take his comments seriously. It is always important to look for continuing improvements, continuing processes within government agencies to actually meet stated outcome objectives. I congratulate him on his report and I look forward to continuing to receive reports on agencies for which I am responsible and to work with those agencies to continue to further improve efficiencies and outcomes based initiatives which we all strive to achieve as ministers.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s August 2001 report. Let me say that I have the utmost respect for the integrity and professionalism of our Auditor-General. In my opinion, he has been a voice crying in the wilderness in relation to his continued calls for greater transparency and accountability in the previous government.
It was quite upsetting for me to go through a number of the Auditor-General’s previous reports and see some of the responses that had been written to him by a couple of government departments who were very dismissive of some valid points that he was raising. The difference now is that this government is listening, and we are responsive to calls for greater transparency. Hence, our introduction of freedom of information legislation and fiscal transparency legislation.
I would like to turn to some of the main elements of the Auditor-General’s report. Like the Auditor-General, I am very concerned about inadequate internal audit capacity in many of the agencies. That was on page 14 of his report. I was shocked to learn from a number of external auditors that neither Territory Health Services nor the NT Education Department have had an internal audit in over two years. This information came from external auditors in this town who told me this, and they were as shocked as I was about it. To define the importance of an internal audit, I will use a definition used within the government’s own accounting and property manual, where it says:
Returning to the information that two of our major agencies had not undergone an internal audit in two years, I found it to be absolutely amazing. Here are two major agencies – health, with an annual expenditure of somewhere around $440m, and education with an expenditure of approximately $350m per year - that had not undergone an internal audit in over two years. That is nearly $1.6bn of public money over two years not undergoing an internal audit.
This is not only a disgrace, but contrary to Financial Management Act which requires departments to have an annual internal audit. Where were the ministers of these departments in all of this? They had gone missing, of course. One of the major findings of the Auditor-General’s report was to heavily question the probity of the transfer of funds by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine, from the Conditions of Service Trust into the budget scope. I will quote directly from the Auditor-General:
The question is: under the Uniform Presentation Framework, what would have been the estimated result of the 2000-01 financial year? The Auditor-General emphatically, and I think authoritatively, states that the real estimated deficit for the 2000-01 year under this framework was in reality $149m.
In essence, I believe that the Auditor-General highlights the way in which the previous government expected to write its own accounting rules when it plundered reserves to prop up its profligate spending - and profligate spenders they were, as demonstrated by the crocodile jaws!
Finally, the Auditor-General points to a need for systems to identify, assess and report performance outcomes in measurable terms and that these have still not generally been developed. This was something that the previous government seemed completely disinterested in. In contrast, this is something that we will pursue over the next four years.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act, disapprove the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001 - Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I will speak briefly to my motion.
I was very disappointed when I saw the Remuneration Tribunal report because this new government had indicated that we did not want to see any pay rises or any increases in allowances, particularly at this time of our economic cycle. We are facing tough times in the Territory and I really felt it was inappropriate to have pay increases for office holders at this time, and also increases in electorate allowances. When I received the report and realised that yes, there had been a small increase to office holders and electorate allowances had received an increase, I thought it was inappropriate. I think that every member of this House would also recognise how inappropriate that was at a tough time when we have brought down a mini-budget that does have revenue raising measures in it, that does have saving measures in it, and we are asking Territorians right across the board to look at tough times because of the economic situation we inherited, then it simply was inappropriate for politicians to be getting pay increases, either personally or in their electorate allowances.
Another issue that we were disappointed about was travelling allowances, that when you go interstate there is a difference between if you stay commercially and when you stay privately but that is not reflected when you come to Darwin. There is still the full allowance allowed when you are here in Darwin, and it should be commensurate with that reduced one, as it is when you go interstate. That is something we argued strongly with the tribunal and yet again, it was not reflected. On those three issues, I was very disappointed.
There are other issues in this tribunal report. For example, that you cannot go and buy the contents of your electorate office when, as we saw …
Mr Henderson: Plunder them.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, plunder is a better word, when you lose office. It has been an outrage and it has cost the Assembly tens of thousands of dollars to refurbish. I think Madam Speaker is indicating it is more than tens of thousands - a lot of money to refurbish those offices. We need to accept that the vehicle is an electorate vehicle, that the furniture is electorate furniture and so are things like PCs. It is unacceptable that you can be allowed to, at a rather devalued cost, clear out your offices if you go. That was one recommendation we certainly support and the capping of overseas travel, another recommendation.
But in the balance of it, I think that we need to revisit these Remuneration Tribunal recommendations. We would like to see those submissions happen again. It is important that what happens in the Tribunal Determination reflects our current economic circumstances, and any increase for office holders is unacceptable. I certainly hope that this move to disallow the Remuneration Tribunal report is supported in a bipartisan way.
Mr REED (Katherine): Yes, the opposition, indeed, does support the disallowance of the determination that has been proposed. The tribunal is an independent operation in terms of its deliberations and final report. Of course, the tribunal considers other areas in addition to members’ conditions.
The circumstance that the Chief Minister tried to convey yesterday, that is being magnanimous and knocking back a salary rise was a touch theatrical from the point of view of the Chief Minister. She did not do it because she thought it was a good idea. She did it for the very political reason that having reached into every Territorian’s pocket for $90, it was untenable from the point of view of her government, approving this determination report. That is the real reason behind it. Having said that, I think that it is an appropriate course of action to take under the circumstances, and that is why the opposition supports it.
In terms of some of the other matters that the honourable Chief Minister referred to, some of the conditions, I would remind her that in years past the then opposition, that is the ALP in this House, supported these determinations and the improvement of them over time. Whilst somewhat veiled, the Chief Minister’s comments suggesting that these things were quite nasty and that they have never had anything to do with them is quite wrong. The fact is that the then opposition did support in the main the changes over the years, and rightly so because that’s what the determination is for.
What I would like to have heard from the Chief Minister was what the government now proposes, having rejected this determination. I assume now that what will happen is that will be referred back to the tribunal, the tribunal will then in term call for comments again from members and the process will be repeated, basically.
I thank the Chief Minister for acknowledging a yes across the Chamber. From that point of view, all members will have an opportunity to again put suggestions to the tribunal. My recollection of what happens under these circumstances is that the existing determination would continue and it would be the current arrangements that would apply to existing members until such time as a revised determination subsequently comes forward because of the rejection of it tonight.
Madam Speaker, having had that clarified across the floor, I thank the government for that advice. We support that course of action.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, just to be absolutely clear on this, it was just deemed cleaner not to accept the report tonight although there are aspects of that report that are very positive and government would be keen to see in place. But it is just deemed that it is a cleaner process. We will go through the process again. Submissions will be called for and members will have the right to make submissions to the tribunal.
I was concerned that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was inferring that - I am not quite sure what he was inferring - but we appreciate the work that the tribunal has done over the years and make no secret of the fact that we accepted those determinations over the years on that side of the Chamber. It is just that was deemed inappropriate at this time, but in relation to other aspects of the report, we would have been happy to accept them out of the report tonight; it just looked like a bit of a messy process as to what we were accepting and what we weren’t.
Rather, start again and put our submissions back to the tribunal. The Deputy Leader is quite right. I think he understands very clearly where we are and I thank the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Just to clarify that, the status quo remains. The current determination remains and yes, the Legislative Assembly, myself and the Clerk made representations to the Remuneration Tribunal and there were aspects of that report that we would hope would remain, so we will wait and see what will happen.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 14 October.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in relation to this legislation, I can understand the government’s reasons for pursuing this. I am concerned, though, that the Office of the Public Service Commissioner and the commissioner fulfil a very important role in terms of the public sector in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the Commissioner for Public Employment is the employer of all public servants and he oversees their operations and well-being and has always had an independent statutory role in relation to the responsibilities of that office.
As a former public employee, I have a little bit of knowledge as to how it operates and the value of it. Then, more recently as a minister, I have had on occasions to be directly involved with the Commissioner for Public Employment in relation to some very sensitive matters. Whilst I am not going to identify what those matters were or any individuals, quite rightly, can I just say that I am concerned that the government intends, it would seem, if not to eliminate, to reduce the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment. If that is the case, it worries me greatly.
For example, if the office were to be merged into another department, and if that is the case I guess the logical one to place it into would be the Department of Chief Minister, you really do then have to question the independence of the commissioner and his powers and his duties to all public employees. If I could use the example of - and it doesn’t happen often, but since self-government there have been a couple of occasions when senior officers - on some occasions, I guess even departmental heads - have had to come under scrutiny and they have been, on some occasions, very serious matters and on some occasions there have been people in elevated positions within agencies who have found themselves to be unemployed or in quite serious circumstances because of those investigations.
My point to the minister is that if that were to be the case, that they are going to place it in, for example, the Department of Chief Minister, the independence and ability of the Commissioner of Public Employment to investigate matters of this kind would be severely constrained. It might never happen that the Commissioner for Public Employment would have to investigate a senior officer or the Head of the Department of the Chief Minister, but in the event that it did happen - and we can’t say that it will never happen - I would be concerned about the ability for the commissioner to investigate those matters, not being an independent office but one of that agency or whatever agency the Commissioner for Public Employment and his staff were melded into, that the investigations would be able to proceed not unheeded, but without any fear of cross-fertilisation of the issues in terms of not having full and total independence.
It is an essential part of the commissioner’s role in relation to that. It is a role that must care for all of the public sector employees, and in doing so, in my view, has to be independent so it is important that these matters are both considered and preserved in terms of where this might lead us.
I hope the minister might have taken these matters into consideration and be aware of the importance of them. There is a very important distinction between saving money because you can weave an agency into another and the gains in efficiencies, but those efficiencies amount to nothing if they detract from the protection of public employees, to the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and the ability for issues to be dealt with in an absolutely independent and impartial way. And it would be, I think, a most retrograde step if the current minister were to oversee a change of that kind. I don’t think that the savings would be substantial. I am not convinced that they would warrant such a change, and I am sure that the loss of the independence and the ability of the commissioner without fear to investigate matters or to take up issues on behalf of employees would be lessened and that would be very serious.
So, I hope that these matters have been given thorough consideration by the Cabinet and that is not the intent of this legislation because the public service would suffer in terms of the independence of its employer and the ability of that employer, being the commissioner, to be able to treat what are very sensitive issues in relation to circumstances that sometimes public servants find themselves in. The intriguing thing about those types of matters is that - and I guess the Office of Public Employment suffers from this - unless you are directly involved with it, you really never hear about it. They are things that happen behind the scenes by the very nature of the issues. They are not the sorts of things that you would want brought out in public not because of an embarrassment factor, but because the person who has either complained or considers that they have had ill treatment cast upon them or for whatever reason they have to be consulting the office of the commissioner, they are necessarily matters of privacy, and the integrity of that process has be maintained at all costs.
That brings me back in the circuitous argument to the costs which I don’t see there as being sufficient to warrant any change of that kind. There would be a serious imposition in my view in the operations of the commissioner and his office in the ability to be able to fairly, equitably and without fear look after the interests of all public sector employees.
We shouldn’t be misled. The public sector is no different from any other in terms of comparing it with the private sector in that issues do arise. The fact is there has to be a mechanism to deal with those issues. The one that is in place has dealt with them very effectively. I know that there are some sectors of the public service that might want to see some changes, but I would implore the government to maintain the status quo and to ensure that the long, proven and very successful work done by the Commissioner for Public Employment and his office and his staff remain in place and that all public servants have full confidence in the fact that the office is entirely independent and without fear or favour, you can approach the office if you do find yourself in a position that you have an issue that you require to either discuss with someone or have investigated. That capacity, I think, would be very much diminished if the agency was absorbed into another.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague in reference to accepting and respecting the right of government to legislate, also the right to readjust and realign departments as they see fit. But I must speak from the point of view of opposition. Our role is not simply to oppose, but to seriously scrutinise with a mind on the other side of the argument which I believe my colleague has articulated well.
The issue of independence is sacred in this equation. We stand to represent, through the public service, the service and the aspects of morale, the aspects of integrity, must always be of the highest order. So I will be listening with interest, needing to be persuaded that the independence would not be compromised in any respect.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendments, and I would also hope that during the course of my discussion here to put to rest the concerns raised by the member for Katherine and the member for Blain. This government does value the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, does value public sector employees but it is aware of the framework of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, and it knows that there is great comfort in there for its government employees.
I, too, have a recent history of dealing with the commissioner’s office and perhaps in this House, I have the most recent experience with them. Let me say that I found that the office of the commissioner to be one which is staffed by very professional people who provide quality service to their constituency of the public sector, and there is no way, there is no way that this government would look to devalue that role or to jeopardise that role. I believe that this amendment that we are going through now will actually enhance the role.
These amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act are an important adjunct to the successful structural changes which this government has introduced to the Northern Territory Public Service. The amendment is consistent with the government’s desire to consider the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment in the revitalisation of the Territory’s flagging training and skills development sector. For too long, Northern Territory governments have sat back and hoped that somehow labour market forces will blindly fill the skill shortages which beset industries and occupations across the Territory. They’ve sat back and just watched as good jobs for chefs, for skilled tradespeople, for construction workers have gone begging and been filled by contract workers from down south while their own children and citizens have been unable to fill the jobs because of the lack of appropriate skills training which, in turn, is reflected in the absence of effective forward planning by government in the areas of education and training.
In my own experience, as I mentioned earlier on, similar problems have occurred in the public sector in certain occupational areas such as teaching and nursing. We need to refocus our energies in these areas. We need to establish the best and most effective linkages between our education and training system and the ultimate end gain: jobs for Territorians. This is why we have included the employment function in the new Department of Employment, Education and Training. It is also why we need to carefully examine the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the new department. Many of the activities of the OCPE relate either directly or indirectly to general employment matters including:
The statutory position of the Commissioner for Public Employment will remain unaffected by these amendments. The commissioner will remain the public service employer with the duties and responsibilities which attach to any good employer in that context. However, the amendments free up the capacity of the government to identify, harness and develop the many potential synergies and opportunities which the creation of the new Department of Employment, Education and Training contains and to which the staff and skills of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment may contribute. It is perhaps only a small step in that process but it is a necessary step, and one which this House should support.
I would also like to speak quickly in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again , it is all about providing a structure which makes the best use of resources. As the minister stated earlier, the independence of the DPP is preserved by statute and the functions of the office will remain separate from the government of the day so that decisions on things like whether and how to prosecute matters will remain the sole province of the DPP. The new structure of the Department of Justice is in line with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions including South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland and we expect it to deliver similar improvements to our justice system over time.
Madam Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to specifically speak on the amendments that affect the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions just to make clear our position on that as regards the continued independence of that office and of the work that it does. The two amendments that we have before us in Schedule No 2 have two effects. The reference to the DPP in Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is removed. This amendment reflects the fact that he is no longer a CEO for the purposes of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The second amendment which is to section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act will ensure that the CEO of the Justice Department can make delegations to the DPP to enable the DPP to continue to make decisions on matters such as his staffing, promotions and other administrative matters like travel and finance.
The creation of the new Justice Department has not affected the independence of the DPP. No matter what administrative arrangements are in place for the operation of the prosecution service, the independent exercise of the director’s powers, functions and independence is guaranteed under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. It is probably worth reading some of the key areas of that act which enshrine that independence:
Section 27 – Consultation.
Section 28 – Directions by Attorney-General.
That is a very important one, Madam Speaker. It is basically saying I can’t reach in to any particular case that the DPP has on its books and give any direction whatsoever to the Director regarding that case.
That is pretty clear. There are also very stringent conditions under which the director can be either removed from office, and basically they are as a result of grave misbehaviour being proven or temporary illness, the usual things that you would find, bankruptcy and insolvency. The act is there. It is extant. We are not moving in any way to penetrate that act and amend it. That is the guarantee of the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his own person.
As I have said, no matter what administrative arrangements are in place, that office is protected by this act as an independent office. The government recognises that the independent position of the Director of Public Prosecutions is of paramount importance. Prosecutorial decisions such as whether or how to prosecute matters must remain separate from the government of the day. I am personally a passionate believer in the separation of powers and I have done all in my power since I came to my position as Attorney-General to remove political influence on legal processes where I have the capacity to do it. I have great respect for the Office of the DPP. In fact, I am wearing the office’s tie which was presented to me yesterday by the director himself, and I am very pleased and proud to wear it.
Mr Henderson: And we gave them more money.
Dr TOYNE: I will get to that. The DPP, Mr Rex Wild QC, is one of the most experienced lawyers in the Northern Territory. His contribution to the proper administration of justice here cannot be emphasised enough, particularly as he has held office as the director during some of the most turbulent times for the justice system of the Northern Territory under the former government. This arrangement is not novel. Similar arrangements exist in other jurisdictions including South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland and we are looking at administration arrangements in those other jurisdictions to see if there are any that we should consider.
Under the previous CLP government, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was a critical element and remains a critical element of the Territory’s justice system, was chronically underfunded. Year after year the DPP’s annual reports highlighted the extra work being done by his office and yet the funding allocations did not keep pace. The CLP was aware of the serious problem but did nothing about it. Its inaction put at risk the capacity of the Office of the DPP to deliver its critical prosecutorial functions. This government inherited that issue and as well as inheriting a very tight budgetary situation.
Honourable members, I am very pleased to call attention to the figures in Budget Paper No 2 of the recent mini-budget. Notwithstanding the huge financial pressures we are facing, the base funding of the Office of the DPP has been increased by $0.89m. Now even with the savings and efficiency cuts, the DPP is $748 000 better off than before we got into government. He now has a significant pressure taken off his office. He now has a resource base by which he can fully perform his work. What that translates into is extra people within the office.
I will summarise succinctly the situation as regards the DPP at the moment: his independence is protected by a specific act of parliament which is not to be amended in any way. I give that undertaking publicly and on Hansard today. We are not going to move against this act. The only change to the act would be one initiated by the DPP himself if he so chose to do, arguing some deficiency as far as he is concerned. For our part, there are no plans and there will be no amendment to that act initiated by this government.
Second, I indicated earlier in the media and in other forums and, indeed, to the Director of Public Prosecutions himself and his senior staff yesterday, that we are prepared to let’s say horse trade the administrative arrangements between he and the CEO of the Justice Department, Richard Coates. The two, the CEO for Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions, have had several quite constructive discussions already. The purpose of the first part of the amendment we have before us is to allow, under section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, for a CEO of a department to delegate to a person appointed to an office under an act the administration of the provisions of which is allotted to his or her agency. In plain terms, that says that Richard Coates as the CEO of the Justice Department can delegate any number of functions as he sees fit directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Richard and Rex Wild are talking through that at the moment, and there is quite a wide ranging set of delegations that will be possible once this amendment is placed into the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
We believe that administrative arrangement plus the independence that is guaranteed under the Director of Public Prosecution Act is sufficient guarantee and indeed replicates the degree of independence that the office has enjoyed since its inception.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - let us be very plain about this - has always had a relationship with the Territory government, has always fallen, to a degree, to the normal budgetary processes by which a government allocates its resources to the different functional areas of government. There is certainly an annual budgetary allocation given to the Office of the DPP, and I alluded to that in the earlier part of this statement. To the extent that that could be seen as an influence over the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his office to freely take decisions about particular activities, we have removed, significantly, any pressure that may have been due to budgetary constraints or the budgetary decisions of government. We have actually given them a resource base that now allows them to expand out to the full range of their intended activities without fear or favour from the government. We have guaranteed that as a base level of funding, so it is an allowable expectation of the Director of Public Prosecutions that that base level of funding will continue into ensuing financial years. That has removed a very important influence of government on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Equally, there has always been a relationship to the activities of government as a whole regarding the processes of recruiting staff into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They are public servants under the meaning of the act, they are answerable to public service regulations of a more general nature for the propriety of what they are doing, and the expectations of what they are doing. This is not inserting a new public service influence within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been there for a considerable amount of time. It has always been part of the way it has operated.
Madam Speaker, let us not be misled by any commentary there has been on the issues to date. This is not bringing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way under increased influence from either politicians or the public service. It is simply continuing on a relationship that has been there for a considerable period of time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, can I say from the outset that I commend the member for Stuart for his thorough explanation of the proposed amendment and I thank him for the briefing which was arranged at relatively short notice relating to the amendment which landed upon us this morning. The comments he made about Rex Wild, I agree and support everything that he said. Rex Wild has done a fantastic job as the Director of Public Prosecutions and has a very important role in the judicial system.
I understand, I think, the mechanism which the member for Stuart has carefully taken honourable members through. But the difficulty is that there is a real need to ensure that there is a perception in the community’s mind that the prosecuting authority is indeed independent and is beyond reproach. With that comes real confidence that the instrumentality which determines whether a prosecution continues or what, if any charges are laid, is immune from political influence.
In the very late 1980s, I spent some time working during my university holidays for Crown Law as it then was. In a sense, we have gone a full circle now. In the old days it used to be Crown Law; it was very much a part of the Attorney-General’s Department. It was a larger department in any event and the prosecuting arm of it handled serious matters including all the police matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. After numerous conferences and, I understand, adopting a best-practice approach, it was decided that a completely independent instrumentality was the way to go. That occurred. Now there has been a change in government and now there is review of the administrative structure relating to the office of the DPP.
The difficulty is as much a procedural one, in my view, as a legal change in terms of the legislation, in the structure. Comments were made by the President of the Criminal Law Association of the Northern Territory on radio earlier this week to the effect that he had concerns that the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff was compromised and, indeed, the very conduct in the way this matter and the changes have been handled by the government have created a perception, certainly in some sectors of the wider community, that the independent office of the DPP is answerable in a roundabout way to a politically appointed CEO of the Ministry of Justice.
There are two limbs to this structure which the member for Stuart, as I said, very concisely walked the House through. We have, of course - and I do not quibble with that for a moment - the safeguards contained in the act that relate specifically to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his prosecutorial roles. However, the second limb is the weak link in this chain. This is the administrative support. We have heard an undertaking from the floor of the Chamber today that there is going to be an increase in funding and that will be welcomed and, I am sure, wisely spent. There is still nothing before the Chamber - there are certainly no safeguards apart from some very general comments about the administrative arrangement and the delegation which is going to occur from the CEO of Ministry of Justice to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It might be a case, in my view, that a way that this could have been handled better is if the precise terms of that delegation had been discussed and thoroughly worked through between the DPP and, of course, the CEO of the Ministry of Justice who, as I said, is not only a very political appointment, but secondly the head of the Legal Aid Commission. I have no doubt that there was, in an adversarial way certainly, a degree of competition between the head of the Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The concerns I have really relate to the process by which this has occurred and the fact that not every detail has been put to bed. I haven’t spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions directly in relation to this matter over the past couple of days. I understand there have been some meetings. That was obvious from the briefing I received earlier today, but I would be happier, and I would imagine many members of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory would be happy, if before we take this extra step and move the administrative arrangements into this horse trading phase - that is the phrase the member for Stuart used - those details were thoroughly put to bed and resolved.
Remember, the DPP is not an ordinary independent instrumentality. It is government funded, sure, but it is an office which makes decisions which will affect people’s liberty and ultimately make submissions as to the sanctions which should be imposed. That is why it is in a position to prosecute - historically, of course, a couple of members from this Chamber, members of the families of politicians and higher ranking public servants without fear or favour. There is absolutely no erosion in the public confidence when we have this completely independent body, which states publicly and makes all the right noises that it is independent, conducting these very sensitive prosecutions.
For those reasons, I am of the view that this legislation is a little premature until those administrative arrangements - that is, the exact terms of the Instrument of Delegation between the CEO of the Ministry of Justice, Richard Coates, and the Director himself, Rex Wild QC - are ratified and appropriately tabled in this House so that members of the public and the criminal lawyers association can also be satisfied that through that administrative way, there is absolutely no way that any influence can be brought to bear on the independent office.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Goyder, must be getting tired because I strongly oppose this bill and in particular the amendment in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I should say, though, that I endorse the comments made by the member for Goyder in relation to the Director, Mr Rex Wild QC, who we all agree has been a magnificent Director for some years.
Notwithstanding the spin the Attorney-General has put on this, it is a sneaky and dishonest amendment and the Attorney-General should hang his head in shame. At 10.10 this morning, the government gave us notice that it was going to get rid of the office of the DPP. We then had a quick briefing. This government hasn’t told anyone about this amendment. They pulled this swifty because they knew that the lawyers of the Northern Territory would be beside themselves with rage. They didn’t even have the courage to tell people before this morning what they were going to do. Make no mistake: this bill will get rid of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is abolishing the ODPP as a continuing agency and it will lose its status as an independent body.
The principal act, if anyone has bothered to look at it, provides a schedule for certain agencies to exist and to be separate from government. By removing the ODPP from this list, it takes it out of existence. It will not exist any more. It is as simple as that. There is no other way to look at it. I ask the question: why haven’t the lawyers of the Northern Territory, and in particular the criminal lawyers of the Northern Territory, been consulted about this? Why weren’t they asked about it before 10.10 this morning? Because they would have been furious. There is no way, and you know it, they would have accepted something like this laying down. This government is the ‘gunna’ government. It is gunna do this and it is gunna do that. Well, it wasn’t gunna do this prior to the election, was it? Hang your head in shame, Attorney.
You promised that you would consult everybody, the great basket weavers of consultation. They didn’t consult with anybody. I might say that it is really quite funny how life works out. The ALP’s big supporters, a group of leftie lawyers, had great faith in this government. This government has just shafted them. The ALP has courted leftie lawyers for years, and from memory when this government was in opposition, the Chief Minister, then Opposition Leader, wrote to the lawyers of the Territory asking, I think from memory, for financial assistance to the Labor party, such was their faith in their relationship with the lawyers of the Northern Territory. How do I know this? Because I got one, and so did the member for Goyder.
Ms Scrymgour: Give any money?
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up that interjection. No, I didn’t give them any money.
What’s funny about all this is that the lawyers backed the wrong horse. They would never have imagined that this government would introduce this bill as it applies to the ODPP. Now the CLP has been accused of many things both inside and outside this place, but it has never, ever tried to get rid of the ODPP and it would never have done so.
The Attorney-General can call this whatever he likes. Personally, I am saddened by this bill. I never thought I would see the day when this government in particular would bring a bill like this into this Chamber. Indeed, when the ALP was elected, I was philosophical about a Labor government. I thought: ‘Territorians have spoken’. I took it on the chin and I thought: ‘How much damage can they do in four years? Surely they can’t do anything very outrageous’. Well, they have and they have brought this bill into this place and they will forever stand condemned.
This government will lose its support base as a result of this bill and the government chose not to tell the lawyers that they were bringing in this amendment, and it didn’t consult with them. Don’t you think they are not going to be angry. They will be angry. You didn’t tell them, but you can rest assured that I will. Despite the briefing we had this morning, there are some disturbing implications arising from this bill that were not, curiously, outlined in the Attorney’s speech. For instance, under the principal act, the former CEO, Mr Wild QC, could write his Annual Report and he never had to worry about what the government thought. Now the report, presumably, will be written by the CEO of the Department of Justice, Mr Coates, the government’s friend. Don’t you think those annual reports will speak of the government in glowing terms? They will.
In addition, section 29 of the principal act provides that the former CEO, Mr Rex Wild QC, could appoint his own staff. That goes as well. That right that the director has to appoint and recruit his own staff, it goes. The government will say that it won’t interfere in this decision, but what if it does? The government needs to be aware that in delicate matters such as this, both perception and reality are matters that it must consider. The perception will be, and the perception is, that the authority of the director is undermined. The director’s staff, as a result of this bill, will be answerable to Richard Coates; they will not be answerable to the director. The government can promise that it will have a hands off approach to these types of decisions, that is, the appointment of staff, the recruitment of staff. The government may even give an assurance that it won’t interfere, but what if the government changes its mind? Of course, the government could change its mind. Where is the guarantee that the government won’t interfere in the recruitment and appointment of administrative as well as professional staff? It was not apparent in anything that the Attorney-General said. It is not provided for in any way, shape or form, and that is symptomatic of the way in which the government has introduced this amendment; it has not given it sufficient consideration and it should have. These are the ones that got off on the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers. They went on and on and on.
I am sorry, Attorney-General, for being a purist, and I note with interest that you were, too, prior to getting into government. This bill gives the government the power to appoint lawyers, and we have seen, haven’t we, the sacking of the former CEO of the Attorney-General’s Department. We know that if the government doesn’t like you or if you are out of favour with the government, you’re gone; you have your marching orders. So we can expect that this government will have something to say about the staff. It will recruit and appoint who should ordinarily have been chosen by the director, as is his right and privilege. No government should have its hands anywhere near the DPP, particularly this government. It shouldn’t have its sticky paws anywhere near it.
There are ways around the issues raised in the second-reading speech in relation to - I think it was Section 27 of the act. Now the Attorney-General wouldn’t know this, but his advisors do. This lazy government hasn’t even bothered to put in a fair dinkum amendment. It has just come up with a flimsy one liner at 10.10 this morning saying: ‘Here is our amendment’. Well, think about it, Mr Attorney-General and for God’s sake tell your advisors to give it some consideration.
Last month when this bill was introduced, the government signalled that one out of six agencies was to be removed from the schedule of the principal act. That was a month ago. This morning, two out of six will go. Territorians should be very concerned about what’s going to happen next month and the month after that.
Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, I strongly oppose this bizarre bill. It is an argument the government will win because of its numbers, but you’ve just lost half of your support base.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I did enjoy that contribution. I thought at some point the member for Araluen would contribute in a forceful fashion to this Chamber. I did appreciate her contribution tonight because she believes, or she convinced me that she believes, in her arguments. But there are a couple of things that I do want to pick up, particularly in relation to the fact that we have sort of snuck this in here on the last night of sittings without telling anyone.
The inclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go into the Department of Justice was announced on 13 November as part of the agency restructures. That is 16 days ago so it is hardly a secret. It is out there. People have been talking about it. If you didn’t pick up the announcement on 13 November, I am sorry, but it has been out there for a while.
I was particularly taken with the contribution by the member for Katherine because he also spoke in a very genuine fashion. As a former minister with responsibility for the public sector and a close working relationship with the Commissioner for Public Employment of the day, he well understood the role of the commissioner, the very difficult role and the sensitivities that the commissioner, by nature of the job, sometimes has to stray into. He argued quite eloquently for this measure of independence to be retained for the Commissioner for Public Employment.
It was a rather unusual debate in the sense that the member for Katherine argued for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. The member for Goyder I don’t know was all that sold on the question, and the member for Araluen quite strongly argued for the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
What both members missed, although the member for Katherine did refer to it himself, in terms of the Commissioner for Public Employment, is the independent statutory role. It doesn’t matter where you place them, they have their role, their functions, protected by statute. In terms of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whether they decide to appeal, whether they decide to proceed with a prosecution, these decisions are all protected.
Let me go to the staffing situation and that goes to the heart of the amendment, to section 27. This was a concern in terms of the independence. We knew the role and functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are well protected by statute, but that is not the only way you might get at someone. You may get at them by denying them resources, undermining the quality or the number of officers they have working for them. They make a decision that the CEO of Justice doesn’t like, so the CEO of Justice says: ‘Well, you are not going to get that position filled, or we are going to take staff from you, or sorry about those two cars that you were going to have get around the courts, you’re not getting them’. This is very clearly the intent of section 27, the amendment that we have to process in the committee stage tonight and, again, I think you’ve missed this point that the Attorney-General did cover in his contribution, and that is that the CEO of Justice is empowered under this amendment tonight to delegate all of those powers to the director. So the director in his own right, under the powers of delegation from the CEO, has all of those powers and can’t be got at and can’t be undermined in terms of resources, in terms of staffing, the right to hire and fire.
I go right back to the start of this. Let’s deal with the Commissioner for Public Employment first because they really are two different entities in our system, although both are similarly protected by statute in terms of the functions and the roles that they have. We had a position paper out, I think probably 18 months, two years before the election that we would create a Department of Employment and Training. The creation of that department was going to be brought about by bringing Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment together. That was our position all of the way through up until the election. It was only with the major restructure of agencies announced on 13 November where we finished up with the Department of Education, Employment and Training which forced us to revisit this question of where the Commissioner for Public Employment should go and whether it now was appropriate to still go into the department of what is now Education, Employment and Training where our policy position before had been to place it within Employment and Training.
What we did by putting this bill in a month ago was simply take the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment out of that Schedule 1 which gave it its independent agency basis and its CEO. We still at that stage, and still tonight as I speak, haven’t made that decision if it is to go into another agency or if it is to remain outside with its own CEO. All this amendment does in the first place is give us that facility. We can recreate the agency, recreate the independent CEO in the form of the Commissioner for Public Employment by Administrative Arrangement Order. There are two ways you can do it: you can do it by schedule; you can do it by Administrative Arrangement Orders.
There are questions about the independence despite the statutory nature of the role of the Commissioner for Public Employment. There probably are questions about the independence in terms of the decision making that they have, the role they have in terms of grievances, in terms of industrial relations and in terms of everything they do as the employer of the public service and public servants. There are questions about their independence if they were to sit in another agency and not be the CEO of that agency. That is something that we need to consider - how that may be managed if it is at all possible to be managed.
But it is a very different question with the Director of Public Prosecutions when they are going into the Department of Justice. Okay, they are no longer a CEO of their own agency, but they are empowered by the amendment here tonight - this amendment empowers the CEO to delegate all of those resource functions, those management functions, those CEO type functions in relation to all of the resources that they need. For all of those decisions, they have that power.
The other point I wanted to make was the member for Katherine, despite the fact that I appreciated most of what he had to say, said that there wouldn’t be that much to save in terms of the Office of Commissioner of Public Employment going into an agency and he is probably quite right. This was not about saving money in relation to this position. It was much more about harnessing and developing the skills and trying to attain synergies in relation to what the employer of the public service has and does and the Department of Training and Employment overall.
The strongest point that the member for Araluen raised was the question of perception because that’s all that is involved here. It is only a matter of perception. There is no weakening, there is no erosion of the rights and powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions simply by relocating them within the Department of Justice. I don’t doubt that the member for Araluen could whip up a storm fairly quickly out in the legal world by running the line that this government – well, I think she got a little bit over the top when she said we had sort of abolished the office. I think that might have been going a little bit too far, and that may be a bit hard to sell out there because people would still see Rex Wild about in the streets and would still understand that despite these changes, he is still the Director of Public Prosecutions. But she probably could whip up quite a storm about perceptions because perceptions don’t have to be based on fact, as we all know.
I appreciate the concerns and I believe the member is genuine in her concerns. I don’t know that I can say to much more other than to say roles, functions and decision making are protected by statute. No one can touch it. In terms of the independence of resourcing the office, how many staff they have, what level, what they do, the quality, the vehicles, the airconditioning, the phones, the communication systems, all delegated from the CEO.
I can’t see the difference between being an independent CEO in their own right or being the Director of DPP within the Department of Justice and having all those CEO type powers, and that is what this amendment standing here tonight - delegation by Chief Executive Officers - does. That is what it does. I appreciate the concerns and I appreciate particularly the member for Katherine and the member for Araluen, as I said, but they are not genuine; they are misplaced and it is much more about perception than fact, particularly in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Madam Speaker, we will have to go into committee to consider the amendments at Schedule 2 standing in my name, but just to clarify these amendments again so that we are all clear, the delegation by Chief Executive Officers to section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, a person appointed to an office under an act, the administration provisions of which is allotted to his or her agency empowers the CEO of Justice to delegate all of those CEO type powers down to the Director. The Attorney-General was referring to this process of discussion, consultation and negotiation going on between the two parties now. The original bill stood as the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment coming out of that Schedule 1. That is of course now joined by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
So I appreciate the concerns. Let’s have another crack at it in committee if you so wish. I will certainly, along with the Attorney-General, try to allay your concerns as we go through that committee stage if you so wish.
I thank members and the member for Sanderson and my colleague, the Attorney-General, for their comments on the bill. It was a very productive debate, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
New clause 1A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I seek to move amendment 2.1. The proposed new clause 1A to be inserted in the bill, and this is the clause that very clearly empowers the CEO of the Department of Justice to delegate all of those CEO type functions down to the director so that there can be no question of undermining, eroding or weakening in any way the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go about their job. That is why it is absolutely critical to support this amendment because on the one hand, the powers and functions, responsibilities, roles are protected by statute. This amendment absolutely protects and defends their rights to whatever resources they require within, of course, the bounds of available resources, but they can’t be got at and undermined by not being an independent agency because for all intents and purposes, they are if they have the CEO type powers delegated down. It is just the same as if they were their own.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my comments are directed at the member for Nhulunbuy who is just about there in his logic. I want to articulate this in relation to the proposed amendment 1A: the amendment does not guarantee that the resources will flow from the CEO of the Department of Justice to the DPP. It just creates the capacity for the instrument to be prepared. So it is step one; it is not step two. Between the time that this legislation passes through parliament and the time that the Instrument of Delegation has been agreed between the CEO of the Department of Justice and the DPP, this is when this horse trading will have to occur. This is the twilight period and this is the period…
Ms Carney: Twilight zone!
Mr MALEY: Twilight zone. And this is the period where, quite reasonably, people could criticise this instrumentality as being subject to the influence of an outside authority, a politically appointed person.
That is why I cannot support the proposed amendment. I hope I have made that clear to the member for Nhulunbuy who very logically went through that. This creates the capacity for the instrument to be drafted.
The horse trading which the member for Stuart referred is that negotiation between – okay, now we have the power under 27(aa), that is the capacity to do it, but the deal still has not been struck. For that period of time, most certainly, the independence of the DPP has been compromised. My question is: what steps have been taken to reduce to writing in clear and concise terms the instrument which you very generally referred to, the existence of which this amendment makes capable?
Mr STIRLING: Cabinet recently gave the DPP $680 000.
Dr Toyne: It was $748 000. Take it from me.
Mr STIRLING: That’s worse. It gets worse. $748 000 to buttress the budget requirements through the financial year. That is step one. The DPP was able, in his own right, to put a Cabinet submission through, come and address Cabinet. That was the outcome of that decision. If the DPP felt that he or she was being done over, short changed, robbed of resources, not getting a fair deal at any point or did not get the full delegation of powers and consultation with the CEO of the Department of Justice, don’t you think, given the sensitivity around the DPP and the need to be independent, that they would be off to the Attorney-General pretty quickly? I would think so. I would think that is where the Director of Public Prosecutions would go if he or she thought they were getting less than a fair deal or anything less than they felt was required to fulfil the requirements of their functions and role.
I cannot speak for the Attorney-General, but if I was the Attorney-General and the Director Public Prosecutions came through my door and was able to substantiate that claim, then I would want to know about it. I would be taking all steps necessary rather quickly to address the matter because the last thing the government would want is for the situation you outlined to occur. That is, the functions, the role, the resourcing necessary to be undermined in any way, shape, or form that could affect the less than efficient and effective carrying out of the role. Let us be realistic: ‘not the most powerless entity around, I wouldn’t have thought.
Dr TOYNE: Can I throw some more light on the questions put? I won’t be long. I stated earlier that this is not a new situation where you have public servants and some attachment to the general public service arrangements involved in the operation of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. From 1983 to 1995, the position was basically, by the DPP Act, we established the statutory position of the DPP and then an office operated under him. At that stage between 1983 and 1995, they were subject to the Public Service Act. I will read how the staff were administered:
So the director was quite clearly given staff who were not statutory staff. They were not fully independent; they were given to him under public service arrangements.
So, they were not a separate department; they had department-like arrangements within the office at that stage.
All that mouthful says is that clearly, the DPP themselves were not a public service, but certainly his staff were through that period time. That is probably when you went down there to work as a young lawyer.
The situation we have now is that, if we remove from the first schedule of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, what happens to the ODPP? Is the member for Araluen right to say that they suddenly go poof and disappear off the face of the earth, as Wicking had to say this morning? Or are they still there? The legal question on that is: is the act of taking them off the schedule the act of abolishing the office? The answer is no. The answer is that that removes their listing as an agency, but they still exist as an entity. The reporting requirements set out in the policy document identified three things upon which the independent statutory offices would report. They are resources, administrative support and policy development matters. None of them encroach upon the independence of the DPP. This is another excerpt from the legal opinion we received from Tom Pauling QC, Solicitor-General:
which none of this changes. So we have very clear legal opinion that what is being done at the moment not only has quite clear historical antecedents, is clearly not introducing a public service presence into the ODPP that was not there before, and is clearly not central to the continuing independence of the ODPP as a statutory officer or as the office.
Ms CARNEY: My question is directed to the member for Nhulunbuy further to the comments made in answer to the last question. What if the CEO and the Director could not agree on an issue? What would the government do?
Mr STIRLING: I think we are reading things in here that – jumping at shadows or inventing hypotheticals …
Ms Carney: No, no, no. You suggested before there might be some conflict. There might be.
Mr STIRLING: Let’s take an example. What, if, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not want to know about cars, who does the cleaning, who brings the pot plants in, all those sorts of things and quite relieved, quite happy for the CEO
of the agency to have all of those responsibilities, but is hell bent on deciding staffing profile, structure, level and those sorts of things? Both of us can make this up on our feet. I don’t know that it advances the debate that far.
I think you are just reading things that are not necessarily there. Again, I am not the minister responsible for this agency. If I were, I would expect to learn about it and it would have to be sorted out to the satisfaction, let me assure you, of the Director of Public Prosecutions because that is where the independence - and we have been through this - all protected by statute at that level of roles, functions, powers and responsibilities and the other areas protected by the powers of delegation from the CEO. I would expect that it would be sorted through.
Mr BURKE: I will ask the question of the Attorney-General because it seems that the issue could be sorted very quickly and easily, and that is: can you give this House the assurance that under no circumstances would the Director of Public Prosecutions deal with anyone except the Attorney-General on any issue? If you can give that assurance, I do not believe the opposition would have any problem.
There is a principle here. It is not an issue of staffing. Staffing can affect the way the director’s office operates and he should not be required to go to anyone other than the Attorney. I say that not from a position of trying to be petulant, but simply as a principle. In all the time that I was Attorney-General, it would be inconceivable that on any issue the Director of Public Prosecutions would go to anyone except the Attorney-General to have that issue resolved. If the Attorney decided to delegate that down or the director decided to delegate that down, so be it. That is their decision. Certainly, the immediate resolution of any issue should be between the Attorney-General and the director.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy to give you a very strong assurance that, as I have been from the time that the restructure was announced, I have been very involved and very hands on in trying to help both the new CEO of the Justice Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions to sort this out. I will certainly give you the assurance that I will be using my best officers to mediate an arrangement to the satisfaction of the DPP and to the CEO of Justice. I certainly would not be standing idly by if there was in any sense a breakdown of the arrangement that would allow the DPP to get on with his job.
I can only say that I have had a meeting with not only he and his senior staff yesterday, but either myself or my office upstairs have had very regular contacts with both the CEO and with the DPP right up to probably about an hour ago when I got the latest update on the negotiations that are going on. I am pretty convinced that at a personal, practical level we will find a resolution to this. We also need to deal, as has been said earlier in this debate, with the public perceptions regarding this change.
I am quite happy for people to have an opinion about it, but let’s make absolutely sure that opinion is pinned back to the facts and the actual structures that we are talking about here. It has been an interesting exercise in that lots of people were trundling along with assumptions about what degree or otherwise of autonomy they had and what arrangements they were really operating on. When you dug below the kind of day to day personal contacts that people have in government agencies and you start to say what does the law and the legislation and the regulations and the administrative arrangements actually say about the independence of that agency or indeed any other agency in government, I think most public servants and their CEOs would get quite a surprise if they seriously looked at the letter of the law that they are operating under.
Certainly the DPP and his office were operating under, I think initially, quite a perception that they had far more leeway to operate than they actually did under their administrative arrangements. So if nothing else, we have gained a very thorough review of the situation or the climate that that office is operating in or has been operating in, and at least we are now pinning it all back to what the legislation says about this. What exactly do the administrative arrangements say about this? Who is working under which regulations or which constraints or otherwise within that office? And they are different for the different personnel. There are police personnel in the ODPP. There are lawyers who have been previously recruited with the involvement of the DPP but also the involvement of the Public Service Commissioner and other processes in the wider public service.
We are shaking that all down so that everyone is at least agreed on where the starting point is. What do our statutory arrangements and our administrative arrangements allow us to do in the way of options? There is certainly a threshold where if the CEO is not synonymous with being the Director of Public Prosecutions, then there is a threshold that the CEO of Justice cannot go beyond in terms of delegation. We are exploring that boundary right now. But certainly there is good will, I think between…
Ms Carney: So it is: ‘Trust us. It will be sorted out eventually with a bit of luck’. Not good enough. Not good enough.
Dr TOYNE: No, it is not luck. It is a very systematic process at the moment. I might say that, as my colleague the member for Nhulunbuy alluded, the potential benefits are there as well as the issues that we have to sort out in these current negotiations over the operating arrangements. The benefits are, to a smallish agency like the Office of the DPP, that there will be some advantage they can take of wider arrangements within the Justice Department and we are looking forward to not only making sure that their base within the ODPP is maintained at a very strong level, but they have also have full access to the wider resources in Justice and where there are areas that they want to pull resources and assistance in from elsewhere in the Justice Department, they have full access to do that.
That is where we see these reforms as giving benefit and that is why we have persisted with the challenges of making this change in the case of the ODPP and other areas of the new Justice Department grouping.
Mr BURKE: It is not an issue of forcing this debate any longer than it needs to go, but it is not necessarily to the comfort of DPP that we ask these questions. It might be convenient for the DPP to say: ‘I want to delegate these problems to someone else’. The DPP has a statutory and independent responsibility and it is in that context that we ask for that assurance, and that assurance needs to be more than one of mediation. It needs to be an assurance to the opposition that in the case of the DPP on any issue, he will deal directly with the Attorney-General and if the Attorney-General decides to have the issue pursued by the CEO of the Justice Department on behalf of the DPP or himself, well that is fine. But the principle that we simply ask for is that the DPP on all issues deals directly with the Attorney-General. If you satisfy that, then obviously that is the end of our concern.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy to give that assurance: that on any issue of significance, if the DPP feels that it wants to come to me on it and have my involvement in it, I am there for him to do that, yes.
Clause 1A agreed to.
Clause 2 read.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 2.2. This takes out the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
In the case of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, now we can be very clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is inside the Department of Justice. There is still no decision exactly where the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, or the Commissioner for Public Employment, may reside. It may still, in fact, have an independent agency and be the CEO of that agency which could be recreated through Administrative Arrangement Orders. This simply facilitates government to make whatever decision it chooses, obviously between here and February, when the legislative effect of Education, Employment and Training will come together. So, I would urge support for that. It doesn’t do anything to the commissioner or the office at this stage.
Mr BURKE: I would ask for clarification of the term ‘at this stage’.
Mr STIRLING: Passing this amendment tonight doesn’t diminish, demean or mean that David Hawkes, current Commissioner for Public Employment, is no longer CEO of the agency in his own right. He still is. And when he finishes work, there is still the independent Commissioner of the Public Employment agency, CEO, in their own right. If government was to make a decision to place the commissioner within one of the agencies, this would allow government to do it.
Mr BURKE: Again, simply for the record, I ask for assurance that, notwithstanding the agency restructure, the total independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment is maintained because that principle is critically important, and I know from experience that there are some senior public servants who would like to see that position changed. That is something that I seek assurance from the new government that the Commissioner for Public Employment remains and the independence of his office remains.
Mr STIRLING: Your colleague, the member for Katherine, argued quite cogently on this point earlier in debate and, again, similar to the DPP, the powers and functions are protected by statute and can’t be weakened or diminished in any way in terms of that independence. I can give you the assurance that that independence in terms of the statutory powers won’t be diminished in any way.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, before the bill is read a third time, can I just say, without passing any reflection on the individual who is holding the Chair at the moment, I find it puzzling and strange, to say the least, that for important legislation passing through this House notwithstanding the nominations of particular members and what status they might feel they have been given, I feel it is strange that the Deputy Speaker, in fact, presents the committee report to an ordinary member of this Chamber in terms of the importance of the legislation and the way it will pass through this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you raising a point of order?
Mr BURKE: I find it puzzling and strange, to say the least. If you had any experience at all, you would realise that I have an ability to speak in the third reading. That is part of my problem. I am not making a point of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re not speaking to the legislation?
Mr BURKE: I am simply making a comment in the third reading. The person who occupies the position of Speaker in this House, should have some knowledge of the import of the legislation …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do.
Mr BURKE: … and the fact that I believe the position should be occupied …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw your comments.
Mr BURKE: … as I recall, always occurred by the Speaker and reported to the Speaker by the Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have asked you to withdraw your comment. Do you withdraw your comment?
Mr BURKE: Withdraw what comment?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were casting aspersions on the Deputy Speaker. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: I was casting no aspersions on the Deputy Speaker. I was making comment on the process in this House. Now, if you want to rule, go right ahead and rule. You can use all the authority you have in that Chair. That was the point of my comment.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I seek clarification. Were you reflecting on the Chair or the Office of the Deputy Chair?
Mr BURKE: I am reflecting on the fact that it would be on a rare occasion, I believe, that the Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker would not report the committee report to the Speaker, and I wonder why the Speaker is absent, particularly on such important legislation. I simply reflect on that fact.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Leader of the Opposition would know, the Speaker is unavoidably detained.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just pick up what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. I don’t answer for Madam Speaker in this Chamber. I don’t know where she is. She is obviously detained. Now, it is impossible for the Deputy Chair to have been up there to get the report. He was presenting it as Chairman of Committees, so in the absence of the Speaker - and I guess there is a point of order there in the sense that we are not supposed to reflect on the absence or presence of any member including the Speaker, I would have thought. Really, I don’t have an answer for you. I would assume that she would be here if she were able to be.
For the third reading, I thank members for their contribution. I thought it was a useful debate, a productive debate with some little passion, and that is not a bad thing when a person believes, rather than playing games as I think we’ve seen a little bit too much of during this week.
As Leader of Government Business, I would be loath ever to gag debate and this government would be, but when we see the nonsense of repetitive questions as we saw this afternoon, as opposed to the quality and the well intentioned responses to this bill tonight, which was treated seriously - I appreciate comments from members and I thank them for putting their views forward as forcefully as they did.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I lay on the Table the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, the prorogation of the parliament in August this year left the Public Accounts Committee’s Annual Report in limbo. Although completed, it was not able to be tabled until later in the year. In tabling this report, I am unable to offer comments on the work of the previous committee, but would like to take this opportunity to comment on the reporting of the previous Public Accounts Committee.
Apart from the annual reports, which the committee is bound to table under Standing Order 21A(14), if you turn to appendix 3 of this annual report, you will notice that the last reference report tabled by the committee was in August 1999. Even at this early stage, the members of the current Public Accounts Committee have shown a willingness to tackle their task head on. There are a number of areas the committee is simultaneously considering, and which may eventually evolve into reports being tabled in this Chamber.
The committee has already taken the step of opening up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. Advertisements recently appeared in every newspaper throughout the Northern Territory advising that public hearings would be conducted as members pursue the current budget reference. The committee has gone further than that. It has put in place mechanisms to ensure it will only be in the most unusual circumstances that future hearings will not be open to the public. I am confident that the committee will treat all matters in a bipartisan manner which will culminate in very well constructed reports with meaningful recommendations ultimately providing this Assembly with an additional base for vigorous debates. The inclusion of an independent member into the committee is in itself a check point for both government and opposition members. I welcome the input to date from the member for Nelson, and feel certain that his involvement with the committee can only add to its overall commitment of open and accountable procedures.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to participate in the debate on the mini-budget that was introduced by the Chief Minister and Treasurer on Tuesday.
The mini-budget represents an important turning point for the Northern Territory. It draws a line in the sand and says that no longer will government in the Northern Territory be unaccountable. No longer will financial management be done on the back of an envelope in ministerial offices without regard for the true underlying fiscal outlook. No longer will the people of the Northern Territory be misled and lied to. We are going to set a standard for integrity in government and transparency that will not be undermined. We will show the people of the Northern Territory that they can have confidence in their government and that trust can be restored. We will show the people of the Northern Territory that the rorting and deception that they were subjected to by the former discredited government is a thing of the past.
They know that the Martin ALP government is going about the task of bringing about a wholesale change for the better in the way government is run in the Territory. We are fiscally responsible. We are being open, frank and transparent with Territorians. We are committed to consultation and an inclusive approach to meeting the needs of all Territorians, not the select few who tipped into the CLP coffers, not the select few who were rewarded by CLP government largesse. The first thing we must do in order to meet the needs of all Territorians is to restore our fiscal position, restore it to a sustainable level so that we can move forward. We must meet those expectations and, I must say, that as I have been examining the scope and structure of my new Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, I am very excited by the opportunities that I have before me.
Obviously, our capacity to act as quickly as we would have liked is diminished not through any fault of our own, but by the incompetence and fraud perpetrated by those opposite. We saw this morning in this Chamber a remark made by the member for Drysdale when we discussed references to the $107m black hole that we inherited. The member for Drysdale - and I am sure it will be recorded in Hansard – said: ‘So what if it costs more money?’ That is the type of statement that got the CLP in trouble when they were in office. They seem not to be able to get rid of those bad habits. Nevertheless, I am confident that my department has the resources, both human and financial, to become a real engine driver in not only maintaining service levels, but also developing and expanding a range of innovative services that will go to the heart of the quality of life enjoyed by Territorians.
The new Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, has been formed to provide enhanced emphasis in coordination of services to promote and develop the Territory community. Maintaining the quality of Territory lifestyle, cultural development and developing a greater sense of community are priority goals of the Martin government. For me, it also provides an opportunity to pursue interests and objectives that have occupied the greater part of my working life: providing an equitable distribution of, and access to, services for all Territorians; access to decent housing; access to health services; access to education; access to sporting and recreation opportunities; and a focus on regional economic development activities that provide employment opportunities within our remote communities.
When I look at the range of services and activities covered within my new department, I am excited by the potential that exists to bring together substantial resources and linkages to improve the quality of life for all Territorians. I want to place on record the range of those services: housing in urban and remote communities; local government; Aboriginal interpreter services; sport and recreation opportunities; library services; and arts and museums all of which are the Chief Minister’s responsibility; the provision of essential services in remote Aboriginal communities; regional development; and partnership agreements with indigenous Territorians.
These important areas are now incorporated into one department, and I now have the added responsibility for the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
Regional development is a priority in both small and larger regional communities. Initiatives like Alice in 10 will be important to the future of regional centres. But regional development could mean so much more. The government has a clear priority of improving indigenous education, health, employment and social outcomes, and Aboriginal economic development was identified as a priority at the recent Economic Development Summit in Darwin. Local and regional indigenous framework agreements complement the regional development functions of the agency.
I have, for the first time as a minister in government, the opportunity to pursue the Land Interest Register that I first mentioned some six years ago when I became a member of this parliament. The concept is one where I would be ensuring that my officers will be working with the land councils to conduct a survey of land interest areas throughout the Northern Territory so that we are able to identify, in terms of land ownership, what Aboriginal people - and native title for that matter - are interested in with respect to economic development on their country. If we are able to put this register together, it will enable us to start looking around and advertising for entrepreneurs. The whole concept, in terms of economic development, is to be able to get entrepreneurs with dollars in a joint venture situation with Aboriginal people who own lands so that there can be a joint venture agreement put together; where we see a situation where both parties are winners in terms of how they will be able to economically and financially benefit from those projects. I believe once we are able to do that, and I am able to ensure that that moves forward, then we will see a lot more economic development in the Northern Territory than what we have seen in the past.
The inclusion of a unit responsible for the funding of essential Aboriginal community services should streamline service delivery as well as maximise Aboriginal employment opportunities in providing these services. This new department incorporates the former Office of Aboriginal Development, and it will be a positive development to bring this in with the mainstream service delivery system. I want to emphasise that this new departmental structure should not simply be seen as a means of achieving savings. Whilst I believe that the new structure will provide opportunities for some rationalisation of overlapping management services, my focus will be achieving greater efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery. I am certain that we will be able to improve the level of coordination not only across Territory services, but also with regional and national bodies such as ATSIC and other relevant Commonwealth agencies.
We need to further cement a working relationship with ATSIC and the land councils to ensure that our plans for local government, the plans of ATSIC in terms of its regional councils, and the community government councils at the end of the day have an opportunity to come together in a particular region that they define as their boundaries, and ensure that the services are dovetailed into a situation where maximum benefits can be obtained. In the past, that has not been organised and that is a reflection on the manner in which the previous government handled Aboriginal affairs. In actual fact, their services and their relationship with the Aboriginal community could only be described in many cases - not all - as a piecemeal service.
Unfortunately, our first task on coming to government has been to confront the black hole left by the failed Country Liberal Party government. For three months, we have been working to repair the damage they left behind. We will not waiver on our commitment to implement our election agenda. The financial statement presented by the Chief Minister yesterday represents a responsible strategy for addressing the economic mess left by the Country Liberal Party, together with setting up the implementation of our election commitments.
I want to conclude by referring to a commitment within my own portfolio which, I am delighted to say, will be implemented immediately with a consequent benefit to young people in indigenous communities. Indigenous youth in remote communities are particularly vulnerable to problems arising from social dislocation. Many are left to their own devices and end up in trouble with the law for the lack of organised activities yet these same people often have prodigious sporting talents that are left undeveloped. This Martin government will increase grants by $300 000 per annum, maintained in real terms, to remote communities to employ full or part-time sport and recreation officers to promote the participation in organised sporting competitions and recreational activities. This is just one of a range of important commitments that we are delivering on, and it is an indication that the Martin government will continue to do the hard yards required to restore fiscal responsibility and, at the same time, protect and enhance service delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the mini-budget to this Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to reply to the Minister for Tourism’s statement given last night, and to touch upon some of my portfolio areas in the context of what can only be described as a very nasty budget. I should say from the outset that one positive aspect of the budget - and there is only one as far as my shadow portfolios are concerned - is that the former Office of Communications, Science and Advanced Technology appears to have received an injection of funds to better perform its communication functions which includes the formulation of policies and strategies for the development of advancing telecommunications and free-to-air broadcasting infrastructure across the Territory. If this additional funding does, in fact, achieve access for all Territorians to advance telecommunications and free-to-air broadcasting services, then it is welcomed by the opposition.
Before I go to some other matters relating to my shadow portfolio areas, I would like to mention a matter that relates to Central Australia, a matter that came to my attention this afternoon as a result of information to me from my electorate officer, Tracey Wise - who is in Darwin, together with many other electorate officers for an induction over the last couple of days - and in particular comments made by the Ombudsman this afternoon. I am told by Ms Wise that he told the inductees that he was not sure about what was happening to the staffing in the Ombudsman’s office in Alice Springs, but what he did know was that the Alice Springs office will be closed. Apparently, he attributes this as a direct consequence of the mini-budget.
Interestingly, the mini-budget shows an increase of funding to the Ombudsman’s Office to the tune of $72 000. I understand that there should be two staff members in Alice Springs, but there is only one at present who, incidentally, is due to go on leave shortly. I am advised that the Alice Springs office handles more inquiries per head of population than the Darwin office, and the majority of those complaints are from or in relation to the Alice Springs gaol. This office should not be closed. The people of Alice Springs are entitled to have an Ombudsman’s office, and to have it fully staffed. They should not cop the closure of the local office to subsidise extra money to the Darwin office. This is part of this government’s sleight of hand with this mini-budget. It shows an increase in funding to the Office of the Ombudsman, but there is, in fact, a reduction in staff numbers by reason of the closure of the Alice Springs office. This is a sign of what is to come, and it shows how little regard the government has for the people of Central Australia. I would urge the Chief Minister and Treasurer to reconsider her decision in that regard.
Turning to important matters such as the tourism industry, I note that there is a cut in the budget papers of $241 000. The tourism industry is the second largest industry in the Territory. Anyone reading this budget, however, would be entitled to form the view that the government has not even heard of the events of September 11 and the collapse of Ansett. The fact of the matter is that this government has at a critical time cut funding to its Tourist Commission. Blind Freddy can see that this vital industry should not suffer cuts at this time, but the government cannot see it. It is the only entity that cannot understand that cuts should not be made at this very vulnerable time in the industry.
More interestingly, while the budget papers show a cut of $241 000, there is actually a cut to the Commission of $2.41m when the deal with Virgin Blue is taken into account. We understand that the government has purchased seats from Virgin Blue for $2m, but that money is to come out of the Tourist Commission’s budget. Money to pay for the deal with Virgin must come from somewhere and it is not in the budget papers. Therefore, it is clear that the Tourist Commission has to pay for it. This means that funding has in fact been cut by $2.41m in real terms and that is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.
While I am talking about Virgin Blue, I note that the minister said last night that it would commence flights into Darwin for Christmas. What he did not mention was when flights would start to Central Australia and the reality is that he does not know or does not care. If he did know, then he would have announced it. He did not announce it. Central Australia is bleeding but this Martin ALP government just does not care. That is hardly a commitment to break through the Berrimah line. Again we have a breach of an election promise.
The minister also said last night that the $2m deal with Virgin Blue is ‘a massive return’ on the government’s investment. What an extraordinary thing to assert given that flights to the Northern Territory have not commenced. It clearly demonstrates that the minister is not across his portfolio and that is also a disgrace. I know he is fairly new to the portfolio but he has been in this place long enough to know how to get a grip on it and it is incredibly disappointing that as Tourism Minister, he has not.
Thanks to the efforts of Qantas and the Federal government, not the ALP Territory government, capacity on flights to the Territory has improved considerably in recent times, but the minister did not offer any breakdown as to who is on those flights. My advice from tourism operators is that tourists are not on those planes. There are lots of other people but there are very few tourists on the planes coming into the Territory. This is a government sleight of hand because what they say is the planes are full, but the problem is they are not filled with tourists and there is nothing in the budget directed at getting them to the Northern Territory.
The one further point I should make in this area is that apart from the failure of the government to provide breakdowns of the types of travellers on flights, affordability is a major problem. Domestic tourists will not travel to the Northern Territory for the fares that are presently being charged and it is a nonsense to suppose that they will. We ask: what is the government doing about this? The best it can do is to cut the Tourist Commission’s budget. It is a joke. Tourism operators tell me that business is down by 30%. There are hardly any forward bookings and some of them are thinking about laying off staff. What does this government do in those circumstances? It cuts the budget. Tourism operators are screaming at these cuts. They say: ‘Why now? Why, at this critical time, would any self-respecting government cut funds to its Tourist Commission?’ It is an excellent question and one which the opposition will continue to ask on their behalf.
The Australian tourism industry is faced with a significant downturn. It follows, therefore, that in addition to trying to attract international visitors back to the skies and in particular the skies of the Northern Territory, that enormous efforts must be directed to stimulating the domestic and international markets. What worked in marketing terms a few months ago may not work any more and innovative ideas need to be identified and promoted. But what does this ALP government do in light of all of this? It cuts $191 000 off the market focus budget of the Tourist Commission. It is extraordinary that any government would do that. I am quite sure that there would not be any other government in this country that would be cutting the budget of its tourist commission at this time.
Part of the Tourist Commission’s function is to facilitate the development of a strong, competitive and professional tourism industry. Its market focus is to increase demand for tourism to the Territory, yet the government has cut its market focus budget. It is worth reminding members that the purpose of market research for the Commission is to identify the source of markets and consumer trends. If ever there was a time to identify these, it is now. What does this slash-and-burn government do? It cuts the market research budget and that begs belief. This is a time when any government, all governments should be allocating more money to the tourism industry, not less, and the government will be forever condemned for its actions.
The domestic tourism market must be stimulated to promote the Territory yet this government has announced a $67 000 cut to the Commission’s Destination Image Market Budget. It may come as a surprise to government that the enormous revenue generated for the economy from tourism has not happened overnight. It has been built on market research, strategic plans and innovative marketing of the Territory in Australia and overseas over many years, achieved with the assistance of numerous CLP governments.
Strategies must be developed and market research must be undertaken with vigor to ensure that we attract visitors from overseas in the tourism market and that traditional methods of attracting visitors should be reviewed and reassessed because they may not work as well as they did in the past. Does the minister plan to refocus the work of the Tourist Commission to reflect the current situation? Given the reluctance to travel, this question must be asked: what is the government and the Commission doing to tackle this problem? Will the Northern Territory Tourist Commission restore our visitor numbers from Europe, which is the largest overseas market sector? That question remains unanswered by government.
The next question is: what is the government’s plan for stimulating the domestic tourism market? Does it have a plan of action? The minister said that he has asked the Tourist Commission to have a look at how to increase road travel to and inside the Northern Territory. Is that the best he can do since September 11, simply ask the Tourist Commission to have a look at it? Last night, the minister said that he had been working with the Tourist Commission to get through this difficult time and apart from outlining very little about what was meant by that, this government cannot hide from the fact that it is cutting the Commission’s funding. The Commission will be doing its best, and I know that it will, but it simply has less money to do it.
Furthermore, the Tourist Commission has overseas representatives in our major markets. These representatives should be allocated additional resources to undertake activities that will work towards attracting tourists. No cuts to the tourism budget should be entertained. It should receive a massive boost to its funding. Social policy is all very well and good, but if the economy is crumbling down around you, then you should focus on correcting that situation.
Interestingly, in Budget Paper No 4, the government outlines the position that the tourism industry is in at present and I quote:
This is an acknowledgement by this ALP government of the devastation caused by recent events. Curiously, in the paragraph under that, Budget Paper No 4 simply says that things are expected to pick up in 2002-03. It begs the question: what is government doing to help the situation? The answer is: nothing; it is just sitting back and hoping for the best. They think that things will magically fix themselves and nothing could be further from the truth.
To make matters worse, there is a cut of $59 000 to Territory Discoveries which develops tourism product for sale to consumers in the domestic market. At a time when the domestic market needs a boost, this government cuts funds to this agency. Let there be no mistake, Madam Speaker, there is a cut to the Tourist Commission of $2.41m and it is a disgrace.
Given the importance of the tourism industry to the Northern Territory, the government should be doing all that it can to support it, promote it, stimulate it and help it. Instead, this government has cut the expenditure of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. How very extraordinary and how very wrong this decision is. The effect of this mini-budget on tourism should not be understated. What makes these cuts embarrassing is that they come at such a critical time. Instead of caressing the vital tourism industry through these challenging times, this government is kicking it when it is down and tourism operators have every right to question the government’s commitment to the industry and to them.
Having dealt with the very important area of tourism, I will touch briefly upon a couple of my other shadow portfolios. The next one is the area of women’s policy. There is a cut of $4.6m to the Department of Chief Minister which includes, among other agencies, the Office of Women’s Policy. Specifically, there is a cut in the area called Strategic Policy Advice Coordination budget of $118 000. Given that the Office of Women’s Policy provides advice to the Chief Minister about women’s issues, will this vital policy area be cut? This does not appear to be outlined in the budget papers, and unless the Chief Minister can offer an assurance that the office will be spared from the government’s axe, all women in the Northern Territory should be concerned and angry. How will the Chief Minister, I wonder, be judged by history, if she, the first female Chief Minister of the Territory, is the one to cut the legs off the Office of Women’s Policy. Does the Chief Minister want to be advised on women’s policy or has she fallen for the line peddled by some senior advisors that women’s policy doesn’t really matter? The Chief Minister should provide a commitment and say that it will not be affected by these cuts.
Furthermore, the Women’s Advisory Council receives funding from the Department of the Chief Minister. It does not emerge from the budget papers, so can the Chief Minister guarantee that the Women’s Advisory Council will continue? Will it face cuts? If so, how and when will they be implemented? Does the Chief Minister want an advisory council to advise her on matters of interest and concern to women in the Territory, or is there an arrogance already creeping in that the Chief Minister, a woman, has all of the information she could possibly need? I say to the Chief Minister: shame on you if your pernicious axe falls in the area of women’s policy.
Finally, Madam Speaker, in the area of correctional services, this is now part of the mega department, that is the Department of Justice. In this new department there are cuts left, right and centre to the former departments, in particular to the area of correctional services, specifically to the Darwin and Alice Springs correctional centres. Darwin suffers a cut of $122 000, and Alice Springs cops a cut of $108 000. It is not clear from the budget papers how exactly the government intends to achieve these cuts. Does government intend to implement the previous government’s commitment to stage one of the infrastructure needs for the Darwin correctional centre, namely a 100 bed minimum security facility? And what about the other two stages, including a female accommodation unit?
Now I know, and many others know in this House, that this government is not broadly supportive of having any offenders ever spending any time in our gaols. However, the fact of the matter is that they do need to be housed appropriately and the former government proposed to improve the facilities.
It is also interesting to note that cuts are planned for community corrections. I can’t find an explanation in the papers, but I assume that those cuts are to community corrections programs where prisoners perform community work. I had my first briefing this week, as a matter of fact, with the commissioner and he agreed that the community corrections program was a win-win program for prisoners and the community, and I would say that we would be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere who would have a contrary view. My question is: what exactly will be cut and how will the cuts be implemented?
In conclusion, this is an unnecessary, unfair and unwise budget. The gammon black hole is the ALP’s way of getting around its surprise win at the election and the way it implements its over the top policies. It never expected to win, and you know you didn’t, and you didn’t need to consider any budgetary constraints. They dished out promises like throwing lollies off the back of a truck and then on August 19 woke up and said: ‘Oh, dear. Oh, my God! How do we implement our policies? How do we follow through?’ How lucky you are that the CLP was in government for 26 years. You have no idea how lucky you are. If the CLP had not been in government for 26 years, you wouldn’t have a punching bag. You wouldn’t have anyone to blame. You would have to be honest about funding your over the top, almost hysterical promises. So, thank God for the CLP, Madam Speaker. You would have to been honest otherwise; what a challenge for you. The budget is a scam, it was always going to be a scam and it will always be a scam. The worst part of this scam is that all Territorians will suffer as a result, especially our struggling tourism industry.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments on the budget by saying that these issues I am raising tonight are just some of the issues I would like to raise. There has not been a lot of time, especially for an Independent, to assess the budget fully. Perhaps in the next sittings I will be in a position to comment further.
I think like all good budgets there are some positive things and some negative things, and so I thought I would speak about a few of the positive things and comment on the negative ones.
On the positive side, the increase in nurses is most welcome. I believe this needs to be monitored to see that it has an effect on reducing the problems that nurses informed me of during my election campaign. One of the issues was that many of them are rostered to double shifts so I would be interested to see if this increase in nurses actually reduces this problem.
I also welcome capital works for hospitals and clinics throughout the Northern Territory, and I especially welcome provision in the budget for development of a specialised hospice unit in RDH. This is a move long overdue and something which previous governments should have regarded as a matter of urgency before any talk of euthanasia was introduced into this community. I am not sure what the budget says on the Palmerston Health Clinic, which serves my electorate, but I do hope the government will continue to support the clinic as a 24-hour service.
The construction of a birthing centre, although it is still a long way off in the budget, I think will be applauded by many mothers, midwives, and independent midwives. I hope that the independent midwives are able to use this facility and that the restrictions on their ability to obtain public liability will not prevent them, and I acknowledge that the present government has given some help to cover the nurses in the short term.
I notice also an increase in funding for the NT Child Care Subsidy amounting to $7.50 per week. Whilst this will be welcomed by those in the child care industry, I think government should put more work into looking at what can be done in assisting families who wish to raise their children at home but cannot because of financial hardship.
I also welcome the employment of 100 extra teachers, as I believe this is one of the main reasons for the industrial action this year. I hope that this will increase the number of relief teachers that will be available, and that was another matter that was mentioned to me, that there was certainly a shortage of relief teachers. The idea of School Attendance Officers is an excellent one. Many of us have seen school age children hanging around shopping centres during school hours and wondered how come. I hope the employment of School Attendance Officers will have an effect, and I hope the government will report on their effectiveness and report back to this Assembly.
The increase in police is also welcome, but as part of this program I would ask the government to look at opportunities to find ways that more police can do policing rather than be tied up in the areas of policing which may be better done by non-police personnel.
I am also pleased to see that in the rural area the government has put funds away for construction of a new police, fire and emergency station at Humpty Doo. I have long supported that we should have a police presence in the rural area. At the present time we rely on Palmerston, and if there are any accidents, especially on the Arnhem Highway or Cox Peninsula Road, those 10 or 20 minutes from Palmerston may be the difference between saving lives. People in the rural area will welcome this budget initiative.
I do note also that it was a bit of a surprise to me that the government is funding a horticultural package storing facility proposed in Darwin’s rural area. I support anything that will help foster a strong horticultural industry and this is one thing we should keep promoting, especially in times of economic crisis. No matter what happens, people still need to eat. I would be interested in where this facility will be sited. Will it be on private or government land? Considering the problems with the mango industry two years ago, this initiative is very welcome.
I have a couple of issues of concern. The government has stated it will fulfil its election promises and what could have been in the list in the budget was a list of the promises with the appropriate funding required in the budget statement so that we know what expenditure is going to be required to cover those election promises.
I was also concerned, and it is an issue that has been raised, that the government has been concerned about debt, so I ask the question: then why borrow $100m in the first year to cover election promises? Why not, for instance, spread that out to $25m over the next four years and explain to people that because of the debt that the Territory has, some of these election promises are going to have to be introduced over the four years. It seems strange that the community is told to tighten its belt, then have to pay more taxes, and then we take out a loan to pay for election promises. It just seems to be sending mixed messages out to the public and I am not sure that that is the right way to do it.
Another matter that concerns me is that recently the government announced it would set in the award for public servants that they would have six weeks leave. I certainly support public servants and I think that they do a pretty good job and I know many of them work long, hard hours. But the extra two weeks leave to me is now something that comes from the past. It was introduced in the Northern Territory to attract people to come to the Northern Territory, to allow those people to go home and see their family. If we are to be a mature Territory, then we have to stand on our own two feet and we basically take the leave that everyone else in Australia accepts today and that is four weeks.
My understanding is that if you phase that out over a period time so that new employees receive four weeks and those people who have the six weeks retain it until they retire, I do not think there would be a problem. The two weeks - if you work on an average of say, $850 per fortnight by 14 000 public servants - is equivalent to about $12m. That would be a saving that eventually would help the Territory’s economy.
The other matter I would like to raise is a matter that was debated here yesterday and that was the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. I find it a bit sad that somehow the mechanisms do not always work in parliament because when you are putting acts through on an urgency basis, sometimes amending those acts can be awfully difficult. Whilst not arguing whether we should have a $90 levy or not, I think there are amendments that would have helped the act be a lot more user friendly, especially in light of the statement that it was meant to minimise the effect on businesses. My problem was that it minimised on some businesses - for example, if you owned a 3.5 tonne truck and you carted welding equipment around, you are given an exemption but if you owned a one tonne ute and carried exactly the same amount around, you are not exempt. The government missed an opportunity either just to put a levy on everybody, or to make sure that if it was going to minimise effect on businesses, it did so across the board for businesses. It is something that I think could have been done better.
But all in all, I think the budget has some good things in it. I am yet to go through it properly. For a newcomer and an Independent, going through four big documents - I suppose the parties have the advantage of plenty of advisors and accountants to go through them – takes some time.
Mr Kiely: Seek a briefing, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Member for Sanderson, we are not discussing briefings any more tonight. Sorry, that was in committee.
Mr Kiely: I’ll get a victim complex.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have had many briefings already and I probably will try to get a briefing in the meantime, but - now you have put me off. So I will leave it there, Madam Speaker, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on several items tonight. First of all, I want to speak about Mr Ken Docherty who is retiring after a long and distinguished career. Mr Ken Docherty will be retiring from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday 30 November 2001 and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for over 30 years of valued service and commitment.
Ken started with the AW7, the old Commonwealth Department of Public Works Depot in Darwin in the highway sealing unit back in 1963. In a way we rarely see these days, Ken worked his way up through the public service to retire as Manager, Road Assets in the Road Development Division after a long and distinguished career. Ken’s career kicked off on the road gangs as a labourer but was immediately elevated to roller driver on the same day. Ken was quickly made a truck driver before taking a few years away from the Territory. As so many Territorians do, Ken quickly came back to the Territory in the 1970s and rejoined the Highway Construction Unit and was soon made Acting Foreman.
In fairly rapid succession, Ken was made Acting Works Supervisor, Alice Springs Racecourse subdivision, Works Supervisor Tennant Creek and, after a transfer to Darwin in 1979, Senior Technical Officer. During these years, Ken worked in various capacities. In 1983, Ken was seconded to Rum Jungle for stage 2 of the mine rehabilitation.
From 1985 to 1989 Ken took on various roles and projects of great value to the Territory before being appointed Roads Maintenance Manager, Darwin Region. In 1994, Ken was appointed as Maintenance Program Manager for the Northern Territory. During this period, Ken somehow found time to earn an Associate Diploma of Civil Engineering and to graduate from the Public Sector Management Course. Ken utilised his expertise in road sealing in a Northern Territory-Malaysia joint venture to introduce chip sealing in Malaysia from 1997 to 1999 before returning to conclude his career in the Northern Territory Public Sector in the Road Development Division in Darwin as Manager, Road Assets.
He had a long career in the public service and a distinguished one. It has been a productive and successful career that has added much to the Territory. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Docherty for all the work he has put in during his career. I wish Mr Docherty all the best for a happy and long retirement in the Northern Territory. I believe the department will have a farewell function for Ken and I intend to be there.
I have notice of another retiring member of the public service, Mr John Ivinson, who worked for the Commonwealth and then the Northern Territory government for the past 35 years. Joining the ranks of public servants in 1966, Mr Ivinson worked for the then Commonwealth Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife. Upon self-government, this department amalgamated with the NT Reserves Board to become the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. Mr Ivinson has worked in a number of areas in the parks and wildlife service and for the past 10 years he has worked at the Darwin Botanic Gardens. Playing a significant role in the development of many of Darwin’s public landscapes, he has worked on every major development project within the gardens since the Commission took over managing them in 1990.
These projects included developing the fountain area and the grounds around the relocated Wesleyan Church and establishing and building the much loved children’s playground. His work colleagues hold Mr Ivinson in very high esteem, ensuring his skills are utilised on all major projects so they reflect his passion for maintaining the gardens to a very high standard. Mr Ivinson’s hard work and dedication has contributed enormously to the gardens’ high presentation standard which has resulted in the constant positive visitor feedback that the gardens receive.
Mr Ivinson’s demonstrated pride in his work will be missed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission and especially the Darwin Botanic Gardens as he carried out his duties enthusiastically and was a valued member of the work team. The Parks and Wildlife Commission will hold a farewell function for John at the Darwin Botanic Gardens in early December and I also intend to be at that function.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that one of my constituents, Geetha Kannapiran, has recently been announced as a finalist in the national Youth Media Awards in 2001. There were 600 submissions, so to make this final is itself a tremendous achievement. Geetha’s entry will be professionally produced by the ABC and will be broadcast on ABC radio stations including JJJ, Radio National, Radio Australia, and local radio. Geetha will travel to Canberra in February 2002 to attend the Heywire Youth Issues Forum at the Australian Institute of Sport. The forum offers training in leadership skills and the opportunity to share ideas and experiences with other young people from around Australia. This is a terrific achievement on Geetha’s part and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of this parliament when I congratulate her, and wish her all the best in the Youth Media Awards and at the Heywire Youth Issues Forum.
Dripstone High School is in my electorate, and it is with great pride that I inform the Assembly that students from Dripstone High School have recently achieved some tremendous results in the areas of science and maths. Sixty-eight Dripstone High School students competed in the 2001 Australia Mathematics Competition, bringing home outstanding scores including one High Distinction, seven Distinctions and 37 Credits. Yvonne Chau, a Year 8 student at Dripstone High, did particularly well with a score of 88.5%, placing her in the top 2% for Year 8 students in the Northern Territory. Yvonne was awarded a High Distinction certificate along with a special achievement award for her efforts. I congratulate Yvonne, and I hope she will keep up the good work.
Dripstone High School students also did very well in the Australian National Chemical Analysis Competition this year. Robert Dunbar received a gold medal for his effort of coming within 1% of the true value of a given sample. This is a tremendous effort and a top result for the Territory. Three other students attending Dripstone High also did very well. Stephanie Bahler, Amanda Carrat and Abegail King also claimed silver medals for their titration skills. Congratulations to all of them. Medals were all presented to these talented young Territorians at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute prize evening at the NTU. Amanda Carrat, in addition to her silver medal, was Dripstone’s recipient of the Chemistry Prize for 2001. This award was presented by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute to encourage students to take up chemistry as a profession which the Territory is really going to need very soon with the gas industry arriving. Congratulations again, Amanda.
Seven students from Dripstone High School attended the Australian finals of the Tournament of the Minds in Hobart this year. The team consisted of Danielle Andrews, Alison Farquhar, Sophie McConnell, Cherryn Carroll, Fiona Bradley, Karen McEwen, and Elizabeth Duncan. The team entered the Secondary Language and Literature section where they proved themselves to be formidable opponents for other state teams, and these young Territorians did the Territory proud. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I extend my congratulations for these terrific students of Dripstone High.
I want to finish with a tremendous event that will take place in Casuarina All Sports Club in conjunction with the Disabled Sports Association of the NT who have organised an event that I am sure you will all agree deserves our support. To raise awareness of, and promote the Day of the Disabled on Sunday 2 December, players in wheelchairs - known as ‘wheelies’ - have challenged Darwin and District eight ball players to become wheelies themselves at the inaugural eight ball knockout competition, throwing down the gauntlet for the team event. I must congratulate the Casuarina Club for donating $150 to the Disabled Sports Association in support of the ‘Wheelies Challenge’ and I urge all members of this place to follow this lead and support this terrific initiative, as I am doing.
Finishing tonight, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas and a very happy and safe new year to yourself, Madam Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition and his family, to my colleagues on the other side of the House, Dr Lim, member for Greatorex, and all my parliamentary colleagues. I look forward to seeing you again in the new year, and until then, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
I also want to wish a very Merry Christmas and sincere thanks to my electorate officer, Ms Victoria Pollifrone; my temporary electorate officer, Ms Kaylene Caproniere, who unfortunately went back to Melbourne but she e-mailed me and said she was freezing to death and was looking forward to coming back to Darwin; my very good friend, Andrew Fyles; and certainly to my wife, Margaret, and my two children, Alexander and Michael.
Madam SPEAKER: I would also like to put on record, my thanks and best wishes to all members of the House who are here or else upstairs or somewhere. Particular thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who have guided us all through the first part of our new term. In particular, of course, to the Clerk, Ian McNeill, who gives his advice so freely and so well. To our Deputy Clerk who always helps us with any queries. To Gaddy behind the glass, who makes sure we say all the right words, and to Steve there. There are many people in this House, and I hope and I do not miss any. The support staff I know have helped many new members settling into their new role; to building management who have such a difficult task maintaining this building; the drivers, who do their job so cheerfully; the Hansard staff, who tend to make us sound very good, even if sometimes we are not; Security, of course, who keep an eye on us all the time; and our committee staff.
We are very lucky to have such a dedicated group of people working in the Legislative Assembly and I really thank them very much for everything they have done this year.
I also want to thank, Katie, my Personal Assistant, who is a great person to have up front when I am not around; and to Robyn, my Electorate Officer. I also want to thank my family who have helped me over the last 12 months, they have been great support to me - my husband Graeme; my granddaughters, Samantha, Leah, and now the new one, Casey and, of course, my daughter, Michelle, and my son, Peter. I have been very lucky to have such a strong, supportive family.
To everyone: safe Christmas. Do have a good holiday, a good break. I look forward to working with you all again next year.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to record developments in the Arafura electorate and the commitment and contribution of the many individuals who made them happen. They are the quiet achievers.
The first one that springs to my mind is Nuala Murphy, an energetic, determined woman, who worked tirelessly for my predecessors. She worked tirelessly for nearly 14 years for the Arafura electorate. Her affiliation with Tiwi people spans nearly 20 years. Nuala has many attributes: loyalty, patience and understanding are just a few. Many constituents of the Arafura electorate still ask about her. The gentle, calm voice on the telephone every morning, ringing to say hello, and listening, allayed many fears and assisted to getting through to many, to see through their doom and gloom. Fortunately, she has not moved on or out of the Territory, but to bigger and better things in government. I wish Nuala all the best for Christmas and I thank her for all her support and assistance, albeit brief, given to me prior to her leaving the office.
The women in the Arafura electorate: I admire and am constantly in awe at your endurance, your ability to smile and laugh, even though at times the environment surrounding you is a test for any one individual. My words have not articulated the true value and achievements of these truly strong women, be they our mothers, grandmothers and aunties.
Barry Puruntatameri. Many, both Tiwi and non-Tiwi, have had the privilege of knowing this strong and principled Tiwi man who has worked tirelessly for the Nguiu community. He has, over the past 15 years, been the President of the Nguiu Council. Unfortunately and sadly, he was not elected in the recent council elections which saddened him and many who know him. For many years, he campaigned and worked very hard to make changes for the better of the Tiwi people. He took on the fight that no one else wanted to take on. As it was, it was not the fashionable thing to do. He has, over the years, taken on the struggle of supporting the many women and non-drinkers on the island, to have the alcohol problems controlled and managed better. He had objected and led the charge to stop the liquor permits to no avail. He agonises over the increasing problems with cannabis and alcohol use amongst the young in the community. He has fought and taken on bureaucracy after bureaucracy, trying to get the resources to assist in the battle with this increasingly destructive drug problem. I am proud to say that he is my Tiwi father and a valuable mentor, and I wish him all the best for the future.
Tony Tapsell who is resigning as the Jabiru Town Clerk after nearly 10 years is another one of those quiet achievers we rarely hear about. With experienced leadership, Tony was able to bring together the various organisational groups in the Jabiru-Oenpelli region, providing a much more focussed strike rate in dealing with government departments. He was probably the first Town Clerk to fully accept responsibility for Manaburduma which is a Jabiru town camp. He consistently promoted and implemented local government reform, successfully overseeing the amalgamation of Jabiru and Gunbalunya Councils which has resulted in improved coordination of CDEP and other social functions. Tony will leave Jabiru much admired, highly respected and with integrity beyond reproach.
Liam Maher is another such person. As the Executive Officer of the Jabiluka Association, he has overseen the development of a very successful CDEP program which incorporates a night patrol and an outstation development program. Under his skilful guidance, all the outstations in the Jabiru region can now boast power and water facilities equal to World Health Organisation standards.
David Bond has been the Executive Officer of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation in Maningrida for a number of years. The organisation services nearly 30-odd outstations and a population of 700 to 800 people. He was one of a number of people instrumental in the development of the community’s own brick making program, and many structures have since been built at a fraction of the normal market price. Traditional owners are very concerned about the impact of commercial fishermen in the region and will be taking up this issue early in the new year.
Maurice Rioli has been a great supporter and mentor to me and is continuing to work tirelessly in his own community to participate in the areas of local government and health. With him is another quiet achiever, Marrulumpui or Francis Xavier Puruntatameri who has just been elected the president of the new Tiwi Island Local Government. For a young man, he is facing a demanding and challenging task which he will have no problems handling.
In terms of quiet achievers, I would like to highlight the special role that Aboriginal health workers play in the health system. They not only have their clinical workload but are in most cases the cultural brokers between the community and non-Aboriginal staff, as well as being expected to take on social and emotional roles. When things go wrong, they are more than likely to receive the brunt of the blame. The subsiding number of health workers through the lack of the support they receive is of great concern to me and an issue that I intend to pursue vigorously in cooperation with the Minister for Health in the new year.
The Maningrida Health Board is fully functioning again after holding an AGM and electing a number of new, energetic members to the board. The board is about to advertise for their Health Administrator and members are about to embark on a comprehensive training program. Together, they will meet the challenge of becoming a fully fledged community controlled health provider in the not too distant future.
The Letterstick Band led by Peter Daniger from Maningrida was successful in launching their CD in September this year. To the community of Maningrida, a community neglected too long by the former government, I will ensure that your needs and aspirations are taken on board and addressed seriously in government. Narbarlek band from Manmoyi Outstation at Gunbalunya successfully launched their second CD album at Parliament House last week.
As I mentioned the other night, Sebastian Pulakui was successful in winning an AFI award for best young actor. There are two other notable Aboriginal actors who should be mentioned: Nathan Daniels and Sean Mununguru. These teenagers from our remote Aboriginal communities are an inspiration and a superb role model for many of the young boys growing up on remote communities often surrounded by drug and alcohol abuse, extreme poverty, overcrowding and violence.
There are many people working silently in the background and rather than name them all, their contributions to services and programs in communities are recognised and appreciated and have not gone unnoticed. I will make it my business when I am travelling around to personally acknowledge these people face to face.
Finally, I must thank my husband, David, my children, my brother, Robert, my father, my seven sisters and my two brothers. Thank you for being there when I needed you all. Your belief, assistance - both emotional and financial - love and encouragement throughout the last three months has been unquestionable.
To the electorate of Arafura, I wish all my constituents a safe and healthy festive season, and I hope to see you in the coming weeks. I would like to join, just like every one of my colleagues, in thanking all the staff of the Legislative Assembly. As a new member coming into this parliament and being nave to a lot of the systems, they have been very helpful. I thank them for their guidance and support. I hope you all have a merry Christmas. Be safe, all my colleagues, but I am sure I am going to see you probably in the next couple of days. To the opposition, to Sue, Denis, thank you.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight firstly to acknowledge and thank Minna and Paul Sitzler for their outstanding contribution to our community. Mrs Minna Sitzler AM, Deputy of the Administrator, and Mr Paul Sitzler OAM have made a great contribution to the Northern Territory, and especially to the people of Alice Springs.
Paul came to Australia from Germany in 1951 to work in construction at the Morwell Power Station in Victoria, supposedly for two years. After only six months he moved to Adelaide and worked at felling trees and clearing land. After a short time in Adelaide, Paul was offered the chance to work once again at his trade as a carpenter and he moved to Alice Springs. His brother Peter joined him in Alice from Germany and they worked in partnership for several years before forming Sitzler Bros in 1957. Their first big contract in 1962 was to build offices, houses, a school and an eating house at Areyonga for $50 000. They went on to become one of the Territory’s most successful building companies.
The Sitzler Bros contribution to development is evident across the Territory, from Darwin to Alice Springs and to remote areas such as Yuendumu and Hermannsburg. Some of the buildings include the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in Alice Springs, the Baptist Church at Yuendumu, the Alice Springs Government Centre, the Araluen Centre, Ford Plaza, Rydges Plaza, Sadadeen High School, the Alice Springs Airport and the Power Station at Yulara. There are many, many more. Paul has been a valued member of Apex and Rotary in Alice Springs for over 40 years. Although he retired from his business some years ago, he has remained an active member of Rotary.
I have only touched on a few highlights in the life of, I am sure, a very remarkable man. Paul went on to marry a quite remarkable woman in 1959, Minna Albrecht. Minna was born in Alice Springs to Pastor Albrecht and Minna Albrecht and spent much of her childhood at the mission at Hermannsburg. Minna inherited her mother’s artistic talent and under her guidance developed her strong interest in arts and crafts. She moved to Adelaide and trained as a kindergarten teacher and returned to Alice Springs to teach in the town’s only pre-school.
Paul and Minna travelled to Germany in 1960 for 12 months and returned to Alice Springs to relief teaching while their three children attended primary school. Minna then turned her focus back to her love of arts and crafts, helping to establish the Alice Springs Crafts Council in 1972 and opening a private studio to teach others the art of weaving. A number of Minna’s own works are featured in exhibitions around the country, and some are now held in State collections.
On 17 February 1997, Minna was sworn in as Deputy of the Administrator. As Deputy of the Administrator, Minna has attended about 350 official engagements and through her warm style and genuine interest in community events, she has won the hearts of many Territorians. The role of Deputy is important as it serves to reinforce the values that Territorians share. It allows people from the smallest towns and communities to plan their special days and know that there is a good chance that someone special will come along to either cut the cake, make a presentation, open a building or just be there to offer words of support and encouragement. Minna has done all these things. She has done them from her heart and she has done them well.
Paul and Minna have both contributed selflessly to Alice Springs, to the Territory and to Australia. Both have been recognised for their individual achievements by the Order of Australia and both will be sadly missed when they leave the Territory at the end of the year. We hope you will both enjoy a long and happy retirement in Adelaide and trust that you will return to the Territory from time to time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as this is the last sittings before Christmas, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all honourable members and their families the very best for Christmas and the new year. May we all have a safe and happy time and let’s hope that there will be no road deaths over the holiday period. I also extend my best wishes to Madam Speaker and the staff of the Assembly led admirably by Mr Clerk, and in particular the attendants and hard working, long suffering Hansard staff who work so hard to record the deliberations of this Assembly, and record them in a way that we all feel is a great representation of what we said, even though they have to work tirelessly to achieve that.
This has been a tumultuous and momentous year for us all, with the achievement of the railway, Territory elections, subsequent changes of government to Labor in the Northern Territory, the first time since self-government and, most recently, the federal elections. For me personally, it has been both exciting, deeply disappointing but always challenging. Losing government is one thing, but for me it is sad that some of my colleagues are no longer members of this House. Such are the vagaries of politics some would say, and that is true, but each of these things has a human dimension, and not to see the faces of all of them is sad but in particular, members such as Peter Adamson and Phil Mitchell. They are two who entered politics with me and not to see them and not to wish them well, and wish them well as members of the Assembly for this joyous Christmas, is doubly sad.
Equally though, it is pleasing to see new faces, certainly on our side of the House, in the members for Goyder and Araluen, who I am sure will go on to make a marked impression in politics in the Northern Territory in the coming years.
To my hard working staff in my parliamentary office, Imelda, Sharon, Kylie, Jim, Gary and Jon, I say thank you for your support, not only for the period since the election, but before when we were in government. Unfortunately, for we on this side of the House, they are all that are left of a larger staff from the whole of the 5th floor who supported me and my government up until August. I thank them all for that support and loyalty to me and to my government, and I wish them all the very best for the festive season. Equally, the many public servants who served my government during the course of the year, I say thank you and Merry Christmas.
I would also like to mention, and say once again, thank you to my Electorate Officer, Heather Hodgson. She consistently supports me above and beyond my right to ask of her throughout the year, and I thank her once again this year for her efforts.
And, finally, along with my wife, Annette and sons, Sam and Tom, I wish all Territorians a Happy Christmas.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight as the last night of parliament for this year 2001, and would like to reflect on this year, also the Chinese Year of the Snake. Perhaps it is an omen, the snake, some finding it a year of quick movement and action and activity while others find it a year where things do go wrong, a year where a government that delivered the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, a federal promise that took almost 100 years to deliver, yet the party lost government. I congratulate the Labor Party for having won the election, and I have said that before, and it is something that they did, and they did well, right or wrong, and I hope that they will look after the Northern Territory well for the next three years or so of the term.
I was made a minister at around this time last year I said that my Christmas came early. Unfortunately, it did not last very long, but it gave me the opportunity to be a minister and gave me a taste of what it was like and what it meant to be a Minister of the Crown. It was also an honour that I was the first person of Chinese descent to become a Minister of the Crown around the nation and that is a distinction that will never be taken away from me. I think it did please the Chinese community of the Northern Territory, in particular the Chung Wah Society of which I am the Deputy Patron.
This election sees four of us from the class of 1994 being re-elected: the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Denis Burke; the member for Daly, Mr Tim Baldwin; the member for Braitling and the Speaker, Mrs Loraine Braham; and myself, are four of the six, the other two being Peter Adamson, the former member for Casuarina, and Mr Phil Mitchell, the former member for Millner. It was a big intake, similar to what you have done this time, members opposite, and you will find that camaraderie is something that you will carry for many years together. It is a good thing to have and to remember what it is like to come in together in the one year of the election and to support each other right through. Peter Adamson, Phil Mitchell and myself became very good friends and it is sad that they are not here any more. However, you never know what the future holds; we might see them back here again.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank, first of all, my Electorate Officer, Jackie Jessop, who started with me just before the election of 1997 and stayed with me for four years, working with me very faithfully, very loyally. Without her support, life would be very difficult. With the support of her husband, Mick Jessop, I really get the work of two for the price of one, and I could never ever repay their generosity.
My new Electorate Officer is Carol Lyons. Carol was a very young girl of about 10 when I first met her and her family in South Australia. After my family moved to Alice Springs, her family followed suit, and we tell a joke that they actually moved to Alice Springs to look for a good doctor. Anyway, the families have kept in contact for over 25 years, and Carol, now a grown woman with her own child, works for me as a loyal and very efficient Electorate Officer. And the third person who fills in for me as a temp when I need someone in the electorate office in the absence of either Jackie or Carol, was Christine Potts. She lived in Alice Springs for many years, still has family members living there, but now is living in Adelaide with her husband. She comes back to Alice Springs on a regular basis and sometimes comes into the office to help out voluntarily. It has been a great boon for the busy office that I run in Alice Springs.
Other people I would like to thank include Russell Ball, who was my Senior Ministerial Officer when I was the Minister for Local Government and Housing. Russell has worked for many years on the 5th floor, and worked for many ministers and past chief ministers. He is a very intelligent and efficient ministerial officer and I wish him well for his future. He has a young family and I hope that, if he has not already found a job, he finds one soon.
Fiona Christie was the other Ministerial Officer who assisted me in housing. Fiona is another young woman whom I have known for many years. Her family comes from Alice Springs, and her mother, in fact, runs the Rona Glynn Pre-School, which is in my electorate and where I recently opened a bike path for the pre-schoolers. Fiona is now pregnant and due to have her own child soon, and I wish her and her husband well for this Christmas and thank her for all the help that she has gave me during the time that we worked together.
Other members of my staff include Kelly Stephens, who was my press secretary - I think she is now working in Adelaide - and Chantelle Barker and Lucy Cahill who were two young women who worked in the front office in my ministerial office, and also Katie Tchia. Katie, who now works for the Speaker, spent a couple of months working for me before she decided to depart and go to Sydney to live. It is interesting to see that she is now back in the Northern Territory.
I would like to thank also Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Assembly and David Horton, the Deputy Clerk, and their staff for help they have provided me in all the duties I have performed in my many years in the Assembly. I have worked closely with both Ian and David in our respective roles in the committees, particularly the IMAC committee where we have great fun debating issues. Graham Gadd and Helen Allmich, we have become good friends over the last eight years. Rick Gray and Pat Hancock, all very senior staff in our Assembly who have worked assiduously for all of us without complaint. These officers have to literally satisfy every wish we have. Even the building management team under Derek Stafford keeps this place running like a well tuned clock and hardly anything goes amiss – perhaps except my room occasionally gets a little bit warm for somebody coming from the Centre of Australia where winters get pretty cold. The very high humidity in Darwin is sometimes is something to bear and the offices get a little bit warm some mornings.
Without my faithful supporters in the Greatorex-Macdonnell branch of the CLP, I wouldn’t be here today. There are 60 members in the Greatorex-Macdonnell branch who have been very supportive in doing many volunteer jobs for me including delivering newsletters across the electorate. Every three months they do it without any complaint. When I need newsletters folded, they come in and do that for me as well. They are a bunch of very faithful and loyal supporters, the most faithful of whom is Brian Marlow who has helped me without any reservation and I thank him and his wife, Fran, for their unstinting help.
The secretariat under Suzanne Cavanagh and Charlie Taylor. I have known Suzanne and Charlie since the early 1980s when I first became a CLP member and I became the Vice-President of the CLP at the same time Charlie Taylor did. Our careers in the CLP matched for a long time. Whilst Charlie would have served under two or three presidents of the CLP, similarly I served under three different presidents of the CLP. Suzanne and Charlie were the strength behind the CLP for many years and they have decided to retire from the front line of the CLP, taking a lesser profile but still providing help, assistance and advice whenever needed.
Finally, I would like to say Merry Christmas to my Labor colleagues, members on the opposite side of the room. It is never easy. When they first arrived in this Chamber a few short months ago, many of them were very full of goodwill. They have extended their hand of friendship, but soon find with the daily argie-bargie of political debate where barbs are thrown without fear, without any punches pulled, when emotions get hurt, people feel sleighted and insults are really thrown in and poorly received on both sides of the Chamber.
Things happen; things change and you tend to perceive your colleagues on the other side of the Chamber as enemies, as people from the dark side. And maybe it is because of our political differences and the political fight that we have to go through that we end up not feeling quite as good about each other as we would like. Had we not known each other inside this Chamber, things might be very different. In fact I think of all the Labor members that I have known so far, I relate with the member for Nhulunbuy probably better than anyone else because I spent a lot of time with him during my early days in this Chamber when he and I were both on the Select Committee on Euthanasia. We spent time travelling around the Territory together and we debated an issue which was very emotive and it got deeper than just the superficial argie-bargie of politics. It got to the very core or the soul of our feelings and thoughts, and we do have a relationship that is perhaps better than what I have with any other Labor member.
Thank you to Graham Symons, the CEO of Territory Housing, and Trish Angus and then Bob Beadman whom I spoke about last night and David Coles who are the two heads of Department of Local Government. I thank them and their officers in their respective departments for their help in making my work as the Minister for Local Government and Housing a lot easier. There were some hard decisions we had to make and the department has provided me with all the right sort of information with which I can make the right decision. I was glad to have those people with their professional help backing me all the way during my time as a minister.
Merry Christmas to all.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to be brief tonight. I guess I could almost go through a telephone book of people that I would like to thank, but I will not. I will try to keep it brief. First, thank you thank you to my Electorate Officer, Judy Herring, who has just joined me in the last month or so. Judy worked in the Legislative Assembly for many years and she has taken the post of being Electorate Officer for me out at Johnston. I think that I can be a difficult and sometimes demanding person but Judy soon became a mind reader and I certainly wish her and her family all the best over this Christmas season.
Like the member for Greatorex, there are people within my party branch that I would like to thank, particularly Charlie Phillips and his wife, Catherine. They were of great support to me during the campaign and a bit like Judy, they had to put up with someone who was often quite demanding, but they just took it in their stride and they were a great support to me. I am sure that they were a large part of the reason why I was elected. But on a personal level I would like to wish Charlie and Catherine and their family all the best for Christmas.
Another special person in the branch is Frank Moukaddem. Frank is a wonderful man. He has done many things in his life, and I certainly value his friendship and support. Nothing is ever too much trouble for Frank Moukaddem and for anything, no matter how small or how large, Frank will always be there with a helping hand. He is a wonderful man.
I thank the Speaker and the Legislative Assembly staff. As the member for Greatorex said, you come into this place, you are very new and just the support that I feel I have been given is fantastic. I know that particularly the Legislative Assembly staff were put under a lot of stress after the election because there were quite a lot of new members and they had to provide the framework and support for those members. Resources and people got pretty stretched during that time, but I feel that we are settling into a routine now and I am very grateful for their help.
I would like to wish my colleagues, my Labor colleagues on this side, a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. I took the message from the member for Greatorex to heart. You feel a very close bond to those that you have entered into parliament with and it is a fantastic thing to support one another. But I also feel a bond with the two members from the CLP, the member for Araluen and the member for Goyder. We exchange a smile and a wink sometimes and we are a new class of 2001 and going through a steep learning curve.
I agree with the member for Greatorex that we are on opposite sides of the fence and sometimes things are thrown from one side of the Chamber to the other, but I believe that even though we are on opposite sides, politically speaking, both sides are part of a wonderful fabric of politics in Australia where I do not think that there has ever been armed confrontation, or wars, or civil wars. I hope we never see that in this country. One common thing that we hold on both sides of politics is our love for this wonderful country and for the people who comprise it. I think, even though we do have differences at the very base, we have a very strong commitment to the wellbeing of the Australian and the Territory people.
It is coming into Christmas and we think about family. A year ago my aunty, Moira Stam, passed away. She was a wonderful person, and our family felt her loss very keenly. We will be thinking about her this Christmas.
Finally, to Liz, my wife, and my family: they have been a great support to me. They have not seen much of me in the last couple of days, but that is what happens in politics. I know there are members who travel from all over the Territory to come here, and it must be very hard on families. I am very thankful for the support of my family and very proud of all of them, and I send them a special Christmas cheer tonight.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a group of people a merry festive season and a happy new year.
The first group of people include members of the Millner Labor Party branch. They include Daryl and Cathy Spurr, Peter and Julia O’Hagan, Phil Powling and Rowena Livers. This group of people was instrumental in my pre-selection for the Australian Labor Party and the seat of Millner. In a very short time, I became very close to their families and they definitely welcomed me into their families, and my large family, of course, welcomed them. They worked tirelessly over the election campaign for me, and I genuinely say Merry Christmas and a happy new year to them.
I also extend good wishes to the Mu family of the Happy Foodland Supermarket. This family have come to the Territory under trying circumstances from East Timor. They have worked hard over many years to make a successful small business work for themselves and, more importantly, I believe, for the wider community in the Millner area. The Mu family have a genuine community spirit, and over a number of years my family members have built a relationship based on respect and friendship.
Next, I would like to wish a merry festive season to the Zammit family: Uncle Kevin and Aunty Steffine, Aaron and Damien Zammit and Damien’s partner, Charlene Musk. This family is a credit to themselves and all Territorians. Their family values are based on honesty, hard work, fairness, respect, and love towards all people. Thank you for all your support and help.
To Michael Athanasiou and his wife Aggie Athanasiou - over the last few years we have built a very strong friendship and respect for each other. As a couple and a family, I honestly state that I am hoping to model my future family on your family’s qualities.
To Frank ‘Doodles’ Ahmat and Aunty Sue Ahmat and family, thank you for your support and advice over the last few years. Though I often argue and joke with you, Doodles, I have often taken on board your advice and used it to my advantage. Though we may not agree on everything, I do respect your football opinion. Congratulations on your first grandson, Isaih Ahmat.
Michael Devery, Paul Seden, Reggie Saylor, Michael Edwards, Tim Edwards, Patrick Edwards, Joe Ahsam, Glen Dooling, Stewie O’Connell, Rockey Cousins, David Parfit, James Parfit, Kenny Sutton, Damien, Shaun and Aaron Kneebone. All of those people I call my brother. They have supported me and advised me over many years. I often look around and thank my lucky stars that I have friends like you at my side. For as long as I live, I will never walk alone in any fight or contest.
Finally, I would like to thank my family. There is no doubt in my mind that my family played a huge role in my election and my character as a human being. Through their efforts over a significant period of time in the Territory - in fact, for many, many generations but, in particular, over the last 100 years in Darwin, and over the wider community - they have played an integral part in the history of the Northern Territory. I would like to recognise and wish them, my family, a merry festive season.
I would like to thank my grandmother Daisy Ruddock, my mother Roseanne and her husband Steve Brennan, Nicole and Chris Lewis, Luke Bonson and Cowan Bonson, Aunty Esther Caroline, Aunty Josie Guy and David Guy, Yasmin Crawshaw, Bianca Crawshaw, Travis Caroline, Chelsea Kerwick, all cousins. Also Robert Bonson, Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson, Greg and Linda Bonson, Dookie Bonson and Kathy Lyness, Annie Bonson, Uncle Joe, Aunty Pat Bonson, sons Joe, wife Pacita Bonson, son Rodney Bonson and wife April Bonson, Uncle John Bonson, Jason Bonson, John Bonson Jr, Uncle Kenny Bonson, Jacob Bonson and wife Shelly Bonson, Kane Bonson and Kirstin Bonson, Aunty Patsy Davies, Dennis Caroline, Yvette Caroline, Aunty Betsy, Uncle Ian McLeod, Tania and Cecil Lewis, Annemarie McLeod …
Dr Burns: I hope they’re all giving you Christmas presents, Matt!
Mr BONSON: I have to go through the whole family.
Cyril Oliver, Donald and Kiris, my godchildren, Sheree McLeod, Aunty Dorrie and Uncle Alan Oates, Kylie and Samara Oates, Aunty Lynette Bonson, Trisha Stokes, Nathan Stokes, Sonia Stokes and partner John May, Donna Stokes and partner Mark Baker, Aunty Lila, Christian, Gemma and Harley.
To all of those other relations that I have missed that go further than one or two generations I would like to wish a Merry Christmas and a happy new year and, if I did not mention you tonight, I will attempt to do that over the next …
Dr Burns: The next four years.
Mr BONSON: Yes, the next four years. I would like to wish everyone in this House a happy and Merry Christmas.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to say a few words with regard to Christmas. As you may have noticed, I have been knocked flat by a cold over the last couple of days, so I will not inflict myself upon you much longer.
I would like to start by commenting on what an interesting year it has been for all of us. Certainly, the events of 18 August were disappointing but they absolutely pale to insignificance compared to 11 September. I think it has really given us a perspective as to what really matters in life. For me, now being in opposition, I am finding it a very interesting experience. It is certainly not a ghastly experience in any way, shape or form. Having been elected as the Whip for my side here, it has been a real learning experience for me. I now understand a lot more than I did 12 months ago as far as parliamentary procedure goes. Hopefully, in another 12 to 18 months, I will know a whole lot more. So, for any member, if you are ever contemplating learning a few things about parliament, I would recommend going into the Whip’s position as it is a bit of a baptism of fire. I am sure that the member for Barkly would agree with that.
In starting my thanks in no order of priority, I would like to thank the officers of the 5th floor, the ministerial officers, both before, when we were in government, and now with Labor in government. I have always found parliamentary officers and ministerial officers to really go out of their way to help MLAs out in the electorates and I would really like to thank the people who have been in those positions for that help over the last 18 months since I have been a member of parliament. Equally, I would like to thank the Darwin City Council. Many of the complaints and issues that come to a member of parliament are issues that relate to council and I have found the staff and the aldermen at the Darwin City Council have really made an effort to help us out there in suburbia deal with our problems.
The Country Liberal Party, of course, is going through some difficult times. Today, with the final announcement that Dave Tollner has won the seat of Solomon - I congratulate Dave for that win and Nigel Scullion of course - can put to bed some of the issues that the party has faced over the last couple of years. I know with Len Notaris and John Amery at the helm of the party, we are going to move towards a rebirth and it is going to be something that all of us are going to be very proud of. We are going to be here for the Northern Territory and for the people of the Territory in the years to come. I remain a very proud member of the CLP and will work with the party to the best of my ability through the years to better the Territory.
Going to thanks, I would like to thank Elliot McAdam, the Government Whip, for the way that he has worked with me since both of us have come into this position. I believe that we work in a very complementary fashion, that we work constructively. If you don’t know, Elliot rings me usually late during the sittings, late in the evening after we have all closed down to let me know what the government is planning for the next day, then we confer again in the morning before the session starts. It is really necessary for us to be able to liaise like this so that the day can proceed relatively smoothly with people knowing what’s going on, and I thank Elliot for that.
I would like to thank, as many of you have, the staff of the Legislative Assembly. Needless to say, all of us have found them very supportive and very useful in the help and the guidance that they give us. Without them we would be totally lost. I thank all of them: the security guards, the library staff, Hansard of course, we all treasure for fixing up our mistakes in such a subtle way and make us look good and professional in the way we do our jobs.
I would like to thank my branch, the Darwin Branch of the Country Liberal Party. They have been very supportive over the years and we, too, as a branch have had some difficulties in the last 18 months but with Terri Robson leading the team as our Chair, we are coming through them very well and I know we will go from strength to strength now.
I would like to wish all the members of parliament here, both government and of course opposition members, all the very best for Christmas and the new year. As I said in my speech after the election, I believe we have much more in common than we have differences with each other. We share many things and many thoughts, and this becomes apparent when one of us suffers some sort of a downfall. I know all of us felt for Maggie Hickey with her tragic loss recently, Maurice Rioli with his problems with his health and for Peter Adamson, and that feeling was genuine across the House. It is the human side of politics that breaks down some of the barriers which do build up through the heat and the aggression of a parliamentary year. So, I do wish you all the very best for Christmas.
I would like to, in particular, wish my electorate the best for Christmas the new year. I went out door knocking and I gave them a newsletter and they gave me a cold. So, I would like to thank them for that, whoever did it. It was a great day out there on Saturday. It was boiling hot and it was one of the most sweaty days I think I have ever had in my life. But the people I met on the day who I am growing to know personally offer me such support and kindness and warmth and humour that it really makes door knocking a delight. As all of us go door knocking for the same purpose, which is to get out there, to know our people and to find out what the issues are. I do wish all the people in my electorate a great Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
Coming towards a conclusion now, just some special thanks. I would like to thank Helen Bateman, my Electorate Officer, for the fabulous job that she has done during the last 12 months. Helen came to me 18 months ago. She had no experience in the area of being an Electorate Officer but she had run successfully the Torch Relay program for Darwin City Council. For any of you who became involved and saw any of the Torch Relay activity here in Darwin - and here we have a torch bearer in Dr Burns …
Dr Burns: Fantastic.
Dr Lim: So was I!
Ms CARTER: In Darwin?
Dr Lim: No, in Alice Springs. First Chinese in Australia. I was on the first day.
Ms CARTER: Excellent. Well, Dr Lim was a torch bearer, too. He is getting all excited about it.
Helen Bateman was the organiser behind the Torch Relay here in Darwin. I didn’t know Helen at that stage but I think any of us who went to see the event would appreciate what a fabulous job, the organisation that went behind that. I have reaped the benefits of that. Helen has extensive networks within Darwin City Council, and you can imagine the positive aspects that can bring to an electorate office to have someone with those contacts.
Helen has the most wonderful personality. She is a joyous person to spend time with, even though she personally has had some hardships recently and I know it has been a very difficult time for her and her family. I do send her my love and my very best wishes - I get teary at the drop of a hat - but I do wish Helen all the best for the year.
Lurking up there somewhere is my husband, John Haines, and I do wish John a great Christmas. I am going to share it with him, of course. We are going to head south, drive down the track, head to country Victoria to spend time with my parents-in-law and my extended family there, and I am sure we are going to enjoy our time in country Victoria for a few weeks.
Just in conclusion, I wish everyone a safe time. This is a difficult time here in the Top End. Needless to say, as a member of parliament I am particularly concerned about the advent of cyclones. I hope sincerely that we don’t see one. It is a worrying time, we have had a couple of very nasty storms here in Darwin over the last couple of weeks which have really raised in people’s minds the problems that we could be facing shortly. So, I hope that doesn’t happen. Also, of course, I have family and friends in Katherine and it is a worrying time now with regard to flooding. So, my fingers are crossed for all of us that we come through this difficult climatic time of the year unscathed.
So, to all of you, all the very best for Christmas, and I do look forward to seeing all of us back here safe and sound in February.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, being the last sittings prior to Christmas, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a number of people in the electorate of Barkly and to pass on festive wishes to a whole lot of people within that electorate.
To commence, I would like to pay tribute to Jimmy Morrison. Jimmy Morrison is a young Aboriginal lad who lives at Borroloola. Recently Jimmy was awarded runner up for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year. Whilst a lot of people may not consider this to be an event, it is important to understand that Jimmy has achieved this award by a lot of hard work and dedication and with working with the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola. So, to Jimmy and his newly born son, Cabe, and to his wife, I congratulate you on your new young one, and also to the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola who obviously have put in a lot of time. Congratulations to everyone associated there.
Another person I pay tribute to tonight is Nigel Rush. Nigel has been mentioned in this House previously. Nigel plays a very important role in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, particularly in relation to young people. Recently, Nigel won the Metaland Local Legend award which is sponsored by a local hardware retailing outfit in Tennant Creek known as BJ Trading. Nigel, as I mentioned previously, puts in many hours and is very well respected because of all the hard work that he does. Other people were nominated for their achievements, and they were Doc Finch, Ken Sanson, Cathy Stevenson, Phil and Shirl Evans, Dave Mills, Tony Civitarese and Matthew Hicks.
Another achievement of note occurred not too long ago when Jetski Niemeyer and Adam Rush were the southern Territory winners of the ABC’s Heywire competition. People will be aware that the ABC gives regional youth a voice, and this competition was open to people between the ages of 16 to 22. It required them to submit three minute radio documentaries about what life is like in regional, rural and remote Australia. Jetski described her feelings about Tennant Creek thus:
The important thing to note here is that Jetski is studying year 12 at Tennant Creek High School, but she is also a mother and her effort in deciding to go back to school and pursue her educational goals is a wonderful tribute to her.
Another young gentlemen who also entered into that competition was a young chap by the name of Adam, and Adam wrote his story about the Tennant Creek High School’s recent trip to Vanuatu. I would like to quote parts of what Adam had to say in respect to his documentary:
Another event hosted in the Barkly recently was the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, a volunteer based organisation that promotes the effective care and protection of children as the best means of creating a healthy society. Tex Sculthorp, an Aboriginal artist and storyteller from Goodooga in New South Wales, and his partner Anne Morril, recently facilitated a community workshop at Epenarra, a small indigenous community to the southwest of Tennant Creek. Tex and Anne used their initial series of six story posters that promote respect and learning within families, communities and environment, to introduce workshops aimed at remote settings. The schools and parents then chose the link between the school and the community life as a theme for their paintings. The people of Epenarra were very impressed and happy with this initiative and obviously would like the people to come back, and were also looking at extending this program out into the other communities.
A joint venture digital training program between Tennant Creek High and Papulu Appari-Kari Language Centre was also a great success. Warren Bretag from Independent Video Productions conducted a one week intensive training session with a number of senior students from the high school and several workers from the media unit attached to the language centre. The course involved animation, multimedia production techniques and was conducted at the language centre. Funding was provided by DETYA. Congratulations to Peter Henwood, Warren Bretag, Karan Hayward, Carlos Beasley, Andrea Moreton, Ray Kelly, Pebbles George and Amena Bryden for their contributions to this very successful outcome.
The Tennant Creek 73 Regional Army Cadets Unit recently took possession of two high frequency portable radios. These radios were generously supplied by Q-Mac Electronics in Perth as a result of that company learning that the Tennant Creek 73 Regional Army Cadets had no access to communications as part of their training and when they went on excursions into the bush. I also pay tribute to two gentlemen who worked very hard in supporting the above Regional Army Cadets program and I refer to Derek McPadden and Chris Rothery.
One other event which occurred recently was when a number of young Tennant Creek children went down to Alice Springs to compete in the Under 17 National Rugby League Championships. These young people were known as the Tennant Creek Tigers. They really had never played rugby before and obviously it was a very big exercise on their part and a great experience for them. Two people in particular who assisted and supported were Gerry McCarthy and Tony Civitarese. They donated time and dollars to assist in food and management of the team. The team was also sponsored by local businesses, T and J Contractors, Nigel Rush, of course, from TC Raiders also had an important role to play as did Aninyingiyi Congress Sports and Recreation Program and Julalikari Jobplace along with Barkly Employment and Training. Whilst these young children may have lost, I think that if you were to ask the kids themselves, they would tell you that they were winners.
Recently a crowd of over 500 people turned up to the Tennant Creek Rodeo. Previously there were rodeos in Tennant Creek and obviously the event that occurred this year was an attempt by some very hard working, dedicated people in getting this event back on the agenda. The major event, the bull ride, was won by Glen McKinney, who scored an impressive 126 points. The rodeo attracted participants from all over the Barkly, particularly from the indigenous communities, and of course, some of the cattle stations. I would also like to thank Rockhampton Downs Station and Singleton Station for providing the cattle.
Some of our young children in Tennant Creek travelled to Alice Springs to competed in the Alice Tennant Challenge Shield. I pay particular tribute to those young children who performed particularly well, Chris and Anthony Wall, Mathew and Nicole Blankenspoor, and Lizzie Phillips.
In conclusion, I pay tribute and extend my very sincere thanks to the parliamentary staff who made me so very welcome in this place on my arrival. I agree with some of the other speakers, that it was almost bordering on strange upon arrival, but the fact that they performed a very professional and caring role made it so much easier for me, and I want to pay tribute to Ian McNeill, to Gaddy and also to Steven Stokes. They perform a wonderful job under immense pressure. Also to the Hansard staff who obviously work very, very long hours. I thank them for their dedication.
To Stephen McVay in Tennant Creek, I thank him for all the hard work he has put in over the last four to five months. And also to the ALP Branch in Tennant Creek. I mean, you don’t get places unless you are supported by a wonderful group of people, and they are just that. To my colleagues on this side of the House, I thank you very much for your kind support and I am absolutely certain that over time, we will mature and provide a real degree of strength and determination in pursuing many of the goals and objectives as set down by the Labor Party. I would also like to pay tribute to the people on the other side.
I pay tribute to my partner, Barbara, who just drove up to Darwin last night. I thank her for all her support over the years, and particularly over the last six months or so. They have been very difficult, and I thank you so much.
To all the people in the Barkly, I thank you whether you voted for me or not. I hope that you will have a very safe, a very pleasant and a very enjoyable Christmas. Drive safely. Merry Christmas.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Home Ground for
Palmerston Magpies Football Club
Home Ground for
Palmerston Magpies Football Club
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 192 petitioners relating to a home ground for the Palmerston Magpies Football Club. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Northern Territory Labor government made
an election promise of a home ground for the Palmerston Magpies Football Club.
Sporting clubs make a valuable contribution to our community through providing positive pathways
for our youth. The 2000-01 Reserve and A Grade Premiers, the Palmerston Magpies Football Club,
enjoy strong community support.
The Palmerston community is rightly proud of its local club and joins with the Magpies and other
codes to call on the government to provide Palmerston sporting groups with a home ground.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Labor government urgently meet with the club and
progress this issue without further delay.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Infrastructure Development
Infrastructure Development
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we all know the creation of infrastructure in the Territory has been a recent process in comparison to the rest of Australia. As such, there is a greater need and demand for new infrastructure investment in the Territory than in other states. On top of this, we have seen significant population growth in the last few decades and we look forward to greater population growth in the future. This means that we must be prepared and plan for future infrastructure needs.
I wish to advise the House that tomorrow I will be guest speaker at the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development in Sydney. This is the principal industry association representing the interests of investors, financiers, constructors, operators and maintenance providers for public infrastructure. AusCID members have wide-ranging interests spanning airports; rail; toll roads; waste; waste water; power generation, transmission and distribution; gas pipelines; telecommunications; ports and emerging social infrastructure opportunities like public housing, schools, hospitals, prisons and justice facilities. Currently there are 101 members of this council. I am delighted that this organisation has shown sufficient interest in the future of the Territory to invite me to address them.
This expected population growth is due to spin-offs from the building of the railway and port and the anticipated development when Timor Sea gas comes onshore. We are looking forward to an exciting period in the Territory’s development, but one that will bring increasing demands on government and the business community. Basic infrastructure will be needed to ensure that Territorians can reap the benefits of future developments and continue to enjoy a high level of service from government.
Projects associated with rail and gas developments bring with them demands for factories, power, water, sewerage, gas and roads infrastructure. Providing for these needs presents a challenge, but also opportunities. On top of that there is no doubt huge potential exists in exploration for minerals. We can look forward to significant developments in this area which, in turn, will present another set of demands for new infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and police stations. There is also no doubt that investment in this infrastructure, at least in part, will need to come from outside the Territory.
As such, I recognise that part of my role as Chief Minister is marketing this great Territory of ours, and I welcome any opportunity to carry out this task. I intend selling this Territory as a great place to invest. I want to encourage companies to come to the Territory and join with local investors and developers to help build the infrastructure we will need.
I was pleased to see, as an example, that the recently announced Mitchell Street Plaza Development is a partnership between the local company Randazzo Investments and the large superannuation company C+Bus. A number of developers have shared with me their concern that superannuation payments of Territorians are finding their way into southern markets instead of staying in the Territory. Part of the issue here is presenting suitable vehicles in which they can invest. Hopefully, the involvement of C+Bus is an omen for the future. I also hope that my address to the Australia Council for Infrastructure Development will encourage other companies to consider the Territory as part of their future.
Tomorrow afternoon is an important step in selling the Territory as a business market to the national business community. I will be selling the Territory as the gateway to Asia, and I am confident of encouraging investment, building strong business links, and enjoying the benefits of those new relationships for years to come.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her comments, and I applaud the fact that she has the opportunity to speak to the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development.
There is no doubt that the words ‘exciting’ and ‘challenging’ for the Territory’s future should be said in one breath because I believe that we are entering extremely troubling times, notwithstanding the fact that in the medium- to long-term, there is no doubt there are wonderful opportunities for the Northern Territory. In order to get private sector investment into the Northern Territory, we need to demonstrate clearly that that investment will be rewarded.
I agree with the Chief Minister that large superannuation investment funds should be encouraged to invest more in the Northern Territory. It has always been an aim of the previous CLP government that we would have set up a property trust for Territorians to invest in property in the Northern Territory. That opportunity exists through large superannuation organisations such as C+Bus and also the opportunity to encourage those organisations and others to get involved in, say, the development of the Stokes Hill Wharf. I am sure that is much on the Chief Minister’s mind.
Putting party politics aside, one should recognise the very good relationship that the new member for Solomon has with those superannuation organisations, and extremely good contacts in terms of encouraging investment. One could not dismiss the fact that he was, in part, instrumental in that investment in the Mitchell Street development. So he is a valued operator in that area.
I will take very quickly the opportunity to ask the Chief Minister to please go away from this notion of the stick with regards to leases for Timor Sea gas developments. I have considered the comments of the member for Wanguri. I do not believe that is the best approach for this government. I think we should be using every incentive we can to encourage the Commonwealth to provide greater incentives for Timor Sea investment rather than a stick approach with regard to those leases. It is true to say, and we should say it honestly to investors down south because they are keenly aware of the situation that exists, that gas coming onshore in the Northern Territory is extremely problematic. The issue of the floating LNG plant is likely to proceed, in my opinion, and that will proceed, unfortunately, without a gas pipeline ashore. The focus should be, I believe, on encouraging Bayu-Undan. Therefore, the relationship that the Chief Minister has with the East Timor government is something that I believe investors down south would be extremely interested in and, in terms of encouraging the East Timorese to see the value of Bayu-Undan with good fiscal arrangements to encourage that development, I believe would be something of interest to them, amongst others. I thank the Chief Minister for her statement.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, just responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s words: on the issue of gas, I am very much hoping that we will see a dramatic change about how the Territory deals with the potential from the Timor Sea. We have seen it politicised in the past, and I think that has been very unfortunate. There was a lot of damage done to a very important relationship that needed to be nurtured rather than hit around, and that was with the newest nation to our north, East Timor. Certainly, we would like, and I think the Territory needs, a bipartisan approach to this major investment for our future. I am bewildered a little by the Opposition Leader trying to lecture us with: ‘Don’t use the stick approach’. If anyone was using a stick and belting around the head, it was the former Chief Minister.
We have put a bottom line in and now we are working in a bipartisan and much more mature way. I am confident we will achieve the outcomes we need for the Territory if we can have bipartisan support from this parliament.
Taxi Industry Licence Freeze
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to formally advise the House of my decision to sign an instrument freezing the issue of new licences for taxis, private hire cars and mini-buses. I did not take this decision lightly. The effect of the instrument is to set the numbers of the above vehicles at their current levels and to keep them at those levels for six months. It is the intention of the government, in that period of time, to convene meetings to discuss the future of these industries and the way they operate in the Territory.
It is my view that the previous government’s attempts at deregulation have failed. The taxi industry, in particular, has degenerated. I am extremely concerned about the significant drop in wages earned by taxi drivers. I am also concerned about the consolidation of a number of leases into the hands of fewer and fewer people. I am particularly concerned about the work health and safety issues of having taxi drivers out on the streets for 18 hours a day for very little return. Because of these wages, the industry cannot attract sufficient drivers. When the CLP deregulated the industry, they used millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to implement their policy. The result has been a reduction of service to the public, a typical CLP approach to economics: more expense, less service.
I am concerned that the differing sectors of the industry are now at each other’s throats in a way which will lead to real problems. It is fair enough to say that a breakdown in relationships between a small number of taxi drivers and mini-bus drivers has already resulted in violence, and this would have got worse.
I am also concerned that, given the importance of the role that this industry plays in the tourism industry, a proper and compulsory driver education program must be put into place. My intention in freezing the issue of licences is to give us all time to sort these issues out. It will allow the industry and myself time to sit down and sort through matters without having the additional impact of licence buying occurring. We are not preventing new players from coming into the industry or for existing players to add to their numbers in the short term, but they will need to obtain these leases from within the existing numbers. When one licensee gives up their lease, it will be available for another to take up, provided they do not breach the existing numbers.
The exemption to this limit is in the form of multipurpose vehicles, in particular for vehicles fitted out to carry people with disabilities. I am concerned about the low number of these vehicles in the fleet, and I was made aware of efforts by one operator to increase the numbers. I decided to allow this to proceed in its current form, though I wish to stress that I will be monitoring this closely. There is a lot of work to be done in this industry. It was left in an appalling state by the previous government. I intend to fix it.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): This is a government initiative. We look forward to see how that government initiative transpires. It would appear that with this initiative, what the government is now doing is essentially regulating the industry for six months which begs the question: what they will do after six months? I assume that after six months, if they will then lift the embargo, the industry will scream again. If they do not lift the embargo, what you essentially put back in place is a regulated taxi industry, and an industry where the price of each licence will rise again. I look forward to seeing how this initiative transpires in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, we needed six months to sit down with the industry and discuss the various issues and we will closely monitor the situation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, we must avoid the mistakes of the past and we must avoid mistakes in the future. So, we will work very closely together with the industry, and I am pleased to say that every sector in the industry agrees with our moratorium and they are prepared to sit down with us and have further discussions.
Partnership between Government
and Disability Sector
and Disability Sector
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, today I report on this government’s commitment to cooperative partnerships between the government and the historically neglected disability sector. Since my appointment as the minister responsible for Disability Services, I have witnessed much anger and frustration from a sector that is used to being ignored or placed in the too hard basket. People are frustrated about the lack of day options for young people graduating from school, or services offering 24-hour respite in our regional centres. They know there is not much money; they are used to that message. But people are angry at the previous lack of consultation on the distribution of the scarce resources that are available.
It is my pleasure to say that consultation with disability stakeholders has already begun. I take this opportunity to draw attention to the efforts of the member for Karama, Ms Delia Lawrie, who has worked closely with me and my department to consult with people with disabilities, their families, carers and service providers on establishing funding priorities.
Under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, we have an additional $1.2m to allocate for the 2001-02 financial year. It is not sufficient funding, given the service gaps and levels of need that exist, so we established community forums to ensure that expenditure decisions are based on the advice of people with a disability, their carers and service providers - in short, the experts. Disability Services Community Consultation Forums have been held in Darwin and in Alice Springs, with people from remote and regional centres attending. I am delighted to report that there were in excess of 90 people in attendance, and I would like to personally thank all participants for their valuable contribution.
I have also received valuable preliminary advice on the forum priorities which cover the need for service responses for early childhood intervention, post-school options, remote area school service delivery, people with high support needs, school therapy services, accommodation options and respite care. Both forums clearly indicated the provision of services to people with disabilities is not the sole responsibility of the Disability Service Program within the Department of Health and Community Services.
A person with a disability does not just have a health issue. The issues they face are whole-of-life. It is about finding decent work, getting a good education, being eligible for training and lifetime learning opportunities. It is about being able to move freely, to enjoy leisure and entertainment activities, to be physically active, to play an economic role and to have independence. For their carers, it is about receiving ongoing support and access to essential services such as therapists, aids and equipment, to avoid plunging into crisis.
Disabilities affect all the portfolios of government and beyond. To this end, I will seek a commitment from my Cabinet colleagues to achieve a whole-of-government response. This government has already started working on some of the identified priorities. We have instigated an early childhood intervention review to assess services for children aged up to six years. The family unit can dissolve under stress. We are about assisting families in their caring roles to maintain the family unit.
We have also commenced development of a post-school options program for young people with high support needs. This is another area that has been neglected for too long. The previous government clearly had no plans in place for school leavers with disabilities. When I came to office, several parents and carers came to me in great distress, extremely worried about the service void that awaited their children. Some of them had children leaving school this year. I have asked my department to provide one-off funding to enable affected families to access community-based programs for six months until a program for school leavers with high support needs is developed. Work has also commenced on a range of accommodation options for people with disabilities and a submission will be considered by Cabinet in the new year.
I was very encouraged to hear that the forums supported the development of sustainable services in rural and remote areas, particularly in Central Australia and the East Arnhem region. Issues such as remoteness should not be a barrier to the development of appropriate and ongoing services for people with disabilities.
To summarise, I am delighted that the forums have established a basis on which the additional unmet needs funding can be allocated. I am confident that we are steadily progressing the vision of creating a more sustainable and robust service network for people with disabilities, their families and carers in the Northern Territory and I look forward to keeping my fellow parliamentary members informed of this progress.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, again we are starting to see the new health minister start to hone up what are the real priority areas and this is, indeed, one of them. I am happy to put on record my intention to try and work collaboratively with the health minister in this area, unlike the predecessors that once sat on this side who sought to politicise and divide on this issue. It is my intention to try to be a constructive and participative opposition spokesman in matters relating to disability. I agree, too, that there were significant unmet needs and shortfalls and I agree that there is an enormous amount of work that still needs to be done.
The opposition will continue to query this area, but in a constructive way. I start with the budget papers that were presented just this week where there is a promise of a 24-hour call service in Darwin for people with disabilities living independently, in conjunction with the NGO sector. This is a good initiative and involves people in after hours situations who often have to rely on ambulances; having somebody come to their house. Unfortunately, as with many of the initiatives in here, it is totally uncosted and comes in at a zero and says this initiative will be undertaken within existing resources. I can tell you that to have somebody attend a house with appropriate qualifications in the middle of the night in Palmerston or Darwin does come at a cost, and it is duplicitous in the extreme to have documents like this parading out as assistance with a budget allocation of zero attached to them.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the member for Drysdale is looking at this as a bipartisan issue. Certainly, disability services are very important to this government and will be a priority in this portfolio. In relation to the service to which he was referring, my department has already started planning on that and is doing it within existing resources.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
CHAMBER ETIQUETTE
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go with government business of the day, I might remind members this microphone in front of you is for Hansard purposes. Yesterday Hansard staff had much difficulty because there were people ripping pages off their pads as they spoke, and pouring water next to their microphone. Some people are not pressing the red button so some of the side conversations were audible throughout the building. Please remember these microphones are not for amplification in this Chamber. They are for Hansard purposes. Remember that when you are speaking, and bear it in mind when you are crunching up paper and so on. Hansard staff have to wear all those sounds and sometimes it makes it very difficult for them.
FISCAL INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Continued from 25 October 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the government has introduced this legislation and from the opposition’s point of view, we won’t be opposing it. In terms of the government pursuing its own initiatives in relation to its responsibilities, then we acknowledge that you will be doing things differently than did the previous government.
In saying that, can I say that over the past quarter of a century plus, CLP governments delivered to the Territory a very strong and sound economy, and that was pretty well for the whole period of the CLP government. There were some quiet years and it is interesting to note that within those quiet years, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were initiatives that were put in place to stimulate, for example, building activity. The building that we are now working in is a fine example of that.
I would suggest that the judgment of Territorians of the new Labor government over the next few years is not going to be: ‘Oh, good! There was a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act put in place’. But rather, comparing their performance in terms of maintaining and assisting a strong economy, creating jobs for Territorians, future prospects and opportunities, and continuing to deliver services to all Territorians, and doing that in a way that won’t impose on them, personally, to the extent that we experienced last night with the passage of legislation that will dip into pretty well every Territory family’s home to the tune of at least $90 and, in many cases, double that or more depending on how many vehicles they own. So that is going to be the target of the judgement of those in the electorates across the Northern Territory in the next few years rather than a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
The arguments that are being put forward by the government are now being received as somewhat tiresome in relation to blaming everyone else and, of course, at the same time doing nothing in terms of generating activity as a government themselves, and making the sorts of decisions governments have to make. If they have to make decisions, they should at least have - if they’re going to use the word integrity - the integrity to stand up and take responsibility for them, clearly enunciate what the broad detail of the intent of the government’s action is, and be proud enough to espouse it. We have seen, at least in the case of that legislation, that they neither did that, nor did the Treasurer or Chief Minister understand the scope of the legislation and the range of people that it would impact upon.
In terms of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill itself, I believe the government is off to a very poor start because the first thing they did with their budget books that the Chief Minister and Treasurer tabled in this House earlier this week was to eliminate a very important piece of information, and that was the staffing numbers per agency. It is interesting to note that the Chief Minister is being very coy, particularly on radio and television in relation to this matter. She has a stock standard answer which is: ‘There will be no forced redundancies and no sackings’. She is always very careful, of course, to either change the subject, having stated that, or point out to the person asking the questions that the numbers are not going to change. Of course, the numbers are going to change. Even the unions now have recognised that there is going to be change and they are talking about up to 1400. They are pretty close to this issue.
The very suspicious aspect of this is underlined by the fact that, whilst the Chief Minister has admitted that she has directed CEOs in relation to the staffing levels that will be applied to the reorganised agencies, and, of course, has a monetary figure that is going to be extracted from all agencies, that is across government - that is, knows what the dollar figure is and knows what the staffing figure is - she not only won’t talk about it beyond saying that there will be no forced redundancies, but she has now - because it would expose her position - eliminated the reference to staffing numbers in the budget documents all together.
It goes without saying that the comments made by the Chief Minister in relation to efficiencies will be easier gained - and she made this remark in her letter to public servants - that efficiencies will be easier to obtain in larger agencies. Of course they will be. But she cannot, on the one hand, say that and think that public servants are going to think: ‘Well, our jobs are safe’, as she also says in her letter, and not be aware of the fact that public servants can see through this charade. They can see through the fact that, in a larger agency, there will be staff efficiencies because there will be duplication of operational duties once those agencies are brought together, quite apart from the other impacts that will flow from it.
If we are talking about integrity, it is about time the Chief Minister started telling the public service precisely what the new staffing numbers are going to be, and why she was so deceitful in that she made sure that the staffing numbers were excluded from her budget documents - not a good way to start fiscal integrity. The Chief Minister gave us an answer yesterday in relation to this: ‘Oh, the numbers have not changed. They are the same as they were in the budget documents brought down in May this year’. If that were the case, the answer would have been quite simple. That is, the figures are there. In terms of knowing what agencies have been amalgamated into another and what the new structure of the agencies are, it is simply a matter of adding all those together for those respective new agencies and, if not breaking them down into areas operationally in the budget paper, to at least have included a global figure for each new agency. That would have conveyed to the public service that the numbers are sound and they are going to be retained as such, and there won’t be a 1400 reduction as indicated by the Public Sector Union. It would have been a very easy exercise but, of course, the government has been somewhat more deceitful in doing that, and that is regrettable.
If we are going to embark on this course, I would suggest that the Chief Minister and Treasurer starts to answer some of those questions so that, even in that area, people can be reassured that indeed ‘no forced redundancies’ does not mean that vacancies will not be filled and that contracts will not be renewed, because that is the only consequence that is going to flow from this. The savings that are going to be taken out of the public service are very large and, whilst the government has made that decision, that is fine. But if they have made that decision, they should at least be open enough with the public service and all of those people who work hard in those agencies to say: ‘These are the revised figures’ so that people are not left in any doubt. It is not good enough for the Chief Minister simply to write the public servants and say: ‘There will be no forced redundancies’. They know that is code for: ‘Vacant positions will not be filled and contracts will not be renewed’. In terms of where that leads us, they should be aware of it. It not only affects the morale of the public service which the Chief Minister, in her letter, asked be maintained, notwithstanding these changes that are about to take place, but it also affects the broader economy because if there are some 1400 positions that over time, through attrition, are going to be lost - and I remind the Chief Minister that she was on ABC radio only a couple of days ago, and it was put to her by the interviewer that this is going to be the case. The Chief Minister responded by saying: ‘There will be no forced redundancies’. Even the interviewer was getting a bit tired of the stock standard answer and said: ‘What about attrition?’ ‘Yes, it will be achieved by attrition’ and the Chief Minister agreed that attrition is at about the rate of 10%. It is much higher in some areas. I expect she was talking about an average when she was talking about 10%. That being the case, the interviewer very smartly worked out that that is about 1400 jobs. It was not denied by the Chief Minister, very smartly as she has done, as has been her practice in relation to talking about these matters. She quickly side-stepped it and moved onto another subject.
That is one aspect of the overall scene in terms of employment. Of course, the other side of it is that the government has announced that they will be, in other areas, taking on additional teachers, nurses and police. We can then extrapolate from that. Unfortunately, the public service is having to extrapolate and so, too, are we, because of the lack of information that is being provided - indeed, as I say, even being removed from the budget papers. We can then assume that if there is going to be no overall reduction in the public service, then through attrition, some 200-plus jobs are going to be lost to make way for the new ones in the areas of police, teaching and education. If that is the case, that is fine. It was a stated policy by the opposition leading up to the election that that is what they would do. But they have to demonstrate how they are going to do it. Will, through attrition, those 200-plus positions be lost and then transferred to another agency in terms of the cash that is available to be able to fill those positions?
She just cannot go on saying that there will be no forced redundancies because the public service is very nervous, morale is dropping, notwithstanding that she has asked CEOs to maintain it. I do not know how they will under those circumstances. Of course, we have to take into account that those public servants left in the service have to do the job with fewer numbers, and they have to do the job with fewer resources. If that is the case, that is fine. It is the position of the government and if it were adequately explained, it could be better understood. But when you have public servants coming to you, as a member of parliament, saying that they are already going through quite dramatic restructures in their agency, and that they are very concerned about the impacts of service delivery and, indeed, then the consequence of the additional pressure that is going to be placed on the remaining public servants in terms of having to fulfil the Chief Minister’s demands that ‘there will be fewer people, you will have less money, but you will have to do more work to provide either the same or better levels of service, and while you are doing all that, please do not forget to maintain high morale’.
That is the sort of issue that is being talked about across the public service. The Chief Minister, I feel sure, will deny it and that is the mode she has been in. She has been in: ‘Well, no, there will be no forced redundancies’. She has the stock standard answer. But I do say to her that that is not washing in the public service, that public servants are very concerned. Madam Speaker, I would surprised, as a local member, if you have not had approaches in that regard because it is not isolated to Darwin. The impact, of course, flows on down the track with the reduction in public service jobs in relation to these matters and the consequences of the government’s new policies that there will be fewer people working in the regional centres. That is going to impact on an economy that is already declining.
So it is important that we get an unqualified and clear enunciation of just what the staffing numbers are going to be. Is there going to be an overall reduction or not? If the figure of 1400 is incorrect, what is the correct figure? Once the reduction has been achieved, are those vacant positions then going to be used to be able to fulfil the wishes of the government in other areas? Public servants are owed this explanation. The Territory generally is because of the potential impact of the economy of the loss of up to 1400 jobs. It would be significant in terms of the loss of economic activity because of the loss of disposable income in the workforce.
If the Chief Minister wants to embark on fiscal integrity, there is a place where she can start. She can correct the wrong that she has incorporated in her mini-budget papers of this week, whereby she has reduced the information that is available to Territorians in a very important area and become more secretive than the previous budget documents were. I thought the whole exercise would have been about making more information available or ensuring, at least, that the amount of information was maintained. They will be the type of judgements that Territorians will make in relation to fiscal integrity and transparency.
The legislation in many ways, if you look at similar legislation elsewhere in the country, is deficient in that there are issues that have been eliminated. Again, that is the choice of the government . They have decided to pursue this line and the way that they formulate the legislation is up to them. The former system served well and that is what they are going to be judged against in terms of the performance of a government. I don’t think in a couple of years time - or even in a day’s time or a week’s time - if you slipped around to do a bit of doorknocking from house to house in different areas of the Northern Territory, whether people would even know what a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill was. But I do know that they know what job creation is, they know what a strong economy is, and they know that both of those things go together to give them and their families a future in the Northern Territory. They will be comparing the performance of this government with those sorts of measures rather than the legislation of this kind which is no doubt being portrayed as nice, comfortable, motherhood stuff by the government. That is their right. We won’t oppose that. They are in government and they are going to take that course. That is their right. But I think the measures that are going to be applied by Territorians will be quite different from that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill presented today, but I do have some queries. I wonder whether this bill could be avoided by the government making a statement to this Chamber that it believes in honest, open and transparent government and will guarantee that it will involve the community before budgets are presented and during the life of the government.
My problem is that this document is not easy to read and it doesn’t fit in with the objects of clause 1(3)(a) which says:
- The purpose of this fiscal framework is to facilitate public scrutiny of fiscal policy.
The reason I don’t think it is a very friendly document is that, in the 12 pages of the document, the word ‘fiscal’ is mentioned 112 times. We have the terms ‘fiscal policy’, ‘fiscal strategy’, ‘fiscal reporting’, ‘fiscal integrity’, ‘fiscal management’, ‘fiscal strategy statements’, ‘fiscal outlook’, ‘fiscal outlook reports’ and they can be pre-election, mid-year and final, ‘fiscal results reports’, ‘fiscal objectives’, ‘fiscal indicators’, ‘fiscal performance’, ‘fiscal information’, ‘fiscal implications’ and ‘fiscal transparency’. If I were to hand that document to the local plumber, he would say when he finished he knew ‘fisc-all’.
It is a difficult document to understand. I also notice that there are no penalties on the government if they do not adhere to their own act. My suggestion is that -- maybe this could boost the construction industry - as we are part of the Westminster system, a small tower be built on the west wing with split windows similar to the one in London and if any of the proponents of this act fail to adhere to what is stated in it, they should spend some time there.
Madam Speaker, regardless of all that, I support the bill.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the key words to this legislation are ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency’. These are both words that were echoed to me by many Johnston electors as I doorknocked the electorate prior to the August election - or rather the lack of it on the part of the then CLP government. There was a very loud message and, along with freedom of information legislation, this legislation is delivering a major part of our promise for open and accountable government for the Territory.
As members here would be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is currently examining a serious charge that was brought before this House by the health minister from the CEO of Territory Health Services in relation to the alleged manipulation of budget estimates.
Many Territorians, like myself, wondered why, over the past three years, successive budgets were blown out of the water by ever-increasing deficits. I will repeat my statement of yesterday about the way in which the Territory public purse was caught in the CLP crocodile jaws. These jaws were formed when the CLP government allowed actual expenditure to exceed targeted expenditure and keep rocketing upwards in an ever-widening gap; a dangerous situation of ever-increasing debt, all based on mismanagement, lack of honesty and facilitated by a lack of transparency. In other words, the final responsibility for financial projection with the related information lay with the former Treasurer and not with the Under Treasurer.
Most members here today would be aware of the article on page 13 in today’s NT News on the crocodile jaws, and I quote from the caption below the graph:
- The crocodile jaws show the increasing gap between government expenditure and revenue. Over recent years
the jaws have opened wider and, the government argues, if it had not moved to reduce the gap in this week’s
mini-budget, the jaws would have continued to widen as indicated here. The government aims to close the
jaws in the year 2004-05.
I have annotated this graph with a little mark of my own, the little red mark there that says ‘Burke/Reed’ because that’s when they, as a partnership, took over the Chief Ministership and under that Chief Ministership, you can see the jaws just keep on getting larger. I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: In contrast, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill is an integral part of the Labor party’s pledge to the electorate for open and accountable government. It also enables the Territory to have equivalent standards of fiscal integrity to most Australian jurisdictions. It is based on best practice from the Commonwealth and Western Australian jurisdictions, but tailored to suit our own Territory needs.
Also in today’s paper, Assistant Under Treasurer Jennifer Prince comments on this legislation. She was reported as saying: ‘The new transparency laws have kept politicians at arms length’ and she was referring to the formulation of the mini-budget handed down this week. The direct quote from the Assistant Under Treasurer is as follows:
- We’ve been able to prepare the budget papers in accordance with the new legislation, which we haven’t
been able to do before and it carries the Under Treasurer’s certification about the numbers. Previously,
the Treasurer was able to review each and every one of those numbers.
I really question what sort of review the former Treasurer had. Was he dyslexic? Was he myopic? What was happening? Maybe he needs a new pair of glasses because there was a difference between $12m and $107m. Maybe that is where that review process came in. The basis of our bill is to require the government of the day to clearly state its fiscal strategy through a formal statement and to include indicators that will enable Territory taxpayers to judge the performance of the government in reaching its stated goals.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification advice - perhaps from the Clerk as well - on this point: we have listened to not a member of the Assembly speaking, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee speaking, a committee of this Parliament that is supposed to be unbiased in its deliberations. What I am hearing is the chairman of that committee, prior to the receiving of the full wealth of evidence with regard to allegations that are being made - not only against myself, the former Treasurer and the former minister for health - standing in this Chamber and clearly demonstrating that he is totally biased in his opinion. I believe that by his comments - sit down - so far, he has demonstrated his incapacity and ineligibility to continue on that committee. I believe by virtue of Standing Order 263 at the very least, a member who has a personal interest should withdraw from that committee.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Clerk to give me advice on this. It is my understanding that he is speaking as the member of the Assembly.
I have been advised that the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition should be taken into account. Even though I cannot rule on what the member is saying, the member must realise the position he has as Chairman of the PAC and in his comments in this House, he should be careful to phrase them in such a way that they do not reflect any bias on his part. So, you should take note of those comments and what you are saying, remembering your dual role, that you need to present statements in this House in such a way that they do not reflect any sort of bias in your other role.
Leader of the Opposition, your point was valid, but I cannot say to the member that he shouldn’t make such comments. It is up to him, it is up to his own judgment what he does. Obviously, if you feel that he has gone past the point, then you have the opportunity to say so within the House.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take your words to heart, but also I would say that I have been careful in what I have said here today, and I believe that my words recorded in Hansard will stand scrutiny. So that’s the challenge.
The basis of our bill is to require the government to clearly state its fiscal strategy through a formal statement, and to include indicators that will enable Territory taxpayers to judge the performance of the government in reaching its stated goals. The legislation requires current budget projections to be published twice a year, mid-year, budget time and, very importantly, prior to elections. Such reports will be able to be audited by the Auditor-General, and this latter point about prior to elections is a very important point. We know now that if the Under Treasurer had been able to truthfully report the real budget situation that the CLP government had led us to was unsustainable, this was a very important fact that Territory voters should have been informed about.
In conclusion, I am glad to support this legislation because it gives Territory taxpayers certainty about the veracity of final estimates made by Treasury in the budget process. It will also make the government of the day more accountable for its performance. This Labor government welcomes such transparency.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on record some observations and some comments in relation to the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
I can say from the outset that I support the bill, on balance, I support the bill. But if we have a close look at the second-reading speech which was given by our Chief Minister, she quite clearly goes through some of the rationale behind the legislation and in the second paragraph talks about the scope of similar legislation in other jurisdictions and, of course, the Commonwealth. About two-thirds through that second paragraph, in an attempt to explain why certain other safeguards are not in this legislation - and they are, of course, the requirement for pre-budget consultation with community groups and, second, explicit provisions, particularly for parliamentary scrutiny processes aren’t here. These additional features, to use her words, aren’t required in the Northern Territory, and none were envisaged in Professor Allan’s recommendations. So the accountant has given some legal advice as to what should or should not be incorporated into this legislation. On the basis of that advice, some of the safeguards which exist in other jurisdictions have been jettisoned.
Whilst I have copies of the Western Australian and the federal legislation, I am not going to labour the point and walk you through it. If you look at some of the comments which were made when those bills were introduced, and I’d even go to Labor members in the Commonwealth parliament and what Jenny Macklin said - Jenny Macklin is now the Deputy Opposition Leader, I understand. She said:
- The problem with the charter of budget honesty bill is that it does not go far enough. Any bill that purports
to introduce a new charter of budget honesty in my view would need to include a commitment to describe the
impact of changes in the budget on the living standards and the lives of all Australians. Of course, this bill
does no such thing.
A similar criticism can be levelled at this legislation.
Ms Martin: Go and look at clause 5, will you? Take a look at it - Part 3, clause 5.
Mr MALEY: I will pick up on the interjection. It may avoid going to the committee stage, depending on what the response is. Part 3, clause 5, says:
- (b) the government must formulate and apply spending and taxing policies so as to give rise to a
reasonable degree of stability and predictability;
That goes nowhere near what Jenny Macklin was talking about, that is providing a clause which imposes a positive obligation on government to spell out in plain and simple terms the effect on a change in the budget or a change in forecasting the budget.
In fact, just taking the interjection a bit further - and I am indebted to the Chief Minister for raising it - clause 5 is Principles of sound fiscal management. There are four very broad brush statements. Indeed, there are a number of motherhood statements contained in this legislation; compelling and powerful legislation that says things like:
- The government’s fiscal policy is to be directed at maintaining the ongoing economic prosperity and welfare
of the people of the Territory and is therefore to be set in a sustainable medium-term framework.
That is certainly clear. The it goes onto to say:
- To meet this objective, the government’s fiscal strategy is to be based on principles of sound fiscal
management.
Then it goes on to outline in the broadest possible terms what are the principles of sound fiscal management. I am not sure how far that assists anybody. Indeed, there has been a great deal of criticism across Australia of such general motherhood statements.
His Honour Mr Justice Mahony, President of the Court of Appeal, was addressing the New South Wales Law Society and he said - I am quoting from an article which appeared in the Law Society Journal in September 1996. He was talking about generalities contained in legislation:
- … but generalities do not solve problems. Mischiefs are not removed by merely reiterating motherhood
principles. Those who point to problems and articulate generalities owe it to their listeners to suggest
solutions - at least, the Law Society’s Plain Language Committee and its supporters will not be credible
unless they do so.
It went on to give some advice to lawyers who draft such legislation. But ultimately, of course, the responsibility for the conciseness or otherwise of this legislation falls on the shoulders of the Chief Minister.
I touched upon this last night in the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act. The legislation is peppered with - and the member for Nelson touched upon this - a number of phrases. The name of it indicates the political nature of the legislation, the fiscal integrity and transparency framework. The government is seeking to infuse these admirable qualities into the title of the legislation and the wording of the legislation in an attempt to construct some sort of moral gulf between her government and the opposition. The Chief Minister should consider that what she is constructing, perhaps, is more closely akin to a crucifix, and if integrity and transparency are going to be the new battlefield for the next election, then I for one am happy to accommodate her.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is interesting to note the number of denials which are coming from the other side of the House from the Chief Minister and her followers. They are coming quicker than those of the apostles. Indeed, Peter the Apostle denied Christ three times before the cock crowed, but compared with the rate at which the Labor Party are breaching and breaking its core and non-core promises, Peter the Apostle makes ...
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not understand the relevance of the apostles to the discussion and debate on the fiscal integrity bill.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: Lack of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please do not keep raising points of order because they have no relevance to the debate.
Mr MALEY: I am happy to amplify for the member for Karama.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I have spoken to you once this morning.
Mr MALEY: I can pick up very briefly on the comments of the member for Karama. The reason the analogy has been made, and I think properly so, is that here we have legislation which has adopted a high moral ground using such powerful terms as ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency’. Yet, in recent times, we have seen the government, whilst they made promises that there will be no sackings, indeed sack a public servant. Just like the promise that there would be no new taxes and charges, we saw quite clearly last night that there is, in fact, a new tax introduced into this Chamber. So, just like the apostles, well, indeed this government is making the apostles look like amateurs in terms of the number of lies - I withdraw that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I can say that, can’t I? Yes. The number of lies and promises that are broken ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, would you rephrase that? Rephrase it.
Mr MALEY: The number of promises that are being broken is something that should be placed on the record and will come back to haunt this government.
There is an interesting article which was written recently and it summarises my qualified support for the legislation. The article comes from the Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library and it was written by a couple of lawyers, Bob Bennett and Bernard Poole, on 3 March 1998. These two people reviewed the charter of budget honesty bill and its counterparts around Australia, and put together in a succinct way some of the difficulties as they foresaw them, and some of the issues which parliaments who, in the future, considering such legislation, should closely look at.
Their conclusion is - I’ll read this; I think it’s important that it be placed on the record:
Arguably, the legislation in most respects is unnecessary. What is to be achieved under the bill can
be achieved administratively for the life of the present parliament i.e. within existing directions.
Not even regulations are required to allow the government to provide the electorate with the sort
of information that the bill seeks to guarantee.
They are talking about a bill, of course, which seeks to guarantee the supply of even more information than what’s contained in this very lame Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
And this is the important bit:
Hence it may be argued that the bill of itself is a relatively poor indicator of the government’s capacity to
govern and the workability of the parliament. As a test of government’s capacity to maintain parliamentary
support or compliance, the defeat of the …
And it goes on to talk about the act
… would not self-evidently present itself as a failure to pass a proposal vital to the execution of the majority
of the ministry …
and quotes Sir Garfield Barwick.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: In other words, these two people - and if you listen you might actually learn something here - say:
- Hence it may be argued that the bill of itself is a relatively poor indicator of the government’s capacity to
govern and the workability of the parliament.
So they are saying that you can do all the things contained in the act without an act of parliament and if you can’t govern and you don’t have the capacity to govern, then perhaps it may be necessary to introduce such a bill just to remind you of your obligations.
Another matter I want to put on the record which is of some concern to me and some of my colleagues outside this Chamber. When I was discussing this matter with them, it seems - and it is reflected in the second-reading speech - we have the situation where the government has sought the advice of an interstate consultant, and this is Percy Allan. Some of the advice he has given, which is reflected in the second-reading speech, is that he has given legal advice. So here we have a government accepting advice on legal matters from an accountant, and I am sure it’s something that his professional indemnity insurance certainly did not envisage.
A member interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is interesting that the member for Johnston stands up and articulates some of the virtues of the legislation and he used the words: ‘it’s an integral part of Labor’s platform’. Well, it is an integral part of Labor’s platform if they are concerned about their capacity to govern, yes, I agree with that. It is interesting to see that it became an integral part of Labor’s platform once they sought legal advice from an accountant after the election. They used the advice from the accountant to justify tailoring to suit Northern Territory needs and deleting two important safeguards which their southern counterparts, their comrades in Canberra, say are necessary and should be incorporated in this sort of legislation. It is really a case of don’t do what I do, but do what I say. With those observations on the record, I can indicate that I will be supporting the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the shadow Attorney-General has completely missed the point. If he had taken the time to understand where this bill came from - there was a corruption of the processes of the presentation of the last budget that went through this Chamber, a corruption of the processes. That is what this bill will prevent ever occurring again. It simply won’t occur under this bill. Now, if you understood very clearly - I appreciate you weren’t here when this budget went through parliament, when we were told all of the way that we were headed for a $12m deficit for that financial year.
Had there been any integrity in the presentation of that budget, the actual figure rather than $12m would have been somewhere between $110m and $140m. That was the problem that we were confronted with, and we have this condescending tone of ‘how dare you take advice from an account?’ This man was Under Treasurer for three governments of different persuasions in New South Wales for quite some years, and the member for Goyder wants to impugn both the reputation of Professor Percy Allan and, in some way, this government because we dared to take advice from this ‘accountant consultant’, as he so contemptuously dismisses the man. Percy Allan is one of the leading lights in government financial accounting methods and certainly in budget presentation.
There was a need for this bill, as other jurisdictions have found. There would not have been a need for this bill if the previous government had done the right thing in the presentation of its accounts and the presentation of its budget, and its passage through this Assembly.
We have been through this ad nauseam, the shock we, as the new government, experienced when we had the Under Treasurer say: ‘The budget is in an unsustainable position’, 12 weeks after it passed through this Assembly, headed for a $12m deficit. That is what this bill is about, so that the dodgey figures - manufactured figures in order to give a better light to the forthcoming budget than otherwise would have been possible - can never occur again. I suggest the shadow Attorney-General should take more care and more note of how these things arise. It is no secret. It has been said a dozen times by members on this side.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate members of this government for showing the leadership and courage to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. This is, yet again, an example of the massive legislative changes this government has taken in its short existence. There are a number of other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that have introduced similar legislation, in particular Western Australia and our friends across the sea in New Zealand.
This bill will allow budget documents that are prepared to represent the best estimates of Treasury, a concept this CLP opposition is still coming to grips with. This will protect Territorians from dangerous manipulation of the previous government’s calculations on budget figures, which has led to the extraordinary budget deficit estimated to be around $12m, which the esteemed Professor Percy Allan argues is closer to a $107m black hole.
We sat in this most noble parliament this week and watched members - the member for Katherine, the member for Brennan and other CLP members - continue to deny what everyone in the Northern Territory knows about the budget under their regime. Under the CLP, the budget figures were created for political purposes and that political purpose was to maintain power by any means possible. Well, you have been found out.
In today’s NT News, 29 November 2001, page 13 - I would like to just read three paragraphs from this article entitled Law to Keep Budget Safe. I repeat: Law to Keep Budget Safe. It is right next to the now infamous crocodile jaws which the member for Johnston explained to members of the opposition, the effect, and when the mouth started opening. It states:
- … a government spokesman said the mini-budget was drafted to follow the legislation’s guidelines.
Ms Prince’s comments come after Health Department chief executive officer Paul Bartholomew claimed
he had been ordered to fudge budget documents to show an increase in health spending in the 2001-02
financial year.
Former CLP big guns, Chief Minister Denis Burke, Treasurer Mike Reed and Health Minister Steve Dunham,
are due to appear before the public accounts committee tomorrow to answer claims of budget tampering.
Found out! Shame on you, CLP. Shame on you, and that is the truth. I seek leave to table this document, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BONSON: No other incoming government in the Northern Territory will have to suffer an inheritance like the one the ex-CLP government left us.
This government has taken steps to ensure the budget figures will be real figures that Territorians can rely on. As the member for Goyder stated, the next election will probably be fought over budget figures. But this Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill will allow open debate, and I look forward to that. The Percy Allan report confirmed the previous government had a habit of adjusting budget data for its own ends - have you no shame? - therefore withholding the truth from Territorians in regards to the previous government’s financial arrangements.
The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s report - which the member for Macdonnell should know, if he had read the report - has 44 pages. The member for Macdonnell should know that 44 kangaroo tails can help win an election, but 44 pages of the Auditor-General’s report can assist in discrediting him and his party forever. I would like to read an extract from page 22, which is half way through the report:
- The Department of Education. By March 2001 the department had identified its budgetary needs for personnel
costs for the year. That analysis established that the original $204m budgeted for personnel costs for 2000-01
was insufficient. A $6m increase was approved by the government in March 2001 …
This is the interesting part:
- … but the forward estimate in the government’s 2001-02 budget papers still showed $204m.
Shame! This legislation ensures that the despicable habits of the past government become a thing of the past, forever returned to the stone age where habits of this kind belong. From here on in, government will set the policy and the Treasurer will be responsible for certainty. This is why the Labor government was elected: to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill and freedom of information legislation which will forever protect Territorians from governments.
The CLP, such as the previous …
Members interjecting.
Mr BONSON: … and their dangerous accounting practices. I put you clowns on notice that I will hunt down every crooked deal and fabricated deceit you have perpetrated on Territorians.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do you believe that ‘clowns’ as a label to address members of the Legislative Assembly is an appropriate word?
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I cannot hear anything that is going on at the moment with all the noise from both sides. What is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: My point of order is that the member speaking used the label ‘clowns’ to address members of the Legislative Assembly, and I am merely asking if you believe that to be an appropriate word.
Madam SPEAKER: I find it a little unparliamentary but we will accept it.
Mr BONSON: Just to finish and repeat myself for Hansard, I will put you clowns on notice that I will hunt down every crooked deal …
Mr ELFERINK: A point or order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps you could clarify it for me.
Madam SPEAKER: I said I considered it to be unparliamentary but I would accept it. It is up to the member’s own judgement whether he makes comments like that and uses those terms. It is more a reflection on him.
Mr BONSON: To finish, Madam Speaker, on that note that I will attempt, in my efforts over this term of government, to hunt down every crooked deal and fabricated deceit which the former CLP government perpetrated on Territorians. I look forward to the next election where accountable government and transparent government will lead to a more open discussion on budgetary figures under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. I look forward to the implementation of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and freedom of information legislation.
These are two topics that I spent many weeks campaigning on throughout my electorate. I sat down and explained to people about the requirements of a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. I was, like many members of this government, quite surprised and shocked about the deficit left to us and the deceit about it.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to start where the previous speaker left off. He talked about going out campaigning on various positions that the Labor Party put in terms of whistle blower legislation, FOI and, even though he included this legislation, it was not widely put in the document that they paraded out to the public under the guise of Good Government. I have a copy here if it has been lost in Labor archives. It is interesting to revisit this document because it does go to issues of your platform, what you tell the people, the hours that the member for Millner spent discussing, I assume this document was the one he was talking about in his closing debate.
It is interesting to read into Hansard some of the things that mere months ago - if we are 102, 103 days - this was part of the platform, and I quote from the Good Government paper:
- One of the challenges of government is maintaining open, accountable and democratic structures.
Transparency and openness is the greatest weapon the public has against the misuse of taxpayers
funds and encourages a sense of collective ownership and control over our own future. Labor believes
that it requires vigilance by the parliament and the people to ensure that democracy is protected and not
whittled away, that institutions are strengthened and not weakened, and the power of the Executive is
scrutinised and not hidden and secretive. Governing in the Northern Territory has become based on the
entrenchment of power for the government of the day. Our system is not open nor is it accountable. Democracy
is reduced as a result. There is a contempt for well accepted parliamentary procedures used elsewhere in
Australia and thorough scrutiny of government decision making cannot occur.
That was their definition of the problem. Now let’s look at what they were going to do about fixing it, and one of the little fixes we are discussing here today. I thought it was pretty interesting, being on the PAC, that we looked at what they were going to do about that particular organ of this parliament. The Parliamentary Committee System:
- Parliaments in most democratic nations have established a system of parliamentary committees for the purpose
of assisting public scrutiny and maximising accountability from the elected government of the day.
Parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to account the
actions of the government. The CLP has developed a limited committee system that does not meet these
criteria. Parliamentary committees in the Territory are established under standing orders. These can be
virtually changed overnight at the whim of government.
And we saw that as one of the first decisions of this government.
- Labor will enshrine the broad structure of the committee system in legislation, that is, acts of parliament.
And we have yet to see these. So the status of committees is raised.
- They become an institutional framework of the parliament and not subject to the wishes of the party that holds
the majority of numbers in the House.
Hmm. I’m not sure they met that promise.
- Under this new regime, Labor will have legislatively prescribed areas of responsibility. This arrangement will
free the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the governing majority party.
Hmm. ‘Don’t think we met that one.
- Each committee will have the power to consider issues, conduct hearings, report on them and make recommendations.
The committee will have enhanced powers to call for evidence. The makeup of the committees will be changed to have
six members each, only three of whom will come from the government.
Now, we have a situation here where we have a committee system …
Dr Burns: We have four years to do it.
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t give us the four year thing. This says ‘when in government’. You are in government. So we have here a system where a statement has been presented to this House - and it will be debated later - which asks for us to approve, to give the imprimatur of this House, to some millions and millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars. If you compare this open, transparent government and all these words, if they are to mean anything, it should be subjected to the scrutiny of this parliament.
We did it year after year after year as a government that enabled the committee system, and it was the committee of the parliament of the whole, not the PAC or anybody else. All of us sat in here, as the Committee of the Whole, went through it, every member could ask questions and we interrogated our budget at great length. Now compare that with what is before us. If any analyst, including the NT News, wants to parade that the previous system was deficient and the current system with legislation with a cute name is better, I suggest they merely go to the Hansard record and have a look at which system provided better scope for interrogation of the budget.
Those opposite, many of whom are new, who run this case that, ‘Oh, we couldn’t get information’, or ‘the information was wrong’, or ‘we couldn’t trust it’ or whatever, should be a bit careful about making those allegations because the investigations into those matters have yet to occur. Indeed, it is well and truly very shaky ground for the Chairman of the PAC to be exhibiting such partiality in this matter.
He said: ‘If you go to the parliamentary record and look at my words, I am sure it will clear me’. That may well be the case. I don’t believe it will. But his interjections over the last couple of weeks have been notoriously biased. I have chosen not to pick them up on the basis that I had hoped that when the PAC does meet, we can interrogate some of these issues that are causing them so much angst. Some of the debates we have had here have had so much of the mantra about what we have done and how terrible it all is - all based on one memo. One of the members even chose to talk about that memo and said that he had been advised that this was terrible and it was good that the Under Treasurer had signed off. It is the same person.
When we start talking about what the old system was and what the new system will be, we should talk to the person because you might well find that there is a reasonable explanation for why some of these events have occurred. I still would like to believe that the Under Treasurer would have totally signed-off on our budget. I believe that the input they had was significant. I believe the budget was a budget that I would have worked with, notwithstanding the difficulties …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Drysdale is talking on subjects and matters going before the Public Accounts Committee. A member of that committee he is, and I believe it is in accordance with the point of order raised by the member for Brennan previously. He is showing a bias now in his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: My comments to the member for Johnston apply: in all your comments, it is your call but you should always be mindful of your position in this parliament and on committees.
Mr DUNHAM: As I would be, Madam Speaker. I will leave that subject because perhaps other speakers could look at it, but eventually commentators will and they will see that there is some difficulty with reconciling some of this stuff.
The famous crocodile jaws. We were talking about the crocodile jaws saying: ‘If you spend more money and you are not bringing much in, you have a problem’. The budget papers we have here before us would indicate that there are some $34m in extra appropriation for the now Department of Health and Community Services. That is a pretty big jaw. This budget has seven months to run and that is about 1% per month. We are talking about 12% growth. I applaud it; I think it is good that there is additional money for health, but that is as a parochial interest of somebody who has a strong interest in it. There has to be a whole-of-government interest and there have to be people that ask questions like: Question 1, Territory Health: Is this sustainable?
We could use the same word. We could break the word down and say: ‘Under Treasurer, when you told us the budget that the incoming Labor government inherited was unsustainable, on what basis?’ He may well say things like: ‘Well it is not sustainable if you guys decide not to sell the NT Fleet’. Or he might say things like: ‘It is not sustainable if you want to keep those stupid promises intact’. Or he might say: ‘It is not sustainable unless you do this or that’.
I am sure there would have been conditions on the use of that word. I, for one, would be very interested to know whether the growth inherent in the portfolio area I am responsible for, Health and Community Services, is sustainable. It is a word that I would ask to be applied to the budgets that are in the papers before us. I think that’s somewhere we should go.
While we are on NT Fleet, perhaps we could go to the budget papers to talk about it, because we know it’s now worth $59m. We know these budget papers say that in there is an asset floating around worth $59m. It is arguably not the core business of government. Should government be in the business of hiring cars when there are other people out there that do this stuff? The trite comment about GST has changed things. Yes, GST has changed things. It has made it more saleable, not less saleable because when we could get the high yields with our second-hand cars because we were sales tax exempt, it yielded a tidy profit. With GST, that profit is not so evident any more. So, it could well be that this $59m lump of investment maybe shouldn’t sit on our books. Maybe we should go to ABC Car Hire Pty Ltd, or XYZ Car Hire Pty Ltd.
These are the questions for government. Now, whether it costs money or not, and we do know it’s a once off-er - it’s a little bit like the tax. The tax is a three year once off-er and it yields $24m. The sale of NT Fleet is a once off-er and it yields $59m. So if you can do that in one hit, without all the pain of dipping into peoples pockets, I would analyse that. That is something I would expect the Under Treasurer to come back to us and say: ‘Remember I told you not to sell it, well compared to the tax, all the angst of the kids with the dirt bikes, and all this stuff, and all the bookkeeping we have to do with giving pensioners back money, and the girls on the counter who don’t know whether it is a caravan or a motor home, it could be much easier if you just flogged this thing off’.
Now, what say we put an ad in the paper that will cost us $300 and we say: ‘Is anybody out there interested?’ Then if people come back and say: ‘Nup. It’s a dumb idea’, okay, you don’t have to go ahead. But if you decide not to sell it, that is a government decision. That is a government policy decision, and you can’t lay that at our feet and say: ‘We’ve decided not to harvest $50m out of an asset that is not the core business of the Northern Territory government, and you are terrible buggers’. You can’t say that. It is just a nonsense to assume that your decisions can be visited on us, particularly when it is as large as $50m.
In the papers I note that the words are ‘removal of $50m asset sale’ and this is a quote for the benefit of Hansard:
- The May budget had included the sale and lease back of the NT Fleet assets. Such transactions have been undertaken
by a number of governments …
So it’s possible; others have done it.
- …on the basis that the sale and lease back presented a more attractive financing option than vehicle ownership.
However, investigations undertaken since the budget have indicated that the tax change and reduced interest rates
have meant that the sale and lease back is in fact a more costly financing option, and some jurisdictions are
considering unwinding such options.
So, this is saying: ‘Whoops, we might have another look’. It goes on to say: ‘On this basis the sale and lease back proposal was suspended’. Not cancelled. Not terminated. Not jettisoned. What we have here is government inertia. We have the government saying: ‘We can pluck $50m out of the system. Whoop, that’s in suspension. Put it on ice over here and we’ll consider it another time because it provides a very convenient excuse. We have made the decision, the decision is totally of our authorship and making, and we can use it to call Mike Reed naughty names in parliament’. If we were going to go to this thing, we should really go to it on the basis that the fundamentals of Percy Allan’s $107m, half of it you can blow out of the water with one ad this big in the national papers.
I suggest that Labor possibly do that, and I suggest they possibly come back and say: ‘Okay, maybe it’s a bit less attractive’, but I can tell you your $90 tax isn’t that attractive either. If you are working on the basis that this has some warts on it, have a look at the warts on the thing that was brought in here last night. The thing was leaking all over the place. If the sale, the once off clean sale, $50m - $59m possibly – chucked into your bank account in one hit, it is all sitting in there, I suggest they look at it. Stop the rhetoric …
Mr Henderson: The cost of leasing them back?
Mr DUNHAM: I will pick up the interjection because it just shows how foolish this argument is. ‘The cost of leasing them back’. We lease them now. There is a thing called the Government Business Division. We pay the leases now. The critical issue is: will we lease them for more? That is the issue. It is already recurrent. It is already sitting in budget. So lease costs are in there. Could be less. You are not going to know until you get these people coming along saying: ‘I’ll buy the asset from you. These are the lease rates; this is what its all about’. If you haven’t looked, you don’t know; you haven’t got a clue. You are just making a speculative judgment here on the basis that it’s a good thing to blame Reedy about.
I reckon you should have a bit more of a look at that. $50m is a nice little yield, Madam Speaker. I can recall, when it was brought to this parliament, when it was asked, and the question having been asked, I think most of us sort of nodded our heads and said: ‘Well, it’s worth a go’. All we are doing is calling for expressions of interest. We can still come back and say: ‘We thought it was a good idea. We thought we might try that, but, gee, they are going to charge us double the lease rate’. Or for people who are ignorant and foolish and don’t understand it, you could say: ‘Guess what, Paul? We are already paying the lease rate. It is already in there, mate’. So all you are talking about is the bit on top. It will be an educative exercise if nothing else. It will educate them and it might educate us that there is a better way to go here. So there’s $50m. Easy done. Three years to get $24m, six months to get $50m. I think that’s a reasonable thing.
We have been told that with the advent of this act these figures are so tickety-boo that they are beyond reproach. We have been told that it is an act of parliament and it has words on the title like ‘fiscal integrity’, and sweetness and light, and all that stuff so therefore, nothing will ever go wrong again. ‘Trust us’. You don’t even need to read these papers because they are straight up and down.
We know HIH isn’t in it. We know, talking about black holes, they have to pick up $50m. It is not in here. It is nowhere around. Not in this bit of paper. We are also being told that the $3m provided by the previous government, the $6m provided by this government, $9m will take us through this year.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Whatever it is. Let’s talk quantum. $9m is going to cover it; it will eat it. We should get through into next year with the $9m. My memory is pretty good and I seem to recall the numbers were bigger than that. So I would be going to the people who advise you, and I would be saying: ‘We’ve printed a number in here and we’ve been told that we can’t tell lies in this document’ - and the Chief Minister has also gone on the public record saying that the buck stops with her if there are any errors in this piece of paper - ‘Now, I need to know, Under Treasurer, I need you to assure me that this man here will not be coming to the Cabinet, or anybody else, to seek additional funds for HIH this year’.
So this financial year, we are making the assumption that the $9m is going to cover it. I don’t think we should be making that assumption. The other thing that should be made …
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It’s $6m. So if you then go to the out years where the zeros are painted, that is an absolute distortion of the facts. There is no way any of us in this House believe that HIH is going to cost us nothing in the out years. No one, but no one, believes it. So we have a situation where we know they are going to have to harvest $50m. We know, by virtue of the NT News, that great document the member for Millner believes is a foundation of truth, we know that it’s going to be done on the basis of a T-A-X. We know they are going to do this. We know it’s going to be based on the community, a broad based tax on the community to yield …
Mr Henderson: We are considering the options.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, whatever option you consider, the answer has to say: ‘I’m going to do things and there is $50m comes out the other end’. Whatever factory you build, it has to have a $50m sausage come out the other end. We don’t care what it is. We don’t care. What we don’t want you to say is: ‘This $50m sausage is going to come out some little sneaky way’, because we know it will be a tax. We know it will be a tax on the community, and we know it is $50m. What we don’t know is where it is. We don’t know that these transparent, whatever they are called, documents can show us where the $50m is. Pretty big lump of money. I would have said that if I was going to parade these out in light of the bill that is before parliament, I’d be pretty careful about having such a big hole. There are a lot of little holes and I can go to them. I have plenty of time to do it. I mentioned one this morning where we were going to have a brand new service, where we were going to visit people with disabilities in their home in the dead of night and it wasn’t going to cost us anything. That’s a bit of a long shot.
We know we have Oncology Departments that have being touted about how wondrous they are to build and nothing in there to run them. We know we have hospices that are going to be built and no recurrent. We know we have renal dialysis going to Tennant Creek at probably a number that is a bit below what it should be, and these are matters I think we should be discussing. I will certainly be raising them again because they have been raised in correspondence over some weeks and weeks. You can’t say: ‘Oops! Oops. We didn’t know about it’. You do know about it. If you are going to spend $15m building a dedicated facility to treat people’s cancer, the hope is you will actually have people in there working. You will have the lights on and water coming out the tap when you turn the tap on. That’s called recurrent.
If you have capital in there to build a building for $15m and you have no recurrent, that is a patent falsehood - that is a falsehood. You can say that we are making an assumption that we will be able to claw back travel from interstate, claw back this and we know that that will give us some savings and we will deploy those savings for those people who previously had to travel in to this facility. That might work. But I notice in the budget papers travel has gone up. Is the Health Minister telling us that the growth in travel is sustainable? This massive growth we have in hospital activity: $16m in hospitals in seven months. In seven months they are going to need another $16m. Get your calculator out, work out what the growth rate is. It is pretty high. You are talking over 10% on some of these growth rates.
If you want to run the case that the crocodile jaws are unsustainable, this budget doesn’t deliver it. If you want to run the case that this has no fibs in it, I think they have to be very careful of putting their hand on their heart and saying: ‘You will never find an error in this. No, no, no, no. Not us guys. We got Clarkey to sign the front, we have an act of parliament. That thing is tickety-boo’. Now, if you are saying with this bill that that is the length you will go to, to guarantee the veracity of this document, I would caution you against it. If you are saying: ‘Well, there could be other circumstances and the bill really doesn’t apply that much’, it is a charade. It is one or the other.
If this bill gives them such total connection to this document that we will never find a mistake in it, I would suggest that maybe we do put some penalties in it. If it is merely a device, a charade for public consumption, we as the opposition are happy for them to do that. If that is how they do their politics, that’s how they do their politics. We won’t be interrogating them on this bill that is before the House. We will be interrogating them on outcomes, on what happens. We won’t be going to people saying: ‘They have brought in an act of parliament, that was an end point’. This is a start point. This is where we are starting from. The budget documents that are sitting on this table are what we have to go from and the end point for these budget documents is 30 June next year. I suggest they be really careful about having a nexus between this bill and the fact that this thing here is carved in stone to the extent that we can use this document without any problems for the rest of the year.
Let’s talk about open and transparent government in terms of what the documents don’t tell us. We know they don’t tell us about the $50m for HIH. We know they put a lie to the vehicle fleet being unable to be sold even though it is valued at $59m and we know also there are no staff numbers in there. Now, when you start to talk about the resources that are available to you as a minister, you have money, you have an intellectual repository out there, you have machines, you have vehicles. The most valuable resource in the public service is the people. That is what drives it. In some instrumentalities, that is the big outgoing. They don’t have many machines. They don’t have many pieces of office equipment. It’s the people. To have a document that doesn’t tell you where the people are is the biggest hoax perpetrated on this parliament. We hear this morning from the Chief Minister that it is a bit tricky getting the numbers together. Right? Well, she has a lot of them in here. Which numbers are tricky? So, these ones are okay. We knew how to amalgamate all their electricity bills. We knew how to amalgamate all their TA. We knew how to amalgamate all their other activities, but we don’t know how many people are there. Not to be able to reconcile your human resources, or even not to have control over them to the extent that you don’t know the number means that this is a runaway tram. If they haven’t got a clue who’s what where, their most valuable resource, which is their human resource, is sitting there being neglected. That is the best spin we could put on it, that they don’t know where they are, they don’t know what they are doing, and it is hard to add them up.
There is another spin that could be put and that is that no matter how the Chief Minister portrays the black holes and all that stuff and how nasty Mike Reed is, I suspect the number of public servants that would be printed in this book and the year following would probably differ. My suggestion is that Treasury know that difference. They know, on the crocodile jaws that are so famous, that they have to bring the top jaw down. Now, when you bring the top jaw down, it means you have to spend less. This budget doesn’t spend less; this budget spends more. So we don’t want to look at this one. We want to look at the one that improves the budget. The budget improvement strategy. The top jaw is sitting up there like that and next year we know it’s going to come down because this is what you want. This is the economic theory according to member for Johnston. Down comes the top jaw. The top jaw comes down when you stop spending lumps of money.
Mr Henderson: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: It doesn’t come down when you stop spending lumps of money?
Mr Henderson: Slows. Growth slows. Revenue catches up.
Mr DUNHAM: Aha! So, the top jaw doesn’t come down when you stop spending money. Another theory, I guess, but I can’t figure it out myself. I would have thought that if your expenditure starts coming down, the top jaw starts coming down. But still, let’s stay with the little they know. We think that if you look at this budget and you see there is more money in it…
A member: You’re a joke.
Mr DUNHAM: I pick up the interjection. If you look at the budget and you see there is more money in it, you are a joke. You are a bunch of clowns. You are a bunch of clowns. If you look at this budget and next year’s budget and you look at the abridged figures - the secret figures, the hidden figures that in good government, we don’t know about this - you might find the number of public servants is fewer. That is called a cut to the public service. It doesn’t matter if you say: ‘It’s up to the CEOs, it’s attrition, nobody will lose their job, blah, blah, blah’. What we want to know is: will the gross numbers, net numbers, bums on seats, whichever numbers you want to use, will those numbers be more or less? We know they will be less. What we want to say to public servants - and you accuse us of scaremongering – is: ‘Look, it’s only 500’. At the moment you have the unions saying it is 1400. We suspect …
Mr Henderson: Your mates.
Mr Burke: Our mates?
Mr Henderson: Yes, your mates. You’ve discovered single mothers, the unemployed, unions.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, the point I am making is whether they are our mates or your mates, they are an enlightened commentator so we would assume that the unions have some commentary to make. The commentary they’ve made, whether they agree or disagree with it, is that there are 1400 public servants going to go missing – AWOL, no pay cheque next year. We think that that might be wrong and these guys probably think it is wrong, too. What we want is the number. Give us the number. It has to be between 0 and 1400. Must be between 0 and 1400. Maybe it is more. Maybe they are going to cut more. All we are trying to get from them in this open, enlightened, educated budget - and everybody knows what is going on. All we want to know from them is how many public servants will lose their jobs. Yes/No. The whole argument about what Reedy did and motor cars and all the rest of it - cut to the chase. In your closing response, I would ask the Chief Minister to tell us …
Ms Martin: What did you do when your CEO came to you and said they’re fudging the figures for health? Yes? Come on, you are on your feet. Tell us.
Mr DUNHAM: Come on. When I went to school, Madam Speaker, ‘come on’ used to be a thing to get people to fight. They would say: ‘Come on, come on’. This one here says it all the time. I know she is new to the Territory, but it is actually an enticement to fight. I do not know how you did it in Sydney where you went to school, but up here, I can tell you, that was a pretty - ask my colleagues who went to school here - offensive thing to be saying to people. When you start saying: ‘Come on, come on’, what it meant was: ‘We’re outside and we are on with it’. That is fighting language and …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development) Madam Speaker, it is an appropriate time for me to join this debate following on from the member for Drysdale because election to this parliament brings us a huge sense of responsibility and a level of trust that our electors put in us, as members of parliament, to come into this House to represent their interests, be it from opposition or in government. What we are talking about today is the introduction of legislation that is going to bring back a level of trust that the public have certainly lost in terms of this institution in regards to the way that the previous government put together budgets and misled and betrayed the trust of Territorians.
In government, as the previous government were here just six months ago, the primary responsibility is appropriating monies and expenditure on services and infrastructure within a fiscal framework that is responsible, to deliver economic growth and services to the Northern Territory. That is essentially what our job is as members of parliament.
The people who elect us expect us to do it honestly, expect us to do with a level of integrity and expect that when budget papers are brought before the parliament to the people of the Northern Territory, that they are truthful and honest accounts of the state of the budget and where government is seeking to raise revenue and expend money over the next 12 months. What we have seen from the previous government is consistently underestimating final consumption expenditure in those budget papers to the tune of $65 to $70m a year and therefore masking, when they bring the budget down, what the previous government was saying was an increase in the budget but were actually cuts to budget.
For a number of years, we wondered what was going on but it was finally brought home when we came to government and when, within the first two to three days of the Chief Minister and the Treasurer coming to government, the Under Treasurer came to her office and said: ‘I have some bad news for you’ – paraphrasing - ‘The $12m that is in the budget papers as the deficit for this financial year …’ - and this was eight weeks after the budget had been tabled in this parliament - ‘… it is not really $12m. It is around about $100m’. Nine times more. This is within eight weeks.
Obviously, we smelled a rat - a very big, stinking rat at that. And in terms of getting an independent assessment, commissioned Percy Allan, an esteemed person who was the Under Treasurer in New South Wales, who audited the books independently and yes, he came up with $107m. How did these numbers come to get into the budget papers? Was it Treasury? Was it Treasury that was so incompetent that they could not actually estimate final consumption expenditure? They got it so wrong? The public service got it so wrong - these budget papers were so badly flawed, or was something else happening? Obviously, we have complete faith and integrity in our public sector. A lot of us on this side spent many years in the public sector, have been here for a long time. In government, as responsible ministers, we started questioning public servants about what was going on in terms of the preparation of these budget documents. How could they have been so wrong so consistently since the previous Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Katherine, now the shadow Treasurer, got their hands on the tiller of the great ship of state, the Northern Territory budget?
The first indication that we received that something was very wrong in terms of the way that the stewardship of our financial accounts were being managed, was when the CEO of Territory Health Services presented a memo that was tabled in this House in the last sittings which laid very clearly on the table exactly what was going on with these budget figures. I quote from the memo from Paul Bartholomew, the CEO of Territory Health Services, that was previously tabled in this parliament:
- In summary, there was an artificial reduction of $8m in THS’ 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget
figure could be presented falsely …
Presented falsely!
- … as a 2.5% increase. In reality, THS’ 2001-02 budget represents a reduction on the final 2001 approved
budget.
So here is a very serious allegation that the budget papers were false, and they were false in order to present an illusionary increase in the health budget of 2.5%. He goes on to say, and I quote again:
I received a telephone call from the Under Treasurer who informed me that the Treasurer …
The Treasurer, the member for Katherine.
- … intended to adjust THS’s final budget figure for 2000-01 so that the following year’s budget could
artificially …
Artificially, falsely, misleadingly!
- … be shown as providing an increase at least as equivalent to CPI.
- On receipt of this message I expressed considerably concern to the Under Treasurer and informed him that
I would need to discuss this with my minister …
the member for Drysdale,
- … I rang Minister Dunham and expressed my alarm at this proposed deception. I advised him that in my
view this arrangement would undoubtedly be discovered in due course by the Auditor-General and would
reflect poorly on THS and the minister. In addition, I expressed concern that, as a consequence of these
artificial adjustments, THS would be seen to be exceeding its approved budget by $8m when this was
demonstrably not the case. Minister Dunham expressed serious alarm …
serious alarm,
- … at the information I conveyed to him and indicated he wished to be kept informed of all developments.
The minister was continually kept informed as the budget process continued, but there was no change in
the decision to artificially reduce…
on instruction from the member for Katherine, the previous Treasurer
- … to artificially reduce by $8m the 2000-01 budget.
So, the member for Drysdale, caught up in this deception, went to water, betrayed the trust of the people of the Northern Territory, the people who elected him, failed to stand up to the deception that the member for Katherine was seeking to perpetrate on the people of the Northern Territory and on the budget process, and did absolutely nothing. Strike one in terms of where this consistent underestimated final consumption expenditure was coming to. What have we seen since then?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, may I suggest you address your remarks also to the bill. We seem to be very repetitious.
Mr HENDERSON: In terms of the bill, Madam Speaker, I am seeking to outlay why this legislation is so important, so this betrayal of trust, in terms of the confidence of the people of the Northern Territory, in terms of the budget processes of this parliament, needs to be restored, and this bill certainly gives effect to that.
The second piece of evidence, if we go consequentially, is in the current budget papers. I quote again from Budget Paper No 3, Fiscal and Economic Outlook, which have been prepared by Treasury as opposed to being written in the former Treasurer’s office. Again, I will not read the whole statement because I did last night. In terms of the deficit being closer to $102m than the $12m - and if we take out the $50m for the sale of NT Fleet - I quote from Budget Paper No 3, the second reason was that:
- … ongoing financial requirements in a number of functional areas particularly health, education and some
law and order functions were in Treasury’s assessment …
not the previous Treasurer’s assessment,
- … understated, and increases in the budget for these purposes during 2001-02 would be required.
Strike two: evidence now that the problem was not confined to health, but we have problems in education and in some of the law and order functions. Strike two.
Now we go to strike three. We have the CEO of Territory Health Services, the Treasury documents in terms of the budget paper and now we have a third source of evidence of this: the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory and the current report before this parliament, Analysis of the 2001 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. I take members to page 22, Department of Education, and I quote:
- By March 2001 …
During the term of the CLP government.
- …the department had better identified its budgetary needs for personnel costs for the year. That analysis
established that the original $204m budgeted for personnel costs for 2001 was insufficient. A $6m increase
was approved by the government in March 2001.
Here we have Cabinet appropriating and approving $6m to the department to shore up their operational costs. But the forward estimate in the government’s 2001-02 budget papers still showed $204m, not $210m, because you had kicked in the extra $6m. These are the budget papers that came down in May this year. It still showed the figure at $204m. What happened here in the Department of Education? I suspect exactly the same thing has happened where the Treasurer, in the lead up to the Northern Territory election, didn’t like the fact that if we actually put in the budget papers the estimated outcome for the financial year, which was known because additional monies had been allocated to it, any increase in the budget would not appear as an increase going into an election. It would appear as a cut. So what you do - smoke and mirrors - you underestimate the estimated outcome to make it look as though, going into an election, you are allocating more money to education.
Here we have three independent sources, and Professor Percy Allan, proving, I would say pretty conclusively, and it will be interesting to see where the Public Accounts Committee goes with this, that there was deliberate interference by the ex-Treasurer, certainly by the member for Drysdale, the previous health minister, in deliberately misrepresenting and misleading Territorians in the presentation of those budget papers. And they have obviously been doing it consistently. You have to ask why. Why would they be doing this? They have been caught red-handed. Politically, they were so desperate going into an election, so desperate in terms of maintaining power, power at absolutely all costs, that they were prepared to mislead the people of the Northern Territory deliberately to mask their total failure in terms of prudent fiscal management, their total failure to provide a sustainable budget framework for the people of the Northern Territory, and they did it with only one motive in mind which was to stay in power. This is political desperation at its most appalling such that the legislation that we have before us today, when it is passed, will prevent any future government from attempting to get involved in it.
So for members opposite - and I would like to think for members opposite who weren’t in that previous Cabinet, because if the Cabinet did not know, then they were obviously asleep through half of the budget preparatory framework that we go through. If they didn’t know, I just can’t believe it. I think they are all up to their ears in what was going on. But certainly for people who were on the back bench at the time and for the new members, I hope that people opposite will look and see the fraud that was perpetrated by their colleagues and they will judge them accordingly. The evidence is there. You can’t walk away from it.
The legislation that is before this House is so important to actually return the trust of Territorians in terms of these budget processes. That’s why it is so important. And, yes, the member for Katherine may be a bit half smart and he’s right: doorknocking, people are not going to raise this bill as being a matter at issue, but what they will know as a consequence of this legislation coming down is that the trust that was betrayed by the previous government will never occur again as a result of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I heartily commend the bill to members of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I will suspend the sittings for lunch at this stage. We will continue this debate after Question Time.
FISCAL INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Continued from the morning session.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a couple of comments fairly quickly in relation to this. My concern arises out of the comments by the Minister for Industry and Business when he made comments to this House in relation to the approach by the new government to the open and accountable and honest way that they were going to deal with Territorians, and that the bill that is before this House is a representation of their wonderful approach in this area.
Indeed, if we listen to the member for Wanguri and the way he talked about it, quite frankly I was left with the impression that the only thing that would prevent him walking across my swimming pool is the fact that the holes in his feet would let the water through. He has clearly demonstrated to this place that his memory, as far as the promises made by his side of the House while they were in opposition, are the promises that the voters of the Northern Territory have relied upon when they came into government.
They went out to the people of the Northern Territory and they said to the people of the Northern Territory: ‘Look, guys! Look what we’re going to do for you’. I draw the minister’s attention to a debate which occurred on 22 April 1999 in which his new leader had this to say in relation to how open and honest and accountable the new processes of the new government are going to be. I quote from the speech on that date. She said:
- … in the Chief Minister’s statement, he talks about all the ways we Territorians have to access and make
government accountable. We have a parliamentary system and he says there is significant information
through the parliamentary system …
at which point Mr Lugg interjected and said: ‘True’, at which point Ms Martin said:
- Absolutely true. I mean, I agree with the member for Nelson. We see an honest, fully accounted process in here
every day that we sit and we have a Public Accounts Committee.
She was being quite sarcastic, obviously, at the time and then she went on to say:
- If you lot wanted to make a Public Accounts Committee system that was fully accountable, do you know what
you’d do?
and Mr Lugg said: ‘What?’ and she said this:
- You’d make it 3:2 with an opposition having the three and the opposition would be in the chair. Other states have
that. Let’s do it in here; let’s see some accountability. We know what happens in the Public Accounts Committee here.
We have dissenting reports that are ripped out and refused to be printed. We have obfuscation, refusing to investigate
anything that looks as though it would be embarrassing and we’re supposed to rely on the process of accountability.
Another point: All Territorians have easy access to their local members of parliament. What does that mean? Do you
know how many calls that I, for example, get from people in other constituencies ringing up their local members and
getting nowhere - absolutely zero nowhere - because they are members of government and they’re not going to put
any pressure on the government when it’s going to be embarrassing to them in government?
The aspirations of all those back benchers would seriously be dented if you started to put some real pressure on
government and demanding accountability. I get calls. I know what you have said to these people. If you go to the
members of the opposition, yes, you know you’ll get the answers because we’ll press hard. Go to the members of
government and you may forget it.
That was the now Chief Minister. I find it curious that she then comes into this Chamber and we hear comments from her ministry that the process of the Public Accounts Committee is going to be better under their leadership. Certainly under their position paper Good Government they made it very clear that they intended to have a fair and balanced PAC. Yet what do we have this morning? We have the Chairman of that PAC clearly taking a position which is partisan prior to an investigation into matters relating to what the former government did. Now, if the Chief Minister and the government opposite wants to have any form of credibility, then I urge the Chief Minister to instigate what she said she would instigate while she was in opposition, and create a Public Accounts Committee which is 3:2 in favour of the opposition. I hear no calls from the members opposite.
She was also very disparaging of back benchers who simply toed the party line. She said as much in that speech. ‘You’ll get no good out of a government which runs the parliament in that fashion’, she said. ‘Those back benchers who have aspirations are not going to be fighting for you’, she says. Well, now that the boot is on the other foot, what do we see? A deceit; a clear and utter deceit. I think it’s cute in the extreme that they come in here, robed in their innocence and robed in their blame free environment, when in actual fact they said stuff in this Chamber, they’ve said this stuff to Territorians which they never had any intention of, at the time, acting on.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I welcomed all the contributions to this important debate, but I think many of them have been, well, they have not been on the legislation in front of us, so it is difficult to welcome contributions when they haven’t actually tackled the subject.
It is very disappointing to know that the opposition Treasury spokesperson didn’t even seek a briefing on this, so the contempt with which he holds this legislation - didn’t even bother to have a briefing on this legislation. It is very disappointing, and I think it reflected through the words he had to say about it because he didn’t actually address what this legislation is about. He gave a general harangue and said we won’t be opposing it, then talked about everything else but this legislation.
It was interesting to note that one of his key themes was that he thought the former system, meaning the way they did our budgets, had served us well, which means that not only did he not have any briefings, he did not read the second-reading debate, he didn’t read the introduction and he really has no idea what this is about.
We need this legislation to restore the confidence of Territorians in our budget process. I won’t go again through the distortions and deceit, through the manipulation of figures that we’ve seen by the previous administration and, specifically, the former Treasurer. This legislation was dramatically needed by Territorians, and by this parliament, to make sure that in future there is a very clear define between who produces the figures and who produces the policy. This legislation says very clearly Treasury produces the figures. So these documents, we can say proudly, are figures produced by Treasury. That is how it should be rather than the style of the previous administration where we know what the Treasurer did up in his office, got a dose of the bottom line and didn’t like it. And because he’d been Treasurer for a while, thought: ‘I can fix this’, and just rewrote it. A man of enormous fiscal integrity: didn’t like the figure of over $100m, so wrote $12m.
It was a fraud on Territorians and it has to stop. That is exactly what this legislation is about. It is about fiscal integrity and transparency, and it is disappointing that none of the members of the opposition who contributed to the debate actually tackled what this legislation is about. Talked about everything else, made political rhetoric, but didn’t talk about what was encompassed in this legislation.
Before I finish referring to the member for Katherine, it is interesting - and he roamed around a lot of different areas, obsessed again with numbers in the budget. I say to the member for Katherine and to members of the opposition, the figures for salary costs which are really the critical thing when it comes to numbers of public servants are there in the budget papers. Take a look at them. The salary costs are the critical component. They are there. They are stable.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: So don’t get obsessed about numbers against - they’ll be back. They just aren’t there this time. This is an amendment to a budget. The salary costs are there. The salary costs you’ll be very comfortable with, but read your budget papers, for heaven’s sake. Stop getting into massive conspiracy theories and read your budget papers! We produced them for you, we made sure Treasury put the right numbers in them. We gave Treasury the licence and said: ‘Do your best, Treasury, because they’re your figures. You’re the experts’, and they’ve done it.
Mr Elferink: They are merely notional figures, we were reassured by your Minister for Community Development who, by the way, misled this House
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member for Macdonnell is going to accuse the Treasurer of misleading the House, he has to do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the fact that I suggested a member misled this House, but I wasn’t referring to the Treasurer. I was referring to the Minister for Community Development.
Madam SPEAKER: But you do know you can’t do that.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the now Deputy Opposition Leader talk about this kind of new-age self, about his new relationship with the unions ...
Mr Stirling: Single mums.
Ms MARTIN: Yes! With people we had never seen associated with him in the past. In recognition of his new relationship, I’d like to give him a membership form for the CPSU. I think it would help. I’m sure he would be very keen to join the CPSU and really cement that relationship that he is now talking about, and recognising the importance of unions in the Territory and recognising the real contribution that unions and union membership makes, particularly in the public sector.
So that is for the member for Katherine. Anyone else we can give copies to? You can join a terrific union. I’m a member of the CPSU. It’s interesting. We are waiting for the next contribution from the member for Katherine just to see what other kind of areas that he hasn’t really engaged in previously where he’ll be demonstrating this new warmth for the Territory parliament.
The member for Nelson. We had a brief discussion about this during the lunch time adjournment. He is worried about the number of times that ‘fiscal’ appeared in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. It’s a fact of life. It is about fiscal management and I am pleased that you have bought two parts of the Macquarie Dictionary. I believe that you are supporting that we need to have open, honest and transparent management of our budgets and will appreciate over time and come to know and love the word fiscal and its importance in the Territory’s future.
The member for Goyder made a very unimpressive contribution to this debate. He, again, had not had a briefing. We have had a number of weeks between the last parliament and this, and yet the member for Goyder did not have that briefing. The best he could do was be supercilious and insulting, which I think is a very poor contribution to any debate. To call a man who has been Under Treasurer in New South Wales to four Premiers, both Labor and Liberal, a man whose credentials are recognised around the world and whose advice is sought around the world, to say ‘the accountant’ in a sneering way is really unbecoming when it comes to Professor Percy Allan. I say to the member for Goyder: get your briefing, come in here and make a contribution to the bill rather than spending your time trolling through the different clauses and trying to find something that you consider to be a mistake. We have excellent parliamentary drafting. Occasionally there are needs for amendments, but we will take amendments, after you’ve had your briefing, in writing. So don’t come in and say: ‘The best I can do is troll through the bill and make a few idle and supercilious comments’. We expect better than that.
He had gone and read a few law journals about it. The most he could really contribute to the debate was that he didn’t like the title ‘Fiscal Transparency and Integrity’; he thought it was political. I have no comment on that. The title of this bill says what it means. It says that we will have fiscal integrity and transparency in the Territory and that is what it is about. It is quite simple. If he considers that political and somehow political is a dirty word, I don’t know what he is doing in politics.
Then he also quoted from two lawyers who had done some level of analysis of similar legislation but he was referring to it in a Commonwealth context. The Commonwealth has a different regime from us. There is a two Chamber parliament and there are more checks and balances on what happens. This is the Territory jurisdiction; we have one Chamber, we don’t have those same checks and balances as yet, but let me assure you this legislation is one of those checks and balances and it is very important for the Territory. The member for Goyder also does not seem to understand that it is important that we say strongly to Territorians that there will be a separation in how budgets are done, that the figures will be done by Treasury, they won’t be done by Treasurers who are desperate to try and win elections and that the honest state of our budgets will be spelt out to Territorians, and you have seen that this week. The member for Goyder distinguished himself by empty rhetoric and supercilious comments. I hope that in future debates he does a lot better.
The member for Drysdale made a lot of play about the fact that we should be having full appropriations. He said this somehow is an exception. I do not know whether the member for Drysdale understands that this is actually an amendment to the previous budget. It is an amendment.
Mr Henderson: Did he ask for a briefing?
Ms MARTIN: He didn’t ask for a briefing. This is an amendment. Let me just take you back historically, member for Drysdale, to what your own party did. In 1987, the then Treasurer, the member for Palmerston, made a ministerial statement called Northern Territory Economy, and in that there was significant expenditure in revenue decisions which addressed the changed financial circumstances at the time from what had happened in the previous budget and then went on, after making a major statement, a few months later there was a budget. So, this has happened before. It was not an amendment to the budget, it was not a mini-budget but there have been major statements made here that changed direction and made major financial decisions and then there were budgets later. That was 1987.
Then there was 1991 with the Expenditure Review Committee, one of the most dastardly deeds perpetrated on Territorians, and certainly not made clear that it was going to happen to Territorians. It would have been what had to happen if you mob had got back into government. You would have turned around and had the most vicious slash and burn of our public sector that we have witnessed in a decade.
Mr Dunham: You’re speculating.
Ms MARTIN: It would have been! Even the member for Drysdale with his poor attempts to make crocodile jaws understands the difference between expenditure and revenue. It was just travelling apace and those crocodile jaws were just opening by the month. The CLP would have done a dramatic slash and burn of our public sector.
In April 1991, the then Chief Minister made a ministerial statement relating to what had happened through the ERC which involved a very substantial examination of government activities and led to public sector staff cut backs and addressed major revenue and expenditure issues. A major statement not done in the form of a budget, but a major statement to this House. Then followed Planning for Growth. Again, the same process happened by statement.
This is an amendment to the budget in May which was such a dishonest budget. We are doing it by amendment which is quite proper and we will have a full budget come in to this House next year. I think you should get a little bit of clearance on the history before you start coming in here and making idle comments because they are simply ill informed.
This really is straightforward legislation. It works in other places. We have looked at the best models and we have incorporated a model that suits the Territory. It suits our circumstances and it suits the framework that we want. It sets out a fiscal strategy and you will see in the mini-budget that came down this week a demonstration of what that fiscal strategy should be all about underpinned by a deficit reduction strategy. It will restore confidence in budgets in the Territory because it has been sadly undermined by the performance of the previous administration. Sadly undermined, both in the business community and in the wider community.
It is a great bill. It has been well drafted and it should certainly be welcomed by this House. I hope it gets proper bipartisan support. The indications we have are that it will have that support and I certainly thank those in Treasury who put the hard work into formulating this Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. I thank all those involved in the drafting.
While I am on my feet I would like to thank Treasury for the hard work that they did in preparing the mini-budget. It has been terrific work. It works within the parameters of this legislation even though we haven’t yet passed it. All credit to those who worked so hard in Treasury to get this mini-budget together in a very short timeframe. I thank Jennifer Prince, who is sitting here in the House, and I thank Ken Clarke and all those others in Treasury who have worked for hours and hours to demonstrate that the people who should be putting the figures into the budget are the Treasury.
Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that this very important legislation for the Territory has full support from this House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS BILL
(Serial 21)
POWER AND WATER AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 22)
(Serial 21)
POWER AND WATER AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 22)
Continued from 24 October 2001.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I note that there are some minor amendments that will take us into committee on these bills. There are a few comments that should be made at the outset. The Government Owned Corporations Bill and the Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill are cognate bills. Members who wish to contribute to this debate can not only go to the second-reading speech but in Budget Paper No 3, starting at page 69, it is addressed under chapter 5, Structural Reform Issues, where there is significant discussion of the issues at hand and broadly replicates the Chief Minister’s second-reading speech.
Additionally, there are some other documents that will inform members who wish to contribute to the debate and one of them is the budget paper that deals with the freeze on electricity prices and the other is recommendations in Percy Allan’s second paper entitled Independent Review of Northern Territory Financial Position by Professor Percy Allan AM, Part II - The Future. I will be talking to all of those documents.
In the first place it should be said that the opposition actually supports this move and that the move has been forecast for some time. There is great merit in progressing in this way and it places the Power and Water Authority or the new PAWC, Power and Water Corporation, in a position where they can compete in a rapidly changing marketplace. It gives governments the capacity to have some control, albeit via two ministers, and it gives a very transparent route for government via those ministers to inform and direct the corporation. It sets them up in a business sense by stripping them of their protection of Crown immunity and it also sets them out into the big wide world in terms of borrowings and competing with the private sector.
We believe philosophically that this will drive competition. It will put a competitive tension that is already there to some degree into the new Power and Water Corporation and we believe that the current board, which indications would suggest will continue on, will do an admirable job in advising the government.
I turn to some of the issues that I think are critical, and these bills turn on. One is the fact that there are two ministers which is pretty unusual in our Cabinet structures, particularly when they both carry substantial roles under this legislation. There will be a shareholding minister and a portfolio minister. The shareholding minister has the very avaricious task of trying to drive the authority to produce as much from its resources as would form a good return to the shareholders, that is the taxpayers. So, foremost in the mind of the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, would be: ‘I want maximum returns on the benefits. I want this business to really churn’. The portfolio minister should be looking to more domestic - if I could use that word - arrangements relating to the innards of the portfolio, its operations, how it goes about doing business, and all of that sort of stuff.
What we have here, notwithstanding the last bill before the House and the rhetoric about how transparent the budget is and how it is devoid of any error, is a massive error. We have a massive error in the budget statements that come from these two bills. In the first place, it is necessary to make a short excursion into history with some of the documents I have provided. For the benefit of Hansard, this document that I will be quoting from first is Labor’s Financial Statement which has been audited by Access Economics. It was published prior to the election and it says, on page 25:
- Freeze domestic electricity prices over Labor’s first term: Labor will not increase domestic electricity prices
during its first term. Deregulation and the arrival of Timor Sea gas onshore may allow for a reduction in
domestic electricity prices over time. In the meantime…
that is, notwithstanding those factors:
- …Labor promises that prices charged to domestic consumers will not rise (given this reflects a no policy change
assumption, the budgetary impact is anticipated to be zero).
The fully-costed Access Economics document has that promise as a zero. It has no financial impact on the budget. In fiscal terms, zero means that is a neutral decision.
Professor Percy Allan entered on the scene not much later and he talked about what could be done to repair the NT’s finances, and I quote from page 12 of his report. I will start with his recommendation:
- … accelerate the process of corporatising government trading enterprises in order to lift their efficiency and
ability to contribute to the budget.
So, Professor Allan is talking about something that was foreign to those opposite when we debated, some years ago, the drive to make the Power and Water Authority more efficient and to corporatise it. It was seen as a very stealthy operation to flog it off. It was seen as anti-worker. It had a lot of problems associated with it notwithstanding that this world-leading man has now convinced those opposite that this is actually a good way to go. His recommendations are:
Towards this end introduce a Government Owned Corporations Act …
Aha! We have it.
- … to require government owned businesses to adopt the legal status of a company instead of a budget
sector agency …
Mmm Hmm. This bill will get us somewhere there.
… earn a fair rate of return on their assets and pay normal dividends and taxes to the government …
This is a little problematic for the government in that some of the arms of the Power and Water Authority, particularly water and sewerage, are heavily subsidised in terms of the rate of return on those assets. For instance, if you look at the investment in a place like Manton Dam - the power and water infrastructure, the sewerage infrastructure and reticulation - it could be argued that these figures could be increased if you adopted Percy Allan’s recommendation.
Continuing:
- … to be fully compensated from the budget for any community services that they are required to undertake.
What he is getting to here is that if the government treats this as yet another department and says: ‘We would like to task you with this particular effort or program’, then the Power and Water Corporation can quite rightly put its hand out and say: ‘Well, we do not think it is our business, we think it is your business, and we think it is good business. We will do it as a contractor for you in that you have to pay us a CSO’.
This is an interesting one, the next one. Percy Allan says that it should be run on commercial and not political lines. This bill, as it stands before the parliament, has politicians at arm’s length from the day-to-day management and governance of the Power and Water Corporation through the board. It has a series of devices where, if ministers want them to undertake a particular task, not only is the Community Service Obligation evident, not only does this parliament get involved by virtue of the fact that it has to be tabled in this place - those directions - but it does set the instrumentality up as very independent and very separate from politics.
It has a couple of other recommendations. One is of some interest and that is:
- … to be stripped of any monopoly market powers where this is possible.
So Professor Percy Allan is saying: ‘This thing has to make money. You have to drive the assets to maximise the cash you can get out of it. It has to run on strictly commercial lines, it should not be a political plaything, and it should not be running issues that are political rather than commercial’. There is a direct conflict between these two documents. Here is the political promise saying: ‘Forget what the commercial realities are, forget what the yields from your assets are, don’t raise power costs’. And this document is saying quite the opposite. This should not come as a surprise that there is a conflict between these two documents, because I actually did write, fairly soon after the election, to the then Minister for Essential Services and asked him to reconcile this seemingly difficult position that these two documents had put to government in if they had been portraying that they were going to adopt both of them.
It appears we’ve gone for Percy Allan, so it appears that Percy’s won out and Labor’s Financial Statement signed by Access Economics is the loser. The difficulty you have then, in trying to have it both ways, is the money is not in here. You now have a situation where you are setting up the Power and Water Authority to go and forage for as much cash as it can, turn a good profit on the assets that have been taxpayer provided, and yield that back to the coffers so that, as Professor Percy Allan says, you can fix the budget. You can do all the things that we talked about this morning.
I have a feeling in my bones that this will be another one of those things that fall from the sky, that government did not anticipate, that they can probably blame us because a large part of the authorship of the drafting of this actually did come from us, and they can say: ‘Look, power has got to go up. We have this new corporate structure, we cannot tell them what to do. We would have loved to have kept it down, we would have loved to have kept our promise, but we think that we are just stuck because legally, we have nowhere to go’.
I want it made very clear that with the passage of these bills, the political promise of holding down domestic power is not a problem for the Power and Water Corporation, it is a problem for the government. For the government to address it, it has to address it in the means that are available in the bill. It provides them there, you have to provide them with the cash. So if we are talking fiscal – I am glad the Chief Minister has read what that word means - foregoing revenue, not collecting revenue, has a value. You cannot say because we are not collecting revenues the same, that it is zero. You are foregoing revenue; you are not collecting it, you are not picking it up. This is the bottom jaw of the fictitious crocodile.
We have a dilemma here. What has to turn up in these budget papers is a CSO, and the CSO has to be roughly equivalent to that yield on the assets which the board would put in its Statement of Corporate Intent. I will get to that later because it’s a very important document. We know the budget papers are deficient in that respect, and we look forward to an amendment which would bring that to book because its not a matter that can be tucked away in the Power and Water Authority. It is not a matter for them to be delivering on a political promise when they are supposed to be acting in a commercial fashion.
I want to make it very clear in case this is being subtley put in place as an excuse for a future time that we have to renege on the freeze on domestic electricity because we didn’t realise the ramifications of the bill. I am saying now in this debate that is a ramification and its remedy is very evident. Its remedy is to bring to the budget the CSO amounts that are necessary to remunerate the Power and Water Corporation to hold power at those low prices. There is a route through if the government chooses not only to pass these bills but also to adhere to their promise. So there we have it. That’s the dilemma we have with the budget in not finding these figures.
We move now to three big issues. There is the matter of whether the two ministers are totally aware of their roles and don’t trip over each other, that is the shareholding minister and the portfolio minister. It is essential that both of them contribute to this debate so that they can describe their roles as they apply to them. The other big issue is the transitional arrangements and the second-reading speech is silent on it. It is not until you go to the budget papers where, right at the bottom of page 73 of Budget Paper No.3, it says:
- The Power and Water Amendment Bill is to come into effect during 2001-02 as soon as PAWA’s Statement of
Corporate Intent is completed and approved.
We are waiting for this thing called a Statement of Corporate Intent, a very important document. It is a document, for instance, that is so independent that it may differ from the government’s documents. It is a document, for instance, that talks about the risks that the enterprise faces. It’s a document that talks about the economy the enterprise finds itself in and some of its competitors and those sorts of issues. Go to Budget Paper No 4, the Economic Overview of the Territory economy, where at page 1 it says:
- After two years of weak onshore growth, economy activity is expected to show some signs of a pickup over the
remainder of 2001-02. Territory GSP is forecast to grow by 5% in 2001-02.
I don’t believe that figure. It goes to the integrity of this budget. It is a Treasury figure, 5%. It is certainly viewed sceptically by business. Treasury, who have prepared this document totally devoid of any fingerprints from ministers, have said: ‘5% We are going to hang our reputation on that’. The Power and Water Corporation not only have to hang their hat on it; they have to hang their solvency on it. This is a pretty serious matter. They are going to come to this parliament with a Statement of Corporate Intent which will talk about what they believe the growth factors will be. It will be very interesting when they drop this document whether it accords with this document, the Treasury the document.
It will also be interesting when you look at issues that are very critical to the Power and Water Authority like, for instance, confidence and continuity in energy supplies – gas - what those issues might be. I am glad that the Chief Minister is upbeat about gas coming onshore. The optimist in me would like to believe that it is inevitable also. But it is a very important issue for the Power and Water Corporation because without gas, they are in deep do-do. They have to rely on much more expensive alternative fuels, and they have a very limited range of suppliers if they wish to continue to use gas.
These are big issues, big issues that loom to the criticality of life or death for this organisation. They are going to have to come to parliament. They will be called to task on this. They will be in the corporate community where they can’t trade while insolvent, they can’t just say: ‘Well, look, we’re government’. The board can be prosecuted. It is a very serious business we are dealing with here. The numbers must be accurate; they can’t be rubbery and they can’t hide government fudge factors.
I am going to be interested when the Statement of Corporate Intent drops that it is 5% and it is signed off by the board, and that it has some basis other than appearing in this document because that is not foot noted, and I would like to know whether it is plucked from the air or whether it actually is sourced by some reputable economic advisor. I am also going to be very interested to see the cataloguing of the various risks that they will face. If you go to the bill, it deals with what those might be in terms of where the organisation finds itself in the sector, so issues like competition, government regulation, the monopoly powers it has and whether government has an intention to strip if of some of those.
The big issue, though, is: are we still going to get the gas to turn the turbines to keep the lights glowing? When the Statement of Corporate Intent comes to this parliament, it will make very interesting reading because its going to have to say: ‘To keep this business afloat, this is our yield. This is our yield of revenue’. It is going to have to declare what the dividend is to Treasury because that’s really the only transaction Treasury get. They put their CSO money in and they take their dividend out and they leave them to their own devices. It will be very interesting to see whether this organisation, which has to do a similar job to Treasury in some ways but much more focussed and much more life and death, will actually give a budget tick of approval to statements like the gas statement – sorry, I’ve already read it into Hansard, the statement about gas coming onshore which is in …
Mr Kiely: Read it again. You’ve read everything else twice.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall read it because its actually incorporated in one of Labor’s documents: ‘… and the arrival of Timor Sea gas onshore’. That’s a pretty bullish sort of a statement. When you are talking about the millions of dollars this area represents, don’t forget the operating revenue of this instrumentality is $350m. Its expenditure is $333m, so you are talking about a very significant enterprise, indeed one of the larger enterprises here in the Territory.
I go to Budget Paper No 3 where there is a better discussion of the bills before our parliament at chapter 5 than there is in the Chief Minister’s second-reading speech because it gives much more - I suppose it’s a bit more objective in one way:
- The central objective of the Government Corporations Bill is to provide a basis for improved performance
and for greater sustainable financial returns to the Territory.
Shareholding minister, Treasurer, that’s your job. Your job is to improve the performance and get more cash out of them. That’s what you have to do. You really don’t care about the other stuff.
- Consistent with the objective of government owned corporations will be to perform at least as efficiently as
any comparable business and to maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment.
Maximise the return. What you have to do is to get in there and drive this thing hard so that you can get the best possible yield out of those taxpayer funded assets. Further on it talks about ministerial responsibilities.
- The shareholding minister will have a role similar to a large investor in a private corporation and will focus
on receiving maximum sustainable returns from the business.
So its quite evident what the Treasurer’s job is. That is the main task.
- The portfolio minister…
in contrast, and I am reading again from Budget Paper No 3:
- …will continue to administer the government owned corporation’s own legislation. The portfolio minister will
also remain responsible for relevant industry wide policy issues and, in consultation with the shareholding
minister, for community services obligations.
So what we need to know in the answer is: have you two talked about this? Has the shareholding minister, who wants us much cash out of this that she can get, talked to the portfolio minister about whether there is a necessity to have a Community Service Obligation to cover the promise? And if you have talked about that, I wouldn’t mind some heads up - doesn’t have to be that specific - in your rejoinder to this debate because in any event, the Statement of Corporate Intent will tell us in very sharp detail. It’s one of those things that, having brought the stuff in here, I assume you’re nearly ready to drop the Statement of Corporate Intent; I assume it is one of those documents that the two relevant ministers have talked about; I assume your level of Community Service Obligation is in there, and I’d just like to know if it does pick up what would otherwise be a black hole in Labor’s budget papers.
The other thing is about other players coming here. If we decided, for instance, to corporatise something, put it into the commercial field and then say: ‘And you can charge this level’. So in other words we say to the Power and Water Authority: ‘Out you go. This is your rate of domestic electricity tariff’. And then you give them a big CSO. It’s pretty hard for a competitor to come along compete with that. It’s pretty hard for someone to come along and say: ‘Well they’re getting subsidised 10% from the government. It’s going to be pretty hard for me to flog it and make a profit out of it’. It should be remembered that right through this debate, one of the fundamental aims of this is to ensure a level playing field with the private sector. We have to make sure that in using the Power and Water Authority in a way to run a political agenda that we don’t corrupt the competitive field out there, that we don’t imbalance the playing field, and we don’t also expect them to do something that is not within their corporate capacity to do. The schizophrenic policy position of the Chief Minister and Treasurer is now to say: ‘Aren’t we good because we’re going to give you no rises in power’ and, at the same time, she’s obliged by this legislation she’s brought to parliament to derive as much income as she can. She’s obliged to be cracking a whip and saying: ‘Give me more. I want more’.
If you look at some of the other factors in here, the existing board of directors will become directly accountable for performance. Now, this current board of directors, no slouches in this stuff, they’ve been around a bit, but they realise that this means that they are exposed in the sense that they may be trading while insolvent if they are given charges from government, tasks to do which are not commercial. So setting up this commercial thing, setting up the Treasurer as the person who’s going to derive as much cash as possible, setting up the company directors so that they are liable in the true sense of the word in the big wide world outside, means that you can’t play games with it.
I would like to make sure that Labor is very transparent about this transfer of the CSO. I’d like to make sure, on the record in the debate tonight, that they say that there will be no increase to power arising from this as some unforseen consequence. It is very clear to us that these budget papers are deficient in the outgoings that have to go to the Power and Water Authority to meet that promise, and it is foolish in the extreme, if we are continuing to talk about fiscal issues, to say that not picking up revenue is a zero and therefore doesn’t impact on the budget because your job is to pick up as much as you can. You are supposed to be a very avaricious person in this little detail, and it’s something you could probably set your mind to pretty well.
The Power and Water Authority Bill, coming through as a cognate bill, is fairly straightforward. Most of it is changes to nomenclature, changes to some of the structure about what the chief executive officer does, and the real power of what’s going through now is the Government Owned Corporations Bill, so I shan’t devote many of my comments to the Power and Water Authority Bill, but rather to the bill which eventually we would hope would wrap up several other corporations. It is possible the Port Authority might sit there. If the government is mad keen on retaining the NT Fleet and the assets, you could even put that there. So the overarching legislation could well wrap up three or four government agencies over time, who we would see as operating in a commercial way in the wider Australian environment.
I commend the bill. It is fairly familiar to me, as I said, in that I had seen some of its ancestors come through in terms of draft. I’ve also had the great fortune to talk to the board members about this and, as I said, people who have been through similar processes in other jurisdictions and I would commend anybody who needs a briefing on this sort of stuff to spend an hour or so with these very enlightening people. They’ve been through it, among the three or four of them, on four or five occasions I guess. So they are people who are very knowledgeable about the steps that are necessary, and I would ask that in the contributions of both the shareholding minister and the portfolio minister that they alert the House to their great understanding of their new roles under this legislation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, it looks like I will be the portfolio minister, so I speak on the bill. I support the Chief Minister’s introduction of the Government Owned Corporations Bill and the Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill.
I would first like to direct my comments to the men and women of PAWA. To them I say: your employment conditions do not change under this legislation. The terms and conditions of the PAWA Enterprise Bargaining Agreement do not change. You will continue to be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act by the Commissioner for Public Employment. He will delegate his power under the Act to the CEO of PAWA.
The government has a clear commitment to public ownership of PAWA. This legislation is not a precursor to privatisation. Establishment as a government owned corporation provides for a clearer relationship between the government, which is the owner of the enterprise on behalf of the Territory community, and the Power and Water Authority. Employment conditions and staffing levels will remain matters for negotiation and agreement within PAWA’s Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. The government clearly rejects any notion of management performance contracts that are linked to workforce reduction targets.
The aim of the legislation is to improve PAWA’s capacity to react appropriately and flexibly in providing high quality services in the most efficient manner. The most obvious effect of this legislation for most staff will be that PAWA’s trading name will become the Power and Water Corporation from January 2002. PAWA is currently working on a corporate image strategy that will address trading name and logo issues at a later date. Under this legislation, the Power and Water Authority Board of Directors will be held more accountable for the performance of PAWA, both in terms of financial and service performance. Performance targets for the corporation will be negotiated annually between the shareholding minister and the board. The primary mechanism for setting accountability will be the Statement of Corporate Intent. The document is a negotiated contract between the shareholding minister and the board, setting out what the shareholder can expect from PAWA over a three year period.
The Statement of Corporate Intent contains information regarding PAWA’s objectives, the nature and scope of activities, performance targets, risks and associated strategies. Also it provides details showing how the capital investment program is to be financed, and the proposed borrowing program. This will provide government with a great deal more information about PAWA’s activities and performance management than at any time in the past. It will also require greater rigour in planning and in performance reporting on the part of the agency than has been the case in the past. The Statement of Corporate Intent will be tabled by the shareholding minister at the beginning of the financial period to which it applies.
The PAWA board was appointed in April 2000. They have been providing both PAWA and the government with invaluable advice consistent with the government’s broader objectives.
Honourable members recognise that running PAWA as a successful commercial organisation is of benefit to all Territorians. The dividend paid by PAWA to the Northern Territory government is available to fund general government services. The higher the dividend provided to government, the more service can be provided and the more debt that can be retired or managed. The government supports the continued process of reform of PAWA that is possible through the model provided in this bill. The accountability mechanisms provide for a much clearer focus on achievement against financial and operational performance indicators. The board will closely monitor achievement against financial and operational performance targets and PAWA’s strategic objectives.
These will be reported to the shareholding minister on a quarterly and annual basis and results included in PAWA’s Annual Report which will be tabled in this Assembly. The maintenance of continued efficiency gains through time is an important element in containing upward pressure on tariffs and charges. Increased profitability will see increased dividends paid to the Territory government. Service levels will not be compromised under this legislation. In fact, it is expected that levels will be maintained and improved over time in both urban and remote communities.
Operational performance is already proving to be improving due to strategic focus on planned maintenance activities across the organisation. For example, the system average outage duration in Darwin for the electricity network has decreased from 475 minutes in 1997 to 171 minutes in the current year. The increase in planned maintenance which has occurred this year will further reduce the incidence of unplanned outages and the requirement for large amounts of planned maintenance in the coming year. The strategic focus will continue across all of PAWA’s systems. PAWA’s operational units are also benchmarking themselves against other utility providers and coming up with a very favourable result. The board will continue to focus on maximising PAWA’s value to Territorians.
In August last year, the board identified a number of strategic issues which required addressing. One of these was changing the governance arrangements to make the board clearly accountable for the performance of the organisation. This will now occur through this legislation where the board will be answerable to the shareholding minister for the performance of PAWA through the Statement of Corporate Intent.
The board also indicated that PAWA required a new financial management system able to provide financial information which would enable the organisation to be operated on a more responsive and more commercial basis. After an extensive pre-evaluation process, tenders were let earlier this year. It is anticipated that the new system will be implemented by March 2002 and be able to provide information as required by the government, the board, senior management, the Utilities Commissioner and Treasury. Financial data will be immediately available in order to better manage the affairs of the organisation.
Another current strategic issue is the positioning of PAWA to compete in the open electricity market. In this respect, PAWA’s image with its customers is an important deciding factor in whether or not they would choose PAWA as their electricity supplier. PAWA wishes to thrive in the electricity market and, as mentioned before, honourable members will recognise that this will benefit all Territorians.
In the past months, a lot of work has been done with PAWA staff to identify how they feel about the organisation and with customers to identify how service can be improved. These issues will be developed further in the coming months.
The board is building on the previous two years of reform which saw PAWA restructured on business lines and respond to the first demands of competition. During this time the PAWA-specific Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was negotiated with staff and the staff performance system implemented across the organisation. Training needs for all staff are identified by annual reviews. Support for training has been expanded. These initiatives are aimed at developing a skilled workforce able to meet the challenges of competition and deliver excellent service to the Territory community. PAWA has won a prestigious Australian national training award in the utilities industry category. This has been awarded in recognition of PAWA’s commitment to the training and development of staff. The staff and management are justifiably proud of this achievement.
As the Territory’s largest trading enterprise, PAWA acknowledges its role in supporting the Territory’s growth. This will be achieved in part by containing costs in order to maintain pressure on tariffs, but the other part of the equation involves building partnerships with Territory business. PAWA is uniquely placed by virtue of the skills available across the organisation and its ability to partner Territory organisations. Already it has laid fibre optic cable to extend the Optus network. PAWA entered into an arrangement with Powercorp to enable both organisations to explore commercial opportunities in power generation, electricity supply and automated control systems in remote areas throughout the Territory and elsewhere.
Integrated Technical Services and PAWA installed a digital radio system to serve the offshore gas recycling project in the Bayu-Undan. The work included the supply and commissioning of the system for communication between platforms and floating storage facilities. PAWA will continue to explore opportunities to work with local business to keep work and jobs in the Territory. This is important if the Territory is to manage the benefits from Timor Sea gas.
A significant part of PAWA’s business involves the delivery of essential services to remote communities across the Territory. The team of dedicated and tireless officers in this area of the business will continue to seek ways of delivering these services more efficiently. The recent restructure of the public sector will see these services provided under a client/service provider model with the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs.
One of PAWA’s most important business objectives is the minimisation of any impact of its operation on the environment. It is good corporate citizenship to perform activities in an environmentally sensitive manner and good business practice to use resources efficiently. The board also takes this matter seriously, with one of the board members directly and actively participating in PAWA’s Environmental Committee. As a user of natural gas to generate electricity, PAWA is already one of the cleanest generators of electricity in Australia. Nonetheless, PAWA is looking for continuous improvement in levels of greenhouse gas emissions by installing increasingly efficient generation plants in its major centres.
The continued introduction of the Darwin Sewerage Strategy will see the improvement of environmental discharges into Darwin Harbour and the increasing potential for effluent reuse. PAWA is working with the community in Alice Springs to develop a strategy to manage the use of available and scarce resources including examining options for effluent reuse in productive enterprises.
PAWA is also a supporter of viable alternative energy options. This year will see significant advances on the construction of solar technology at King’s Canyon and Bulman. Also, the use of the noxious weed Mimosa pigra to generate electricity will be trialled near Windows on the Wetlands. PAWA has completed its first annual environmental management plan which encourages further integration of environmental duty of care into business planning and day-to-day activities. I will be proud to table PAWA’s second Environment Report during the course of these sittings.
The government, PAWA’s board and PAWA staff are committed to making the introduction of this legislation work. We are committed to making PAWA more commercially successful and able to deliver improved services to the community and increasing dividends to the shareholders, the people of the Northern Territory.
The passage of the Government Owned Corporation legislation will provide clearer accountability mechanisms for PAWA’s board and facilitate the more commercial operation of PAWA.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer on introducing this legislation, and I commend this bill to honourable members. The government is proud of the men and women of the Power and Water Authority. This legislation will help refine PAWA’s identity for the modern era and place it on the path to even greater improvements in service delivery to Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first of all I thank the government for allowing me a detailed briefing from Treasury. It was quite an informative briefing. Corporations are something I have not studied, but I learnt a lot from that briefing.
The idea of making our government departments more efficient and cost effective is certainly one we all would agree on, but there are some questions that first need to be answered. For instance, who will check that profitability and efficiency do not override safety and maintenance and workers’ legitimate rights? Who will protect the rights of the contractors, especially the subcontractors, from low wages? Recently I was quoted $11.50 an hour as a means of PAWA obtaining greater profitability. Will the corporation operate with a 40-hour week and four weeks annual leave as in private industry, bearing in mind that the Chief Minister has said that the objectives of government owned corporations will be to perform at least as efficiently as any comparable business and to maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment? Will AWAs be allowed?
I also take up the issue of sewage disposal into the harbour that the Minister for Essential Services just raised. Will the corporatisation, whose main focus will be profitability, therefore look at the cheapest way of disposing sewage? I understand that trying to put sewage into a reusable form is probably a fairly expensive way of reusing sewage. So will PAWA in a corporate form be reluctant to go down that path and look for the option which might be to dump the water in the harbour?
Will the board - and I am not sure of the makeup of the board at the present time, but presuming that we have now a new corporation - will any new board include consumers and workers? As this is a government owned corporation, here is an ideal opportunity for representatives from both residential and commercial users of electricity as well as workers - and here I refer not to middle management, but workers on the ground - be represented on the board to give the board broad representation.
I also ask how will the FOI legislation work in relation to this corporation. Will commercial-in-confidence be used as an excuse for public scrutiny of the corporation’s finances? I note a report by the Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in March 2000 which said:
Decisions concerning the disclosure of commercially sensitive material produced by government agencies
requires the balancing of two competing sets of public interests. These are the public interest in ensuring …
… government agencies are able to operate as effectively as possible and the public interest in ensuring
political and financial accountability. The committee also believe that open and accountable government
can be undermined by the overuse of commercial confidentiality reasons to deny the public and the
parliament access to information. The committee also believe that the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman
should have unrestricted rights of access to commercial information and should be able to publish that material
whenever it is in the public interest to do so, and the committee supported the view that the decision as to whether
or not to disclose commercially sensitive information should be made according to the general principle that
information should be made public unless there is a justifiable reason for withholding access to it.
It seems that a corporatised PAWA could be seen to be a case of having its cake and eating it, too, by trying to be a private company dressed in government clothes. It should be an interesting experiment. I hope the sometimes negative sides of privatisation are balanced by the fact that PAWA is still owned by the government, and it has Community Service Obligations as well as its commercial obligations to provide power and water to the community. As a Labor government enterprise, it has obligations to listen to legitimate concerns of workers, whether government workers or contractors, and making sure that those rights are not diminished below the rights of workers in the private sector. I would also include here the safety and adequate maintenance of PAWA’s assets. I hope that none of these are put at risk for the sake of efficiency and profitability.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate as we see another step being taken towards the corporatisation of the Power and Water Authority. It has been a long, very complex and sometimes difficult road, but one that had to be taken in terms of making sure that the Power and Water Authority would continue to be a viable operator that could serve the needs of the people of the Northern Territory and also become established on a commercial basis and to be able to compete with commercial entities, more of which I expect will emerge in the future.
The first point - I would like to ask the Chief Minister in relation to this, if she could respond in her response - given that this legislation has been under development for some time and was probably finally drafted before the change of government, and has now been given consideration by the new government is that they are prepared to accept full and open ownership of it. I ask that because we have seen a couple of examples, only recently, where a minister has not even been able to fully understand a brief that he has received, signed it without reading it and understanding it, and then had to blame someone else. This legislation is too important for that. The government has to be able to acknowledge that it does fully understand and fully accept the total extent of this legislation. It is very extensive, it is far-reaching and will have considerable implications for the government and the Power and Water Authority and, in turn, Territorians, especially if it goes turkey.
We do, on behalf of Territorians, require that undertaking from the Chief Minister. If she cannot give it, there is no alternative than the government has to put this legislation back for reconsideration while they go through the bill again and make sure that they do fully understand it and can accept full ownership of it. That may not be necessary. It is an important point. We do not want to be seen in a position here in a month, year, two years or a decade where there is someone blaming someone else because: ‘Oh, we only introduced legislation that was drafted before we came into government’. That is not the type of thing that can be accepted in relation to some far-reaching legislation like this.
Another point I would like to pursue with the Chief Minister, or perhaps the minister: with the amalgamation of a number of agencies, the former CEO, Mr Chambers, of the Power and Water Authority, is now the head of a number of agencies or a much larger agency. I wonder if the Chief Minister will be able to advise the House whether or not there will be a CEO put in place of the Power and Water Authority to replace Mr Chambers. The reason I ask that is the position of CEO of the Power and Water Authority is a very important one, more so as this body becomes a corporate body. It has been a very difficult path that the organisation has had to follow in terms of becoming a commercial entity and progressing further down that road, and it is going to be one that I do not believe anybody, not even Barry Chambers - and he is a very capable officer, and would throw every piece of energy that he could muster at his newly acquired responsibilities and tasks, as well as his former ones - if he had to also fulfil the role of CEO at the Power and Water Authority. I think both this organisation - and in fairness to Mr Chambers, he should be able to expect that there will be a replacement CEO put in place of Mr Chambers, and that that person will have the sole responsibility as the Chief Executive Officer of what is a very large entity, albeit government-owned, but nonetheless one that is going to be, day by day, more commercial., and having to adopt more responsibilities in terms of the commercial nature of its operations, and indeed being able to return a dividend to the shareholders, the people of the Northern Territory. That is a very important point to consider at this time, and perhaps the Chief Minister will be able to advise us of that in her closing remarks.
The legislation in some ways creates a bit of a dilemma for government - and the former speaker from the opposition touched on this matter - in that there is a need for the performance to be increased, improved and the returns enhanced. Indeed, the Chief Minister made particular reference to that in her second-reading speech. The dilemma is, of course, that - to give but one example - the government has given an undertaking that electricity prices will not be increased over this four year term. For the government then to receive a recommendation or advice or a request from the authority that prices be increased for commercial reasons, that is to meet the needs of the positions stated by the Chief Minister in her second-reading speech that a good return has to be obtained on the investment. As commercial operators, the board, I would be surprised, over perhaps this term of parliament, might be recommending to the government that electricity prices be increased. The Chief Minister’s dilemma, or the government’s dilemma, is then going to be: how do we meet that need because they have made that recommendation or request to us on a commercial basis, and we, on a political basis however - and for obvious reasons - would want to keep the cost of electricity down - that is, not see it increased?
We do not argue with that approach, that is capping the cost of electricity, however the implications of that reach beyond the operation of the Power and Water Authority itself and the commercial basis on which we will be expecting it to operate. For if the answer to their request or recommendation is no, they are then faced with being in breach of their Statement of Corporate Intent and it could lead them into insolvency because their position will be hindered by the shareholder, being the Northern Territory government on behalf of the taxpayer.
The other implication of that is if government does take the political route and say: ‘We will not allow the prices to increase’, then that places pressure on the open market and other competitors because they would be faced with the prospect of having to supply electricity at a competitive rate which would be a false rate, that is not a commercial rate, because it would have been capped for political reasons not market reasons albeit that if those prices were capped by government, that the electricity authority could charge, I would expect - and the Chief Minister, again, might like to provide this advice - that the government would be covering that anticipated extra income with the proposed increase in tariff by a CEO.
So very complex, and perhaps I have been a bit cumbersome in terms of putting that proposition. I think you can generally see where I’m coming from. In terms of the transition that the Power and Water Authority has progressed through over the last couple of years, I take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to all of the workers at the Power and Water Authority. They have a very difficult task. What was formerly a fully operational government agency, changing from that operational ethic, which is something quite different from where they are now and where they will be perhaps in five or 10 years will be quite different from where they are today as they further progress to become a full corporate entity in the real sense. They have undertaken that change remarkably well, not without great difficulty.
On behalf of Territorians, they should be congratulated, especially when we bear in mind when frequently we are sitting at home, especially at this time of the year and over the next few months, in the comfort of our lounge rooms perhaps watching the cricket or something like that, even in air-conditioned comfort, many of these employees are out climbing up poles in a raging storm with branches blowing all over the place and teeming rain to fix a fault on a power distribution line so that Territorians might be able to be reconnected to an electricity supply that might be temporarily ceased because of the fault they are addressing at the time.
It is very easy for us to overlook some of those circumstances when we are just sitting at home and taking for granted the electricity that comes up the wires and not thinking about those who, on our behalf, work hard in sometimes not only very difficult but exceedingly dangerous circumstances to be able to maintain that supply. All of that and the other huge gambit of operations and duties that are undertaken by employees of the Power and Water Authority - and it is not just electricity of course; it is water and sewerage. The officers in those areas are just as committed as the electricity officers - demonstrates the capacity of these employees to be able to adjust to change and to become a corporate body but still maintain a high standard of service that perhaps rightly we expect, but sometimes unfairly complain about when the lights do go out and we don’t think of the dangers those employees are undertaking to reconnect the supply to us under those circumstances.
I have been involved over the last few years with this transition of the Power and Water Authority. It has been very complex and I recall contributions to former debates as we have gone down this line with past legislation which has moved us on to this stage. I can recall the then opposition spokesman, the member for Nhulunbuy, making remarks that this legislation that is before us today is exceedingly complex. He had briefings on it and grappled with the need to get to know it and understand it and to be able to put this House in a position where the legislation could be passed and the transition continued and that is very much the circumstance we find ourselves in today.
With those words, and I suppose I might have a few of some detail in the committee stages because of the complex nature of this legislation, I do express my support for the legislation and look forward to seeing further progress of the Power and Water Authority and its main operational areas of water, sewerage and electricity continuing to successfully transit to a higher level of corporatisation and to provide the wonderful services that historically they have and still do to the Territory people.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, in reply closing debate, I thank members for their contributions. This is important legislation for the Territory and has bipartisan support. It is disappointing that the Deputy Opposition Leader would preface his comments by saying: ‘It is somebody else’s legislation. If it doesn’t work, we’ll blame them’. That is a very poor attitude to have, and certainly insulting to this government which has looked carefully at this legislation and accepts that it is good legislation. It is detailed. It goes to the heart of moving from a Territory government business through to one that has a corporate governance framework. It spells it out very clearly. It is a move that this government has embraced. So let’s just put the cynical, unnecessary comments behind us. This has bipartisan support.
I will go through the issues raised by opposition members. I thank the Deputy Opposition Leader for his support for the Power and Water Authority. It is an organisation that, particularly over the last three years, has achieved a big turnaround. It is logical that at first it becomes our first GOC. It does have a most impressive CEO and in the interim, he does continue in that position but it is something that we are monitoring because he does have an enormous task with the new department but has a very strong commitment to the Power and Water Authority, and that is being monitored on a regular basis. We are very confident that the Power and Water Authority is in the excellent and continuing hands at this stage of Barry Chambers.
Mr Reed: They have also lost their deputy, of course.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry?
Mr Reed: They have also lost their deputy, Bree, who has gone to your office, which is not a criticism. It is a fact of life.
Ms MARTIN: It’s a gain, actually.
Mr Reed: So their expertise, you know, it’s really serious.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, we are very aware of that and I think Barry Chambers is as well. I recognise the enormous contribution that this government’s Chief of Staff, Mr Bree, has made to the Power and Water Authority over many years.
Mr Reed: Considerable, yes. Very professional.
Ms MARTIN: Having met with the board, just taking up the point of the member for Drysdale, they are a most impressive board and when you think that part of this legislation, when it does come to play probably in another 12 months time, that it is the kind of board that you would want in place.
I pick up the point from the member for Nelson, though. Increasingly, if you look at boards around the country, they do represent a whole range of interests, and those of consumers are certainly something that I think should be addressed. Boards try to be as broadly based as they can, to have the expertise they need both in the fiscal - sorry to mention fiscal again - in the finance areas and in the legal areas and the industry, but also really should represent consumers and represent a wide range of interests. So that is something that should be addressed when the board is under consideration in due time and something that we as a new government are also addressing as we look at boards that are currently formed around the Territory and what kind of diversity of interest should be on those boards.
A point that the member for Katherine made, also the member for Drysdale, about this new government’s commitment to freeze power prices over our first term and how on earth is that going to work with the new corporate governance framework for the Power and Water Authority? It is a simple fact that negotiations will take place, and government will have to accept a lower rate of return from the Power and Water Authority if it doesn’t want to increase the cost of power charges. These are negotiable. These are not things that cannot be negotiated on a month by month or six month or annual basis. If you have looked closely at the legislation, you will see that that is incorporated within it.
Mr Reed: And what about the reverse side of that, though: the impact on the open market and its competitiveness?
Ms MARTIN: These are all dealt with carefully within this legislation, and there will be a level playing field. When you look at the operation interstate of equivalent GOCs, and particularly the ones that work well in New South Wales, that is in place and it does work.
I would like to address some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson specifically, and one of those was in terms of our draft Freedom of Information Bill, where does a GOC sit with that? As you are aware, the draft Information Bill was tabled in the October sittings and it’s out there for public consultation until the end of February. It doesn’t specifically cover GOCs because it was drafted before we had this GOC legislation in here. The treatment of GOCs will need to be addressed in this period, how we actually put them into the freedom of information framework. However, the draft information bill does deal specifically with GBDs, government business divisions, and it says for the purposes of the information bill, a GBD is only a public sector organisation with respect to personal information, that is the rights of access to personal information, protection of that information. So while it will be expected that GOCs will be treated in the same manner, the precise treatment will need to be determined following public consultation. So, it is a very good point that the member for Nelson raised, and one that we need to address.
The second is the issues you raised about safety and maintenance, about wages and conditions for workers in the Power and Water Authority. They will still be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the delegation will go from the Public Service Commissioner to the CEO of the Power and Water Authority as their employer.
Mr Wood: What about subcontractors who are outside that public service?
Mr Dunham: Work Health, mate.
Ms MARTIN: They come under Work Health. Thank you, member for Drysdale. So in terms of the employment conditions, they will still be the same as they are. So that delegation will happen, their conditions will be determined under the current Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and that will continue, renegotiated and continued. We are very concerned, and that is the role of the portfolio minister, that those policy issues to do with the Power and Water Authority as it becomes, over the next 12 months, a government owned corporation, that they are certainly maintained and supported. In terms of the maintenance issues, a very high one for this government, and in terms of safety of workers and good conditions for workers, again a very high one for this government. But they are very good issues you raise.
The two ministers who will be involved in this new arrangement, the government owned corporations, there is the shareholding minister which would normally be the Treasurer. The Treasurer or the shareholding minister is the one who is tasked with improving the performance of the government owned corporation. Some members of the opposition seem to think this is akin to having Dracula in the blood bank. But actually the terms for the shareholding minister are for improving performance. It is not about whipping every last cent out of the GOC. It is about a responsible attitude, but of course looking after Territorians who are our shareholding interests in a GOC. The portfolio minister looks after the policy areas of the GOC and so it is a balance. As you look through the legislation, you see that whatever happens between the ministers, the board - which is responsible for the GOC - and all those arrangements are subject to many levels of approval and accountability, but not interference. That kind of negotiation will be done, and will be done openly and through the Statement of Corporate Intent. That is the format for those kind of negotiations and those agreements between government and the GOC. But any direction that is given by either a particular shareholding minister must be made public in this place. So there is a real accountability built right through this legislation.
The move to being a GOC for the Power and Water Authority is not going to happen overnight. It has the best part of 12 months in it, so the Statement of Corporate Intent will actually be tabled in this parliament to the extent that we don’t breach the important aspects of commercial-in-confidence. That is important to state. I know it is an issue about what then becomes commercial-in-confidence, but in a contestable market we have to be able to have some aspects of a government owned corporation that we don’t put out publicly. So that is a balance, and one that this new government is very determined to get right. That is another thing that we will be working towards: open and accountable, but certainly not compromising the ‘commercialability’ of this new corporation to be able to operate effectively. It is exciting legislation.
Mr Dunham: What was it that you were going to say about the time it was going to be introduced, the Statement of Corporate Intent? You were going to tell us a time it will come to this parliament.
Ms MARTIN: There will be another 12 months before we actually see that move, so it is within that 12 month period, depending on how quickly the Statement of Corporate Intent can be put together. They are complex things and they have to be right.
I think I have addressed most of the issues raised by those who contributed to the debate. The member for Drysdale recognised the importance of Community Service Obligations and how they would be used to make sure that anything that the government owned corporation was asked to do, because of the public interest, they didn’t suffer commercially because of that. If you look through the legislation, you will see that balance is achieved right throughout what is quite complex legislation.
I thank the House for the support for this. It moves the Territory into areas where other jurisdictions have been very successful and allows our largest entity to be able to operate commercially and to operate responsibly in the interests of all Territorians. It is a good day for the Territory and I thank you for the bipartisan support.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Government Owned Corporations Bill (Serial 21):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I note that the Treasurer has indicated a desire to amend clause 20 and prior to clause 20, I have a question. It really goes to the transitional arrangements. The question I have is that we are now in a period where this act is passed. Some of the act is triggered off the Statement of Corporate Intent which will not be available for 12 months, so there is a difficulty where particularly the directors are operating under a statute which has been passed by this parliament, but some of the triggers, for instance the Statement of Corporate Intent, won’t be available for 12 months.
Specifically, if I go to clause 15(3) just to demonstrate that, on page 7 of the bill:
- If the board of a government owned corporation forms the opinion in the matters that have arisen …
It goes on to deal with issues that they think are important and might significantly affect the achievements of targets, it’s their job to immediately alert the shareholding minister. Now, that could happen tomorrow. They are statutorily obliged under this, but without a Statement of Corporate Intent on foot, it could well be matters that we raised during the discussion on this bill where, for instance, they may not agree with the forecast of 5% or they may not agree with the quantum of the CSO to address the commitment to hold electricity prices.
What I am seeking from government is a very clear statement that really is not in the second-reading speech about the detail of the transitional arrangements wherein we have an act of parliament which has been passed, but some of the triggers - and they are more evident when you get on further in the bill when we start talking about a Statement of Corporate Intent - have yet to come to this parliament.
Ms MARTIN: Having just taken advice on quite a good question, and I thank the member for Drysdale for it, we are today passing the Government Owned Corporations Bill and also the Power and Water Amendment Bill. Now, the Power and Water Authority does not become a GOC until that is assented to and that has the capacity in it at a date to be fixed.
Mr DUNHAM: This will be held in abeyance?
Ms MARTIN: This is generic and the PAWA one is held, okay? So I think that addresses your concerns.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. I thank the Treasurer for that answer.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move that we omit Part 2D and substitute Part 2D.1 of Chapter 2D.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: I have further discussion on clauses subsequent to clause 20, Mr Chairman. They are in two parts: the Community Service Obligation which starts at clause 28 and matters relating to the Statement of Corporate Intent which is at clause 40. They are the two issues I personally will be addressing. Perhaps other members will address other issues. If we go to clause 28, Community Service Obligations, I would ask if in the transitional arrangements where we already have identified the portfolio minister, the shareholder minister, the instrumentality already receives Community Service Obligations and most of those issues that are there can be done in an administrative way notwithstanding that this bill has no status for the Power and Water Authority until it is activated by the Statement of Corporate Intent being tabled in here. I am seeking clarification that for all intents and purposes, clause 28 will form the basis for the government’s arrangements, and I say it in terms of for instance our contact with the relevant ministers and whatever, in the interim period until such time as the Power and Water Authority or Corporation formally comes under this bill.
Ms MARTIN: To answer your question, the current CSOs stay in place. Until we enact the Power and Water Authority Amendment, then none of this comes into action. So you still are just dealing with the portfolio minister, the current Minister for Essential Services.
Mr DUNHAM: So that would mean that if there is a new Community Service Obligation that comes to the attention of government, I am asking would they go through the processes enshrined here - that is, they have identifiable community or social benefit; would not be undertaken if only commercial considerations are applied; the portfolio minister and the shareholder minister would agree generally to undertake it - so what I am saying is: will this form an informal process subject to it being a statutory process?
Ms MARTIN: The current arrangements to do with CSOs were actually put in place by the previous administration. They are the ones that will be worked that any new CSOs will be made in relation to. I think they’re outlined in Budget Paper No 3 a couple of years ago, and they are the ones, until the Power and Water Amendment Bill comes in to force, anything will happen guided by that context. So the Treasurer does not become the shareholding minister in relation to the Power and Water Authority or whatever it is going to be called in the future until that bill is assented to and that is at some date in the future.
Mr DUNHAM: That means there will be no new CSOs, basically.
Mr REED: On a question of the timing, then, will the government maintain the effort in relation to this so that the Statement of Corporate Intent can be finalised, can be presented to the House and this legislation then assented to so that the progress and the momentum is not lost and we continue down the road with a nice even flow rather than having some hiatus now between this and the next steps?
Ms MARTIN: I think the House can be confident that we are committed to the Government Owned Corporation legislation, moving the Power and Water Authority into that. It will be done as appropriately and as responsibly as possible. There is no intention to stall it and we are moving forward at a steady pace, but there are complex negotiations.
Mr REED: I appreciate that.
Ms MARTIN: It is being worked through for the first time and I am certainly not going to rush it any faster than the best advice is that we should do it.
Mr REED: I thank the Chief Minister for that. I understand the complexity of it and it isn’t something that can be rushed but notwithstanding that, is the Chief Minister able to give us a rough timetable?
Ms MARTIN: I have. The timeframe I am given is probably is about 12 months.
Mr REED: 12 months, yes.
Mr DUNHAM: I take it then from the Chief Minister’s answer that the Community Service Obligations that currently flow to the Power and Water Authority will remain in pretty much the same quantum and style of delivery as it has done historically, and that there will be a moratorium on new Community Service Obligations until such time as the act is active for the Power and Water Corporation?
Ms MARTIN: The current CSOs are determined by the guidelines you established as a government and we will be operating appropriately and dealing with circumstances as they emerge. But as I said in my previous answer, we are moving towards this new Government Owned Corporation framework as - I don’t want to say quickly, but as responsibly as we can. It is exciting legislation and represents real opportunities for the Power and Water Authority, not to say greater dividends for government in the dividends repaid and the tax paid to government, but in terms of being able to deliver services for Territorians. We are moving as fast we practically can.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to move to clause 40 which are the last of the groupings of concerns I would like to have elaborated here. That goes directly to the contents of the Statement of Corporate Intent. It is acknowledged by this side of the House that it should be done properly and should not be rushed. It is acknowledged that it should not be just pinched from elsewhere, that it should be directly applicable to the Northern Territory situation.
I would ask if there is some capacity for a briefing - I have seen an early draft of the Statement of Corporate Intent, so I think it is in a fairly ready state. I would seek an undertaking that we could be kept involved so that we have a knowledge of this prior to it turning up in parliament.
Ms MARTIN: Absolutely.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Power and Water Authority Amendment Bill (Serial 22):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move that before the item relating to sections 14A(3), 14B and 14C there be inserted section 14A(3) Authorities and Corporations.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business) Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 26 February 2002 at 10 am or such other time and or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 1)
(Serial 1)
Continued from 16 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that codified portion of the law such as the Northern Territory Criminal Code needs to be constantly reviewed by parliament to keep in touch with changing times and changing technologies. I have carefully read through the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 3) and I am able to put this on the record: that there is a need for an update in the legislation relating to computer-related offences. The proposed divisions which the Attorney-General has introduced in the form of Division 10 – that is from section 276 to 276F - certainly filled that void. I can indicate that the opposition supports this portion of the bill unconditionally.
The proposed bill includes some other changes and one of them is to section 189 of the Criminal Code, Unlawful Stalking. Whilst the opposition supports the thrust of the change, that is taking seriously these type of offences - and the provision contained in the new section 189(1)A will remedy an ambiguity which currently exists - there are some observations I wish to make in relation to the new drafting which will appear in subparagraph (1).
Before I go on with that, I remind the member for Stuart that this is a penal statute and that any ambiguity will generally be decided in favour of an alleged defendant. Under the original provision, before the introduction of this amendment, there was a requirement for the act which constituted the stalking, to occur on at least two or more occasions. The new provision refers to ‘repeated incidences of’, or ‘a combination of any of the following’, and then goes through to particularise some of the conduct which is, of course, reprehensible and unacceptable. It is my view - and it is important that all honourable members of this Chamber draw their attention to this - having the term ‘repeated’ in the new section 189 creates an ambiguity. There is no finality in terms of the number of times which an alleged offender, an alleged defendant, is required to commit or conduct itself in the requisite way, before the charge of stalking is properly made out.
Another concern I have is the use of the words ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ in this type of legislation. Ian Barker QC gave some seminars to law societies around Australia. I think he even spoke to the Law Society of the Northern Territory a couple of years ago. He certainly made an address to the Queensland Bar Association. He talked about the concerns he had about using the type of emotive words such as ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in this type of legislation. A person is, of course, an alleged offender. A better example might be under the assault provisions. If someone unlawfully assaults another, you are not automatically a victim because you have made a complaint, the charge not yet being made out; it is still an allegation. Indeed, the person who is alleged to have committed the offence is an alleged offender, or he is the alleged defendant, but he is certainly not an offender. So incorporation of terms like ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ into this type of legislation, which is serious legislation, should not be part of the new language which we hear so often from the champagne socialist elite in our community.
The true purport of what I have said may be lost on the government, but I can assure you that it won’t be lost on you if you or a member of your family are ever charged with an offence. Suddenly the person who made the allegation - this is way before you go to court and it is proved against you - you are the offender and the person who made the allegation is the victim. Nothing has been proved. Of course, as a society, we should do all we can to assist victims of crime and we should do all that we can to ensure that our Code reflects conduct which is reprehensible and perpetrators should be brought to justice. But there is a requirement for balance, and there is a requirement for at least some sort of procedural fairness even to alleged offenders.
There are other mechanisms which the Attorney-General could use to properly reflect the proposed changes which are contained in (1)A and would make the necessary and, we say, quite useful amendments to section 189 as a whole without using the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’. I can indicate that after making those general observations, when we move to the committee stage I will be asking very specific questions about some of these subparagraphs and, hopefully, the Attorney-General can clarify some of the issues I raise and the matter can be finally determined.
Madam Speaker, that is all I intend to say at this stage. I indicate that I will be asking that the matter go to the committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. Cyberstalking is indeed a very serious offence that has been occurring and is recognised in jurisdictions overseas and interstate. I applaud the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for seeking to recognise the seriousness of the nature of cyberstalking in our legislation.
I will read extracts from Cyberstalking by Emma Ogilvie in The Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 166 of September 2000.
- Victims of stalking suffer dreadfully, and the nature of the response to their plight varies across
jurisdictions.
Victims. It goes on to say:
- Cyberstalking is analogous to traditional forms of stalking in that it incorporates persistent behaviours
that instil apprehension and fear. However, with the advent of new technologies, traditional stalking has
taken on entirely new forms through mediums such as email and the Internet. Thus, it becomes cyberstalking.
Increasingly, cyberstalking is gaining the attention of the media and the public as the nature of the crime
incorporates elements of new technology and threatening behaviours, which symbolise a new form of threat.
Further in this - and I seek leave to table this document because I believe the member for Goyder could well improve his education by reading it.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: It refers to the case of a magistrate. It says:
- Thus the magistrates may dismiss cases of cyberstalking given the lack of physical proximity to many offenders
and victims.
It refers to a Victorian case where a charge of stalking was dismissed because the victim lived overseas despite the fact that the alleged stalking had been occurring over six years and involved repeated – there is the use of the word - unwanted emails, phone calls and letters. It was stated that:
- The defendant’s actions must have the effect of causing fear or apprehension in the victim and in this case the
victim would have felt any apprehension or fear in Canada.
I commend the legislation. I say to the member for Goyder that his sometimes brash search for amendments can be somewhat misguided. The National Centre for the Victims of Crime (US) provides the following definition:
- Cyberstalking can be defined as threatening behaviour or unwanted advances directed at another using the
Internet and other forms of online communications.
It is a reality, unfortunately, that people suffer the result of unwanted attention by stalkers. I refer the Chamber to an article in the Sunday Times on 19 November 2000:
- A cyberstalker who terrorised a Perth family over the Internet for months, forcing them to put their teenage
daughter into hiding has been unmasked as an overseas exchange student. The family’s relief at discovering
their tormentor was tempered by the sadness that the culprit was someone they had treated like an adopted son.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Justice and our Attorney-General for updating the legislation in the Territory, something I note that previous governments failed to ever do, and I look forward to seeing the advancement of the legislation through this Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the intention of this legislation is something I support wholeheartedly. I agree with the member for Karama in relation to her statements that this sort of offence should be pursued most rigorously. However, I do remind the member for Karama that there is a thing in law called the presumption of innocence and I believe that is really what the shadow Attorney-General was driving at.
I would also like to pass comment in relation to this legislation, and what irks me about it is that I have a passionate desire to see it pass this House, but it is incumbent upon us in this House not only to pass good law in spirit, it is also incumbent upon us in this House to pass good law in fact.
Unfortunately, what is occurring here is of great concern to me. I will go to clause 4 of the proposed amendments. It is the primary function of this House to pass law. That is what we do. That is what we are elected to do in this House. Inasmuch as any member who brings a bill before this House, in this case the Attorney-General, has an opportunity to explain it to the House. This is what we intend to do. That is what the second-reading speech is all about and that is why on the completion of the presenting member’s second-reading speech, we then adjourn the debate, we go and look at it and we come back to it at the next time it appears on the Notice Paper.
The problem I have is that the Attorney-General has 45 minutes to explain to this House what changes he wants to effect to the legislation. In that 45 minutes allotted to the Attorney-General, he presented a second-reading speech which can be condensed to two pieces of paper. I imagine that it would have taken no more than two or three minutes to deliver the second-reading speech in which he describes the intent of this bill. Once again, I congratulate the Attorney-General on the intent behind what he is trying to do, but I remind honourable members that it is a duty upon this House to pass not only law in spirit, but good law on paper. This is where I run into a problem because this morning, I checked the stalking provisions under Section 189 of the ...
Mr Kiely: I’ll just bet you did.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I have heard a couple of interjections from the member for Millner and one of the interjections was: ‘Be positive’. I am trying to be positive because either by deception or by inadvertent omission, what we are actually planning to do is water down this legislation, and I will demonstrate how that occurs. Because of the concentration in this process of trying to make electronic stalking an offence, we have gone to section 189 of the Criminal Code in such a way to make it almost a consequential amendment to that section. Indeed, we introduce - and I am reading from clause 4 of the proposed amendment – (1)(b) and (e) which are the two sections designed, from what I can make out, to create the offence of electronic stalking, for which I congratulate the minister. But the problem is that we have redrafted subsection (1) to go from the original section on at least two separate occasions, so the bottom line for stalking at the moment is ‘two or more’. From ‘two or more’ separate occasions to what the minister wants to change it to, which is ‘repeated incidents’.
The member for Karama gave us a demonstration before of what ‘repeated’ means, and she demonstrated how a person had been stalked by way of letter, email and telephone call. So what we got was multiple instances. The effect of creating the offence of multiple instances of stalking in subsections (b) and (e) is good. But the effect in the real world, the non-cyber world, is we now have a watering down of the requirements of the intention of this parliament in the original section 189 inasmuch as the stalking which is referred to in the electronic format is watered down, because in subsection (a), the person who is the ‘victim’ now has to be followed repeatedly. Not twice, but on a multiple of occasions and it is up to the court to decide what the multiple of occasions should be. I suggest to members that ‘repeatedly’ conjures up, in my estimation, a number of occasions which is greater than two. In that context then, we have this problem: the government has tried to bring to this Chamber legislation which is intended to bring about a result but brings about a completely separate effect.
The problem is that legislation is a very intricately woven mesh and if you adjust something in one part of that mesh, it has a flow on effect to other parts of that mesh, and that is what we see happening here. There is no mention in the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech of this consequence. Now, he has either: (a) not turned his attention to the matter at all; or (b) chosen to neglect the matter because the ALP has decided to be soft on crime.
I would be interested to hear the member for Karama’s opinion at a later date, and I look forward to this going into the committee stages, because that is where it has to go now. I look forward to seeing whether the member for Karama supports a toughening of the burden of proof on the prosecution to prevent this sort of stalking from occurring because if she feels as passionately about this as she said, then she should be very concerned about the changes that the Attorney-General is trying to bring into this place.
The other thing that I draw members’ attention to is that the Attorney-General has, on this occasion, quite deliberately tried to institute a change in subsection (b) of the existing act by creating a further section, and I refer to clause 4, the last section, subsection (1A):
For the purposes of this section, an offender has the intention to cause physical harm or mental harm to the
victim, or to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim is for his or her own safety or of that person or if the
offender knows, or in the particular circumstances a reasonable person would have been aware, that engaging
in the course of conduct of that kind would be likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear.
My concern about this is that I have no problem with the intent of the legislation. What we are saying, or what the Attorney-General will be saying to the court, is that in the original legislation, the person who was stalking had to intend to cause physical or mental harm to the other person, the third person, or apprehension or fear. So there was an actual and full pressure on the prosecution to demonstrate that it was the clear intention of the person who was doing the stalking to cause physical or mental harm to the other or third person, or to cause apprehension or fear.
The way that I read the new clause is that the court is now allowed to apply the test of a reasonable person, so that it may not be the intention of the person who is stalking to cause actual physical harm or apprehension or fear, but any reasonable person, similarly circumstanced as the person stalking would have expected to cause such fear. That way it prevents a villain standing up in court and using a technicality saying: ‘I didn’t intend to do it’, because the state of mind of a person is very hard to prove unless you can apply the reasonable person test.
This is a good amendment. But, unfortunately, when I turn to the second-reading speech, I can’t find the Attorney-General’s intention in relation to the amendment. What the Attorney-General is trying to do is structurally change the Criminal Code in a way that is not intended by himself in his second-reading speech. He is quite clear that he wants to change the Criminal Code to introduce offences relating to electronic crimes. I applaud him for doing so. My problem is that the Attorney-General has come into this Chamber quite deliberately and used his position as Attorney-General, and this particular series of amendments, to structurally change an offence in the Criminal Code which is completely away from cyber-related offences. So it is, effectively, a deception of the members in this place to come into this Chamber and say: ‘Look, all I’m going to do is change the electronic crimes, and what I actually started doing, honourable members, is that I’m going to use it to change the structure of separate offences which have nothing to do with electronic crimes’. And it is a deception.
The problem we are now presented with is that we have good legislation in terms of its intent, excellent legislation in terms of its intent but accidentally or deliberately watered down by changing the meaning of the act or changing the wording in the act. On the second hand, he is trying to use legislation which deals with electronic offences to deal with issues of burdens of proof or standards of proof which are required by courts. This is just shoddy. This is not good law making procedure. The Attorney-General has the right to come into this Chamber and present laws to us, and we can either choose to support them or not support them, but we must present to our courts laws which are unequivocal in their nature and we must present to our courts laws which are not watered down when we don’t intend to water them down.
I wonder if the Attorney-General, in putting this bill together, has spoken to the victims of crime group, VOCAL. Has he spoken to women’s groups? Has he discussed the issues with the Law Society of watering these issues down?
Dr Toyne: We have. And the DPP.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection, from the Attorney-General. He says: ‘Yes, I did discuss the issues with the Law Society about watering this down’. Why didn’t you tell us in your second-reading speech? It is your job to inform this House about the law that you are bringing in here, and you, either by incompetence or by deception, will be trying to change the law so that the law surrounding stalking will be diminished and the protection to victims will be diminished by virtue of the fact that you will be winding back the weight and the gravity of their responsibility by changing the wording of the legislation. I urge the Attorney-General to turn his attention to this matter, and when we go into the committee stages, to do something about it.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, how interesting. Before I deal with the matters raised in the second-reading debate, I’d like to again state - we keep hearing about amendments that should be made to the legislation - this has been out for one month. You have had the legislation in your hands for one month. You have had the opportunity to come and get a briefing from my department at any opportunity that you wanted to request it. So you come in here, make points in the second-reading debate within minutes of going into committee, and you expect us to take a serious look at amendments that we have never seen and will never be seen. They will never be seen because you are simply not …
Mr Kiely: Prepared to do the work.
Dr TOYNE: Well, exactly. That as well.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: You continue to ignore the structure that I have put in front of you and it is probably the first time that someone on the government side of this House has made a genuine offer to the opposition that you can have input to the forming of the draft legislation that comes before us in this House. I am very serious that if you give us formal amendments before we go into the debate in the House, I will give them serious attention. If they have merit, there will be changes made to the draft legislation. That is a completely genuine offer.
I do not know how many times I have to say this: there is no point in coming into the debate on the floor with half-baked ideas about amendments. You have to do your work when you have access to the legislation. If we are debating something on urgency, fair enough, you have a point and the amendments should be considered from the floor. This is not on urgency. This bill was presented to this House in October. You have had plenty of time to do your homework on this and come back to us with some formal suggestions on any changes that you feel.
Let’s deal with matters that have been raised by members during the debate. Turning to the member for Goyder. Section 189, e-stalking provisions. ‘Repeated’ in any reasonable dictionary ever known to man means doing something at least twice, perhaps more. So in terms of our use of ‘repeated’ instead of ‘two or more’, we believe that not only conveys exactly the same meaning as ‘two or more’, but you will see that in the bill we are also saying ‘repeated instances of’ - in other words, doing the same thing two or more times – ‘or a combination of any of the following’ offences. Now, the member for Macdonnell has made a big point about saying: ‘This is weakening the legislation’. The existing act …
Mr Elferink: It has the potential to do that.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish here. You have made your point. I have listened carefully and I have taken advice on this. I want to give you an answer. Far from weakening the coverage of these stalking offences, we have actually strengthened it considerably by including the possibility of a combination of these activities being taken as a repeated offence. In other words, the existing act requires that one of those various forms of stalking be repeated, be done two or more times. In this case, in the new act as it will be when it is amended, just by simply following the victim or another person and then subsequently telephoning them, you have repeated the offence and therefore it is actually a wider net to catch offensive behaviour.
In terms of the so-called watering down of the actual intent of the offender, the original and existing act contains the word ‘covert’ behaviour, covertly and intending to do something. There have been cases fail in court because the act was not covert, it was overt. It was very open and it was very much intended. The offender got off because the act was not covert, it was overt. We have taken out that restriction on the type of behaviour on the offender and widened again the net by which to catch this type of behaviour.
To the use of the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in the bill. These offences are very complex in many cases and in fact someone stalking a particular target person will often operate through one or more third parties. For example, it is possible that an offender might stalk the children of a target person in order to put pressure on the actual target. So it is not an offence that will simply involve a stalkee and a stalker if you want to use some other way of describing it. By using the word ‘victim’ in addition to using the word ‘person’, we are able to distinguish in the bill between the actual target of the offender, and the people that may be involved in the commission of the offence. That is the purpose of having those.
When those people go into court, they are not an offender and a victim; they are an alleged offender, they are an alleged victim. Once the court has heard the case, if the offence is proven, they then become the victim and the offender. The tags in the bill are simply there to indicate that if that sort of behaviour has been properly proven in a properly constituted court, you can then refer to the different players within the offence as being a victim proven by the court, an offender proven by the court, a person who is neither a victim nor the offender who may have been involved in the commission of the offence.
That is the purpose of having these terminologies. It would be in no way detrimental to a person taken into a court for the law under which that court is operating to apply those tags to the proven offence. We have charges for murder. We talk about people who kill people or murder people, but that does not mean that a person coming into the court is in any way labelled as that prior to a proper hearing of the case. I don’t accept the idea that this is in some way detrimental to the interests of the people who may come before that court hearing.
Madam Speaker, I have dealt with the substance of the second-reading debate matters. I suggest we now move on into second reading and committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 2 and 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I rise to ask a very simple question of the Attorney-General. He went to some lengths in his closing debate of the second-reading speech to explain what the intent of these changes to section 189 of the Criminal Code was. Why did he not do it in the second-reading speech?
Dr TOYNE: Sorry, could you repeat that? I missed it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I will repeat the question. Why didn’t the Attorney-General use the second-reading speech to explain to the House fully the changes he intended in this legislation?
Dr TOYNE: To some extent the words in the legislation speak for themselves. If you are suggesting that there is some inherent merit in taking a full 45 minutes when we are presenting bills in this House - I presented eight bills yesterday and I do not think the other members in this Chamber would thank me for taking 45 minutes on each bill.
There is an inherent process here that the member should be very aware of, and I have outlined it in the second-reading debate, and that is that there is a process by which any member of this House can acquaint themselves in detail with the issues involved in draft legislation. Some of them lie within this House and some of them lie in the actual process such as getting briefings, such as coming and seeing the minister who has carriage.
The ideal form this should all take is an ongoing dialogue between the shadow, the minister and other members who have and interest in the matters embodied in the legislation. It would be impossible to second-guess maybe thousands of different aspects that may be of interest to the 25 members of this House in any second-reading speech. The second-reading speech is meant to be a very clear synopsis of what the legislation is dealing with. In some cases, a bill may be 200 pages. How are you going to possibly go down - in the kind of detail you are continuing to raise in these types of debates in the House - to the meaning and alternative meanings of words and the possibility that anything within that bill could be amended? It is unreasonable to expect that within a second-reading speech you are going to deal with all those aspects. The important part of this process is that every member of this House who has interest in the sort of laws that we are passing in this place should pursue their interests and objectives within the legislation through the processes that I have outlined.
Mr ELFERINK: The Attorney-General should be aware, while he gives us spankings for not seeking briefings in relation to this, that he is quite right, we have to be guided by the contents of his second-reading speech. I am not asking him to visit every issue in infinite detail, I am simply asking him to tell us what laws he is planning to change and, on this occasion, he simply has not told us. He has not referred once in his second-reading speech to section 189. You would think he would because of the profile those types of offences carry in the community. There is also a potential, with the changes of wording, to change the meaning of section 189 outside of the scope of the first line of his second-reading speech. I am guided by the first line of his second-reading speech: ‘The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide for computer-related offences’.
The scope of these amendments are broader than that because they have a carry-on effect to other offences which can occur outside of the parameters of computer-related offences. I have to be guided by the Attorney-General on many of these issues. That is why he makes second-reading speeches. Brevity is not a reason to introduce inaccuracy. The Attorney-General has simply been inaccurate for the sake of brevity. He complains about time wasting in this House and having to torture each piece of legislation as we do because as we turn our minds to the legislation that is brought into this House, we discover that there are major problems. I was guided by the first line of his second reading speech in relation to computer-related offences. I will be the first to confess that I did not read this bill until this morning. Perhaps I am remiss in that, but I have to be guided by an incompetent dill who does not know what a second reading speech is for …
Mr Stirling: You had a month to look at it. Show pony. You had a month to look at it. You could have requested a briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: … and who would quite happily, Leader of Government Business, mislead this House in terms of the contents of his second-reading speeches.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Direct the questions through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is an extraordinarily frustrating process we had to go through yesterday.
Mr Stirling: Well, how do you think it feels from this side, you goose?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, if you did your job right, you goose, you would not be in here! We could have had this thing done yesterday, just as easily if it had been thought about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Macdonnell, order! Direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, if the members opposite had done their job properly and brought themselves into this House with legislation that was immediately workable, and had explained it to us, taken the time allotted in standing orders - there is a reason we give 45 minutes, so that we can address the contents of it, even if a bill is 200 pages long, and the way it is going to affect Northern Territorians. Now what we are seeing is brevity; two pages on legislation which casts a much wider net than simply dealing with computer-related offences.
The fact of the matter is I support the thrust of this. The Attorney-General was on his feet for less than 10 minutes when he explained several of the issues that he could have raised in his second-reading speech. That is what it is there for. He stood up here and said: ‘We wanted to deal with the issue of covertness; we wanted to deal with the issue of the complexities of the use of the word “victim”; we wanted to deal with the possibility that repeated offences may occur in different fashions’.
They are good explanations, but the problem is he did not tell us in his second-reading speech at all and none of what he just talked about in terms of explanation to the comments raised in the second-reading debate - none of it - relates to computer-related crimes. These are real world crimes that happen to people in the real world as well. Yet when I read his explanation to this House, he is talking about computer-related offences.
All I am asking the Attorney-General to do is, for pity’s sake, if he is going to bring legislation into this House, then he explains to the House what on earth he is doing. Changing the test of intent to ‘reasonable person similarly circumstanced’ is a good move, as I said in the second-reading debate. But he has not explained it to this House. It is a major change to the legislation. It does not primarily restrict itself to the effects of section 189 in terms of computer-related offences. It expands far beyond that, and he did not bother to explain it. He is the senior law officer of this Territory and, unfortunately, he is utterly remiss in his slapdash approach to this legislation. The members opposite laugh, but the fact of the matter is …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … how many of them had read the legislation before they came in here, and how many of them understood it?
Mr Bonson: We got briefings.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection ‘We got briefings’, and I find it curious that they, in their briefings, did not ask about the second-reading speeches. If they did, stand up here and tell us. Tell us that you asked about the second-reading speeches and why the Attorney-General, through a change disguised to deal with computer-related offences, why didn’t they ask questions about changes to the operation of section 189 in the real world, not just the cyberworld?
I am getting frustrated with the approach of the Attorney-General. We saw it in the Chief Minster yesterday. The risk, in my opinion, is because of the broader definition or repeated instances in the act will lead a court away from two or more. I disagree with you. I simply think you are wrong. I can tell you now that I find it very difficult to throw my weight or support behind legislation which will have the effect of watering down very important legislation which is there to protect Territorians.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I want to point out to the member and put on the record his pathetic hypocrisy in this matter. For him to stand in here and admit that he read the bill this morning, or yesterday morning - the first time he bothered to read it - if he was genuinely interested in this bill, instead of getting in here and grandstanding like the show pony that he is and burning up the valuable time and resources of this parliament – he has a right to do it, he has every right to do it - but he has also got a duty to be informed. If he is fulfilling his duties properly as a member, he would be taking the bill from the Chamber when it was tabled in this House a month ago, you would have read it and you would have noted the concerns you have in this so-called watering down fantasy in your head, and you would have approached the Attorney-General for a briefing, you would have had that briefing, and you would have had every opportunity to raise every one of those concerns in a briefing.
If you were not satisfied then, at the briefing, you had the opportunity to take it to your party room and say: ‘This is not good enough. I am going to prepare amendments here, and I want party support for these amendments’. Go and do your amendments, put them through the party room and then get them into this Chamber because the Attorney-General has already said that if you do the work and you come with genuinely considered amendments that will address where you think there is some deficiency in the legislation, he will listen. He will listen, and he is speaking for government when he says that and every minister on this side of the Chamber.
But we are not going to accept amendments from a member who hasn’t bothered to take the legislation home from the Assembly a month ago, hasn’t bothered to read the bill and hasn’t bothered to seek a briefing; all your responsibility. If you are interested in passage of legislation, the foremost responsibility of a member of this Chamber, the member said so himself, Mr Chairman, and I don’t disagree with him, the foremost responsibility as a legislator. Yet he gets in here, admits he read it for the first time this morning and wants to storm over the legislation, complain bitterly about the length of the Attorney-General’s speech. I stood on that side of the House as shadow Attorney-General for years, two paragraphs in many cases from ministers with quite complex legislation.
But, I tell you what: at least I went to the briefings. At least I went to the agency responsible for the bill. At least I gave myself the opportunity, in the paucity of information given by the minister, in a second reading. At least I went and asked my questions. I did not come in here trying to trot across measly, hypocritical amendments at the last minute, and never once did I ever admit to having read the legislation on the morning before because as shadow Attorney-General, I took my role responsibly, as I had to because on that side of the Chamber it was me in the opposition between government and the people of the Northern Territory as to whether it was a good or bad law. There is no second Chamber here. There is no House of review.
If he is serious about his responsibility, if he believes in what he says about the primary responsibility of a member of this Chamber being a legislator, he would get his act together, he would take the bills, they’re tabled, get all the bills that were tabled during these sittings, take them home, have a read, request a briefing from the minister responsible for the legislation, jot down your questions, work it out with your colleagues, is there an amendment here, if you have support, get the amendment across to the government, to the minister responsible with enough time for it to be considered, and it will be.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have to respond to some of the comments by the Leader of Government Business.
Mr Stirling: No, you don’t. You have just spoken. Sit down.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, I’ll give the minister the right to reply.
Dr TOYNE: I want to clear up some matters here. The first thing I would like say is that you want to go on about second-reading speeches, but it’s not the only bit of paper you do get during a second-reading speech. Simultaneously, the attendants bring around the bill we are talking about. So it is taken that the information you are given on that day about intended legislation is the legislation itself plus the second-reading speech. If you had have gone, as my colleague the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, to the documents when you were given them, you would have seen very clearly on page 3 of the draft, or maybe it was a different draft from the one I have here, same words though, on page 3:
Section 189 of the Criminal Code is amended by omitting subsection (1) and substituting the following:…
That would have told you pretty clearly that there was going to be some amendment made to that part of the principal act. The other thing you could have done, and you can do it any time, is get on the web site or go and borrow one of these which is the principal act. That would have told you immediately what changes, if any, the bill was visiting to the different parts of the principal act.
Mr Elferink: I have the copy here. I referred to it.
Dr TOYNE: Well, you might have got that this morning. You should have had it about a month ago if you were going to do this properly.
If you had have looked at the principal act, section 189, you would have been able to read through line for line exactly what changes have been made to the wording of the act as a result of the bill’s intended inclusion in that act. As it turns out, you are talking about radical major new changes to this section of the act. Item (1) of the original act ‘follows another person’. In our bill: ‘(a) following the victim and any other person’. Yes, there is a change there. We have added ‘and any other person’ because as I have very clearly pointed out in second-reading debate, it is not always the victim or target of stalking that has the activity applied to them. It can be an intermediary person: it can be a child in the family; it can be the spouse or partner of the intended victim.
Equally, for you to be talking about ‘Oh, that’s not an electronic form of crime’, the point is that in a significant majority of the cases, there is going to be a combination of traditional stalking and e-stalking. That is the pattern of these sort of crimes, the stalker using electronic means to extend the act of stalking a victim. That is why the code has to do a renovation through the whole crime of stalking. We have to look at the existing conventional forms of that crime, and we have to add to it the new electronic forms of that crime. That is why some of these areas have been modified: to better reflect the actual pattern of the crime and the combination of activities that currently exist in this type of criminal behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, despite what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say, I am curious to know if he was briefed on every piece of legislation that was ever laid on the Table on all portfolio areas. As the member for Nhulunbuy is fully aware, the shadow Attorney-General who has carriage of this, has pursued this matter. I, as a member of this House, am entitled to stand up in this Chamber and discuss issues of legislation. The fact of the matter is that you as the Attorney-General have the responsibility of guiding the House through this and you haven’t done so. That is the embarrassing part about this, not when I read the legislation. I don’t have carriage of it. You are supposed to convince everybody in this Chamber of what you are trying to do. When I read your second-reading speech, your two little bloody pages here, all you have achieved …
Mr Ah Kit: This morning.
Mr ELFERINK: And no, not this morning. I pick up on the interjection.
Mr KIELY: A point of order! Yesterday there was a similar incident of swearing in this Chamber and the member was held up.
Mr CHAIRMAN: It is a minor issue, but it should be retracted.
Mr ELFERINK: If I did, I withdraw, Mr Chairman. I apologise.
The Attorney-General has a responsibility as first law officer. I have a responsibility as a member of this Chamber. Now the fact is that I found what I believed and still believe to be problems with the process that he has chosen to bring before this Chamber. The process that he has chosen is wrong. It is a short cut. It’s just slack work. That’s all it is, Mr Chairman.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Chairman, I didn’t plan to speak in this debate, but what concerns me is that the members opposite are finding it very hard to understand clearly and concisely that we have set up a process with our government in respect of briefings and the way we want to do business. That is something that was never afforded to us when we were in opposition …
Mr Dunham: Don’t tell a lie in parliament, mate. You’ll get into trouble.
Mr AH KIT: Let me finish, let me finish. … on many occasions. Yes, there were a few briefings that ministers agreed to. On many occasions, they were not. They had the audacity to slip in under our doors, at midnight, ministerial statements that were going to be brought on the following day at the following sittings. This is the way they operated.
Here we are. We are saying we have a better system and we are offering that to you. But we have seen, in the last two sittings, members opposite too lazy to organise a briefing from the minister that they are shadowing. They are not showing any keen interest, no real keen interest. The member for Macdonnell, as my colleagues have pointed out, had one month of opportunity. Now, I wonder what you were doing in that one month. Today, you come in here, you admit you only read it this morning and you want to grandstand because you like listening to yourself talk, and you are trying to big note yourself and impress the two lawyers that you have on your side of the Chamber.
When are these mob going to learn? We are learning to govern, and govern properly and effectively for all Territorians. They apparently have a problem with working out what they really need to do in opposition to be a good opposition. It is really a sad indictment that the Christmas message I give them, besides looking after themselves and their families, is to make sure they understand that this government will give them briefings if they make the time available to present themselves.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I make one point before the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. We are drifting away from the bill. We have moved on to greetings. I realise it is a wonderful thing to present people at Christmas time, but I think we are moving away from the bill a bit, so if we could come back to the bill, I would appreciate it.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, the reason I rise is to inform the member for Arnhem that if I hear any more of this patronising pap in terms of how you lecture the opposition ...
Mr Ah Kit: What are you going to do, big boy?
Mr BURKE: What we will do, I inform the member for Arnhem, is stay here all night and continually question this legislation to ensure we are satisfied that it meets our parameters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Government Business was very clear in this House, and I would have thought the Attorney-General who will experience the fact, as he is already experiencing …
Mr Ah Kit: You have nine shadow ministers to seven ministers.
Mr BURKE: And it would help if you could quieten your own mob down because that is what keeps us here much longer. The Attorney-General, I am sure, has realised by now that legislation can pass painlessly through this House or it can be extremely painful, depending on the attitude of the members in the House. It is the Leader of Government Business himself who said that this new government would raise the issue of debate of legislation to its highest priority. He would change the way the day’s table was laid so that legislation could be fully debated. Don’t be so patronising as to turn on individual members of the opposition, some of whom don’t hold responsibility for these portfolios and not allow them to raise issues of clarification on the legislation as it comes to their mind. That is the purpose of this House. That is the reason it is set up and if anyone can comment on this matter and be patronising, it is the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy Speaker himself. But if we hear continually patronising comments from you, we will continue, and I encourage the member for Macdonnell, if necessary, to stand here all night until he is satisfied with the replies that he is getting. That is our agenda, so as long as you understand it.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The second thing I would say to the member for Nhulunbuy, who was so strident in pointing out responsibilities of the members of this side of the Chamber, it may have missed his mind that on the program at Palmerston High School today it was the Minister for Education who was down to hand out prizes to the hundreds of people who were assembled, including Year 12 students. I was there, the member for Blain was there, the minister was missing. So don’t tell us about where our responsibilities lie in this House. You attend to your own responsibilities in the electorate and attend to your responsibilities in this House. And part of that responsibility is to ensure that legislation is fully debated and clarified for the benefit of individual members. When that occurs, then we’ll be able to pass this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Where is the relevance? He is just rambling.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. I will make the comment now that the issue of whether people have been briefed or not briefed or whatever is not central to the legislation. We should now come back to the bill we are here to debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Then I will make the point quickly. The Leader of Government Business knows perfectly well that I, as a legislator in this House, can choose to contest this legislation in this House in the public domain, not in his office where his incompetence and his Attorney-General’s incompetence won’t been seen by the public.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Macdonnell, do you have anything more on the act?
Mr Kiely: He didn’t have anything in the first place.
Mr Elferink: I did, actually.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Attorney-General. You talked about some procedural matters earlier, before the slight distraction, and before I say anything, I just put on the record that any comments I make about the legislation or about the advice you were given is certainly no reflection upon the legal practitioners who are in this Chamber and also the people employed by your department.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong if you think for a moment that when a person goes before a court charged with this type of offence, that the term ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ won’t be stated publicly because part of the procedures involved in a jury trial, or a matter which is heard and determined summarily, is that the charge is normally put to the person who is accused of committing it. That means the prosecutor will have to draft the charge, he is probably going to have to say - the usual form is to stick as close as possible to the words contained in the legislation, and that means that it is almost going to be impossible for him to avoid using the words ‘victim’ and ‘offender’. When the judge prepares an aide memoire for the jury, he normally gives the jury a breakdown of the section, element by element, and he will go through the evidence that relates to the particular subsection in each element of the section.
So we have the situation where the charge is not only read out, the words will, in some situations, be reduced to writing and given to the tribunal which is, in the Supreme Court, a jury. I hope I am not misquoting what Ian Barker QC said, but if my memory serves me correctly, he talked about this type of language as ‘trendy slop’, and that’s it what it is. It is very, very sloppy. It is the government’s political philosophies, champagne socialist philosophies, political correctness creeping into our legislation which should be sacrosanct. I want to put it on the record so that the Attorney-General is aware and makes an informed decision that when he includes these references in legislation, it will invariably be referred to in court and these titles will attach to people who have merely made the allegation before a charge is proved. It will attach to people who will be acquitted and discharged completely and that does not accord with any type of procedural fairness which is, of course, the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.
So, my question is: can the Attorney-General stand up and explain to me, and explain to the honourable members of this Chamber, how the words ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ which appear both in subsection (1) and some of the subsections, will not be uttered and won’t be said in the course of a criminal trial until the end of a trial when the charge has either been made out or dismissed? Can you explain that clearly for the many criminal lawyers who I imagine will read this with some interest?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, what I will say is that what the member for Goyder has expressed is a personal opinion. It is not shared by the DPP. It is not shared by the drafters. It is not shared by department staff who were responsible for the preparation of this bill. In the reality of the court that you are describing, the charges would be couched in the terms of the name of accused and the name of the victim, rather than using a generic term. We don’t agree with you. We could stand here for three hours and we still won’t agree with you. So, let’s move on.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Attorney-General. I don’t want to, of course, go down the line and try and discuss the nature of the advice you have received, but the Attorney-General is wrong because I have also spoken to my friends and colleagues who work at the Director of Public Prosecutions and, sure, there is support for your amendment 1A, but there is also serious concern about the sloppy way that you use the word ‘victim’ and ‘offender’, and people who work at the coal face know that what you have said is incorrect. It might be justification for a press release and the subject of some philosophical comment to make you feel good in terms of political correctness, but I am telling you it is not right. It is wrong. I just hope that you or a member of your family are never in the position to be charged with an offence containing these types of references because you will feel the burden of what it is like to be described as an offender and the person who made the allegation against you whether it is true or not is the victim, irrespective of what evidence they have or what happens in the course of that criminal matter. So, I put that on the record.
The other matter I wish to raise and I am mindful, Mr Chairman, of your direction and not to raise the questions of briefings again but if I can just add in a coherent way a few words. The Attorney-General and, indeed, other members of the government have publicly and in this Chamber invited all honourable members to contribute in a vigorous way to debate. I have heard on several occasions the catch cry ‘open, accountable and honest government’ and I have heard the catch cry that legislation will be a priority. I respectfully take the government to some provisions which I have a difficulty with or am raising an ambiguity on behalf of people I have spoken to about the legislation, it is met with resistance and disdain. They whine and they squirm and it is really certainly not in the vein of what they are saying in terms of encouraging this type of healthy and vigorous debate. That is what it is all about, and if you do not like the job or you cannot govern, then perhaps the Attorney-General can pass the portfolio on to someone else.
In relation to briefings, indeed I did not seek a briefing on this legislation. It is straight forward on the face of the document. Briefings are required if you do not understand it and you need to clarify an ambiguity and there is lots of latitude. I am not going to take you to the …
Mr Ah Kit: Are you the top legal eagle in the Territory?
Mr MALEY: Well, Mr Chairman, the number one legal person in the Northern Territory is the Attorney-General. It is his responsibility. If he is not comfortable with the responsibility and the capacity and the latitude to amend legislation, if the Attorney-General is not comfortable with the responsibility and the latitude that exists to amend legislation …
Mr Henderson: Very comfortable and very good at it.
Mr MALEY: If you’re not comfortable with the responsibility and the latitude which exists to amend legislation on the floor of this Chamber or take on board what is said and adjourn a matter so he can get the necessary advice if he sees fit, then that is the government’s problem. Indeed, with that type of attitude, I think the government is doing a disservice to the people of the Northern Territory.
I will reiterate what I touched upon and perhaps you can think about this. The term ‘repeated instances’ - well, I agree it is a change and it is fairly obvious; it used to say ‘two or more’. Now it has been changed to ‘repeated instances’. One of the tools which a court will use when they come to consider the words in this legislation that if there is any benefit of the doubt or any ambiguity, it will be resolved in the favour of the defendant. That is our criminal justice system. It is a safeguard. So, if I was, hypothetically speaking, representing the Attorney-General and he was charged with this type of offence and he had done something which fell within the scope of subparagraphs (a) to (g) on two or three occasions, one of my very vigorous submissions on behalf of my hypothetical client would be that ‘repeated instances’ is not clear enough and the previous legislation said ‘two or more’ and parliament through this legislation has changed that. So, clearly, it is more than two; it might be three, it might four. And, for what it is worth, I would give it my absolute best shot to try to create a reasonable doubt on the basis that my hypothetical client, the Attorney-General, partook in the conduct on two or three occasions, not the necessary four or five or six or whatever. So, there is an ambiguity there. The very fact that I have raised it is something worth considering.
The other proposition I put to the Attorney-General is that it is a defect which is inherently capable of being remedied by inserting the words ‘two or more’. I can do that just by looking the legislation: ‘Conduct that includes two or more instances or a combination of two or more…’, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I don’t think we have to move mountains to understand what is occurring and I am certainly happy to sit down while you take advice from as many lawyers as you want, but I am directing my question to the Attorney-General to consider such an amendment.
Dr TOYNE: I have been speaking English for 55 years now, and if you can find one credible person who can say that ‘repeated’ is not ‘two or more’, I will buy you lunch. I really will. Similarly, if you can show me any way you can make a combination of things that is not two or more then, again, I will buy you lunch with cream on the top. It is a ridiculous, vacuous point you are putting because, quite clearly, ‘repeated’ means a minimum of two. Repeated can mean more than two. It can mean that the same thing has happened more than once. Show us the dictionary if you think that there is any other way that you can construe ‘repeated’ than two or more.
To your earlier point, I have had it pointed out by my advisors that the use of the term ‘victim’ is in extant law within the Northern Territory. I refer to the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Section 4(5)(b) refers to where evidence is given:
- On the trial of a person for a sexual offence or an assault with intent to commit such an offence -
(v) inform the jury that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual offence may hesitate
in complaining about it.
Again, in the Evidence Act, Part VIA, Confidential Communications, section 56, Definitions:
- ‘confidential communication’ means:
(a) a communication whether oral or written made in confidence by a victim to a counsellor or to a
victim by a counsellor in the course of a relationship of counsellor and client and includes - …
and it goes on. And in (a)(ii):
- … a communication made in the presence of a parent or carer of the victim or any other person who was
present to facilitate communication between the victim and the counsellor or to otherwise further the
counselling of the victim.
So, it is extant in our laws. That would be used similarly in the procedures in a court. In fact, probably in some ways a very similar offence to the one that we are talking about. Perhaps stalking and sexual offences do have some parallel.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, does the Attorney-General understand that what he just referred to was the Evidence Act and the Sexual Assault (Evidence and Procedures) Act? They are not the substantive offences for which someone is charged. They are very important legislation and fill an important void that would exist without them. But they are not the very charge which the person who the allegations are made against stands accused of. They are facilitatory legislation which assist, or give the court the power and some guidance in relation to evidentiary matters and some procedural matters.
So the point is really clear. Under the Criminal Code you have the offence of assault, if a person unlawfully assaults another. Adopting your mentality and terminology, you would have us believe that it is appropriate to say that if the offender assaults the victim that he is guilty of an offence. It is putting the cart before the horse. It is incorrect. Can you please explain to me and answer this question: is it a drafting tool which you intend to instruct your Parliamentary Counsel to use when dealing with and amending further acts under the Criminal Code?
Dr TOYNE: I reject the assertions the member for Goyder has been making and I have very little more to add. We put our position on it. There is not point in having merry-go-round debates in here. It eats up time for no value to the debate. I have put forward examples where extant law is using the term ‘victim’ to identify a player in an activity which is seen as a criminal activity within a hearing. The daily references made to players in an alleged crime in a court gets down to the point of saying: ‘So and so…’ named ‘…is alleged to have done…’ such and such ‘…to…’ so and so, also named. You are not saying ‘victim’ is alleged to have had a crime perpetrated on them by ‘offender’.
On the weight of the opinion that has been expressed about this bill by the quite wide circle of people that have contributed to it, on the weight of the evidence of what is in extant law at the moment, on the weight of the changes that have been made to section 189 which are merely combining electronic forms of stalking in with the existing, more conventional forms, on the weight of the fact that no reasonable person would take ‘repeated’ as meaning anything other than doing something at least twice, perhaps more. So I really do not accept your points as being substantive reasons to change the bill before us.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I advise the Attorney-General that he may very well owe the shadow Attorney-General lunch with cream on top. I have taken his advice. I presume that the Macquarie Dictionary would be an acceptable provider of a definition. I go to the definition of ‘repeated’:
- adjective, done, made or said again and again, as in repeated attempts or repeatedly.
Mr Chairman, this is the reason that we are raising this. He has taken a perfectly clear expression out of the legislation and replaced it with something that is ambiguous. He has then guided us to a dictionary, and the dictionary tells us that what we are worried about is exactly what will occur. He is the chief law officer. He has just told us that the Macquarie Dictionary is the one he has accepted to take a definition out of. He has now put a victim of stalking into a position where it has to happen to them again and again, more than twice. This is the problem. If there is no problem with the legislation as it exists, then why is he fixing it?
Dr TOYNE: If you do something, and you do something again, how many times have you done it?
Mr ELFERINK: I am fascinated by this. He has asked us to go to a dictionary. I have gone to a dictionary, found the result, which is different. The problem is that he is introducing an ambiguity which is not necessary. And where the ambiguity exists, the presumption of the innocence will fall …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Last night, you did indicate you were prepared to make a ruling about questions asked over and over again. This issue has been dealt with by the Attorney-General. It does not matter how many times they dress the question up in a different guise, it has been raised repeatedly, and I would ask you to consider your ruling from last night so we can move this on.
Dr TOYNE: I am certainly getting sick of answering it, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order at the moment, because now I am not sure what ‘repeated’ means. I will let it go a bit longer. I think it is an important issue, but I will keep an eye on it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am utterly convinced that this goes to the heart of the whole argument. If the Attorney-General is so comfortable with the fact that it did not change, why is he changing it?
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I believe that the Macquarie Dictionary explanation of ‘again and again’ is, indeed, reflective of two or more. ‘Again’ is two, and ‘again’ is more. Whether you refer to the Macquarie, whether you look in our legislation, the effect is clear. The judiciary are smart enough to deal with it. It is a shame that you cannot sit down and let us get on with the legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the Attorney-General one question: if he is quite convinced that it means the same thing, why is he changing it?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I presume that the Attorney-General is getting advice.
Ms Lawrie: He has already given him the explanation of the combination of …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The Attorney-General is taking advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am sure that he has not heard my question.
Dr TOYNE: The longer this goes round and round, the more evidence we are finding in extant law that you are actually whipping up a storm about nothing here. Let us have a look at what the Petroleum Act has to say about the use of the word ‘repeated’. They use ‘repeated’, it is amazing. It must be a proper word in the English language. This is section 89Q, Minister may issue improvement notice:
If the Minister is of the opinion that a person:
(a) is contravening this Part; or
(b) has contravened this Part in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention
will continue or be repeated.
Why do they use ‘continued’ and use the word ‘repeated’ as two separate sections in that area of the law? Because ‘continue’ means continuous and ‘repeated’ means it starts, it stops, and then it repeats. That is why those two words are used side by side.
Similarly, in the Work Health Act …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, can you repeat what act that came from?
Dr TOYNE: That was the Petroleum Act, Division 3, Improvement and Prohibition, Notices, 89Q, Minister may issue improvement notice:
- … the contravention will continue or be repeated.
That gives you some idea of why ‘repeated’ refers to something that happens, stops, happens again. It has happened twice. If you are referring to a particular offence, then the word ‘repeated’ is inherently meaning at least two. We keep dredging up more offenders in the legislation. Surveillance Devices Act, section 11, Consideration of Application for Warrant:
- (c) the intelligence value and the evidentiary value of any evidence or other information sought to be
obtained and the extent to which it is likely that the use of the surveillance device would assist the
investigation of the offence or to enable evidence to be obtained of the commission of the offence or
the identity or location of…
Guess who!:
- … the offender.
So, if you believe that we are making new use of the terms in law, you are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I would repeat my question for the Attorney-General: if he is satisfied that the change in the wording doesn’t change the effect, then why is he changing it at all?
Dr TOYNE: Your voice went down with your backside.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Attorney-General is satisfied that there is no change in the effect of the wording, why is he changing the wording?
Dr TOYNE: To be more inclusive, basically, of a cluster of offences. If we are going to have both a mixture of conventional and electronic forms of stalking or a particular form of it repeated, two or more is simply putting a front end to the thing. It then runs on into more which could mean any number of them. ‘Repeated’ says exactly the same thing: that if you are repeating something. If something is repeated, it has to happen at least two times but it could happen as many times as you repeat it. I feel like I am in a dictionary review class here.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the second last answer the Attorney-General gave was the most unpersuasive rhetoric I’ve ever heard. Out of all the legislation in the Northern Territory, some 400 offences in the Criminal Code, literally dozens and probably hundreds of others in the Summary Offences Act, all the Attorney-General could do to justify using the terms ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ is find a couple of examples of offender in an obscure Petroleum Act or something - and I apologise for mangling the citation - and also the Surveillance Devices Act. If that is the justification which the Attorney-General seeks to use to contaminate the Northern Territory Criminal Code with this type of trendy slop, then he is sadly mistaken.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Noting Paper - Auditor-General’s Report, August 2001
Noting Paper - Auditor-General’s Report, August 2001
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I say from this side of the House, we welcome the report of the Auditor-General and his interesting comments on a number of issues. I will briefly look at a couple of them.
In his remarks on the Department of the Chief Minister, he points out that in his view, performance measures underpinning the desired outcomes for the six Foundations For Our Future areas have not been identified, that is on page 57. While he acknowledges that ministers did report back to the Assembly on progress some 18 months after the Foundations were outlined, he argues that more specific key result areas should be identified, and once again the Auditor-General returns to his advocacy of a system that exists in the Canadian province of Alberta of triple line reporting.
I would note and agree with the comments of the department that a comprehensive whole-of-government reporting system was operating to measure progress against all foundation areas. I can assure him that had the government continued, I would have ensured that the implementation of these extensive blueprints for the future development of the Territory would have happened and they would have been rigorously checked by both the Chief Minister and the line ministers. I also commend the Auditor-General for his constant references to Foundations For Our Future. Throughout this report he has, where appropriate, included the heading ‘Linkages to Foundations for our Future’. It is a clear demonstration of how my government’s blueprint was adopted and was being pursued right across the public service. One can only speculate whether this government will allow them to continue to pursue such obvious fundamental development objectives. This government’s record so far suggests that they are more concerned with shuffling the deck chairs, with imposing their will on the public service rather than achieving anything positive for the Territory.
Another area the Auditor-General reports on is the Alice Springs Convention Centre and Alice in Ten, pages 35 to 37 and 105 to 107, respectively. Again, it is not so much criticism as a shot over the bows that such a development must, in his view, have strict reporting criteria to ensure that the contribution to the economic future of the Alice can be measured. Similarly, his comments on Hidden Valley, pages 49 to 51, are more to do with his desire of having a tangible and detailed bottom line report than any criticism of the event or how it is run or how much the government contributes.
The Auditor-General’s concern relates to the economic benefit realised by the staging of this event, but as he notes, the estimate of the benefit was based on a 1999 economic impact study. However, his key finding does state:
- Almost $1m of public funds was provided to allow the May 2000 Supercars event to be staged …
and I note he says:
… to the expected standard.
I hope that this new government continues the commitment to the Supercars and continues to maintain that expected standard. I note in casual comments the Chief Minister has been making around the place to interested parties that she applauds the Supercars and intends to continue ensuring that event is maintained to that standard.
Another area I would like to comment on is the Auditor-General’s report on the format of the budget itself. As he notes, the previous government did offer in its budget books two reporting frameworks and indicated that it was moving closer to a uniform presentation format. He shows that all the figures were there for anyone to make an accurate assessment of the economic state of our economy. He shows that Labor’s shock-horror comments after their election to government was the result of either total incompetence on their part in not being able to read the budget papers or a cynical political exercise to score points and blame the previous administration. Given their comments in the budget debate, the latter is the most obvious explanation.
Many of the major findings of the Auditor-General in this report relate to how he would like to see the public service reporting on its activities, and it will be interesting to watch his reports next year on how successful this new public service will be in achieving the Auditor-General’s desired outcomes. We are concerned, and I would suggest that the public service will be so hampered by the need to bed down the enormous changes this government has wrought on their structure and so busy dealing with the staff and funding cuts this government is imposing, that they will have little time to consider outcomes, let alone audit them in the way the Auditor-General wants to see.
The Auditor-General has an important role, I have always acknowledged, to play in our system of government. His regular reports to parliament are a source of independent advice and inquiry into the processes of the parliament. In government, we welcomed his input and efforts and even acted on his recommendations in many cases.
I hope the Auditor-General will continue to pay heed to the comments in this parliament and will continue to instigate investigations because of the level of, as he says, interest expressed by the members of the Legislative Assembly. I can say now, that there are at least 10 members of this Legislative Assembly who are expressing great interest in this new government’s plans, particularly to ram through this parliament a completely new financial plan for this year without proper scrutiny or debate. I am sure he will heed our interests and inquire into just how the Appropriation Act passed by the previous parliament only a few months ago has been changed by this new government without recourse to the parliament. Equally, I am sure the Auditor-General will find it necessary to investigate just how many public servants will be left without substantive jobs following the restructure of the public service, and I look forward to reading those reports in the coming months and years.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is an important one in our democratic process, and one of the crucial checks and balances in government accountability. The responsibility of the Auditor-General is to audit the public account and to audit the performance management systems of agencies to determine whether they enable the agency to assess whether its objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. The Auditor-General reports to the Assembly each February and August on matters arising from audits conducted by his office in the previous six months. There are some issues in his August report relating to the Chief Minister’s department that I would like to speak to.
The Auditor-General has concluded that an adequate internal capacity is not being demonstrated in most agencies. Under the provisions of the Financial Management Act, the CEO of each agency has responsibility for ensuring there is an adequate internal audit program. It is the role of Risk Management Services in the Department of Chief Minister to provide assistance to CEOs in this area. Risk Management Services has been restructured over the past two years so that it can better meet the needs of CEOs and their organisations. It now provides risk management, business consulting and internal audit services through a customer focussed strategic business approach that uses risk as the driver. The unit services include:
- strategic advice on risk management and corporate governance, usually through agency
management boards, audit committees, CEOs and senior management; and
strategic business risk assessments, usually at a whole-of-organisation level, and these
include training to raise awareness of risk management, and the development of risk
management plans, which define the major agency risks and offer advice on how to deal
with them.
It also does reviews designed to improve business management and practices. The unit has established panels and external consultants who can conduct review projects, but it also uses in-house staff for the more complex business consulting assignments. It has self-assessment workshops to improve business processes and raise awareness of risk management among staff of agencies.
The unit has recently completed a recruitment process to secure staff who have the expertise to better deliver these services. Early in each financial year, the director of the unit aims to meet with each CEO to discuss the past year’s program, the program in the year to come and any issues that need resolution. This has been very useful as it raises the profile of the services and ensures that they are aligned with what each CEO requires. Risk Management Services is now in a better position to assist CEOs to meet their accountability under the Financial Management Act to have an adequate internal capacity. At times, demand by agencies will exceed the capacity of the unit, in which case it is most important that the focus be on the top priority risk areas.
I now turn to the finding of the Auditor-General that the economic benefit of the government’s commitment to the V8 Supercar Race has not been reliably determined. Hidden Valley Promotions, a 100% government owned company, was established in 1997 to represent the Territory government for the staging of the Territory’s inaugural round of the V8 Supercars held in Darwin on the weekend of 17 to 19 July 1998. The Darwin round is one of 13 of the national V8 Supercar Championship Series. The Australian V8 Supercar Company this year has taken the championship to New Zealand, and there are plans to take a round of the V8 Supercars to Asia by 2003. The Asian round would add very significant economic value to our local economy.
The Australian V8 Supercar Company has confirmed that they will use Darwin as the launch pad to Asia, effectively lengthening the Darwin stay of their 800-strong personnel who make up the travelling V8 Supercar Championship. ASCO consider that the long term commitment with the Territory government through the V8 Supercar event is essential in establishing a round in Asia. In April this year, an agreement was reached between the Territory government and ASCO which secured the V8 Supercar championship until 2007. Economic impact studies, prepared by Peter Anderson of Australian Research Associates during the 1998-99 V8 Supercars, indicated that the event was achieving remarkable awareness among Territorians. The impact statement indicated a gross expenditure ranging between a high of $2.7m to a low of $1.3m.
Now, moving on to the Alice Springs Convention Centre, I would like to touch on another topic commented on by the Auditor-General. In relation to the Alice Springs Convention Centre, the Auditor-General found that the performance goals and a performance measurement system had not been established to show if the Centre will contribute to the Alice in Ten project. It is well known that convention centres were themselves not commercially viable. However, it was expected to provide benefits to the wider community of Alice Springs and it has been supported by the Alice Springs community. It is seen as positively contributing to the objectives set for the face of Alice Springs in Ten Years project, otherwise known as Alice in Ten.
The objectives for the Alice Springs Convention Centre, as developed by the Alice in Ten Project Committee, are to stimulate economic growth in the region generally, in particular strengthen the identity of Alice Springs as a tourist destination and provide job opportunities, particularly for the youth of Alice Springs. Measures for the convention centre objectives will be formally agreed upon and systems to capture that information will also be developed. Once the convention centre is operating, measures should provide appropriate performance information to assess the contribution of the centre in meeting the objectives of Alice in Ten in terms of effectiveness, and when related to the government’s financial support for the project in terms of efficiency.
I thank the Auditor-General for his efforts, his opinions and his recommendations. They will certainly be given serious consideration by this government. We took seriously the Auditor-General’s recommendations when we were in opposition and certainly think that his office is a vital part of accountable government in the Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in relation to the Auditor-General, and particularly positive comments and his commitment that there would be 10 on that side of the Chamber watching and reading with interest each of the Auditor-General’s reports, and a commitment that they would indeed be following them up. It is an interesting change of attitude from what we saw previously from the government, although I do not include the Leader of the Opposition in that because I do recall him as Chief Minister responding to concerns put in the Auditor-General’s report on those occasions that the reports came into the parliament, unlike many of his ministers who disregarded them for most of the 11 years that I have spent in this Chamber on the opposition benches.
So it is refreshing to see a change of attitude on so many fronts, including, as we have heard over the last two days, a remarkable interest in unions and what their views might be. And some concern for single mothers. I do not know that I have ever heard concern for single mothers from the CLP in this parliament, again, over the almost 11 years in opposition. But I welcome that new widespread view that the opposition is taking in the Northern Territory. They recognise already in opposition their need to be far more inclusive than they were as a government, a very tired government, at the end of an almost 27 year rule. One of the key things that led to their defeat was that they had become so exclusive and increasingly so, particularly over the last four or five years, that eventually Territorians had had enough of them.
So if that is a conscious decision by the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition to be more inclusive, we welcome it. I note that he has failed to sustain the interests already on behalf of his 10 colleagues in the Auditor-General’s report. It seems to have been a rather short lived commitment, but unable as I am to comment on the presence or otherwise of members in the Chamber, I will leave that unstated. It was a commitment that lasted for about the six minutes that it took him to comment on the report.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Auditor-General’s report and to discuss particularly the associated comments about Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority’s performance management systems to support railway training. The Auditor-General commented on a working document entitled Employment and Training Initiatives for Support Jobs Created by the Railway. The audit found that the agency needed to continue work on the document and translate its outcome objectives into measurable performance indictors to regularly assess whether the strategies employed are achieving outcome objectives, and how achievement of outcome objectives will be reported to stakeholders in response. I can advise that performance indicators have been linked to objectives, monitoring of effectiveness of strategies through monthly reports by client liaison officers in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek is in place, and systems to report achievements are being established. I join with my colleague the Chief Minister in commending the work of the Auditor-General.
I take the opportunity to wish him a Happy Christmas and a refreshing break so that he is back on deck in the new year continuing to monitor the activities of government as he has for so long.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, the August 2001 report of the Auditor-General was tabled in this House during the October sittings. The report provides details of two audits undertaken by the Auditor-General within what was then known as Territory Health Services. The audits were of the Alice Springs Hospital capital works program and managing social policy delivery for disability services. The purpose of the audit regarding the Alice Springs Hospital was to establish that the government’s total asset management principles have been followed in the Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment project. The key finding by the Auditor-General was that the Alice Springs hospital redevelopment is being managed in accordance with a master plan and the government’s total asset management guidelines. There were no other issues raised in the audit report.
The purpose of the audit regarding disability services was to determine whether the performance management systems in my department enabled management to assess whether the government’s policy objectives in relation to disability services are being achieved effectively and with regard to efficiency and economy. In his report the Auditor-General detailed three key audit findings, the first finding stating that during 2000-01, my department did not have in place systems to capture, measure and report performance information in terms of the performance indicators established for the key result areas identified in the Disability Services Five Year Strategic Plan 1997-2001.
As I stated earlier today in my ministerial report on the disability forums, disability is an extremely complex area which this government will prioritise. I was very alarmed to read the comments in the Auditor-General’s report and have discussed them with my department. Regarding the inadequate reporting mechanisms within the disability program, my department has acknowledged that there have been issues with reporting in the past. Together we have moved to rectify this problem. Recently we held two consultation workshops with the non-government service providers, one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin, with the aim of improving data collection so that we are able to comply with national requirements and in the future meet the Auditor-General’s very necessary reporting requirements.
The second issue raised in the Auditor-General’s report was that rather than report on outcomes, performance reporting in Territory Health Services Annual Report for 1999-2000 is mostly the listing of outputs such as the achievement of specific projects and tasks undertaken. Against this funding, the department has advised that since the Auditor-General’s report, program and action plans have been developed across the department including for disabilities which will ensure that future reporting meets the Auditor-General’s requirements.
The final finding by the Auditor-General stated that Territory Health Services is developing new disability services program plans and action plans to guide the agency after 2001. These plans identify the objectives and actions to be achieved although these are not expressed in clearly measurable terms as had the key results areas in the 1997-2001 plan. The department is addressing this issue and the CEO will be reporting back to me regarding this matter.
I share the Auditor-General’s interest in ensuring that government activities are outcome focussed. I am taking a close interest in the development of the new reporting arrangements which should enable government to be confident that the department is achieving its objectives and intended outcomes and is able to report on its activities accordingly.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the Auditor-General, I take this opportunity to advise the findings of the report, in particular audit findings in relation to financial assistance to industry and findings in relation to policy and management processes for the then Department of Industries and Business Major Projects Unit in the former Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
My department, through the Territory government, provides a variety of grants and other financial assistance to industry and business, in particular through the former Department of Industries and Business, peak industry associations are supported with operational funding, sponsorship and award events and individual Territory businesses are assisted financially from the department’s Industry Development Fund. For example, the enterprise improvement program, Business Growth, is an innovative package of assistance programs specifically structured to meet the unique needs of Territory business, and the Export Marketing Assistance Scheme is designed to assist small Territory businesses and industry groups to pursue and or increase export opportunities.
In addition, loans have been provided to businesses affected by the Katherine floods in 1998. These loans were provided under the National Natural Disaster Relief arrangements. Other loans have also been provided to businesses to assist in the Territory’s development.
The current Northern Territory loans management system is being modified. The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development have held discussions with the Territory Loans Management Advisory Committee to improve the current system so it provides useful data to enable proper management of the entire loans portfolio. It is hoped the revised system will meet loan management requirements and be in place in early 2002.
A manual for all of the above programs covering existing policies, internal guidelines and procedures is also in the process of being developed. Performance measurement indicators are now contained in all offers of financial assistance. These indicators are generally aimed at financial viability and the ongoing positive benefits to the Territory economy. Due to the variety of grants and loans programs identified, the department is unable to standardise the performance measurement indicators. In the past, the former Department of Industries and Business identified funds drawn down during the reporting period. Commencing with the annual report for the last financial year, the department now provides more comprehensive details of the financial assistance provided. This includes details of the impact of grants provided over more than one reporting period.
The Auditor-General’s findings relevant to performance management systems audits addressed two areas of my portfolio. This included the management of implementing the fisheries policies. I have been advised that the Fisheries Division will be implementing the identified improvements for 2002-03 and will include clear links between the outcomes for NT Fisheries sought by government, the outputs agreed with Fisheries in the performance against those outputs.
In addition, the Major Projects Unit within the former Department of Industries and Business was identified. This unit consists of one full time person who, in support of his activities, utilises resources provided from elsewhere in the department including regional offices in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. In response, it should be remembered that the unit was established at a time of considerable uncertainty and delays in financial closure and great care was taken not to waste valuable resources until the project was well defined. It was also important to have the unit work with the business community in a way that did not unreasonably raise their expectations of opportunities that might present themselves.
The role of securing business opportunities from the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway was part of the Defence, Tourism Infrastructure and Major Projects Support Group which had prepared a detailed business plan which included components of major project support work. Given the nature of the tasks undertaken, the unit prepared a detailed action plan which was very specific in the tasks that were to be achieved and the timeframe in which those tasks had to be completed. A report against the progress of each of these tasks was prepared monthly and provided to the minister at the time and currently, and used as a management tool to ensure that activities were properly targeted and being completed in a timely fashion.
While I concede that there were no performance measurements as such for the unit, the action plan clearly identified what was being done and who was responsible for its completion. I would agree that the next step of physically tying the action plan to the outcomes detailed in the unit’s business plan was not completed. However, I believe that this was not a significant issue and I am confident that the activities undertaken by the unit actively contributed to the objectives of the unit. The unit continues to work diligently at linking opportunities for the construction of the railway to local capability through a proactive facilitation role in ensuring that information is readily available to the private sector and that business capabilities are properly registered on the NTISO database.
I will undertake to ensure that the Chief Executive Officer implements appropriate policies and monitoring processes to address the issues raised by the Auditor-General. Certainly, from opposition it was a very valuable reporting process. In government, as a minister I give the Auditor-General this undertaking: I do take his comments seriously. It is always important to look for continuing improvements, continuing processes within government agencies to actually meet stated outcome objectives. I congratulate him on his report and I look forward to continuing to receive reports on agencies for which I am responsible and to work with those agencies to continue to further improve efficiencies and outcomes based initiatives which we all strive to achieve as ministers.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s August 2001 report. Let me say that I have the utmost respect for the integrity and professionalism of our Auditor-General. In my opinion, he has been a voice crying in the wilderness in relation to his continued calls for greater transparency and accountability in the previous government.
It was quite upsetting for me to go through a number of the Auditor-General’s previous reports and see some of the responses that had been written to him by a couple of government departments who were very dismissive of some valid points that he was raising. The difference now is that this government is listening, and we are responsive to calls for greater transparency. Hence, our introduction of freedom of information legislation and fiscal transparency legislation.
I would like to turn to some of the main elements of the Auditor-General’s report. Like the Auditor-General, I am very concerned about inadequate internal audit capacity in many of the agencies. That was on page 14 of his report. I was shocked to learn from a number of external auditors that neither Territory Health Services nor the NT Education Department have had an internal audit in over two years. This information came from external auditors in this town who told me this, and they were as shocked as I was about it. To define the importance of an internal audit, I will use a definition used within the government’s own accounting and property manual, where it says:
- An internal audit is part of the internal control of any organisation and as such is subject to review by the
external auditor to determine the scope and standard of the work performed. Internal audit is a management
tool to assist in the maintenance of adequate internal control and the achievement of organisational performance
objectives.
Returning to the information that two of our major agencies had not undergone an internal audit in two years, I found it to be absolutely amazing. Here are two major agencies – health, with an annual expenditure of somewhere around $440m, and education with an expenditure of approximately $350m per year - that had not undergone an internal audit in over two years. That is nearly $1.6bn of public money over two years not undergoing an internal audit.
This is not only a disgrace, but contrary to Financial Management Act which requires departments to have an annual internal audit. Where were the ministers of these departments in all of this? They had gone missing, of course. One of the major findings of the Auditor-General’s report was to heavily question the probity of the transfer of funds by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine, from the Conditions of Service Trust into the budget scope. I will quote directly from the Auditor-General:
- The government’s ability to transfer significant amounts in or out of its budget scope highlights that the budget
scope format is unreliable as a measure of the government’s fiscal stewardship and accountability. The Uniform
Presentation Framework is a more reliable format.
The question is: under the Uniform Presentation Framework, what would have been the estimated result of the 2000-01 financial year? The Auditor-General emphatically, and I think authoritatively, states that the real estimated deficit for the 2000-01 year under this framework was in reality $149m.
In essence, I believe that the Auditor-General highlights the way in which the previous government expected to write its own accounting rules when it plundered reserves to prop up its profligate spending - and profligate spenders they were, as demonstrated by the crocodile jaws!
Finally, the Auditor-General points to a need for systems to identify, assess and report performance outcomes in measurable terms and that these have still not generally been developed. This was something that the previous government seemed completely disinterested in. In contrast, this is something that we will pursue over the next four years.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Noting Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2001 –
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Noting Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2001 –
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act, disapprove the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001 - Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I will speak briefly to my motion.
I was very disappointed when I saw the Remuneration Tribunal report because this new government had indicated that we did not want to see any pay rises or any increases in allowances, particularly at this time of our economic cycle. We are facing tough times in the Territory and I really felt it was inappropriate to have pay increases for office holders at this time, and also increases in electorate allowances. When I received the report and realised that yes, there had been a small increase to office holders and electorate allowances had received an increase, I thought it was inappropriate. I think that every member of this House would also recognise how inappropriate that was at a tough time when we have brought down a mini-budget that does have revenue raising measures in it, that does have saving measures in it, and we are asking Territorians right across the board to look at tough times because of the economic situation we inherited, then it simply was inappropriate for politicians to be getting pay increases, either personally or in their electorate allowances.
Another issue that we were disappointed about was travelling allowances, that when you go interstate there is a difference between if you stay commercially and when you stay privately but that is not reflected when you come to Darwin. There is still the full allowance allowed when you are here in Darwin, and it should be commensurate with that reduced one, as it is when you go interstate. That is something we argued strongly with the tribunal and yet again, it was not reflected. On those three issues, I was very disappointed.
There are other issues in this tribunal report. For example, that you cannot go and buy the contents of your electorate office when, as we saw …
Mr Henderson: Plunder them.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, plunder is a better word, when you lose office. It has been an outrage and it has cost the Assembly tens of thousands of dollars to refurbish. I think Madam Speaker is indicating it is more than tens of thousands - a lot of money to refurbish those offices. We need to accept that the vehicle is an electorate vehicle, that the furniture is electorate furniture and so are things like PCs. It is unacceptable that you can be allowed to, at a rather devalued cost, clear out your offices if you go. That was one recommendation we certainly support and the capping of overseas travel, another recommendation.
But in the balance of it, I think that we need to revisit these Remuneration Tribunal recommendations. We would like to see those submissions happen again. It is important that what happens in the Tribunal Determination reflects our current economic circumstances, and any increase for office holders is unacceptable. I certainly hope that this move to disallow the Remuneration Tribunal report is supported in a bipartisan way.
Mr REED (Katherine): Yes, the opposition, indeed, does support the disallowance of the determination that has been proposed. The tribunal is an independent operation in terms of its deliberations and final report. Of course, the tribunal considers other areas in addition to members’ conditions.
The circumstance that the Chief Minister tried to convey yesterday, that is being magnanimous and knocking back a salary rise was a touch theatrical from the point of view of the Chief Minister. She did not do it because she thought it was a good idea. She did it for the very political reason that having reached into every Territorian’s pocket for $90, it was untenable from the point of view of her government, approving this determination report. That is the real reason behind it. Having said that, I think that it is an appropriate course of action to take under the circumstances, and that is why the opposition supports it.
In terms of some of the other matters that the honourable Chief Minister referred to, some of the conditions, I would remind her that in years past the then opposition, that is the ALP in this House, supported these determinations and the improvement of them over time. Whilst somewhat veiled, the Chief Minister’s comments suggesting that these things were quite nasty and that they have never had anything to do with them is quite wrong. The fact is that the then opposition did support in the main the changes over the years, and rightly so because that’s what the determination is for.
What I would like to have heard from the Chief Minister was what the government now proposes, having rejected this determination. I assume now that what will happen is that will be referred back to the tribunal, the tribunal will then in term call for comments again from members and the process will be repeated, basically.
I thank the Chief Minister for acknowledging a yes across the Chamber. From that point of view, all members will have an opportunity to again put suggestions to the tribunal. My recollection of what happens under these circumstances is that the existing determination would continue and it would be the current arrangements that would apply to existing members until such time as a revised determination subsequently comes forward because of the rejection of it tonight.
Madam Speaker, having had that clarified across the floor, I thank the government for that advice. We support that course of action.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, just to be absolutely clear on this, it was just deemed cleaner not to accept the report tonight although there are aspects of that report that are very positive and government would be keen to see in place. But it is just deemed that it is a cleaner process. We will go through the process again. Submissions will be called for and members will have the right to make submissions to the tribunal.
I was concerned that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was inferring that - I am not quite sure what he was inferring - but we appreciate the work that the tribunal has done over the years and make no secret of the fact that we accepted those determinations over the years on that side of the Chamber. It is just that was deemed inappropriate at this time, but in relation to other aspects of the report, we would have been happy to accept them out of the report tonight; it just looked like a bit of a messy process as to what we were accepting and what we weren’t.
Rather, start again and put our submissions back to the tribunal. The Deputy Leader is quite right. I think he understands very clearly where we are and I thank the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Just to clarify that, the status quo remains. The current determination remains and yes, the Legislative Assembly, myself and the Clerk made representations to the Remuneration Tribunal and there were aspects of that report that we would hope would remain, so we will wait and see what will happen.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 14)
Continued from 14 October.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in relation to this legislation, I can understand the government’s reasons for pursuing this. I am concerned, though, that the Office of the Public Service Commissioner and the commissioner fulfil a very important role in terms of the public sector in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the Commissioner for Public Employment is the employer of all public servants and he oversees their operations and well-being and has always had an independent statutory role in relation to the responsibilities of that office.
As a former public employee, I have a little bit of knowledge as to how it operates and the value of it. Then, more recently as a minister, I have had on occasions to be directly involved with the Commissioner for Public Employment in relation to some very sensitive matters. Whilst I am not going to identify what those matters were or any individuals, quite rightly, can I just say that I am concerned that the government intends, it would seem, if not to eliminate, to reduce the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment. If that is the case, it worries me greatly.
For example, if the office were to be merged into another department, and if that is the case I guess the logical one to place it into would be the Department of Chief Minister, you really do then have to question the independence of the commissioner and his powers and his duties to all public employees. If I could use the example of - and it doesn’t happen often, but since self-government there have been a couple of occasions when senior officers - on some occasions, I guess even departmental heads - have had to come under scrutiny and they have been, on some occasions, very serious matters and on some occasions there have been people in elevated positions within agencies who have found themselves to be unemployed or in quite serious circumstances because of those investigations.
My point to the minister is that if that were to be the case, that they are going to place it in, for example, the Department of Chief Minister, the independence and ability of the Commissioner of Public Employment to investigate matters of this kind would be severely constrained. It might never happen that the Commissioner for Public Employment would have to investigate a senior officer or the Head of the Department of the Chief Minister, but in the event that it did happen - and we can’t say that it will never happen - I would be concerned about the ability for the commissioner to investigate those matters, not being an independent office but one of that agency or whatever agency the Commissioner for Public Employment and his staff were melded into, that the investigations would be able to proceed not unheeded, but without any fear of cross-fertilisation of the issues in terms of not having full and total independence.
It is an essential part of the commissioner’s role in relation to that. It is a role that must care for all of the public sector employees, and in doing so, in my view, has to be independent so it is important that these matters are both considered and preserved in terms of where this might lead us.
I hope the minister might have taken these matters into consideration and be aware of the importance of them. There is a very important distinction between saving money because you can weave an agency into another and the gains in efficiencies, but those efficiencies amount to nothing if they detract from the protection of public employees, to the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment, and the ability for issues to be dealt with in an absolutely independent and impartial way. And it would be, I think, a most retrograde step if the current minister were to oversee a change of that kind. I don’t think that the savings would be substantial. I am not convinced that they would warrant such a change, and I am sure that the loss of the independence and the ability of the commissioner without fear to investigate matters or to take up issues on behalf of employees would be lessened and that would be very serious.
So, I hope that these matters have been given thorough consideration by the Cabinet and that is not the intent of this legislation because the public service would suffer in terms of the independence of its employer and the ability of that employer, being the commissioner, to be able to treat what are very sensitive issues in relation to circumstances that sometimes public servants find themselves in. The intriguing thing about those types of matters is that - and I guess the Office of Public Employment suffers from this - unless you are directly involved with it, you really never hear about it. They are things that happen behind the scenes by the very nature of the issues. They are not the sorts of things that you would want brought out in public not because of an embarrassment factor, but because the person who has either complained or considers that they have had ill treatment cast upon them or for whatever reason they have to be consulting the office of the commissioner, they are necessarily matters of privacy, and the integrity of that process has be maintained at all costs.
That brings me back in the circuitous argument to the costs which I don’t see there as being sufficient to warrant any change of that kind. There would be a serious imposition in my view in the operations of the commissioner and his office in the ability to be able to fairly, equitably and without fear look after the interests of all public sector employees.
We shouldn’t be misled. The public sector is no different from any other in terms of comparing it with the private sector in that issues do arise. The fact is there has to be a mechanism to deal with those issues. The one that is in place has dealt with them very effectively. I know that there are some sectors of the public service that might want to see some changes, but I would implore the government to maintain the status quo and to ensure that the long, proven and very successful work done by the Commissioner for Public Employment and his office and his staff remain in place and that all public servants have full confidence in the fact that the office is entirely independent and without fear or favour, you can approach the office if you do find yourself in a position that you have an issue that you require to either discuss with someone or have investigated. That capacity, I think, would be very much diminished if the agency was absorbed into another.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague in reference to accepting and respecting the right of government to legislate, also the right to readjust and realign departments as they see fit. But I must speak from the point of view of opposition. Our role is not simply to oppose, but to seriously scrutinise with a mind on the other side of the argument which I believe my colleague has articulated well.
The issue of independence is sacred in this equation. We stand to represent, through the public service, the service and the aspects of morale, the aspects of integrity, must always be of the highest order. So I will be listening with interest, needing to be persuaded that the independence would not be compromised in any respect.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendments, and I would also hope that during the course of my discussion here to put to rest the concerns raised by the member for Katherine and the member for Blain. This government does value the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, does value public sector employees but it is aware of the framework of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, and it knows that there is great comfort in there for its government employees.
I, too, have a recent history of dealing with the commissioner’s office and perhaps in this House, I have the most recent experience with them. Let me say that I found that the office of the commissioner to be one which is staffed by very professional people who provide quality service to their constituency of the public sector, and there is no way, there is no way that this government would look to devalue that role or to jeopardise that role. I believe that this amendment that we are going through now will actually enhance the role.
These amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act are an important adjunct to the successful structural changes which this government has introduced to the Northern Territory Public Service. The amendment is consistent with the government’s desire to consider the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment in the revitalisation of the Territory’s flagging training and skills development sector. For too long, Northern Territory governments have sat back and hoped that somehow labour market forces will blindly fill the skill shortages which beset industries and occupations across the Territory. They’ve sat back and just watched as good jobs for chefs, for skilled tradespeople, for construction workers have gone begging and been filled by contract workers from down south while their own children and citizens have been unable to fill the jobs because of the lack of appropriate skills training which, in turn, is reflected in the absence of effective forward planning by government in the areas of education and training.
In my own experience, as I mentioned earlier on, similar problems have occurred in the public sector in certain occupational areas such as teaching and nursing. We need to refocus our energies in these areas. We need to establish the best and most effective linkages between our education and training system and the ultimate end gain: jobs for Territorians. This is why we have included the employment function in the new Department of Employment, Education and Training. It is also why we need to carefully examine the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the new department. Many of the activities of the OCPE relate either directly or indirectly to general employment matters including:
- the maintenance and administration of the Northern Territory government legislation
concerning long service leave, annual leave and public holidays;
the recruitment and further training of graduates from our schools, universities and
colleges into the NTPS;
the transfer and exchange of personnel from the NTPS to non-government organisations
such as health and community service organisations, and back again;
the maintenance of consistent and transparent public sector employment procedures across
agencies including recruitment and redeployment procedures;
the fair and efficient operation of mechanisms for individual employee appeals against disciplinary
and promotion decisions; and
the negotiation, settlement and registration of agency EBAs and any industrial disputes arising between
employees and agencies.
The statutory position of the Commissioner for Public Employment will remain unaffected by these amendments. The commissioner will remain the public service employer with the duties and responsibilities which attach to any good employer in that context. However, the amendments free up the capacity of the government to identify, harness and develop the many potential synergies and opportunities which the creation of the new Department of Employment, Education and Training contains and to which the staff and skills of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment may contribute. It is perhaps only a small step in that process but it is a necessary step, and one which this House should support.
I would also like to speak quickly in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again , it is all about providing a structure which makes the best use of resources. As the minister stated earlier, the independence of the DPP is preserved by statute and the functions of the office will remain separate from the government of the day so that decisions on things like whether and how to prosecute matters will remain the sole province of the DPP. The new structure of the Department of Justice is in line with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions including South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland and we expect it to deliver similar improvements to our justice system over time.
Madam Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise to specifically speak on the amendments that affect the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions just to make clear our position on that as regards the continued independence of that office and of the work that it does. The two amendments that we have before us in Schedule No 2 have two effects. The reference to the DPP in Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is removed. This amendment reflects the fact that he is no longer a CEO for the purposes of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The second amendment which is to section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act will ensure that the CEO of the Justice Department can make delegations to the DPP to enable the DPP to continue to make decisions on matters such as his staffing, promotions and other administrative matters like travel and finance.
The creation of the new Justice Department has not affected the independence of the DPP. No matter what administrative arrangements are in place for the operation of the prosecution service, the independent exercise of the director’s powers, functions and independence is guaranteed under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. It is probably worth reading some of the key areas of that act which enshrine that independence:
- Section 26 - General Freedom from Direction: Except as provided in this part, the Director is not subject
to the direction of the Attorney-General or any other person in the performance of the Director’s functions.
Section 27 – Consultation.
- (1) The Director shall, if requested to do so by the Attorney-General consult the Attorney-General
about matters concerning the performance of the Director’s functions.
(2) The Attorney-General shall, if requested to do so by the Director, consult the Director about
matters concerning the performance of the Director’s functions.
Section 28 – Directions by Attorney-General.
- (1) The Attorney-General may after consultation with the Director, issue to the Director directions as to
the general policy to be followed in performance of the function of the Director.
(2) A direction may not be issued under subsection (1) in respect of a particular case.
That is a very important one, Madam Speaker. It is basically saying I can’t reach in to any particular case that the DPP has on its books and give any direction whatsoever to the Director regarding that case.
- (3) The Director may -
(a) in respect of a function, request the Attorney-General to issue direction under
subsection (1) concerning that function;
(b) in respect to a particular case, request the Attorney-General to issue directions to
the Director as to the performance of the Director’s functions in that case; and
function in a particular case, request the Attorney-General to perform the corresponding function
of the Attorney-General in the case.
(4) The Director may comply with a direction of the Attorney-General under this section.
(5) Every direction under this section shall be in writing and shall be included in the annual report of
the Director under section 33.
That is pretty clear. There are also very stringent conditions under which the director can be either removed from office, and basically they are as a result of grave misbehaviour being proven or temporary illness, the usual things that you would find, bankruptcy and insolvency. The act is there. It is extant. We are not moving in any way to penetrate that act and amend it. That is the guarantee of the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his own person.
As I have said, no matter what administrative arrangements are in place, that office is protected by this act as an independent office. The government recognises that the independent position of the Director of Public Prosecutions is of paramount importance. Prosecutorial decisions such as whether or how to prosecute matters must remain separate from the government of the day. I am personally a passionate believer in the separation of powers and I have done all in my power since I came to my position as Attorney-General to remove political influence on legal processes where I have the capacity to do it. I have great respect for the Office of the DPP. In fact, I am wearing the office’s tie which was presented to me yesterday by the director himself, and I am very pleased and proud to wear it.
Mr Henderson: And we gave them more money.
Dr TOYNE: I will get to that. The DPP, Mr Rex Wild QC, is one of the most experienced lawyers in the Northern Territory. His contribution to the proper administration of justice here cannot be emphasised enough, particularly as he has held office as the director during some of the most turbulent times for the justice system of the Northern Territory under the former government. This arrangement is not novel. Similar arrangements exist in other jurisdictions including South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland and we are looking at administration arrangements in those other jurisdictions to see if there are any that we should consider.
Under the previous CLP government, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was a critical element and remains a critical element of the Territory’s justice system, was chronically underfunded. Year after year the DPP’s annual reports highlighted the extra work being done by his office and yet the funding allocations did not keep pace. The CLP was aware of the serious problem but did nothing about it. Its inaction put at risk the capacity of the Office of the DPP to deliver its critical prosecutorial functions. This government inherited that issue and as well as inheriting a very tight budgetary situation.
Honourable members, I am very pleased to call attention to the figures in Budget Paper No 2 of the recent mini-budget. Notwithstanding the huge financial pressures we are facing, the base funding of the Office of the DPP has been increased by $0.89m. Now even with the savings and efficiency cuts, the DPP is $748 000 better off than before we got into government. He now has a significant pressure taken off his office. He now has a resource base by which he can fully perform his work. What that translates into is extra people within the office.
I will summarise succinctly the situation as regards the DPP at the moment: his independence is protected by a specific act of parliament which is not to be amended in any way. I give that undertaking publicly and on Hansard today. We are not going to move against this act. The only change to the act would be one initiated by the DPP himself if he so chose to do, arguing some deficiency as far as he is concerned. For our part, there are no plans and there will be no amendment to that act initiated by this government.
Second, I indicated earlier in the media and in other forums and, indeed, to the Director of Public Prosecutions himself and his senior staff yesterday, that we are prepared to let’s say horse trade the administrative arrangements between he and the CEO of the Justice Department, Richard Coates. The two, the CEO for Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions, have had several quite constructive discussions already. The purpose of the first part of the amendment we have before us is to allow, under section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, for a CEO of a department to delegate to a person appointed to an office under an act the administration of the provisions of which is allotted to his or her agency. In plain terms, that says that Richard Coates as the CEO of the Justice Department can delegate any number of functions as he sees fit directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Richard and Rex Wild are talking through that at the moment, and there is quite a wide ranging set of delegations that will be possible once this amendment is placed into the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
We believe that administrative arrangement plus the independence that is guaranteed under the Director of Public Prosecution Act is sufficient guarantee and indeed replicates the degree of independence that the office has enjoyed since its inception.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - let us be very plain about this - has always had a relationship with the Territory government, has always fallen, to a degree, to the normal budgetary processes by which a government allocates its resources to the different functional areas of government. There is certainly an annual budgetary allocation given to the Office of the DPP, and I alluded to that in the earlier part of this statement. To the extent that that could be seen as an influence over the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his office to freely take decisions about particular activities, we have removed, significantly, any pressure that may have been due to budgetary constraints or the budgetary decisions of government. We have actually given them a resource base that now allows them to expand out to the full range of their intended activities without fear or favour from the government. We have guaranteed that as a base level of funding, so it is an allowable expectation of the Director of Public Prosecutions that that base level of funding will continue into ensuing financial years. That has removed a very important influence of government on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Equally, there has always been a relationship to the activities of government as a whole regarding the processes of recruiting staff into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They are public servants under the meaning of the act, they are answerable to public service regulations of a more general nature for the propriety of what they are doing, and the expectations of what they are doing. This is not inserting a new public service influence within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been there for a considerable amount of time. It has always been part of the way it has operated.
Madam Speaker, let us not be misled by any commentary there has been on the issues to date. This is not bringing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way under increased influence from either politicians or the public service. It is simply continuing on a relationship that has been there for a considerable period of time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, can I say from the outset that I commend the member for Stuart for his thorough explanation of the proposed amendment and I thank him for the briefing which was arranged at relatively short notice relating to the amendment which landed upon us this morning. The comments he made about Rex Wild, I agree and support everything that he said. Rex Wild has done a fantastic job as the Director of Public Prosecutions and has a very important role in the judicial system.
I understand, I think, the mechanism which the member for Stuart has carefully taken honourable members through. But the difficulty is that there is a real need to ensure that there is a perception in the community’s mind that the prosecuting authority is indeed independent and is beyond reproach. With that comes real confidence that the instrumentality which determines whether a prosecution continues or what, if any charges are laid, is immune from political influence.
In the very late 1980s, I spent some time working during my university holidays for Crown Law as it then was. In a sense, we have gone a full circle now. In the old days it used to be Crown Law; it was very much a part of the Attorney-General’s Department. It was a larger department in any event and the prosecuting arm of it handled serious matters including all the police matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. After numerous conferences and, I understand, adopting a best-practice approach, it was decided that a completely independent instrumentality was the way to go. That occurred. Now there has been a change in government and now there is review of the administrative structure relating to the office of the DPP.
The difficulty is as much a procedural one, in my view, as a legal change in terms of the legislation, in the structure. Comments were made by the President of the Criminal Law Association of the Northern Territory on radio earlier this week to the effect that he had concerns that the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff was compromised and, indeed, the very conduct in the way this matter and the changes have been handled by the government have created a perception, certainly in some sectors of the wider community, that the independent office of the DPP is answerable in a roundabout way to a politically appointed CEO of the Ministry of Justice.
There are two limbs to this structure which the member for Stuart, as I said, very concisely walked the House through. We have, of course - and I do not quibble with that for a moment - the safeguards contained in the act that relate specifically to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his prosecutorial roles. However, the second limb is the weak link in this chain. This is the administrative support. We have heard an undertaking from the floor of the Chamber today that there is going to be an increase in funding and that will be welcomed and, I am sure, wisely spent. There is still nothing before the Chamber - there are certainly no safeguards apart from some very general comments about the administrative arrangement and the delegation which is going to occur from the CEO of Ministry of Justice to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It might be a case, in my view, that a way that this could have been handled better is if the precise terms of that delegation had been discussed and thoroughly worked through between the DPP and, of course, the CEO of the Ministry of Justice who, as I said, is not only a very political appointment, but secondly the head of the Legal Aid Commission. I have no doubt that there was, in an adversarial way certainly, a degree of competition between the head of the Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The concerns I have really relate to the process by which this has occurred and the fact that not every detail has been put to bed. I haven’t spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions directly in relation to this matter over the past couple of days. I understand there have been some meetings. That was obvious from the briefing I received earlier today, but I would be happier, and I would imagine many members of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory would be happy, if before we take this extra step and move the administrative arrangements into this horse trading phase - that is the phrase the member for Stuart used - those details were thoroughly put to bed and resolved.
Remember, the DPP is not an ordinary independent instrumentality. It is government funded, sure, but it is an office which makes decisions which will affect people’s liberty and ultimately make submissions as to the sanctions which should be imposed. That is why it is in a position to prosecute - historically, of course, a couple of members from this Chamber, members of the families of politicians and higher ranking public servants without fear or favour. There is absolutely no erosion in the public confidence when we have this completely independent body, which states publicly and makes all the right noises that it is independent, conducting these very sensitive prosecutions.
For those reasons, I am of the view that this legislation is a little premature until those administrative arrangements - that is, the exact terms of the Instrument of Delegation between the CEO of the Ministry of Justice, Richard Coates, and the Director himself, Rex Wild QC - are ratified and appropriately tabled in this House so that members of the public and the criminal lawyers association can also be satisfied that through that administrative way, there is absolutely no way that any influence can be brought to bear on the independent office.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Goyder, must be getting tired because I strongly oppose this bill and in particular the amendment in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I should say, though, that I endorse the comments made by the member for Goyder in relation to the Director, Mr Rex Wild QC, who we all agree has been a magnificent Director for some years.
Notwithstanding the spin the Attorney-General has put on this, it is a sneaky and dishonest amendment and the Attorney-General should hang his head in shame. At 10.10 this morning, the government gave us notice that it was going to get rid of the office of the DPP. We then had a quick briefing. This government hasn’t told anyone about this amendment. They pulled this swifty because they knew that the lawyers of the Northern Territory would be beside themselves with rage. They didn’t even have the courage to tell people before this morning what they were going to do. Make no mistake: this bill will get rid of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is abolishing the ODPP as a continuing agency and it will lose its status as an independent body.
The principal act, if anyone has bothered to look at it, provides a schedule for certain agencies to exist and to be separate from government. By removing the ODPP from this list, it takes it out of existence. It will not exist any more. It is as simple as that. There is no other way to look at it. I ask the question: why haven’t the lawyers of the Northern Territory, and in particular the criminal lawyers of the Northern Territory, been consulted about this? Why weren’t they asked about it before 10.10 this morning? Because they would have been furious. There is no way, and you know it, they would have accepted something like this laying down. This government is the ‘gunna’ government. It is gunna do this and it is gunna do that. Well, it wasn’t gunna do this prior to the election, was it? Hang your head in shame, Attorney.
You promised that you would consult everybody, the great basket weavers of consultation. They didn’t consult with anybody. I might say that it is really quite funny how life works out. The ALP’s big supporters, a group of leftie lawyers, had great faith in this government. This government has just shafted them. The ALP has courted leftie lawyers for years, and from memory when this government was in opposition, the Chief Minister, then Opposition Leader, wrote to the lawyers of the Territory asking, I think from memory, for financial assistance to the Labor party, such was their faith in their relationship with the lawyers of the Northern Territory. How do I know this? Because I got one, and so did the member for Goyder.
Ms Scrymgour: Give any money?
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up that interjection. No, I didn’t give them any money.
What’s funny about all this is that the lawyers backed the wrong horse. They would never have imagined that this government would introduce this bill as it applies to the ODPP. Now the CLP has been accused of many things both inside and outside this place, but it has never, ever tried to get rid of the ODPP and it would never have done so.
The Attorney-General can call this whatever he likes. Personally, I am saddened by this bill. I never thought I would see the day when this government in particular would bring a bill like this into this Chamber. Indeed, when the ALP was elected, I was philosophical about a Labor government. I thought: ‘Territorians have spoken’. I took it on the chin and I thought: ‘How much damage can they do in four years? Surely they can’t do anything very outrageous’. Well, they have and they have brought this bill into this place and they will forever stand condemned.
This government will lose its support base as a result of this bill and the government chose not to tell the lawyers that they were bringing in this amendment, and it didn’t consult with them. Don’t you think they are not going to be angry. They will be angry. You didn’t tell them, but you can rest assured that I will. Despite the briefing we had this morning, there are some disturbing implications arising from this bill that were not, curiously, outlined in the Attorney’s speech. For instance, under the principal act, the former CEO, Mr Wild QC, could write his Annual Report and he never had to worry about what the government thought. Now the report, presumably, will be written by the CEO of the Department of Justice, Mr Coates, the government’s friend. Don’t you think those annual reports will speak of the government in glowing terms? They will.
In addition, section 29 of the principal act provides that the former CEO, Mr Rex Wild QC, could appoint his own staff. That goes as well. That right that the director has to appoint and recruit his own staff, it goes. The government will say that it won’t interfere in this decision, but what if it does? The government needs to be aware that in delicate matters such as this, both perception and reality are matters that it must consider. The perception will be, and the perception is, that the authority of the director is undermined. The director’s staff, as a result of this bill, will be answerable to Richard Coates; they will not be answerable to the director. The government can promise that it will have a hands off approach to these types of decisions, that is, the appointment of staff, the recruitment of staff. The government may even give an assurance that it won’t interfere, but what if the government changes its mind? Of course, the government could change its mind. Where is the guarantee that the government won’t interfere in the recruitment and appointment of administrative as well as professional staff? It was not apparent in anything that the Attorney-General said. It is not provided for in any way, shape or form, and that is symptomatic of the way in which the government has introduced this amendment; it has not given it sufficient consideration and it should have. These are the ones that got off on the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers. They went on and on and on.
I am sorry, Attorney-General, for being a purist, and I note with interest that you were, too, prior to getting into government. This bill gives the government the power to appoint lawyers, and we have seen, haven’t we, the sacking of the former CEO of the Attorney-General’s Department. We know that if the government doesn’t like you or if you are out of favour with the government, you’re gone; you have your marching orders. So we can expect that this government will have something to say about the staff. It will recruit and appoint who should ordinarily have been chosen by the director, as is his right and privilege. No government should have its hands anywhere near the DPP, particularly this government. It shouldn’t have its sticky paws anywhere near it.
There are ways around the issues raised in the second-reading speech in relation to - I think it was Section 27 of the act. Now the Attorney-General wouldn’t know this, but his advisors do. This lazy government hasn’t even bothered to put in a fair dinkum amendment. It has just come up with a flimsy one liner at 10.10 this morning saying: ‘Here is our amendment’. Well, think about it, Mr Attorney-General and for God’s sake tell your advisors to give it some consideration.
Last month when this bill was introduced, the government signalled that one out of six agencies was to be removed from the schedule of the principal act. That was a month ago. This morning, two out of six will go. Territorians should be very concerned about what’s going to happen next month and the month after that.
Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, I strongly oppose this bizarre bill. It is an argument the government will win because of its numbers, but you’ve just lost half of your support base.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I did enjoy that contribution. I thought at some point the member for Araluen would contribute in a forceful fashion to this Chamber. I did appreciate her contribution tonight because she believes, or she convinced me that she believes, in her arguments. But there are a couple of things that I do want to pick up, particularly in relation to the fact that we have sort of snuck this in here on the last night of sittings without telling anyone.
The inclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go into the Department of Justice was announced on 13 November as part of the agency restructures. That is 16 days ago so it is hardly a secret. It is out there. People have been talking about it. If you didn’t pick up the announcement on 13 November, I am sorry, but it has been out there for a while.
I was particularly taken with the contribution by the member for Katherine because he also spoke in a very genuine fashion. As a former minister with responsibility for the public sector and a close working relationship with the Commissioner for Public Employment of the day, he well understood the role of the commissioner, the very difficult role and the sensitivities that the commissioner, by nature of the job, sometimes has to stray into. He argued quite eloquently for this measure of independence to be retained for the Commissioner for Public Employment.
It was a rather unusual debate in the sense that the member for Katherine argued for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. The member for Goyder I don’t know was all that sold on the question, and the member for Araluen quite strongly argued for the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
What both members missed, although the member for Katherine did refer to it himself, in terms of the Commissioner for Public Employment, is the independent statutory role. It doesn’t matter where you place them, they have their role, their functions, protected by statute. In terms of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whether they decide to appeal, whether they decide to proceed with a prosecution, these decisions are all protected.
Let me go to the staffing situation and that goes to the heart of the amendment, to section 27. This was a concern in terms of the independence. We knew the role and functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are well protected by statute, but that is not the only way you might get at someone. You may get at them by denying them resources, undermining the quality or the number of officers they have working for them. They make a decision that the CEO of Justice doesn’t like, so the CEO of Justice says: ‘Well, you are not going to get that position filled, or we are going to take staff from you, or sorry about those two cars that you were going to have get around the courts, you’re not getting them’. This is very clearly the intent of section 27, the amendment that we have to process in the committee stage tonight and, again, I think you’ve missed this point that the Attorney-General did cover in his contribution, and that is that the CEO of Justice is empowered under this amendment tonight to delegate all of those powers to the director. So the director in his own right, under the powers of delegation from the CEO, has all of those powers and can’t be got at and can’t be undermined in terms of resources, in terms of staffing, the right to hire and fire.
I go right back to the start of this. Let’s deal with the Commissioner for Public Employment first because they really are two different entities in our system, although both are similarly protected by statute in terms of the functions and the roles that they have. We had a position paper out, I think probably 18 months, two years before the election that we would create a Department of Employment and Training. The creation of that department was going to be brought about by bringing Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment together. That was our position all of the way through up until the election. It was only with the major restructure of agencies announced on 13 November where we finished up with the Department of Education, Employment and Training which forced us to revisit this question of where the Commissioner for Public Employment should go and whether it now was appropriate to still go into the department of what is now Education, Employment and Training where our policy position before had been to place it within Employment and Training.
What we did by putting this bill in a month ago was simply take the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment out of that Schedule 1 which gave it its independent agency basis and its CEO. We still at that stage, and still tonight as I speak, haven’t made that decision if it is to go into another agency or if it is to remain outside with its own CEO. All this amendment does in the first place is give us that facility. We can recreate the agency, recreate the independent CEO in the form of the Commissioner for Public Employment by Administrative Arrangement Order. There are two ways you can do it: you can do it by schedule; you can do it by Administrative Arrangement Orders.
There are questions about the independence despite the statutory nature of the role of the Commissioner for Public Employment. There probably are questions about the independence in terms of the decision making that they have, the role they have in terms of grievances, in terms of industrial relations and in terms of everything they do as the employer of the public service and public servants. There are questions about their independence if they were to sit in another agency and not be the CEO of that agency. That is something that we need to consider - how that may be managed if it is at all possible to be managed.
But it is a very different question with the Director of Public Prosecutions when they are going into the Department of Justice. Okay, they are no longer a CEO of their own agency, but they are empowered by the amendment here tonight - this amendment empowers the CEO to delegate all of those resource functions, those management functions, those CEO type functions in relation to all of the resources that they need. For all of those decisions, they have that power.
The other point I wanted to make was the member for Katherine, despite the fact that I appreciated most of what he had to say, said that there wouldn’t be that much to save in terms of the Office of Commissioner of Public Employment going into an agency and he is probably quite right. This was not about saving money in relation to this position. It was much more about harnessing and developing the skills and trying to attain synergies in relation to what the employer of the public service has and does and the Department of Training and Employment overall.
The strongest point that the member for Araluen raised was the question of perception because that’s all that is involved here. It is only a matter of perception. There is no weakening, there is no erosion of the rights and powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions simply by relocating them within the Department of Justice. I don’t doubt that the member for Araluen could whip up a storm fairly quickly out in the legal world by running the line that this government – well, I think she got a little bit over the top when she said we had sort of abolished the office. I think that might have been going a little bit too far, and that may be a bit hard to sell out there because people would still see Rex Wild about in the streets and would still understand that despite these changes, he is still the Director of Public Prosecutions. But she probably could whip up quite a storm about perceptions because perceptions don’t have to be based on fact, as we all know.
I appreciate the concerns and I believe the member is genuine in her concerns. I don’t know that I can say to much more other than to say roles, functions and decision making are protected by statute. No one can touch it. In terms of the independence of resourcing the office, how many staff they have, what level, what they do, the quality, the vehicles, the airconditioning, the phones, the communication systems, all delegated from the CEO.
I can’t see the difference between being an independent CEO in their own right or being the Director of DPP within the Department of Justice and having all those CEO type powers, and that is what this amendment standing here tonight - delegation by Chief Executive Officers - does. That is what it does. I appreciate the concerns and I appreciate particularly the member for Katherine and the member for Araluen, as I said, but they are not genuine; they are misplaced and it is much more about perception than fact, particularly in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Madam Speaker, we will have to go into committee to consider the amendments at Schedule 2 standing in my name, but just to clarify these amendments again so that we are all clear, the delegation by Chief Executive Officers to section 27 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, a person appointed to an office under an act, the administration provisions of which is allotted to his or her agency empowers the CEO of Justice to delegate all of those CEO type powers down to the Director. The Attorney-General was referring to this process of discussion, consultation and negotiation going on between the two parties now. The original bill stood as the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment coming out of that Schedule 1. That is of course now joined by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
So I appreciate the concerns. Let’s have another crack at it in committee if you so wish. I will certainly, along with the Attorney-General, try to allay your concerns as we go through that committee stage if you so wish.
I thank members and the member for Sanderson and my colleague, the Attorney-General, for their comments on the bill. It was a very productive debate, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
New clause 1A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I seek to move amendment 2.1. The proposed new clause 1A to be inserted in the bill, and this is the clause that very clearly empowers the CEO of the Department of Justice to delegate all of those CEO type functions down to the director so that there can be no question of undermining, eroding or weakening in any way the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go about their job. That is why it is absolutely critical to support this amendment because on the one hand, the powers and functions, responsibilities, roles are protected by statute. This amendment absolutely protects and defends their rights to whatever resources they require within, of course, the bounds of available resources, but they can’t be got at and undermined by not being an independent agency because for all intents and purposes, they are if they have the CEO type powers delegated down. It is just the same as if they were their own.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my comments are directed at the member for Nhulunbuy who is just about there in his logic. I want to articulate this in relation to the proposed amendment 1A: the amendment does not guarantee that the resources will flow from the CEO of the Department of Justice to the DPP. It just creates the capacity for the instrument to be prepared. So it is step one; it is not step two. Between the time that this legislation passes through parliament and the time that the Instrument of Delegation has been agreed between the CEO of the Department of Justice and the DPP, this is when this horse trading will have to occur. This is the twilight period and this is the period…
Ms Carney: Twilight zone!
Mr MALEY: Twilight zone. And this is the period where, quite reasonably, people could criticise this instrumentality as being subject to the influence of an outside authority, a politically appointed person.
That is why I cannot support the proposed amendment. I hope I have made that clear to the member for Nhulunbuy who very logically went through that. This creates the capacity for the instrument to be drafted.
The horse trading which the member for Stuart referred is that negotiation between – okay, now we have the power under 27(aa), that is the capacity to do it, but the deal still has not been struck. For that period of time, most certainly, the independence of the DPP has been compromised. My question is: what steps have been taken to reduce to writing in clear and concise terms the instrument which you very generally referred to, the existence of which this amendment makes capable?
Mr STIRLING: Cabinet recently gave the DPP $680 000.
Dr Toyne: It was $748 000. Take it from me.
Mr STIRLING: That’s worse. It gets worse. $748 000 to buttress the budget requirements through the financial year. That is step one. The DPP was able, in his own right, to put a Cabinet submission through, come and address Cabinet. That was the outcome of that decision. If the DPP felt that he or she was being done over, short changed, robbed of resources, not getting a fair deal at any point or did not get the full delegation of powers and consultation with the CEO of the Department of Justice, don’t you think, given the sensitivity around the DPP and the need to be independent, that they would be off to the Attorney-General pretty quickly? I would think so. I would think that is where the Director of Public Prosecutions would go if he or she thought they were getting less than a fair deal or anything less than they felt was required to fulfil the requirements of their functions and role.
I cannot speak for the Attorney-General, but if I was the Attorney-General and the Director Public Prosecutions came through my door and was able to substantiate that claim, then I would want to know about it. I would be taking all steps necessary rather quickly to address the matter because the last thing the government would want is for the situation you outlined to occur. That is, the functions, the role, the resourcing necessary to be undermined in any way, shape, or form that could affect the less than efficient and effective carrying out of the role. Let us be realistic: ‘not the most powerless entity around, I wouldn’t have thought.
Dr TOYNE: Can I throw some more light on the questions put? I won’t be long. I stated earlier that this is not a new situation where you have public servants and some attachment to the general public service arrangements involved in the operation of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. From 1983 to 1995, the position was basically, by the DPP Act, we established the statutory position of the DPP and then an office operated under him. At that stage between 1983 and 1995, they were subject to the Public Service Act. I will read how the staff were administered:
- 1. Subject to the Public Service Act, there may be appointed such staff as necessary to assist the Director
in the preparation of work required in relation to the institution and conduct of criminal proceedings
and in the carrying out of any other function or duty given to the Director by or under this or any other act.
So the director was quite clearly given staff who were not statutory staff. They were not fully independent; they were given to him under public service arrangements.
- 2. The Director has all the powers of or exercisable by a department head under the Public Service Act so far
as those powers relate to the branch of the public service comprising the staff referred to in subsection (1)
as if that branch were a separate department of the public service.
So, they were not a separate department; they had department-like arrangements within the office at that stage.
- 3. In addition to the staff referred to in subsection (1), the Director may on behalf of the Territory and with the
approval of the Attorney-General or a person authorised in writing by the Attorney-General to grant approvals
under this subsection employ under agreements in writing such person as the Director thinks necessary for the
purposes of the performance of the functions of the Director.
All that mouthful says is that clearly, the DPP themselves were not a public service, but certainly his staff were through that period time. That is probably when you went down there to work as a young lawyer.
The situation we have now is that, if we remove from the first schedule of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, what happens to the ODPP? Is the member for Araluen right to say that they suddenly go poof and disappear off the face of the earth, as Wicking had to say this morning? Or are they still there? The legal question on that is: is the act of taking them off the schedule the act of abolishing the office? The answer is no. The answer is that that removes their listing as an agency, but they still exist as an entity. The reporting requirements set out in the policy document identified three things upon which the independent statutory offices would report. They are resources, administrative support and policy development matters. None of them encroach upon the independence of the DPP. This is another excerpt from the legal opinion we received from Tom Pauling QC, Solicitor-General:
- In substance there is no lessening of the independence of the DPP, that the Office of the DPP was described
as an agency in the schedule of PSEMA did not give the Office of DPP independence. That independence is
found in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The budget of the ODPP is as always at the discretion of
Cabinet. It still is.
The second issue is the validity of delegations made by the DPP. They are not dependent on him being a
CEO under the PSEMA but upon being appointed DPP.
which none of this changes. So we have very clear legal opinion that what is being done at the moment not only has quite clear historical antecedents, is clearly not introducing a public service presence into the ODPP that was not there before, and is clearly not central to the continuing independence of the ODPP as a statutory officer or as the office.
Ms CARNEY: My question is directed to the member for Nhulunbuy further to the comments made in answer to the last question. What if the CEO and the Director could not agree on an issue? What would the government do?
Mr STIRLING: I think we are reading things in here that – jumping at shadows or inventing hypotheticals …
Ms Carney: No, no, no. You suggested before there might be some conflict. There might be.
Mr STIRLING: Let’s take an example. What, if, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not want to know about cars, who does the cleaning, who brings the pot plants in, all those sorts of things and quite relieved, quite happy for the CEO
of the agency to have all of those responsibilities, but is hell bent on deciding staffing profile, structure, level and those sorts of things? Both of us can make this up on our feet. I don’t know that it advances the debate that far.
I think you are just reading things that are not necessarily there. Again, I am not the minister responsible for this agency. If I were, I would expect to learn about it and it would have to be sorted out to the satisfaction, let me assure you, of the Director of Public Prosecutions because that is where the independence - and we have been through this - all protected by statute at that level of roles, functions, powers and responsibilities and the other areas protected by the powers of delegation from the CEO. I would expect that it would be sorted through.
Mr BURKE: I will ask the question of the Attorney-General because it seems that the issue could be sorted very quickly and easily, and that is: can you give this House the assurance that under no circumstances would the Director of Public Prosecutions deal with anyone except the Attorney-General on any issue? If you can give that assurance, I do not believe the opposition would have any problem.
There is a principle here. It is not an issue of staffing. Staffing can affect the way the director’s office operates and he should not be required to go to anyone other than the Attorney. I say that not from a position of trying to be petulant, but simply as a principle. In all the time that I was Attorney-General, it would be inconceivable that on any issue the Director of Public Prosecutions would go to anyone except the Attorney-General to have that issue resolved. If the Attorney decided to delegate that down or the director decided to delegate that down, so be it. That is their decision. Certainly, the immediate resolution of any issue should be between the Attorney-General and the director.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy to give you a very strong assurance that, as I have been from the time that the restructure was announced, I have been very involved and very hands on in trying to help both the new CEO of the Justice Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions to sort this out. I will certainly give you the assurance that I will be using my best officers to mediate an arrangement to the satisfaction of the DPP and to the CEO of Justice. I certainly would not be standing idly by if there was in any sense a breakdown of the arrangement that would allow the DPP to get on with his job.
I can only say that I have had a meeting with not only he and his senior staff yesterday, but either myself or my office upstairs have had very regular contacts with both the CEO and with the DPP right up to probably about an hour ago when I got the latest update on the negotiations that are going on. I am pretty convinced that at a personal, practical level we will find a resolution to this. We also need to deal, as has been said earlier in this debate, with the public perceptions regarding this change.
I am quite happy for people to have an opinion about it, but let’s make absolutely sure that opinion is pinned back to the facts and the actual structures that we are talking about here. It has been an interesting exercise in that lots of people were trundling along with assumptions about what degree or otherwise of autonomy they had and what arrangements they were really operating on. When you dug below the kind of day to day personal contacts that people have in government agencies and you start to say what does the law and the legislation and the regulations and the administrative arrangements actually say about the independence of that agency or indeed any other agency in government, I think most public servants and their CEOs would get quite a surprise if they seriously looked at the letter of the law that they are operating under.
Certainly the DPP and his office were operating under, I think initially, quite a perception that they had far more leeway to operate than they actually did under their administrative arrangements. So if nothing else, we have gained a very thorough review of the situation or the climate that that office is operating in or has been operating in, and at least we are now pinning it all back to what the legislation says about this. What exactly do the administrative arrangements say about this? Who is working under which regulations or which constraints or otherwise within that office? And they are different for the different personnel. There are police personnel in the ODPP. There are lawyers who have been previously recruited with the involvement of the DPP but also the involvement of the Public Service Commissioner and other processes in the wider public service.
We are shaking that all down so that everyone is at least agreed on where the starting point is. What do our statutory arrangements and our administrative arrangements allow us to do in the way of options? There is certainly a threshold where if the CEO is not synonymous with being the Director of Public Prosecutions, then there is a threshold that the CEO of Justice cannot go beyond in terms of delegation. We are exploring that boundary right now. But certainly there is good will, I think between…
Ms Carney: So it is: ‘Trust us. It will be sorted out eventually with a bit of luck’. Not good enough. Not good enough.
Dr TOYNE: No, it is not luck. It is a very systematic process at the moment. I might say that, as my colleague the member for Nhulunbuy alluded, the potential benefits are there as well as the issues that we have to sort out in these current negotiations over the operating arrangements. The benefits are, to a smallish agency like the Office of the DPP, that there will be some advantage they can take of wider arrangements within the Justice Department and we are looking forward to not only making sure that their base within the ODPP is maintained at a very strong level, but they have also have full access to the wider resources in Justice and where there are areas that they want to pull resources and assistance in from elsewhere in the Justice Department, they have full access to do that.
That is where we see these reforms as giving benefit and that is why we have persisted with the challenges of making this change in the case of the ODPP and other areas of the new Justice Department grouping.
Mr BURKE: It is not an issue of forcing this debate any longer than it needs to go, but it is not necessarily to the comfort of DPP that we ask these questions. It might be convenient for the DPP to say: ‘I want to delegate these problems to someone else’. The DPP has a statutory and independent responsibility and it is in that context that we ask for that assurance, and that assurance needs to be more than one of mediation. It needs to be an assurance to the opposition that in the case of the DPP on any issue, he will deal directly with the Attorney-General and if the Attorney-General decides to have the issue pursued by the CEO of the Justice Department on behalf of the DPP or himself, well that is fine. But the principle that we simply ask for is that the DPP on all issues deals directly with the Attorney-General. If you satisfy that, then obviously that is the end of our concern.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy to give that assurance: that on any issue of significance, if the DPP feels that it wants to come to me on it and have my involvement in it, I am there for him to do that, yes.
Clause 1A agreed to.
Clause 2 read.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 2.2. This takes out the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
In the case of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, now we can be very clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is inside the Department of Justice. There is still no decision exactly where the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, or the Commissioner for Public Employment, may reside. It may still, in fact, have an independent agency and be the CEO of that agency which could be recreated through Administrative Arrangement Orders. This simply facilitates government to make whatever decision it chooses, obviously between here and February, when the legislative effect of Education, Employment and Training will come together. So, I would urge support for that. It doesn’t do anything to the commissioner or the office at this stage.
Mr BURKE: I would ask for clarification of the term ‘at this stage’.
Mr STIRLING: Passing this amendment tonight doesn’t diminish, demean or mean that David Hawkes, current Commissioner for Public Employment, is no longer CEO of the agency in his own right. He still is. And when he finishes work, there is still the independent Commissioner of the Public Employment agency, CEO, in their own right. If government was to make a decision to place the commissioner within one of the agencies, this would allow government to do it.
Mr BURKE: Again, simply for the record, I ask for assurance that, notwithstanding the agency restructure, the total independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment is maintained because that principle is critically important, and I know from experience that there are some senior public servants who would like to see that position changed. That is something that I seek assurance from the new government that the Commissioner for Public Employment remains and the independence of his office remains.
Mr STIRLING: Your colleague, the member for Katherine, argued quite cogently on this point earlier in debate and, again, similar to the DPP, the powers and functions are protected by statute and can’t be weakened or diminished in any way in terms of that independence. I can give you the assurance that that independence in terms of the statutory powers won’t be diminished in any way.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, before the bill is read a third time, can I just say, without passing any reflection on the individual who is holding the Chair at the moment, I find it puzzling and strange, to say the least, that for important legislation passing through this House notwithstanding the nominations of particular members and what status they might feel they have been given, I feel it is strange that the Deputy Speaker, in fact, presents the committee report to an ordinary member of this Chamber in terms of the importance of the legislation and the way it will pass through this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you raising a point of order?
Mr BURKE: I find it puzzling and strange, to say the least. If you had any experience at all, you would realise that I have an ability to speak in the third reading. That is part of my problem. I am not making a point of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re not speaking to the legislation?
Mr BURKE: I am simply making a comment in the third reading. The person who occupies the position of Speaker in this House, should have some knowledge of the import of the legislation …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do.
Mr BURKE: … and the fact that I believe the position should be occupied …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw your comments.
Mr BURKE: … as I recall, always occurred by the Speaker and reported to the Speaker by the Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have asked you to withdraw your comment. Do you withdraw your comment?
Mr BURKE: Withdraw what comment?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were casting aspersions on the Deputy Speaker. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: I was casting no aspersions on the Deputy Speaker. I was making comment on the process in this House. Now, if you want to rule, go right ahead and rule. You can use all the authority you have in that Chair. That was the point of my comment.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I seek clarification. Were you reflecting on the Chair or the Office of the Deputy Chair?
Mr BURKE: I am reflecting on the fact that it would be on a rare occasion, I believe, that the Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker would not report the committee report to the Speaker, and I wonder why the Speaker is absent, particularly on such important legislation. I simply reflect on that fact.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Leader of the Opposition would know, the Speaker is unavoidably detained.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just pick up what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. I don’t answer for Madam Speaker in this Chamber. I don’t know where she is. She is obviously detained. Now, it is impossible for the Deputy Chair to have been up there to get the report. He was presenting it as Chairman of Committees, so in the absence of the Speaker - and I guess there is a point of order there in the sense that we are not supposed to reflect on the absence or presence of any member including the Speaker, I would have thought. Really, I don’t have an answer for you. I would assume that she would be here if she were able to be.
For the third reading, I thank members for their contribution. I thought it was a useful debate, a productive debate with some little passion, and that is not a bad thing when a person believes, rather than playing games as I think we’ve seen a little bit too much of during this week.
As Leader of Government Business, I would be loath ever to gag debate and this government would be, but when we see the nonsense of repetitive questions as we saw this afternoon, as opposed to the quality and the well intentioned responses to this bill tonight, which was treated seriously - I appreciate comments from members and I thank them for putting their views forward as forcefully as they did.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01
Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I lay on the Table the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee
Annual Report 2000-01
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee
Annual Report 2000-01
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, the prorogation of the parliament in August this year left the Public Accounts Committee’s Annual Report in limbo. Although completed, it was not able to be tabled until later in the year. In tabling this report, I am unable to offer comments on the work of the previous committee, but would like to take this opportunity to comment on the reporting of the previous Public Accounts Committee.
Apart from the annual reports, which the committee is bound to table under Standing Order 21A(14), if you turn to appendix 3 of this annual report, you will notice that the last reference report tabled by the committee was in August 1999. Even at this early stage, the members of the current Public Accounts Committee have shown a willingness to tackle their task head on. There are a number of areas the committee is simultaneously considering, and which may eventually evolve into reports being tabled in this Chamber.
The committee has already taken the step of opening up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. Advertisements recently appeared in every newspaper throughout the Northern Territory advising that public hearings would be conducted as members pursue the current budget reference. The committee has gone further than that. It has put in place mechanisms to ensure it will only be in the most unusual circumstances that future hearings will not be open to the public. I am confident that the committee will treat all matters in a bipartisan manner which will culminate in very well constructed reports with meaningful recommendations ultimately providing this Assembly with an additional base for vigorous debates. The inclusion of an independent member into the committee is in itself a check point for both government and opposition members. I welcome the input to date from the member for Nelson, and feel certain that his involvement with the committee can only add to its overall commitment of open and accountable procedures.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to participate in the debate on the mini-budget that was introduced by the Chief Minister and Treasurer on Tuesday.
The mini-budget represents an important turning point for the Northern Territory. It draws a line in the sand and says that no longer will government in the Northern Territory be unaccountable. No longer will financial management be done on the back of an envelope in ministerial offices without regard for the true underlying fiscal outlook. No longer will the people of the Northern Territory be misled and lied to. We are going to set a standard for integrity in government and transparency that will not be undermined. We will show the people of the Northern Territory that they can have confidence in their government and that trust can be restored. We will show the people of the Northern Territory that the rorting and deception that they were subjected to by the former discredited government is a thing of the past.
They know that the Martin ALP government is going about the task of bringing about a wholesale change for the better in the way government is run in the Territory. We are fiscally responsible. We are being open, frank and transparent with Territorians. We are committed to consultation and an inclusive approach to meeting the needs of all Territorians, not the select few who tipped into the CLP coffers, not the select few who were rewarded by CLP government largesse. The first thing we must do in order to meet the needs of all Territorians is to restore our fiscal position, restore it to a sustainable level so that we can move forward. We must meet those expectations and, I must say, that as I have been examining the scope and structure of my new Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, I am very excited by the opportunities that I have before me.
Obviously, our capacity to act as quickly as we would have liked is diminished not through any fault of our own, but by the incompetence and fraud perpetrated by those opposite. We saw this morning in this Chamber a remark made by the member for Drysdale when we discussed references to the $107m black hole that we inherited. The member for Drysdale - and I am sure it will be recorded in Hansard – said: ‘So what if it costs more money?’ That is the type of statement that got the CLP in trouble when they were in office. They seem not to be able to get rid of those bad habits. Nevertheless, I am confident that my department has the resources, both human and financial, to become a real engine driver in not only maintaining service levels, but also developing and expanding a range of innovative services that will go to the heart of the quality of life enjoyed by Territorians.
The new Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, has been formed to provide enhanced emphasis in coordination of services to promote and develop the Territory community. Maintaining the quality of Territory lifestyle, cultural development and developing a greater sense of community are priority goals of the Martin government. For me, it also provides an opportunity to pursue interests and objectives that have occupied the greater part of my working life: providing an equitable distribution of, and access to, services for all Territorians; access to decent housing; access to health services; access to education; access to sporting and recreation opportunities; and a focus on regional economic development activities that provide employment opportunities within our remote communities.
When I look at the range of services and activities covered within my new department, I am excited by the potential that exists to bring together substantial resources and linkages to improve the quality of life for all Territorians. I want to place on record the range of those services: housing in urban and remote communities; local government; Aboriginal interpreter services; sport and recreation opportunities; library services; and arts and museums all of which are the Chief Minister’s responsibility; the provision of essential services in remote Aboriginal communities; regional development; and partnership agreements with indigenous Territorians.
These important areas are now incorporated into one department, and I now have the added responsibility for the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
Regional development is a priority in both small and larger regional communities. Initiatives like Alice in 10 will be important to the future of regional centres. But regional development could mean so much more. The government has a clear priority of improving indigenous education, health, employment and social outcomes, and Aboriginal economic development was identified as a priority at the recent Economic Development Summit in Darwin. Local and regional indigenous framework agreements complement the regional development functions of the agency.
I have, for the first time as a minister in government, the opportunity to pursue the Land Interest Register that I first mentioned some six years ago when I became a member of this parliament. The concept is one where I would be ensuring that my officers will be working with the land councils to conduct a survey of land interest areas throughout the Northern Territory so that we are able to identify, in terms of land ownership, what Aboriginal people - and native title for that matter - are interested in with respect to economic development on their country. If we are able to put this register together, it will enable us to start looking around and advertising for entrepreneurs. The whole concept, in terms of economic development, is to be able to get entrepreneurs with dollars in a joint venture situation with Aboriginal people who own lands so that there can be a joint venture agreement put together; where we see a situation where both parties are winners in terms of how they will be able to economically and financially benefit from those projects. I believe once we are able to do that, and I am able to ensure that that moves forward, then we will see a lot more economic development in the Northern Territory than what we have seen in the past.
The inclusion of a unit responsible for the funding of essential Aboriginal community services should streamline service delivery as well as maximise Aboriginal employment opportunities in providing these services. This new department incorporates the former Office of Aboriginal Development, and it will be a positive development to bring this in with the mainstream service delivery system. I want to emphasise that this new departmental structure should not simply be seen as a means of achieving savings. Whilst I believe that the new structure will provide opportunities for some rationalisation of overlapping management services, my focus will be achieving greater efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery. I am certain that we will be able to improve the level of coordination not only across Territory services, but also with regional and national bodies such as ATSIC and other relevant Commonwealth agencies.
We need to further cement a working relationship with ATSIC and the land councils to ensure that our plans for local government, the plans of ATSIC in terms of its regional councils, and the community government councils at the end of the day have an opportunity to come together in a particular region that they define as their boundaries, and ensure that the services are dovetailed into a situation where maximum benefits can be obtained. In the past, that has not been organised and that is a reflection on the manner in which the previous government handled Aboriginal affairs. In actual fact, their services and their relationship with the Aboriginal community could only be described in many cases - not all - as a piecemeal service.
Unfortunately, our first task on coming to government has been to confront the black hole left by the failed Country Liberal Party government. For three months, we have been working to repair the damage they left behind. We will not waiver on our commitment to implement our election agenda. The financial statement presented by the Chief Minister yesterday represents a responsible strategy for addressing the economic mess left by the Country Liberal Party, together with setting up the implementation of our election commitments.
I want to conclude by referring to a commitment within my own portfolio which, I am delighted to say, will be implemented immediately with a consequent benefit to young people in indigenous communities. Indigenous youth in remote communities are particularly vulnerable to problems arising from social dislocation. Many are left to their own devices and end up in trouble with the law for the lack of organised activities yet these same people often have prodigious sporting talents that are left undeveloped. This Martin government will increase grants by $300 000 per annum, maintained in real terms, to remote communities to employ full or part-time sport and recreation officers to promote the participation in organised sporting competitions and recreational activities. This is just one of a range of important commitments that we are delivering on, and it is an indication that the Martin government will continue to do the hard yards required to restore fiscal responsibility and, at the same time, protect and enhance service delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the mini-budget to this Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to reply to the Minister for Tourism’s statement given last night, and to touch upon some of my portfolio areas in the context of what can only be described as a very nasty budget. I should say from the outset that one positive aspect of the budget - and there is only one as far as my shadow portfolios are concerned - is that the former Office of Communications, Science and Advanced Technology appears to have received an injection of funds to better perform its communication functions which includes the formulation of policies and strategies for the development of advancing telecommunications and free-to-air broadcasting infrastructure across the Territory. If this additional funding does, in fact, achieve access for all Territorians to advance telecommunications and free-to-air broadcasting services, then it is welcomed by the opposition.
Before I go to some other matters relating to my shadow portfolio areas, I would like to mention a matter that relates to Central Australia, a matter that came to my attention this afternoon as a result of information to me from my electorate officer, Tracey Wise - who is in Darwin, together with many other electorate officers for an induction over the last couple of days - and in particular comments made by the Ombudsman this afternoon. I am told by Ms Wise that he told the inductees that he was not sure about what was happening to the staffing in the Ombudsman’s office in Alice Springs, but what he did know was that the Alice Springs office will be closed. Apparently, he attributes this as a direct consequence of the mini-budget.
Interestingly, the mini-budget shows an increase of funding to the Ombudsman’s Office to the tune of $72 000. I understand that there should be two staff members in Alice Springs, but there is only one at present who, incidentally, is due to go on leave shortly. I am advised that the Alice Springs office handles more inquiries per head of population than the Darwin office, and the majority of those complaints are from or in relation to the Alice Springs gaol. This office should not be closed. The people of Alice Springs are entitled to have an Ombudsman’s office, and to have it fully staffed. They should not cop the closure of the local office to subsidise extra money to the Darwin office. This is part of this government’s sleight of hand with this mini-budget. It shows an increase in funding to the Office of the Ombudsman, but there is, in fact, a reduction in staff numbers by reason of the closure of the Alice Springs office. This is a sign of what is to come, and it shows how little regard the government has for the people of Central Australia. I would urge the Chief Minister and Treasurer to reconsider her decision in that regard.
Turning to important matters such as the tourism industry, I note that there is a cut in the budget papers of $241 000. The tourism industry is the second largest industry in the Territory. Anyone reading this budget, however, would be entitled to form the view that the government has not even heard of the events of September 11 and the collapse of Ansett. The fact of the matter is that this government has at a critical time cut funding to its Tourist Commission. Blind Freddy can see that this vital industry should not suffer cuts at this time, but the government cannot see it. It is the only entity that cannot understand that cuts should not be made at this very vulnerable time in the industry.
More interestingly, while the budget papers show a cut of $241 000, there is actually a cut to the Commission of $2.41m when the deal with Virgin Blue is taken into account. We understand that the government has purchased seats from Virgin Blue for $2m, but that money is to come out of the Tourist Commission’s budget. Money to pay for the deal with Virgin must come from somewhere and it is not in the budget papers. Therefore, it is clear that the Tourist Commission has to pay for it. This means that funding has in fact been cut by $2.41m in real terms and that is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.
While I am talking about Virgin Blue, I note that the minister said last night that it would commence flights into Darwin for Christmas. What he did not mention was when flights would start to Central Australia and the reality is that he does not know or does not care. If he did know, then he would have announced it. He did not announce it. Central Australia is bleeding but this Martin ALP government just does not care. That is hardly a commitment to break through the Berrimah line. Again we have a breach of an election promise.
The minister also said last night that the $2m deal with Virgin Blue is ‘a massive return’ on the government’s investment. What an extraordinary thing to assert given that flights to the Northern Territory have not commenced. It clearly demonstrates that the minister is not across his portfolio and that is also a disgrace. I know he is fairly new to the portfolio but he has been in this place long enough to know how to get a grip on it and it is incredibly disappointing that as Tourism Minister, he has not.
Thanks to the efforts of Qantas and the Federal government, not the ALP Territory government, capacity on flights to the Territory has improved considerably in recent times, but the minister did not offer any breakdown as to who is on those flights. My advice from tourism operators is that tourists are not on those planes. There are lots of other people but there are very few tourists on the planes coming into the Territory. This is a government sleight of hand because what they say is the planes are full, but the problem is they are not filled with tourists and there is nothing in the budget directed at getting them to the Northern Territory.
The one further point I should make in this area is that apart from the failure of the government to provide breakdowns of the types of travellers on flights, affordability is a major problem. Domestic tourists will not travel to the Northern Territory for the fares that are presently being charged and it is a nonsense to suppose that they will. We ask: what is the government doing about this? The best it can do is to cut the Tourist Commission’s budget. It is a joke. Tourism operators tell me that business is down by 30%. There are hardly any forward bookings and some of them are thinking about laying off staff. What does this government do in those circumstances? It cuts the budget. Tourism operators are screaming at these cuts. They say: ‘Why now? Why, at this critical time, would any self-respecting government cut funds to its Tourist Commission?’ It is an excellent question and one which the opposition will continue to ask on their behalf.
The Australian tourism industry is faced with a significant downturn. It follows, therefore, that in addition to trying to attract international visitors back to the skies and in particular the skies of the Northern Territory, that enormous efforts must be directed to stimulating the domestic and international markets. What worked in marketing terms a few months ago may not work any more and innovative ideas need to be identified and promoted. But what does this ALP government do in light of all of this? It cuts $191 000 off the market focus budget of the Tourist Commission. It is extraordinary that any government would do that. I am quite sure that there would not be any other government in this country that would be cutting the budget of its tourist commission at this time.
Part of the Tourist Commission’s function is to facilitate the development of a strong, competitive and professional tourism industry. Its market focus is to increase demand for tourism to the Territory, yet the government has cut its market focus budget. It is worth reminding members that the purpose of market research for the Commission is to identify the source of markets and consumer trends. If ever there was a time to identify these, it is now. What does this slash-and-burn government do? It cuts the market research budget and that begs belief. This is a time when any government, all governments should be allocating more money to the tourism industry, not less, and the government will be forever condemned for its actions.
The domestic tourism market must be stimulated to promote the Territory yet this government has announced a $67 000 cut to the Commission’s Destination Image Market Budget. It may come as a surprise to government that the enormous revenue generated for the economy from tourism has not happened overnight. It has been built on market research, strategic plans and innovative marketing of the Territory in Australia and overseas over many years, achieved with the assistance of numerous CLP governments.
Strategies must be developed and market research must be undertaken with vigor to ensure that we attract visitors from overseas in the tourism market and that traditional methods of attracting visitors should be reviewed and reassessed because they may not work as well as they did in the past. Does the minister plan to refocus the work of the Tourist Commission to reflect the current situation? Given the reluctance to travel, this question must be asked: what is the government and the Commission doing to tackle this problem? Will the Northern Territory Tourist Commission restore our visitor numbers from Europe, which is the largest overseas market sector? That question remains unanswered by government.
The next question is: what is the government’s plan for stimulating the domestic tourism market? Does it have a plan of action? The minister said that he has asked the Tourist Commission to have a look at how to increase road travel to and inside the Northern Territory. Is that the best he can do since September 11, simply ask the Tourist Commission to have a look at it? Last night, the minister said that he had been working with the Tourist Commission to get through this difficult time and apart from outlining very little about what was meant by that, this government cannot hide from the fact that it is cutting the Commission’s funding. The Commission will be doing its best, and I know that it will, but it simply has less money to do it.
Furthermore, the Tourist Commission has overseas representatives in our major markets. These representatives should be allocated additional resources to undertake activities that will work towards attracting tourists. No cuts to the tourism budget should be entertained. It should receive a massive boost to its funding. Social policy is all very well and good, but if the economy is crumbling down around you, then you should focus on correcting that situation.
Interestingly, in Budget Paper No 4, the government outlines the position that the tourism industry is in at present and I quote:
- Key tourism sectors such as accommodation, cafes and restaurants will be negatively impacted in 2001-02 with
a number of other tourism related sectors also affected including culture and recreational services, personnel
and services, retail trade and transport and communications.
This is an acknowledgement by this ALP government of the devastation caused by recent events. Curiously, in the paragraph under that, Budget Paper No 4 simply says that things are expected to pick up in 2002-03. It begs the question: what is government doing to help the situation? The answer is: nothing; it is just sitting back and hoping for the best. They think that things will magically fix themselves and nothing could be further from the truth.
To make matters worse, there is a cut of $59 000 to Territory Discoveries which develops tourism product for sale to consumers in the domestic market. At a time when the domestic market needs a boost, this government cuts funds to this agency. Let there be no mistake, Madam Speaker, there is a cut to the Tourist Commission of $2.41m and it is a disgrace.
Given the importance of the tourism industry to the Northern Territory, the government should be doing all that it can to support it, promote it, stimulate it and help it. Instead, this government has cut the expenditure of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. How very extraordinary and how very wrong this decision is. The effect of this mini-budget on tourism should not be understated. What makes these cuts embarrassing is that they come at such a critical time. Instead of caressing the vital tourism industry through these challenging times, this government is kicking it when it is down and tourism operators have every right to question the government’s commitment to the industry and to them.
Having dealt with the very important area of tourism, I will touch briefly upon a couple of my other shadow portfolios. The next one is the area of women’s policy. There is a cut of $4.6m to the Department of Chief Minister which includes, among other agencies, the Office of Women’s Policy. Specifically, there is a cut in the area called Strategic Policy Advice Coordination budget of $118 000. Given that the Office of Women’s Policy provides advice to the Chief Minister about women’s issues, will this vital policy area be cut? This does not appear to be outlined in the budget papers, and unless the Chief Minister can offer an assurance that the office will be spared from the government’s axe, all women in the Northern Territory should be concerned and angry. How will the Chief Minister, I wonder, be judged by history, if she, the first female Chief Minister of the Territory, is the one to cut the legs off the Office of Women’s Policy. Does the Chief Minister want to be advised on women’s policy or has she fallen for the line peddled by some senior advisors that women’s policy doesn’t really matter? The Chief Minister should provide a commitment and say that it will not be affected by these cuts.
Furthermore, the Women’s Advisory Council receives funding from the Department of the Chief Minister. It does not emerge from the budget papers, so can the Chief Minister guarantee that the Women’s Advisory Council will continue? Will it face cuts? If so, how and when will they be implemented? Does the Chief Minister want an advisory council to advise her on matters of interest and concern to women in the Territory, or is there an arrogance already creeping in that the Chief Minister, a woman, has all of the information she could possibly need? I say to the Chief Minister: shame on you if your pernicious axe falls in the area of women’s policy.
Finally, Madam Speaker, in the area of correctional services, this is now part of the mega department, that is the Department of Justice. In this new department there are cuts left, right and centre to the former departments, in particular to the area of correctional services, specifically to the Darwin and Alice Springs correctional centres. Darwin suffers a cut of $122 000, and Alice Springs cops a cut of $108 000. It is not clear from the budget papers how exactly the government intends to achieve these cuts. Does government intend to implement the previous government’s commitment to stage one of the infrastructure needs for the Darwin correctional centre, namely a 100 bed minimum security facility? And what about the other two stages, including a female accommodation unit?
Now I know, and many others know in this House, that this government is not broadly supportive of having any offenders ever spending any time in our gaols. However, the fact of the matter is that they do need to be housed appropriately and the former government proposed to improve the facilities.
It is also interesting to note that cuts are planned for community corrections. I can’t find an explanation in the papers, but I assume that those cuts are to community corrections programs where prisoners perform community work. I had my first briefing this week, as a matter of fact, with the commissioner and he agreed that the community corrections program was a win-win program for prisoners and the community, and I would say that we would be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere who would have a contrary view. My question is: what exactly will be cut and how will the cuts be implemented?
In conclusion, this is an unnecessary, unfair and unwise budget. The gammon black hole is the ALP’s way of getting around its surprise win at the election and the way it implements its over the top policies. It never expected to win, and you know you didn’t, and you didn’t need to consider any budgetary constraints. They dished out promises like throwing lollies off the back of a truck and then on August 19 woke up and said: ‘Oh, dear. Oh, my God! How do we implement our policies? How do we follow through?’ How lucky you are that the CLP was in government for 26 years. You have no idea how lucky you are. If the CLP had not been in government for 26 years, you wouldn’t have a punching bag. You wouldn’t have anyone to blame. You would have to be honest about funding your over the top, almost hysterical promises. So, thank God for the CLP, Madam Speaker. You would have to been honest otherwise; what a challenge for you. The budget is a scam, it was always going to be a scam and it will always be a scam. The worst part of this scam is that all Territorians will suffer as a result, especially our struggling tourism industry.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments on the budget by saying that these issues I am raising tonight are just some of the issues I would like to raise. There has not been a lot of time, especially for an Independent, to assess the budget fully. Perhaps in the next sittings I will be in a position to comment further.
I think like all good budgets there are some positive things and some negative things, and so I thought I would speak about a few of the positive things and comment on the negative ones.
On the positive side, the increase in nurses is most welcome. I believe this needs to be monitored to see that it has an effect on reducing the problems that nurses informed me of during my election campaign. One of the issues was that many of them are rostered to double shifts so I would be interested to see if this increase in nurses actually reduces this problem.
I also welcome capital works for hospitals and clinics throughout the Northern Territory, and I especially welcome provision in the budget for development of a specialised hospice unit in RDH. This is a move long overdue and something which previous governments should have regarded as a matter of urgency before any talk of euthanasia was introduced into this community. I am not sure what the budget says on the Palmerston Health Clinic, which serves my electorate, but I do hope the government will continue to support the clinic as a 24-hour service.
The construction of a birthing centre, although it is still a long way off in the budget, I think will be applauded by many mothers, midwives, and independent midwives. I hope that the independent midwives are able to use this facility and that the restrictions on their ability to obtain public liability will not prevent them, and I acknowledge that the present government has given some help to cover the nurses in the short term.
I notice also an increase in funding for the NT Child Care Subsidy amounting to $7.50 per week. Whilst this will be welcomed by those in the child care industry, I think government should put more work into looking at what can be done in assisting families who wish to raise their children at home but cannot because of financial hardship.
I also welcome the employment of 100 extra teachers, as I believe this is one of the main reasons for the industrial action this year. I hope that this will increase the number of relief teachers that will be available, and that was another matter that was mentioned to me, that there was certainly a shortage of relief teachers. The idea of School Attendance Officers is an excellent one. Many of us have seen school age children hanging around shopping centres during school hours and wondered how come. I hope the employment of School Attendance Officers will have an effect, and I hope the government will report on their effectiveness and report back to this Assembly.
The increase in police is also welcome, but as part of this program I would ask the government to look at opportunities to find ways that more police can do policing rather than be tied up in the areas of policing which may be better done by non-police personnel.
I am also pleased to see that in the rural area the government has put funds away for construction of a new police, fire and emergency station at Humpty Doo. I have long supported that we should have a police presence in the rural area. At the present time we rely on Palmerston, and if there are any accidents, especially on the Arnhem Highway or Cox Peninsula Road, those 10 or 20 minutes from Palmerston may be the difference between saving lives. People in the rural area will welcome this budget initiative.
I do note also that it was a bit of a surprise to me that the government is funding a horticultural package storing facility proposed in Darwin’s rural area. I support anything that will help foster a strong horticultural industry and this is one thing we should keep promoting, especially in times of economic crisis. No matter what happens, people still need to eat. I would be interested in where this facility will be sited. Will it be on private or government land? Considering the problems with the mango industry two years ago, this initiative is very welcome.
I have a couple of issues of concern. The government has stated it will fulfil its election promises and what could have been in the list in the budget was a list of the promises with the appropriate funding required in the budget statement so that we know what expenditure is going to be required to cover those election promises.
I was also concerned, and it is an issue that has been raised, that the government has been concerned about debt, so I ask the question: then why borrow $100m in the first year to cover election promises? Why not, for instance, spread that out to $25m over the next four years and explain to people that because of the debt that the Territory has, some of these election promises are going to have to be introduced over the four years. It seems strange that the community is told to tighten its belt, then have to pay more taxes, and then we take out a loan to pay for election promises. It just seems to be sending mixed messages out to the public and I am not sure that that is the right way to do it.
Another matter that concerns me is that recently the government announced it would set in the award for public servants that they would have six weeks leave. I certainly support public servants and I think that they do a pretty good job and I know many of them work long, hard hours. But the extra two weeks leave to me is now something that comes from the past. It was introduced in the Northern Territory to attract people to come to the Northern Territory, to allow those people to go home and see their family. If we are to be a mature Territory, then we have to stand on our own two feet and we basically take the leave that everyone else in Australia accepts today and that is four weeks.
My understanding is that if you phase that out over a period time so that new employees receive four weeks and those people who have the six weeks retain it until they retire, I do not think there would be a problem. The two weeks - if you work on an average of say, $850 per fortnight by 14 000 public servants - is equivalent to about $12m. That would be a saving that eventually would help the Territory’s economy.
The other matter I would like to raise is a matter that was debated here yesterday and that was the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. I find it a bit sad that somehow the mechanisms do not always work in parliament because when you are putting acts through on an urgency basis, sometimes amending those acts can be awfully difficult. Whilst not arguing whether we should have a $90 levy or not, I think there are amendments that would have helped the act be a lot more user friendly, especially in light of the statement that it was meant to minimise the effect on businesses. My problem was that it minimised on some businesses - for example, if you owned a 3.5 tonne truck and you carted welding equipment around, you are given an exemption but if you owned a one tonne ute and carried exactly the same amount around, you are not exempt. The government missed an opportunity either just to put a levy on everybody, or to make sure that if it was going to minimise effect on businesses, it did so across the board for businesses. It is something that I think could have been done better.
But all in all, I think the budget has some good things in it. I am yet to go through it properly. For a newcomer and an Independent, going through four big documents - I suppose the parties have the advantage of plenty of advisors and accountants to go through them – takes some time.
Mr Kiely: Seek a briefing, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Member for Sanderson, we are not discussing briefings any more tonight. Sorry, that was in committee.
Mr Kiely: I’ll get a victim complex.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have had many briefings already and I probably will try to get a briefing in the meantime, but - now you have put me off. So I will leave it there, Madam Speaker, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on several items tonight. First of all, I want to speak about Mr Ken Docherty who is retiring after a long and distinguished career. Mr Ken Docherty will be retiring from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday 30 November 2001 and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for over 30 years of valued service and commitment.
Ken started with the AW7, the old Commonwealth Department of Public Works Depot in Darwin in the highway sealing unit back in 1963. In a way we rarely see these days, Ken worked his way up through the public service to retire as Manager, Road Assets in the Road Development Division after a long and distinguished career. Ken’s career kicked off on the road gangs as a labourer but was immediately elevated to roller driver on the same day. Ken was quickly made a truck driver before taking a few years away from the Territory. As so many Territorians do, Ken quickly came back to the Territory in the 1970s and rejoined the Highway Construction Unit and was soon made Acting Foreman.
In fairly rapid succession, Ken was made Acting Works Supervisor, Alice Springs Racecourse subdivision, Works Supervisor Tennant Creek and, after a transfer to Darwin in 1979, Senior Technical Officer. During these years, Ken worked in various capacities. In 1983, Ken was seconded to Rum Jungle for stage 2 of the mine rehabilitation.
From 1985 to 1989 Ken took on various roles and projects of great value to the Territory before being appointed Roads Maintenance Manager, Darwin Region. In 1994, Ken was appointed as Maintenance Program Manager for the Northern Territory. During this period, Ken somehow found time to earn an Associate Diploma of Civil Engineering and to graduate from the Public Sector Management Course. Ken utilised his expertise in road sealing in a Northern Territory-Malaysia joint venture to introduce chip sealing in Malaysia from 1997 to 1999 before returning to conclude his career in the Northern Territory Public Sector in the Road Development Division in Darwin as Manager, Road Assets.
He had a long career in the public service and a distinguished one. It has been a productive and successful career that has added much to the Territory. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Docherty for all the work he has put in during his career. I wish Mr Docherty all the best for a happy and long retirement in the Northern Territory. I believe the department will have a farewell function for Ken and I intend to be there.
I have notice of another retiring member of the public service, Mr John Ivinson, who worked for the Commonwealth and then the Northern Territory government for the past 35 years. Joining the ranks of public servants in 1966, Mr Ivinson worked for the then Commonwealth Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife. Upon self-government, this department amalgamated with the NT Reserves Board to become the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. Mr Ivinson has worked in a number of areas in the parks and wildlife service and for the past 10 years he has worked at the Darwin Botanic Gardens. Playing a significant role in the development of many of Darwin’s public landscapes, he has worked on every major development project within the gardens since the Commission took over managing them in 1990.
These projects included developing the fountain area and the grounds around the relocated Wesleyan Church and establishing and building the much loved children’s playground. His work colleagues hold Mr Ivinson in very high esteem, ensuring his skills are utilised on all major projects so they reflect his passion for maintaining the gardens to a very high standard. Mr Ivinson’s hard work and dedication has contributed enormously to the gardens’ high presentation standard which has resulted in the constant positive visitor feedback that the gardens receive.
Mr Ivinson’s demonstrated pride in his work will be missed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission and especially the Darwin Botanic Gardens as he carried out his duties enthusiastically and was a valued member of the work team. The Parks and Wildlife Commission will hold a farewell function for John at the Darwin Botanic Gardens in early December and I also intend to be at that function.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that one of my constituents, Geetha Kannapiran, has recently been announced as a finalist in the national Youth Media Awards in 2001. There were 600 submissions, so to make this final is itself a tremendous achievement. Geetha’s entry will be professionally produced by the ABC and will be broadcast on ABC radio stations including JJJ, Radio National, Radio Australia, and local radio. Geetha will travel to Canberra in February 2002 to attend the Heywire Youth Issues Forum at the Australian Institute of Sport. The forum offers training in leadership skills and the opportunity to share ideas and experiences with other young people from around Australia. This is a terrific achievement on Geetha’s part and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of this parliament when I congratulate her, and wish her all the best in the Youth Media Awards and at the Heywire Youth Issues Forum.
Dripstone High School is in my electorate, and it is with great pride that I inform the Assembly that students from Dripstone High School have recently achieved some tremendous results in the areas of science and maths. Sixty-eight Dripstone High School students competed in the 2001 Australia Mathematics Competition, bringing home outstanding scores including one High Distinction, seven Distinctions and 37 Credits. Yvonne Chau, a Year 8 student at Dripstone High, did particularly well with a score of 88.5%, placing her in the top 2% for Year 8 students in the Northern Territory. Yvonne was awarded a High Distinction certificate along with a special achievement award for her efforts. I congratulate Yvonne, and I hope she will keep up the good work.
Dripstone High School students also did very well in the Australian National Chemical Analysis Competition this year. Robert Dunbar received a gold medal for his effort of coming within 1% of the true value of a given sample. This is a tremendous effort and a top result for the Territory. Three other students attending Dripstone High also did very well. Stephanie Bahler, Amanda Carrat and Abegail King also claimed silver medals for their titration skills. Congratulations to all of them. Medals were all presented to these talented young Territorians at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute prize evening at the NTU. Amanda Carrat, in addition to her silver medal, was Dripstone’s recipient of the Chemistry Prize for 2001. This award was presented by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute to encourage students to take up chemistry as a profession which the Territory is really going to need very soon with the gas industry arriving. Congratulations again, Amanda.
Seven students from Dripstone High School attended the Australian finals of the Tournament of the Minds in Hobart this year. The team consisted of Danielle Andrews, Alison Farquhar, Sophie McConnell, Cherryn Carroll, Fiona Bradley, Karen McEwen, and Elizabeth Duncan. The team entered the Secondary Language and Literature section where they proved themselves to be formidable opponents for other state teams, and these young Territorians did the Territory proud. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I extend my congratulations for these terrific students of Dripstone High.
I want to finish with a tremendous event that will take place in Casuarina All Sports Club in conjunction with the Disabled Sports Association of the NT who have organised an event that I am sure you will all agree deserves our support. To raise awareness of, and promote the Day of the Disabled on Sunday 2 December, players in wheelchairs - known as ‘wheelies’ - have challenged Darwin and District eight ball players to become wheelies themselves at the inaugural eight ball knockout competition, throwing down the gauntlet for the team event. I must congratulate the Casuarina Club for donating $150 to the Disabled Sports Association in support of the ‘Wheelies Challenge’ and I urge all members of this place to follow this lead and support this terrific initiative, as I am doing.
Finishing tonight, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas and a very happy and safe new year to yourself, Madam Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition and his family, to my colleagues on the other side of the House, Dr Lim, member for Greatorex, and all my parliamentary colleagues. I look forward to seeing you again in the new year, and until then, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
I also want to wish a very Merry Christmas and sincere thanks to my electorate officer, Ms Victoria Pollifrone; my temporary electorate officer, Ms Kaylene Caproniere, who unfortunately went back to Melbourne but she e-mailed me and said she was freezing to death and was looking forward to coming back to Darwin; my very good friend, Andrew Fyles; and certainly to my wife, Margaret, and my two children, Alexander and Michael.
Madam SPEAKER: I would also like to put on record, my thanks and best wishes to all members of the House who are here or else upstairs or somewhere. Particular thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who have guided us all through the first part of our new term. In particular, of course, to the Clerk, Ian McNeill, who gives his advice so freely and so well. To our Deputy Clerk who always helps us with any queries. To Gaddy behind the glass, who makes sure we say all the right words, and to Steve there. There are many people in this House, and I hope and I do not miss any. The support staff I know have helped many new members settling into their new role; to building management who have such a difficult task maintaining this building; the drivers, who do their job so cheerfully; the Hansard staff, who tend to make us sound very good, even if sometimes we are not; Security, of course, who keep an eye on us all the time; and our committee staff.
We are very lucky to have such a dedicated group of people working in the Legislative Assembly and I really thank them very much for everything they have done this year.
I also want to thank, Katie, my Personal Assistant, who is a great person to have up front when I am not around; and to Robyn, my Electorate Officer. I also want to thank my family who have helped me over the last 12 months, they have been great support to me - my husband Graeme; my granddaughters, Samantha, Leah, and now the new one, Casey and, of course, my daughter, Michelle, and my son, Peter. I have been very lucky to have such a strong, supportive family.
To everyone: safe Christmas. Do have a good holiday, a good break. I look forward to working with you all again next year.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to record developments in the Arafura electorate and the commitment and contribution of the many individuals who made them happen. They are the quiet achievers.
The first one that springs to my mind is Nuala Murphy, an energetic, determined woman, who worked tirelessly for my predecessors. She worked tirelessly for nearly 14 years for the Arafura electorate. Her affiliation with Tiwi people spans nearly 20 years. Nuala has many attributes: loyalty, patience and understanding are just a few. Many constituents of the Arafura electorate still ask about her. The gentle, calm voice on the telephone every morning, ringing to say hello, and listening, allayed many fears and assisted to getting through to many, to see through their doom and gloom. Fortunately, she has not moved on or out of the Territory, but to bigger and better things in government. I wish Nuala all the best for Christmas and I thank her for all her support and assistance, albeit brief, given to me prior to her leaving the office.
The women in the Arafura electorate: I admire and am constantly in awe at your endurance, your ability to smile and laugh, even though at times the environment surrounding you is a test for any one individual. My words have not articulated the true value and achievements of these truly strong women, be they our mothers, grandmothers and aunties.
Barry Puruntatameri. Many, both Tiwi and non-Tiwi, have had the privilege of knowing this strong and principled Tiwi man who has worked tirelessly for the Nguiu community. He has, over the past 15 years, been the President of the Nguiu Council. Unfortunately and sadly, he was not elected in the recent council elections which saddened him and many who know him. For many years, he campaigned and worked very hard to make changes for the better of the Tiwi people. He took on the fight that no one else wanted to take on. As it was, it was not the fashionable thing to do. He has, over the years, taken on the struggle of supporting the many women and non-drinkers on the island, to have the alcohol problems controlled and managed better. He had objected and led the charge to stop the liquor permits to no avail. He agonises over the increasing problems with cannabis and alcohol use amongst the young in the community. He has fought and taken on bureaucracy after bureaucracy, trying to get the resources to assist in the battle with this increasingly destructive drug problem. I am proud to say that he is my Tiwi father and a valuable mentor, and I wish him all the best for the future.
Tony Tapsell who is resigning as the Jabiru Town Clerk after nearly 10 years is another one of those quiet achievers we rarely hear about. With experienced leadership, Tony was able to bring together the various organisational groups in the Jabiru-Oenpelli region, providing a much more focussed strike rate in dealing with government departments. He was probably the first Town Clerk to fully accept responsibility for Manaburduma which is a Jabiru town camp. He consistently promoted and implemented local government reform, successfully overseeing the amalgamation of Jabiru and Gunbalunya Councils which has resulted in improved coordination of CDEP and other social functions. Tony will leave Jabiru much admired, highly respected and with integrity beyond reproach.
Liam Maher is another such person. As the Executive Officer of the Jabiluka Association, he has overseen the development of a very successful CDEP program which incorporates a night patrol and an outstation development program. Under his skilful guidance, all the outstations in the Jabiru region can now boast power and water facilities equal to World Health Organisation standards.
David Bond has been the Executive Officer of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation in Maningrida for a number of years. The organisation services nearly 30-odd outstations and a population of 700 to 800 people. He was one of a number of people instrumental in the development of the community’s own brick making program, and many structures have since been built at a fraction of the normal market price. Traditional owners are very concerned about the impact of commercial fishermen in the region and will be taking up this issue early in the new year.
Maurice Rioli has been a great supporter and mentor to me and is continuing to work tirelessly in his own community to participate in the areas of local government and health. With him is another quiet achiever, Marrulumpui or Francis Xavier Puruntatameri who has just been elected the president of the new Tiwi Island Local Government. For a young man, he is facing a demanding and challenging task which he will have no problems handling.
In terms of quiet achievers, I would like to highlight the special role that Aboriginal health workers play in the health system. They not only have their clinical workload but are in most cases the cultural brokers between the community and non-Aboriginal staff, as well as being expected to take on social and emotional roles. When things go wrong, they are more than likely to receive the brunt of the blame. The subsiding number of health workers through the lack of the support they receive is of great concern to me and an issue that I intend to pursue vigorously in cooperation with the Minister for Health in the new year.
The Maningrida Health Board is fully functioning again after holding an AGM and electing a number of new, energetic members to the board. The board is about to advertise for their Health Administrator and members are about to embark on a comprehensive training program. Together, they will meet the challenge of becoming a fully fledged community controlled health provider in the not too distant future.
The Letterstick Band led by Peter Daniger from Maningrida was successful in launching their CD in September this year. To the community of Maningrida, a community neglected too long by the former government, I will ensure that your needs and aspirations are taken on board and addressed seriously in government. Narbarlek band from Manmoyi Outstation at Gunbalunya successfully launched their second CD album at Parliament House last week.
As I mentioned the other night, Sebastian Pulakui was successful in winning an AFI award for best young actor. There are two other notable Aboriginal actors who should be mentioned: Nathan Daniels and Sean Mununguru. These teenagers from our remote Aboriginal communities are an inspiration and a superb role model for many of the young boys growing up on remote communities often surrounded by drug and alcohol abuse, extreme poverty, overcrowding and violence.
There are many people working silently in the background and rather than name them all, their contributions to services and programs in communities are recognised and appreciated and have not gone unnoticed. I will make it my business when I am travelling around to personally acknowledge these people face to face.
Finally, I must thank my husband, David, my children, my brother, Robert, my father, my seven sisters and my two brothers. Thank you for being there when I needed you all. Your belief, assistance - both emotional and financial - love and encouragement throughout the last three months has been unquestionable.
To the electorate of Arafura, I wish all my constituents a safe and healthy festive season, and I hope to see you in the coming weeks. I would like to join, just like every one of my colleagues, in thanking all the staff of the Legislative Assembly. As a new member coming into this parliament and being nave to a lot of the systems, they have been very helpful. I thank them for their guidance and support. I hope you all have a merry Christmas. Be safe, all my colleagues, but I am sure I am going to see you probably in the next couple of days. To the opposition, to Sue, Denis, thank you.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight firstly to acknowledge and thank Minna and Paul Sitzler for their outstanding contribution to our community. Mrs Minna Sitzler AM, Deputy of the Administrator, and Mr Paul Sitzler OAM have made a great contribution to the Northern Territory, and especially to the people of Alice Springs.
Paul came to Australia from Germany in 1951 to work in construction at the Morwell Power Station in Victoria, supposedly for two years. After only six months he moved to Adelaide and worked at felling trees and clearing land. After a short time in Adelaide, Paul was offered the chance to work once again at his trade as a carpenter and he moved to Alice Springs. His brother Peter joined him in Alice from Germany and they worked in partnership for several years before forming Sitzler Bros in 1957. Their first big contract in 1962 was to build offices, houses, a school and an eating house at Areyonga for $50 000. They went on to become one of the Territory’s most successful building companies.
The Sitzler Bros contribution to development is evident across the Territory, from Darwin to Alice Springs and to remote areas such as Yuendumu and Hermannsburg. Some of the buildings include the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in Alice Springs, the Baptist Church at Yuendumu, the Alice Springs Government Centre, the Araluen Centre, Ford Plaza, Rydges Plaza, Sadadeen High School, the Alice Springs Airport and the Power Station at Yulara. There are many, many more. Paul has been a valued member of Apex and Rotary in Alice Springs for over 40 years. Although he retired from his business some years ago, he has remained an active member of Rotary.
I have only touched on a few highlights in the life of, I am sure, a very remarkable man. Paul went on to marry a quite remarkable woman in 1959, Minna Albrecht. Minna was born in Alice Springs to Pastor Albrecht and Minna Albrecht and spent much of her childhood at the mission at Hermannsburg. Minna inherited her mother’s artistic talent and under her guidance developed her strong interest in arts and crafts. She moved to Adelaide and trained as a kindergarten teacher and returned to Alice Springs to teach in the town’s only pre-school.
Paul and Minna travelled to Germany in 1960 for 12 months and returned to Alice Springs to relief teaching while their three children attended primary school. Minna then turned her focus back to her love of arts and crafts, helping to establish the Alice Springs Crafts Council in 1972 and opening a private studio to teach others the art of weaving. A number of Minna’s own works are featured in exhibitions around the country, and some are now held in State collections.
On 17 February 1997, Minna was sworn in as Deputy of the Administrator. As Deputy of the Administrator, Minna has attended about 350 official engagements and through her warm style and genuine interest in community events, she has won the hearts of many Territorians. The role of Deputy is important as it serves to reinforce the values that Territorians share. It allows people from the smallest towns and communities to plan their special days and know that there is a good chance that someone special will come along to either cut the cake, make a presentation, open a building or just be there to offer words of support and encouragement. Minna has done all these things. She has done them from her heart and she has done them well.
Paul and Minna have both contributed selflessly to Alice Springs, to the Territory and to Australia. Both have been recognised for their individual achievements by the Order of Australia and both will be sadly missed when they leave the Territory at the end of the year. We hope you will both enjoy a long and happy retirement in Adelaide and trust that you will return to the Territory from time to time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as this is the last sittings before Christmas, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all honourable members and their families the very best for Christmas and the new year. May we all have a safe and happy time and let’s hope that there will be no road deaths over the holiday period. I also extend my best wishes to Madam Speaker and the staff of the Assembly led admirably by Mr Clerk, and in particular the attendants and hard working, long suffering Hansard staff who work so hard to record the deliberations of this Assembly, and record them in a way that we all feel is a great representation of what we said, even though they have to work tirelessly to achieve that.
This has been a tumultuous and momentous year for us all, with the achievement of the railway, Territory elections, subsequent changes of government to Labor in the Northern Territory, the first time since self-government and, most recently, the federal elections. For me personally, it has been both exciting, deeply disappointing but always challenging. Losing government is one thing, but for me it is sad that some of my colleagues are no longer members of this House. Such are the vagaries of politics some would say, and that is true, but each of these things has a human dimension, and not to see the faces of all of them is sad but in particular, members such as Peter Adamson and Phil Mitchell. They are two who entered politics with me and not to see them and not to wish them well, and wish them well as members of the Assembly for this joyous Christmas, is doubly sad.
Equally though, it is pleasing to see new faces, certainly on our side of the House, in the members for Goyder and Araluen, who I am sure will go on to make a marked impression in politics in the Northern Territory in the coming years.
To my hard working staff in my parliamentary office, Imelda, Sharon, Kylie, Jim, Gary and Jon, I say thank you for your support, not only for the period since the election, but before when we were in government. Unfortunately, for we on this side of the House, they are all that are left of a larger staff from the whole of the 5th floor who supported me and my government up until August. I thank them all for that support and loyalty to me and to my government, and I wish them all the very best for the festive season. Equally, the many public servants who served my government during the course of the year, I say thank you and Merry Christmas.
I would also like to mention, and say once again, thank you to my Electorate Officer, Heather Hodgson. She consistently supports me above and beyond my right to ask of her throughout the year, and I thank her once again this year for her efforts.
And, finally, along with my wife, Annette and sons, Sam and Tom, I wish all Territorians a Happy Christmas.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight as the last night of parliament for this year 2001, and would like to reflect on this year, also the Chinese Year of the Snake. Perhaps it is an omen, the snake, some finding it a year of quick movement and action and activity while others find it a year where things do go wrong, a year where a government that delivered the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, a federal promise that took almost 100 years to deliver, yet the party lost government. I congratulate the Labor Party for having won the election, and I have said that before, and it is something that they did, and they did well, right or wrong, and I hope that they will look after the Northern Territory well for the next three years or so of the term.
I was made a minister at around this time last year I said that my Christmas came early. Unfortunately, it did not last very long, but it gave me the opportunity to be a minister and gave me a taste of what it was like and what it meant to be a Minister of the Crown. It was also an honour that I was the first person of Chinese descent to become a Minister of the Crown around the nation and that is a distinction that will never be taken away from me. I think it did please the Chinese community of the Northern Territory, in particular the Chung Wah Society of which I am the Deputy Patron.
This election sees four of us from the class of 1994 being re-elected: the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Denis Burke; the member for Daly, Mr Tim Baldwin; the member for Braitling and the Speaker, Mrs Loraine Braham; and myself, are four of the six, the other two being Peter Adamson, the former member for Casuarina, and Mr Phil Mitchell, the former member for Millner. It was a big intake, similar to what you have done this time, members opposite, and you will find that camaraderie is something that you will carry for many years together. It is a good thing to have and to remember what it is like to come in together in the one year of the election and to support each other right through. Peter Adamson, Phil Mitchell and myself became very good friends and it is sad that they are not here any more. However, you never know what the future holds; we might see them back here again.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank, first of all, my Electorate Officer, Jackie Jessop, who started with me just before the election of 1997 and stayed with me for four years, working with me very faithfully, very loyally. Without her support, life would be very difficult. With the support of her husband, Mick Jessop, I really get the work of two for the price of one, and I could never ever repay their generosity.
My new Electorate Officer is Carol Lyons. Carol was a very young girl of about 10 when I first met her and her family in South Australia. After my family moved to Alice Springs, her family followed suit, and we tell a joke that they actually moved to Alice Springs to look for a good doctor. Anyway, the families have kept in contact for over 25 years, and Carol, now a grown woman with her own child, works for me as a loyal and very efficient Electorate Officer. And the third person who fills in for me as a temp when I need someone in the electorate office in the absence of either Jackie or Carol, was Christine Potts. She lived in Alice Springs for many years, still has family members living there, but now is living in Adelaide with her husband. She comes back to Alice Springs on a regular basis and sometimes comes into the office to help out voluntarily. It has been a great boon for the busy office that I run in Alice Springs.
Other people I would like to thank include Russell Ball, who was my Senior Ministerial Officer when I was the Minister for Local Government and Housing. Russell has worked for many years on the 5th floor, and worked for many ministers and past chief ministers. He is a very intelligent and efficient ministerial officer and I wish him well for his future. He has a young family and I hope that, if he has not already found a job, he finds one soon.
Fiona Christie was the other Ministerial Officer who assisted me in housing. Fiona is another young woman whom I have known for many years. Her family comes from Alice Springs, and her mother, in fact, runs the Rona Glynn Pre-School, which is in my electorate and where I recently opened a bike path for the pre-schoolers. Fiona is now pregnant and due to have her own child soon, and I wish her and her husband well for this Christmas and thank her for all the help that she has gave me during the time that we worked together.
Other members of my staff include Kelly Stephens, who was my press secretary - I think she is now working in Adelaide - and Chantelle Barker and Lucy Cahill who were two young women who worked in the front office in my ministerial office, and also Katie Tchia. Katie, who now works for the Speaker, spent a couple of months working for me before she decided to depart and go to Sydney to live. It is interesting to see that she is now back in the Northern Territory.
I would like to thank also Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Assembly and David Horton, the Deputy Clerk, and their staff for help they have provided me in all the duties I have performed in my many years in the Assembly. I have worked closely with both Ian and David in our respective roles in the committees, particularly the IMAC committee where we have great fun debating issues. Graham Gadd and Helen Allmich, we have become good friends over the last eight years. Rick Gray and Pat Hancock, all very senior staff in our Assembly who have worked assiduously for all of us without complaint. These officers have to literally satisfy every wish we have. Even the building management team under Derek Stafford keeps this place running like a well tuned clock and hardly anything goes amiss – perhaps except my room occasionally gets a little bit warm for somebody coming from the Centre of Australia where winters get pretty cold. The very high humidity in Darwin is sometimes is something to bear and the offices get a little bit warm some mornings.
Without my faithful supporters in the Greatorex-Macdonnell branch of the CLP, I wouldn’t be here today. There are 60 members in the Greatorex-Macdonnell branch who have been very supportive in doing many volunteer jobs for me including delivering newsletters across the electorate. Every three months they do it without any complaint. When I need newsletters folded, they come in and do that for me as well. They are a bunch of very faithful and loyal supporters, the most faithful of whom is Brian Marlow who has helped me without any reservation and I thank him and his wife, Fran, for their unstinting help.
The secretariat under Suzanne Cavanagh and Charlie Taylor. I have known Suzanne and Charlie since the early 1980s when I first became a CLP member and I became the Vice-President of the CLP at the same time Charlie Taylor did. Our careers in the CLP matched for a long time. Whilst Charlie would have served under two or three presidents of the CLP, similarly I served under three different presidents of the CLP. Suzanne and Charlie were the strength behind the CLP for many years and they have decided to retire from the front line of the CLP, taking a lesser profile but still providing help, assistance and advice whenever needed.
Finally, I would like to say Merry Christmas to my Labor colleagues, members on the opposite side of the room. It is never easy. When they first arrived in this Chamber a few short months ago, many of them were very full of goodwill. They have extended their hand of friendship, but soon find with the daily argie-bargie of political debate where barbs are thrown without fear, without any punches pulled, when emotions get hurt, people feel sleighted and insults are really thrown in and poorly received on both sides of the Chamber.
Things happen; things change and you tend to perceive your colleagues on the other side of the Chamber as enemies, as people from the dark side. And maybe it is because of our political differences and the political fight that we have to go through that we end up not feeling quite as good about each other as we would like. Had we not known each other inside this Chamber, things might be very different. In fact I think of all the Labor members that I have known so far, I relate with the member for Nhulunbuy probably better than anyone else because I spent a lot of time with him during my early days in this Chamber when he and I were both on the Select Committee on Euthanasia. We spent time travelling around the Territory together and we debated an issue which was very emotive and it got deeper than just the superficial argie-bargie of politics. It got to the very core or the soul of our feelings and thoughts, and we do have a relationship that is perhaps better than what I have with any other Labor member.
Thank you to Graham Symons, the CEO of Territory Housing, and Trish Angus and then Bob Beadman whom I spoke about last night and David Coles who are the two heads of Department of Local Government. I thank them and their officers in their respective departments for their help in making my work as the Minister for Local Government and Housing a lot easier. There were some hard decisions we had to make and the department has provided me with all the right sort of information with which I can make the right decision. I was glad to have those people with their professional help backing me all the way during my time as a minister.
Merry Christmas to all.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to be brief tonight. I guess I could almost go through a telephone book of people that I would like to thank, but I will not. I will try to keep it brief. First, thank you thank you to my Electorate Officer, Judy Herring, who has just joined me in the last month or so. Judy worked in the Legislative Assembly for many years and she has taken the post of being Electorate Officer for me out at Johnston. I think that I can be a difficult and sometimes demanding person but Judy soon became a mind reader and I certainly wish her and her family all the best over this Christmas season.
Like the member for Greatorex, there are people within my party branch that I would like to thank, particularly Charlie Phillips and his wife, Catherine. They were of great support to me during the campaign and a bit like Judy, they had to put up with someone who was often quite demanding, but they just took it in their stride and they were a great support to me. I am sure that they were a large part of the reason why I was elected. But on a personal level I would like to wish Charlie and Catherine and their family all the best for Christmas.
Another special person in the branch is Frank Moukaddem. Frank is a wonderful man. He has done many things in his life, and I certainly value his friendship and support. Nothing is ever too much trouble for Frank Moukaddem and for anything, no matter how small or how large, Frank will always be there with a helping hand. He is a wonderful man.
I thank the Speaker and the Legislative Assembly staff. As the member for Greatorex said, you come into this place, you are very new and just the support that I feel I have been given is fantastic. I know that particularly the Legislative Assembly staff were put under a lot of stress after the election because there were quite a lot of new members and they had to provide the framework and support for those members. Resources and people got pretty stretched during that time, but I feel that we are settling into a routine now and I am very grateful for their help.
I would like to wish my colleagues, my Labor colleagues on this side, a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. I took the message from the member for Greatorex to heart. You feel a very close bond to those that you have entered into parliament with and it is a fantastic thing to support one another. But I also feel a bond with the two members from the CLP, the member for Araluen and the member for Goyder. We exchange a smile and a wink sometimes and we are a new class of 2001 and going through a steep learning curve.
I agree with the member for Greatorex that we are on opposite sides of the fence and sometimes things are thrown from one side of the Chamber to the other, but I believe that even though we are on opposite sides, politically speaking, both sides are part of a wonderful fabric of politics in Australia where I do not think that there has ever been armed confrontation, or wars, or civil wars. I hope we never see that in this country. One common thing that we hold on both sides of politics is our love for this wonderful country and for the people who comprise it. I think, even though we do have differences at the very base, we have a very strong commitment to the wellbeing of the Australian and the Territory people.
It is coming into Christmas and we think about family. A year ago my aunty, Moira Stam, passed away. She was a wonderful person, and our family felt her loss very keenly. We will be thinking about her this Christmas.
Finally, to Liz, my wife, and my family: they have been a great support to me. They have not seen much of me in the last couple of days, but that is what happens in politics. I know there are members who travel from all over the Territory to come here, and it must be very hard on families. I am very thankful for the support of my family and very proud of all of them, and I send them a special Christmas cheer tonight.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a group of people a merry festive season and a happy new year.
The first group of people include members of the Millner Labor Party branch. They include Daryl and Cathy Spurr, Peter and Julia O’Hagan, Phil Powling and Rowena Livers. This group of people was instrumental in my pre-selection for the Australian Labor Party and the seat of Millner. In a very short time, I became very close to their families and they definitely welcomed me into their families, and my large family, of course, welcomed them. They worked tirelessly over the election campaign for me, and I genuinely say Merry Christmas and a happy new year to them.
I also extend good wishes to the Mu family of the Happy Foodland Supermarket. This family have come to the Territory under trying circumstances from East Timor. They have worked hard over many years to make a successful small business work for themselves and, more importantly, I believe, for the wider community in the Millner area. The Mu family have a genuine community spirit, and over a number of years my family members have built a relationship based on respect and friendship.
Next, I would like to wish a merry festive season to the Zammit family: Uncle Kevin and Aunty Steffine, Aaron and Damien Zammit and Damien’s partner, Charlene Musk. This family is a credit to themselves and all Territorians. Their family values are based on honesty, hard work, fairness, respect, and love towards all people. Thank you for all your support and help.
To Michael Athanasiou and his wife Aggie Athanasiou - over the last few years we have built a very strong friendship and respect for each other. As a couple and a family, I honestly state that I am hoping to model my future family on your family’s qualities.
To Frank ‘Doodles’ Ahmat and Aunty Sue Ahmat and family, thank you for your support and advice over the last few years. Though I often argue and joke with you, Doodles, I have often taken on board your advice and used it to my advantage. Though we may not agree on everything, I do respect your football opinion. Congratulations on your first grandson, Isaih Ahmat.
Michael Devery, Paul Seden, Reggie Saylor, Michael Edwards, Tim Edwards, Patrick Edwards, Joe Ahsam, Glen Dooling, Stewie O’Connell, Rockey Cousins, David Parfit, James Parfit, Kenny Sutton, Damien, Shaun and Aaron Kneebone. All of those people I call my brother. They have supported me and advised me over many years. I often look around and thank my lucky stars that I have friends like you at my side. For as long as I live, I will never walk alone in any fight or contest.
Finally, I would like to thank my family. There is no doubt in my mind that my family played a huge role in my election and my character as a human being. Through their efforts over a significant period of time in the Territory - in fact, for many, many generations but, in particular, over the last 100 years in Darwin, and over the wider community - they have played an integral part in the history of the Northern Territory. I would like to recognise and wish them, my family, a merry festive season.
I would like to thank my grandmother Daisy Ruddock, my mother Roseanne and her husband Steve Brennan, Nicole and Chris Lewis, Luke Bonson and Cowan Bonson, Aunty Esther Caroline, Aunty Josie Guy and David Guy, Yasmin Crawshaw, Bianca Crawshaw, Travis Caroline, Chelsea Kerwick, all cousins. Also Robert Bonson, Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson, Greg and Linda Bonson, Dookie Bonson and Kathy Lyness, Annie Bonson, Uncle Joe, Aunty Pat Bonson, sons Joe, wife Pacita Bonson, son Rodney Bonson and wife April Bonson, Uncle John Bonson, Jason Bonson, John Bonson Jr, Uncle Kenny Bonson, Jacob Bonson and wife Shelly Bonson, Kane Bonson and Kirstin Bonson, Aunty Patsy Davies, Dennis Caroline, Yvette Caroline, Aunty Betsy, Uncle Ian McLeod, Tania and Cecil Lewis, Annemarie McLeod …
Dr Burns: I hope they’re all giving you Christmas presents, Matt!
Mr BONSON: I have to go through the whole family.
Cyril Oliver, Donald and Kiris, my godchildren, Sheree McLeod, Aunty Dorrie and Uncle Alan Oates, Kylie and Samara Oates, Aunty Lynette Bonson, Trisha Stokes, Nathan Stokes, Sonia Stokes and partner John May, Donna Stokes and partner Mark Baker, Aunty Lila, Christian, Gemma and Harley.
To all of those other relations that I have missed that go further than one or two generations I would like to wish a Merry Christmas and a happy new year and, if I did not mention you tonight, I will attempt to do that over the next …
Dr Burns: The next four years.
Mr BONSON: Yes, the next four years. I would like to wish everyone in this House a happy and Merry Christmas.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to say a few words with regard to Christmas. As you may have noticed, I have been knocked flat by a cold over the last couple of days, so I will not inflict myself upon you much longer.
I would like to start by commenting on what an interesting year it has been for all of us. Certainly, the events of 18 August were disappointing but they absolutely pale to insignificance compared to 11 September. I think it has really given us a perspective as to what really matters in life. For me, now being in opposition, I am finding it a very interesting experience. It is certainly not a ghastly experience in any way, shape or form. Having been elected as the Whip for my side here, it has been a real learning experience for me. I now understand a lot more than I did 12 months ago as far as parliamentary procedure goes. Hopefully, in another 12 to 18 months, I will know a whole lot more. So, for any member, if you are ever contemplating learning a few things about parliament, I would recommend going into the Whip’s position as it is a bit of a baptism of fire. I am sure that the member for Barkly would agree with that.
In starting my thanks in no order of priority, I would like to thank the officers of the 5th floor, the ministerial officers, both before, when we were in government, and now with Labor in government. I have always found parliamentary officers and ministerial officers to really go out of their way to help MLAs out in the electorates and I would really like to thank the people who have been in those positions for that help over the last 18 months since I have been a member of parliament. Equally, I would like to thank the Darwin City Council. Many of the complaints and issues that come to a member of parliament are issues that relate to council and I have found the staff and the aldermen at the Darwin City Council have really made an effort to help us out there in suburbia deal with our problems.
The Country Liberal Party, of course, is going through some difficult times. Today, with the final announcement that Dave Tollner has won the seat of Solomon - I congratulate Dave for that win and Nigel Scullion of course - can put to bed some of the issues that the party has faced over the last couple of years. I know with Len Notaris and John Amery at the helm of the party, we are going to move towards a rebirth and it is going to be something that all of us are going to be very proud of. We are going to be here for the Northern Territory and for the people of the Territory in the years to come. I remain a very proud member of the CLP and will work with the party to the best of my ability through the years to better the Territory.
Going to thanks, I would like to thank Elliot McAdam, the Government Whip, for the way that he has worked with me since both of us have come into this position. I believe that we work in a very complementary fashion, that we work constructively. If you don’t know, Elliot rings me usually late during the sittings, late in the evening after we have all closed down to let me know what the government is planning for the next day, then we confer again in the morning before the session starts. It is really necessary for us to be able to liaise like this so that the day can proceed relatively smoothly with people knowing what’s going on, and I thank Elliot for that.
I would like to thank, as many of you have, the staff of the Legislative Assembly. Needless to say, all of us have found them very supportive and very useful in the help and the guidance that they give us. Without them we would be totally lost. I thank all of them: the security guards, the library staff, Hansard of course, we all treasure for fixing up our mistakes in such a subtle way and make us look good and professional in the way we do our jobs.
I would like to thank my branch, the Darwin Branch of the Country Liberal Party. They have been very supportive over the years and we, too, as a branch have had some difficulties in the last 18 months but with Terri Robson leading the team as our Chair, we are coming through them very well and I know we will go from strength to strength now.
I would like to wish all the members of parliament here, both government and of course opposition members, all the very best for Christmas and the new year. As I said in my speech after the election, I believe we have much more in common than we have differences with each other. We share many things and many thoughts, and this becomes apparent when one of us suffers some sort of a downfall. I know all of us felt for Maggie Hickey with her tragic loss recently, Maurice Rioli with his problems with his health and for Peter Adamson, and that feeling was genuine across the House. It is the human side of politics that breaks down some of the barriers which do build up through the heat and the aggression of a parliamentary year. So, I do wish you all the very best for Christmas.
I would like to, in particular, wish my electorate the best for Christmas the new year. I went out door knocking and I gave them a newsletter and they gave me a cold. So, I would like to thank them for that, whoever did it. It was a great day out there on Saturday. It was boiling hot and it was one of the most sweaty days I think I have ever had in my life. But the people I met on the day who I am growing to know personally offer me such support and kindness and warmth and humour that it really makes door knocking a delight. As all of us go door knocking for the same purpose, which is to get out there, to know our people and to find out what the issues are. I do wish all the people in my electorate a great Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
Coming towards a conclusion now, just some special thanks. I would like to thank Helen Bateman, my Electorate Officer, for the fabulous job that she has done during the last 12 months. Helen came to me 18 months ago. She had no experience in the area of being an Electorate Officer but she had run successfully the Torch Relay program for Darwin City Council. For any of you who became involved and saw any of the Torch Relay activity here in Darwin - and here we have a torch bearer in Dr Burns …
Dr Burns: Fantastic.
Dr Lim: So was I!
Ms CARTER: In Darwin?
Dr Lim: No, in Alice Springs. First Chinese in Australia. I was on the first day.
Ms CARTER: Excellent. Well, Dr Lim was a torch bearer, too. He is getting all excited about it.
Helen Bateman was the organiser behind the Torch Relay here in Darwin. I didn’t know Helen at that stage but I think any of us who went to see the event would appreciate what a fabulous job, the organisation that went behind that. I have reaped the benefits of that. Helen has extensive networks within Darwin City Council, and you can imagine the positive aspects that can bring to an electorate office to have someone with those contacts.
Helen has the most wonderful personality. She is a joyous person to spend time with, even though she personally has had some hardships recently and I know it has been a very difficult time for her and her family. I do send her my love and my very best wishes - I get teary at the drop of a hat - but I do wish Helen all the best for the year.
Lurking up there somewhere is my husband, John Haines, and I do wish John a great Christmas. I am going to share it with him, of course. We are going to head south, drive down the track, head to country Victoria to spend time with my parents-in-law and my extended family there, and I am sure we are going to enjoy our time in country Victoria for a few weeks.
Just in conclusion, I wish everyone a safe time. This is a difficult time here in the Top End. Needless to say, as a member of parliament I am particularly concerned about the advent of cyclones. I hope sincerely that we don’t see one. It is a worrying time, we have had a couple of very nasty storms here in Darwin over the last couple of weeks which have really raised in people’s minds the problems that we could be facing shortly. So, I hope that doesn’t happen. Also, of course, I have family and friends in Katherine and it is a worrying time now with regard to flooding. So, my fingers are crossed for all of us that we come through this difficult climatic time of the year unscathed.
So, to all of you, all the very best for Christmas, and I do look forward to seeing all of us back here safe and sound in February.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, being the last sittings prior to Christmas, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a number of people in the electorate of Barkly and to pass on festive wishes to a whole lot of people within that electorate.
To commence, I would like to pay tribute to Jimmy Morrison. Jimmy Morrison is a young Aboriginal lad who lives at Borroloola. Recently Jimmy was awarded runner up for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year. Whilst a lot of people may not consider this to be an event, it is important to understand that Jimmy has achieved this award by a lot of hard work and dedication and with working with the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola. So, to Jimmy and his newly born son, Cabe, and to his wife, I congratulate you on your new young one, and also to the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borroloola who obviously have put in a lot of time. Congratulations to everyone associated there.
Another person I pay tribute to tonight is Nigel Rush. Nigel has been mentioned in this House previously. Nigel plays a very important role in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, particularly in relation to young people. Recently, Nigel won the Metaland Local Legend award which is sponsored by a local hardware retailing outfit in Tennant Creek known as BJ Trading. Nigel, as I mentioned previously, puts in many hours and is very well respected because of all the hard work that he does. Other people were nominated for their achievements, and they were Doc Finch, Ken Sanson, Cathy Stevenson, Phil and Shirl Evans, Dave Mills, Tony Civitarese and Matthew Hicks.
Another achievement of note occurred not too long ago when Jetski Niemeyer and Adam Rush were the southern Territory winners of the ABC’s Heywire competition. People will be aware that the ABC gives regional youth a voice, and this competition was open to people between the ages of 16 to 22. It required them to submit three minute radio documentaries about what life is like in regional, rural and remote Australia. Jetski described her feelings about Tennant Creek thus:
- I would have to say that growing up in Tennant Creek has not been as bad as many people would have thought.
Sure, a lot of children around Tennant Creek complain that there is nothing for them to do. If they are imaginative,
like me and my friends when we were little, they wouldn’t say that.
The important thing to note here is that Jetski is studying year 12 at Tennant Creek High School, but she is also a mother and her effort in deciding to go back to school and pursue her educational goals is a wonderful tribute to her.
Another young gentlemen who also entered into that competition was a young chap by the name of Adam, and Adam wrote his story about the Tennant Creek High School’s recent trip to Vanuatu. I would like to quote parts of what Adam had to say in respect to his documentary:
- So how much does a cost trip from Tennant Creek to Vanuatu? Well, let me tell you. It cost three cake stalls,
two movie nights, three discos, one thousand sandwiches to feed the Army when they were on special
manoeuvres in town, numerous bacon and egg sandwiches commencing at 5 o’clock in the morning for the
town’s grand prix, and hundreds of raffle tickets, barbecues, car washes - you name it, we washed it.
Another event hosted in the Barkly recently was the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, a volunteer based organisation that promotes the effective care and protection of children as the best means of creating a healthy society. Tex Sculthorp, an Aboriginal artist and storyteller from Goodooga in New South Wales, and his partner Anne Morril, recently facilitated a community workshop at Epenarra, a small indigenous community to the southwest of Tennant Creek. Tex and Anne used their initial series of six story posters that promote respect and learning within families, communities and environment, to introduce workshops aimed at remote settings. The schools and parents then chose the link between the school and the community life as a theme for their paintings. The people of Epenarra were very impressed and happy with this initiative and obviously would like the people to come back, and were also looking at extending this program out into the other communities.
A joint venture digital training program between Tennant Creek High and Papulu Appari-Kari Language Centre was also a great success. Warren Bretag from Independent Video Productions conducted a one week intensive training session with a number of senior students from the high school and several workers from the media unit attached to the language centre. The course involved animation, multimedia production techniques and was conducted at the language centre. Funding was provided by DETYA. Congratulations to Peter Henwood, Warren Bretag, Karan Hayward, Carlos Beasley, Andrea Moreton, Ray Kelly, Pebbles George and Amena Bryden for their contributions to this very successful outcome.
The Tennant Creek 73 Regional Army Cadets Unit recently took possession of two high frequency portable radios. These radios were generously supplied by Q-Mac Electronics in Perth as a result of that company learning that the Tennant Creek 73 Regional Army Cadets had no access to communications as part of their training and when they went on excursions into the bush. I also pay tribute to two gentlemen who worked very hard in supporting the above Regional Army Cadets program and I refer to Derek McPadden and Chris Rothery.
One other event which occurred recently was when a number of young Tennant Creek children went down to Alice Springs to compete in the Under 17 National Rugby League Championships. These young people were known as the Tennant Creek Tigers. They really had never played rugby before and obviously it was a very big exercise on their part and a great experience for them. Two people in particular who assisted and supported were Gerry McCarthy and Tony Civitarese. They donated time and dollars to assist in food and management of the team. The team was also sponsored by local businesses, T and J Contractors, Nigel Rush, of course, from TC Raiders also had an important role to play as did Aninyingiyi Congress Sports and Recreation Program and Julalikari Jobplace along with Barkly Employment and Training. Whilst these young children may have lost, I think that if you were to ask the kids themselves, they would tell you that they were winners.
Recently a crowd of over 500 people turned up to the Tennant Creek Rodeo. Previously there were rodeos in Tennant Creek and obviously the event that occurred this year was an attempt by some very hard working, dedicated people in getting this event back on the agenda. The major event, the bull ride, was won by Glen McKinney, who scored an impressive 126 points. The rodeo attracted participants from all over the Barkly, particularly from the indigenous communities, and of course, some of the cattle stations. I would also like to thank Rockhampton Downs Station and Singleton Station for providing the cattle.
Some of our young children in Tennant Creek travelled to Alice Springs to competed in the Alice Tennant Challenge Shield. I pay particular tribute to those young children who performed particularly well, Chris and Anthony Wall, Mathew and Nicole Blankenspoor, and Lizzie Phillips.
In conclusion, I pay tribute and extend my very sincere thanks to the parliamentary staff who made me so very welcome in this place on my arrival. I agree with some of the other speakers, that it was almost bordering on strange upon arrival, but the fact that they performed a very professional and caring role made it so much easier for me, and I want to pay tribute to Ian McNeill, to Gaddy and also to Steven Stokes. They perform a wonderful job under immense pressure. Also to the Hansard staff who obviously work very, very long hours. I thank them for their dedication.
To Stephen McVay in Tennant Creek, I thank him for all the hard work he has put in over the last four to five months. And also to the ALP Branch in Tennant Creek. I mean, you don’t get places unless you are supported by a wonderful group of people, and they are just that. To my colleagues on this side of the House, I thank you very much for your kind support and I am absolutely certain that over time, we will mature and provide a real degree of strength and determination in pursuing many of the goals and objectives as set down by the Labor Party. I would also like to pay tribute to the people on the other side.
I pay tribute to my partner, Barbara, who just drove up to Darwin last night. I thank her for all her support over the years, and particularly over the last six months or so. They have been very difficult, and I thank you so much.
To all the people in the Barkly, I thank you whether you voted for me or not. I hope that you will have a very safe, a very pleasant and a very enjoyable Christmas. Drive safely. Merry Christmas.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016