2001-11-28
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 2 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to proposed laws passed by the Legislative Assembly during the October 2001 sittings.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 240 petitioners not conforming with standing orders, relating to affordable and regular exercise for citizens of the northern suburbs.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like the petition to be read?
Mrs AAGAARD: No, Madam Speaker.
CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100(a), I inform honourable members the response to petition No 3 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this government promised the community it would tackle the hard issues of community safety. We have committed to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is now well established that one of the factors underlying criminal behaviour, especially property and opportunity crime, is misuse of illicit drugs, particularly stemming from opioid dependency.
Our three-point plan to get tough on drugs comprises the following priorities: a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes; and a properly resourced drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns directed at our schools. It is to the issues of treatment, rehabilitation and prevention that this report turns.
Everyone here knows that illicit drug use is a complex and emotive issue, and that there are no simple solutions. There are many competing views about what should be done. There are some who would prefer the ostrich approach of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping that illicit drug use will take itself down south, possibly on a bus. There are others who would want all drugs decriminalised and user access facilitated to close the entry of those criminal profiteers who deal in human misery. Sadly, it is simply not the case that we do not have an illicit drug use problem in the Northern Territory. While the clandestine use of illicit drugs makes determining actual consumption levels difficult, information that is routinely collected such as morbidity figures, police reports and records of treatment agencies suggest that illicit drug use is occurring in the Northern Territory and is impacting on individuals and the broader community.
Estimates of the number of people who regularly inject drugs in the Territory have varied between 1000 and 4000. The majority of these users are in urban centres, predominantly Darwin. From the public health perspective, illicit drug use poses risk to the individuals through overdose, disease and injuries and costs the broader community through drug-related crime, increased risks of transmission of HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne viruses, and social dislocation. Initiation and trial of illicit drugs is occurring at a younger age, magnifying the risk of overdose and isolation from the community.
I do not pretend to have the answers, but I am prepared to seek the best advice and to consult widely to make sure that what we do put in place is the best that could possibly happen. To this end, I am establishing a task force on illicit drugs to consult broadly with the community, front line workers and experts, and to provide me with evidence-based advice on strategies, issues and proposed directions. I have asked that it canvass withdrawal, treatment, rehabilitation, education and prevention strategies relevant to the Northern Territory context. The scope of the task force will cover illicit drugs as defined by the National Drug Strategic Framework. This includes heroin, amphetamines, prescription drugs used in an illicit manner, hallucinogens, cocaine and designer drugs such as ecstasy. It will not cover such substance abuse issues as cannabis use, petrol sniffing, kava, alcohol and tobacco use, which remain of deep concern to this government and will continue to be a focus of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, which begins its first meeting today.
The task force membership will be drawn from a variety of sectors of the Northern Territory community outside of government, and cover areas such as users, ex-users, families, youth, law enforcement, research, indigenous and the treatment world. Given the sensitivity of this critical issue and the need to pay close heed to community concerns, I am very pleased to be able to announce that Dr Valerie Asche has accepted the role as chairperson for this task force.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD: Dr Asche is a very well-known Territorian who has made significant contributions nationally and internationally in her professional field of research microbiology.
To ensure all Territorians have an opportunity to have their say, the task force will conduct community consultation forums in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. In addition, the task force will establish an interactive web site and call for written and oral submissions. The task force will carry out a thorough investigation of the trends in illicit drug use across the Northern Territory and the local links between illicit drug use and crime.
I have asked that the task force take a particular focus on young people and on drug-using parents of children up to 12 years old, the availability of treatment services for these groups, and how gaps can be best filled. The support needs of the families of the person who uses drugs is also a special concern to me, and it will be priority for the task force.
To summarise, the task force will bring together evidence from national and international research with the information obtained through the consultations to make recommendations to me about what will work best in the Territory. This will include the high profile issue of the role and practical application of pharmacotherapies such as buprenorphine and methadone maintenance as an aspect of harm minimisation and in the context of a strategic approach to drug use in the Northern Territory. A final report will be completed and submitted to me by the task force by 31 May next year. The recommendations of the task force will form the implementation of this government’s three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, at last we have a health minister who has started to realise that there are some bigger problems out there than what we have seen in some of her dorothy dix questions and her statements. It is really important that this issue be addressed and I applaud the fact that the government has seen it as a priority area. I applaud the fact that Valerie Asche has been appointed as the chairperson.
It is a pity that cannabis has not been included in this. It is a pity that the current minister does not see fit to travel to remote Aboriginal communities where there are significant illicit drug problems, including cannabis, where I would expect that they would hear this. It could well be that cannabis is not included because the current Chief Minister sees it as nothing more than akin to having a glass of red wine, notwithstanding its illicit status. Maybe the Chief Minister persuaded the minister that cannabis really is such a friendly drug that it should not be included there.
The current Chief Minister is also on the Parliamentary Record as saying there is no drug problem. It is good that the current Chief Minister is in the Parliamentary Record as saying there is no drug problem and it is good to see that this health minister disagrees with her Chief Minister on that important subject.
I look forward to other issues of importance coming to this House to be debated in the health portfolio. Certainly, I see as drugs an early one. The 100 vacancies among our nursing positions I would like to see come forward to this House.
World AIDS Day is on Saturday and I notice that the minister is a keynote speaker. She would be aware of the problems to our near north, with the potential for this disease to affect Territorians and I would hope that she has had briefings on this important issue. I would like to see these issues brought to this parliament so they can be aired in a public way. It is no good to say you are setting up a variety of consultative devices when you do not have the fortitude to bring these issues into this House for all of us to look at, for all of us to debate, and for all of us to interrogate what Labor purports to be answers.
The three-point plan, I think, we will see on foot rather than in rhetoric and I look forward to debate on those issues.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale.
Illicit drugs are a very significant problem in the Northern Territory. When I was doorknocking it was one of the issues that was clearly widespread in the community. There were several areas, both in my electorate and electorates of other people, where it was necessary for us to contact the police regarding drugs in the community. It is an absolutely shameful situation that there are no maintenance programs in the Northern Territory and we will be looking to make sure that there are adequate programs in place and that people will not be required to get a bus to a southern town to get treatment for their drug problems.
I thank the member for Drysdale for recognising that Dr Asche is a very good chairperson and she will certainly bring a high quality and high calibre note to this task force. This will be a very significant task force which will deal with a very important issue and be a very important part of our three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, members would be aware that the government recently commenced action to acquire land in Middle Arm west of the Stuart Highway, for the purposes of service corridors and water supply facilities for the proposed gas development. The proposed acquisition involved freehold land and any native title on Crown land. The freehold land comprised two properties and part of a third on Middle Arm Road which provided the only significant elevated site for construction of water supply tanks, to provide a water supply to the proposed gas industry precinct in Middle Arm, in the first instance, and the new town of Weddell as it develops.
The land acquisition process is formally commenced under the requirements of the Land Acquisition Act by the service of the notice of the proposed acquisition on the affected property owners, and notification in the NT News. Prior to this, an inspection of the affected land is carried out to assess whether it is just land or if other property is affected, such as buildings. Unfortunately, in the specific case of the action involving the proposed water tanks site, this preliminary work was not carried out. I have directed the department to rigorously employ identification and consultation procedures in the future to avoid a repeat incident. I must point out that this land has been identified for this type of future use for a decade. However, the former planning documents have not shown it and, over the years, determination on subdivisions have been made under the Planning Act without taking the future requirement into account.
I have directed the department, as a matter of urgency, to identify land that is required for future public infrastructure within the planning scheme. This will place on public record information that is vital for persons to better appreciate the impact future development may have directly, or indirectly, on the land they have an interest in. The department is also putting into place a proper notification on the land information system to advise property owners and purchasers of future government land of infrastructure needs such as water supply for roads. In the case in point, I have directed an engineering review of the alternative design and siting options for the tank.
Another good site on Crown land near the intersection of the Stuart Highway and Cox Peninsula Road has been identified for the water tanks required to service the proposed gas development on Middle Arm. The three property owners have been advised that the formal acquisition action has been abandoned, that alternative sites are being sought, and sincere apologies offered for the distress caused. The owners of two of the properties have been advised that the government would be interested in retaining first option to purchase should they wish to sell in the future. One owner has indicated he may be willing to sell a small part of one block.
I have put into place new procedures now. I have also asked for the identification process to be improved. I expect that this will result in better administrative procedures and actions in the future. In addition, the government amalgamation of agencies will ensure that all agencies involved in planning and infrastructure will be alongside each other. This should create a far better system for all Territorians.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the lands minister might apologise to those people who were going to be affected, their livelihoods ripped out from under them, their houses taken away, because of the incompetence of this minister. What you have to realise is that every one of those lands files which get across your desk could have one of these issues in it, and you have to read them. You obviously did not read the proposed notice of acquisition that, like you said, under the Acquisition Act, you have to sign off on. Obviously, you did not know what you were signing. Someone put it in front of you, one of your staffers - and you better review your staffing situation obviously - put it in front of you and said, ‘Minister, sign here’. The poor people who own those houses open the weekend paper and here was an acquisition notice for their properties without any forewarning.
You had not been to see them and you come up with all of these excuses, and that is a breakdown in communication. There was a whole raft of excuses, until today you finally apologise to those people.
Minister, your incompetence is to blame for this. There is no hiding behind this; the buck stops with you. You are to blame for the incompetence that led to the near acquisition of this land. Obviously, there was always Crown land available and that is what you have to be looking for. You have to be proactive in making these decisions. You have to look at what is presented to you and say, ‘Is this the right decision to make?’ You might remember …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure you have a copy somewhere …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, I cannot hear the reply.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure you have a copy of the check list I sent you before. There is the minister’s check list before making a decision: one, read the file - and there were a number of things - understand what the file says, check the facts, and if you are in doubt about any of the facts, go and get further advice. That is the lesson you have to learn. It is your incompetence that brought these people to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: You should look at the way things operate. An incompetent, not fit to govern.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly, especially for his checklist. One thing I have to point out, that this government recognised immediately the shortcomings and moved to correct it. I have to point out that the action of the member for Daly, an ex-minister for planning, he signed an official document for land use objectives for Litchfield and in that document the railway suddenly stops outside Palmerston. They notified, and they put in the Town Planning Scheme, all the arterial roads and all the roads in Palmerston but they forgot about the railway. All that was intentional, so people did not find out what is in their backyards.
I put procedures in place in order for people to know what is happening in their backyards. Let me remind the member for Daly, he was the planning minister when he approved subdivisions of blocks that were on a future use corridor for the gas industry - or you did not want a gas industry.
Dr TOYNE (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to report on the government’s new transparent property lease procurement processes.
Last week, the Chief Minister called for expressions of interest to provide public sector office space. Leases for 9000 m2 of public sector office space is set to expire late in 2003. New leasing arrangements will be considered. The government will be looking to new office space to fulfil some of its needs and open up opportunities for better design, improved construction standards, and greater savings through the construction of energy efficient buildings. The new, open tender process announced last week provides Territory administration and procurement processes in line with best practice, to ensure Territorians receive the best deal. Transparent tendering processes provide assurance to developers and property owners, enabling them to compete openly and on a level playing field.
The positive response to the Chief Minister’s announcement from the construction sector shows that reform was long overdue. The announcement will help developers with final investment decisions they must make right now on new building developments that are under consideration. With a number of new developments on the verge of being committed to, this is good news for the Territory with new construction projects able to provide jobs and bring money into the Territory economy.
Mr REED (Katherine): What’s new, Madam Speaker? In terms of this process, it has been applied before. The most recent example was the central Darwin Police Station. It was advertised publicly for expressions of interest, and it went through a very long and complex and investigative process in terms of the proponents who first responded to the advertisements for expressions of interest in such a building. There was a refinement process that followed that, which saw a particular proponent selected.
This is nothing new, nothing to be proud of, it is something that has been done. The government is now simply applying a process that was formerly applied by the CLP government. It is another example of a government with no ability to come up with any innovation or any initiatives of their own. Nothing new in this. It is copying what the former CLP government has done, just as you copied QuickStart. No innovation in your mini-budget that was introduced yesterday - just as you are trapezing around the Northern Territory taking credit for what is happening on the railway, a CLP project, just as the Chief Minister goes down to the wharf and takes credit for what is happening at the wharf, a CLP contract that was let.
When are you going to start doing something? When are you going to start making some decisions? What is going to happen when all of the CLP initiatives stop? The whole Territory is going to stop!
You have got to be innovative. You have to be starting to make some decisions of your own. This wonderful announcement by the minister is just another example of the maudlin position that this government is in. It is a disgrace! You do not have any ability to come up with any innovations of your own and, you are, quite rightly of course, recognising in adopting the former CLP government’s policies, that they were appropriate, that they worked and, more importantly, that they are worth keeping on with.
Dr TOYNE (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I would love to have a hide as thick as the member for Katherine. The man has no shame! Where were the cranes on the skyline for the last year of your government? The reason they were not there is that you were locked into these deals with your silver circle mates that had locked away all of the property market. We are not going to go that way. We are innovative, we are basically saying, ‘Let’s give everyone a go at it. Let’s get some new construction. Let’s give business a level playing field where they know what the deal is, where the goalposts are and where they are going to be able to plan their business operations and developments’.
That is what we are doing. That is what you failed to do for the last many years, and that is why this place slowed to a walk.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let’s just settle down before we go on.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a report on the table grape industry in the Northern Territory, a great success story. There has been continued growth in the industry with an estimated area planted of approximately 370 ha in season 2000. Currently, there are seven property owners producing table grapes in the Ti Tree area, which includes the Pine Hill area. Five properties are located in the Ti Tree Farm’s area, with Ti Tree Farm the largest. There are also two properties located on Pine Hill Station. Territory Grapes is the largest development with approximately 220 ha planted. Territory Grapes is one of six properties spread between the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales owned by the Table Grape Growers of Australia. This spread allows the Table Grape Growers of Australia to supply the markets continuously for a four to five-month period.
There are a number of players involved with the table grape industry in the Territory and I am pleased to inform Territorians and this House that their hard work is producing some fantastic dividends. Jabiru Farm, which is located 10 km to the north of Territory Grapes, consists of approximately 50 ha of table grapes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: One company owns the property, with the vines managed by another company on behalf of shareholders. Fortunately … Even during a good news story, we have people chattering opposite. You might want to listen to this, this is a good news story ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: Fortunately, the crop potential was approximately 20% higher than the amount harvested last season …
Mr Reed interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Don’t give any to the member for Katherine, he won’t like them, they will make him sour.
There were significant crop losses due to prolonged rain prior to and throughout the harvest period. However, there is good news, with plantings increased this year by a further 40 ha to a total area planted of approximately 410 ha. We are informed that the current crop loads on the majority of mature vines are good. Young vines, although not in full production, are also carrying satisfactory crops. The quality of the crop is high as the fruit nears maturity. The harvest of the earliest variety began last week, approximately 12 November.
There are four table grape varieties grown which are: Flame Seedless, the earliest maturing variety, which is red and seedless; Menindee Seedless, a large white berry which matures approximately in the third week of November; Thompson Seedless, a large white berry which matures approximately the first week of December; and Red Globe, a large seeded grape with matures late December, early January and is popular in South East Asian countries. We are looking to markets in Jakarta for that particular variety at the moment.
All the fruit is marketed on domestic markets, with some produce being exported either directly or off the market floor. The main domestic markets include Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Tasmania. I am also very excited with the export market opening up for Territory table grapes. Last season, a significant quantity of Thompson Seedless grapes was harvested and packed specifically for the Hong Kong market. A quantity of Red Globe grapes was also exported to South East Asia, where it received a premium price.
Territory growers market their produce either individually through market agents, or sell direct to supermarkets. Table Grape Growers of Australia sell direct to the supermarkets and source a significant quantity of table grapes from other smaller, local growers. Due to the number of properties this company owns, they are able to supply the earliest table grapes from the Northern Territory mid-season, and the latest varieties from the southern states.
The industry is a rising star for the Territory. This is particularly significant in relation to development of this region of the Northern Territory. This industry employs a significant number of people during the peak season, with substantial investments in Alice Springs To realise further developments of the industry and the region there remains work to be done. As plantings continue to increase, further market development will be essential if the margins currently enjoyed by the industry are to be maintained.
The industry has just formed a peak body to represent the table grape industry at the national level. This will assist with the proposed formation of an Australian Table Grape Growers Association and help highlight national issues for the table grape industry. This peak industry body will provide a collective voice to convey industry issues and concerns to the government.
The horticulture division of my department is actively involved with the industry and the area producing, providing a range of research, development and support services.
I am very pleased to announce to the House that the estimated potential value of the table grape crop this season is a staggering $25m, with a yield of 4500 tonnes. It has great potential and some grapes will be coming around to honourable members to taste the product themselves, apart from the member for Katherine.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the minister said this is a good news story and, in fact, it is a very good news story. The table grape production area at Ti Tree is a fantastic story and if it was not for the CLP government and the partnership with private enterprise, it would not exist. The minister has talked eloquently about the production that is going on there, and I commend the private owners of property at Ti Tree for all of the great work that they are doing and the increased production that is going on. You should, minister, take the time to go down there and have a look. You have a great brief from your department and they have done a good job in keeping you informed, but you should really go and have a look at this place.
What you should also look at while you are there is the potential - I suppose you will not have much time to get around to all these things because you will be overseas, or will you be with the business, or will you be with the pastoral industry, but anyway, I digress. The thing the minister should take great notice of is the Pine Hill Station property that allows for hundreds of hectares of expansion of the Ti Tree growing area and the water exploration that has been done currently – well, it was under our government; I do not know about this government. The initiative to buy Pine Hill Station by the CLP government - and we copped a lot of flack from your side, I have to say, when we bought that - was a great initiative to allow this to become the most significant grape growing area in Australia, and it will, because of the initiatives of the CLP government.
While you are down there you should go and have a look at Owen Springs Station and then come back and tell us, along with your lands minister, what you are going to do with that, because there is great concern in Alice Springs as to where that might end up. Another great purchase with foresight by the CLP government, and we are waiting with open ears to find out what your plans are for Owen Springs Station.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on grapes. I actually started some of my early life in horticulture in Mildura learning how to prune them, so whilst they are an important industry they are also a lot of work. I understand how much work does go into the industry. It is a very important industry. I am not trying to put a dampener on it because I enjoy grapes, but earlier this year there were some meetings with growers and it was reported on the Country Hour that there were very low recordings of uranium in the water. There was going to be a report back on the effect of those readings in the water. I am wondering whether the minister, in his response, can find out whether that issue has been resolved because it was an important issue. It was raised by the department and the growers and I wonder if that issue has been finalised.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I hope honourable members can actually taste the success of the Territory in these grapes. I have no problems doing a Barry Coulter and eating a few myself. I am worried about the uranium in the water flowing through to the grapes, but I will check out the issue for the member for Nelson.
It is a good news story and we are not so churlish on this side of the House not to recognise some of the initiatives of the former government - unlike the members opposite who do not recognise the things that we are doing. We will follow through with this. Yes, I am very keen to visit these farms whilst they are in the harvest period. It is a great success story. We have huge potential for developing farming produce, agribusiness, in the Northern Territory. As the new minister for the area, I am very excited to look at the potential developments in the future and it is full steam ahead, to take the railway analogy, to developing horticulture and agribusiness opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have given permission for various media to broadcast, with sound and vision, the reply by the Leader of the Opposition to the November 2001 mini-budget ministerial statement.
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me at the outset make it clear that we in the opposition believe this Labor government has the right to reprioritise the budget according to its own policies and priorities and its own political philosophies. By winning the majority of seats - although not the popular vote - at the general election, it is undoubtedly clear that it has the ability and responsibility …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I would ask that the government listen to this reply in the same way the opposition afforded them that courtesy.
By winning the majority of seats, although not the popular vote at the general election, it undoubtedly has the ability and responsibility to put in place its policies and promises, and we welcome some of the initiatives, even if they are recycled CLP ones. To be frank, we welcome the fact that this government is finally doing something.
Having said that, let me make two initial comments. First, it is unfortunate the government has chosen this method of rewriting the Appropriation Act so that this parliament has no opportunity to question ministers on exactly how and where the Territory’s money will be spent. With increased borrowings of $100m, an increase of $170m in gross outlays, new taxes and increased charges, surely it would have been appropriate to allow this parliament to scrutinise these major changes? Instead, the government intends to achieve its aims by executive action and to bypass the processes of this parliament. Previous budgets have faced intense scrutiny but, sadly, it is not going to be the case with this new ‘open and accountable’ Labor government.
The second general comment I make is: why does this government feel the need to blame someone to justify what it has been given the right, by the Territory electorate, to do? You were elected to govern. Why not have the courage of your own convictions and say upfront: ‘This is the way we are going to spend the Territory’s money and this is the way Territorians are going to pay for it’? That would be open, honest and accountable government. Instead, you have spent three months attempting to put a case that the Territory’s finances were in a parlous state; that the budget brought down in May was unsustainable. And how have you addressed this mythical monster that you yourselves created? Well, you simply increase debt by borrowing an extra $100m.
I will remind the Chief Minister of what she said in the appropriation debate in May this year: ‘Labor is not about spending more money’, you said. Yet your mini-budget increases outlays by $171m. She said:
That is what the Chief Minister said in May.
Yesterday, she increased debt by $100m, introduced a new tax, increased charges and announced plans to cut back the operating costs and salaries of the public service by $120m over the next few years - and you are still reneging on numerous of your promises in the infamous Labor’s financial statement that was issued four days before the general election.
Let me turn to the alleged black hole, and I refer to the mythical one. This is the mythical black hole of $107m, not the real one that was created yesterday in the mini-budget of $126m. Both Percy Allan and the Treasury have said that, in their opinion, the financial requirements of departments, particularly health, education and some law and order functions, would need more money before the end of the financial year. Who would deny that health, education, and law and order need more money? When do these areas not need more money? But it is a government’s role and responsibility to decide how much it will spend and then to allocate that money accordingly. The previous government did that in its May budget. Then comes a change of government and departments are asked: ‘Do you need more money?’ ‘Yes of course we do’, say the departments. ‘And while we are at it’, says the new government, ‘we will not sell NT Fleet and therefore forgo $50m in revenue’.
They called in Percy Allan to tell them the obvious, that by 30 June 2002 they could easily spend an extra $107m over and above what the previous government had decided in its budget. That, Territorians, is the so-called black hole: a decision by the previous government to rein in expenditure rather than increase debt is somehow turned into an unsustainable position. Yet borrowing more money, increasing base funding for agencies and raising new taxes and charges is regarded now as fiscally responsible. An alleged shortfall of $107m on 30 June 2002 is somehow, in someone’s logic, a worse position than a real deficit of $126m on 30 June 2002. The facts are that the government has decided to increase the base funding of a number of agencies and add in another $13m of its own initiatives for this year. In order to finance this increase in spending they have a three prong strategy: (1) borrow money and therefore increase Territory debt by $100m; (2) introduce new taxes and increase charges on ordinary Territorians; and (3) save money by cutting back on the operational and salary areas of the public service.
We said the Labor Party would not be able to pay for its promises. We said it would not be able to make the savings it was claiming without new taxes and charges, and we have been proved correct. If the Chief Minister and Treasurer wants to be honest she would have come into this parliament yesterday and admitted that fact. She would have stood up and said: ‘We promised Territorians we were going to take these initiatives, and we will’. To be fair to Territorians she should have said: ‘We got it wrong, we promised too much’. She should have said: ‘We will have to postpone some of our promises and we will have to renege on our promise to not introduce new taxes’. She should have said: ‘We will renege on our promise to business and not contribute another $9m in 2002-03 to absorb the cost of the HIH liabilities’.
Labor’s financial statement shows another $9m to fund these liabilities as the already agreed funding runs out in January, but the mini-budget has dropped that contribution. Or is that something, I ask, for next year and another levy - another tax on Territorians, as her colleague, the member for Wanguri, has suggested, and as the budget now makes clear? In fact, the budget paper states that this government is going to defer the introduction of payroll tax deductions due to: ‘… the more pressing impact on business of the current plans to levy all employers for the liabilities arising from the HIH collapse …’. That is on page 59 of Budget Paper No 3.
Paying for that liability, as the member for Wanguri, and the Chief Minister well knows, is much more than a $90 tax that has been put on motor vehicles in her mini-budget. It is a $50m outstanding liability on Territorians which you have said, the member for Wanguri, all Territorians will pay for. And what is in the budget? Silence, silence is in this present mini-budget, so you are deceiving Territorians by not telling them how, over this term, you will pay for those outstanding liabilities. Or have I missed that announcement somehow of that new tax in the Chief Minister’s speech? Just as I missed the announcement that another Labor promise to increase stamp duty exemption for first home buyers has also been dumped.
These actions by the government have nothing to do with the previous administration. Have a look at Budget Paper No 3 and the revised list of government initiatives. Just take the savings areas - most of the savings she claims she was going to make in her pre-election fully-costed document have evaporated. Before the election, Labor was going to save $55m on consultancies. We tried to tell them that such savings were not there. Now what do we find on page 63 of Budget Paper No 3? After investigation they found out consultancies covered core business activities and could not be cut. Instead, they have imposed a savings measure that they hope will realise savings of $5.5m over the next four years. $5.5m, and evaporated $55m that they were going to cut.
How many times did we tell them that savings and the cuts to consultancies would not work? How many times did we tell them that consultancies covered core business activities, and where does it appear in the Chief Minister and Treasurer’s speech that they got it wrong in the fully-costed Access-approved financial statement? No, she wouldn’t admit it, it’s not there. Or what about the $60m that was going to be saved by the adoption of counter cyclical capital works program, something the member for Arnhem and the previous Minister for Transport and Infrastructure showed some expert knowledge on? Since they’ve got into government they have suddenly realised: ‘The construction industry is still heavily dependent on capital works funds spending by the Northern Territory government’. Well, welcome to the real world!
What about the $26.7m they planned to save on executive management? That has gone as well, and we know why it has gone. It is now a much more ambitious slash and burn program that is now called Budget Improvement Measures. The government is now planning to save $120m from these measures. This government is essentially demanding that the public sector perform its current task and deliver Labor’s election promises and save $120m over the life of this parliament. Budget papers stated that the savings target of 4% in a full year, to be calculated on a salaries and on-cost inclusive basis, is to be implemented.
The areas of health, education, police and corrections have been spared the full shock of these required savings that, even with these agencies contribution to the savings set at 1%, costs and cuts will be very substantial in real dollar terms. Whatever the government is planning here does not sound like good news to the public service or for public service job security. The major cost of running government, as we all know, is wages. How will $50m be saved from these measures in slightly more than 18 months? A reduction in the wage bill is how they will save that money. Just where exactly is the government expecting these savings to come from if it is not further to erode its now broken promise to not reduce the size of the public service? Does the government expect $120m of savings to be generated by the reduced use of biros and notepads? No. Does the government expect $15m to be saved before July next year by public servants turning off the lights? No. Don’t kid us, don’t kid us. To meet its savings target, the public service has to save more than $500 000 a week between now and the end of the financial year, and how on earth does the government expect that to be achieved?
It cannot be done without reducing the major component of the cost of running the public sector, and that is pay packets. Added to this is another $4.4m in savings Labor has identified as coming from its public service restructure announced earlier this month. Exactly where are these savings going to come from? The government must know where they are going to come from because it has put a figure on it. The challenge for the government in the course of this debate is to break down for us and for public servants what is the source of that $4.4m? If they even attempt to address this challenge, such an attempt will be a tortured effort to avoid using phrases such as ‘staff reductions’ and ‘job reductions’. I notice in the presentation of yesterday’s mini-budget that the column identifying staffing levels of each agency has been dropped for the first time as I recall. I wonder why that has happened? Is this another example of this new open, honest and accountable government? Maybe the presence of such detail would reveal the bottom line of the Labor government’s public service restructure and the so-called budget improvement measures. If such staffing levels were included in the mini-budget, I suspect they would be noticeably less than those contained in the May budget.
The Chief Minister talked about no forced redundancies and no program of voluntary redundancies. Instead, she talks about attrition and how chief executive officers will help to handle it. In other words, CEOs are being told they have to save money, so, ‘don’t replace staff when they leave, and by the way, find ways to encourage many of them to leave’. The Chief Minister talks about a 10% attrition rate in the public service, but that figure relates to the permanent public service labour force, and about half of that is in the education and health fields - both areas where the government claims it is going to increase employment, not cut it. The attrition rate for the total public service - permanent, contract and casual - is more like 28%. Again, about 40% of that is in the protected areas of health and education. If you exclude police, which is another area where the government intends to recruit - and I might say, more slowly than it had planned - as well as health and education, then the rest of the public service is facing a very nervous few months ahead of them.
They will either have no jobs or no colleagues as CEOs are forced to find these savings. Once more, an open and accountable government would be upfront and tell us that their target is to reduce the public service by 1500 jobs, or whatever the number of jobs they have targeted to achieve these particular savings. Instead, what the Chief Minister does, is hide behind her chief executive officers and say: ‘They have the responsibility to manage it’. She is hiding behind cute phrases such as ‘budget improvement measures’. She is hiding behind statements such as: ‘Well, of course there is a 10% attrition rate and CEOs will just have to manage that’. The government should not delude itself. It will be held to account on its end gain of reducing public service staffing.
Turning to the revenue measures contained in the mini-budget. In one hit, this government threw out its election promise of no new taxes and charges with its $90 hit on the cost of registering or reregistering a motor vehicle. The Chief Minister says it is a levy, not a tax. Well, if it looks like a tax, and it quacks like a tax, then it is a tax! If you look at the Australian Concise Oxford dictionary, it defines a tax as ‘a contribution to government revenue; compulsory levy on individuals, properties, businesses, goods, etc’. If being hit for $90 as a compulsory contribution to government revenue is not a tax, then good luck in trying to sell that to Territorians.
Then there is the ridiculous facade of calling it ‘the temporary budget improvement levy’. Again, if you are being honest with Territorians and you intend to impose it for three years, and it will raise $24m, what it is, is a significant impost on the hip pocket of the majority of Territorians. However, it does nothing - next to nothing - to improve the bottom line of the budgets for the next three years. So, do not tell fibs and call it some sort of a budget improvement levy.
The reason we do not hear the government describe this $90 grab into Territorians’ wallets as a tax is that they want to deceive Territorians into thinking that this government will stand by its election commitments. We are hearing the same too-cute-by-half noises out of the Chief Minister that we heard when she maintained that sacking the head of a public service department is not the same as sacking a public servant. An insult again to the intelligence of Territorians, a shallow attempt at deceiving Territorians, and a vindictive approach to one particular individual.
Let us look at this $90 slug on the cost of registering a vehicle. One of the things that governments confront when doing these across-the-board revenue-raising measures, is the effects such measures have on non-profit groups and charities. Has the government made any provision for relief from this new tax for groups such as Anglicare and the Red Cross? Has the government considered exempting non-government organisations such as those running night patrols from this new tax? If it has not - and there has been no statement to the contrary - then I believe it is going to face some opposition from those groups alone. What about the various industry associations that are developing opportunities for Territory businesses on a non-profit basis? These associations are often running on tight budgets, the bulk of which is provided by the government, in many cases. Yet, under Labor’s new tax they get hit for nearly $100 just to keep their work vehicle on the road.
Other revenue measures in the mini-budget include a 20% hike in the cost of a driver’s licence and 5% increases to water and sewerage charges. These increases will transfer more than $42m from the pockets of Territorians to the government over the next four financial years. It is worth pointing out that the CPI in the Territory rose by 1.9% during the previous 12 months. This puts the true nature of these increases into an economic context. This is a lust for revenue that is behind these increases rather than a desire to match the level of charges with the level of inflation. As a result of this lack of restraint, Territorians will now pay $314 for sewerage charges, the second highest price in the country and well above the national average of $286. All of these increases will leave Territorians with less money in their pockets and reduce their spending power. This will translate into reduced turnover for business. This will translate into less money being spent on discretionary areas such as entertainment and leisure which, coincidentally, are often businesses that employ a goodly number of staff.
It is an interesting exercise to go through the government’s initiatives as outlined in Budget Paper No 3, and compare it to the much-vaunted fully-costed Access seal of approval, Labor’s financial statement. You will recall the present Chief Minister made much of the fact it was fully costed with actual amounts against each item. But, how many of these promises have become, as stated throughout the books, ‘this initiative will be undertaken within existing resources’.
There is improved access to teleconference and telemedicine facilities, once costed at $320 000, now to be undertaken within existing resources. Or accelerate the planning and introduction of electronic health records once costed at $660 000, now reduced to within existing resources. What about the establishment of a Territory health council and the additional support for the development and distribution of indigenous health care manuals to all remote clinics, and the additional support to develop links with specialist in major teaching hospitals interstate to visit remote areas? All have lost their funding and the Health Department must now …
Ms Lawrie: The man who opposed an interpreter service. You are a joke.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I made the comment yesterday, the new member for Karama does nothing in this Chamber except squeal occasionally like a cat on heat. I gave them the courtesy yesterday of listening in silence and I would ask the member for Karama, if she has nothing more of value to contribute in this Chamber, to kindly either leave or shut up!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, you know the convention. We listened yesterday in silence. You should observe the same convention.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I add, what about the cut in funding for the increase in regional health care teams by 25 personnel, with specialist skills in child health to visit remote area clinics and to provide relief staffing arrangements in communities when required? In the fully-costed Labor’s financial statement, this was to cost $10.37m. Now it has been adjusted to: ‘a more appropriate level’. In other words, it has been cut back by a third to $6.88m.
Then there is the 24-hour call service in Darwin for people with disabilities. It no longer gets any new money; the department has to now fund it from existing resources. I am waiting to hear what you are going to do with the Palmerston Health Precinct too. A health precinct - I mention to the minister for health - that does not even have a wheelchair. Have you been out there? It does not even have a wheelchair in it. You squeal about improvements in health. People go up to that health precinct and there is not even a wheelchair. That health precinct was designed …
Ms Martin: Didn’t you notice when you were Chief Minister it had no wheelchair?
Mr BURKE: I will tell you the logic of that health precinct, so when you try and tell us what you are going to do with it, you understand very clearly. That is, when a person in Palmerston or the rural area has a problem they go to that health precinct and the system takes over. It is not a 24-hour GP service. It is the system outreached from Royal Darwin that takes over, takes that person, and takes care of the problem. If it fails in that duty, it has failed as a health precinct. I wait to hear what you intend to do with it, and if you have not mentioned it in your mini-budget, I assume there will be no change. If there is a change, it is a deceit to Palmerston and rural customers.
All of these things - I ask, are these part of the $136m to be spent on the government’s own initiatives or are they cuts in the present health budget? What about the postponed projects like the drug rehabilitation services? It is part of the government’s plan, we hear so often, to tackle drug-related crime except, in this case, they put it off for a year or two. While we are speaking about health, what about the shortfall in the funding of the redevelopment of both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital? The health minister admitted, and I quote her own letter:
This mini-budget has not made that adjustment. So where is the money coming from? The commitment in the mini-budget remains at $25m even though the actual cost, we all know, and the health minister has admitted, is $32.6m. Was her admission too late to be included in the budget papers? What exactly has happened? Either someone is not telling the truth or some people are not talking to each other. Mostly, you are hoping that no one will notice.
Let us look at the wording of that particular commitment, and I quote from Labor’s financial statement, which is repeated in Budget Paper No. 3:
The truth is that this translates to this government cutting capital spending on our clinics and our hospitals by more than $7m, and that is a simple fact. There will not be one cent for capital expenditure on Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek or Katherine Hospitals and nothing that I can find for the clinics.
This is just one area, albeit a very important one, where this government is trying to play a smoke-and-mirrors game. It claims to have increased base funding for health, but then imposes a whole series of its own initiatives without funding, including such a major item as the capital expenditure on our two major hospitals. Again I say - and I am happy to say it often – they, as the government, have the right to reorder the spending priorities, but why can’t they be upfront and say clearly what exactly they are doing? Instead, they claim there is a black hole and departments are underfunded.
The Chief Minister says the government has to go into debt and raise taxes in order to give the departments those funds. But it is they who are imposing cuts and new cuts on those departments. You have to ask: are the new taxes and the new borrowings paying for the alleged underfunding, or are they paying for this government’s own initiatives? What programs are being dumped by health or any other department in order to pay for the government’s initiatives, and are they being funded from existing resources? Obviously, I have not yet discovered that page in the budget papers. I am sure it is there somewhere, because what we have now, we are told, is an honest, open and accountable government.
The whole notion of a black hole is a farce. It has become a time-honoured practice of new governments for the past 40 years to blame the previous administration for the parlous state of government finances. But this government cannot even get that right. The Chief Minister and Treasurer says: ‘You have left us in a terrible state, with a black hole of $107m, so we will fix it by creating a black hole of $127m’. How you figure that one out is beyond a poor, simple man like me.
Before I finish, let me address two points. The first is what would we have done, because I am sure you say that and throw it off in the Chamber. Simple, very simple. We would have implemented the budget we brought down in May and we would have contained the cost of government. We would have honoured our election promises - promises that were realistic, not promises that were promises for everyone, every player wins a prize. We would have run government in a fiscally responsible manner, because we only made commitments that we could keep. If you want to see an example of that, it was the contractor who spoke yesterday. For 13 years he has been in business in the Northern Territory and from August through November every year in preparation for the wet season he got paid. Contracts improved, because we had the money and we made sure of a duty of care to Territorians and made sure this place was prepared for the Wet.
What has happened since this Labor government has come to power? Nothing! Nothing! Total indecision - ministers who do not have a clue. A Minister for Transport and Infrastructure who lasted about two weeks before he had to be gotten rid of - did not have a clue what the capital works program was. A minister who signs documents that takes people’s houses. A minister who signs documents, which he does not know what he is signing, and signs documents that takes people’s houses, and then tries to blame a previous government. A minister for health who has been shown to be totally incompetent; has no idea what the health portfolio is all about, and has been in the job four months. Evidence of that alone is the fact that the Chief Minister gave her no more of a load because she cannot even carry the one she has. We said that Labor promised too much, and now we must suffer the consequences, all Territorians, of new taxes, increased charges and lost jobs.
The second point is the wonderful spin the Chief Minister has produced in the past 24 hours that is aimed at gagging all opposition to her actions because, you see, if the Opposition Leader or the former Treasurer ask a question in this House, she starts by saying: ‘But you are not allowed to ask me that question. You have demonstrated in the government that you are not allowed to ask those sorts of questions. So don’t criticise me on budgetary matters’.
I have enormous respect for the political adroitness of my colleague, the member for Katherine, but I can tell you that neither he nor I can match her in the process of dissembling. She is a classic. She honed her skills in opposition and is rejoicing in them in government, and we are no match for her mendacity. She has the gall to state in one breath that we have forfeited our right to comment on her actions, but on the other hand, could we please offer her bipartisan support?
Notwithstanding her cant, it is incumbent on us to raise the issues and I have attempted to do that in response to her mini-budget statement. The bottom line is that this new Labor government wishes to implement its policies and impose its philosophy on Territorians. As we warned during the election campaign, the Territory can ill-afford those policies; the Territory can ill-afford this philosophy. The cost is increasing debt over the next four years, new and increased taxes and charges and, worst of all, the loss of jobs for Territorians in the public service.
Some of us are going to have to pay for this Labor government. For some of us, it will be $200 or more in extra charges announced so far. I look forward to the honesty, so called, of this government in saying how much additional will Territorians pay to meet the incumbent liability of the HIH collapse which is $50m outstanding, as you well know. You have been briefed on it, the member for Wanguri. For others, sadly, it will be their employment.
I said at the beginning, the government has the right to implement its policies, it has the power to increase charges and introduce new taxes, it has the ability to cut the number of public servants by 10%. What it does not have, unfortunately, is the courage of its convictions. It does not have the guts to say that we are the government now, and no matter how much hurt and pain is involved, this is what we are going to do. It does not have the intestinal fortitude to allow the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of its actions, and until it does all of these things, this government and its Chief Minister will be pretenders posing as a government.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honorable members I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kormilda College students accompanied by their teachers. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members you have been given a brief of the activity at Government House this morning. I hope you have had a chance to read through it. The Address-In-Reply will be presented to His Honour the Administrator at about 11.20 to 11.30, as soon as we can all gather over there. I invite you all to accompany me.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001, Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the motion foreshadowed yesterday. That -
1. Paragraph 3 of the resolution of the Assembly dated 16 October 2001 relating to the Select Committee on
Substance Abuse in the Community be varied by adding after the word ‘committee’, the words ‘or any
subcommittee’; and
2. The new paragraph (3a) and (3b) be added to read as follows:
(3a) that the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee
to be deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee
at any time when there is no chairman or the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
(3b) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members and to refer to any
such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine and that the quorum of a
subcommittee shall be 2.
It is a straightforward motion in the sense that it is quite self-explanatory. It simply allows flexibility in terms of the ability to have co-chairmen of that committee depending where the committee is meeting and what location at any time. Similarly, in relation to paragraph (3b), the power to appoint subcommittees consisting of at least two or more of its members so that the committee itself would have the power to refer to the subcommittee particular questions - there may be questions in a particular location, there may be questions in relation to a particular substance in which there is expertise available on the committee by way of a subcommittee.
It adds that flexibility that the committee such as this, which will travel the length and breadth of the Territory over the life of its term, needs. I ask all members to support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to reform the Police Arbitral Tribunal. The bill will establish a three member tribunal and, when passed, will also establish in a formal, legal manner the mechanism enabling conciliation between the Commissioner of Police and the Northern Territory Police Association of disputes involving the remuneration and terms and conditions of members of the Police Force of the Northern Territory below the rank of Commander.
In introducing this bill, the government honours an election promise to reform the tribunal. The clauses and definitions which provide for the appointment of the chairperson and other members are drafted to ensure that the composition of the tribunal is fair and appropriate. The chairperson, appointed by the minister, will be a member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or a suitably qualified and experienced person. The other two members, being the Police Association’s nominee and the minister’s nominee, will be appointed by the minister. The minister will appoint these members after considering the written recommendation of the Police Association in respect of the association’s nominee and the recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and Public Employment in relation to the minister’s nominee. The tribunal will therefore have balance and expertise including the operational insight brought to the tribunal by the Police Association’s nominee; the administrative and executive insight brought by the minister’s nominee; and the industrial relations and legal expertise brought by the chairperson.
The members of the tribunal will be appointed for a term of up to three years and this will assist the tribunal in exercising its functions independently and without extraneous pressure. Members will be able to be re-appointed.
The bill provides also for the cessation of an appointment and for the filling of vacancies. A system of appointment of deputy members to sit when members are unavailable is also provided for.
The tribunal’s powers and the process under the current legislation for making, amending or varying a determination remain unchanged. A landmark feature of the bill is the power of the chairperson to formally direct the parties to conciliation. The parties will be able to activate the conciliation process on written request following a meeting with the chairperson.
The conciliator will fill a flexible role which will be primarily directed to assisting the Commissioner and the Police Association to reach arrangements or agreements in resolution of their dispute. The mechanism will allow conciliation of all manner of differences concerning the remuneration, and terms and conditions of service of the members of the Northern Territory Police.
It is important to note that agreements reached by the parties through the conciliation process must be brought before the tribunal for approval if such agreements affect the terms of the determination or consent agreement previously made or approved under the Police Administration Act. This process ensures that any such changes agreed by the parties are appropriate and not inconsistent with the other provisions of existing determinations or consent agreements. In this way the existing scheme of the act, which provides status to tribunal determinations, is fully preserved.
A further change to the legislative scheme regulating the Police Arbitral Tribunal introduced by this bill is the right of appeal proposed by clause 8. A right of appeal can only be granted by statute. The new section 50A will provide such a right so the Police Association or the Commissioner is able to appeal questions of law with the leave of the Supreme Court. This will be of significant assistance to the parties by providing further guarantee that their disputes will be resolved quickly and according to law.
It is constructive legislation that will assist the expeditious resolution of industrial grievances and disputes. Its provisions will hopefully prevent the financial and industrial expense of complex litigation such as occurred with the housing allowance dispute which was taken as far as the Supreme Court in 2000.
This bill is designed to provide the members of the Police Force of the Northern Territory and its Commissioner with a practical and fair procedure within which to have determined or, where appropriate, reach agreement on the remuneration and terms and conditions of serving members below the rank of Commander.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to create offences related to the sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, raised the issue of the adequacy of existing state and territory laws concerning sexual servitude or sex slavery in February 1997 after the discovery in Melbourne of an international prostitution ring recruiting women in Thailand to work in Australia under slave-like conditions.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General requested that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, the MCCOC, examine a Commonwealth proposal to develop laws relating to sex slavery. The MCCOC report which was released in November 1998, after a widespread public consultation process, proposed the enactment of model legislation covering slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services.
This international trade in people for the purposes of sexual exploitation is increasing. The trade involves recruiting people from one country and relocating them to another to work as sex slaves in servile conditions for little, if any, reward. Workers are often guarded by heavy security and their movements strictly controlled. Intimidation, threats and use of force are apparently commonplace. To comprehensively prohibit such conduct, Commonwealth and state and territory legislation is required. The Commonwealth legislation applies where the conduct has an international element. For example, it prohibits the conduct of people outside Australia in procuring persons to come to Australia to provide sexual services in conditions of servitude. The Commonwealth legislation also creates new slavery offences which are solely within their jurisdiction.
State/territory legislation is required to prohibit persons forcing people to act as prostitutes within Australia. It also makes it an offence to recruit for commercial sexual services using deception and to use children in any way for commercial sexual purposes. This bill will form part of a package of complementary state/territory laws. South Australia and the ACT have already enacted the model state/territory legislation and it is under active consideration in Victoria and New South Wales.
This bill targets people who, by the use of force or threat, assert a degree of dominance over a worker that effectively denies the worker the freedom to stop providing sexual services or to leave the place where the service has been provided. The force of threats need not be against the sex worker but may be against another person, such as the sex worker’s child. It will be an offence to cause someone to enter into or remain in sexual servitude and it will also be an offence to conduct a business that involves the sexual servitude of others. The definition of sexual services is wide enough to cover other sex work such as erotic dancing and pornography, not just prostitution. The question of whether a person is in sexual servitude will be a question of fact to be determined according to whether a reasonable adult would consider in the circumstances that a person is not free to stop providing services or leave the place or area.
The maximum penalty for sexual servitude offences against an adult is 15 years imprisonment; 20 years if the offences involve a child of or over 12 years of age; and life imprisonment if a child under the age of 12 years is involved. These penalties reflect the serious and abhorrent nature of the crime. This bill also makes it an offence to deceive another person about the fact that they are being recruited for sexual services, for example, where a person is told that they will be employed as a waitress when the intention is that they will be employed as a prostitute. It is not necessary that the deception involve an element of sexual servitude.
Sexual services is defined as ‘the commercial use or display of the body of the person providing the services for the sexual gratification of others’. Therefore, the deceptive recruiting offence will apply if the recruit is deceived into entering into an engagement that will involve sex work generally and not just prostitution. The deceptive conduct offence has the maximum penalty of 10 years, and when the person deceived is a child the offender is liable to imprisonment for 15 years.
The bill is an important component of the network of national protection to ensure that women are protected from this abhorrent behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 24) and Unit Titles Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 25): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
These bills deal with the by-law making powers given to the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation established under the Cullen Bay Marina Act and to estate and building corporations currently established, or which may in the future be established, under the Unit Titles Act. These amendments apply to the Unit Titles Act as amended by the Unit Titles Amendment Act (No 1) 2001. That amendment act is expected to commence operation in early 2002.
Under the present laws, such corporations have broad powers to make by-laws concerning the management and use of common property and the control of such matters as vehicles, vessels, wharves and berths, pollution, noise and nuisance control, and the general duties of the owners and occupiers of the land.
However, it appears that the by-laws must relate to the common property of the corporation. Such property is the land or water in the development that is owned collectively by the owners of the individual lots within the development. All of those by-law making powers exist so as to facilitate communal living. However, it may also be necessary that the by-law making power extend to those parts of the land development that are privately-owned rather than collectively-owned. For example, it is often the case that parts of the marina in a foreshore development are owned by the corporation while others are owned by the individual land owners. In such cases it is not possible for the corporation to control the use of the waterways unless it has control of both the common property and the privately-owned land.
The same point can be made in respect to noise control, general pollution controls and the controls necessary for communal health and safety.
At the present time, a limited number of by-laws have been made. The main ones relate to the developments at Cullen Bay and Tipperary Waters. In both cases, the by-laws have provisions in them that only work if the by-law making power applies to the whole of the land and the water in the development, for example, the various by-laws that control living in boats anchored in the marina.
The proposal for the need to amend the legislation was made by the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation to the previous government. The contentious issue was the validity or not of by-laws controlling the extent to which boats anchored in the privately-owned parts of the marina could be inhabited on a permanent basis. I understand that my predecessor provided in-principle support to the corporation’s suggestion that the legislation be amended.
In determining this government’s approach to the issue we have balanced the interests of individual lot owners against the interests of the local communities living in these developments. We are confident that all of the initial purchases of land in Cullen Bay and Tipperary Waters would have made their purchasing decisions on the assumption that the by-laws validly applied to the whole of the waterways in the developments. Accordingly, we have decided that it is appropriate for this legislation both to validate the current by-laws and to permit new by-laws to be made in respect to the whole of the development. It must be noted that this validation of the by-laws will only apply from the time of commencement of the new acts. It will not affect the legality or otherwise of matters purportedly regulated by the by-laws in their current form.
The Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 also provides for the review of penalties for breaches of the act, and for those penalties as reviewed to be expressed in terms of penalty units as permitted by the Penalties Act. The penalties have been substantially increased. These increases reflect the view that penalties should be structured so as to provide a meaningful range of penalties that may be imposed by the courts.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Public Trustee Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 27) and Administration and Probate Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 26): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The main purpose of these bills is to implement reforms identified as a consequence of the National Competition Policy Review of the Public Trustee Act and the Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998. In April 1995 the Commonwealth, states and territories signed three intergovernmental agreements that comprised the National Competition Policy Reform Package. Compliance with agreed national competition policy reforms is a prerequisite for a series of competition payments to the Territory from the Commonwealth. These payments have been estimated at over $7m per annum from 2001-02.
One of the national competition policy agreements, namely the Competition Principles Agreement, obliges the Territory along with the states to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive. Within the context of the Competition Principles Agreement, a very broad approach is taken as to what provisions are anti-competitive. A provision may be anti-competitive if it does any of the following:
Critically, it can be seen that a provision is anti-competitive if it has the effect of imposing costs on business. This examination requires that the objectives of the legislation be identified and confirmed as to their current application. It then requires that each restriction on competition be assessed to determine if it is in the net public interest. Thus, it is plain that the competition policy does not require the removal of all provisions that may be anti-competitive. Rather, it requires that all state and territory governments reach a judgment as to whether an anti-competitive provision can be justified as being in the public interest after regard is had to the costs and the benefits of the restriction.
In summary, the guiding principle underpinning each review is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that:
The Public Trustee Act was identified as possibly containing anti-competitive provisions. This act as proposed to be amended by the not yet commenced Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998 has been reviewed by a team comprising representatives from the Northern Territory departments of the Attorney-General, Treasury, Industries and Business and Chief Minister. The review team released an issues paper in 2000 and provided a report to the previous government in June 2001.
The review team identified the following objectives as being current for the Public Trustee:
The review team recommended that these objectives be set out in the act. The government accepts these recommendations. We are committed to a strong Office of the Public Trustee that is committed to ensuring that there is a competent trustee and executor service available to all of the citizens of the Northern Territory.
The review team identified a number of provisions of the Public Trustee Act that are anti-competitive. In the main, these are provisions operating so as to provide the Public Trustee with minor cost advantages over competitors when administrating small estates. These provisions include those that permit the Public Trustee to administer estates of small value without the need to obtain the approval of the Supreme Court. Other provisions include those that give the Public Trustee the right to obtain information about estates and to take various measures designed to minimise unnecessary levels of disputation. The review team recommended that most of these operational advantages be retained but that they be extended so as to apply to other professional personal representatives. The government accepts these recommendations.
Consequently, the bills provide for a repeal of numerous sections of the Public Trustee Act and the re-enactment of the provisions in the Administration and Probate Act. These provisions as rewritten will mean that all professional personal representatives will operate on a level playing field in respect of the administration of estates and trusts. For the purpose of the Administration and Probate Act, a professional personal representative will be a person who is one or the other of the following: (1) the Public Trustee; (2) a corporation approved under the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act; or (3) a legal practitioner. This definition describes the current group of persons who can lawfully administer estates for the payment of a fee.
A second area of provisions that maybe anti-competitive are those dealing with government support of the business operations of the Public Trustee. Currently, section 28 provides an indemnity in respect of the operations of the common funds administered by the Public Trustee and the Public Trustee Investment Board. Section 97 provides for protection of Public Trustee employees and agents from personal liabilities. The main potential problem with these provisions is that they could be administered so there is not competitive neutrality between the Public Trustee and its private sector competitors.
The review team recommended that the provisions be amended so that the Public Trustee in setting the levy provided for in the Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998 must take into account advice from the Northern Territory Treasurer as to the value of the indemnity and guarantees provided to the Public Trustee. The government accepts these recommendations.
The review team also recommended removal of the provision in the act which states that the Public Trustee is not required to have an auctioneer’s licence. The government accepts that recommendation. The Auctioneers Act has all of the appropriate controls including certain exemptions for government bodies.
The bills also provide for certain other reforms and revisions, these include:
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to define and limit the vicarious liability of employers and principals for the acts of their workers and agents. The bill limits vicarious liability through the inclusion of some clearly-defined defences to a claim of vicarious liability. It is unclear whether the Anti-Discrimination Act, as it currently stands, encompasses the notion of vicarious liability of employers and principals. Over the almost 10 years of the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act, it has generally been accepted by government and private employers that the act does incorporate this notion. However, recent litigation in the Supreme Court has called this assumption into doubt.
This bill seeks to eliminate this doubt by clearly defining the notion of vicarious liability as it applies in the act. The bill also establishes clear defences for employers and principals to a claim of vicarious liability. The bill is not retrospective. With respect to complaints of discriminatory conduct occurring before the amendment comes into effect, whatever the Supreme Court finds is the position under the act as it currently stands, will be the law that applies to those complaints.
All Australian jurisdictions, in their anti-discrimination laws, include a specific vicarious liability provision. Generally, that provision is similar to subsection (1) of the new section 105 the bill would introduce. That subsection clearly defines vicarious liability under the act. The inclusion of this provision ensures consistency between the Territory Anti-Discrimination Act and the Commonwealth race, sex and disability discrimination legislation, which operates concurrently with the Territory act. This ensures that the Territory employers have the benefit of clear and consistent approach to anti-discrimination matters.
Other Australian anti-discrimination legislation also creates a defence to a claim of vicarious liability where an employer has ‘taken all reasonable steps’ to prevent their workers from engaging in discriminatory practices. That defence is incorporated in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 105. However, this bill would improve on the standard anti-discrimination vicarious liability clauses in two significant respects. Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 105 clearly sets out the matters that may be included when the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is considering whether an employer has taken all reasonable steps. These matters include actions such as the provision of anti-discrimination training and equal opportunity management plans. The proposed new subsection recognises that not all employers have the same resources. The subsection also provides that the commissioner may consider the size and financial positions of an employer when considering whether they have taken all reasonable steps.
The other significant feature in this bill, when compared to other Australian anti-discrimination legislation, is contained in subsection (4) of the proposed new section 105. This provides that when the commissioner, after a hearing, is making an award of compensation in a case that involves vicarious liability, he may consider what steps were taken by the employer to prevent the discrimination in deciding the apportionment of damages. In the event the commissioner finds that the employer has not taken all reasonable steps so as to constitute a complete defence to a claim of discrimination involving vicarious liability, it is still open to consider what steps the employer did take in determining how much compensation should be paid by each party.
The bill will make the Anti-Discrimination Act a more workable piece of legislation. By encouraging employers to engage in anti-discrimination training, the bill serves to further the objects of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill illustrates this government’s strong commitment to ensuring a fair and just community that ensures dignity and respect for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Coroners Act. The amendments will essentially provide three major changes. The first is to provide that a witness can be compelled at an inquest to answer a question subject to certain conditions. The second is to provide that the coroner may reverse a decision to not hold an inquest, or may reopen an inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third is to provide that agencies to whom a copy of the coroner’s recommendations has been supplied, must respond in writing to those recommendations.
The Northern Territory legislation unconditionally protects the privilege by providing that a person ‘shall not be compelled to answer a question that may tend to incriminate the person’. Other jurisdictions, namely Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT and the Commonwealth, have legislated a clear intention to exclude the privilege by providing that evidence given by a witness who has been compelled to answer a question in an inquest, cannot be used in any other proceedings against the witness. South Australia provides that a person can refuse to answer a question if the coroner is satisfied that the answer is incriminating. In Queensland, a person cannot refuse to answer a question without just excuse. This amendment, which has been developed in consultation with the Territory Coroner, proposes that the coroner can compel a witness at an inquest to answer a question, where it appears to the coroner to be expedient to the ends of justice to do so. However, if the coroner orders a witness to answer a question, the witness must be granted a certificate that prevents his or her statement being used in evidence in any other proceeding against the witness.
The objective of the coronial inquest is to find the truth about all circumstances of the death. In recent cases in the Territory this objective has been frustrated by witnesses refusing to answer questions. For example, in the coronial investigation into the death of a woman whose body was found buried in a creek bed in Alice Springs, two men allegedly involved declined to give evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination pursuant to section 38 of the Northern Territory Coroners Act.
The making of sensible recommendations in relation to public health or safety, or the administration of justice, may also be frustrated where medical practitioners refuse to answer questions on the basis of self-incrimination. It may be that in these cases, the concern for these witnesses may not be that he or she may be charged with a criminal offence, but that civil or disciplinary proceedings may result from the giving of the evidence. It is important to emphasise that the effect of the amendment is not to provide an indemnity from prosecution or protection against civil action or disciplinary action. The witness could still be charged with a criminal offence following the inquest, or investigations taken with regard to civil or disciplinary action. It is just that the actual evidence given to the coroner cannot be used in subsequent proceedings.
The policy behind the amendment is to get to the truth. The policy is, therefore, better fulfilled by extending the protection afforded by a certificate and should extend to all proceedings. As inquests are generally held in open court, and evidence and findings are not generally the subject of suppression orders, if a confession is reported in the press, the guarantee of a fair trial will be eroded. This is particularly so in a small community such as the Territory. For that reason, I also emphasise that the act does contain discretionary powers in the coroner to suppress evidence in an appropriate case.
Section 16 and section 44 of the Coroners Act relate to the coroner’s decision not to hold an inquest, and the procedure with regard to reopening an inquest. These sections have been amended so that the coroner can reverse the decision not to hold an inquest where further information or new evidence is available and to provide the coroner with the power to reopen an inquest.
The amendment to section 44 allows the coroner to make an administrative change of decision where there is a reasonable need to do so to reopen an inquest. Currently, only ‘a person’ on application to the Supreme Court may have a inquest reopened. The present amendment will provide in effect a ‘slip rule’ to provide a power to correct mistakes or omissions. These amendments are aimed at increasing the efficiency of coronial inquests.
Recommendation 15 and part of recommendation 16 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody are being implemented in clause 8 of the bill. The recommendations relate to the requirement for the coroner and the government to be informed where the recommendations made by the coroner have been considered. The act currently requires the coroner to provide a copy of each report and recommendation resulting from the inquest into the death of a person held in custody to the Attorney-General who is then responsible for providing the report to the minister of the agency to which the report relates. The act also provides for the coroner to make recommendations to the Attorney-General on a matter including public health or safety or the administration of justice, and requires the coroner to report to the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions if he believes that a crime may have been committed in connection with the death.
The bill amends and extends the relevant sections to provide a comprehensive reporting mechanism with regard to deaths in care or custody. The proposed provisions will require the Chief Executive Officer of the agency to which the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has provided a report of an inquest, to provide, within three months of receiving the report, a written report to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General outlining the action taken by the agency in response to the recommendations. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General will be responsible for providing a copy of the report to parliament and may provide a copy of the report to the coroner. The coroner may provide that report to any person whom the coroner considers has sufficient interest in the inquest.
Just as the holding of an inquest into a death in custody and the making of recommendations to prevent similar deaths are matters of public interest, equally it is in the public interest that some mechanism is established to ensure that the relevant authorities have received and considered those recommendations. It is not a question of compelling action but ensuring proper consideration is given to recommendations and appropriate action taken where practical.
The reporting requirement will provide valuable feedback to the government and will give some satisfaction to those people who were involved in the inquest that the recommendations of the coroner are given due consideration. In view of the legislative developments in other states and territories which have modified the classic common law privilege against self-incrimination, and in view of the clear intention in coroners acts that the coroner should carry out a thorough investigatory process, we consider that these amendments are in the public interest, and will enhance the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to omit the current section 44(1A) of the Juvenile Justice Act and substitute a new section 44(1A) to permit the court to decide if it is considering sentencing a juvenile to a term of detention, whether a report on the circumstances of a juvenile should be ordered. At present, the legislation provides that if a court is considering sentencing a juvenile to a term of detention or imprisonment, it must order a report on the circumstances of the juvenile unless the offence charged is a property offence. It is not necessary to obtain a report if the offence was a property offence as most repeat offenders found guilty of a property offence received a mandatory term of detention. The recent repeal of the mandatory sentencing provisions of the act removed all references to the words ‘property offence’, but failed to remove the references to the words ‘in this section’. This amendment now corrects that oversight.
As already stated section 44(1) of the act provides that a court must order a report on the circumstances of a juvenile before imposing a sentence of detention or imprisonment. These reports are provided by staff from the Northern Territory Correctional Services and are important as they provide the report with all the background information about the juvenile in order to help the court decide what is the appropriate sentence in all of the circumstance of the individual case. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that these reports are provided as soon as possible, it is often necessary to obtain information from several agencies, sometimes interstate agencies, and they can take up to six weeks to prepare.
There are problems associated with the necessity to obtain a report before sentencing every juvenile on every occasion. For example, sometimes the court is only intending to impose a suspended sentence, yet it is still required to obtain a detailed report. This means that juveniles might have to wait up to six weeks before they can learn what sentence they are to receive. There are some offenders who have appeared before court on numerous occasions and these offenders have had several reports prepared about them. In some cases, the sentencing magistrates are well acquainted with the background details of the offender and the offender’s family. These offenders must also have to wait to be sentenced even if there has been no change in their circumstances.
There are also occasions when a juvenile offender has been found guilty of an offence and it is inappropriate to grant them bail. In these situations it is possible that a juvenile might be detained beyond the duration of the anticipated sentence pending the preparation of the report. This situation needs to be rectified. It is recognised that it is essential that a court carefully considers all the necessary information about a juvenile before it decides what is an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances of the case. That is accepted as an essential principle of sentencing. However, it is important that the court be given the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the report is necessary. The proposed section 44(1A) will provide the court with that discretion and will speed up the administration of justice.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 October 2001. Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I think it is worthwhile placing on the record, in speaking to the motion that the Leader of Government Business has brought forward, that it would be a matter of courtesy at least in the short term if he was able to advise us a few minutes before bringing on a matter like this so that the shadow Attorney-General could be ready. The Leader of Government Business has been remiss in just walking into the Chamber here and placing the acid on the shadow Attorney-General in such a fashion.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, can I just respond by way of apology to the member for Macdonnell and the shadow Attorney-General. It is certainly not my practice to jump to my feet and rearrange things without good reason. No 1 on the Notice Paper, of course, stands under the Treasurer who is unavoidably detained just at the moment. I would not normally do this and I appreciate how difficult it is because it happened to me on a number of occasions when I was on that side of the House. So I do appreciate the concern, and please accept my apologies.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest the Whips get together to make sure that any changes are known to either sides also.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in relation to the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill (Serial 20), I have looked at the legislation and also had meetings with representatives from the Northern Territory Law Society. They inform me that negotiations relating to the drafting of this amendment have been occurring over a fairly lengthy period of time. Indeed, most of the work was done with the previous administration.
The amendment relates to, of course, the complaints committee and also the appointment of managers to legal practitioners in certain situations. As I said, most of the work being done with the previous administration. The Law Society, has no real objection; in fact, it is supporting the proposed amendment. The opposition also supports the proposed bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their unqualified support for the bill. I presume we can go to the committee process. Thank you for that. You are quite right. This has been a protracted negotiation with the Law Society. As you can see from the bill, it is quite a comprehensive renovation of the existing Legal Practitioners Act to bring things more in line with the way the profession sees the process should be run. I believe it is going to make for a more streamlined and a more practical process. Thank you for your support and we will move to committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment standing in my name. Schedule 6
The amendment involves clauses 9(c) and 16(b) of the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill 2001, and provides that the legal practitioners complaint committee may refer findings against legal practitioners to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can then impose one or more of the penalties set out in the section 52 of the act. However, section 51B of the act provides that the Supreme Court, in dealing with an appeal from a finding of the Legal Practitioners Committee, can only impose the penalties that could have been imposed by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. Such appeals can involve rehearings of the matter, thus it is possible that new material might come before the court. Such material might be such as to justify the imposition of a stronger level of penalties contained in section 52 of the act.
The president of the Bar Association of the Northern Territory has drawn this matter to my attention and I agree with him that there is a potential anomaly that ought to be rectified. Accordingly, the schedule proposes that clause 14 of the bill be amended so that section 51B of the act provides that the Supreme Court, in imposing penalties following an appeal, can impose any of the penalties mentioned in section 52 of the act.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 30) passing through all stages of these sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the opposition, on behalf of all Territorians, very strongly opposes this legislation on the simple basis that it is completely unnecessary. It will be a substantial impost on Territorians in a financial way. From the point of view of alternatives that the government has available to it to address the issues that it perceives to have to address, there are, indeed, tangible alternatives whereby the government does not have to dip into the pockets of Territorians.
That in itself gets back to the fact that the government, in the election campaign, said it would introduce no new taxes and charges and here we are, 100 days or so from it being elected to government, breaking that promise, introducing a new tax. They can be smart …
Ms Martin: Rubbish.
Mr REED: … and the Treasurer says ‘rubbish’. Well, she can say rubbish. She can call it a levy if she wishes, but if she goes and has a look at the reference books she will find that a levy is a tax and a tax is a levy, and any new imposition on tax payers and rate payers that requires specific legislation, by definition, must be new. If she thinks that she is going to be able to convince Territorians that this is not a new tax that will rip $90 a year off Territorians, then she better go down the mall for a walk, as I did at lunchtime, and hear from Territorians just what they think about this piece of legislation. They did not require any encouragement to come and espouse their views in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.
It will be $90 per car per family. A lot of families in the Northern Territory have two cars, so they are up for $180 already, in terms of the impost of this particular piece of legislation. In addition to that, they will be facing increased water and sewerage charges; they will have increased licence fee charges; they will have increased inspection fees for their vehicles. That will amount to something in the order of $300 per family that they will have to fork out to this Labor government if they, in fact, have two cars and, for example, two toilets in their home or unit or what have you.
That will be money that will be taken from their disposable incomes, and it will not only be felt personally in relation to their own finances, but it will be felt by businesses right across the Northern Territory. Those businesses which sell microwave ovens will not be selling them because people won’t have the $300 to buy them. People who have restaurants and used to take advantage of a disposable income that some people might spend in those restaurants, now have that taken from them. There are, of course, a range of other activities that Territorians will have to withdraw from because of the loss of this disposable income.
This comes from a Chief Minister and Treasurer who, in opposition, said that the impost on Territorians in relation to the cost of living is already too high and that government should be doing something to reduce the cost of living in the Northern Territory. This government, of course, at the first opportunity that it has had, has taken the chance to whip money off people.
The reason that it is unnecessary, totally unnecessary, is first of all in regard to the mythical $107m black hole. If that were the case - that is, if there was a $107m black hole - then one would think that all the government had to raise was $107m to overcome the problem. The Treasurer might want to explain then to Territorians why she is going to raise something in the order of $160m-plus from the initiatives that she has announced. That in itself is deceitful enough, but to tell Territorians that this $90 is required to fill a black hole and that it is only going to last three years when, in fact, she is going to collect in additional taxes, increased charges and of course other savings in relation to the wind-back of the public service and other initiatives which she announced yesterday in her mini-budget, an amount something in the order of 50% more than the amount of money she wants. Thereby lies the Labor lie that this is to solve a black hole, a mythical black hole.
If that was the case, they would only be raising the amount required to fill the mythical black hole. But, in fact, they are going far in excessive of that and the real reason why this activity is being pursued is to fund Labor’s promises that they undertook in the election campaign and now find, as they were told in the election campaign by the CLP, that they were going to be unsustainable and they have to get the money from somewhere and they are going to get it out of Territorians’ pockets. This impost will have a big impact on individuals right across the Northern Territory. It is unnecessary and it will be seen as that and it will not be welcomed.
Madam Speaker, in terms of the actual charge itself, the $90, another concern that we have is that many of the agencies that the government funds such as community based non-profit organisations, it seems that they will have to pay the levy. That is to say the legislation does not include any options for those community-based organisations, hard-working organisations such as Somerville Community Services, Red Cross, night patrols perhaps - many organisations that the government funds to provide community-based services, notwithstanding that their funding is stretched and their efforts are very extended in terms of providing services to the Northern Territory and people in need in particular - will have to pay $90 for every vehicle that they have because there are no exemptions included in this legislation for those organisations.
The Chief Minister has made a lot of noise about not impacting on the business community and that can be supported by not providing or placing additional imposts on the business community. I daresay that those community-based organisations - many of whom raise funds through their own activities, be it campaigning for funds, seeking funds through the mail from individuals even across the Northern Territory in the case of Red Cross and Somerville Community Services just to name a couple - now are going to be faced with an unnecessary impost and it will be seen as being more unnecessary for them than it is for the individuals because perhaps they are less able to afford it. In relation to the funds that they raise, if $90 per vehicle that they use has now to be paid from the donations that they receive, that is going to be $90 for every vehicle that they have that they deliver services to Territorians in need that they won’t have to deliver those services. That is an outrage. Members in this Chamber should be aware just what they are doing in relation to this imposition on community-based service providers.
On the one hand, the government is providing them with funds to provide services to those in need; on the other hand, it is now going to, with this legislation which is totally unnecessary, rip it off them. That, I think, is completely unsustainable. When these organisations are aware that that is going to be the impost on them, they are going to be pretty cross. They are going to be pretty cross for some very good reasons because they will be aware that the money that this government is saving through the initiatives they announced yesterday far exceeds what the mythical black hole, in fact, is said to be. They will see this just as a money grab and they will see themselves in a position, as service providers to people in need across the community, as funding Labor Party election promises. How do you think they are going to feel about that?
It is an abhorrent situation that this government has allowed itself to get into. I am afraid that I cannot find it anywhere in this legislation where there is the ability for the government to exclude community-based non-profit organisations, and those other service providers that fall into that type of a category, from the collection of this fee. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to advise, in her response, whether or not she sees that as a concern and whether or not there is going to be a mechanism put in place for those organisations to be able to avail themselves of some form of assistance and being omitted from the extent of this legislation. Or alternatively - albeit that it would be cumbersome but perhaps at least overcome the problem - will the government grants to those types of organisations be increased to the extent that this impost will be covered? That would have another disadvantage in that it would decrease the effectiveness of the collection of the moneys to be gathered by this legislation, but so be it.
It is a very ill-directed piece of legislation, an ill-considered piece of legislation if organisations of this kind are going to be caught in it. The Chief Minister and Treasurer has an obligation to explain to this House and to those organisations whether or not it will be.
The other thing I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to advise us is: what is the number of vehicles that will be included in this new tax? How many of them, precisely, is it expected that it will apply to and the basis on which that was assessed?
There are, quite apart from the individual and private concerns in relation to this legislation, some issues that have not been taken into account and, from the overall point of view, the opposition cannot support the legislation. The impact of it extends beyond the community-based organisations that I have mentioned. The member for Nelson, for example, as a recent participant in local government may well be asking the question as to whether or not it applies to local government. Local government is again an area of activity in the Northern Territory that provides services to the community. Are they to be caught in this net of unnecessary tax grabbing of tax payers money, albeit indirectly in this case? It will be another impost. Local government across the Northern Territory would operate a lot of vehicles that fall within the category to which this new tax will apply. I daresay that they, too, will be considering the implications of it. Perhaps the member and others may be pursuing those sorts of issues.
The tax is unnecessary, notwithstanding the bleatings of the Treasurer and other members of the government. It will, together with the other fundraising and economic measures that were introduced yesterday, far exceed the mythical black hole, and in far exceeding the mythical black hole amount of $107m, thereby exposes the government to what their real intent was. Their real intent was to pay for their election promises, and that is what Territorians are being asked to do by this impost of this new level of taxation.
With those words, on behalf of Territorians who very strongly oppose this bill, and no doubt, notwithstanding the opposition’s failure to support this legislation - the government does have the numbers and they will, in turn, have to answer to the electorate in relation to the imposition of it. If they think they are going to get away with it by blaming me or blaming the former government for it, then I feel that they are going to be very sadly mistaken. It is they who have introduced this legislation, it is they who have been exposed as being the proponents of the legislation for purposes other than those for which they say it is meant to fix - that is the black hole - when their measures, in fact, will far exceed the amount that is said to be required.
I think that they have greatly underestimated Territorians if they think that these excuses that they put forward ranging from ‘It is not a new tax, it is just a levy’ - well, it does not matter to those Territorians whose pockets are going to dipped into to rip out $90 for the Labor Party’s promises. They do not care what they have it for. They do not care if it is a levy, they do not care if it is a tax, they do not care what they call it. They do not care if the government blames the former government, the CLP, because it is the government that is introducing this legislation, it is the government that is going to force it through, it is the government that is going to take $90 out of every car owner’s pocket in the Northern Territory. It is the government, under the way this legislation is drafted, that is going to place an imposition on community-based organisations and local government and others, because of its imposition - and for reasons that are totally unfounded. The opposition very strongly opposes this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about this bill. My arguments are not to do with whether we should be raising levies or taxes, I just believe this piece of legislation is not fair. I specifically refer again to the section 4(12) in the act - and it is referred to on page 8 of the budget statement. The reasons for exemptions are specifically stated. These are heavy vehicles, trailers, caravans, tractors, mobile plants, motorised wheelchairs, motorised golf buggies, ride-on mowers and also motor vehicles of a prescribed class of motor vehicles, and goods vehicles of greater than 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass. The reason they are given that exemption from the levy is to minimise the impact on business.
I have a problem there, because, to take one example, what has a caravan got to do with business? If we are going to apply the levy, then we should apply it to those things which will have an impact on business, and a caravan, I do not believe, has an impact on business. Even trailers, unless you are talking about a work trailer. A trailer for a boat would not be regarded, unless it was for a fishing tour company, as for business.
The one that I find most difficult to believe is what would normally be regarded as a luxury item, and that is a motorised golf buggy. I gather that golf buggies are registered because they do cross into carparks. It seems to me that is an anomaly in that section of the act.
I know that when any taxes or levies are applied people certainly will suffer, but if we are going to have an exemption, then the exemption itself has to be fair. The other issue is that the act does allow an exemption of a goods vehicle but it says of greater than 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass. Therefore, it exempts, as I said before, a large number of self-employed people especially, who do have goods vehicles and those vehicles are used primarily for work. Again, on page 8 of the budget statement, it is basically saying this $90 per annum will be applied to vehicles capable of being used for private and domestic purposes. Most utes - and I know about utes - generally have one seat extra. I can tell you, to get someone to sit in there you have to remove all the papers and the gumboots and Lord knows what, to sit on that one seat. I would not regard them as a private or domestic-purpose vehicle. They should be exempted as a goods vehicle, primarily used for business. That clause really needs re-working to make it fair.
I agree with what the member for Katherine raised about the issues of charitable organisations and local government could also be exempted on the grounds that they use their vehicles for business. You could either scrap this whole thing and say: ‘Right, you are all going to feel the pain’, or if you are going to bring exemptions in, those exemptions must be fair, otherwise they just cause more argument and more discussion and cries of ‘Well, it’s good for him, why isn’t it good for the other person?’
The other area is the issue I raised yesterday about pensioner concessions. My feeling is that pensioners do have a hard time. I was trying to find some information about what pensioners’ discount already applies to registration of vehicles. The understanding that I have from the limited information I received, is that the pensioner discount on the registration of vehicles has not risen for quite a long time. It has not kept up with the increase in registration fees, and I think a lot of that is due to third party insurance. So, not only have they got behind the eight-ball as regards their discount on registration, they now also have another impost of $45. To some extent, they are actually a little worse off when you look at the totality of what has happened. The government should do one of two things - perhaps it could scrap the pensioner concession to nil on their first car, and perhaps it should have raised the total levy to $91 or $92 - whatever amount extra it would have meant to cover that small concession.
The other thing is whether this particular method of raising money is appropriate. Perhaps I would rather see - as poker machines and the effect that poker machines throughout Australia have always been frowned on - perhaps taxes should have been on something like this, which is a luxury. In other words, if it is put on income or expenditure - wherever you want to put it on – that really is not necessary. In other words, we tax things that people did not have to do, but they do because they like it. That would have been a preferred option than raising money through the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act.
I cannot support the act the way it is at the present time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I sense the former Treasurer is beginning to, if not enjoy the role of opposition, at least get an appreciation for the lack of discipline that it allows you to enjoy in the House, because you are able to get up and not support measures that he knows, well within himself, that these are entirely necessary. But added to that little luxury that opposition affords members in the sense of all accountability and no responsibility or vice versa - whichever way you want to use that terminology – there is the added layer of hypocrisy that his stance brings to this debate. It is very easy for opposition to oppose any difficult measures that the government has to bring down: ‘Not us, we are not going to vote for this. We will divide on this and we will see their names recorded in Hansard in defence of honest Territorians’, because they stood and divided and opposed this nasty revenue measure that this government has had to introduce.
But we do have to balance that attitude of the opposition and the stance of the former Treasurer because he, probably more than anyone else, assisted a little bit by the member for Drysdale and possibly by the former Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, certainly those three had a key role in leading the Territory into the difficulties of fiscal management that we find.
Words cannot describe how I felt when we first met with Treasury officials after being sworn into office. We were sitting in a room to be told that the budget was in an unsustainable position. This is a document that had passed through this Chamber less than 12 weeks previously and of course the questions we had were, ‘How so? How can this be?’ The very people that we thought were largely responsible for putting the budget together and getting it into the Assembly were here, 12 weeks after it had gone through this Assembly, saying it was unsustainable, it will not get you there. It was only subsequent to that that we began to get a feel that it was not Treasury officials who had put a lot of these figures into this budget. It was not Treasury officials who had misled this Chamber and Territorians and allowed unsustainable budget papers - really fraudulent budget papers - to be submitted and passed through this Chamber. It was in fact the government and in fact the former Treasurer himself and, of course, the role of the former minister for health, the member for Drysdale.
How did that happen? It happened because in first place they used figures in the estimates for final consumption expenditure knowing that those figures were false. So they falsely inserted figures in there so that when final consumption came through in those months later they were able to point and say: ‘Look at this, there has actually been an increase’.
The Auditor-General in his report to the Legislative Assembly has not been fooled at all, and I would not expect he would be. He talks about comparison of 2000-01 actual outcome and estimated actuals. $14m of that underestimate that he refers to in final consumption expenditure was caused by reductions made to the estimates prepared by two agencies. Those subsequently required funding to reinstate those amounts to meet the normal operational commitments which had been forecast in their estimates.
Now the situation in relation to the department of health has been well covered in this Chamber, not so the Department of Education. If we go to page 22 of his report, the Auditor-General asks: ‘How reliable was the financial consumption of expenditure estimate under the Department of Education?’, and I quote:
The government approved the $6m increase but the papers still showed the same $204m. The actual outlays recorded for personnel costs for the year eventually totally $212m.
The department’s submission to the March 2001 Cabinet meeting had, in fact, identified additional base funding
needs for the year of $11.44m.
The $6m increased base funding approved in March 2001, and $5.3m additionally approved in June 2001,
eventually provided the necessary level of funds to meet the department’s expenditure needs for the year.
The $6m increased base funding of March 2001 was also approved for the following three years, and will receive
increments in response to forecast Enterprise Bargaining Agreement increases. Offsetting that funding, however, is
the 2% efficiency dividend reduction applied in the forward estimates to personnel and operational costs. This offset
has the effect of producing forward estimates which are unlikely to portray the expenditure needs of the department.
The recent independent review of the Northern Territory’s financial position by Professor Percy Allan also identified
this issue generally across government.
In total, the $14m reduction across both agencies had the effect of reducing the estimated result for final
consumption expenditure, yet both subsequently required funding to reinstate those amounts to meet the
normal operational commitments which they had forecast in their estimates.
So that enabled the government, of course, at the time the budget went through, to put a figure for the next financial year in the budget papers and show, ‘Look at the increase we are giving health, look at the increase we are giving education’, knowing all of the time that it was a fraudulent fudged figure for that estimate for final consumption expenditure. Deliberately forged so that they could show the next year’s budget papers as having an increase.
It is that level of interference by ministers, by the former Treasurer, in the preparation of those documents that led to that situation. We have to ask ourselves, how, when the budget went through here it was headed for a $12m deficit for the financial year, not too bad, quite manageable you would think in all circumstances, but in fact it was closer to $130m?
In terms of how this happened, I think Professor Percy Allan was quite right in his report and it did not happen simply this financial year. It became a management tool on behalf of government, whether consciously employed or not it was an absolute failure - but the strategy seemed to be that you deliberately underfund the agency against what its real needs will be for the financial year as a way of enforcing discipline, or some financial and fiscal responsibility, into the agencies. But it does not seem that they ever told the agencies this is what you have; you have to live within it. This is the amount of money, these are the resources you will have for this financial year, that is all you get, you are going to have to live within it. Of course, we saw this in terms of EBAs, this same strategy over many years where they would tell a particular industry sector that was negotiating their enterprise bargaining agreement that there is no more. There is a bit of industrial strife, a bit of disputation, it might roll on for a few weeks, it gets a bit hot in the community. Well, hang on, we have another half percent or we have another 1% to bring to the table.
So, they go so far in the fight for discipline but when it got a bit hot, they always gave up. It did not matter whether it was the union, the teachers, the nurses arguing for more money, it was always to be found eventually. In the same way, they deliberately under-funded agencies to the point where they simply could not get through the financial year. The CEO is inevitably forced back to the respective minister for additional resourcing and additional funding and eventually the minister, under growing pressure from the CEO and the agency itself and the possibility of cuts to services, is forced to go to Cabinet. Cabinet of course is forced to bow to the inevitable and put the increased funding in that should have been there in the first place.
If government was serious about employing that type of strategy as a management tool, as a way of acquiring a fiscal responsibility and disciplining the system, it should have been more insistent on it. It should have pointed out to CEOs right at the outset, this is all you are going to get. We expect you to continue to deliver services, we expect you to keep your staff all in place and you are going to manage within this budgetary framework. But not so, because as soon as it probably got past Christmas most years, in they would come, one after the other, because they simply had not been given the resources to get through in the first place.
This last financial year that has finished up in this mythical black hole that the former Treasurer refers to, is a result of that three or four years of management like that so that the gap between what the agencies were given to manage and get through the financial year on the one hand and what they were actually required to get through, grew ever larger. It would have continued to grow ever larger because there was no discipline on behalf of our predecessors ever to rein it in. It was a strategy that did not work. I have explained that that gap was getting ever larger until, of course, government changed and we, as the government, are left with picking up the pieces of this growing gap.
We recognise this levy is an impost on the community, and the way the former Treasurer was participating in debate here, almost accusing the government of extracting some joy or some delight in having to put this impost on the community, and we recognise it. We recognise it very much as an impost and we would, of course, prefer not to have had to do it. Given the situation that we face, there are only two things you can do - it is no different to a household, albeit on a different scale. You have income and revenue on the one hand, you have expenditure and outgoings on the other, and you have to try to make a match as closely as possible if you are going to be in a sustainable position over the longer term.
The fairest way in terms of the revenue is to spread it, in our view, as thinly and as widely as possible. Notwithstanding that, we do recognise it for the impost that it is, but at the same time we recognise we are asking a large part of the Northern Territory community to contribute for the good of the Northern Territory overall. This levy will be in place for three years. It will contribute to bringing the Territory budgetary position back to a sustainable position earlier than would otherwise have been achieved. We envisaged, at the time that we put our costings down, and we took a great deal of effort to get those through Access Economics, ticked off against a bottom line prediction of a $12m deficit. The former Treasurer stands here and says, ‘This is all about funding Labor Party promises’, and commitments that we made during the election campaign. Commitments that we stand by and we will deliver because we are wise enough, in retrospect, to have said that we will deliver over four years. None of them were first year promises. They were all term promises and they are commitments that we stand by and will deliver. It would have been much easier for us to meet those commitments were it not for the budget deficit position that we found ourselves in.
This levy is nothing to do with funding Labor Party election commitments. We made those commitments. We made them on the basis of the budgetary position that was passed through this Chamber, and it was only 12 weeks later that we found out the fraud that they represented.
We recognise this as an impost. As I said, we would prefer not to do it. We do ask Territorians to share in this over the next three years because times are tougher than we would otherwise have wanted. It is just too cute and it is just too coy for the opposition to come in here and oppose a measure for which they are 100% responsible.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I fully support the shadow Treasurer’s position that this is a totally unnecessary taxation impost on the people of the Northern Territory. Let me say at the outset that I am curious to hear all of the interjections while the shadow Treasurer was on his feet, from members opposite, especially from the opposition backbench, those people who represent the northern suburbs, who are now not climbing to their feet, who are stunningly conspicuous by their absence from this debate, because they know full well that if they stand up in this Chamber and say: ‘We support this new tax’, that its going to bite them on the backside once they go back to the northern suburbs.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I invite the members opposite to get to their feet and tell the people of the northern suburbs how much you support this new tax - how much you support this new tax. I will tell you something, they do not have the courage or the determination to do so, because they are going to be partaking in the absolute dishonesty which this new tax is. It is a clear and deliberate attempt for them to skulk around and hide between the cracks in the pavement whilst the waters of the tide of the deceit from the government floods over the people of the Northern Territory.
I find this an absolutely astonishing process that we are going through at the moment. Let us have a look at what happened between the May budget in 2000-01 and the mini-budget which was delivered to the people of the Northern Territory last night. What happened in between was the fact that we got ‘percified’. Professor Percy Allan was the major differentiating factor between the two budgets. Let us have a look at what Mr Percy Allan did not do. What he did not do in relation to …
Mr Kiely: Professor Percy Allan.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Sanderson. If you have something to say, get on your feet and say it. Climb up on your feet and say: ‘I support this tax. I want to bring this tax down on the people of the Northern Territory’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us look at the ‘percification’ that is occurring to the people in the northern suburbs, as well as Territorians everywhere. I notice from the Treasury papers, Budget Paper No 3, Appendix 2.2, which appeared on page 37, that the figure that is demonstrated is a $12m deficit, which was what the then Treasurer presented to this House. Not $107m. There is no annotation or footnote to say that there was a differentation in what we expected.
A member: Which table is this?
Mr ELFERINK: Table 2.2 …
Mr Kiely: What page?
Mr ELFERINK: 37.
Mr Kiely: Paragraph?
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, would you like a crayon and for me to write it out on a large piece of paper for you? Okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, there it is - $12m. If Treasury felt that this was unsustainable, surely there would be a footnote or some sort of expression in relation to this prediction in the paperwork here. And then we see in the mini-budget for 2001-02, a projected deficit of $129m. Mr Percy Allan - Professor Percy Allan - tells us that the projected blow-out was $107m. What he does not allow for, of course, is the sale of NT Fleet, which in these budget papers, is valued at over $50m.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, according to these budget papers, the valuation of NT Fleet is over $50m. The Treasurer made it abundantly clear when he came into this Chamber that the sale of NT Fleet was going to be offset against the debt that was going to be run up in that period, thus bringing us close to the $12m figure. The other thing that Professor Percy Allan does is say that you guys have not predicted a flood. You guys have not predicted an earthquake. You blokes have not predicted a plague of frogs, or whatever, and as a consequence, I believe he puts a figure of $40m on that. Where does that figure of $40m come from? I believe that professorship is still, grant you, in the realm of the mortal and you must - unless he has some particular ability to predict a natural disaster and the value of it, I think it is very difficult to apply a value.
Dr Burns: It is a contingency.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah ! Unless you are able to predict something that is going to occur and put a value on it, I think it is very difficult to guess how much a contingency is going to be. Perhaps the purchase of a power line had to be a contingency at one point or another.
The point is that you guys over there are raising a tax to raise $50m, or $42m, and what are we seeing? A perfectly good asset, which the former Treasurer had said that we were going to sell, which would raise the same amount. So the question is, why don’t you sell NT Fleet in accordance with the budgetary papers handed down in the May budget? It is a straightforward question. Then nobody would have to pay this ridiculous impost which has been thrust upon the shoulders of the people in the northern suburbs – the people who the backbench over there have been elected to represent.
The other question I have is, why is this going through on urgency? Surely the few months that the normal process would take up to February next year would allow us to consider this and to pass our attention to this issue properly. But we have a piece of legislation here which has been dumped in front of us, carries no second reading speech whatsoever, so we have only to guess at the political nature of this particular new tax. Three months, is that going to make so much difference to your outcome at the end of the period, Treasurer? Or is it the fact that you simply do not want to see a new tax sitting in the public arena for a further three months whilst the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the northern suburbs get to discuss the matter of the new tax which is coming their way? Of course, you do not. There is nothing urgent in this other than an urgent desire to protect yourself from political damage by bringing on a tax through the normal processes.
I am also very worried about subsection (5) in the legislation, and I draw members’ attention to clause 4, section 12(5) and I quote:
This is actually ‘We can raise this at any point by a ministerial stroke of the pen. We will only have to bring the legislation to the House once …’ - once only – ‘… and after that it is a matter of regulation. We just sign off on it and pump it through’. So the next thing that the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the northern suburbs discover is when they are registering their car, they are now paying $100 or they are now paying $120 or perhaps this broad-based levy that the minister for industries and business has to consider for the HIH processes can whack an extra $90 on it, or even an extra $100.
‘Perhaps we are going to find ourselves in a situation whilst we are raising levies left, right and centre …’, say the government, ‘… we can pick up the need to raise the HIH levy which is not funded in the budget projections for the next few years’. Not funded in those tables. ‘Where would be a good place that we could raise those taxes? Well, gee whiz! Look. We can raise these taxes by the stroke of a pen in our you-beaut piece of …’ - what is it called? – ‘… Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’.
I am astonished that if you are going to put a figure of $90 on it and promise the people of the Northern Territory you are not going to raise it , that you are going to slip a little subsection in there which says: ‘Oh gee. We are going to leave a back door in this for us to ramp it up any time we damn well please.’ If the Treasurer does not want to reassure the people of the northern suburbs and the people of the Northern Territory as a whole that she is not going to ramp up the amounts, then it is simple: remove the clause. Simply get rid of it. Leave it at a flat rate of $90. If she stands up in here and says: ‘Oh, I promise I am not going to do this. I am not going to ramp up the amount of money that I am going to be charging through this tax,’ then that is not good enough. It is a totally superfluous clause unless there is a clear and deliberate intention to ramp up the value of the tax.
I am absolutely mortified that they would even try to slip it in and sneak it through. But, perhaps that is what they were intending to do when you consider that they were pushing this through on urgency for political reasons. Part of the political reasons they are pushing it through on urgency is so that hopefully nobody would notice the difficult but carefully-worded subsection (5) to section 12 of the new act.
Dr Burns: But you did.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection of the member for Johnston who says: ‘But you did’. Well, it is my job. I read this stuff when it comes across my desk. It is what I get paid to do by the people of the Northern Territory when I entered this parliament, as it should be your job. I would be curious to hear your comments when you get to your feet and talk about it. I would be curious to hear that he will look carefully at this and that he will fight for the people of the Northern Territory to make sure that this tax is not increased. Let us see the member for Johnston come walk into this Chamber and say: ‘I am going to put my political career on the line, my affiliation to the ALP on the line, and say: “If this tax goes up one more cent, I will leave the ALP”.’ Let us see him stand up and do that in this Chamber. I bet you he does not.
This is very cute of the Leader of Government Business to come in here and say: ‘It is a lapse of discipline.’ It is very cute now that the Shadow Treasurer can come into this Chamber and start opposing bills when we had to show the discipline of the past to make sure that all of this stuff passed. The fact of the matter is it was the now government’s lack of discipline in the past which has got them into a situation where they have to impose these taxes on people of the Northern Territory. The fact of the matter is that their promises prior to the last election far exceed the $129m deficit that they have noted in their budget papers. I would estimate that those promises will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Dunham: Over $350m.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Over $350m’, says the member for Drysdale, and I believe that. They are extraordinary promises. It was an utter lack of discipline based on the fact that they did not expect to win - they did not expect to win. The Chief Minister, on the very night of the election result itself, stood in front of the national media and went: ‘Oh, golly, we won! I did not expect that. This is a complete surprise to me. We thought we might pick up one or two seats.’ So, here we have this raft of promises which have to be paid for. It is cute in the extreme for the Leader of Government Business to walk into this Chamber …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I question the relevance of the current speaker to the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: As you are probably aware, member for Karama, we do get rather wide-ranging in our debates in this House. Member for Macdonnell, though, would you try to keep your comments relevant to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am responding, of course, to the Leader of Government Business who thought it was entirely relevant to go down this path. It is incumbent on me as a member of opposition, and one of the commonsense members of this House, to respond to the Leader of Government Business’ comments. I can understand the member for Karama will be feeling very sensitive about supporting a new tax which she has to levy on her constituency, and I could imagine the she would very much want to silence a member of the opposition in relation to this issue.
The fact of the matter is that they never expected to be in a position where they had to levy a new tax, and they have find some way to pay for some of these exorbitant promises that they have made. It is cute in the extreme that the Leader of Government Business comes into this Chamber and says: ‘You must be disciplined in your approach.’ They must have been horrified when they realised in many respects that they were going to have to go down this path, and they must have been horrified when they were going to have to introduce a new tax which they could up in terms of the subsection (5) which I mentioned earlier.
The other question I would like to ask the Treasurer is in terms of contingencies, which the member for Johnston seems to be so very concerned about. I would ask how much of this tax is going to go to a contingency fund in case there is a cyclone, or in case there is a plague of frogs, or in case there is a major fire, or something that you cannot predict? How much you have put into that contingency fund as a whole? When do you expect the next disaster to appear on the on the radar screen? I notice that the Treasurer is laughing, because she cannot, and the reason that she cannot is because she is as mortal as the rest of us. But is there any contingency? That is a very straightforward question.
What they are doing is they are imposing a tax, a pay-for-Labor-promises tax. That is all it is. That is all they are trying to do. They could start pursuing the budgetary processes put in place by the last government, such as the sale of NT Fleet, and they would not have to impose this tax. They simply would not have to do it. I find it absolutely astonishing that they have the brass and the audacity to come into this place. I look forward to the contribution from the Labor backbench in relation to how they support this tax and how they support taxing Territorians in this extreme way.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the Martin Labor government has moved this mini-budget to redress the financial disaster left to us by the CLP …
Mr Elferink: Do you support the tax?
Dr BURNS: I will come to that. The twisted financial wreckage we inherited from the CLP will need four years to rebuild. In her mini-budget, the Treasurer and Chief Minister has systematically detailed how this government will implement a realistic deficit reduction strategy over the next four years to bring the Northern Territory budget into surplus - something that you did not have, a deficit reduction strategy! In stark contrast to the previous government, which repeatedly allowed the budget deficit to blow out over the past three financial years - and that is on the record - thereby demonstrating appalling financial management.
Last year, the 2000-01 financial year, was a prime example. A planned deficit of approximately $45m blew out to just under $150m, and your precious power line was part of that. In essence, the Territory public purse was caught in what I will term the ‘CLP crocodile jaws’. I will explain what I mean by that. These jaws were formed when the CLP government allowed actual expenditure to exceed target expenditure, and keep rocketing upward in an ever-widening gap. This led to a dangerous situation of ever-increasing debt without a deficit reduction strategy. Indeed, the way in which the previous government continued to rack up public debt with no adequate debt reduction strategy, was a matter of comment by the Auditor-General who further questioned the spurious way in which you reported net debt. In other words, you tried to ignore it by the way you reported it, but it was there. We knew it was there.
The mini-budget contains a detailed and realistic plan to reduce the deficit. In the 2004-05 budget, there will be a $4m surplus. Our plan is responsible and detailed, and it has been well accepted by the business community.
On the subject of the charge that is going to be levied, I support it. I support it because it is part of the responsible strategy to bring us back into surplus. It is part of a realistic deficit reduction strategy and yes, there is pain, but the pain was caused by your crocodile jaws, by your putting things on the never-never, by racking up public debt, by doing things like buying a $45m power line that you did not really need to purchase. That is what you did. So I am forced to support it through your actions. I support the Chief Minister and the Treasurer in everything that has been pulled down in this mini-budget. However, the mini-budget does not seek to make cuts to public expenditure but rather, to slow down growth to an acceptable level so that we can bring the Northern Territory budget back into deficit.
Hospitals, health and community services, schools, police and emergency services and custodial services have largely been quarantined in the budget improvement measures. While overall growth in public outlays has been slowed, there has been an additional $8.7m for capital works and a further $6m for repairs and maintenance - all designed to create additional work in this sector. The reinstatement of the QuickStart program will also give a much needed stimulus to the construction industry. Education, employment and training are priorities for this government and, as the Treasurer has foreshadowed, there is an extra $10m of increased funding in this area. This mainly relates to $5m for the increased operational funding for schools and an additional 20 teachers for the 2002 school year. This will increase, progressively, to an additional 100 teachers by the end of the government’s term.
Vocational education and training is also a priority and I am fortunate to have the Casuarina Senior College in the Johnston electorate. This is a priority of theirs - they are trying to train young people younger and fit them into jobs and employment. They certainly welcome the extension of vocational education and training down to year 9. Now an additional $1.2m has been provided for the fit-out of three schools. All positive things, all in line with our election promises which we pledge to deliver to Territorians, and we will over the next four years. We will also deliver to them a process, in terms of budgets, that is transparent and responsible, and we will deliver a surplus in 2004.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the bill and it being rushed through on urgency. In my view it is unnecessary. I also have some concerns about the position that the bill operates in our legislative scheme and the framework. Before I go on to that and talk about the bill in more detail and also the principle act, I will make some general comments.
In my view, the tax burden which exists, and which forms part of the mini-budget which was handed down this week, falls largely upon rural people. If you take a pastoralist or someone who pays an annual Crown lease, he has not only had the annual lease fee increased by 100%, this particular person now has to bear the burden of this levy of $90 per vehicle. That may not affect the champagne socialists living in other areas and supporters of the Labor Party, but it is going to affect real people.
It is a cop-out to describe this amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act as anything short of a tax. It has been referred to as a levy, it has been referred to as a revenue measure by the Deputy Leader. Indeed, our own Chief Minister slipped up earlier when she referred to this proposal as a tax which is, of course, what it is.
The business community, of course - first of all, unfortunately, apart from through the ballot box, did not have any choice as to what taxes the government deems fit for our community. I can tell you that the feedback that I have had, and indeed, common sense dictates that if you take money out of the community, that is going to reduce the spending power which people have, which ultimately will reflect how much money they are going to spend through retailers and that money is out of circulation. So, it will have an effect. It is a tax. I suppose the comparison would be a person who has a household budget. Rather than look closely at that budget and make the necessary changes, or go out and work a bit harder to earn a bit more money, what they have done - and this is the special power which governments have which, of course, a household budget does not have - they have gone and taxed further money from another source, that is, the other taxpayers of the Northern Territory.
The other concern I have, and this from a philosophical perspective, is that the tax which is contained in the proposed bill is a flat tax with a limited number of exemptions. It applies, of course, to the rural resident who has a 1978 model HZ Holden and trundles around and it is only worth a couple of thousand dollars, and exactly same rate applies to a champagne socialist who drives around in his Rolls Royce and wants to save the world. There are a number of other mechanisms which would be available, certainly to government, if they were serious about being more equitable in relation to this particular tax. It can be attached to stamp duty. I, in fact, support the member for Nelson’s comments in relation to senior citizens. The tax, for example, could have been $91 per vehicle and that would allow complete exemption for our senior citizens, particularly in my electorate of Goyder, where, as a community, we are trying to do all that we can to keep our senior citizens on their 5 acre blocks for longer in the community where they belong and close to their families. There is no effective public transport in the rural area for logistical reasons, so it is not uncommon for families to have two to four vehicles. As I touched upon earlier, being rural people, they will feel the brunt of this particular burden.
I trust the Chief Minister is across the legislation. I look forward to going through it in the committee stage, but it creates an illogical surge path. This is a tax and it is contained in an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. The normal canons of construction dictate that if you are going to have a tax, if you are going to burden the people with something, then it has to be clear, it has to be accessible and easily accessible. You do not go and hide this type of tax in an act which has a completely different purpose.
The other concern I have, and it is a bit of a decay - and I will make some comments about it and then take the point a bit further tomorrow in relation to some other legislation. A trend which seems to be occurring - I, too, am a recent arrival in this parliament - but a trend which I have seen and which is unfortunate, is that the name of the particular act, the Temporary Budget Improvement Levy - that’s section 12 - we have the situation where the government are trying to create some high moral ground between the government and the opposition. Rather than call it what it really is, which is a tax, and put it in the correct act, we have the situation where it has been slipped into the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been given a name in terms of section 12 which is, in my view, inappropriate. It could be called just a registration levy but rather, as is obvious to all members in this Chamber, the government’s opted for the phrase ‘Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’. We could call it anything - the ‘Labor save the world agenda levy’, the ‘champagne socialist levy’ - whatever you want to call it, but it is inappropriate.
Indeed it is a long-standing convention which, of course, the government sees fit to disregard, is that you do not bring politics into a piece of legislation. If you had an ounce of integrity you would just call it a registration levy and if you were serious about quality legislation for the Northern Territory people and making it accessible to people, and if the Attorney-General was serious about really focussing on legislation and debating it openly and honestly in this parliament, then it would be a separate act. A separate act which is clear and concise and people who have not had the pleasure of sitting in this parliament and listening to you could find it easily.
In terms of the act itself, I can touch upon it but no doubt the Chief Minister who introduced it would be across the act and of course has the principle act before her and will be aware and I can just flag these queries. The Chief Minister can perhaps clarify some of the concerns which I will amplify now.
In section 12 of the proposed act, there is an obligation upon the registrar. It says, in certain situations, the registrar must not register a motor vehicle to which this section applies unless the temporary budget improvement levy - the act is peppered with this inappropriate phrase but for the sake of this particular point I will refer to it by its full name as contained in the act – is paid. If it is not paid the registrar has a statutory obligation not to register the vehicle. When the Chief Minister instructed her counsel to draft that, I am sure she would have had a look at the legislation before she jumped into it.
Section 13 of the principle act talks about the prescribed fees applying to certain vehicles under the Road Transport Charges Laws. Section 13A - we will go through this in more detail in the committee stage - but if you get the gist of this, 13A talks about a person, in accordance with the act, applying to the registrar, paying their insurance contribution and then paying to the deputy registrar - that is the person at the front counter of the MVR - the prescribed fee for a vehicle which comes within the scope of transport charges laws and any other fees. Now we have fees here. We do not have levy or tax but any other fees. The deputy registrar, or the other officers, shall give that person a certificate. Section 13A, down the very bottom, talks about that certificate once it has been issued, then the vehicle is deemed to be registered. We have the situation where one part of your act says, you pay the money, the prescribed fee and those minor requisites, and the vehicle is deemed to be registered. Then you have another portion of the act saying that the registrar shall not register the vehicle unless this Temporary Budget Improvement Levy is paid. It is an ambiguity which, I imagine, if the matter ever came to be prosecuted in the magistrates court …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, are you referring to section 12A or 13A?
Mr MALEY: Section 13A of the principal act. You cannot read an amending bill in isolation. The first thing you have to do is look at the principle act to really understand how it fits in. This is not an act to be read in isolation; it is part of a much larger act, of course, which has been in operation in the Territory for a period of time.
Here we have a taxing act, which is always read narrowly, and if there is an ambiguity it will be resolved in favour of the taxpayer, which is contrary to section 13A, which says the vehicle is deemed to be registered and no offence is committed. Indeed, there is another positive obligation on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and/or his deputy, in certain situations. There are some real problems there and I look forward to them being answered in the committee stage.
I am really flagging this, I am not sure what the answer is, but I am keen to find out what GST implications, if any, there are on this particular tax. I know it is a tax on a tax, but there may be some ambiguity there, particularly in regard to the nature of the terminology used in section 12. Another difficulty which may arise is that I am confused and at a loss to see where the trade plates that are transferred from vehicle to vehicle, how that fits into the scheme and whether the levy is going to apply to those particular trade plates.
The point raised by the member for Macdonnell, that is the fact that section 12, subsections (4) and (5), need to be clarified. If the act, as I said, is read narrowly, then it would probably make subsection (5) surplusage and unnecessary.
For all those reasons, and there are a few other things I will touch upon at the committee stage, the act is unfair. It is ill-conceived, it is not in the proper form. There is probably one other thing that the act demonstrates, which is not something contained in the text, but I have sat here patiently since parliament sat, since the election of 18 August, and I have watched with interest the government deliver on some of its core and non-core promises. Really, it strikes at the very heart of the government and the Chief Minister’s integrity and her honesty, when there is lots of literature around that there will be no new taxes or charges, and then within 100 days of this new government taking place, she has the audacity to introduce this particular bill.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Now, look the Chief Minister can smile and perhaps can get a bit of support from the troops, but the reality is that many people understood that was the promise. The promise has been made and I am happy for the Deputy Chief Minister to put a spin on things - that is his job - but at the end of the day there are some hard facts which no one can escape. There is a core promise which has been broken. The other reality is, and people are aware of this, there were other options which were available. So, just like a clock that strikes for the thirteenth time, it casts a shadow over the credibility, integrity and honesty of the person who uttered those words and then in the same breath, they introduced this particular tax.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this will probably interest the member for Macdonnell, because I know that he was crying out for this sort of admission. I rise today to give my full support. Let me say it again to the members over there. I rise today to give my full support to the Treasurer for the innovative and equitable manner, and how she plans to lead us away from what most assuredly was a bleak economic future under the sleight-of-hand fiscal management of the previous CLP government, with all of their underfunded promises. That is what this is all about, that is what this mini-budget is all about.
We have heard it before, but it needs to be said time and time again. I am going to say it here, that the CLP approach was to run the budget into the ground, strip government capacity to play a central role in the economy and slash and burn the public sector. That was their approach. If they were back in government that is what they would be doing right now. They have done it before and they will do it again.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I can’t hear the member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: You will not get another chance here. But I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been around the Territory. I am only a relatively new chum, I have only been here 15 or 16 years, I have not got any stripes yet. In that brief time that I have been here, I had the good fortune not to be caught up in the Economic Review Committee razor gang that slashed its way through the public service in the early 1990s. I had the good fortune not to be there. However, good fortune does not last forever, does it? Misfortune must visit people every now and then. However, I was employed in the Northern Territory public sector some years later when they went at it again. Planning for bloody growth, Planning for Growth.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Language!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Watch your language, please.
Mr KIELY: Of course, I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got caught up in the moment. I should stand with my hands on my head. I shall place my hands strategically upon my hip as I have seen other more mature members of this House do. Is this the better stance to take?
Planning for Growth was known and openly derided throughout the public sector as ‘pruning for growth’. There were, indeed, many comparisons made by those who have suffered under the seemingly erratic hand of the ERC and the approach by the CLP on this, their latest blunt instrument, to cut jobs. Indeed, there are quite a number of people who I worked with prior to entering this House who foreshadowed such an event that is happening again. Public servants were not blind to the Mandrake-like approach that the CLP had to portraying an infeasible economic performance as one of good economic management.
Dr Burns: They have got the gesticulator over there, anyway.
Mr KIELY: Indeed, indeed. The last CLP budget could not even be saved by their own spin doctors who so ably covered up their poor performances on many previous occasions. That is how crook it was. ‘Everyone, come look at this!’ It was amazing. You were caught up in your own fantasy world that you could keep on fooling people.
The proof is in the pudding isn’t it?
This is a good mini-budget for all Territorians, and here is another concept that I will lay on this crowd over here. This is a good mini-budget because it is honest …
Mr MALEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I seek a point of clarification. Just for my learned friend’s information …
Ms Scrymgour: He is not your learned friend.
Mr MALEY: Well, the member for Sanderson. He cannot be heard on the speakers and on the various transmitting devices unless he stands closer to the microphone. I am doing my duty here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if you could place your arm on your other hip, please.
Mr KIELY: Now where was I? That’s right, I was talking about honesty. There is another new concept for you. There is another new concept. Honesty in budget. Right, let us deal with that. This is where the Martin Labor government has its strength. Because honesty, that is what families and business want in budgets. They want honesty and that is what we are delivering. They are tired of the misrepresentations and promises of glowing futures that evaporate over time or remain dangled before them like sweets promised to a child as a reward for good behaviour in front of the visiting grandparents. That is all you have ever delivered. Promises dangling, which evaporated. This is one of the great telling differences between a Martin Labor government and what is now the discredited CLP opposition.
This budget incorporates Labor’s election commitments and reorders government spending to increase the priority given to the essential areas of health, education and the all important services. Capital works, which this lot keep on trotting out all the time, is a significant component of our economy and, sadly, this is yet another area that the CLP simply underfunded, and even more sadly, this ongoing underfunding would finally lead to a situation where new works would grind to a halt. That is what Territorians had to look forward to if they had remained in government.
Well, as we have heard, the Martin Labor mini-budget is structured to ensure an injection of additional - let me say that again - additional $10m cash. There is another word for you. Another new concept – cash. Each of the works programmed this financial year, despite the abysmal state the former CLP government left the budget in, and the news is even better. The news is even better because this money will be spread throughout Territory communities. You see, that is what this government is all about. It is about spreading it across the Territory. It is not about just being tucked up into little corners, looking after mates. We are spreading the money across the Territory so that all communities can have the benefit of it. There is funding going not only to Darwin; it is going to Katherine. It is going to Alice Springs. It is going into Tennant Creek. It is going to Gove. This is a Territory mini-budget. It is for all Territorians, not just its mates.
This budget is a blueprint for growth. There are real annual increases in finding consumption expenditure and new fixed capital expenditure is expected to average slightly more over the forward estimate period than the previous five years. What this mini-budget does for all Territorians is it does away with the uncertainty. It does away with the uncertainty brought about by the CLP’s callous disregard for proper and ethical economic management.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I make a contribution to this debate in order to highlight the hypocrisy of those opposite. I only plan to be a couple of minutes, but, once again, that depends on interjections from the members opposite.
We need to be very clear about what we are dealing with here. As I am aware, this is a levy on an existing charge and it seems to be something that the members opposite do not fully comprehend. It is not a new tax.
Mr Dunham: You’re in government. You can get those figures. Ring them up.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Drysdale says: ‘Ring them up. Find out.’ I will. It will be interesting for Territorians to know that, especially for members of this Chamber to be aware of it, because we know the problems we are confronted with have been brought about by the financial mismanagement of the members opposite, especially the former Treasurer and the former Chief Minister. It was spend, spend, spend. We know, as we discovered, they had made all these lovely promises but they did not put the cash allocations to many of those projects, nor did they put timeframes to many of them. Obviously, Territorians have woken up to that and have decided that we should play A grade and they should play B grade for four years.
We are the ones now who have to pick up the pieces and clean up this rotten mess. This is not about raising revenue to fund our election commitments. This is about addressing the grave budgetary position that we inherited. This is a temporary levy which has the single objective of restoring the sustainability of the government’s budgetary position. It is a levy that will be shared by all Northern Territorians including members of this Assembly.
Mr Dunham: No, only people who drive motor cars.
Mr AH KIT: We will wait for your contribution when we discuss the RTD stuff tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see what your contribution is going to be on the rejection.
Mr Dunham: I have only just read it, mate. Not like you mob, we did not get it early.
Mr AH KIT: It has been tabled. You have time to read it and no doubt you will be organising your comments for tomorrow, but it will be very interesting and I will be waiting.
This is a levy that will be shared by all Territorians including members of this Assembly. It is a levy that none of us will enjoy paying, but I think that we should remember that it is a CLP levy. It is the compulsory liability payment that the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, and the member for Katherine, Mike Reed, have inflicted upon Territorians, to pay for their gross incompetence and total dishonesty.
If Northern Territorians are looking for someone to blame for this levy, then they need to look no further than the opposition benches. They are the people who left us with a deficit of $107m. You are the people who behaved irresponsibly and dishonestly in government and you sought to hide the truth from Northern Territorians in the lead-up to the election. It is now up to us to clean up that deficit and keep faith on our election commitments because we are a government of financial and political integrity.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: It is foreign to the members opposite. They do not clearly understand those words. That means we need to generate savings on the expenditure side of the budget, and look for initiatives to lift the revenue. This bill is aimed at getting a temporary lift to the revenue of $24m over three years by providing for a $90 a year levy on motor vehicle registrations. That is less than $2 per week for three years to pay for the incompetence and deceit of the CLP.
Sadly, with the legacy of 26 years with the CLP running the show, not only do we face overcoming the damage that they have inflicted upon the Northern Territory over that time, but we also have to carry the burden of their incompetence for another three years. When Northern Territorians next register their motor vehicle, they should remember that it is the hands of Denis Burke and Mike Reed who are in their pockets. It is the CLP levy.
We are determined to make the application of the levy as fair as possible. The bill contains hardship provisions which will provide for a 50% reduction in the levy for holders of pensioner cards, and certain classes of vehicles will be exempt. This is a fair measure which will ensure that the burden of what was left behind by the former discredited CLP government is shared across the Northern Territory, and once the damage has been repaired, the will levy will disappear. This is a responsible economic measure that should be supported and those opposite should hang their heads in shame for inflicting so much damage across the Territory to ordinary Territorians.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a bizarre debate. One of the problems we have in terms of the members, particularly the member for Karama who called a point of order that she thought we were digressing from the subject, is that it is very difficult to define what the subject is. What is it we are talking about?
Under normal circumstances, when you get a document of this ilk - and we have had many of them in this parliament - they would be subjected to the full light of parliamentary debate and scrutiny. They would be debated in committee for some hours, in fact, days, and they would be subject to very intensive questioning of the type that could come, for instance, from concerned bodies, the community and others. The reason we are having this debate is because this document will not get that scrutiny and there is one document that, by some fault or accident or whatever, the Labor party has to subject to the scrutiny of this House and that is a revenue garnering bill. That is this bill we are talking about.
So it is interesting, for instance, that the transport minister has not spoken on this debate, because it has nothing to do with transport. It has nothing to do with the Motor Vehicle Registry. It has nothing to do with motor cars. It has nothing to do with being deployed in that particular area. It is to do with raising tax. That is what it is about. We realise, as a very famous person once said, death and taxes are inevitable. We know tax is inevitable. We know that every government will raise them, and we know that there will never be a stage where they will be universally applauded by the public for doing so. They are givens.
As legislators, as we are here, we are going to impose our collective hand into the pockets of taxpayers and we must pose some questions. We must ask ourselves, for instance, is it fair? Is this a fair tax? We must ask if it is simple. We must ask is this is a tax that through its complexity would render it able to be avoided by people who are clever or have lots of money. We must look at its purpose. We must look at how it is understood. And we must look at why we are doing it.
If we apply these rhetorical questions to this particular tax, the first thing we have to ask is: is it fair? There has been proposed by those opposite that it is fair because there was a target that it had to meet - a target of $107m. It is a fairly simple mathematical exercise to say: ‘Okay, let us raise the tax until we get to $107m, and then stop. We will not need it after that’. If we do need it after that, as the calculations by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition showed, it is being used for a purpose beyond which the rhetoric in this House would have us believe. Is it enough tax? Is it too much tax? These are questions that we should pose to ourselves. The simplicity to operate, that is probably the hallmark of this particular bill, is that it is very simple. I guess that this is the route that has been chosen by the government. This is a very simple tax to implement. You merely go to those people who already garner fees and other revenue for the government, who already have security devices on their premises, already engage Chubb Security to cart cash around, they already have their electronic machinery and you just say, ‘You can get this stuff as well’.
The member for Arnhem would have us believe that this is a little addendum. He said it is just an additional piece of tax. Well, it is not. It is brand new, it stands alone, it has its own little name. We are led to believe it has its own purpose. There are some who have contributed to this debate who believe that it even has a quantum; it has a ceiling. Once it has reached it, we can put this act to bed and say: ‘It did what we wanted it to do and it can now disappear’.
There are some who would argue that a tax should have a nexus. For instance, if it is a community tax that applies to all - as again, the member for Arnhem said - maybe all people should pay it. This is a tax that applies to people who own motor cars. Here in the Territory you could make a simple assumption that it is fairly common, there are high levels of motor vehicle ownership. That is not the step that the member for Arnhem would have us believe, in that this tax applies universally across the populous, because it does not. There are some faults with it. The benefits, as I said, are that is a very simple tax to drop in. There is another benefit in that people already pay a fairly substantial registration fee that amounts to some hundreds of dollars, and it could be that if this tax is tucked in there, it might not be noticed in years 2, 3, 4 or 5.
I, too, have a problem with it being able to be changed by administrative whim without having to come back to this parliament. I think that is a very significant flaw in this piece of legislation, because if that latitude was available to the current government, we would not be debating this. They would have merely exercised that executive power that they have, garnered this tax, and we would be none the wiser as to having this debate that we are having now. So, I think it is important to put it on the record for what it is. I think it is important that we strip down some of the charade, because they are not going to get away with it for several years by saying: ‘We had this $107m problem and you have had to live with the tax ever since’.
I am a bit disappointed too, Mr Deputy Speaker - and I hope you do not take this as a reflection on yourself - that the language in this debate is getting very close to a censure debate, and the House is getting to a stage where there are many words that are being used such as ‘dishonourable’ and ‘fraud’. ‘Dishonest’, was allowed by Madam Speaker this morning - and I think that some of these things are untested.
For mine, there are some issues, I believe, that fall within the province of the PAC and I believe they should be left there. For those in this parliament who would judge the outcome of the PAC, I think is an offence to that particular institution, that particular organ of this parliament. I think it should be left to that particular investigation to look beyond what some people might believe, from a very spartan investigation and a spartan amount of documents. I shall not venture there, because there is a more appropriate place and that can come back to this parliament at the appropriate time. It is worth revisiting some of the matters that attend on that. One of the matter is the words of the current Chief Minister when she involved herself in the censure debate relating to matters relating to the budget, and I quote for the benefit of Hansard, from page 24 of debates, Thursday 25 October:
They are, indeed, fine words. They are fine words that say that if there is anything in these documents that is misrepresenting then the buck stops right there. I can find several, and if we had the opportunity to debate these papers right out, those words would ring in the ears of the current Chief Minister, because there are a number of things in here that deserve a much greater interrogation than we are able to give merely by looking at an extraneous bill under a strange piece of legislation to garner tax. If we look to the mini-budget, which is where the money is to be deployed, if we look to the issues in here you can see that there are some substantial discrepancies in the rhetoric of those opposite. I think that they have to, possibly, put some of that discipline the Deputy Leader talked about into their debate. We know it is a tax, so call it a tax. We know it is to fund your promises, don’t be shy about it, tell people that is what it is about. We know that the amounts received will be far and beyond that which is required for the fictitious black hole.
We know these papers demonstrate to us that our estimate for the sale of NT Fleet was not a bad one. We thought you could flog it off for $50m. In the budget papers here presented by the current Treasurer, it is now valued at $59m. We think that if they had gone ahead with that particular thing, they might have found themselves in a much better position than having to levy tax. If they have taken some of the good leads that we provided for them, they might have found themselves in a position that is not of their making. The choice not to sell the NT Fleet was a choice made by this government. It has some $60m attached to it. Now, whether you want to put it into this sump called the black hole is a matter for you, but it is your choice. It is your choice, as a government, to say: ‘We have an asset which we can sell and it will yield possibly $59m …’ - if these budget papers are right – ‘… or we can choose not to’. In choosing not to, it is not a matter that you can lay at the feet of this opposition. There has been some issue also about ‘the cupboard was bare. The contractors came to us to find money and there was no money’. These current budget papers make a comparison between 2000-01 May budget and 2001-02 mini-budget. I have gone to the capital works program, estimated expenditure by construction agency and the two charts - they are on pages 66 and 67 for the benefit of those who wish to pursue this debate - and it has the works revoted in. Capital works, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a strange beast, they can take place over a couple of years and the cash has got to flow, notwithstanding that budget appropriations lapse.
What some people would have use believe, including the current transport minister - and I did urge him this morning to be cautious with his choice of words so he did not mislead parliament - is that it talks about the cash. The cash is listed there. For instance, for issues like Territory roads, the cash is $15.9m. That is how much was budgeted. In the mini-budget it is $16.6m. An issue for me, as a person reading this budget is, if the $15.9m is not there, if that cash is not available, if that figure is fictious, how much of the $16.6m is there? If the budget papers are merely talking about the bit on the top, and the cupboard was bare as in zero, the $16.6m is also a fabrication. It is really important if people are saying, ‘There is a continuous flow of budget papers, these were wrong and these were right’, for the purpose of comparability we have to know how much credit we can put in them. There are those opposite who would say there can be no credit put in any of them. That is not what Percy Allan said, in fact.
Dr Burns: No, that is what your Under Treasurer said.
Mr DUNHAM: Percy Allan did say that the papers were well put together - and we will come to the Under Treasurer. The Under Treasurer, not the Treasurer. The Under Treasurer is alleged to have said that the budget position is unsustainable. I would be interested to know the basis for that call. If he said it was …
Dr Burns: All his expertise!
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t you put words in his mouth.
If he said, for instance, that it is unsustainable because the deficit that was too high, well, it is now higher. If he said it was unsustainable because some of the larger agencies were requesting more money than was available to them, well, now they are getting more. If he said it was unsustainable because the cuts that might be available would not be met, that could well be the case now because we have some mixed messages coming from those opposite. One is that we would get all the savings in but some of the savings are not coming from public servants being sacked, retrenched, no job losses. In this fairy tale world the Chief Minister is now leading us into, you can go and borrow money; you can give departments more. You do not have to have any rigour and exercise expenditure discipline. You can give everybody jobs. In fact, where there are two CEOs in the same job, keep paying them the same amount and we will all live happily ever after. This cannot work.
What those opposite have to do now is not talk the talk, they have to walk the walk. And the walk over the next six months is going to be very difficult for them because some of these things will come home to roost. I will be particularly interested to know how the QuickStart program which was plagiarised from the good policy developed by the previous government, is going to go. It is my sad belief that there is going to a lack of confidence amongst first home buyers and first home builders particularly. That confidence is going to come from the fact that there are many people who are dependent not only on the public service for jobs within but the public service for the general contribution it makes through its spending power. Some of those people will make choices about whether they actually do rent or build. I would hope that when we get the report, it comes back and it says: ‘Guess what? It exceeded our wildest expectations. We now have many, many more homes being built than we would have thought’. I will happily stand up here and say, ‘Well, thank goodness for that. That is a vote of confidence in the economic policies of the current government’. I suspect that might not be the case.
Some of these figures here might need a bit more looking at. Given that we won’t have a lot of time to talk about matters relating to the budget, it is important to talk about some of the issues that fall within my portfolio areas, particularly Territory health. I am interested that there is a …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a bill before the House with a specific purpose and I do not know why the member feels he can stray into unrelated areas. There is very much a question of relevancy.
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to speak to the point of order?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you can answer that.
Mr DUNHAM: The reason I believe it is important to stray here is that is exactly what you did with your contribution for starters, and it is what all of us are empowered to do because we are not talking about the Motor Vehicle Act and the moneys raised thus being deployed within that act. We are talking about something you are calling a temporary budget enhancement jump-down turn-around pick-a-bale-of-cotton, whatever it is. But the matters, the purpose for which the money is raised will be for - you guessed it Mr Deputy Speaker - the budget. I think it is entirely appropriate that moneys that are being garnered out of this taxing agency, this fee levying agency and then deployed elsewhere, I think it is entirely relevant we look where they have been deployed. That is a reasonable assumption. There are those opposite who, in their contribution, have said we had to deploy it because of our ineptitude. Okay, I listened to that. I thought, well, it is probably a bit out of bounds but I think that is what they are using the tax for; they are using it to put into general purposes. They think they can blame us, that is their contribution to the debate.
My contribution to the debate is actually to go to their patent, which is a little bit less emotive, a little bit less specious …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It goes to the issue of relevance again. The next item of business on the paper is debate on the mini-budget. We are currently debating a piece of legislation, the bill before us specifically in regards to the temporary budget improvement measure and the member for Drysdale has opportunities later this afternoon in this debate to get onto the issues that he talks about. So to expedite business before the House, he has an opportunity to get into this area later, I would seek that you would ask him to contain his remarks to the bill that is before us.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the much abbreviated capacity that we have to contribute to the debate that I may need two opportunities. I do not believe that that is extravagant because a lot of these things have to be put on the permanent public record in much the same way as in May we spent some three days debating this. I think that the contributions of those of us on this side over these two debates, which may contribute several hours, is entirely appropriate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I rule on that point of order? I would allow that the member for Drysdale continue on the basis that, one, this is an urgency motion and I think that there is limited time in which it can be debated. The other matter is that we are dealing with, even thought it is an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act we are dealing with something which is called a temporary budget improvement levy so discussion about the budget I would regard as being relevant to this particular debate. You may continue.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Going to the issues of where the money will be deployed is a really important issue for us to discuss. There are some people who would have it that we are raising this money and it is a CLP tax and every time they take the money you go and blame Burkey because he is the bloke who did it and there will be a big run on labels that describe the purpose for which this tax is to be put. It is really important that we discuss, whether it is factual or not, the way that corporate budget papers show how the money is put. We should be discussing this. Another reason why it is good to discuss it now is to give the current health minister some capacity to be able to contribute in the later debate as to the significant blowouts in Territory Health Services funding.
There are significant blowouts incorporated in this budget and if they go to a third factor - I mean we have factor one, the legendary black hole. We have factor two, Labor’s promises that they are trying to fudge in under cover of darkness and pretend it is to do with the black hole. Factor three is more important. Factor three is, do you have control of your departments? Have you really, really got control of your departments? One of the indicators for that is to look at whether certain things that were expected to come in at a certain level will come in at a certain level and this was seen as fundamental by one of the previous speakers. They said that the money does not come in at the right level, well, you know that goes to the incompetence of the CEO. So it will be interesting to see how some of these figures have expanded. I am particularly keen for the health minister to give significant discussion to the $34m additional monies, some of which are not for new activities, they are for existing activities which have blown out significantly and as we work off that trend line the question I would put is, is this sustainable?
Would the Under Treasurer use this word if he is advising on a health budget that $34m increase over seven months, seven months is sustainable? Now, if that is the case, next year’s outlays should be pretty significant. These are not once-offs. These are recurrent. These are to do with cross border charging, air med services, increase to funding for hospitals - hospitals are something like $16m blown out. So in six or seven months the health minister is going to look to a $16m blowout in our hospitals. I would be really keen to interrogate that and I hope it features largely in discussions
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, you used the word dodgey numbers. So we need to be able to discuss these numbers. $34m is the kind of funding a small department could get. It is an enormous amount of funding. I am not saying it is not warranted. I merely wish the proper rigours of our democratic system, including the interrogation of budget papers through this House, be done because it is absolutely astonishing that they can bring in budget papers like this in the form of a statement, a statement, and talk about millions and millions of dollars of extra appropriation of cuts.
They can abridge these documents in such a way as to leave out very important information on staffing. Don’t think you are going to get away with it. There are many people in the Public Service who know budget documents, they read budget documents, they are familiar with them and they prepare them. They know that there is a column in there called staffing. If the Chief Minister wants to run, ‘Well, we’ve changed the names’, it is to protect the guilty probably, but, ‘We’ve changed the names, it is all a bit up in the air’. If that is the case, you cannot form a budget because, somewhere along the line, somebody has been able to amalgamate all these figures from the various units that are now in amalgamated units, add it all up and say this is what the new department will need. We have a really big problem here if they are saying they know how much they are going to spend but they do not have a clue how many people are going to work for them, because it is a salient issue in this budget to look to where the savings are going to come from.
The business about racking up debt, the twisted wreckage of the previous government and all those kinds of words, these budget papers contain an additional $100m worth of borrowing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition put it to us that it is like a house, you go out and you work out how much is going to come in, and you work out how much you are going to spend. Well somewhere in there he has to work out whether he is going to make a visit to the bank, because if that is what he wants to do, if he wants to put it to this parliament that this is as simple as your household budget, what he is saying is: ‘Strewth love, we’re not getting enough here in our pay cheques to be able to pay all these bills going out. What we’re going to do is, we’re going to have to cut some of that. What we might do is just nip down to the bank and get some more money, and while you are there, listen, spend the money. On the way back can you buy a new washing machine and fridge or whatever’ That is what this budget has done.
What this budget has done, is they have borrowed the money, they have spent the money, they have tried to tell us they are reducing their outgoings, and at the same time they are totally silent on the biggest expenditure reduction measure, and that is what they are going to do to public servants. So let’s put that into the debate and see what is going to happen. I have only a few minutes left …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Well, thank God’, says the Chief Minister. I think it is really important that she be called to task on this, because she has the gall to come to this place, to drop a bill without a second reading speech, to drop a statement that incorporates hundreds of millions of dollars, and then not expect us to speak to it. If that is the case …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There was a second reading speech. There has a been a slight complication about its incorporation in Hansard, but there certainly was. If you recall yesterday before Question Time, there was.
Madam SPEAKER: It was given yesterday. You will receive it later.
Mr DUNHAM: In that case, I apologise, there was a second reading speech. I will read it enthralled. The member for Sanderson talked about the CLP and how it made all these promises and never kept them, and that they hadn’t stopped tricking people because they used to dangle these little things in front of them like a grandparent. If I recall the maiden speeches, all these people who came here from other places, all said: ‘I came to the Territory and I fell in love with the place. I just loved it, I loved the lifestyle, I loved all the sporting things the government did, I loved the education, the health, it was just wonderful’. This is not spontaneous generation. This does not just come out of an amorphous blob and whoompa! there is a school. What happens when people fall in love with this place is, you have to give some credit to those who were the major architects, contributors, builders in this place. And that was us. We are not ashamed of anything we did in the 26 years that it is attributed to …
Mr Kiely: No that’s it, you are not ashamed, that is the amazing thing. You are not ashamed.
Mr DUNHAM: We are not ashamed of one bit of it. If some people had been here a little longer than the member for Sanderson, they would see that we came from a very low base, a very low base indeed. I think it is a great tribute to the work of the CLP government, that we are able to attract people even of his ilk. Not that we really want to, but when you look at people like him finding the place attractive, that speaks loud volumes for those of us on this side, and we have no shame in it. We think we made a great contribution to this place. We are totally focussed, totally dedicated to the work of looking after Territorians and their best interests, and we will continue to do it. We will continue to do it through the budget process because, in the event that we do not believe that this budget is in the best interests of Territorians, we will tell them. That is exactly what the contributors on this side have done, we have told them we will not be supporting this bill.
If the government has half an ounce of integrity, they will at least pull the capacity for them to up the tax by various administrative actions, rather than coming back to here. I agree with my colleague, that it offends some of the canons of this institution that they have politicised a piece of legislation in this way. I think it is also an offence to the parliament that it is being slipped through as some sort of a pseudo fee/levy when it is an out and out tax to be deployed within the gross outlays that are incorporated in the budget. I too, like my other colleagues, will be voicing my great disappointment, disaffection and dissatisfaction with this bill. I look forward to seeing the names of those opposite who support it in Hansard.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it was a very disappointing contribution from members on the other side. I did not really expect that we would get support, but to see such a consistent level of denial about the parlous state of the Territory’s finances which were left to this new government and Territorians, is hard to understand. To hear member after member try to pretend that the massive deficit that was not recognised in the May budget, and was 12 weeks later demonstrated quite clearly by Treasury that it did exist, is extraordinary. The twistings and turnings we have heard from the debate in here is setting new standards of weasel words for even this parliament. It is very disappointing. I do not think any government, particularly any new government, likes to see that you have to put on additional revenue measures, but there is a stark action that is required from this government, and we simply cannot allow the unsustainable financial position facing Territorians to continue.
It was also extraordinary to see how we got into such difficult budgetary times, because when I listen to the argument presented by members of the opposition, it made no sense, absolutely no sense. We have a deficit of $107m which was identified earlier on. That $107m has now blown out. Even with savings it blew out to $139m and that was with things like the unexpected such as carry-over items. Whoa, are they unexpected? No. Dollars that needed to be spent in the Power and Water Authority on whimsical little items like repairs and maintenance at Channel Island that had not been funded by the previous administration year after year after year. Replacing the SCADA system for the pipeline, which had been on, which had been requested of the previous administration, year after year, and ignored. These items that now contribute to $139m are not fantasy items. They are absolutely fundamentals. We saw the way that the previous administration dealt with them. You forged the budget figures, that is how you dealt with them.
There was a 6% growth happening every year but it was never recognised in the allocations to agencies, never. And you wondered why the gaping difference between our expenditure and our revenue-raising capacity, and the revenues we were getting in, just kept on growing. The crocodile jaws of Treasury. Yet, no recognition. This attempt to say that all this is about Labor’s election initiatives - $13m they cost this year. $13m against $139m of deficit which goes with the $149m last year and the $91m of the year before. And you say you are great financial managers! You left Territorians, after 27 years, an unsustainable budgetary situation. ‘Unsustainable’, coming from the Treasury. That is why we got the independent expert in, and yes, it was confirmed.
Mr Elferink: And what was his first recommendation? Change the way the budget works.
Ms MARTIN: I pick up the member for Macdonnell’s comments. Of course we had to change the way the budget works. We had a Treasurer who sat in his office writing the bottom line: ‘I do not like the fact that the deficit is going to be larger this coming year so I think I will make it about a ninth of what it might be as a conservative estimate. I think $12m, in the run up to election, looks like a good deficit for this year’.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: What a load of rubbish! To pick up on this business about the fleet, the calculations for selling the fleet were done three years ago before your mates brought in the new tax arrangements. They were done then. There was no recalculation done before the May budget. There was no recalculation done about what were the benefits for the Territory, and they simply were not there. It was going to cost us money in recurrence to go ahead with the stupid idea of selling the fleet. And that was one of the first things Treasury said to me: ‘Don’t sell the fleet; it does not work. It does not work under John Howard’s new tax arrangements’. Those calculations were not redone before our Treasurer sat there and said: ‘Hey guys, have I got a good idea about trying to make the deficit look better? We are going to sell the fleet’.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you direct your remarks to me? Would the members on the opposite side refrain from passing remarks across to the Chief Minister? We might have your response without so many interjections.
Ms MARTIN: It came as quite a shock to Treasury when they realised that the previous administration was going to sell the fleet. You have been exposed for the kind of fraudulent budget managers that you are. It is very sad for a new government to have to increase charges but that is a fact of life. The Temporary Budget Improvement Levy is only for three years. It is spelled out very clearly in the legislation. It is for $90 and no matter the weasel words we hear from those on the other side, this is an increase to an already existing revenue measure. We all pay our car registrations and this is an increase. I do not know how the opposition can sit there saying it is a new tax when it is a current measure. We pay car registrations. This is an increase to your car registration. So just let it sink in.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We were flirting with the idea of calling it the ‘contributory liability payment’. It would have been fair. It would have been a fair tax. It would have been fair to say: ‘It is this mob across there who have caused it’. The contributory liability payment would have been fair, and Territorians would have known very clearly why this revenue had to be raised. We need it, sadly, because there is a major hole in the budget. This will raise $42m over the three years, and that was made very clear in the budget statement yesterday which I am sure you all read. It is a broad base tax. Territorians will contribute because they know we need to move towards a sustainable budget situation.
The cost per household is about an average of $133 based on 1.5 cars per household. The figures that we heard from the opposition spokesperson for Treasury were simply out of kilter. $133 on the calculations. It is for cars that are predominantly used in a domestic way. It is for domestic usage vehicles and all Territorians will be sharing the burden of this. I say to Territorians, I am sorry about that. I am sorry that we were left with an unsustainable budget situation, but the expectation is for this new government to make sure that we have a budgetary situation that is sustainable and that we are moving with a well spelt out budget deficit strategy to surplus by the year 2004-05. It is a three year measure on an existing measure and it is broad based. I am sorry to say to Territorians it has to be there, but that is a fact of life. We could not simply follow the CLP school of budget management because this place would have been broke.
I would like to respond to a couple of issues raised by the member for Nelson. The concessions for pensioners are very wide. We have a very broad category of a 50% rate for pensioners and that is a fair calculation. Also in regards to the ubiquitous rural ute. It might only have one extra seat and it might even be a bit dodgy in terms of being able to sit on that seat, but when a vehicle is used for domestic purposes, where those utes are also used, then that comes within the terms of this levy. We will monitor the introduction of the levy. We think it is fair and reasonable. We wish that we did not have to put it on, but we were left with an unsustainable position by the previous administration and we are certainly determined that the Territory, for our future, will have a sustainable budgetary situation.
Madam Speaker, I certainly commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 2 and 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, if I could start with the title of the section. You have instructed your counsel to name this particular amendment Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. Why have you done that when, clearly on the face of the document, it is an inappropriate reference and there are a number of other more appropriate names? Second, could you explain to me why you have allowed a political aspect to creep into the drafting of this clause by using the term ‘Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’?
Ms MARTIN: We actually thought we were being very kind. We were going to call it the ‘Contributory Liability Payment’ but we decided to be non-political about this and actually call it a Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. That is exactly what it is. It makes it very clear. It will be on every registration. We have made it very clear that is a temporary levy because it is on for three years. That is enshrined here in the legislation. It is a levy on an existing charge. That makes it very clear as well. It is to do with budgets and budget mismanagement from the previous administration and it will certainly improve the bottom line of the budget. I think it is straightforward.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I disagree with the Chief Minister wholeheartedly. The title of this particular levy is clearly intended to have a political effect. It is an affront to the people who have to read legislation in the future. The question I have for the Chief Minister on this issue is that if it is part of the vehicle registration amount why not just call it the registration amount? Why is she introducing a piece of legislation on an amount which could be, by the minister’s stroke of hand, simply made more expensive? This, for all of the world, looks like a separate levy. It has no parallels with the motor vehicle registration fee. If it did the minister could simply direct that the fee was increased. That has not been done. This has been introduced by legislation as a separate item and it will appear as a separate item on the certificate of registration as per the instructions of the minister. I am quite astonished, frankly, that she would have the audacity to try to come into this House and tell us that this is just a ramp-up of the registration fee. Why is she introducing a piece of legislation to do something that she could otherwise do?
Ms MARTIN: I suppose I keep repeating what I have said now for the last day and a half. If it takes that long I will keep repeating it until 10 o’clock, if it takes that time. This is a temporary measure because we have a problem with our budget. It is a temporary measure on an existing charge. For the purposes of transparency, for the purposes of clarity, we are choosing to do it this way. It says very clearly to Territorians, this is a temporary increase in your registration because we need to deal with a major problem left to us by the Country Liberal Party with our budget. It will be introduced and it will disappear. It has a very defined time. It has a sunset clause and it is targeted towards helping our budget recover because our budget got very sick under the CLP. I am explaining so I do not get any more questions about this, because really, we need to move on. There are important issues we need to have debated about the mini-budget, and this is wasting the time of the House purposely.
Mr Reed: We are not allowed to ask questions?
Ms MARTIN: I am still on my feet, and you can sit down, thank you.
This is about transparency and clarity. It is about ensuring that Territorians understand very clearly that we have a problem with our budget. That this is a temporary measure to alleviate those problems with the budget. It will not alleviate all the problems with the budget. We could not possibly do that in any revenue measure because the deficit and debt you left was far too big. This, over three years, will produce $42m and that should be made very clear to Territorians. The description is a very fair one - a temporary budget improvement levy that, in legislation, says there is a beginning date and an end date and that is the charge.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister was quite correct when she came into this House before and said she presented a second reading speech. In fact, I have the second reading speeches, it is two pages and the interesting thing is the Chief Minister then has the audacity to come here and tell us about open, honest and accountable government. In fact, the second reading speech was so quick the Hansard missed it, blink, they missed it. The reason for this is because she has come into this Chamber and all she is trying to do is make a political statement on every registration certificate that will be issued. Nothing prevents the Chief Minister or her minister simply signing the order to ramp-up the registration fee and then ramp it down in a few years time. The reason they have done this is purely political. If wasting the time of the House is, in the Chief Minister’s estimation, the audacity to try to question or raise objections to the political way in which she is using this legislation and her government department which has to enforce this legislation, then I will waste the time of this House.
In terms of open and honest explaining - one paragraph. Then she describes what is in the act, but one paragraph as to why she is introducing it, which is why we have to go through this tortuous and arduous committee stage to extract from the open, honest and accountable Chief Minister exactly what she is trying to do. Frankly, in terms of arrogance, we were a mere candle next to the lighthouse which are the members opposite.
Mr DUNHAM: I ask the Chief Minister, in the event that this bill is passed, will it sit with her portfolio responsibilities under the Administrative Arrangements Order, given that she has had carriage of the bill, that she has introduced the bill, done the second reading speech and it is patently a bill for the Treasurer not the minister responsible for the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ms MARTIN: And your question was? I am sorry, I missed what the point of the question was.
Mr DUNHAM: I asked the Chief Minister if, under the Administrative Arrangements Order - you do not know what that is? Okay. If, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, this bill, if passed, will sit within your portfolio responsibilities, given that it is patently nothing to do with the minister with responsibility for the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ms MARTIN: As Treasurer, because this is a revenue measure, I had carriage of it. The Motor Vehicles Act sits within another minister, but, as carriage of the revenue measure, I have it. It is my decision.
Mr ELFERINK: Just a more general question, this applies more to the whole of the act. I ask the Treasurer or the Chief Minister quite simply, has any flaw in the act been brought to her attention which will affect the operation of the act?
Ms MARTIN: This is a very straightforward piece of legislation and I am confident, when enacted, it will achieve the purpose that we are aiming for. It is a measure that increases an existing charge, it is designed for vehicles that have domestic usage and it has some exemptions which are spelled out in the act. We will continue to monitor it over the next three years.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, you said a few moments ago that you were in favour of legislation being clear and you used the word ‘clarity’. The short title to the legislation - and I will read it out again for you: Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. A levy is defined as – I am reading from a Macquarie dictionary – ‘that which is raised as a tax’, so, the levy is describing the amount of money raised as a tax. A tax is defined as ‘the compulsory monetary contribution demanded by a government for its support and levied on incomes, property etc’, isn’t the correct terminology to use the word ‘tax’ as opposed to ‘levy’?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, why did you instruct you counsel to draft such a lengthy title to this section when the trends all around Australia is to have a short, succinct plain English reference in a short title, such as, Tax or Registration Tax? Why did you instruct your counsel to have such a lengthy, drawn-out title which is contained and scattered throughout sections 12 and 12A?
Ms MARTIN: This levy is temporary. This levy has to do with the budget that was handed down by the previous administration. You were not here but the previous administration handed it down. It will improve the budgetary situation and is a levy on an existing charge. I think it is good to describe what you are doing. I am sorry if it offends some principle that you hold dear, but Temporary Budget Improvement Levy says what it is, and that is what we decided to do.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I wish to return to a question I asked before. Has the Chief Minister been made aware of any flaw in this piece of legislation which will affect its operation?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, you have caused to be drafted section 12 and in your final address you refer to the section as being an increase in a pre-existing tax, an increase on car registration. Why then did you see fit to utilise the mechanism of drafting sections 12 and 12A when you could have increased the prescribed fee referred to in section 13 of the principal act?
Ms MARTIN: As I understand the question from the member for Goyder, he is asking why did we not just increase the prescribed fee?
Mr MALEY: I can clarify it for you. You have said in this Chamber that this is an increase in car registration.
Ms MARTIN: It is.
Mr MALEY: You are trying to get away, and understandably, from any suggestion that you have introduced a new tax and you can call it whatever you want to call it. I am asking you, if you say that it really is and you are being truthful about it, an increase in car registration, why did you not just increase the prescribed fee which is car registration? Why did you introduce sections 12 and 12A which is not consistent with what you said 10 minutes ago, that this is just merely an increase in car registration which could have been done by way of an amendment to the regulation prescribed fee under section 13?
Ms MARTIN: The purpose of this increase is to make it broadly based but not to create an unnecessary impost on those doing business with a vehicle. So it is targeted for domestic usage and because it is targeted for domestic usage, and that means Territorians across the board but not doubling up if a car is used in a different way, and you could say that trucks and that kind of thing that are used specifically for business across above a certain tonnage, fit that kind of category. We wanted to make it specific to that domestic usage therefore, section 12.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask the Chief Minister how many eligible vehicles – and I asked her this in my contribution to the second reading - how many eligible vehicles does this legislation apply to? You might not have this information readily available. I would be happy if you would give me an undertaking that you could provide it before the end of the sittings or whatever.
Ms MARTIN: Up to about 100 000.
Mr REED: 100 000? Up to?
Ms MARTIN: Within that range. Okay? 95 000 to 100 000.
Mr REED: 95 000 to 100 000. I ask the Treasurer a matter that I also raised in the second reading. On behalf of volunteer organisations and community groups and non-profit charitable organisations, I give the Treasurer another opportunity to consider their position in relation to this legislation, the impost that it will impose on them, and as I mentioned again in the second reading, local government and community government councils. In relation to this particular section will she consider the addition of a part (g) that would exempt motor vehicles owned by non-profit charitable organisations and perhaps an part (h) which would exclude local and community government councils?
Ms MARTIN: The great sadness for this new government is that we have had to do this in the first place because of the budgetary situation that we inherited, to the deceit that you as Treasurer, perpetrated on Territorians. I believe that Territorians across the board will recognise the need for this budget improvement measure. I said yesterday when I announced it that I was sorry that we had to do it and that it was a tough measure but across the board, we are asking Territorians to contribute to fixing the hole left in the budget, the one that you covered up when you brought down your last budget. What Territorians want is a sustainable situation moving to the future and contributions through this measure, through this levy, are how we are going to move towards that. Our calculations are that it will raise something like $42m over three years. There is a lot more work to be done to bring the budget under control, to bring the budget back to a sustainable level that will actually underpin our growth for the future. There is some hurt now but there will be a brighter future because of it.
Mr REED: Chief Minister, I think back to the second reading contribution that I made, and when I raised this particular issue on behalf of non-profit and charitable organisations and churches and the like, the surprise that suddenly came to her face. I asked her in the consideration of the drafting of this legislation whether she or other persons gave any consideration to this matter and if you did, you would know how many vehicles you would have had some work done to be able to be informed as to the number of vehicles that this exclusion would have applied to and therefore you would have a cost and a potential reduced amount of revenue that would apply to it. So, what consideration was given to non-profit groups, churches and other charitable organisations?
Ms MARTIN: This was a carefully considered piece of budget improvement measure and we looked very carefully at the impact, particularly on people on pensions, Territorians who are on pensions and ensured that the pensioner concession was as widely available as possible and that is at a 50% rate. I get a bit taken aback at the hypocrisy of someone like the member for Katherine. The absolute hypocrisy when you know why this measure is necessary because of the deceit, the falsifying of facts in budgets that we saw and you try to pretend that we do not need a measure like this. It is necessary that it be broad based. It is necessary …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman, I ask that the member for Drysdale withdraw that remark.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes. Bearing in mind the statements made earlier, I think you should withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I seek your clarification, Mr Chairman . The word was used this morning and when I asked for it to be withdrawn it was ruled by the Speaker to be okay.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am the Chair of this particular section of the meeting and you did mention before that you were worried about the language today. I think it should be withdrawn.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I would further point out that in the contribution just made by the Chief Minister she used several words that in other circumstances …
Mr CHAIRMAN: For the time being withdraw it. I will also confer with the Speaker later on.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw.
Mr REED: On the last response from the Chief Minister. Charitable organisations, churches and other people affected by this, notwithstanding that ordinary Territorians will be, are not concerned about your excuses. You are, you are immersed in them. But whoever you want to blame this happens to be your legislation. You are imposing this on Territorians and you are imposing it on churches, charitable groups and non-profit organisations. So, whoever you want to blame you cannot duck out from under it. On behalf of those organisations, can I ask you again how many vehicles would have been affected had you provided a specific exemption for them? Further to that, are you prepared to consider it, bearing in mind that as far as I can recollect, this will be the first piece of legislation of this kind that will be introduced into this parliament and passed that will affect organisations of that kind to the extent that it does?
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in contributing to this discussion, let us look at the real reason why we are even debating this legislation at the moment.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: No, because this is very important. It is okay for the member for Katherine to say, ‘Well, we have to discount the reasons, let’s look at the detail’. Let’s look at the budget papers. Let’s look at the budget papers from Treasury and I refer the member for Katherine …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Can I just explain that in the third reading, the debate is quite specific to the particular section that is being considered at the time and in that regard, the contribution being made by the minister is quite irrelevant. We are being specifically directed here in relation to a very pertinent and specific part of the act.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman, a member at any time in stages of committee debate may rise to their feet and contribute to the debate, as they see fit. It is not Question Time. You can’t stand and demand an answer. If the member for Wanguri wants to stand and contribute to this debate, he is entirely entitled to do so.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! I will ask some advice first. I rule against the point of order on the grounds similar to what I allowed before, that even in the committee stage, this matter still has to be relevant. We are dealing with an urgency bill, and we are also dealing with something that is called a temporary budget improvement levy, so I have allowed it before and I will allow it now.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just going to the point of why we are debating this legislation, let’s look at the budget papers, Budget Paper No 3 actually presented in accordance with the fiscal integrity legislation we have here. For once, these are Treasury papers, out of Treasury, not out of the former Treasury minister’s office, and let’s see exactly what these Treasury papers have to say in terms of what we inherited in government.
I quote from page 1 of Budget Paper No 3:
However, immediately following the election, the Treasury advised the government that the underlying
budget position was unsustainable …
We have heard a lot words from people on the other side asking where did this word come from. It is in the Under Treasurer’s documents here, ‘unsustainable’.
… being closer to a deficit to $102m than the $12m that had been estimated in the budget papers. The reason
for the difference was twofold. The first was that the estimated outcome included $50m from a one-off sale related
to the sale of NT Fleet assets thus masking part of the underlying deficit.
$50m, yes that is a cash injection, but that does not get to the underlying structural deficit that we inherited from the members opposite.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: ‘The second reason’, and the member for Drysdale should listen to this, because he was a culprit.
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, understated and
increases in the budget for these purposes during 2001-02 would be required.
So that is why we are here because of your deliberate deception in understating the budget outcomes, failing to fund through the appropriation debates that amount of money, and we have to consider this levy in this light. The direct reason that we are here today, and having to impose this levy that we certainly did not go to the election on, saying this is what we are going to do, was because of your deliberate deception and fraud in the previous budget.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Wanguri, are you referring to the government or the …
Mr HENDERSON: The previous government.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister has not answered my questions in relation to the number of vehicles owned by charitable, non-profit organisations and churches that this legislation is going to apply to.
Ms MARTIN: I think the member for Katherine, having been the former Treasurer, would understand that that data is not readily available.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, she is the Treasurer, she is the Chief Minister, and any information is available. To suggest that the names of owners of motor vehicles could not be acquired, when they are all on a government recorded system, is just ridiculous and trite. It will be an answer that will be of interest to these charitable organisations because it now exposes the Chief Minister, in terms of the fact that the government did not clearly consider this matter before this legislation or during the course of it being drafted. She is in fact being quite deceitful in her earlier remarks in suggesting that yes, they did give some consideration to it. Well, clearly you haven’t. You have been caught out and these organisations will be advised of that accordingly.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer has told us that this particular revenue raising piece of legislation is going to accrue some $42m over the next few years. At $90 a vehicle by 100 000 vehicles per year, and I use the maximum figures she provided - how, over three years, does that get to $42m?
Ms MARTIN: Good point, good point. I gave you a global figure for the revenue measures, $27m. Let me say, as opposed to the previous administration, if I inadvertently give the wrong figure, I am happy to say it was.
Mr DUNHAM: Only when he twigged you. That you had $27m not $42m.
Ms MARTIN: No, I was reminded that $42m is an overall figure for revenue measures and $24m is this for three years. So let me just make it very clear. If I got it a little wrong before, then maybe it is the weariness of listening to the idiocy of your arguments.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I want to pursue another point here. If there are some 95 000 to 100 000 vehicles to which this legislation is going to apply, and we look at those hardworking community-based organisations and churches across the Territory, and assume that they might have, I don’t know, 1000 vehicles all up, you are not talking about a lot of money. Will you consider then, if you won’t apply an exemption for these organisations - bearing in mind that you will be diverting money from providing help through those organisations to needy Territorians - increasing the financial assistance that they receive from your government to offset the burden of this new tax?
Ms MARTIN: I say to the member for Katherine, we will monitor the implementation of this levy.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, that gives these organisations no joy at all. They will be starting to pay this new tax from tomorrow. From the point of view of it being monitored, that is going to amount to no assistance to them at all. The fact is that the very small amount of money, well, members of the opposite side, this is a very important issue in terms of services to needy Territorians, that is going to be diverted into the coffers of government and away from the coffers of those organisations that provide the services. These are the very organisations that the former opposition used to wax lyrical about, about all the good work that they do for Territorians and, indeed, the fact that the former government should have provided them with more financial assistance.
Within a few months of this government being in power we find that the tables have turned directly 180 degrees and that they are now imposing on these organisations an additional debt, unforeseen, they have not been able to program for it. They can see that the business community has been set aside in relation to the effect of this legislation and this new tax, but they, as very important organisations providing essential services, in fact, in many cases, life support services, to needy and sick Territorians and this government, this so-called compassionate leader of government, this Chief Minister, is going, for the sake of $90 000, $100 000, it is not a lot of money in terms of the government, but it is an awful amount of money in terms of these organisations, particularly to the recipients of the assistance that they provide.
I ask, finally, on behalf of those sick Territorians, the needy Territorians and of the services that are provided by these community-based organisations, church groups and whatever, will the Chief Minister undertake to put in place an exemption for these organisations given, in global terms, the small amount of money that would be involved?
Ms MARTIN: I gave my answer previously.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I wish to draw the Treasurer’s attention to subsection (5), section 12, which is being discussed in clause (4), in relation to the section which empowers, by regulation, the alteration, nominally the increase, of this amount of the levy. Does the Chief Minister and Treasurer, or does the government, in any way intend to increase this levy?
So he is telling the department to go back to a community-based levy. This provides a mechanism to engage in the development of such a levy. If the minister has no intention of ramping it up, why does she not just simply remove it right now?
Ms MARTIN: It just shows that you are not looking laterally. This is very well a measure that we could use to reduce the amount.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, if that is the case, if she believes that it is only a matter of reducing the amount, word the section accordingly. Reassure Territorians that this slug is going to be the only slug and nothing more.
A member: It is a refusal to answer.
Ms MARTIN: I gave an answer previously. The rhetoric we hear does not need an answer every time that somebody bangs on the desk.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, section 12(2) of the proposed bill talks about a positive obligation on the registrar not to register the motor vehicle unless this temporary budget improvement levy is paid. Do you think, when read with section 13A of the principal act, that is inconsistent because there is a deeming provision saying that when you pay your contribution, you get a certificate and then the vehicle is deemed to be registered and they are both positive obligations on the registrar. Do you think sections 12 and 13A are inconsistent?
Ms MARTIN: Section 12(2) and section 13 of the principal act work well together. It simply says they are complementary and the levy will be paid and 12(2) provides that mechanism to work with the principal act.
Mr MALEY: I will just walk you through a bit slower. They are not complementary. My question to you is: can you explain how these two sections can operate and why they are not mutually exclusive? You have one section, 13A, saying that if you pay the prescribed fee to the MVR and then you pay your insurance, then the MVR through the Deputy Registrar is required to issue you a certificate. And then at the end of that section, it says: ‘Where a certificate is issued under this section, the motor vehicle in respect of which or the person in …’ rah, rah, rah ‘ …the application is made is deemed to be registered …’. So, on a strict reading of that, it is not the registrar who registers the vehicle. He issues a certificate then it is deemed to be registered. You have in the provision which you have drafted and you are introducing, a clause that says the registrar must not register the vehicle unless the temporary budget improvement levy has been paid. They are inconsistent. I am asking you: do you think they are inconsistent? Perhaps you might concede that you overlooked a minor amendment which could be incorporated into section 13A.
Ms MARTIN: The two sections work together, sections 12(2) and 13. The best drafting advice is being used and I am confident that it will work together. I understand the concerns of a young lawyer in this House, but let me tell you that we have expert counsel and it will work.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I refer to the actual levy of $90 and to statements made by the Chief Minister that people with private plated cars and public servants and others will be paying the levy. Given that this act does not provide a device for that to occur and given that there are certain protocols dealing with impositions on public servants under contracts, can you describe for the House the mechanism that will be used to extract that $90 from those public servants with private plated cars?
Ms MARTIN: There are provisions that allow it to be collected from people like ourselves and it will be collected through mechanisms that will be put into place, after tax, so rest assured it will be done well and that Stephen Dunham of Leanyer will be paying his contribution.
Mr DUNHAM: I don’t rest assured at all, Chief Minister, because this act appears to be silent on that and you are telling us that there will be mechanisms put in place that are not before this House and a call on a tax on people who are not aware of it - and I am talking about public servants here - myself, I will see it when it comes - but I would have assumed that this would be a matter that not only would we be talking about to concerned public servants, you would be talking to unions and others that represent their interests about an imposition of this type and that you would bring a whole package of legislation forward that, whether it was in the Public Service Act or anywhere else, that would enable us to see it in its entirety.
Ms MARTIN: I refer the member to Section 12(8) where it spells out clearly where it is going to happen and I think you can rest assured that this tax will be imposed equitably and will be recovered from a government car user with private plates.
Mr DUNHAM: Are the unions happy with this when you consulted with them, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN: Are the unions happy when we consulted with them? I can’t quite work out the relevance here, but let me assure you that unionists in the Territory understand the kind of budget deceit that was perpetrated by this previous administration. They understand it, certainly, and it is a bit cute for somebody from the Country Liberal Party to suddenly start bleating about the rights of unionists when they stood in here year after year with you beating up on unionists simply for being unionists. So, don’t be half cute.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, what do you say in response to the proposition that there are no enforcement provisions contained in section 12, remembering that from a prosecutorial perspective if section 13A is not affected by section 12 then, providing you pay your prescribed fee, the car is registered. So how are you going to recover the $90 from people who refuse to pay it, remembering that they are not committing an offence of driving an unregistered or uninsured car because the vehicle is deemed to be insured under section 13A. How are you going to recover their $90 if section 13A can continue to co-exist simultaneously with section 12?
Ms MARTIN: I would have thought, member for Goyder, that you would actually take clause 12(2) to heart because it says that a registrar must not register a motor vehicle unless the levy has been paid. Simple.
Mr MALEY: I will make it simpler for you. Section 13A says you issue a certificate, the vehicle is registered. The registrar does not register vehicles. That is simple. If you understand that, you will understand my question. My question is, if I am prosecuting you, for not paying the $90 for an unregistered, uninsured vehicle on the basis that you did not pay the $90, I would be unsuccessful because section 13A deems the vehicle registered irrespective of whether or not the $90 is paid. How are you going to deal with that prosecutorial anomaly?
Ms MARTIN: It is quite straightforward. I appreciate your previous career as a defence lawyer, but I think it is quite straightforward that a registrar will not register a car unless that levy is paid. The best drafting advice that we have here says that they will work together and cars will not be registered unless that levy is paid. I respect the wisdom of your years in the court but I am confident that our drafting has it right.
Mr ELFERINK: Chief Minister, what is the effect of this on trader’s plates?
Ms MARTIN: Trader’s plates?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. You do not know what they are, do you? You do not know what trader’s plates are?
Ms MARTIN: It applies.
Mr REED: Could the Chief Minister explain then. Trader’s plates, as I understand, are held by businesses. Businesses are exempt. How does it apply to a business, through a trader’s plate?
Ms MARTIN: This is a broad-based tax …
Mr REED: I am sorry?
Ms MARTIN: This is a broad-based levy. What we are seeing in here at the moment is an attempt to simply try to justify what the Country Liberal Party has done over the last few years …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It simply has. Because you are refusing to recognise this is a justifiable levy. You are trying to pretend that there is no black hole in the budget. You are trying to pretend that somehow you were proper fiscal managers, and you weren’t. This is designed to raise a levy on domestic usage, predominantly raise it. That is the intention of the levy and I am confident that we will achieve it.
Mr REED: Notwithstanding all the waffle, I did not get the answer. Trader’s plates are held by businesses. Businesses, by this legislation, are exempt. The Motor Traders Association, I would have thought, would be very interested in the answer of the Chief Minister that this $90 applies to each trader’s plate which they hold, notwithstanding that they have been told that businesses are exempt. We are not being difficult in relation to this matter. That is a legitimate question, we are asking it on behalf of business. For you to be so trite as to suggest that it is for all sorts of other reasons is just wrong. Could you give you us an answer to the question?
Ms MARTIN: First of all, I never stated that businesses were exempt. This is a levy targeting a broad base, on cars, on vehicles that are used for domestic use. I think that, within that, where there is some impact as you have identified, that is quite justified.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister, has now - I think your problem might be that you do not understand what a trader’s plate is. I am not being smart here. A trader’s plate is owned by a motor vehicle trader to be able to use those plates to get the vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Registry to register it so that it is not unregistered in the meantime, if you know what I mean. A vehicle with a trader’s plate cannot be used for domestic purposes. It can only be used for the purposes of conducting motor vehicle business and the use of the plates for that purpose at that time.
Ms MARTIN: The levy will apply and I am confident that it will be borne fairly across the community.
Mr REED: Can I ask the Chief Minister then, how many trader’s plates are there in the Northern Territory held by motor vehicle traders?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have those figures with me.
Mr REED: I’m sorry?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have those figures with me.
Mr REED: I am not surprised, you did not even know what they were. But it does demonstrate that - and this is the point that you made earlier, Mr Chairman - hurrying legislation of this kind through, to be able to get your money out of taxpayers’ pockets as quickly as possible, in an obscene way, has inherent dangers. We now have two examples where the government has been caught out. They clearly gave no consideration to this tax and the impost it will have on churches, other charitable organisations and service providers to the community. We now know that whilst business is being told that it is not going to be an impost on them that, in fact, motor vehicle traders will have this impost on them. Further to that, of course, the government did not even bother to find out more detail about the classification of vehicles. 95 000 to 100 000 by $90 a year equals - so it is now being clearly demonstrated that this has simply been a money grabbing exercise and let’s get into taxpayers’ pockets. From the point of view of where that all leads, who really cares? Didn’t take into account the impost that this was going to have on certain sections of the community and now, even whilst they are being provided with an opportunity to reduce that impact, to provide some exemptions in relation to charitable organisations, the Chief Minister and Treasurer gives a flat no.
In relation to motor vehicle trader’s plates, not only did she not know what they were - never heard of them before - but says, ‘It will apply to them because it applies to any vehicle used for a domestic purpose’. Well, you cannot use, whilst you have trader’s plates on a vehicle, the vehicle for domestic purposes, for any purpose other than directly related to the trade of the vehicle in relation to that business. We are clearly demonstrating that you have not thought this through, that this is just a lust for money in terms of whatever you can grab from Territorians. In relation to these matters, do not be so small-minded as to be a little gracious in relation to being able to do it.
How many motor vehicle traders would there be in the Northern Territory - 100? They might have one or two or three trader’s plates each. You will be able to keep your commitment to the business community by not imposing this tax on them. More importantly, as I said earlier, I implore the government to consider the exemptions for those other church and community groups.
Ms MARTIN: I say to the member for Katherine, I take your comments on board. I accept that perhaps I do not know the full details of every single piece of information that you want here, but I will take those comments on board and we will look at them.
Mr REED: Is that in relation to the trader’s plates and/or the charitable organisations? Are we talking just about trader’s plates here? So the Leader of the Opposition nods, yes, and says yes.
Members: Chief Minister.
Ms Martin: Denis isn’t here.
Mr REED: The Chief Minister, rather. Well, you called yourself the Leader of the Opposition the other day.
In terms of the motor vehicle trader’s plates, the government will undertake to give consideration as to whether or not they will be excluded? I take it on the basis that, if you are satisfied with the fact that they are not used for domestic purposes, that they are purely business, then it won’t apply. Thank you.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, section 12(1)(f) talks about a motor vehicle of a prescribed class of motor vehicles. Have any motor vehicles been prescribed, if so where? Could you provide a copy of the prescribed vehicles that have been prescribed so far to the Chamber?
Ms MARTIN: Once the act is through, they will be identified but at this stage the prescribed class of motor vehicles will be taxis, private hires and minibuses.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, in the second reading speech which was received earlier, there was a reference to a vehicle used primarily for business use. What formula if any, or what mechanism do you foreshadow to utilise when you consider a vehicle which is part business, part domestic and how will the levy apply if at all to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: We are identifying taxis, private hires and minibuses as being of that prescribed class of motor vehicle. Identifiably they are commercial vehicles and the rest will be subject to the levy.
Mr MALEY: To clarify the question for you. A one tonne ute is FBT free and a law firm can buy a one tonne ute; it is used for business purposes during the day and for driving to and from work but on weekends you cannot claim the tax deduction. It is a domestic use vehicle. Will the levy apply to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: I wonder, Mr Chairman, if the Chief Minister could explain. You just indicated those vehicles that would be exempt – hire cars, taxis and the like. You failed to mention TV vehicles, that is tourist vehicles and pastoral vehicles but I am thinking of specific registered and plated vehicles and tourist vehicles is the one.
Ms MARTIN: We have identified the taxi, the private hire and the minibuses and with the other motor vehicles excluded from the levy, which there is quite a significant area, we are confident that it gives it a reasonable coverage and a fair coverage.
Mr REED: It gives the tax a fair coverage but it does not give the business the appropriate coverage given that you told business people that this would not apply to them. Now, tourist vehicles can only be so registered for a business. A tourist vehicle is a means of transporting someone on a tourist operation solely for business and a financial return. That is to say, those people who own and operate tourist vehicles do so as their job, as their business. Are you saying that they are not exempt from this tax?
Ms MARTIN: If they come under the excluded from the levy, and there are motor vehicles that come under that which are identified, then they won’t pay the levy. If they do, they will.
Mr REED: Well, Mr Chairman, this is a rather unfair way to deal with peoples’ livelihoods. I wonder if the Chief Minister would be so kind as to be able to give us a copy of those vehicles that are included and those that are excluded because we are going now, on top of the church and charitable organisations, on top of trader plates held by motor vehicle traders, find that here is another section of the community that is to suffer this tax having been advised by the government that business will not have this tax applied to them.
I take it, Mr Chairman, that you would know quite a few tourist vehicle operators and you know how important they are to the Northern Territory and the essential service that they provide. In providing that service they are conducting their business. They are actually in business. In fact, I do not think a private person can get a tourist vehicle licence. I am not sure. That is correct? So one has to be in business to get a TV licence yet, notwithstanding that this legislation we are told does not apply to businesses, this person that has to be in business to get a TV licence will not be exempted from this tax.
Can the Chief Minister tell us yes, they are included in it and that is in direct conflict with her former statements that businesses won’t apply? Or no they are not or, perhaps to give her a way out, does she want to treat it the same way as the motor vehicle trader’s plates and say we will have to have a look into this because we have messed it up and we will consider it in the context of the information that has come to light tonight?
Ms MARTIN: Again I say to the member for Katherine, we can take a look at that in terms of the regulations and I take your comments on board.
Mr REED: Well, I thank the honourable Chief Minister for that, Mr Chairman. On behalf of those tour operators and those hardworking business people of the Northern Territory who are currently sitting at home conducting their business and trying to earn a quid and generate some economic activity in the Northern Territory in the belief that they will not have this impost thrust upon them, I remind the Chief Minister of her earlier comments that she was of the belief that our contributions in this third reading, in these committee stages, were simply for the purpose of wasting time, keeping members in the House and indeed, just trying to be mischievous.
We have, as an opposition, been searching and quite productive in this regard and certainly on behalf of the churches and charitable organisations put their case, albeit we have been unsuccessful. But in the case of two industry groups, two business which work hard to sustain themselves and to generate economic activity in the Northern Territory, we have very adequately put their case and we may well win something for them. They are clearly being very much overlooked by this government which, in the grab and lust for money, has not given this legislation adequate consideration. It is poorly drafted and it is simply going to apply - or would have applied - to whoever the government wanted to apply it to had we as an opposition not looked after their interests.
Ms MARTIN: It is healthy we are having discussions about this but it would have been more important if the previous administration had thought about the unsustainable budgetary situation you put Territorians in before we hear these kind of sanctimonious words in here. It is important that this be a broad based levy. It is very important for Territorians that broadly they contribute towards getting our position back to a sustainable one in budgetary terms and I take the comments on board.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I accept all that and all those trite comments about whose fault it is. It really does not matter a fig whose fault it is. We are talking here about your new tax. It is a new tax which requires specific legislation to be able to enact it and as such is a new tax, quacks like a new tax, walks like a new tax and is a new tax. Now, it is also a very poorly drafted tax and we will take particular care to ensure that what you have told Territorians when you stood up, for example, in front of the Chamber of Commerce at lunch yesterday and came back here and waxed lyrical about it and said, ‘However, I have protected the business community of the Northern Territory because this will not apply to businesses’, when we find in the nitty gritty of searching through this legislation in the committee stages, but for the CLP opposition searching it would have applied to at least two businesses, and I must say who knows how many others, through your incompetence in terms of the way that you have drafted it, the way you are going to snap into people’s wallets and get their money. I think that that has been a very useful exercise.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I just want it placed on the record, and I think the answer is going to be yes, but could the Chief Minister just confirm this. Are you saying that a subcontractor who uses his vehicle Monday to Friday, going from site to site, and on the weekends maybe for the odd hour or two his wife uses the vehicle to pick up kids, drop kids off, and the vehicle is used for domestic purposes, are you saying the levy will apply to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: Let’s take this up just on behalf of another sector of the business community. I dare say there are a few contractors who work out of the back of a ute in your electorate, Mr Chairman. Here we have the picture of the carpenter. He has the circular saw and the boxes of tools and the extension leads, the ladder and everything else in the back of the ute. He is out there working hard to try to earn a crust and conduct a business throughout the week, probably six days a week. Sunday morning comes and, oh dear, mum says, no milk for the cornflakes for the kids. The car is in the garage …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Sanderson! Order! We will carry on this debate in a civil manner.
Mr REED: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The car is in the garage, and parked in front of the car is the ute. Because the wife of this contractor says, ‘I’ll use your ute just to slip down and get a carton of milk at the corner store, because I’d rather do that than move the ute and get the car out and off you go,’ that deems it to be a vehicle that this tax will apply to, notwithstanding that for five or six days of the week at least, it is a business vehicle. Now, there are a couple of points that arise from this. First of all, these business people are of the view that they are exempt because the Chief Minister has told them yesterday that they are exempt. The other point is what assessment process is used to determine whether or not this vehicle is going to be used on Sunday morning to slip down and get the Sunday Territorian and carton of milk to put on the cornflakes for the kids? How do you determine what that use will be, whether it be domestic for 5% of the week and 95% of the week for business use, and who is going to draw the line, and how are they going to do it?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Katherine is enjoying the sound of his own words. Where a vehicle has a domestic use, the levy applies.
Mr REED: So that is, let’s get this straight, Mr Chairman, thank you. Any level of domestic use? So, Joe the carpenter goes into the Motor Vehicle Registry, ‘I want to get my vehicle registered’. What questions does he have to answer? Is it - register this vehicle, Joe’s Carpentry Services, Bees Creek Road, Bees Creek. I’m here to register my vehicle. Will he be asked, does your missus use this to go and get the Sunday Territorian and a carton of milk on Sunday morning? Or, will this vehicle ever be used for a domestic purpose, whether it is one use a week, a month, a year? How is the criteria going to be written, how is it going to be applied, and what is going to be the penalty, I ask the Chief Minister, if someone infringes this law, if someone tells a lie for example, or if someone just makes an honest mistake? – ‘No, it’s never really used. I get home, I just park it up the driveway on the weekend and it just sits there until Sunday when I hop into it’. Quite a legitimate response because it is the business ute. But on the other hand, of course, if this person is picked up somewhere by the police, and the missus is driving, not the contractor, will the police be asking, have you paid the levy?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, don’t be ridiculous. The kind of vehicle it is, if it is capable of being used for domestic use, it will pay the levy.
Mr REED: In case Hansard did not pick that up, the Chief Minister said: ‘If the vehicle is capable of being used for domestic use, it will pay the levy’. Any utility is capable of being used for domestic use. I do not know how many businesses there are in the Northern Territory with a utility, but I would expect that there would be lots, just to put it briefly. Now, that is to say, here we have another group of businesses, this time, much broader than just the tourist plate registered vehicles, because we now know that every vehicle in the Northern Territory, whether it is the Coca Cola ute that goes out and fixes the vending machine, or any other utility which is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle, will have this applied. Is that correct?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: It is! So we are now finding, like drawing teeth …
Ms MARTIN: It is a broad based levy.
Mr REED: Yes, this is a broad based levy, and this is the very point that we are getting to. This is a broad based levy that businesses yesterday were told would not apply to them. This will not apply to businesses, that is what you told the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, did you not? Yes. Now we find that if it is a utility of an air conditioning repair shop, which is capable of being used for domestic purposes, that applies. They pay the levy. Don’t be afraid to speak up, this is your legislation. Do I hear a yes?
Ms MARTIN: I’m not on my feet. Sit down.
Mr REED: I hear a yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I remind the Chief Minister of her, albeit short, second reading speech yesterday and I quote from the speech:
With that in mind, I have in my electorate several tourist operators who run multiple vehicles. They are not big operations, they are small, one works from a three bedroom flat which is attached to a duplex. What message do I take to him from you about his tour plates on his five motor cycles.
Ms MARTIN: I discussed the issue with the member for Katherine and we are taking it on board.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, are you aware that some motorcycles, particularly of a smaller cubic capacity, and there are hundreds of members of the Darwin Motor Cycle Club who have small cubic capacity motorcycles, who pay, I am not sure of the exact figure, but less than $100 a year registration. First of all, were you aware of that, and secondly, do you realise that this is a 100% increase on the registration of some motorcycles?
Ms MARTIN: It will apply to motorcycles. It is a broad based levy and this is the mechanism that we are using to collect it. This is a levy that is needed because your party mismanaged the Territory’s finances. Mismanaged the Territory’s finances, and we need a mechanism. The mechanism we are using is to increase registrations for a limited period. It is one that enables Territorians to contribute to getting our budget back into a sustainable way. It does come down to less than $2 per week, and this is the mechanism we are using. We have recognised that we are targeting it on vehicles that have a domestic use. This is the mechanism we are using. I have said to the member for Katherine we will take the TV plates and we will look at the trader’s plates, but have no doubt about it, this is a broad based levy. The mechanism we are using is to increase registrations, but this is a measure for Territorians to get our budget situation back into a sustainable situation.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, this has gone somewhat past the intent of this legislation and this new tax, to the honesty and the integrity of the Chief Minister, in that yesterday she gave a commitment at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon and, indeed, in this House, that this tax would not apply to businesses and that that was in direct response to requests from the business community not to impose on them any further charges. Now, in that context and given her assurances in that regard, what I would now like her to tell me is: what is the overriding criteria in relation to her words ‘capable of being used for domestic purposes’? If Joe the carpenter, when he is registering the vehicle notwithstanding that it is a ute capable of being used for domestic purposes, says: ‘That is never used for domestic purposes. It is my business vehicle and the Chief Minister said businesses will not be affected or impacted by this new $90 tax, so I will not pay it.’ Is that the principle consideration or is your ‘any vehicle capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’ the principle criteria, which is in fact what you have told us? I want that point clarified, please.
Ms MARTIN: I say again: this levy is a mechanism to be able to raise revenue and it will apply broadly to vehicles that have a domestic usage, that are capable of having that domestic usage. It does minimise the impact on business, but is about Territorians contributing to the budget black hole that was left by the Country Liberal Party. So it is a broad based tax and you can chase this round and round and round, but that is the fact of the matter.
This is a mechanism for raising that revenue, important revenue to raise for the Territory’s future sustainability and it is one we are committed to. It is one that is very unfortunate that we have had to do. We would not have had to do it if you, as Treasurer, had not defrauded Territorians by putting fudged figures in the budget papers and that is the bottom line. So, all of these words that we are hearing again and again are simply you trying to avoid the fact that this should in fact be called the Contributory Liability Payment and sheeted home to the CLP.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, we are past all that. You see, that is the difficulty that the Chief Minister has now found herself in, this hastily conjured up legislation to extract money by way of a new tax. She has in fact, not only her, but other members and in particular, the Deputy Chief Minister who, in his contribution to the second reading debate, specifically made mention of the fact that this legislation will not apply to business because the government did not want to impose on business and that they had had discussions with the business community to ensure that that would not be the case. The Chief Minister gave the same assurances, and what we are talking about here is the integrity of the word of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister in that they have given those assurances and only now, as the detail of this legislation is being debated, do we find that they have deliberately misled the business community in that whether or not you have a vehicle that you only use for your business, and that you were told yesterday that this tax would not apply to, it is going to apply because the criteria simply says ‘is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’. For a government that purports to be supporting business and not imposing any further burden in terms of additional taxes on business, you have committed a heinous crime in that everything from the Coca Cola ute, fully sign written, owned by the Coca Cola distributor here in Darwin, probably garaged in the Coca Cola yard every weekend and may have no ability of being used as a domestic vehicle …
Mr Stirling: Then it does not pay.
Mr REED: Yes, it does. Your boss has told us that it does, I am sorry. It is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle. It is capable. That is the criteria for paying it. We have been through all this to the extent of the carpenter who says that it is not going to be used for domestic purposes, but the Chief Minister has told us that the overriding criteria is ‘capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’. We now find that the Deputy Leader of the government and the Leader of the government, the Chief Minister, are in conflict. The Chief Minister says: ‘No, they will have to pay because it is capable of being used’ and the Deputy Leader says: ‘They will not have to pay because it is going to be locked in a yard.’ Well, you are wrong, we have been advised by the Chief Minister and we have exposed the real intent of this legislation and the deceitful nature of its application and the deceitful way in which the government has advised the business community that it will not be applied to them when in fact we find it will be applied to business across the board. The government has misled the business community, has misled all of the hard working small contractors across the Northern Territory and indeed is now going to …
Dr Burns: You have no credibility saying any of these things. No credibility.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection, Mr Chairman, because it was with some interest that I noted the member for Johnston vociferously supporting this legislation and that will not go without notice. I take this opportunity because of his interjection to be able to put that on the record. It was he who supported this legislation. What he should have been doing if he was doing his job was, on behalf of the hardworking contractors in his electorate, saying to his boss, ‘Will this apply to Joe the carpenter around the corner from me with his three kids who has a ute and a family car and will he have to pay that on his business ute?’ The member for Johnston was clearly of the belief that it would not, when in fact he tonight has been educated that it will. You, too, have been caught out in relation to this.
Mr STIRLING: It is the ultimate in hypocrisy, Mr Chairman, for the former Treasurer to get in here and pretend that he is bleeding all over the place on behalf of business. His government, that government, had it been re-elected would have been in to business up to its ears, taxing them all over the place because he knew, at the time he put the budget into this House with a forecast $12m deficit, he knew then that it was going to past $100m. Why did they put the nonsense in the budget about the $50m that they were going to get for NT Fleet? The biggest lie of all that you put that in there. You had it on the book for three years and you could not do it.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The honourable member knows that he cannot say that I lied. ‘My lie’. He personalised it. It was directed at me and I ask that he withdraw it.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw any reference to lying. The biggest fraud in the budget papers was this feeble attempt to cover up the deficit that he knew - he was claiming that it was $12m - at the time he knew it was going to go close to $100m or over. That is why they had the charade of flogging off NT Fleet for $50m when he knew that he could not do it and it would not realise one cent. It was just a pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact that they were in deep trouble.
The best thing that happened to this mob, Mr Chairman, was they got turfed out because they would have been exposed anyway. They would have had an ERC or a mini-budget that would have put 1991 to shame. It would have put any other cuts that they ever put into this place way, way to shame. So it ill behoves the former Treasurer come in here, pretend to be bleeding all over the place on behalf of business because they are going to pay this registration levy that is going to apply across the Northern Territory because everybody has to contribute to the mess you created.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I should comment that although I have allowed broad discussion, we still should be sticking to the bill - and the bill is fairly broad. We will try and keep to the bill as close as we can even though it does cover fairly broad issues.
Mr BALDWIN: Getting back to the issue at hand here, Mr Chairman, rather than diatribe that is coming from the other side.
Mr Stirling: You blokes caused it. Where were you, Tim? You probably weren’t even in Cabinet. You would not have known what was going on.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Just following on from the types of vehicles that have been asked about and the clarification that has been sought, albeit we have not got the clarification yet, but it is coming I understand. On behalf of my constituents - and I am sure this will be of concern to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries - but I need clarification on all those vehicles that are owned and operated by - if we leave out the corporate owners of pastoral properties and get down to the owner-operators - many of those people operate with one registered town vehicle. It could be classified as a business vehicle because it is always used on the property every day, whether it is a Toyota ute, whether it is a Toyota station wagon, whether it is a Nissan or whatever. It is a personal vehicle in one sense, and it is a business vehicle in another sense. On behalf of those people - which is a very large sector of people, I have to add …
Mr Elferink: And lots of registered vehicles.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, who have multiple registered vehicles in some cases, but in some cases one or two. Could you clarify for them whether or not this tax will apply to them and those vehicles?
Ms MARTIN: The important thing is to quote from the budget speech yesterday. In case you were not listening it clarifies this very simply:
Okay, let’s get this very straight. This is a mechanism – I say it again - to raise revenue, to be able to deal with the budget situation that we inherited from the previous administration. That was a deceitful budget that was brought down, there were fraudulent figures, and this is very clear in the budget speech given yesterday, in the budget papers. It is a mechanism. It minimises the impact on business from the way we have constructed it; it minimises the impact. But vehicles that are capable of being used for private and domestic purposes will pay the levy. Okay? That is very straightforward and I think that unless you have issues to raise that are different from this, then we should move on.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, does the new tax apply to hire cars?
Ms MARTIN: You mean private hire cars?
Mr REED: Hire cars, rental cars, rent-a-car.
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: Why?
Ms MARTIN: Because they are vehicles capable of being used for domestic purposes.
Mr REED: Thank you, and that being the case, you would be aware that the owner and manager of Thrifty Car Rental was on the radio this morning. He said that if this additional impost is applied to his company which is a tourist operation basically - it services the tourist industry - and particularly at this time when the level of tourism activity is reduced because of circumstances of which you are aware, he will be faced with no alternative but to sack two employees. How do you reconcile putting two people out of work who, I guess, themselves would have a car to go to work? They will probably go interstate because they won’t be able to get work here, so you will lose there two by $90. You will see a decreased level of business activity simply because of the way that you have set the criteria to apply your new Labor election promises tax.
Ms MARTIN: We have been in discussion with the rental car companies and we are expecting a submission from them.
Mr REED: You are accepting a submission from them?
Ms MARTIN: Expecting, and I made that commitment yesterday.
Mr REED: We have now found again, that here is another component of this particular piece of legislation that has not been thought through in its drafting. I wonder now if the Chief Minister could explain to me what is the difference between a Holden Commodore sedan with a taxi name on the side of it to which this tax does not apply - however the vehicle can still be used for domestic purposes because of the style of vehicle - and the rental car which has a Thrifty Car Rental sticker on the side of it? What is the difference? They are both capable, in your words, of being used for domestic purposes. Where is the differentiation drawn? The other point, of course, is that they are both vehicles of a business to which you said your tax would not apply.
Ms MARTIN: No, and I think it is very important that the member for Katherine does not verbal me. It is very important that you remember the words in the budget speech which were ‘the levy is designed to minimise the impact on business’. We have been specific about taxis and private hires and minibuses. I have said to the rental car business that we will talk about it, I said that yesterday, and we are expecting a submission. So there ends it.
Mr REED: Well no, there does not end it, because there ends the demonstration that this legislation is poorly considered. From the point of view of the two employees - bearing in mind that this legislation – let’s work this through then. You are going to get a submission from the car rental companies. This new tax applies from tomorrow. Mr Thrifty goes into register a car on Monday morning. Because the industry has not provided the submission and you have not considered it, he has to pay the tax, does he not? Or, are you going to set the tax aside for car rental companies whilst you await and then consider their submission? Or, are you going to do the alternative and follow through on the dilemma that the Thrifty Car Rental company, and no doubt others, find themselves in, in that, if this applied to them - as it surely will by Monday next week - then they are going to have to put two people off. Those two employees are going to put off before Christmas. I dare say that they are not going to be too concerned with submissions and your subsequent consideration of them, because they are going to be pretty well concerned about the wellbeing of their families. So, what immediate action are you going to take, rather than having a little bit of a chat as a second thought, to the rental companies and awaiting their submission? Will you defer the application, in the meantime, of this new tax to car rental companies?
Ms MARTIN: In reference to car rental companies, it is being dealt with quickly. I do not think you should have any concerns about that. In terms of the discussions, they will happen quickly.
Mr REED: That does not give me a lot of comfort on behalf of car rental companies, and the two people who are about to be laid off. The ‘trust me, I’m Clare Martin, Chief Minister’ answer, will not work with me and it won’t work with the car rental companies. These people are dealing with the livelihoods of their business, and they are dealing with the livelihoods of, in this particular case, at least two employees leading up to Christmas.
Whilst the members opposite might want to hurry and get out of here and continually interject and see this all as rather trite, the opposition sees this as the future of Territory businesses, and that is who we are pursuing this on behalf of, and also, of course, the future of those people who are faced with being sacked in the lead-up to Christmas because of the imposition tomorrow of this new tax. What is speedy? Is speedy you will deal with it tomorrow or Friday or over the weekend, or Monday, or the following week, or the following month? For the Chief Minister to stand up and say ‘speedy’ when she has given assurances that this would not apply to business in the first instance, when she has demonstrated tonight that she was not even aware that it was going to apply to businesses because she had to ask her advisors: ‘Will it apply to the carpenter’s ute?’ ‘Yes it will’, and ‘What’s a traders plate?’ I mean this has not been thought through at all and only through the searching of the opposition tonight have we found the impost of it across the Northern Territory
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection because that is very instructive in that, if the government had discussions with the car rental companies yesterday and in particular the Thrifty Car Rental Company, he was not satisfied because this very morning he was on the radio saying that not withstanding of course now that we know these discussions took place, he is going to have to sack two people before Christmas. So, quick enough in your words isn’t good enough. I ask the Chief Minister specifically, will she until this matter is given due consideration, set aside the application of this new tax to car rental companies so that their businesses in these difficult times with tourism the way it is, will not be impacted upon and we will save at least two jobs of Thrifty Car Rental company employees before Christmas and perhaps others?
Ms MARTIN: It is a pity that the kind of outrage that we are hearing from the member for Katherine was not considered when things like the HIH impost was simply being handed to Territory business. You have suddenly discovered the Territory business after years and years of making them pay one of the highest payroll tax regimes in Australia. So it will be dealt with speedily, you have my assurance.
Mr REED: Well, that little trite response, Mr Chairman, will not satisfy the two people who face the sack before Christmas. I expect they would be horrified when they see what the Chief Minister said and they will see it. From the point of view of the opposition, we have tried on their behalf to get you to act properly and to put in place a system that would set car rental companies aside until such time as this is paid. Even if the government were to be a little bit imaginative and say, alright, we’ll put any monies paid on this new tax by car rental companies into a trust account, that is set it aside from consolidated revenue, until such times it is set out. The Chief Minister isn’t even capable tonight of being a little bit compassionate in light of the fact that two people might get the sack because of her new tax and to be able to act as a Chief Minister, make a decision on her feet and say, we will do something to help this industry. They have clearly demonstrated to us through the comments of the owner of Thrifty Car Rentals that it will impact unfairly on the rental car companies and it will lead to sackings. The Chief Minister only has to do something as simple as that and she is not prepared to do it and she relies simply on a personal attack on me, which does not help one iota the two people facing the sack at Thrifty Car Rentals.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, St Vincent de Paul runs in my electorate a very good service providing care …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: …and food through a travelling van - it’s not a funny question, it’s a serious question and it concerns the fact that organisations …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I can’t hear the member.
Ms CARTER: St Vincent de Paul runs a program which has a mobile food van going out to help the people who are homeless in the electorate. You just said that you are going to allow for submissions from rental car firms to come in and lobby you for relief from this new tax. With regard to non-profit organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, would you look upon allowing them to also put through a submission to allow some sort of relief from this?
Ms MARTIN: I repeat, it is a broad based tax. It is interesting that the member for Port Darwin thinks that St Vincent de Paul is in the electorate of Port Darwin, it is not. You have been trying to get rid of them for such a long time and made unflattering public comments about them.
Ms Carter: It provides a service in my electorate.
Ms MARTIN: I make the comment again, this is a broad based levy. This is a broad based levy. It is a mechanism for raising revenue to tackle the black hole left to the Territory by the previous administration.
Dr BURNS: I find the question from the member for Port Darwin quite disgusting. As someone who has been involved with St Vincent de Paul for quite some time I am quite aware of her efforts to close St Vincent de Paul down, to shift it out.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The actual activities in the context of the St Vincent de Paul that the member was raising has nothing to do with the legislation. He is pursuing the operation of the agency, not the legislation.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, I accept the point of order. I think the comments related to a introductory remarks and they really have nothing to do with this act, so leave it there.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister, during the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The member for Daly called me a degenerate.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Daly, will you withdraw that comment, please.
Mr BALDWIN: Of course I withdraw it. He is not a degenerate.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to the Chief Minister. While the Deputy Opposition Leader was on his feet the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development referred to his comments as pedantic whilst the Deputy Opposition Leader was talking about the two people. Does the Chief Minister agree with the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as being pedantic?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman, as to relevance to the debate on the legislation to that question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I accept that. I do not believe the question is relevant.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Chief Minister. You are aware of course that there are quite a number of motorhomes located not only in the rural area but through some caravan parks in the northern suburbs. A motorhome is of course a vehicle, a motorised caravan in which people live. It stays most of the time in a caravan park. It is given a special exemption under section 135 but is still required to be registered. Will those people have to pay your levy?
Ms MARTIN: I refer the member to section 12(1) and I think it spelt it out very clearly in there.
Mr MALEY: This section 12(1) - I hope it’s the same one - it says the exemption by a heavy vehicle, motor omnibus, a goods vehicle greater than 3.5 tonnes gross mass vehicles and then rah rah rah. Are you saying that a motor omnibus includes a motorhome; is that what you are saying? Do you know what a motorhome is?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, a caravan.
Mr MALEY: Okay, you are comfortable that a motorhome falls in the exemption, is that what you’re saying? Oh, she thinks it is a caravan.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Goyder, we are just going on conversation. Your question is?
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Can the member for Goyder refer to the Chief Minister as the Chief Minister.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do so. Continue with your question.
Mr MALEY: I thought I did. Which category of exemptions contained in 12(1) do you say clearly applies to motorhomes.
Ms MARTIN: Under a caravan. If we look at (d).
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, (d) applies specifically to vehicles which do not have a motor. They are vehicles which are towed by a vehicle with a motor, vis a trailer including a caravan. Now a motorhome is something quite different as the name implies, home with motor, that is caravan, no motor. So just to try to spell it out to the Chief Minister, to be precise, and in fairness to those persons who do own a motorhome, which of the categories in part 1(a) through (f) covers a motorhome? Or has it been excluded? I mean if it has been excluded and you want to add it …
Ms MARTIN: It will fall within the definition of a caravan, which is very broadly defined.
Mr REED: Would the Chief Minister then accept a suggestion that the words be added to part (d), ‘a trailer, caravan or motorhome’ to be specific?
Ms MARTIN: We are confident it covers it.
Mr REED: You are confident it covers it, so it is a no in relation to motorhome owners.
Ms MARTIN: We are confident it is covered under 12(1)(d).
Mr REED: You are believe it is covered under 12(1)(d)?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: So we can take the assurance from the Chief Minister, that in the event that a motorhome owner is forced to pay, perhaps in the future, your tax, that the contributions to this debate will mean that that person will be reimbursed, or vice versa of course, that the interpretation of this particular piece of legislation in relation to the person sitting behind the desk at the Motor Vehicle Registry will be adequately explained so as to include motorhome, because when one goes to register a motorhome, the inspection requirements, Mr Chairman, as you would be aware, are somewhat different to a caravan. That is to say, the roadworthiness of the vehicle in relation to the condition of the motor and the exhaust emissions and what-have-you are something quite separate to the considerations that are given to the registration of a caravan. It is a legitimate question that the honourable member for Goyder raises because the issues are quite different, in a technical sense, in relation to the consideration of the registration of a motorhome.
Ms MARTIN: I am advised that it is covered within that.
Mr BALDWIN: I am just getting back to my pastoral properties, Mr Chairman, because it was not clarified before. In the case of those owner/operators on pastoral properties, Chief Minister, some of them are operating as sole traders. They purchase their vehicles with all the tax exemptions, GST exemptions and what-have-you that apply to primary producers, and they are inherently a family business, they can’t get away from that, and they purchase their vehicles within that context. But they are capable, and they are used for domestic use, and domestic use might be driving across the station to the next one to have a barbecue, one would think. So, is this another sector of business that is not being exempted? Could you clarify that, yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: I clarify it by referring you to what I said. This levy applies to vehicles that are capable of use for private and domestic use. You are not understanding what this levy is about. It is a mechanism to raise revenue. It is a mechanism to raise revenue and it is to raise revenue to tackle the unsustainable budget situation that we inherited, and that is a vehicle capable of being used for domestic use, and is used for domestic use, as you outlined, and so the levy will apply.
Mr BALDWIN: Is that a yes, that this is another sector of business that won’t be exempt then, is that a yes?
Ms MARTIN: If you understand, again, what I said, there are exempt vehicles. They are, on the whole, large vehicles, they are taxis, and what we have done is minimise the impact on business. But have no doubt about it, this revenue raising measure is broadly based, it applies to many Territorians. I am very disappointed that it has to, but it is a fact of life, because you could not manage the budget, and worse still, you were dishonest about it. So let’s understand what it is. We have to raise some revenue. We have to raise $24m over three years, and then this levy will go, and that is enshrined in the legislation.
Mr BALDWIN: From that, and I will be sending this out to my pastoral properties, and that is why I am trying to make it very clear. From that, I take it how thick you are, I know how thick you are, Chief Minister, from that, the tax is going to apply to this business sector, the pastoral industry, yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: It is applying to Territorians.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: Well, I am assuming your constituents are Territorians, yes it applies.
Mr BALDWIN: So, on top of the 100% rental increase that you have applied to the pastoral industry, 100% increase, which other business would accept that? None of them. 100% increase on the rental of their properties. You are now saying that this new levy, that you stood up yesterday in the Chamber of Commerce and said would not apply to businesses, is now going to apply to the pastoral property sector.
Ms MARTIN: I have made the answer very clear. I have made the answer very clear and I don’t know how clearer I can make it.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, I just want to take you back to your assertion that the term ‘caravan’ as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act includes an omnibus. How can you reconcile that assertion with the fact that whilst it is not defined in this act, it is defined in the Traffic Act, or regs, to mean a literal interpretation of the term ‘caravan’, that is without a motor that you tow around, and that is the interpretation that a court would use when looking at the term ‘caravan’ here. That is not consistent with your interpretation. How can you reconcile the difference?
Ms MARTIN: I would just like to clarify it for the member for Goyder. The details as set out in 12(1) are ones that we are confident will reduce the impact on business, and will also allow ones like ride-on mowers to be excluded, but in terms of achieving the outcome of this being a broad based levy, it will apply unless those exemptions apply.
Mr MALEY: I am a bit confused, and it is difficult to understand what you meant when you made that last statement. But I can now articulate with a bit more certainty then that in the Caravan Parks Act there is a definition of caravan, and I am indebted to my friend, the member for Macdonnell, for pointing that out to me, which does not include a motorhome. So there is little doubt, on a literal interpretation, or having regard to the use of the term ‘caravan’ in other acts, that it does not include motorhomes. Are you saying that those people who register their motorhomes, and these are vehicles which are rarely driven on the road, and they pay a nominal fee pursuant to section 135, are you saying that they will now be slugged with the Labor champagne socialist tax, oh sorry, the temporary budget improvement levy. Are you saying that those people have to pay for your promises?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Goyder, what is in the Caravan Parks Act is not relevant to this debate. I have said all I am going to say on this. If we go through and we say a heavy vehicle is exempt, a motor omnibus or goods vehicle of greater than a 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass, a motor tractor, a trailer including a caravan, a motorised wheelchair, a motorised golf buggy or ride-on lawnmower, a motor vehicle of a prescribed class of motor vehicles - those are the exemptions. This is a broad based levy and this is applying broadly across Territorians and it applies to vehicles that are capable of being used for private and domestic purposes and that is what we are spelling out very clearly.
Mr REED: Does the motorhome owner pay the fee? Yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: My advice is that the motorhome owner will.
Mr REED: We have now done the full circle, for only 20 minutes ago, the motorhome owner was exempt under trailers and caravans. Through the pursuit of this matter by the honourable member for Goyder and others, we now find that it does in fact apply. How far do we have to keep pursuing this legislation and these categories of who is in and who is not?
Mr MALEY: A point of order, Mr Chairman!
Mr CHAIRMAN: You have a point of order against the member for Katherine?
Mr MALEY: I complain about an utterance which came from the member for Arafura and she described me as dishonourable as opposed to honourable. I ask that she retract that or step outside and say it then I can take care of it legally.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Arafura, would you withdraw that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw the remark.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, we find now that there is another point of confusion and indeed, total misunderstanding of this legislation by none other than the Chief Minister and Treasurer where 20 minutes ago she told us that motorhomes were exempt. What, Chief Minister, we asked, exemption do they come under? And she advised us 12(1)(d) - trailer including caravan. I can give an assurance, she said, that motorhomes are covered under that exemption. Now under further examination and pursuit of that matter by the opposition, we are told by the Chief Minister that indeed a motorhome is a vehicle capable of being used for domestic use and they will have to pay the $90 notwithstanding that they get a reduced fee because they are not used very often. I ask the Chief Minister, is it necessary for us to go through each and every category from motorcycle to military tank to find out what this tax applies to? If she is going to keep changing her mind and she is in such a mess over this particular legislation, we are going to keep pursuing it tonight on behalf of Territorians because she does not know herself, as she has now demonstrated, what it applies to, what the exemptions are and who has to pay and who does not have to pay. I hope the Chief Minister can provide some further clarification in relation to these important matters.
Ms MARTIN: I have clarified the matters satisfactorily. I have clarified the matters adequately. The exemptions are spelled out quite clearly in section 12(1). You can go round and round and round as many times as you like, but that is clearly spelt out.
Mr REED: To pursue that just a little bit further for a final clarification, Mr Chairman, in relation to motorhomes, we have had two answers from the Chief Minister: first of all, that it definitely did not apply to motorhomes and that they were included in the exemptions in the legislation; more recently we have been advised that motorhome owners do have to pay the $90 tax. Could the Chief Minister please now unequivocally state whether or not motorhome owners will have to pay this $90 tax? Yes or no? That is all we want and that is that bit done. This is a fine state of affairs when the office worker in the Chief Minister’s office is telling them what the legislation is. Great stuff.
Ms MARTIN: I have gone through the exemptions and we have looked at them. In terms of (d) a trailer including a caravan, and as far as I am concerned I have gone through those exemptions and clarified it and that is the situation.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister has not clarified it because she has given us two answers. She has, in the first instance, given us an answer that this tax does not apply to motorhomes and that it is covered under the exemption of trailer and caravan and more recently, she has told us that it does apply to motorhomes. We simply now need a clarification. For her to stand up and say, my previous answers were correct when one of them was ‘yes’ and one of them was ‘no’ does not help the motorhome owner. We have to be able to convey - and quite logically and responsibly, the government has to be able to tell Territorians who has to pay this tax. Is it a yes or is it a no for motorhome owners? Simple answer.
Ms MARTIN: Having taken further advice, my advice is that they are covered under 12(1)(d). So they will fit the exemption. So my advice originally was the correct one and that is where it stays.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, now that we have the third answer, we have gone from yes, they are covered under the exemption to no, they are not covered under the exemption to yes, they are covered under the exemption. I now simply, as a matter of fairness to the motorhome owner, and if we can just picture ourselves in the Motor Vehicle Registry, if there has been some confusion in relation to whether this applies to motorhomes here as we are discussing the legislation, can we just save that confusion in the Motor Vehicle Registry by simply adding the words, and it is nothing big to give up, it is simply a point of clarification: ‘trailer, caravan and motorhome’? Otherwise, you can imagine that in the Motor Vehicle Registry they have the potential to be going through this same trauma. It is simply a point of clarification and commonsense in relation to helping out the lady behind the counter or the guy behind the counter at the Motor Vehicle Registry and the owner of a motorhome when this matter is being discussed as being, ‘Oh, God, I don’t know if it is in or out’.
Mr STIRLING: The former Treasurer can go on all he likes, Mr Chairman. The intent has been made clear here by the Treasurer that they are covered. Now that is the end of the story. You can say what you like as to what might occur in MVR. It has been stated that it is covered under that category. That is the advice, that is the intent of the legislation. That is where it ends. You can get up on your feet all night until midnight. It does not make any difference. You have your answer.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I think the Chief Minister was beginning to understand the situation that could develop. If there is that level of confusion here in relation to the advice that has been given by the very people who drafted this legislation, can’t you understand that that confusion has a hundredfold chance of coming to fruition at the counter at the time a vehicle is being registered? The simple addition of ‘motorhome’ in (d) would overcome any of that because the clerk behind the counter will not have access to these third reading debates and it is just a very simple matter. I mean, are you so proud that you would not clarify this matter particularly given that in the course of the debate over the last half hour, you yourself, the owner of this legislation, have gone from no, it does not apply to them to yes, it does apply to them to oh, no, I’m sorry, it does not? We do not want that circumstance arising at the Motor Vehicle Registry. They can do without the angst. So, please, can’t you consider just putting ‘and motorhome’?
Ms MARTIN: It won’t. I have clarified the matter and it won’t.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just one small question. Does the GST apply to motor vehicle registration, and if it does, will this be calculated before or after the addition of this levy?
A member: Is it inclusive or not inclusive?
Mr ELFERINK: Inclusive, that’s the one.
Ms MARTIN: The GST will not apply. There is a mechanism being put in place currently with the levy that it will not apply.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, I need you to clarify this - do the special permits which the Top End Junior Motorcycle Club and some of the members of the Darwin Motorcycle Club receive in terms of registration for their small bore motorcycles and dirt squirts, does the levy apply to them? And if not, which category of the exemption do they come under, under section 12(1)?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Goyder, if a vehicle is registered and comes under the categories, the vehicle is registered, then the levy will apply. If the vehicle is registered with the MVR and is not subject to exemptions then the levy will apply.
Mr MALEY: So, just for the record for all those members of those two important associations, it applies to the registration of small bore motorcycles and dirt squirts, who pay their nominal $30 registration a year and are used - but they register it for third party compensation reasons. You are saying that their parents have to fork out now for each and every child the $90 levy on those small bore motorcycles because they are registered. You will not consider showing some latitude and some commonsense in incorporating them into the exemptions contained in section 12(1)? Is that what you are saying to those mums and dads?
Ms MARTIN: We could spend all night going through this. What I think the opposition should be doing is looking at the Motor Vehicles Act in reference to this. The definitions are given and I think it is important that you make reference to the Motor Vehicles Act in terms of how it applies. We have spelt it out quite clearly and if you can’t do that work, then it is very unfortunate.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just going back to the GST issue. I do understand by the explanation I received before, that the GST amount was incorporated already in the $90, if so …
Ms MARTIN: It will not apply, it will not apply.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, this is a simple question for you to respond to, it is yes or no. It is your legislation, you own this, you can’t preface any comment you make with ‘my advice’, because you are responsible for the consequences which flow from section 12. I want you to put on the record, on Hansard - and you can look away and smirk …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Chairman. I would ask him to direct his comments through the Chair as required by the standing orders.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Can you say yes or no?
Mr STIRLING: I ask him to respond to the point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Will you direct your questions to the Chair.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister. Could the Chief Minister respond simply and categorically with a yes or no as to whether or not this exemption, which has been drafted and introduced by the Chief Minister - and she has an obligation to make sure it is clear and not ambiguous - does it apply to the members of the Top End Junior Motorcycle Club, the Darwin Motorcycle Club and those members of the Speedway Association who are required to register their small bore motorcycles and four-wheelers, pursuant to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Traffic Act? Can I have a yes or a no?
Ms MARTIN: That is very interesting that the member for Goyder has not been long in this place and does not seem to understand that we in here apply the broad legislation. The application is determined by organisations like the MVR. We apply the broad legislation, and I think that you have not quite grasped what we do in here. So, we are spelling out the broad terms of this legislation, we have spelt out broadly the exemptions and they will be applied according to the acts that are in place. I suggest that the member for Goyder settle down in terms of his ferociousness, and understand what this process is about.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, that is an outrageous response from the Chief Minister. For her to suggest that we are here just drawing the broad circles in terms of legislation and you foist it upon some poor clerk in the Motor Vehicle Registry to interpret, when she, as the Chief Minister and Treasurer, has tonight been shown to be so dreadfully incompetent in relation to this urgency motion to pass this legislation, that she herself has not been able to understand it - and it is her idea. Now, if she cannot understand it, and if she cannot convey in clear and concise terms in the form of this legislation to the poor, long-suffering public servants who have to apply it, how in the name of hell does she expect them to be able to interpret it when she does not know what it means?
We have asked her on one occasion, does this apply to motorhomes - no it doesn’t. Why not - it is covered in the exemptions. We asked her again about the very same issue - yes it does. On a third occasion of testing that particular matter in relation to motorhomes, she says: ‘Sorry, I made a mistake, it does apply’. If she does not know what she is doing with this legislation, then how are the people in the Northern Territory who have to pay this new tax going to interpret it and, more importantly, the hard-working public servants, of which there are going to be many hundreds, if not 1000 or more fewer, who have to do her work, without having adequate guidance to be able to do it, and without her even understanding what she wants them to do. To stand up here tritely and say: ‘The member for Goyder should understand that we are just sort of drawing big circles here in the hope that some poor soul will be able to understand what we, as a government, want’.
Well, that is not what this House is all about. This House is about adequate, professional and direct legislation so that both Territorians and the public servants who have to apply it, know what the government wants and how it should be done. The Chief Minister will be well advised to change her attitude in relation to these matters, if that is the attitude that she is going to adopt. It is outrageous to suggest that that is the actual position. We have shown tonight the inadequacy of this government, and we have shown that they have told Territorians the big fib in relation to whom this legislation is going to apply, and within 24 hours of it being announced, and the business community told it would not be imposed on them, we now find that it will be. We now find that it is going to be applied to six and seven-year-old children who have a dirt bike that is not as high as this desk and probably their only recreation that they have, the only enjoyment that they have, is throw all of the money that their families can muster together to pursue their motorcycle activities of a weekend, for which they currently pay something in the order of $30 registration which covers insurance.
We are now told, Mr Chairman, that those kids across the Northern Territory, be they in Darwin motorcycles clubs, the rural area, Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin, Tennant Creek, that they are going to have pay an additional $90. They only pay $30 at present, and for some of these kids, it is the only sporting pursuit that they have. We find that this rushed-through legislation is now going to take away from them. What do they do? Do they forgo buying the safety helmet for riding their motorbike so that they can pay the legislation? Do they forgo purchasing the arm and leg guards so that they can pay the legislation? Do they have to give up their sport altogether because this Labor government has reached into their parent’s pockets?
Every question we have asked tonight in relation to this legislation has exposed just how far this unfair and unnecessary new tax reaches into the pockets of Territorians. It reaches into the business community. It reaches into the jobs of people in the rental car industry at least two of whom are going to lose their job and be on the employment scrap heap before Christmas potentially because of the actions of this government. It reaches into the person who owns the motorhome who only pays a minimal amount for their vehicle registration each year because their vehicle does not go on the street more than one or two days a year, but has to be protected under the legislation, they too will be slugged and extra $90.
And of course, we have heard of the other foibles in relation to this legislation as regards tourist operators who were yesterday not included in this legislation, but today, are and their business is impacted upon. We found that Joe the carpenter across the Northern Territory and anyone who has a ute for whatever purpose, whether you are an airconditioner mechanic, whether you are the Coca Cola vendor, whether you deliver the orange juice, are going to have to pay this tax, when yesterday we were told they were not.
So, the Chief Minister should be able to very clearly understand why we are pursuing this matter to the extent that we are. It is a great shame, because it was not our intention, nor did we think it would be necessary, to pursue this legislation to this extent. But we have found, in questioning the Chief Minister tonight, that she knows very little about this legislation that she has nurtured and introduced. Every time we have asked her a question, in some places at least, we’ve got different and conflicting answers. Well, it is not good enough and the transcripts of these debates will be circulated far and wide, because we have seen tonight, Mr Chairman, this government exposed to the extent that they not only have concealed the real reason for this new tax, they not only have mislead Territorians as to who will have to pay it, there was certainly no mention yesterday, when the Chief Minister was waxing lyrical about what she was going to do to progress the Northern Territory, that six and seven-year-old kids, who, perhaps their only sporting and recreational pursuit is motorcycle riding in their much supported clubs across the Northern Territory will now have to pay this $90 impost.
It is an absolute disgrace, and I am sure that Territorians, many of whom have been so upset about it already simply following the headlines of the newspaper today, when they find out the real detail of this legislation, when they find out that it was so poorly pursued and poorly drafted that not even the Chief Minister and Treasurer knew its extent and knew who it would apply to, they will be aghast at your incompetence. They will be aghast at this Labor government’s intent to get into their pockets, even to the extent of five or six-year-old kids and their own activities in relation to their sporting and recreational pursuits. It is quite clear, the ineptness of this government, and indeed the inability of them to be able to convey to Territorians the truth in relation to the intent of this legislation, its scope that it will cover, and they should be absolutely ashamed of their performance here tonight. The fact that they are rushing this legislation through quite unnecessarily so that they can apply it in the next day or so, get into the pockets of Territorians when of course, the rest of the measures in the mini-budget, in terms of assisting the Northern Territory economy, as regards the small amount of additional capital works money that has been put in place, won’t start to take effect until after the Christmas break, because of the fact that it has been one of the lowest priorities of this government, rather than other issues that they have pursued.
This has been a disgraceful performance tonight, and a disgraceful demonstration of incompetence of a government, and of a Chief Minister and a Treasurer, and I am sure that when Territorians find out the full scope of that incompetence and the impact of this new tax, they will be horrified to the extent that the opposition is. I am very pleased tonight that we have been able to pursue in relation to so many classes of Territorians, whether they be young sporting kids, business people, people employed by the rental car companies, whether they be in the pastoral industry, or the tourism industry, we have defended them all tonight. I am pleased to be able to say that we have been able to make some ground, albeit very reluctantly given on behalf of the Chief Minister, and no firm commitment made, can I say, for example, on behalf of the …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Katherine, your time is up.
Mr REED: … that the Chief Minister will look into it.
Mr BALDWIN: I have just one last question. I will just take you to 12(5), and it is about the regulations, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, asked a question regarding this section. Obviously this allows you, under regulation, to change the amount of tax that the temporary budget improvement levy is attributed to registration. We have heard today that there is a shortfall that has not been taken care of in the mini-budget for the HIH collapse. The liability in the HIH that doesn’t go beyond January, I think you said, with the $6m that is in the mini-budget. Will you be using this mechanism to raise that additional funding and a new levy for the HIH?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr BALDWIN: That is a categoric no. Thank you. That is all I wanted.
Mr REED: Well, can the Chief Minister stand up and loudly say no?
Ms MARTIN: No. And I again, I refer, if you had been in the House during the debate, that that is there, and maybe we will reduce the level, it is a capacity to change, that is all.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Chief Minister. Moving forward to (7). You have drafted a clause which says:
And you have a sub-definition. It goes on to effectively say they get it at half price. What, if any, people had been prescribed and come into the scope of prescribed class of persons? If you have prescribed persons, what are they, and does it include unemployed people or single mothers?
Ms MARTIN: Again I refer to the outline given in the budget speech, and I would expect at least questions to have reference back to what was said in the budget speech. The 50% concession applies to holders of the NT pensioner concession card, holders of a Commonwealth health care card and pensioner health benefit card issued under the Commonwealth Social Security Act. It is in the bill; it is very clearly put.
Mr MALEY: I appreciate you reading out the definition of pensioner. I have no difficulty with the definition of pensioner. My question to you, could you answer it …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Could you be brief, member for Goyder? Member for Goyder.
Mr MALEY: Sorry, my question to the Chief Minister is what persons, if any, have been prescribed. I did not, and I have not asked for a literal reading of the definition of pensioner contained in (9).
Ms MARTIN: I gave the answer fully before.
Mr MALEY: With respect, the Chief Minister, has not given the answer. I will ask for it one more time. What …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. It is a repetitious question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I have allowed repetition of the questions, especially in the committee stage, and I will allow it.
Mr MALEY: In (7), there is a specific reference to people or a class of people being prescribed and the term is ‘prescribed class of persons’. What class of persons have been prescribed and could those people be particularised, or the class of people particularised?
Ms MARTIN: I tell the member again. The 50% concession, as identified in the budget speech, is set out there in terms of any other prescribed people. No, they are not identified and there is no intention at this stage.
Mr REED: So there is no-one in that at the moment, is there?
Ms MARTIN: No. So we spelt it out clearly.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for Katherine speaks, I might make the comment that there is a section in here about members to discontinue speech under standing order 70:
The Speaker, after having called the attention of the Assembly to the conduct of a member who persists in
irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or the arguments used by other members in
debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech: provided such a member shall have the right to require that
the question whether he be further heard be put and therefore such a question shall be put without amendment
or debate.
I have let it go. There has been a fair bit of repetitious questions and we have been going a long time but I will allow it to a point, otherwise I might call on this standing order.
Mr REED: But we don’t get an answer.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I realise that, but if you do not get an answer, then blame the other side. But if the question is still put and the same answer is coming, I would take that as being tedious repetition. I have allowed a fairly broad interpretation of that and I will continue to do so.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask, through you, the Chief Minister if she could advise the House how many pensioners there are under the Pensioner Concession Scheme who will fit into this category of the reduced application of this new tax, and what would have been the cost had they been given a full exemption in relation to it? It is a matter that you might be interested in pursuing too, and I do so partly on your behalf, Mr Chairman.
Ms MARTIN: Probably about a rough figure of about 19 000 Territorians would fit under that category.
Mr REED: I thank the Chief Minister for that advice. In relation to those particular matters, and given the attitude of the Labor Party when they were in opposition and their very firm view that pensioners in the Northern Territory find it tough to live for of all sorts of reasons, and the oft stated case that the then Leader of the Opposition used to direct to the then government that, whenever government did anything, they should exclude pensioners because they already find it difficult enough and that imposition of additional costs on them is unfair and should not be done and they should be exempted from, for example, new taxes of this kind. Could I ask the Chief Minister why she could not go the rest of the way and give them a full exemption, and on behalf of pensioners, can I say, Mr Chairman, that they will not want to hear an answer ‘because it was Mike Reed’s fault’. This is the Chief Minister’s legislation. This is this Labor government’s legislation. They have the ability to alter it, and they have the capacity to apply it in a way that will not impact on pensioners or those who do find it tough in terms of surviving in the community, and those who the Chief Minister herself in a former life used to stand up for and tell the former government that it should not impose, in fact, it should clearly exempt the impost of any kind on pensioners.
Ms MARTIN: The decision to put a very broad based levy in place was that it would cover across the community. We were very concerned to make sure that the categories of 50% concessions were as wide as possible, and I think we have achieved that. Again, I say to Territorians it is very unfortunate that we have to have this revenue raising measure, but it is a temporary budget improvement levy, directly relating to the fact that there was a black hole left in the budget. The full levy is at $90, which comes in under less than $2 per week, and at 50% of that, it is under $1 per week.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I can recall in previous budget debates, the imposition of additional, for example, water charges in particular, where there has been a response that this is only going to cost people $2 a month, or $2 a pay, that is a fortnight, only to have that theory or that reasoning for imposing additional costs, in this case on pensioners, soundly rejected by the then Leader of the Opposition, and particularly as it did pertain to pensioners. Why is it, can the Chief Minister tell me Mr Chairman, that but six or eight months ago, the Chief Minister was of the view that pensioners should be exempt from increased charges of this kind when the CLP government was in place, yet now, when she is in government, it is a case of don’t watch what they say, watch what they do, which is something quite different to what in fact they promised.
Mr MALEY: The Chief Minister, several times tonight, has referred members of the opposition to her budget speech and her budget statement. At page 8 of the budget statement there is a some amplification of what is supposed to be contained in the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, Mr Chairman. And it says, ‘arrangements have been made to ensure the cost of the levy is passed through parliamentarians and government workers who are provided with a’, now I emphasise this, ‘private plated government vehicle for their private use’. The section which is supposed to reflect that intent is subsection (8). I will not read it out in totality, but just paraphrasing it ‘an agency of the Territory may recover from a government car user who is, was or is to be provided with a motor vehicle for his or her private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement’ yah yah yah. There is no reference to a government vehicle with a private plate, so is it the intent of government, through section 12(8) to recover the $90 levy from vehicles which are used by public servants and home garaged, which do not have private plates?
Ms MARTIN: No, it is not. We made it very clear - private plates.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I would, through you, like to ask the Chief Minister - does the new $90 tax apply to all government vehicles? That is, if the government is now, as it has been stated tonight, going to apply this new tax to businesses, will it apply it to its own businesses as a matter of fairness and equity to all Territorians?
Ms MARTIN: Could the member repeat the question?
Mr REED: Could I repeat the question?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, please.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, through you, could the Chief Minister advise if the government is going to apply this new $90 tax to all government vehicles? As a matter of fairness and equity, given that it has now tonight advised that you are going to apply the new $90 tax to all businesses in the Northern Territory, will you apply it to your business?
Ms MARTIN: What is happening is that those government workers who have private plated vehicles will meet the cost personally. Parliamentarians will also meet the cost personally. Agencies will be paying in terms of all government vehicles, but when it comes to individuals, it is those with private plated cars who will pay and parliamentarians.
Mr REED: So all government vehicles that could be used for domestic purposes, the sedans, the utes, the panel vans, the what-have-you, they will be paying the $90 fee? Every government agency or NT Fleet en masse for all government vehicles?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that will be paid through agencies, but when it comes to private individuals, the ones with private plated cars, they will pay individually and we parliamentarians will pay.
Mr REED: So it is a matter now that – what are there? How many cars in NT Fleet? 2000?
Mr Baldwin: Four and a half thousand.
Mr REED: Two, I thought, but anyway, whatever. Will government agencies be funded to pay this $90 tax? That is to say will it be go-round money? You provide them with the $90 per vehicle and they then pay it back to you, or will they have to find it out of existing resources and find themselves in a position where they, too, like business have had this imposed upon them and they have to find it from within the resources that you are about to reduce?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, these will be paid along with the additional costs of running cars.
Mr REED: Yes, they will be paid, but will you be allocating additional funds to the departments to pay this?
Ms MARTIN: From within existing resources.
Mr REED: From within existing resources. So, apart from those vehicles that are private plated, there will be no other reimbursements to agencies by the user?
Ms MARTIN: No, as I am advised.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister is in error. Section 12(8) of the proposed bill states, and it is clear on the face of the document, that the $90 levy is recoverable from all government employees who use their vehicle for private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement. That is the interpretation which a court will give to this. Fortunately, a court will not have to go to the Hansard unless there is an ambiguity. What is contained in the budget statement at page 8 in the fourth paragraph, and what has been repeated by the Chief Minister, is not reflected in the legislation. My question then is to the Chief Minister: will an amendment be made to properly reflect what the Chief Minister has said both in this Chamber and what was said in the budget statement to section 12(8) of the proposed bill?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Goyder can stand in here and say we are wrong, but we are not and it works properly and it does relate to private plated vehicles.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one quick question in relation to section 12(7). Is it possible for a pensioner or prescribed class of person to get their exemption for more than one vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: No, it is not.
Mr ELFERINK: On the tail end of that, so a pensioner who has a couple of kids, puts them on the Pee-Wee 50s can get the exemption for one vehicle only, probably their own and the Pee-Wee 50s will all incur the full $90 charge?
Ms MARTIN: One vehicle.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask the Chief Minister: if there are no classifications within ‘prescribed class of persons’, why was ‘prescribed class of persons’ included in section 12(7)(a)?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Katherine has been around long enough with legislation to know that even though there is no identified prescribed class of person at this stage, it is for unforseen circumstances and that is just a mechanism of legislation. The member for Katherine understands that very clearly.
Mr REED: Well, I do, particularly in the context of tonight’s debate because there have been a lot of prescribed people who were formerly unprescribed. The Chief Minister is now getting to the real answers that we have been seeking. Now that we have seen where this has come from and the lack of understanding the Chief Minister and Treasurer has had in this is that that’s the catch-all phrase: ‘Oh, we’ve missed someone. Let’s stick them in as a prescribed class of person.’ That is the phrase in the drafting of this legislation that will be used for unforseen circumstances in relation to tourist vehicles or what have you to be able to pick up on the messiness of the drafting of this legislation and the hasty passage of it.
Mr Chairman, you made reference today in Question Time about the unseemly haste in relation to this legislation. Prophetic words, given tonight’s debate, from you today. May I say right in the bull’s eye in terms of the inadequacy of this legislation, the incompetence of the government in producing it and rushing it through and the impost that it is going to have on Territorians who, when they sat down to tea tonight, had no idea that this was going to impact on them, that little Johnnie on his Pee-Wee Squirt Bike tomorrow is going to get the bad news that he has to find $90.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my comments are addressed to the Chief Minister in relation to auto museums such as the Alice Springs Road Transport Hall of Fame. Going along with the answer that the Chief Minister supplied to subsection (7), even if she prescribes a body like the Road Transport Hall of Fame as a prescribed body, only one vehicle of the many that they have registered, as I understand it, under their name, will be exempt and the rest of the vehicles will carry the full load of $90 each. Considering that this is a voluntary organisation with, as I understand it, many vehicles registered to them, how does the Chief Minister feel that their impost is going to affect those sorts of organisations and what is she prepared to do about it right now?
Ms MARTIN: We seem to be going round and round in certain categories. We have made it very clear that it is a broad based levy. It is a mechanism for raising revenue to fix the budgetary situation we have inherited. It is a tough measure, but it is one that is applied from tomorrow, and it will be off in three years.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is an example of why this should not be going through on urgency. We have raised issue after issue in this Chamber. None of them have been considered. The Chief Minister did not even know what a trader’s plate was, and now voluntary organisations are looking down the barrel. I think the Chief Minister wants to take this legislation out of here, redo it, reintroduce it in the next term and then allow it to go through a full consultation and debate process which they have not pursued on this occasion. This is the open, honest and accountable government which was going to consult with Northern Territorians. Unfortunately, here is the Vaseline, guys, and watch it coming because it is coming tomorrow.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, just in relation to subsection (8), and I know that this has pursued previously, I suggest to the Chief Minister as a matter of clarity and fairness that the words ‘private plated’ be inserted after ‘recover from a’? That is, to read: ‘An agency of the Territory may recover from a private plated government car user…’ because whilst you say in your budget speech that it applies to private plated users, this can clearly be interpreted and could be applied, potentially in the future, to any person who has and home garages any government vehicle. The descriptive words in relation to just what class of government vehicle it applies to are missing. Perhaps they were there in an early draft and they have dropped out. The simple insertion of ‘private plated’ prior to ‘government’ would clarify the situation, eliminate all the doubt and conform then directly with your budget speech.
Ms MARTIN: My advice is that the drafting is accurate and properly reflects what is the intention, and this will mean that those with private plated vehicles will in fact pay the levy. I am confident that the drafters have got it right.
Mr REED: In terms of that can I just say that it is not specific. It is currently very broad: ‘An agency of the Territory may recover from a government car user who is, was or is to be provided with a motor vehicle’ – not a private plated vehicle, but ‘a motor vehicle for his or her private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement …’ Now, the other arrangement might be that he takes the car home as a private car.
Ms MARTIN: It is not supposed to be used privately. That is the deal. You know that.
Mr REED: The very act of taking it home under the Fringe Benefit Tax is private use. You don’t understand what private use is.
In terms of a simple insertion there of ‘private plated government car’ would clarify the issue, take away all doubt and at least demonstrate in a minor way that this government does want to get this legislation right. You do not want to end up with a mess.
Ms MARTIN: The Deputy Opposition Leader is not understanding what the issue is here. He is referring to restricted private use. This clearly says ‘private use’. It is very clear.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister in regards to subsection 8. Why is it that the Chief Minister has used the words ‘may recover from a government car user’ when, through the balance of section 12, there are these positive mandatory obligations using the word ‘shall’? Why is the word ‘may’ there? And if it is foreshadowed that the government is not going to recover this levy from some government car users and not others, could those ones which are going to be subject to this exemption at the discretion of the government be particularised tonight?
Ms MARTIN: I would have thought that the member understood a bit more clearly. It is the appropriate word to use. It is the one that sets out the recovery and…
Mr Dunham: It gives them discretion.
Ms MARTIN: No, it does not. It sets it out clearly and it is the word that you would find appropriate to a court situation. There is no point here. Mr Chairman, on the point that you raised earlier about going over and over and over particular clauses that we are getting very seriously into the repetitious.
Mr REED: Can I say in relation to that comment by the Chief Minister, the very purpose of the committee stages is to get down to this level of detail. Dare I say that on behalf of many groups of Territorians tonight, had we not, this legislation would have been very unclear and Territorians would have been very ill-informed because the government failed to recognise the scope of this legislation, its application and the way that it is going to be applied in terms of pretty well everybody. It is rather trite of her to say that she is tired and she wants to go home.
To seek a clarification of that last answer that the Chief Minister gave to the member for Goyder, can she then give us an assurance that every user of a private plated government car will pay the $90 and there are to be no exemptions?
Ms MARTIN: Private plated users will pay and there will be no exemptions, including the member for Katherine.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is fairly straight forward and quick. Why is there a difference between the dates of cessation between subparagraphs (a) and (b)?
Ms MARTIN: This act applies when passed in this House, but the registration notices are sent out six weeks before they actually fall due, so these dates reflect that. So when you look at when the first will go out, I am taking you back to section 12(3), registrations apply on 28 November from those that are due to expire from 4 January 2002. These dates simply reflect that. It is a three year period.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the Chief Minister for her comments. I also wish to point out, of course, that this happens conveniently immediately prior to the next election if we go full term. It is going to be a little bit cute. I can already see the claims by the Chief Minister as we approach the next election: ‘Oh, look what we’ve done to registration in the Northern Territory; we have lowered the rate for you.’ This is just part of the cute little strategy that you are building your political outcomes into this piece of legislation.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will just go back to Clause 1, the short title.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I cannot support this third reading. This is a stupid piece of legislation which has been brought forward with flaw after flaw built into in. It has been brought on in a state of urgency in an attempt to deceive Northern Territorians about its impact. This urgency is absolutely unnecessary considering that we are talking about a government with a four year term and it would have to wait an extra few months to have this process go through properly. This government came to power promising consultation, promising to talk to people of the Northern Territory, but have they spoken to the people who own car museums and own vintage cars? No, they have not. Have they spoken to the tourist vehicle plated cars? No, they have not. Did the Chief Minister know what a trader’s plate was? No, she did not. Has she spoken to the cattle industry of the Northern Territory and its effects? No, she has not. Has she spoken to the hire car companies who hire vehicles and who will lose jobs as a result of this? No, she has not. Has she spoken to those people who run vehicles for the purposes of business, small vehicles like utilities? No, she has not. Campervans - she was unable to identify the difference between motorhomes and caravans for us, she was not clear.
This legislation has been pushed through. This legislation has been rammed down Territorians throats, it is ill-considered, it is ill-conceived and it demonstrates that this government has absolutely no interest in any sort of process that they promised the people of the Northern Territory prior to coming to government. They talk about open, fair and accountable government, if you read the good government statement by which the then Leader of the Opposition claimed that she was going to bring to the Northern Territory. She has deceived Northern Territorians, she has lied to Territorians about it as she has done in this place.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The honourable member knows that he can’t accuse the Chief Minister of lying unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell withdraw, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word lied. She had absolutely engaged in bald faced misrepresentations to the people of the Northern Territory. This is the government which was going to bring itself forward as a champion of the downtrodden …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, would you resume your seat. The debate in this House has been untidy enough this evening. You have had plenty of time to express your opinions and speak to this bill. Let’s now have the third reading with a bit of dignity.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I do pick up on the point that all of the members opposite had a great deal of time to contribute to the debate in the committee process and all we heard from them on two occasions was, ‘Yes, we support this tax unquestioned’. If we had the audacity to question the tax, they sucked air through their teeth, and they sighed and they blew air and said it’s awful that you are being so rigorous about this piece of legislation. Yet we had to extract as though we were torturing them, extract each individual organisation and classification of people they are going to lumber with this tax. Despite the deceit that they peddled to the business community we discovered that the people in the business community are going to affected, and we didn’t hear that in the second reading speech.
The second reading speech was barely over a page long yet we had to spend 4 hours pulling teeth, extracting bits of information, tearing the guts out of this piece of legislation. The Chief Minister has 40 minutes to deliver the second reading speech. What did we get? A little over two minutes perhaps. In fact, it was so quick that Hansard blinked and missed it entirely. The Chief Minister could have come into this Chamber and clearly explained the intention of this legislation, but she was unable to because they were pushing it through on urgency. Pushing it through, jamming it down people’s throats and now we are being the villains because we have the audacity to do what an opposition should do and interrogate a stupid piece of legislation which is ultimately going to have a detrimental effect on a whole bunch of people that not even the Chief Minister understood would be victims of this piece of taxation. Constantly running back to the advisors booth saying what does this mean, what does that mean. The fact of the matter is, she didn’t even understand it, and if she had allowed her processes of good government to go forward and her processes of consultation with the public, she would have known this stuff.
At the outset of the committee stage I asked the Chief Minister if she was aware of any flaws and she said no. Well, there was flaw after flaw after flaw. This is a stupid piece of legislation, it is an indictment on the government that brings it forward. It is bad in law let alone in what it is trying to achieve in terms of revenue collection. It is just simply a political stunt to try to damage a former government when all they are effectively saying is that we can’t govern ourselves, we have to blame the people. Anybody who supports this piece of legislation stands in betrayal of Territorians.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am compelled on behalf of Territorians to make some closing remarks into this legislation. At the outset …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members I have already spoken once.
Mr REED: At the outset of the debate on this piece of urgency legislation, five hours ago, I indicated that the opposition would not be supporting it, that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation, and that it impose unfairly on Territorians. At that stage we were of the belief that it would be imposed upon Territory families so to speak, but not Territory businesses because that was the advice that the government gave us. That was the advice that governments gave to Territorians and that was the advice that people were, if you like, comforted by.
Only some hours later, well into the debate, and following the searching questions of the opposition on behalf of different groups of Territorians, be they pensioners, be they motorhome owners, be they business people, be they rent-a-car companies, be they pastoralists, did we find that the broad impact of this legislation was much wider than was indicated by the government, that is to say they had concealed its intent. That is a very serious and nasty thing for a government to do. For this government to conceal the intent of legislation, when introducing it yesterday, the Chief Minister, as the member for Macdonnell has just said, had some 45 minutes to explain to Territorians and to this House its full scope and intent. She instead gave some very broad wafflings in relation to matters that you could describe as purely of a political nature and gave a paragraph or so of what the legislation was to do carefully avoiding the fact that it was going to impose on all business people in the Northern Territory who have a vehicle that is capable of being used for domestic purposes. In addition to that, it is going to hit the kids with Pee Wee squirt bikes to the extent where they currently pay $30, they will now pay $120. It is just an inconceivable application of an unfair and unnecessary and unwarranted tax.
In all fairness to the Chief Minister, I really don’t think that she understood that it would apply to Pee Wee squirt bikes. She had no idea. And that was demonstrated tonight because every time she was asked a question - especially when we really found through our questioning that the scope of this legislation was much broader than was first advised - she did not know the answer and had to seek it. A demonstration of a Chief Minister and Treasurer who is not up to the job and not capable of performing it.
Madam Speaker, we have been pleased as an opposition tonight to be able, as it turns out, to pursue on behalf of virtually every Territorian the full depth of this legislation, its scope and its application. We have exposed the government for what it is: it is deceitful and it has been deliberately, in this case, misleading in terms of the application of this unnecessary tax even to the extent where they have refused to accept it as a tax and tried to form a belief, and as the member for Goyder clearly demonstrated, the interpretations in law of a levy and a tax are no different. A tax is a levy and a levy is a tax.
From the point of view of this government, I hope that we will hear some positive responses from the consultations that the Leader of the Opposition is going to undertake with tourist vehicle operators and with indeed the rental car companies because …
Ms Martin: Denis is going to do it, is he?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition is now being frivolous about it …
Members: The Chief Minister!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: it which does generate concern because you just wonder about how serious she was in relation to this intent.
Madam Speaker, we have pursued this to the end on behalf of Territorians and we have been able to be very pleased as it happens, to be able to clarify a number of points in relation to many owners of registered vehicles who would otherwise be imposed upon in relation to this matter.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, just to pick up on a few remarks from the former Treasurer in relation to deceit. It was all in the act. If it was anything other than that, why weren’t we forced to accept a raft of amendments and finish up with a totally different bill to what we started out with? The bill passed without amendment from memory. Where is the deceit?
The man up the back here, Madam Speaker, is asking questions that the answers were clearly on the next page of the bill. They were clearly on the next page of the bill. If he had bothered to turn the page over and have a read of it instead of being the smarty pants that he thinks that he is, and getting up and raising all these questions instead of reading the bill through himself, he would have had the answers there and then. But that of course did not suit them. They wanted to drag this out as long as they possibly could. They have that right, we don’t oppose that at all. It is a process of democratic debate in this institution and we respect that.
In relation to remarks from the member for Macdonnell, the same thing applies, it was all there. He can talk about deceit, or having exposed the government, the words are there. It is all in the bill before us that has been passed and now becomes law. It is simply a matter of them having read it before they get in here and carry on as they did for something like five hours or five and a half hours, I don’t know. It is a fact that governments do have to pursue bills and process bills on urgency from time to time, not by choice but by a process of the fact that you want it to get in place for good reasons and have it take effect without delay. There would be all sorts of get outs if this was to take the normal process of legislation and come back in February.
But it is passed without amendment, and the Chief Minister will undertake those consultations that she has committed to, not the Leader of the Opposition, who could not even be bothered to be in the Chamber here this evening whilst this bill processed. So important was it to the opposition, your boss was too lazy to be here.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy has been around this Chamber long enough, and drawn enough points of order himself, to know that he cannot reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member.
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business should know that. Withdraw that remark.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I just want to reply to that feeble attempt by the Leader of Government Business to put down the process that we have just been through. I find it just unbelievable that he would come in here and try to defend the feeble attempt by the Chief Minister to understand, or to get us to believe that she understands, this legislation. This is a bill for a new tax that is to raise, how much Chief Minister? Is it $42m or …
Ms Martin: $24m.
Mr BALDWIN: $24m. She didn’t even know how much it was going to raise. $24m in tax brought into this House in urgency. I ask you, have you seen that happen before in this House? Never, never has that process been applied. This is a brand new tax on Territorians that is being brought in here on urgency, and the Leader of Government Business has the audacity to say to us, why didn’t we check the legislation?
Why didn’t we go through it. He came in here yesterday, a second reading speech that we didn’t get until today, not delivered to our desks. Madam Speaker, it is just outrageous that the Leader of Government Business gets up here and blames us for not trying to amend the bill. In fact, we had two amendments suggested to the Chief Minister that she would not take up, simple one word amendment, Madam Speaker. Simple one word amendments she couldn’t agree to on the floor of this House because we never had any other opportunity to look at this legislation.
Members interjecting:
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell!
Mr BALDWIN: We have the Leader of Government Business stand up in this House and try to make feeble excuses for the Chief Minister for the process, the very important process of a new tax bill, no appropriation bill, a new tax bill, and we get lambasted by him for trying to do what a good opposition would do.
We started this process at four o’clock, Madam Speaker, it is now quarter past nine. Five and a quarter hours, and it took that long because we have never seen the piece of legislation, we haven’t had a chance for a briefing. Normally something of this importance would lay on the Table between sittings and we would all have a look at it. We would be able to talk to all of those respective groups that we have raised tonight, pastoralists, the motorbike associations, the charities. The museum that owns 40-odd vehicles - it is going to impinge on every one of their vehicles. $4000 you are going to give the Alice Springs Museum. What are you going to do about that Minister for Central Australia? Have you talked to them? We haven’t had a chance to talk to them because this came in here on urgency. Now don’t talk to us about process, Leader of Government Business, this is an outrageous way of doing business, and it certainly does not reflect what this government promised when they were in opposition, that they would have fair and transparent processes.
If this is the way they are going to do business, then we will take all the time we have to, to make sure that Territorians are reflected in terms of important pieces of legislation.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. The subject of the debate has been the garnering of money, as we talked about before the bill was debated in committee.
Madam SPEAKER: I will just remind speakers that they must speak to the bill in the third reading.
Mr DUNHAM: Yep! The bill that we have before us therefore is a garnering measure that deploys the money. Now, in the course of the debate we have heard that this is necessary because of actions of the previous government. Those actions of the previous government so offended the sensibilities of those opposite that they believed that we should be censured and that we had even abrogated our capacity to be able to speak about it on some occasions. I seek to read into Hansard some excerpts from Labor’s good government which I think are salient and relevant to the debate. I quote, ‘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’.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance to the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am not sure whether this is relevant to the bill. You must speak to the bill. I ask the member for Drysdale to think about that. Relevance. For third reading speeches it must be on the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, during the course of my maiden speech I made a pledge to the people of the Territory, indeed, in the Chamber, that I would do all I could to make sure that only good law passes through this parliament. Good law means a clear intent. It means clear words on the face of the document. Indeed, some of the fatherhood statements that the member for Stuart made, and other things in the parliament, gave me some hope that perhaps there was a genuine attempt on behalf of the government to also pursue that goal.
There have been three demonstrated ambiguities quite constructively pointed out in this piece of legislation - ambiguities which could have been solved easily and simply by way of insertion of this one word. The very fact that it has been raised in this parliament on the floor means that, in a very real sense that in itself could be construed as an ambiguity. It is very rare that a government has the opportunity to correct a piece of legislation genuinely and constructively. I am putting on the record that this piece of legislation is not good law, it is bad law. And as with some of the comments that were made in respect of it, putting aside the political rhetoric, the act of parliament should be sacrosanct. It should not contain any political reference, it should be clear it is for all Territorians, applying to all people who live in our respective electorates, and to rush it through on urgency, to ignore the quite genuine concerns of the opposition is a disgrace.
It grinds me and it offends all the principles of process and fairness. It does the member for Nhulunbuy a personal disservice when he comes in, makes some very general and non-constructive comments and then leaves, and then has the audacity to stand up and suggest that points which were quite validly made were made irresponsibly. In the circumstances, I cannot support this bill.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, just picking up on a few points raised by members opposite, let us not forget the reason why we are debating this bill on urgency this evening. The reason is to repair the gaping deficit that we inherited from the previous government.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The speaker is covering ground that I was ruled out of order on.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister, speak to the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the bill, the opposition, despite trawling through this bill clause by clause, has failed to identify any specific ambiguities. Yes, they played the game tonight. We did take on the issue of the private rental car operators at the Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday. We are waiting for a proposal from the private rental car operators as to how an alternative mechanism could be used to collect that revenue. We have listened to the community. It is a broad based levy.
For the member for Macdonnell to make the point that the Chief Minister had to take advice from Attorney-General’s people in the boxes here, the member for Macdonnell has been here for long enough and has sat through as many appropriation debates as he has, and every single time, at every single appropriation debate, they could not answer a question without turning to the advisor. So to point out that this was something somehow unusual is just not the case. It goes to show what a very short and convenient memory he has.
We have to put this bill through on urgency. We have to repair the budget. That is what we are doing this evening.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! Before we continue, I ask all members to stop their chatter across the Chamber.
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the impact of the mini-budget on my areas of ministerial responsibility. I can agree with just one comment from the Leader of the Opposition when he gave his response, and that is that employment, education and training, and police, fire and emergency services have received additional funding. Unfortunately, his comments about a farcical black hole, a lack of courage and the size of the budget deficit are simply wrong and another example of his lack of understanding of the budget and the budgetary processes and his whinging and whining approach.
It is something that Professor Percy Allan, officers from Treasury, this government and all other objective observers have had no difficulty understanding.
The new Department of Employment, Education and Training was established on 13 November 2001. It is made up of the old Department of Education, Employment and Training, the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority and the Work Health Authority. Some elements of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment will also be incorporated in the department, but the exact details of functions, funds and employees are yet to be settled pending passage of the necessary legislation and a thorough examination of those functions and activities. I assert that the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment will be maintained.
At first glance, it might appear that the $446.75m budget for DEET is simply an amalgamation of the parts that now make up the whole, catering for approximately 3600 staff, most of whom work in schools. But the DEET budget has been increased by over $16m for all its components from the one introduced by the previous government. This government was elected on a promise of focussing on employment, education and training. We are honouring that promise. The new approach of the philosophy goes deeper than the simple allocation of an increased level of funding for these functions.
Before I go to the budget in detail, I want to talk about that new approach and philosophy. The potential of every Territorian will not be maximised without a greater emphasis on and coordination of education and training, and a strategic approach by government to employment. That is true whether you are an indigenous Territorian or non-indigenous; whether you live in one of our urban centres or you live in a rural or remote community; whether you are an employee; an employer looking for qualified and skilled employees; or you are a student or someone trying to gain entry to the workforce. And it is true if you are participating in the local Northern Territory economy or if you are trying to compete, or wanting to compete, in the wider Australian or the world economy. It is true for whatever industry you pose that question.
Our approach is straight forward: government effort aimed at maximising the potential of Territorians whether as individuals or in the workforce must be underpinned by a strategy and must be coordinated. We will develop a strategy for educating our children from pre-school to university. There will be a strategy that will ensure we have an appropriately skilled local workforce that adapts and meets the needs of the economy as it changes inevitably over time. There will be a strategy that ensures that our workplaces are safer and efficient, with minimal industrial or other conflict. The various elements in that equation – education, training, employment and the workplace – are intrinsically linked and need to be coordinated across government. Establishing appropriate organisational arrangements is an essential starting point, and this we have done. Hence the establishment of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The advice flowing to government will cover all elements and the implementation of government decisions in these areas will be delivered more efficiently and effectively.
We have inherited a legacy that lacked strategy and coordination and the will to tackle the hard issues. In schools, we inherited a lack of strategy on what to do about the chronic budget problem in education, Territory students not meeting national benchmarks, the location and upkeep of our schools, the balance between government and non-government schools, the approach to funding in the non-government sector, the inequity between resources going to urban and non-urban education, and attracting and retaining high quality teachers. In the important areas of indigenous education, while work has been done on a strategy, we inherited a lack of will to do anything about the problem on the ground. This issue will be addressed. In the equally important area of information technology in schools, the Territory simply came to it too late. The other states and territories have been in the game for years. The list goes on.
In the tertiary sector, there was a lack of strategy toward the Northern Territory University and its problems. There was no employment and training strategy for the Northern Territory. There was training taking place but there was not enough analysis of need, nor listening to industry, nor was there sufficient accountability for, or outcomes from, the training resources provided by government. The current management and advisory arrangements involving the NTETA Board, Training Advisory Councils, Territory and Commonwealth funding requirements will be reviewed. We want to build a better working relationship with the Commonwealth government and agencies. I was pleased to meet, albeit briefly, with the former federal Minister for Education, Dr Kemp, in Canberra a couple of weeks ago. It was a positive meeting from the point of view of what we wanted to discuss. One of them was the Commonwealth DEETYA representative on the Collins Task Force Implementation Group, and the discussion ranged also across the Northern Territory University. Responsibility for education at the federal level has now shifted across to Brendan Nelson, MHR, and I look forward to getting in touch with him and establishing a positive working relationship with him and the federal government as soon as possible because we need them onside with the work that has to be done.
The restructuring of the government agencies charged with delivering employment, education and training services is aimed at developing the strategies I mentioned and the coordination and improvement of service delivery. Within the new department, the CEO and management team will be required to ensure that the new department is itself a leader and role model in the field of employment, training, staff development, communication, occupational health, and service delivery. It would be appropriate that that be the case. It is our own Department of Employment, Education and Training, and if that can’t be the role model for the rest of the agencies, then I will go he.
The budget allocation in this mini-budget will provide DEET with the necessary resources to deliver. The total DEET budget for 2001-02 will be increased from that introduced by the previous government by $16.174m to a total of $446.75m. The government schools’ budget increases by $17.256m to $299.78m, and this increase is spread across pre-, primary and secondary education. The extra funds will solve the problem that the Department of Education has had with its budget for several years.
Every Territorian concerned about the education of their children should ask the question why it was not addressed sooner. A large part of the education budget is fixed. There is a large fixed cost in running schools and the largest cost, that of teacher and support staff costs, is set by a formula and is therefore known. Despite this, the department was funded on a drip-feed basis for years. The $5m increase to the base budget will fund recurrent salary costs, including the recently negotiated EBA pay increase for teachers, an agreement which has been supported overwhelmingly by teachers and will now be presented to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for formal approval over, from memory, 1423 votes in favour, 237 votes against and, interestingly enough, 7 informal. One wonders why you would chose to vote informally in such a ballot but that was the case.
$1.2m extra is provided for fit-out and establishment costs for various schools including the new primary school at Girraween, and the rebuild of the fire-damaged Ramingining School. Initiatives of the new government also allowed for: $1.1m to start the process of employing 100 extra teachers over the life of this government. The first of these will be employed for the start of the 2002 school year. Priority will be regional and remote schools - the areas of greatest need as identified in the Collins Report into indigenous education and special needs. The actual distribution and allocation will occur after appropriate consultations of stakeholders including schools, teachers, parents, communities, unions and others.
The Vocational Education and Training Program will have a further $0.5m invested to extend the program to Year 9 level. $120 000 of new funding is provided in 2001-02 to establish a new Student Teacher Bursary Scheme, an initiative aimed at increasing the number of Territorians entering the teaching profession, increasing long term retention of teachers, and reducing recruitment costs. Bursaries will be provided for a minimum of 20 students to attend NTU and other accredited NT training institutions for teacher training each year. Criteria for the bursaries will be developed, as will obligations and responsibilities for recipients. The actual numbers and level of the bursary will be set having regard to the relationship with Commonwealth-funded education allowances.
In recognition of the value we place in the non-government sector, a further $1.419m will be made available in this budget. This will cover any increases necessary to honour the current policy of funding non-government students at 20% of the cost of educating a student in a government school; and the commitments entered into for assistance for the provision of capital infrastructure by non-government schools. I am pleased to advise members of the Assembly and those in the non-government school sector, that I will be in a position to talk to them soon about the government’s approach to both recurrent and capital assistance funding.
Assistance to the NTU has been increased again. The issue of funding for the NTU is the subject of the strategic positioning project undertaken by KPMG and now under consideration by the university council. Once the council’s views are known, the government will be in a position to consider what further steps may be necessary to support the NTU. The existing situation is unsatisfactory. The university community must take a lead role in developing solutions which do not rely on ongoing or periodic injections of government finances or other special treatment. I was encouraged, again, in discussion with the former Minister for Education at a federal level, Dr Kemp, who very clearly saw the Northern Territory government as having a role in where NTU goes in terms of the future and expressed a willingness of the Commonwealth to come to the table with the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory University if we were to get involved. I am hoping that that level of commitment, that interest, that support expressed by Dr Kemp for the Northern Territory University will, of course, be the same attitude that Dr Nelson brings to the portfolio.
Whilst Centralian College funding has been slightly reduced by $137 000, that is something we would not have liked to have seen done, but it has to be taken into context of an $11m budget. I am conscious of the successful efforts made by Centralian College to expand its operations; its improved performance and training delivery including the recent linkage with the Canberra Institute of Technology. Centralian College’s efforts will continue to be supported.
The budget allocation for the Office of Commissioner for Public Employment remains substantially the same as the original budget for 2001-02, except for a small contribution towards overcoming the overall budget black hole inherited from the previous government. $1.5m additional funding has been provided for the purchase of training programs to be delivered to Territorians. These funds are a rollover of Commonwealth moneys unspent in 2000-01. This boost is in line with the government’s commitment to having a real employment and training strategy that meets the needs of industry.
$6m will be provided to the nominal insurer to cover the initial liability on the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme resulting from the collapse of HIH Insurance. The collapse of HIH has led to an unfunded workers compensation liability in the Northern Territory which could be in excess of $50m. It will be some time before that actual liability can be accurately assessed. The government is currently investigating the best way of funding this liability. The $6m is an initial grant to provide time to explore funding options.
All members are now well aware of the budget position we inherited on taking office. The effort to recover the Northern Territory’s precarious position will take hard work, some sacrifice and several years to achieve.
I have in the past few minutes explained those areas of budget increases for DEET and the purposes for which those extra funds are provided. While the general area of employment, education and training is one of particular interest to the government, because it is so closely linked with our future wellbeing, it is not immune from some pain in assisting us to improve the overall budget provision. To this end, DEET has had funds extracted from what its budget would have been for the following:
All members of the public who are very concerned about education, training and employment for themselves and their children, need to understand that if were not for the budget situation we found on taking office, those savings would not be necessary and an additional $2.45m could this year have been invested in the future of all Territorians.
In relation to Police, Fire and Emergency Services for the financial year 2001-02, NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services have a revised budget allocation, after transfers for the changes arising from the new departmental structure, of $131.41m. The agency will also receive $1m for IT outsourcing. It will be a transfer from DCIS to Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. I advised the House earlier this year, the Commissioner of Police had informed me that the projected expenditure for the 2001-02 financial year was likely to exceed the available allocation. After consideration of the commissioner’s views, Police, Fire and Emergency Services has been given funding for the 2001 Police Consent Agreement, for a large portion of the cost of the Falconio investigation and for communication functions. In addition, approval of the carry-over of funds from last financial year for emergency management, together with funding for additional police to meet this government’s election commitment has been made. After these variations, the total funding available to Police, Fire and Emergency Services will be $132.41m, an increase of over $2.3m from the original allocation. The Commissioner of Police has advised of necessary adjustments to specific allocations to ensure that any expenditure that can be reined in, is reined in.
However, I wish to advise the House that while every endeavour to meet the target will be made, steps that will impact on service delivery or the health and safety of staff, will certainly not be taken. At this stage Police, Fire and Emergency Services do not see that there will be any adverse impact on operations or service delivery, but this will need to be carefully monitored and further advice will be forthcoming to me at any time there is any difficulty encountered. I am sure the new Police Commissioner will find that Police, Fire and Emergency Services is in far better shape than when Commissioner Bates arrived. Establishment and resource levels have been increased substantially and I recognise and pay tribute to the efforts of Commissioner Bates. He just simply did a superb job in seeing that large growth of the police force. The new commissioner now has a very different role from that undertaken by Commissioner Bates, because we now have a police force at or around optimum levels with the extra 50 police to come in over this four-year term of government. I would see that there would be very much a development of, and a realising of the full potential of, the police as a resource unit in terms of getting absolute best out of them. I would think that the new commissioner comes well suited to that role. It will be very much an HR role and a moulding and a developing and looking after the service that we have. As I said, the challenge to the new commissioner, Paul White, is to refine and develop from that very solid base.
As far as the racing, gaming and licensing ministry is concerned, these activities are undertaken by Northern Territory Treasury Services. An additional $70 000 has been allocated to assist with Sky Channel coverage of the Darwin Cup; and a further $330 000 has been provided to cover a gaming system evaluation, ultimately to be funded from revenue paid by license holders.
The mini-budget is sound; it restores and repairs the damage and economic vandalism of our predecessors. It sets the Territory budget on a sustainable path. Most importantly, it provides for ongoing and improved service delivery in key areas of education, employment and training, and police fire and emergency services. The mini-budget reflects the views, concerns and aspirations expressed by the community at the economic summit. The mini-budget was developed in a sensible and considered way. It is not a slash and burn budget such as we saw in early 1991, such as we saw with Planning for Growth, such as we saw with the development of DCIS. It is not a budget of rubbery figures, or, as we saw as recently as the last budget, a budget with deceitful figures. I congratulate the Chief Minister and Treasurer on her achievement.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as the new Minister for Justice and Attorney General, I am delighted to greet the mini-budget and offer some comments on it tonight. It takes significant steps towards restoring the Territory’s budget and delivering effective crime prevention and law enforcement strategies. The mini-budget does what the CLP government refused to do. The CLP failed to be honest and it refused to be financially responsible. It went on spending money it did not have. We now have to restore financial responsibility and the sustainability of the budget itself. Even though the CLP has wreaked such damage this government remains committed to improving the lifestyle of Territorians and tackling the hard issues that are faced at the current time. We can restore the Territory’s finances and deliver on our programs which will make real improvements to lives of Territorians.
The mini-budget meets the challenge of getting the finances right, but also starts to advance some of the key government programs and projects which will make a difference in areas like crime prevention, law enforcement, and in remote communities. Crime prevention and law enforcement is a particular area for which I have carriage. This government is committed to delivering comprehensive and practical crime prevention and law enforcement programs. I am delighted to be able to highlight the initiatives in the mini-budget that will assist Territorians in fighting crime, and our Territory police deliver an effective crime prevention strategy and help all Territorians. Some of these will start this financial year; other initiatives have been included in the forward estimates to start in a financially responsible way over the first term of the government. The area of crime prevention is one of my particular responsibilities within our government, as I said before, one in which I will work in close partnership with my colleague, the Minster for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and my colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Services.
The mini-budget provides a range of carefully crafted initiatives from more police assistance to victims and new ways to deal with wayward youth to be delivered over the government’s first term. Police are the front-line crime fighters. This government will boost police numbers with 50 extra police in its first year, providing the on-the-ground support for the government’s Tough on Drugs policy and the six point crime prevention plan. $640 000 in this mini-budget will allow 10 police officers to be recruited from January next year. A new multi-purpose police, fire and emergency services station for the Darwin rural area is proposed and it will help to improve police response times in an area where some 20 000 Territorians live. Its cost of $1m will be addressed in the 2002-03 and future years’ capital works program. New police offices and facilities will help the police force to prevent crime, effectively investigate crime and respond more quickly when crime occurs.
In the areas of drugs, this government intends to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Our three point plan to tackle illicit drug use is one of the cornerstones of our crime prevention strategy. The law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and drug dealing is point 1 in our Tough on Drugs plan. Boosting the resources of the drug squad is an essential part of this strategy and has been a long held priority of Labor in opposition and now in government. The link between illicit drug dependency and crime, particularly property crime, is well recognised. One way to reduce illicit drug use is to attack the supply side, to crack down on the people who profit from importing, manufacturing and distributing illicit drugs. To do this, the police need resources and they need law. Part of the government’s plan to tackle drug-related crime is to double the size of the drug squad from 20 to 40 officers through the increase in police numbers over the next four years.
But attacking the supply side is not enough. Drug treatment and rehabilitation is part of the government’s plan to be tough on the causes of crime. Commencing in 2003-04, funding assistance will be provided to non-government organisations for treatment and rehabilitation facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs and to help purchase three half-way houses and provide ongoing funding for improved drug rehabilitation services.
I am looking forward to outlining in more detail the government’s comprehensive anti-drug strategy next year. To bring that strategy together we have established a multi-departmental committee which has begun meeting and is building up a very widely-ranged set of initiatives against drug use and drug manufacture and distribution in the Northern Territory. It consists of the health department, the police department, Attorney-General’s department and we expect to have some quite detailed proposals for action early next year.
The government’s six point plan for crime prevention forms a solid basis for a comprehensive, integrated crime prevention strategy. The establishment of a new crime prevention unit in the Department of Justice will be funded through resources freed up by administrative restructure. This specialist unit will be dedicated to coordinating and driving the implementation of the government’s six point crime prevention plan, developing whole-of-government solutions and making recommendations to Cabinet, and making a real difference in the lives of Territorians.
A number of initiatives funded by this mini-budget or included in forward estimates for the next financial year, will support the crime prevention plan, encourage community participation and help to start community-based projects to reduce crime. Financial assistance to the Neighbourhood Watch and NTSafe programs will be increased by $250 000 per year from the year 2002-03 to enable more community-based initiatives to reduce crime.
I am pleased that funding to enable the introduction of the youth patrol night patrol and safety house to help children in the Darwin area who are in need or at risk has been brought forward from 2002-03 to the current financial year. Under this initiative, non-government organisations were invited to tender to run the night patrol service. To support the service, the government plans to provide a Territory Housing house at a peppercorn rent. This will ensure supervised emergency overnight accommodation is available to help vulnerable, young people.
School attendance officers are another initiative to help young people in need. By 2004-05, eight school attendance officers will be located throughout the Territory to help address behavioural problems in schools and truancy by school students. This important initiative will provide help to children who need it, and help to keep them in school. $170 000 has been included in the forward estimates for 2002-03, to start the initiative with the employment of the first two officers. The government diversionary programs for wayward students will also start in the next financial year. $0.5m has been included in the forward estimates, starting next financial year, to introduce programs to get students who truant back into the classroom and off the streets. Those programs will give the school attendance officers the tools they need to ensure they can make a real difference in children’s lives and in the lives of people in the neighbourhoods where they may well be causing problems at the moment.
We have made it very clear going into government that putting victims first is one of the key components of our six point plan in the priorities of this government. When a crime happens the people who suffer are the victims, and this government understands that they need help and support to get them through. We know from personal experience, and as local members, the loss and devastation people feel when their homes are broken into and their possessions stolen. The incoming Police Commissioner, Paul White, has said break and enters will be a priority for the police force. He has put offenders on notice with his announcement of a crackdown on home break-ins when he takes over. This mini-budget helps the victims of home break-ins by providing $30 000 this financial year to help clean up and secure their homes after such break-ins. This money will be used to provide immediate and real assistance to victims. It can be used to replace broken windows or locks, or help with the cleaning when the victim’s home has been trashed. These practical measures will be available through community groups who are best placed to help victims through the trauma of a house break-in. The government will be holding discussions with stakeholders such as VOCAL - the Victims of Crime Assistance League - and the Victims Support Unit on the most effective ways in which this money can be used.
The construction of the Palmerston Courthouse at a cost of $5m will be addressed in the development of the 2002-03 budget and in future years’ capital works programs. Court facilities located at Palmerston will mean that witnesses and victims, and offenders in Palmerston and rural areas no longer have to travel to Darwin for court appearances. Local support programs can be delivered more effectively through the facility, and the mediation and victim impact conferences can take place in the local community.
Turning now to other issues. I want to look at the issues that will impact on Territorians wherever they live. The boost this budget provides to the number of nurses and teachers employed in the Territory will be welcome wherever Territorians live, particularly after the years of neglect by the CLP in this important area of service delivery. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, spending in the Territory on public education has been well below national standards. Good public education is a fundamental requirement for our children, our community and our economy. Over its first term, the government will employ 100 extra teachers. This mini-budget starts to rectify the CLP’s neglect by providing $1.1m this financial year to see this important initiative kicked off with an extra 20 teachers. This means more attention will be paid to the children who need it including those with special education needs. It also supports the government’s efforts to increase the retention rates for students, and indigenous students in particular, in line with the Collins Report into Indigenous Education.
As the Chief Minister has already made clear, this mini-budget reorders government spending to increase the priority given to health. Despite the black hole the government inherited by the CLP, this mini-budget will ensure that the government can, in its first term, still deliver on its commitment to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 and increase their pay levels by 15%. $2.7m allocated in this mini-budget will enable 10 additional nurses to be recruited this financial year. Those numbers will increase progressively at an achievable rate to the 75 new positions the government committed to by the year 2004-05.
I would like to highlight some of the initiatives and projects that will particularly benefit Central Australia. First, I would like to emphasise that nothing in the mini-budget will affect core services to the bush. Core services will be maintained and, where possible, improved by increasing the productivity of the public service. In Central Australia, we look forward to the construction of the National Indigenous Museum and Cultural Centre in Alice Springs. In conjunction with the Commonwealth and private sector, it will be addressed in the development of the 2002-03 and future years’ capital works programs. Originally proposed as a stand-alone facility, indigenous bodies have indicated to the government that these resources should be combined with existing projects, particularly the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs, the Desert Peoples Precinct - which has already been provided with $250 000 - along with an additional $200 000 for operational requirements in the Alice Springs Cultural Precinct. This approach demonstrates the government’s commitment to enhance Alice Springs as a national centre for indigenous culture and learning.
I would also like to talk about the Vocational Educational and Training Scheme. Under the CLP, the administration of the VET Scheme became increasingly centralised in Darwin. As a result, the development and coordination of training for indigenous communities and others in regional and remote areas has suffered. This worrying trend, affecting those communities most in need, will start to be reversed from the year 2002-03 when extra funding is proposed to employ extra regional VET coordinators. Five VET coordinators will eventually be located in the Territory’s regional centres. They will perform a crucial role linking training programs to regional development needs to ensure properly trained people are available across a wide range of service delivery areas.
I am very pleased to see that the funding of $400 000 for the renal dialysis service in Tennant Creek has been included in the forward estimates for 2002-03. As part of the government’s commitment to indigenous organisations taking a greater role in service provision through the Indigenous Framework Agreements, Anyinginyi Congress will be assisted to provide this service.
I would like to highlight some of the remote programs that will impact on the electorate of Stuart as well as other remote electorates around the Territory. Looking at the regional health care teams, $220 000 provided in this mini-budget sees the start of increases to regional health care teams which are to be supplemented by an additional 25 staff - professionals with specialist skills in child health and school nursing, speech therapy and occupational therapy. Those teams will help the remote clinics which are too often overwhelmed with the number and range of cases which present in the communities. They will visit schools and clinics in the regions on a regular basis to identify childhood health problems, and to help provide treatment and care within communities. To help ensure communities have continued access to trained staff, those nurses will also be available to fill in when permanent staff are on leave.
To help indigenous youth in remote communities, the government will increase grants to community government councils by $300 000 per annum to employ sport and recreation officers. $150 000 provided in this mini-budget starts this process. Indigenous youth in remote communities are especially vulnerable to the problems caused by social dislocation. Left to their own devices, without recreational opportunities, they can find themselves in trouble with the law. The sport and recreation officers will promote participation in sport and help to develop the sporting talents of young people in our remote communities.
I am pleased to say that this government’s commitment to implementing many of the recommendations of the Collins Report into Indigenous Education is now beginning to be implemented. As well as the employment of 100 extra teachers, which will help support the retention of indigenous students, those recommendations which require little or no additional funding other than the reallocation of priorities within the Department of Employment, Education and Training, or the inclusion of communities in developing programs for students, will now be implemented.
In conclusion, this mini-budget presents to the people of the Territory a financially responsible and sustainable plan for the government’s first term. Many of the government’s spending priorities have been reworked to ensure we can deliver on our election commitments in a financially responsible way. Putting the Territory on a firm financial footing requires some tough decisions, but the increased priority being given to health, education and law enforcement ensures essential services and programs are going to be maintained. I am happy to be able to speak on the mini-budget today. I commend the Chief Minister and the Treasurer’s statement to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the mini-budget delivered by the Treasurer and Chief Minister. The Martin Labor government inherited a set of published budget papers that were a work of fiction, a gross fraud on the people of the Northern Territory. The Public Accounts Committee is investigating how deliberate and manipulative that fraud was and who were the key perpetrators, so I will not go into any other details here, although I am confident the facts will be brought to light by the Public Accounts Committee.
This mini-budget is about finally providing some accurate, accountable information to Territorians on the state of the Territory’s finances, and about beginning the hard process of balancing the books so that we can move ahead with growing our economy in a fiscally sustainable way. The Martin Labor government inherited a deficit of approximately $140m from the CLP, a deficit which was unsustainable. The government has had to make some hard decisions in terms of revenue and saving measures in this mini-budget to rein in the growth in expenditure under the previous government, under the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the former Chief Minister. The Leader of the Opposition’s mantra has been to spend, spend, spend. The Gordon Gecko of the CLP and his mantra that ‘debt is good’. We have rejected that irresponsible approach, and the Treasurer has delivered a mini-budget that is both fiscally responsible and sustainable and also delivers on the Labor Party’s election commitments.
The historic Economic Development Summit called by the Chief Minister and held in this Assembly from 4 to 6 November was a key part of the process of informing the government of the priorities of the broader Territory community in shaping the mini-budget. I was very pleased to be involved in organising the summit, and I wish to place on the record my appreciation of the fantastic work by my department under John Carroll in making the summit happen in a very short time period. The summit was about bringing together a diverse range of people representing a broad cross section of the Territory community to discuss together the challenges facing the Territory and to set the priorities for a strategy that will see the Territory continue to grow in the future and deliver the better future we all want for our children.
I thank all of those who participated in the summit, the organisers and the co-chairs, Neville Walker and Bob Collins, for delivering a productive and inclusive forum for Territorians and for putting concrete suggestions on how to move forward together to grow our economy. The feedback I have received from participants and observers at the summit has been fantastic and I am committed to following up on the key summit recommendations to deliver concrete outcomes for the Territory community.
A primary focus of our government’s first term will be on economic development and job creation. This will require a coordinated approach across government to maximise the economic potential of the Territory, working together with the private sector to deliver economic growth and jobs in key industry sectors including tourism, small business, primary industry and resource development both in our domestic markets and internationally.
The public service restructure recently announced by the Chief Minister brings the functions for supporting these key industry sectors together in an integrated focussed way under the auspices of the new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development for which I have the great privilege of being minister. The department includes the regulatory and research functions of the former Departments of Primary Industries and Fisheries and Mines and Energy, the industry development functions, business registration and regulation functions of the former Department of Industries and Business, as well as providing whole-of-government advice to me in my capacity as Minister for Energy. The department will also incorporate the Department of Asian Relations and Trade which will become more focussed on delivering measurable, trade-related outcomes for Territory companies and for facilitating productive overseas investment in the Northern Territory economy.
As Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Territory development I expect to work closely with the Office of Territory Development and with our Territory Ambassador, Bob Collins, both in delivering the outcomes of the Economic Development Summit and in attracting and delivering major projects that will boost the Territory economy and, again, deliver on that key commitment: jobs, jobs and more jobs.
The key functional responsibilities in my department are outlined in the mini-budget papers and I will quote them briefly:
I am confident that under the capable management of Peter Blake, the newly appointed Secretary of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development and his team, working with the resilient and entrepreneurial individuals and companies which comprise the private sector in the Northern Territory, we will deliver on these outcomes.
I am also honoured to have been appointed Minister for Tourism in the recent ministerial changes. The structure and responsibilities of the Tourist Commission are basically unchanged by the restructure, with the NT Tourist Commission picking up responsibility for some tourist infrastructure previously the responsibility of the former Department of Industries and Business. In the week or so I have been minister, I have met with a number of the peak industry groups in the tourism sector including the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Tourism Export Council and the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association. I have also met with senior executives of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission responsible for marketing the Territory as a tourist destination both domestically and internationally.
The tourism industry internationally has suffered since the events of 11 September with one recent report predicting tourist numbers overall as being down by 16% on the equivalent time last year. In Australia and particularly here in the Territory, we have suffered the double blow of the collapse of Ansett. The slowing international economy will also inevitably have an impact on the overall volume of tourist travel. It is not an easy time to be a tourism operator and we are certainly going to be working with those people and everybody in the tourism sector to get them through this tough time.
However, in my meetings with the Tourist Commission and with industry representatives from here in Darwin, from regional areas and Central Australia, I have been struck by their pragmatism and their willingness to work cooperatively together and with government to get through this period and to capitalise on the better times which everybody is confident lie ahead. A large part of the seat capacity lost through the Ansett collapse has been picked up by Qantas into Darwin and to Alice Springs and Ayers Rock. The introduction of Virgin to the Territory in December will be a fantastic Christmas present for travellers to Darwin with more cheaper seats available and also travellers from Darwin to interstate. This, of course, has spin-offs for hotels, restaurants, bars and tourism operators in the Territory and hence, jobs for Territorians -a massive return on that $2m investment; the consequential returns will be tens of millions of dollars to the Northern Territory economy.
The government is also continuing talks with Virgin on the option of flying in to Alice Springs next year. The lower international, and consequently domestic, petrol price is also making road travel cheaper and more attractive. I have asked the Tourist Commission to investigate further options for expanding on this growth sector to encourage self-drive holidays into the Northern Territory. The Tourist Commission is also concentrating its marketing budget, which has been quarantined from any budget reduction, in attracting more domestic tourists as a cost effective strategy to keep numbers up whilst the problems with the airline industry internationally continue. I will definitely get out and talk to more tourist operators in the coming months, and I value their feedback on the best way to tailor the Northern Territory’s marketing message to maximise the number of tourists visiting the Territory. We have a fantastic product here to sell and, despite the trials of the last few months, we will get on with the job of selling it.
The mini-budget delivers on a number of election promises relevant to my portfolio. Despite the economic vandalism of the previous CLP government, we are committed to delivering on our commitments in a fiscally responsible manner. Recreational fishing is a source of enjoyment for a large number of Territorians and is a major attraction for tourists to the Territory. We have the best fishing in Australia and our fishing stocks are a valuable asset which need to be sensibly managed.
Key initiatives in the budget for recreational fishing include:
These plans were all part of our fully costed plan to build a better Territory and the November mini-budget puts the initiatives into action. The mini-budget also puts into place key initiatives for business. Funding has been provided to establish short course business skills workshops to be conducted around the Territory to provide small business with the technical skills and advice to manage their operations more effectively in an increasingly competitive world and a globalised economy.
Funding has also been provided for the establishment for business case managers to provide a one-stop-shop for businesses in their dealings with government, to cut through red tape and focus on delivering outcomes for business. Both of these initiatives will be managed through the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development.
As the Chief Minister has already outlined, this is a responsible budget which addresses the unsustainable legacy which the CLP left and it does deliver on Labor’s election promises and moves the budget into surplus this term, a very key initiative.
Certainly, the former Chief Minister would be the only conservative leader, the only Tory ex-leader in the country, or leader who believed that deficit budgets running into the hundreds of millions of dollars was somehow a responsible economic strategy and a budgetary strategy. The Leader of the Opposition and the former Treasurer continue to be in a state of denial over the legacy they left the Territory. They think they can mislead Territorians into believing that the black hole they left does not exist. One group of Territorians they certainly can’t fool is the business community. Unlike the former Treasurer, the business community knows very well how to read the books. They know that the CLP’s black hole is real; the CLP’s stance on this gives them no credibility with the Territory business community. I welcome the business community’s balanced and supportive …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We don’t have a quorum. Minister continue.
Mr HENDERSON: I will say it again and it is a pity that the other side is not here to hear it but one group of Territorians they can’t fool is the business community. The business community does know how to read a set of books and the former Treasurer and the former Chief Minister can use all the weasel words they like, talk about rhubarb, but the business community does know that the fiscal legacy of 26 years of CLP governments has left the Territory’s books in a very, very bad shape. The fact that we are going to be bringing the Northern Territory back into surplus within the first year of our government is a significant achievement, and one that I certainly as minister in this government, look forward to delivering on.
I welcome the business community’s balanced and supportive comments on the mini-budget, which should be on the Parliamentary Record. To quote from today’s NT News:
“It is a fair and equitable budget,” said Carole Frost from the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
Paul Shaft from CSC has described the budget as well rounded.
The Territory Construction Agency has welcomed the reintroduction of QuickStart for two months, which has
the potential to deliver the construction of 100 new homes and inject $20m into the economy.
The business community has welcomed the budget as fair, responsible and necessary.
Unlike the members opposite who continue to be in a state of denial and I am surprised that the new members opposite, who were not part of the decision making process have fallen in behind them. Obviously, they can’t read a set of books, because the legacy is very real and the unsustainable budget that we inherited 12 weeks after it was brought down in this parliament, 12 weeks after the Treasurer handed down a set of budget papers in this place, placed them on this Table here on the public record, that stated that there would be a deficit of $12m this year. Well, that myth has certainly been blown sky high, and for members opposite still to be in a state of denial on that does not hold them in high regard in the community. The community does know the state of the economy and the state of the government’s books here in the Northern Territory. The fact that we have delivered a responsible mini-budget, that commits to our election promises and brings the budget back into surplus within four years is a very real achievement. I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Treasurer on the statement before this House.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the mini-budget handed down by this government is a direct result of the failure of the CLP to manage the Territory economy. As members of this House would be aware, this year the former government was caught out misleading Territorians about the true fiscal health of the Territory economy. I will shortly detail the health promises of our government, and the implementation of these promises in the Health and Community Services portfolio. We have tackled the black hole left to us by the former CLP government whilst limiting the impact of revenue measures as much as possible. Let’s just dwell on the previous government’s approach for a moment.
The CLP were driven by political expediency not economic responsibility. When I became minister, I was appalled by the extent of the underfunding of the portfolio. The department did not even have the funds to carry out established programs, programs that were part of its core business. The shortfall was $20m. To put underfunding of this magnitude into perspective, the entire 2001-02 Katherine Hospital budget is $14.2m and the East Arnhem district budget, excluding Gove District Hospital is $7.76m. In the context of the non-government sector, the department funds 180 agencies to a total of $65m. In other words, $20m represents approximately one third of funding to the non-government sector. $20m also represents a reduction of around 250 nursing, or equivalent, staff. Clearly this is not an insignificant shortfall for any organisation to manage, let alone a portfolio of the size, complexity and importance to Territorians as health.
Had the CLP been re-elected on 18 August, they would no doubt have resorted to more of the same budget techniques. In contrast, on coming to office, and being given the true picture from Treasury, we immediately set in train urgent remedial action. Firstly, we moved to identify the true magnitude of the CLP’s deceit by bringing in Professor Allan to give us an independent and accurate picture. In the interests of transparency and accountability, we shared that information with the community by holding the economic summit. We involved the broader community in finding solutions to balance growth, expansion and development, whilst bringing in responsible fiscal management. Thirdly, we restructured the public sector, bringing in efficiencies of scale and removing duplication. Our fourth action has been to deliver this mini-budget, setting out our plans for the next four years in a revised financial climate.
In response to what we have inherited, we could have made major cuts to the health portfolio. However, through the mini-budget process, this portfolio has received an increase of $34.2m in total, comprising $17.3m base funding and $16.9m for one-off expenditure items. I will now go into further detail about how the mini-budget affects this portfolio and our election promises.
Our highest priority was rectifying the shortfall in base funding to enable the department to carry out its core functions. The most important component of the increase for base funding, is $6.9m to meet growth and demand for services. This funding has been applied to meet the service provision needs in hospitals; rural and remote health services; increase disease control; family and children’s services; and other community service areas: $800 000 for the provision of services for children and adolescents in my care, pursuant to the Community Welfare Act; $5m to provide an adequate funding base for cross-border charging where patients requiring more complex treatment are referred interstate; $4m relating to the recent nurses nursing enterprise bargaining agreement; $1.1m for the continuation of the rural primary care information system, which is currently operating in Tiwi and Katherine West; and $200 000 for aero-medical services.
I shall now address how this mini-budget meets our health election commitments. High quality care of our children is essential to the future of the Territory. On top of having Australia’s highest cost of living, the cost of childcare is an additional burden on Territory families. It will be great news for the large number of families in the Territory with children in childcare that this government will be increasing the Northern Territory Child Care subsidy by $7.50 per place per week from 1 July 2002. This equates to $2.76m over the following three years. Another of our major initiatives of particular interest to the people of Barkly is the provision of renal dialysis services in Tennant Creek. In this mini-budget, $410 000 is provided from year 2002-03 onward for this new service. This will mean that renal patients will be able to access services nearer to their country, an important consideration for those with this debilitating disease.
We are committed to tackling head-on the issue of attracting and retaining nurses. Commencing January 2002, a refresher course is being conducted in Darwin to enable up to 20 out-of-practice nurses to update their skills and return to the nursing workforce. Five clinical nurse educators are currently being recruited to support this effort. In Central Australia, government is supporting the development of a School of Nursing to be affiliated with the Northern Territory University and Flinders University. This strategy has considerable potential for attracting candidates from Central Australia into the nursing profession. This complements wider work being undertaken by the department, the Australian Nursing Federation, Northern Territory University and Flinders University to develop a range of strategies to increase nursing numbers. In addition, we will now meet our promised increase of 75 nurses over four years rather than the original period of two years in light of the world-wide shortage of nurses.
Last week, I met with a group of key stakeholders to expedite matters in relation to attracting and retaining nurses in the Territory. There were representatives from the Nursing Board, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Darwin Private Hospital, the Northern Territory University School of Nursing, the Royal College of Nursing and various staff from my department. This was a very successful meeting, one of a number I intend to hold, where the complexity of the current nursing staffing crisis was fully canvassed. It is only through such collaboration that solutions will be found.
The professional development and training of health staff is another critical area for ensuring quality health service delivery. We are increasing professional development and training funding from my department’s personnel budget from 0.9% to 1.2% from next financial year. This is a 33% increase which will equate to over $2m in additional funding over this government’s first term.
Our capital expenditure commitment for the upgrading of the Territory’s Health and Community Services infrastructure is vital to the wellbeing of the health sector and the local construction industry. Just last week, the Leader of the Opposition publicly criticised me and this government in relation to funding estimates for completion for the upgrade of the Darwin and Alice Springs Hospital, saying we had underestimated the amounts required. We can certainly see why the Leader of the Opposition was never made Treasurer. He simply does not understand the figures nor the written advice that I have given him. We came to government with a commitment that we would spend $25m per annum over our first term on facilities and equipment to upgrade the hospitals and clinics. That was always meant to be the minimum. We also undertook to meet the former government’s capital work commitments. This financial year, we will invest in excess of $35m excluding minor new works on community infrastructure.
In relation to the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals redevelopment and fit out, it is clear that we have more than met our election commitment with the amount allocated for this year. This year we will be spending well in excess of $25m in order to complete the capital works program for the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals. It is anticipated that the Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment will be completed this financial year four months ahead of schedule. Because the Alice Springs Hospital will be completed ahead of schedule any adjustments in following years will be in relation to how our minimum of $25m is allocated. We do not have our sums wrong. We are meeting our commitments. And we will continue to spend a minimum of $100m over our term of government on health facilities and equipment. This $100m will cover other election promises such the construction of an oncology and radiotherapy unit for Royal Darwin Hospital. As members would be aware patients requiring radiotherapy for cancer presently have to travel interstate for treatment. This is both costly and unsatisfactory from the patients point of view. We have therefore committed $2m for oncology and radiotherapy in 2002-03 with $12.47m provided in the forward estimates for 2003-04. The department is preparing detailed plans for the establishment of the unit.
The early identification and treatment of childhood illnesses has an enormous impact on future health status. This statement has been made in this House before on many occasions. I assure members, and the community, that this government will provide more than just rhetoric to address the problems of indigenous health. In the second half of this financial year, $220 000 is provided to the department for increasing the staffing of regional health care teams by 25 personnel with specialist skills in child health. This will be followed up next year with an additional $2m for a total commitment of $2.22m recurrent thereafter.
The value that the community places on access to high quality emergency medical care cannot be underestimated. The chronic shortage of accident emergency department staff at Royal Darwin Hospital should never have been allowed to develop to the extent that it is today. My department will continue to pursue recruitment and retention of a range of accident and emergency staff and additional $510 000 recurrent has been provided from 2002-03 to facilitate this.
This government has an ambitious program ahead of it, more than time permits me to address in detail today. It is worth noting however that the forward estimates have provision for:
Members will notice that in this mini-budget health has been largely quarantined from the budget improvement targets applied across the board by government. Together with schools, police and emergency services and custodial services, health will be subject to only a 0.5% budget improvement measure for the remainder of this year and 1% in the following year. This quarantining of key functional areas will continue in subsequent years in relation to the annual productivity dividend where only one quarter of 1% will be applied.
The former government has a lot of answer for. It misled Territorians about the funds allocated to this important portfolio. The next few years are going to be tough for Territorians financially and it is evident that we have the CLP to blame. All of us will be affected by this mini-budget as it attempts to wipe out the deficit left by the CLP by the year 2004-05 but this government is committed to delivering on health. The opposition’s blatant public denial and hypocrisy regarding the black hole it has left the Territory is outrageous.
In conclusion, this is an excellent mini-budget based on sound and realistic fiscal management, something the former government knows nothing about. It will get the Territory out of the black hole that the CLP left us in and at the same time ensure the Territory’s growth and development within resources for the next four years. I commend it to the House.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, the mini-budget presented to the Assembly yesterday by the Treasurer and Chief Minister presents a responsible budget. A mini-budget balances the problems caused by the CLP budget black hole with the need for the new government to keep the economy on track. It provides a stimulus to business, in particular the construction industry. The mini-budget also commences and maps out the program to deliver on Labor’s election commitments. Of major importance, it starts the process of addressing the budget problem. The mini-budget highlights the difference between Labor’s responsible approach to fiscal management and the CLP’s mismanagement. Our approach is responsible and reinforces essential key elements for the Territory economy.
The CLP approach was to run the budget into the ground, strip government of the capacity to play a central role in the economy, and slash and burn the public sector and services to the public. Who can forget the ERC process of the early 1990s that slashed its way through the public service? Who can forget the so-called Planning for Growth that cut public service positions and at same time expanded the budget deficit?
The management of the Territory’s finances is central to the delivery of good government. Spiralling debt levels and spiralling interest payments ultimately leads to fewer police officers, fewer nurses, fewer teachers. That was the legacy of the CLP’s financial mismanagement. Territorians know it, the business community knows it. Since taking office Labor has implemented three major initiatives in regard to economic and financial management. We brought together businesses, industry, workers, unions and the community in an economic summit to provide community input to government on the way forward. We have introduced changes to the public sector to make the delivery of services more streamlined and efficient. Now we have set into place corrective measures that will bring the budget out of deficit.
The CLP’s mismanagement had a major impact on the capital works program. Elements of the works program in the CLP’s last budget were simply unfunded. For example, the revoted amount of the capital works program in the CLP’s last two budgets increased from $88.6m in 2000-01 to $152.2m in 2001-02. It almost doubled. However, the cash that was actually allocated to capital works grew by just 5% in the same two budgets. The end result is that by the end of this year, on the CLP’s own estimates, the revoted capital works in the former Department of Transport and Works would have been greater than the actual capital allocation in the current financial year. Under this scenario, new work would grind to a halt. How did they plan to address this problem in the event that Territorians had been so unlucky for them to have been re-elected? What was the CLP’s post-election agenda? Cuts? New taxes? Higher taxes? Or simply the bankcard? We have seen it all before.
The government recognises the needs of the construction industry. The government plans to spend significantly more this year on capital works, some $30m more cash, than the CLP did in its last financial year. That is an expansion of almost 10%. This government has worked hard to ensure an injection of an additional $10m in cash into the works program this financial year, despite the abysmal state that the former CLP government left the budget in. In addition, the capital works program for the Power and Water Authority has also been increased by $2m in the mini-budget. These projects are funded through the initiatives of this government and a recognition of the needs of the construction industry.
I now turn to the revenue measures announced in the mini-budget to assist in addressing the Burke and Reed black hole. The government has introduced a temporary budget improvement levy on motor vehicle registration. This is required to reduce the unsustainable budget deficit forced onto Territorians by the deceit of the former CLP government. This measure is legislated to apply for the next three years only. It is a temporary levy applying while the government’s deficit reduction strategy sets the foundation to return the underlying budget to surplus in future years.
Private licensing fees have increased from $20 per year to $24 per year. Pastoral leases rents will increase from 1% to 2% from 1 July 2002, but hardship criteria has been established for appropriate circumstances. The government remains committed to maintain its freeze on franchised electricity tariffs. The government has moved to increased water and sewerage charges by 5% from 1 January 2002. This increase is in line with a national agreement to reflect the real cost of water services in user charges. For an average household, water charges will increase by approximately $18 per year, and sewerage charges will increase by $15 per year. In many cases, the increase in households of commercial water charges could be avoided totally by the adoption of water conservation practices. The Power and Water Authority is ready and able to provide advice to businesses and households on water conservation measures. PAWA will also introduce a Trade Waste Code for the acceptance of non-domestic strength sewerage into PAWA’s sewers. The application of a Trade Waste Code helps to ensure that the quality of the treated waste water that is ultimately discharged into the environment complies with the appropriate environmental standards. The key objective of these programs is a reduction in the volumes discharged to the environment and improving the quality of the waste water that is ultimately discharged in Darwin Harbour and other outflows including the Ilparpa claypan in Alice Springs.
I now turn my comments to the restructure of the public sector. In announcing the restructure of the public sector, the government announced the establishment of a new Industrial Land Corporation. This new corporation will incorporate the current Trade Development Zone Authority and be expanded to cover the proposed industrial development areas in the vicinity of the East Arm Port, Middle Arm and Glyde Point. The new corporation will provide improved coordination for the development of major industries associated with the completion of the railway and the port, and will be critical in facilitating the arrival of Timor Sea gas onshore. The corporation will be responsible for developing the major industrial estates for these new industries and facilitate their establishment by coordinating environmental and developmental approvals on a whole-of-government basis.
This new body will be working closely with the Office of Territory Development, the Darwin Port Corporation and, of course, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment provides a major opportunity to coordinate planning and development of the Territory’s economic infrastructure, while ensuring the protection and conservation of our natural environment and heritage. A new executive management group is in place and consolidation of the new entity is well underway. In line with the government’s commitment to provide stability to the public service, the chief executive officer of the new department has focussed on listening and communicating with staff through this time of transition.
I am very confident that the new department will capitalise on synergies and identify improvements in service delivery and outcomes for Territorians. I am pleased to report that the department is already looking how we can improve services and streamline the interface with business and the community within the fiscal constraints that have regrettably been left behind by the former CLP government. The government is committed to the environmentally and socially responsible development of the Northern Territory. The amalgamation of the three former agencies will facilitate a more coordinated approach to development than was previously the case.
The Power and Water Authority and the Darwin Port Corporation are largely unaffected by the restructure of the public sector. PAWA will transfer to government owned corporation status upon passage of the government owned corporations legislation during these sittings. This legislation will improve PAWA’s ability to perform on a more commercial basis and will establish clearer lines of accountability. PAWA staff and the board will continue to focus on efficiency of service delivery and improving services to the community. The under-grounding of power lines in Darwin’s older suburbs is an important commitment made by the government. This is a very large project that will impact on residents as the work is being done. PAWA is currently developing a range of options to be examined by government.
The mini-budget sets out the government’s priorities and its commitments to implementation of election promises. The mini-budget sets out a strategy to address the budget black hole. It is a responsible budget statement that will ensure Territorians benefit from the implementation of the government’s commitments. It ensures Territorians will continue to enjoy excellent government services into the future. It ensures Territorians will continue to enjoy these services without an overhanging debt and without increasing interest costs and increasing taxes. This would have been the future under any continuation of the CLP’s administration. I commend the Treasurer’s statement.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the mini-budget delivered by the Chief Minister and Treasurer yesterday. I commend the Treasurer for her very forthright and responsible action in reining in a very rampant and irresponsible budget perpetrated by the previous CLP administration, which was clearly unsustainable due to their reckless management of the Territory economy, and their deliberate attempt to hoodwink the people of the Territory in a less than honest way by masking a budget deficit of $107m.
This mini-budget is important in that it sets some very important parameters in respect to the Territory’s long-term future as we work towards physical sustainability. Obviously, the introduction of the fiscal integrity and transparency legislation upon which this budget is framed will set a standard not previously experienced in the Territory and will provide a more accurate assessment of our ongoing financial status. Prior to the election of the Martin government, we made it very clear that we would honour our pledges to the people of the Territory and we have done this in a very responsible way. I am pleased that our commitments to health …
Mr Elferink: What, by backdooring a registration fee?
Mr McADAM: We’ll come to that later.
I am pleased that our commitments to health, education and law enforcement have been complied with, and in particular, I applaud the Treasurer in taking the axe to previous extravagances of the CLP regime in regards to travel costs, marketing, public relations, consultancies and wastage in the public sector.
I will now refer to our initiatives which I believe will reap real benefits for the Territory and the bush. The development and distribution of indigenous healthcare manuals to communities in the regions will greatly enhance the capacity of inexperienced doctors, nurses, and health workers to respond in a real way in tackling the unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates of all constituents in my electorate. This initiative, along with our commitment to support links with specialists in major training hospitals interstate, will add a new innovative dimension in addressing the health problems experienced in the communities. I have always been of the view that governments alone cannot make inroads in improving the health conditions of people in the bush. Non-government organisations such as Fred Hollows, World Vision, and Mdicins Sans Frontires must be encouraged to be involved and I am delighted that we have chosen to go down this track.
Yesterday, I referred to 25 young people in Borrooloola and Robinson River who were afflicted with hearing deficiency problems. Our commitment to establish a strict program of health monitoring, hopefully, will go a long in addressing this matter. I also applaud the Martin government in encouraging community controlled and based health programs to be participants. The involvement of the Department of Education incorporating a partnership with health based programs is also welcomed.
The establishment of a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek is long overdue and will be truly appreciated by all decent, caring Territorians. Over time, I have never been able to fully understand the previous government’s failure to respond to this critical need. Many of my constituents who live in places like Elliott, Ali Curung, Epenarra, Canteen Creek and the small homelands will be so much better off. Their ongoing financial burden and social dislocation will be alleviated in part and I am most pleased that Territory Health Services will cooperate and work very closely with Anyinginyi Congress, Julalikari Council and other stakeholders in the Barkly and have it up and running by September of next year.
The establishment of the Territory Arts Board, thus allowing the assessment of grant applications by peers, is also welcome. I believe that this will negate the previous blatant political patronage by the previous government, and I look forward to representation from the Barkly.
I also welcome a commitment of a trial youth program in Borooloola. This initiative must be specifically targeted to ensure that we can get maximum benefit for our youth. They are our future and we must plan and invest wisely. This initiative can be linked in with our strategy to increase grants to community government councils and to employ extra or indeed, more, sports and recreation officers in the bush. We must acknowledge in this House that our young people are being compromised by not allowing them to develop their full potential and capacity to achieve their aspirations and dreams. It is important to understand that whether you live at Canteen Creek, Corrella Creek, Casuarina or Cullen Bay, your aspirations are equally important.
I now wish to address regional economic development opportunities. Our commitment to facilitate fishing access agreements between AFANT and indigenous and pastoral land holders to improve access to recreational fishing can and will provide real opportunities to grow this very important industry. If we are strategic and committed, it will provide real opportunities for jobs in the bush as well as enhancing our excellent reputation as being a premier recreational fishing destination. I also welcome the commitment of $0.5m to improve infrastructure such as ramp access and camping grounds, and further look forward to the appointment of a person from the Borooloola region or Gulf region on the proposed Ministerial Advisory Council on Fishing.
The appointment of indigenous community fishing officers is also a very innovative and cost effective initiative in the protection and management of fishing resources in the regions and I know that the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borooloola will be very open and supportive in implementing this program with the Department of Fisheries.
Our willingness to work with the land councils is already paying dividends in respect of mineral exploration, horticultural development and development across the board. Without a doubt, herein lies the difference between ourselves and the previous administration who collectively squandered economic and social growth in the Territory. Twenty-six years of absolute waste. Twenty-six years of being totally exclusive and in doing so you deliberately set out to compromise and you inhibited and restricted real growth in the regions.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: You cannot deny it. Go to the member for Macdonnell and he will fully confirm what I have just said.
Mr Elferink: Well, actually, no. I actually have a few problems with what you are saying.
Mr McADAM: The employment of an extra 100 teachers will also go a long way to addressing our inadequate staffing ratios in the regions and commence the long journey of tackling literacy and numeracy shortfalls and retention rates. Our commitment to address truancy and behavioural problems in schools with the introduction of school attendance officers will also be welcomed in the communities. Our government’s commitment to allocate a further $0.5m commencing 2002-03 to assist in taking non-attending students and non-achieving students back to the classroom is welcome and must be linked to a comprehensive strategy incorporating youth in sports and recreation programs. All of these objectives cannot be achieved in isolation.
There are many successful models that can provide a platform in respect of the extension of VET programs in schools down to Year 9. Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation in Tennant Creek has already pioneered many successful outcomes in regards to school-to-work programs. This initiative must be developed very closely with the private sector and where appropriate, with CDEP programs. Realistically, we have to move away from training for training’s sake and be fair dinkum in providing real jobs based on realistic outcomes, where possible, in the bush.
There can be no doubt that we will be judged by our capacity to deliver an area of education in the communities, and I will commit to the minister for education and Bob Collins, my absolute support in their endeavours.
In conclusion, the key to the outcomes of this mini-budget will be our capacity and ability to engage all sectors of the Territory in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill as evidenced by the Economic Development Summit held here in Darwin in November. Madam Speaker, I applaud the Treasurer for having the courage to make the hard decisions in the interests of all the people in the Territory.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak about the mini-budget and its effect on crime prevention. I support this budget and the moves that we have taken to implement debt reduction but still deliver on a crime prevention and law enforcement strategy. The Auditor-General showed concern regarding the now infamous CLP net debt reporting, and the CLP and their former cabinet members, in particular, the member for Brennan, the member for Katherine and the member of Drysdale. They should at this late stage in the debate on the mini-budget, stop playing political games and own up to their former government’s mismanagement and possibly move from the leadership of the CLP and let someone like the member for Greatorex lead them into a more fiscal and responsible period of time.
I support our budget but I dislike the fact that we have inherited such a dishonest deficit. I am proud that our mini-budget continues a detailed and realistic plan to reduce the deficit in the year 2004-05. The budget will be $4m in surplus. Hospitals, health and community service, schools, police and emergency services have been, on the whole, safeguarded for future generations.
I will be pushing for positive programs across the broad and diverse Northern Territory regions, whether in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Gove, etc, that will assist future Territorians in making their lives happy. I plead with the new members of the CLP, do not fall for the B grade team’s old tricks. Look at the budget for what it is. Our mini-budget is a trustworthy document that can be relied upon. We have heard the member for Brennan, the member for Drysdale and the suspicious looking member for Katherine speak in defence of their budget deficit. Their skins are as thick as crocodile skins. The present and the future have left you behind. Your accountability practices, as noted by the Auditor-General, are no longer acceptable. I trust that all members of the CLP have looked at the Auditor’s-General report and should not be standing up and defending your current leadership.
I am excited about the future of crime prevention and the development of the Labor Crime Prevention Strategy. The government’s six-point crime prevention plan looks at crime in an holistic manner. The positive and forward-thinking establishment of the new crime prevention unit in the Department of Justice will assist in dealing with crime prevention. The old CLP government used crime for political gain. What a despicable group of scaremongers. I say to the new CLP members, turn your back on this type of tactic. I am quite serious when I say this. You should turn your back on the whole CLP tactic of scaremongering for political gain. There are some members of the CLP who have real legal experience. They should show leadership and not drum up fear during future election campaigns. It is not only showing a lack of political leadership, but it also declines to deal with real crime prevention by admitting crime prevention and community safety has been second rate when compared with the possibility of winning an election.
The Labor government will take positive steps. Firstly, financial assistance to the Neighbourhood Watch and NTSafe programs will be increased by $250 000 per year from the year 2002-03 to enable more community-based initiatives to reduce crime. I welcome this initiative to fund the introduction of a youth night patrol and safety house to help children in the Darwin area, as well as areas throughout the Northern Territory, but particularly Darwin, as my electorate is within the Darwin boundary. This will be brought forward to the current financial year. This is a fantastic initiative and will be an important step in crime prevention. As a prevention initiative, this will assist with preventing youth entering the legal system as possible offenders or subjects of the legal system as victims. This program, I hope, will be supported by all members of parliament.
I support the concept in the mini-budget to tender by NGOs, or non-government organisations, to run a night patrol service, and government providing Territory housing at a peppercorn rate. This initiative has real benefits for young Territorians. What the former government strategies did not recognise was that the locking-up of large numbers of youth, young adults and mature adults, has a real destructive and negative effect on small communities within the Northern Territory boundaries. Labor will be tough on crime. Labor want serious crime to be seriously punished. However, it is my belief, and it should be the belief of all parliamentarians, and members of this House, that crime prevention is better than increased damage and injury to communities and victims. I appeal to members of this parliament to work towards providing young Territorians a life away from crime. Therefore, I congratulate members of this government for the initiatives of school attendance officers, to help address behavioural problems in schools and truancy by school students.
Another important strategy that government supports is the boost to police numbers - 50 extra police in this first term, 10 new by January next year. This will assist thousands of Territorians who need, want and, most importantly, have to have to serve the community and protect their personal safety needs. This is a huge issue that the CLP ignored for many years. These new police officers will help the police force to prevent crime, effectively investigate crime and respond quickly when crime arises.
I also look forward to the positive introduction of our three-point plan to tackle illicit drugs. It will be a foundation of our crime prevention strategy. Zero tolerance on drug production and drug dealings is of major importance to all Territorians. This group of people should be the real target of all prevention. We will be properly resourcing the Drug Squad as a high priority in our crime prevention strategy. Over a period of time, certain members of this House have described the drug problem as minuscule. As many people who have lived in the Territory for a number of years will openly admit, the drug problem is, in fact, becoming widespread and quite dangerous. People in this House with legal and health backgrounds will know that the link between illicit drugs and illicit drug dependency and crime, particularly property crime, is well recognised and needs addressing as soon as possible.
I would like to finish by saying that the Labor government, under the circumstances, has delivered a mini-budget which is responsible, which has tried to deal with issues, which has delivered on promises, and is attacking crime in a positive manner. I therefore ask all parliamentarians in this House to support this mini-budget.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House be now adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have someone to first move that the debate be adjourned. No, I need the debate to be adjourned.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Daly was across here and said there was no one else talking from your side. Can you get yourselves coordinated. Your leader is not here, your deputy is not here, you Whip is not here. Get yourselves organised. I know we did in opposition.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe in order that the House be adjourned it would be required that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying, I need someone to adjourn the debate. And it is usually a member on the opposite side. Member for Nelson, would you move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to make a report to honourable members in regard to the recent graduation parade at the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service headquarters held on Friday, 15 November 2001. His Honour, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr John Anictomatis, was present along with Mr Brian Bates, AM APM, Commissioner of Police and also the CEO of police, fire and emergency services, along with Mr Iain Rae, ASFM, Director, Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services.
This year, Central Australia experienced unprecedented fires due to record levels of rainfall last wet season caused by degrading ex-tropical cyclones. On 11 September, the world saw the results of terrorism with fire and the collapse of buildings. While people were trying to escape from the World Trade Centre, firefighters were running in to assist with the evacuation. We all now know the danger of that with 340 firefighters dead. Since then we have also seen the biological threat of anthrax, even here in the Northern Territory. The common denominator of all these incidents is firefighters.
The occupation of a firefighter is a difficult but rewarding one. At times, they face life threatening situations and deal with death and injury as a matter of course. They deal with these situations in a calm and professional manner to help people of our community when they are in desperate need. It was therefore a privilege to attend their most recent graduation ceremony. I had the pleasure of representing my colleague, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, at this enjoyable ceremony. Unfortunately, he had to travel to Canberra to be at the national training awards and asked me to attend this ceremony on his behalf. I also had the pleasure of presenting the graduating recruits with their certificates in firefighting operations. These certificates comply with the Australian National Fire Competencies and are endorsed by the Australian National Training Authority.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service considers national training standards vital in equipping firefighters with the skills and knowledge they require in their evermore complex and demanding roles. For example, just consider the complexities of responding to an anthrax incident and the knowledge and skills required. Tertiary qualifications and national training standards are about the continuing professionalisation of our fire service.
The successful graduates were Bradley Fong, Brett Francis, Adam Gould, Michael Hutton, Brendon Magnoli, Jeff McKeown, Darren Morris, Mark Ratsch and Darren Sharp. The graduates competed not only to become qualified firefighters in the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Unit but were also vying for the fitness award and the Silver Axe award. The fitness award obviously speaks for itself and it shows up the firefighters who are recruited as they are subjected to a 15 week strenuous fitness schedule. Their progress and performance is monitored and constantly assessed. Feats they have to prove themselves well in and get overall best results include the following areas: endurance, strength, flexibility, self-motivation and teamwork. I was proud to see that Bradley Fong was announced the winner of the fitness award. The Silver Axe award is a traditional award presented to the recruit who, during the recruit course, shows exemplary achievement in all facets of fire service activities, namely, academic achievement, practical firefighting ability, leadership, communication skills, social interaction, personal development and teamwork ability. It was a pleasure to see that the winner of the Silver Axe award was Mr Mark Ratsch.
The Administrator presented the national medals and clasps to many of the firefighters including many volunteers who came in and were present from areas as far away as, from memory, Batchelor, Adelaide River and there were some representatives and I think recipients of some awards from your electorate of Goyder, Mr Deputy Speaker. The national medal was established in 1975 and recognises long service in organisations that protect life and property at some risk to their members. Nine firefighters received the national medal for 15 years service. Five received the clasp for 25 years service, and one firefighter, Fred Settele, received his second clasp for 35 years service including service with the Royal Australian Navy. That is a significant contribution to community service and I commend Mr Settele for that.
The Triservice of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services is one of the most envied in Australia simply because of the unity and cooperation that exists in that department. This government and the community are proud of the professional way Police, Fire and Emergency Services serves and protects our community.
In conclusion, I congratulate all the graduating recruits on what was a very arduous period of training and learning and I congratulate them on their achievement in become professional firefighters. I thank the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service for the opportunity to attend not only an entertaining but very informative ceremony. I acknowledge the Director of the Fire and Rescue Service, Mr Iain Rae; the recruit selection panel consisting of Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Robert Naumann; Divisional Commander Ian Lockley; Helen Marris, the Police Policy Officer, Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the instructors, Andrew Smith and Brett Pollini; the Course Coordinator, Wayne Green, and additional instructors, Alan Stephens, Tom Konieczny, Anthony Parkinson, Peter Johnson, Wayne Tourell, Peter Van Boxtel, Brian Stewart, Jan Isherwood-Hicks, Phil Lovelock, and Russell Ruehland from the Accident Investigation Unit; and Shirley Bergin. Special thanks also to the operational staff, City Wreckers, Windscreeens O’Brien, LP Gas Solutions, Morgans Motors and the Grove Caf.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, Wanguri Primary School is celebrating is 25th anniversary this year. Opening in 1976, Wanguri Primary has grown, survived and indeed thrived during the last quarter of a century. Wanguri Primary is based in the heart of Wanguri and it is a great place of learning for our children and I am pleased that my youngest is currently at pre-school there. The Labor government is committed to the best possible education for our children. Education is an investment to the Territory’s future and since becoming the local member for Wanguri, it has been my great pleasure to work closely with the Wanguri School. All staff, students and parents who have worked at Wanguri Primary over the past 25 years should be proud of their hard work and endeavour.
Wanguri Primary School is an important part of Darwin and the Northern Territory’s bright and vibrant community and contributes strongly to our distinct identify. All staff, students and parents have over the past 25 years helped grow a strong tradition of community values, support and interaction. Specifically, I thank and recognise those people, particularly the school council chaired by Lea Rowe, who take their time out of their day for love, not money to contribute to the health and well being of Wanguri Primary, its staff and its students. I congratulate the Wanguri community, Principal Viv Jennings, the teachers, the teacher’s aides, and the students on a primary school that has lasted and thrived over the last 25 years. I wish them all the best for the next 25 years and I look forward to continuing to work with all at Wanguri Primary School.
It gives me great pleasure when I have a chance to report to parliament about good things happening in the community. Recently, students from Dripstone High School performed an invaluable service for the early intervention services part of Carpentaria Disability Services. In the first semester of this year, Evelyn Harrison from Carpentaria Disability Services approached Dripstone High School teacher, Bill Henry, about his technical studies students making some equipment for Carpentaria. Bill jumped at the idea. Rather than constantly doing the same projects and technical studies, Bill Henry and his class of year 10s decided it would be great to do something different. Spread over a five week period, the students, with material donated from a Winnellie cabinetmaker, created useful equipment such as scooter boards, balance beams, trolleys, chairs, stacking boxes and rocker boards, all of which will be used across a range of activities and will be of benefit for years to come.
It was extremely generous of them. It is an example of the goodwill that exists in our small business community. The additional idea will help spawn many others. Bill Henry is now thinking about another project for the 2002 class of year 10s - a trailer for another organisation that assists people with disabilities. I wish Bill and his technical studies class the best of luck with getting that project up and running.
On behalf of the community and Carpentaria Disability Services, I thank and applaud the people involved in this project: Bill Henry, whose effort and commitments in taking up Evelyn Harrison’s initial idea of putting it into practice; Evelyn Harrison for not only thinking of this idea but also giving our high school students an opportunity to constructively contribute to our community; and finally, Dripstone High’s Year 10 technical studies class for their hard work, dedication and selflessness, and demonstrating maturity that many people often lament is lacking in our youth, but is really there in abundance. It is a story that can warm our hearts as we head into the festive season.
I also take the opportunity tonight to publicly acknowledge the good work of the Hakka Association and the positive contribution they make to our community. George Mu, a long time member of the Hakka Association introduced me to the Hakka and recently provided me with the history of the association. I have known George for some time and he is a tireless volunteer. George is an excellent ambassador for the values and work of the Hakka Association. The Hakka are people originally a people from Central and Northern China. The Hakka have spread and migrated to many areas around the world, including Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Europe and America. The Hakka Association of the Northern Territory was formed in 1994 and has grown from strength to strength. It is now a member of the World Hakka Association. The World Association has members from East Timor, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Taiwan and China.
It was my pleasure to attend a function organised by the Northern Territory Hakka Association on 3 November at the Cyprus Community Club which was hosted by the new President, George Mu. Over 380 people attended on the evening and I really enjoyed meeting new people and catching up with old friends. The evening was a celebration of the recently elected committee of the association and I wish the new committee the best of luck and look forward to working with them and continuing my good relationship with the Northern Territory Hakka Association.
The Hakka Association is an association which truly does give back to the community. They are always willing to help out and are generous with their time. Community groups such as the Hakka Association are vital to the bright and vibrant community, the multicultural community, we enjoy here in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak of a man I have known for quite some time, but got to know very well in the few months that I was the Minister for Local Government and that is Bob Beadman. Bob is due to retire at the end of this year. I know that he plans to hitch up his caravan and take off on a good, long, hard tour of the country, and spend his days enjoying seeing this country as a retired person, rather than as a working person.
I first met Bob when he returned to the Territory in 1994 to take up the position of chief executive officer of the Department of Lands, Housing and Local Government. I met him on many social occasions and eventually worked with him in a professional capacity when I was promoted to be the Minister for Local Government. I developed a very close working relationship with this man. I found him to be very personable, very ethical and professional in his approach to his work and the advice that I received from Bob was something that I felt I could always rely on, and rely on without any concerns.
Since 1973, Bob has been involved in Aboriginal Affairs at senior levels and previously had worked in the Top End and in Central Australia on many occasions. He also spent time in Queensland and Canberra. He acted at the deputy secretary level on numerous occasions. Career highlights for Bob include working with the Torres Strait Islanders, at the Prime Minister’s request, on Australia’s international border with Papua New Guinea. He also spent two extended periods as the senior private secretary to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and representing Australia at an International Labour Organisation and the United Nations working group on indigenous people.
When he was appointed to head up the Department of Lands, Housing and Local Government in October 1994, it was his return trip to the Territory. He was somebody who had much experience in the Territory and when he came back he brought all his experience of the Territory with him, including all the experience he had in working in various departments, including with the federal government. Before his appointment to the Territory, Bob was also the general manager of Corporate Services with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in Canberra. Since returning to the Territory, he has been closely involved in developing the Housing 2003 package; the policy reform in local government; and in local government, the Next Steps measures.
He also had a strong interest in breaking Aboriginal welfare dependency and replacing it with economic self-sufficiency. And I can vouch for that, in that he wrote quarterly newsletters which were sent throughout the Territory within the departments of Local Government, Housing and Aboriginal Development. The manuscripts he produced were very interesting reading. I had one occasion to share the newsletter with the housing ministers from around the country as well as the housing minister from New Zealand, when they came to Alice Springs for a meeting of the Ministerial Council for Housing. It was also at that time that we went to Hermannsberg to look at indigenous housing in Central Australia and I gave a report on that at the last parliament.
Although born and bred in Canberra, Bob enjoys the lifestyle that Territory has to offer. He loves the bush and spends his holidays and most weekends exploring out of the way places. He enjoys visiting communities and remote areas and catching up with acquaintances he had met in his DAA days. Bob’s interests include all sports, particularly fishing and travelling the Territory.
I will recount some of his employment background. In 1958, Bob worked with the departments of Interior, Treasury, Education and Science in management areas. In 1973, he joined the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, later to be known as ATSIC. In 1976, he spent two periods as Acting Senior Private Secretary for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and was also posted as Senior Representative in Torres Strait during the negotiations with Papua New Guinea over the international border. By 1978, he acted as regional director, or state manager, of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Darwin and was appointed Regional Director in Alice Springs in 1980. In 1984, he was the Assistant Secretary, Heritage Legislation Branch in Canberra with responsibility for, amongst other things, the Aboriginal Land Right s(Northern Territory) Act; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act.
By 1988, he was the first Assistant Secretary for the Heritage and Legal Division. In 1990, he was the General Manager of the Policy Development Division of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. He then became a member of the ATSIC delegation through the United Nations Working Group on indigenous population in Geneva in relation to developing its draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people. In 1992, he became the General Manager, Corporate Services Division of ATSIC, and then came to the Northern Territory in 1994.
I wish Bob and his spouse, Monica, well in their retirement. Bob has contributed much to the Territory. His heart is in the Territory and I am sure that even during his travels he will always be thinking of the Territory and he will be returning on a regular basis to catch up with old friends and to see how the Territory has progressed under this new government and, hopefully, under the CLP government in future years.
Last Sunday I was with my colleagues, the member for Port Darwin, the member for Katherine and the member for Daly to attend the funeral of Lily Ah Toy.
Ms Lawrie: It was Saturday.
Dr LIM: And yourself. I am sorry. I did see you at the end of the morning. I did miss you out, and the member for Karama.
Lily Ah Toy was born Lily Wong. In 1988, the then member for Jingili did a fairly detailed adjournment on Lily Ah Toy. It would be remiss of me to try to paraphrase what was said then because the member for Jingili, Mr Steve Balch, was extremely eloquent and did such a fine job that I think I should not try to repeat it.
I met Lily Ah Toy when I first came in contact with the Chung Wah Society in Darwin. Having not been born in Darwin myself and having not visited Darwin much in the early 1980s when I first arrived in the Territory, I did not get to know the Chinese population until I was elected and had the opportunity to come to Darwin more regularly. I met Lily at one of the Chung Wah Society functions. Lily Ah Toy struck me because her first name happens to be my sister’s first name also and I suppose among Chinese Lily was a pretty name, it relates to a flower, and I think maybe that was the reason why it was picked up.
I remember her then as an elderly lady, very much with it, very active in the Chung Wah Society and our superficial relationship carried on for a few years through our mutual activities at the Chung Wah Society. I also met Lawrence Ah Toy, her son, through his activities with the horticultural industry in the Territory. He delivered his mother’s eulogy at the Uniting Church last Saturday and he also drew our attention to the speech made by the former member for Jingili in 1998. Members may recall that when we visited the Administrator today, Lily Ah Toy’s portrait was hanging in the Drawing Room. I think it was the acquisition for the year 2000 and it is a great likeness of Lily Ah Toy. The family love that portrait and, again, Lawrence also drew our attention to that portrait. I send my condolences to the family.
Lily Ah Toy was a much loved person in the Territory and her contribution, as stated by everybody, will never be surpassed by anyone.
In the few minutes left to me, I don’t want prolong the debate between the member for Braitling and myself, but she said something about my letter to her last night in the adjournment debate. It was in relation to an allegation that I rang up people who signed a petition in relation to the Salvation Army Hostel. For the life of me I cannot remember ringing anybody so it is now my word against hers and so on. I don’t think it is worth pursuing except that I have to put on record that the petition was delivered to my office in Alice Springs when I was already up here for the sittings of parliament. It was brought in by a person who found three or four sheets of the petition in Alice Springs after the rest of the petition had been collected by someone else. Because the petition was delivered to my office it was air bagged to me and within a day or so the petition was tabled in this parliament.
All my recollection is that it was done with due process and I had no occasion to ring anybody. I don’t even remember who signed the petition. Anyway, be that as it may, I leave it at that, and as I said at the last adjournment when I alluded to this topic, I do not intend to pursue it any further except to ensure that there is no call for any issue relating to privileges in the event that I am accused of having breached any parliamentary privilege. That would be a most unfortunate event.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on record that the member for Nelson is indeed a true gentleman. Thank you.
I rise tonight, finally, to note the achievements of Sanderson High School in striving to implement practical reconciliation for Territorians. Sanderson High has a sizeable indigenous student population so practical reconciliation provides greater awareness of indigenous culture therefore promoting harmony in the school community. I am delighted to advise the Ninth Legislative Assembly that Sanderson High won the Australian Education Union’s National Reconciliation Award for 2001. The high school won this $500 award last month.
The award is given to Australian Education Union members in acknowledgement of their contribution to advancing reconciliation within a school community. I am extremely proud of the effort of Sanderson High to effect reconciliation. To this end, Sanderson High held a Reconciliation Day that I attended earlier this year on 30 May entitled Peace Under the Southern Sky. Some 32 activities were held throughout the day that began with a concert and formal welcome to Larrakia land by the Reverend Wally Fejo. The audience of dignitaries, parents, staff and students enjoyed inspirational performances by students and guest artists, singer/songwriter, Neil Murray and renowned didjeredoo player, Adrian Ross.
I have to say that many people present felt very deeply moved by the majesty and beauty of reconciliation through song and drama that lovely May morning. While dignitaries enjoyed morning tea, the students moved off to participate in drumming, spear making, coconut weaving, bush medicine and crab tying workshops along with traditional art and craft, singing, music, dance, and drama performances. At lunch time, everyone enjoyed a taste of culture with traditional bush foods prepared by members of the school’s indigenous community. Some students also participated in a theatre performance where personal stories of reconciliation were dramatised by the Darwin Playback Theatre Company. In the afternoon, the boys played in an Aussie Rules football match commentated by the ABC sports announcer, Charlie King, while NTFL coaches, Mark Motlop and Russell Jeffrey, generously gave their time to take on the coaching jerseys of the Sanderson Jabirus and the Sanderson Marlins.
It is important to note that more than 800 primary school students visited Sanderson High to enjoy some of these activities. Indeed, each primary student came to the school with a flag they had made, either an indigenous flag, Torres Strait Island flag or indeed the Australian flag. The flags were planted in the school lawns to create a large and very colourful rainbow serpent. Students also wrote and recorded a song for reconciliation which called for the children of the future to come together as one and help make the world a better place. With your indulgence I seek to read the words of this song into the Parliamentary Record:
I congratulate the students of Sanderson High for embracing reconciliation. I congratulate the school’s Principal, Mrs Denise Wilkowski for encouraging the celebration of reconciliation. Special thanks also must appropriately go to the high school’s organising committee who worked hard for months to plan the day. I make special mention of Paul Tolliday who selflessly dedicates many, many hours of his time to promote reconciliation in our schools. Recognition and thanks should also be given to Mr Gerry De La Cruz, Chairperson of the Sanderson High ASSPA Committee. How proud we all should be of our Sanderson High School taking out a national award.
Indeed, Sanderson High has not been resting on its laurels. I had the privilege yesterday of representing the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development at the Youth Business Awards held in the Stranger’s Lounge which was launched by my colleague, the Minister for Education, Training and Employment, the Honourable Syd Stirling. The Youth Business Awards recognise the hard work of high school students who have developed and managed a small business as part of their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. I am delighted to say that again, Sanderson High showed its excellence and took out the Youth Business Award Winner for 2001. My hearty congratulations go to Sanderson High students, Cathy Holmes, Mark Nichols, David Stoner and Aleja Perkins who traded as Mimic Productions. Mimic Productions sold a range of active entertainment products that include Randsaks and their most popular item, Bunji Balls.
As we are all aware, enthusiasm and ingenuity do not bring about success and business on its own. Successful business is also a result of effective training and business thrives with relevant support. In view of this, I also congratulate the students’ teacher, Ms Desley Pigeon. In recognition of Ms Pigeon’s achievement in nurturing her obviously very able and talented students, I had the pleasure of presenting Ms Pigeon with the Youth Business Award school winner for 2001.
My congratulations also go to a couple of enthusiastic and talented young women, Jacqui McCann and Michelle Immonen who traded as Unee Productions and won a participation award. Jacqui and Michelle embraced the opportunity to run a small business by creating a range of products including personalised jewellery, toffees, signature bears, lip gloss and an Aboriginal painting. I had the opportunity to chat to these very positive young women following the awards and they fill me with great hope for our future.
It is an honour to be the member for Karama and I am reminded daily of the tremendous residents and school communities in our northern suburbs. I look forward to continuing to work with and support my local Sanderson High School.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the rural area has many successes but one success that does not always show up on a balance sheet is our young people. An example of this is shown by the recent great successes of the Southern Districts Cricket Club. This club is producing some great cricketers and it is those cricketers that I would like to talk about tonight. One of those cricketers is Ken Skewes who comes from a famous rural family in Humpty Doo, and I quote from the Litchfield Times:
Ken Skewes was selected from three finalists to win the TIO Sports Award category of the Australia Day Council’s
Northern Territory Young Australian of the Year Awards 2002. His prizes included a magnificent trophy and a
$1000 award saver account from the Commonwealth Bank. He and six other category winners will represent
the Northern Territory at the national awards culminating with the announcement of the Young Australian of the
Year 2002 at Parliament House in Canberrra prior to Australia Day.
Ken is an outstanding young cricketer. The Taminmin High School student was elected for the national
under 17 squad to represent Australia against England in April 2001. Playing a leading role, the right handed
batsmen top scored for the Aussies with 51 runs. Ken represented the Northern Territory in the under 17 side of
the national championships in Brisbane held in January 2001. He has also been included in the Australian
under 19 training squad for 2002 International Cricket Club World Cup to be held in New Zealand during
January and February 2002.
As well as representing at a national and international level, he continues to play very successfully as a skipper
of his school team and with the Institute of Sport side in the Darwin A grade competition each week. Ken recently
won the 2000 Northern Territory Institute of Sports Batting Improvement and Bowling Performance Award and
despite the rigors of his sporting regime, Ken excelled academically and became the year 10 dux of the school in
2000. Ken Skewes is a fine and developing young athlete whose goal is to play professional cricket for Australia
one day.
Twelve young Southern Districts Club players have been selected to represent the Northern Territory. Shane Copain and Brentley Holmes will be playing in the national under 15s in Bundaberg this January. Nick Akers, Mitchell Wright, Reece Street, Bobby Docking and Jonathon Hewitson are all set to play in the under 17 Shell Shield in Adelaide also in January. Duane Richards, Stephen Regan, Michael Barry, Ken Skewes and Ryan Leloux will all compete in the under 17s national titles in Melbourne in January and Ken Skewes has also been selected to the under 19 national titles to be held in Newcastle in December. All these young cricketers have enormous talent and commitment to the game.
All this goes to show what a wonderful club the Southern Districts Cricket Club is. Under the stewardship of the president, Geoff Akers, this club is developing a great pool of cricketing talent in the rural area and this is highlighted by the number of cricketers from this club who are representing the Northern Territory. Just last week, the club held an auction dinner night which raised over $3000 to help with the airfares of these young cricketers. Special note should be made of John Schultz who raised over $1000 by wheeling a wheelbarrow from Humpty Doo to the Fred’s Pass Clubrooms. He is still recovering. Special mention should be made of a founder of the club, Jock Bremner, and a former member of this parliament, Ray Hanrahan, who together showed their auctioneering skills on the night. The Southern Districts Cricket Club may not have won any premierships this year, but this does not lessen the fact that it is a great club and is an important avenue for youth in the rural area to expend their energy and improve their cricketing skills. I wish them well in the new cricketing season.
I would also like to announce that Paul Smith from Soccer NT is working on establishing a soccer club in the rural area. Paul has sent out a form to assess the level of interest to all the schools in the rural area. He has so far received over 120 replies and believes that that will allow him to start a club with teams in most age groups. Already he has found a home on a new oval at Fred’s Pass and is having a meeting at Bees Creek Primary School this weekend to establish a committee to get the club on its way. I know the Deputy Speaker and member for Goyder also supports this new initiative and so do I. I am proud to have been asked to be a patron of the new club.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the people who have helped me over the year, especially my electorate officer, Joanne van Os and her family; and to my sister Trish and her husband, Tony, who have been through many elections over many years with me. I thank my wife, Imelda, for her support and my family as well. Thanks to all the people in Nelson; whether they voted for me or not is irrelevant. I thank them for their encouragement. I thank the staff and fellow members of the Legislative Assembly for their assistance especially as a new member to this strange place. I know that politics sometimes causes differences between members but I do hope at this time of the year we can come together in the festive season. I would like to finish off by wishing everyone a happy Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to members’ attention a very important letter that I have received from the Australian Light Horse Association Limited which is actually based, as I understand it, in New South Wales. This letter was signed by Laurie Ward who travelled to Calgary in North America with a Territorian resident, one Mark Gibbons. I seek leave from honourable members to table a photograph of the two gentlemen in Calgary.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: For the edification of all members in the Chamber, who are listening quite attentively to this because it is a very important issue, the work done by people like Mr Ward and Mr Gibbons helps to remind us of the battles which were fought not only by the Light Horse but by the Australian military as a whole to protect our freedoms and indeed in this modern world, where our freedoms are once again under attack. It is important to acknowledge the history of the men who have gone into battle in earlier times to develop those freedoms in the first place. The remembering of such things is very important. To take the message forward is very important. Honourable members will notice in the photograph that there is a Territory flag flying in Calgary such is the passion for the Northern Territory of Mr Gibbons.
Also in the letter that I received from Mr Ward, is from the Horse Report, a south east Queensland and northern New South Wales equestrian news magazine, Stampede Success, an article by Bob Anthony Junior, which I think is worth reading into Hansard. So I quote:
That is an excellent result. Indeed, the Canadians would feel some sort of sympathy with Australian troops, just by the by, because of battles like Spioen Kop fought during the Boer War, saw many Canadians fall as well as Australians in that dreadful conflict. Anyway, to continue my quote:
I believe that one could not help but have goosebumps as a result of such an appearance.
I am proud to read this into Hansard, because it demonstrates that there are people in the Territory and further afield who care very much about the liberties and freedoms that these sorts of people have fought for, the battles fought by the Light Horse, in repeated conflicts and the soldiers buried on foreign fields all around the globe. I would like to pay tribute to those people who in turn paid tribute to the people who saved our liberal democracy.
I rise tonight to pass on my Christmas message. I think that it will be a fairly busy night in here tomorrow night. I would like to start by thanking, once again, my former electorate officer, Michael Jones, who served me long and hard up until just prior to the last election. Michael has gone on to pursue a career in real estate, and knowing his skills and adroit nature, he will conquer the real estate industry in Alice Springs.
Ms Carney: He sold my unit.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, we’ve heard from the member for Araluen that Mr Jones sold her unit, demonstrating the type of guy he is, he is a real go out there and get ‘em sort of guy. He is not what you would call old, I think he is about 23 or 24 now, he joined me when he was 21 and he is now, of course the Vice President of the Country Liberal Party. He is an alderman in the Town Council, he is a young man with a very bright future, and it was a great pleasure to provide him with work as my electorate officer. I enjoyed his time with me, and I wish him and Brooke Wright, his partner, the very , very best into the future.
I also acknowledge my new electorate officer, Jan Derby. She joined me a short time ago, and with passionate enthusiasm she threw herself into the election process and without her sort of support, her sort of enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of so many other CLP members, I might add, I would not have been able to do what I did, and the media would not have been calling me Lazarus for about a week after the election.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Larry Cavalero, a fellow I have known for a couple of years now, who has done some work for me, not only around my office, but further afield. Larry, unfortunately, is leaving Alice Springs. He has been offered a position in Clare in South Australia, and my very great and heartfelt thanks go out to him for his efforts for me, as well as to his good wife, and I wish them the very best. I am certain it is not the last I will see of Larry.
I pass on my thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, Ian ‘Lumpy’ McNeill, Gaddy, David Horton and Stokesy for their efforts and the other staff members who have been in and out of this Chamber; it must be an awful place in which to work. I think if we asked other people to work in an environment when they were constantly being yelled around, they would probably have some grounds to lodge a complaint about their work environment. But stoically, staff of this Legislative Assembly do a great job in putting up with our belligerent and bad behaviour, and they do it with aplomb and an approach of stoicism. My thanks also go to the committee staff, Rick Gray and Terry, for their kindnesses and good work for us, as well as the rest of the staff. To you guys up there in Hansard, I thank you very much, I wish you also a very great Christmas. I think that also some of the people who are forgotten here are our Chubb Security people who stand for long, and I am sure certainly boring, hours, around this building, protecting us from the less savoury elements of society that being a member of parliament often attracts attention from. There they are, once again standing there, and in recent times, immediately prior to the last election, as certain bits of legislation were passed, we had to see people like Warren from the front desk actually get people out of the public galleries here. Once again, it is not something they were immediately expecting, but I think that it is something that the Chubb security staff handled well. To Esther and to Aaron and to the rest of them out there, I thank them very much for their kindnesses and for their protection.
Finally, and I always finish with this one and I think it is a very important one, to my wife, who I still love, and continue to love after four years of being in the parliament and over ten years of marriage now. In fact, we are coming up for our 11th anniversary very shortly. We have been together for some 13 years, much to the annoyance of my mother-in-law to start off with, but she has come around quite nicely. But I have to say that I am still madly, truly, deeply, passionately in love with my wife. God knows why, but she chooses to take the same approach to me, but I am grateful that she does. She has put up with all the garbage that my chosen field produces and she has done so with great patience.
Once again, she is off to sea in the not so distant future. She is an extremely capable woman. She has been asked to return to sea to run a hospital on a seismic vessel. I won’t get to see that much of her, or as much as I would like to of her, all of next year, but I know that this is her chosen career, this is what she does and she loves doing it. I would never dream of standing in her way, or trying to even stand in her way, because the joy that I see her have in her life as a result of pursuing those things that she wants to, fills me with a great sense of passion for her. Her love of life is to me in many ways an inspiration. So off she goes to Calcutta next week. From there she will catch her boat, wherever that may be, and I will just have to have a marriage by e-mail for a few weeks, but that’s life and I adore her nonetheless for her disappearances.
I also pass on my Christmas messages to all the members of this House. This is a sometimes ugly job, and it can grate and be emotionally demanding, and it can do all sorts of horrible things to you. At the end of the day, I believe, that by and large we are here to improve the outcomes and the common wealth of the people of the Northern Territory. You have to remember of course that the only way to change government other than by a democratic process is by force of arms, and the worst we do in here is yell at each other. When you consider some of the outcomes in some of the other countries in the world, this building is a monument to our achievements as a civilised people. They have won government. They have a chance to prove themselves and we will see what they do with it. So, Merry Christmas to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and Merry Christmas to all.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been a particular pleasure to hear your comments tonight and I must just put on the record, I am sure that all the members here have benefited from the articulate way in which you have expressed yourself.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise at this late hour to place on the Parliamentary Record a report of a very important public meeting that occurred in Palmerston last Thursday. I also place on the record my genuine disappointment at some of the comments that have been made in this parliament and aside regarding my involvement in gathering the people of my community together. Those comments have been made by members opposite. The Attorney-General in fact, has made comment and I record:
It is very interesting to see the CLP members currently drawing together forums and really talking up the levels
of crime and the problems they are having, as though we, in this elected position, have no interest in our
communities.
I am stunned to even hear comments like, ‘So you think you are solving crime in Palmerston’. I must say that to me is a genuine disappointment. The attitude of the involvement of each of us who have been elected by our communities to participate in the affairs of our community and to empower the people in our community. The issues of crime, law and order and so on are not solved in this parliament. They are solved by the empowering of citizens and being involved in their concerns. I for one, as I know members on both sides, would be required to be involved in such activities. I need to give a report because it is something that is quite an honour to me to report of the role, albeit a small role, that I have been able to play in bringing the people of Palmerston together to assist them to have a say in their own affairs. I have the humble position of being able to represent the concerns of those citizens.
The background of the forum is strictly not political. It is certainly, more than anything, a role that I take to endeavour the community to be able to face its own concerns. I play my part just as every other member of the community plays its part in addressing issues of concern. As local member, I was saddened to hear of friends of mine and members of the community who had suffered housebreaks and to hear how it had affected them, their anger, their frustration, their grief. I felt no other course of action but to be involved in bringing together people who have similar plights, and to see if we could find a way of making some progress and some sense of this and to channel our anger in positive ways. That effectively was the background.
The Acting Deputy Speaker is very well aware of the program of the evening and I do acknowledge his valuable contribution on that evening. The first part of it was to gain a genuine insight into the effect of crime on people and too often we may be talking about law but it actually involves people. People working together, suffering together and trying to solve their own problems. So, the first part of it was to hear the effect of crime on people.
The second stage was to understand what agencies there are in our community that would assist us in minimising crime in the community and to gain a fair appraisal of the role of the Northern Territory police. Commander Mark McAdie, and the staff of the NT Police, I appreciate the time that you made for the citizens of Palmerston and to explain the role that you have particularly in the light of the anger that people feel and perhaps feeling that because we pay taxes the police are there, therefore there should be no crimes, so why was I broken into. I would say that Commander Mark McAdie did a fine job in being able to explain the role of the Northern Territory police in this particular situation.
We then looked at other agencies such as VOCAL, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, and how they can assist in alleviating the grievance of a victim. I must say it was heartening to hear of a launch of a new program which should be launched formally next year where there is a group of volunteers who will be able to work alongside victims to guide a victim through the process immediately after a burglary or a housebreak, in this particular case anyway. There was a representative from the Victims Support Unit who made a very valuable contribution. It was good for citizens to be able to hear and learn of these agencies as well as Neighbourhood Watch, with Sergeant Rod Strong. Another very active committee in Palmerston is the Palmerston Crime Committee. The nucleus of that committee is Mayor Annette Burke who does a fine job in keeping our community together and focussed and working as a harmonious unit.
Whilst I am talking about agencies within our community to minimise crime, I acknowledge in the budget the Magistrates Court being moved to Palmerston. That was actually expressed on the evening by members who had gathered and that would be a positive move because it is a community working together to be involved in solving its own problems. Having a Magistrates Court within Palmerston would certainly be a positive step, so I acknowledge and it is good to have that mentioned in the budget.
There were 60-odd people who turned up to be involved in this. To each one of them, although I can’t mention them by name but they certainly are involved in a newsletter, the fact that they were able to step out of their own concerns about how crime is affecting them personally and to take the far greater, more nobler step of being involved in a public meeting where they can give voice to their concerns and collectively to come up with some kind of direction, to each one of them I pay tribute.
Out of the group of 60-odd people there were four members who were nominated to continue on the agenda that was raised that evening. They are Mark Nolan, Peter Cardo, Paul Mitchener and Lisa Wright. We have met since then to make sure that we are agreed on what we would like to achieve and to establish strategies to progress the agenda. These four members are also members now of the Palmerston Crime Prevention Committee, and so that plugs it into an existing agency. The core concern that was raised by this group was juvenile crime, and the concern was how can we effectively minimise the role of juvenile crime, or the part that juvenile crime plays in our community? We understood the constraints upon police. I think the group came to the decision that the next meeting must be with the judiciary so that we gain an understanding as a group of how the judiciary can respond to concerns regarding juvenile crime.
Our report from the meeting stated that the first issue was that the victims of crime very much want to be able to express their concerns directly to members of the judiciary. The meeting that we had on Monday reconfirmed this and to that end we have made the moves to form another meeting before Christmas for members of the Palmerston community, and particularly victims of crime, to be able to speak to the judiciary. I have approached Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley, and I am pleased to report that he has expressed great interest in being involved in that meeting.
The issue of victim offender conferencing as opposed to a direct presentation to the courts was explored by the members present at the meeting. That will also form another component of the meeting which will be held just before Christmas - victim offender conferencing, as well as the court structure. There is also general agreement that there are underlying issues regarding how we as a community have input into the issues of juvenile justice. There is an understanding, I would be safe to report, that the justice system alone, just as the police system alone, cannot prevent juvenile crime. There are many aspects to this problem, and I think that was one of the outcomes, though confusing initially, but understanding that we have actually bitten off something very difficult to chew. How can we actually participate in this? It is not just Neighbourhood Watch. It is not just joining a crime prevention committee. It is not just coming to a public meeting and having your say. It is not paying your taxes and hoping that the police would do it. There are many aspects to this.
There was another agreement, I would venture to say, with regard to early intervention. There are proactive things that we can do as well as reactive things. I am happy to say that it came up very strongly at the meeting that the DARE program and the involvement of school-based constables in the equation is very, very important. The proactive role of policing is as important as the reactive role. We have to make sure that our young people are engaged in our community. Sporting groups have a part to play in that as do youth councils and committees and so on. Our young people must be actively engaged in the community. Our justice system policies and programs must be tied to other social policies and programs. It is all a part of a whole. Not one thing in isolation can fix the problem. There is a general consensus about things that would help prevent or minimise juvenile crime and that is coordination of activities. That is the very thing we are endeavouring to achieve through the community meeting, that we coordinate the activities in our community. Public education is critical, we must get together and talk about it.
There is no fun, there is no joy in being able to slate blame here, there, and everywhere - the types of issue that we hear raised time and time again - the politics of blame. It is not a matter of blaming anybody else and causing responsibility transfer from me to someone else. We, together, have to be involved and public education is critical in this respect in terms of juvenile crime. Many community members must come together and participate. In some ways I would have to feel as a facilitator in this community program, that I have taken the tiger by the tail because I did not really know what was going to happen as a result of calling a public meeting and seeing what level of anger I may have to manage as a facilitator. It is a credit to the Palmerston community, in this case, that though there was anger, undeniable anger, deep anger, there was this greater consciousness of being a member of a community, and how we can channel that anger down positive pathways.
The program has only just begun, whatever this program be, but it certainly is empowering of citizens to get together and the pubic education program will certainly be accentuated through this. Hopefully, with the goodwill of all participants, we will be able to make some sort of progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with these few words I close and wish you a Merry Christmas, and everybody else in this Chamber. All those who work behind the scenes, thank you for the support that you give each one of us individually. And together may we progress the true welfare of all Territorians and get on with the game.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on record my brief Christmas message. Christmas is a time for family and, indeed, no truer words have been said when you think about the families that live in the electorate of Goyder. There is a real sense of family and, on a very personal level, it is a time when the town Maleys come out and spend the day with the rural Maleys. It is a time of getting together and enjoying each other’s company.
There is absolutely no doubt that I could not have endured the changes which occurred this year without the support of my family and, in particular, the love and support of my partner, Vanessa Farmer, my loyal brother and best friend, Gerard Maley, who is starting the first year of his law degree next year and I wish him all the very best with his endeavours. My Mum has been a pillar of support, not only accompanying me to many social functions, but assisting me throughout the course of the year and particularly around the election. Of course, my father, John Vincent Maley, with his constant wise words; I miss him dearly as he spends some of his time interstate. And, of course, my extended family, Chris Maley and Louise Maley. I have to thank Chris for all the business advice that he gives me, and wish him and all the staff at McLaren’s, the law firm which he owns and operates, a Merry, Merry Christmas.
The good people of Goyder - I have to place on the record that in my view I have simply the best electorate in the Northern Territory. They are warm-hearted and decent, and it has been a pleasure to represent them since 18 August in the parliament of the Northern Territory.
My previous work, which certainly consumed almost all of my time and 100% of my passion, was at Withnall & Maley, and I would like to wish them a Merry Christmas and a safe new year. Sally Pfitzner, my former partner, the employed solicitors Maria Savvas, Vanessa Lee, Sam McGrath and our articled clerk, Deborah Hepburn. Also to the support staff who do a fantastic job. I am not going to name them all - Melissa, Kylie and the team have been fantastic. And John Withnall, my former law partner, who taught me an enormous amount about the law but also, more importantly, taught me how to behave and how to run a business.
Finally, and more generally, I wish a Merry Christmas and a happy new year to the people of the Northern Territory. To my parliamentary colleagues, the staff of this institution and indeed, a Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to make my Christmas wishes clear and on the Parliamentary Record, because I suspect that tomorrow might be a bit of a log jam. I will start in the traditional way by thanking my branch, the Vanderlin Branch, who saw me through another successful election recently. To my electorate officer, Beth Hodgkison, who does a great job for me out in the Hibiscus Shoppingtown for the Drysdale electorate and we will shortly be moving into the Palmerston area which is closer to the people who vote for me.
I thank also, my wife, Marie, who is my predominant political advisor on all matters relating to politics, and my family who are very forthright, giving me advice on a whole range of issues. I am in the fortunate position of having a dozen or so very politically aware members of my family who take great pleasure, I think, in telling me where I have erred or what I should be doing and when and how.
I also take this opportunity to remind people it is the Christmas holidays and to take it easy on the roads and to take it easy with the evil drink. We will all be drinking, it is inevitable, and we will all be going to places and let’s hope people can do it safely in the wet season conditions that prevail here in Darwin.
I also would like to reflect a little on the last year. It has certainly brought some surprises and changes to us. It would be a rare person standing in this parliament who would have believed that a mere one year ago we would be sitting here now with Clare Martin now as the Chief Minister and some of the people on the opposite benches who one wonders how they could have presented themselves as attractive candidates in an election, but nevertheless did so, and now see themselves in this place.
The next year, I suspect, will bring even more surprises and joy. There seems to be a concerted push to arrange some scapegoating, and it is a pity to hear the contributions to the budget debate running the same rhetoric, the same line, and not really venturing into the innards of the budget. But nonetheless, let them do it, for mine, if that is the recipe that they want to all use, just be aware of the cake they are going to bake. I suspect that the little plot that may have worked well with their colleagues in the state of Victoria and the state of Western Australia and which are now being replicated here, may seem like very good politics to them, but what they are doing is entirely evident to us. The next six months or so they would want to be pretty quick on their feet because I think they might have some surprises in store for them. One of the surprises is I don’t believe they have the confidence of the Northern Territory people. I believe that that is something that you have to earn and I do not believe that it was adequately earned at the ballot box. Although I am not discounting democracy and democratic processes that see me in this place, I will say that they should not assume that they have widespread support from the Northern Territory community. Neither should they assume that the myths that they are peddling have widespread currency or belief.
I look forward to the next year. It will be a year of great joy, some adventure, and in my own particular circumstances, a bit more time for some of the things that I enjoy with a passion, and that is things that involve a bit of time with my family and being in the Northern Territory and travelling in some of the activities that are here. Sadly, over the last couple of years, things have been on the backburner because of my job commitments. That has changed and that is the silver lining in the cloud. I hope to stand up in this parliament in a year and boast about the many crabs and fish I have caught and look to the sorry sight opposite, where I am sure they will be hanging their head in shame at some of the things they boasted they could do easily, and have fallen. One hundred days is a very short time and we have already seen several of them trip over. The next six months is going to be a very testing time for the seven people who see themselves as ministers of the crown.
I wish them well, nonetheless, because I do not believe this place can see a calamity of great consequence happen here - it is just too destructive. So it is my valiant hope that they don’t fall over and explode. It is my valiant hope that they can fumble through and when we regain government in the next four years they have not made such a mess of it that it takes a long time to fix up. The things that they are parading now as messes are things that I would have gladly inherited. I am sure I could have made a much better fist of it than these people will, but that remains for us to be seen.
For those people who are listening, who are keen, the parliament marches on, even in recess, and the Public Accounts Committee will be meeting on Friday this week and on Wednesday and Thursday next week. There will be a spectacle of sorts where it is expected that a group of people will gather to see justice being done. I entreat people to come along if that is what they want to see, and I entreat people to look at the evidence as it is presented. In my particular case, I would like my colleagues on the PAC to likewise show great impartiality and an enquiring mind in the matters that will come before the PAC.
With those few words, I wish everybody well. I do apologise to the parliamentary staff who are up late listening to this. I thank Hansard and the people in the parliament who do the great job they do. I also thank those people who are involved in security and the other issues of great importance in this House to keep it going.
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall join you for a celebratory glass of wine if I am the last speaker, which it appears I may well be.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder.
Mr MALEY(Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to put on record that I was going to put on the record the particularly good job you have done this evening.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 2 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to proposed laws passed by the Legislative Assembly during the October 2001 sittings.
PETITION
Affordable and Regular Exercise –
Northern Suburbs
Affordable and Regular Exercise –
Northern Suburbs
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 240 petitioners not conforming with standing orders, relating to affordable and regular exercise for citizens of the northern suburbs.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like the petition to be read?
Mrs AAGAARD: No, Madam Speaker.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100(a), I inform honourable members the response to petition No 3 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 3
Fencing at Bakewell Primary School
Date petition presented: 18 October 2001
Presented by: Mr Stirling
Referred to: Minister For Employment, Education and Training
Date response received: 27 November 2001
Date response presented: 28 November 2001
Response:
Bakewell Primary School was constructed in 1999 in line with government’s ‘neighbourhood philosophy’
for Palmerston city. The concept is that schools are available for access by the wider community and should
fit into suburbs in an unobtrusive way. Fencing would, to some extent, isolate and institutionalise schools
making them less inviting to the community. With community-based organisations encouraged to utilise the
hall and other areas in the school after hours, vandalism is also minimised.
The school principal has advised that staff supervise students during recess and lunch breaks and ensure that,
at the end of the day, students are supervised in an orderly manner when leaving the school grounds. This close
contact minimises risk and enables staff to respond quickly when a student is either missing or acting
inappropriately.
There is no fencing to prevent unwanted persons going onto the school property. Staff are very security conscious
and always quick to report unauthorised personnel. School councils have established procedures to deal with intruders
and situations which may put students at risk. Students are also supervised at all times while at school, therefore
minimising their exposure to coming in contact with unauthorised persons. There is also an onsite caretaker who
conducts regular checks of the buildings and grounds after hours. This is complemented by a security system to most
of the buildings, which link to a local security firm.
The CLP has been negligent in not erecting a fence around the perimeter of Bakewell Primary School grounds,
particularly as the road is designed as a major arterial road linking Palmerston to the Stuart Highway.
School councils are encouraged to manage their facilities and generally provide a high level of duty of care for
students. The government design guidelines for schools do not include perimeter fencing with the exception of
preschool outdoor activity areas. School councils have avenues available to them to put forward submissions to
government for funding new works. The principal of Bakewell Primary has been contacted and will assess the
situation in conjunction with the school council.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Drug Misuse – Treatment, Rehabilitation and Prevention
Drug Misuse – Treatment, Rehabilitation and Prevention
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this government promised the community it would tackle the hard issues of community safety. We have committed to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is now well established that one of the factors underlying criminal behaviour, especially property and opportunity crime, is misuse of illicit drugs, particularly stemming from opioid dependency.
Our three-point plan to get tough on drugs comprises the following priorities: a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes; and a properly resourced drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns directed at our schools. It is to the issues of treatment, rehabilitation and prevention that this report turns.
Everyone here knows that illicit drug use is a complex and emotive issue, and that there are no simple solutions. There are many competing views about what should be done. There are some who would prefer the ostrich approach of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping that illicit drug use will take itself down south, possibly on a bus. There are others who would want all drugs decriminalised and user access facilitated to close the entry of those criminal profiteers who deal in human misery. Sadly, it is simply not the case that we do not have an illicit drug use problem in the Northern Territory. While the clandestine use of illicit drugs makes determining actual consumption levels difficult, information that is routinely collected such as morbidity figures, police reports and records of treatment agencies suggest that illicit drug use is occurring in the Northern Territory and is impacting on individuals and the broader community.
Estimates of the number of people who regularly inject drugs in the Territory have varied between 1000 and 4000. The majority of these users are in urban centres, predominantly Darwin. From the public health perspective, illicit drug use poses risk to the individuals through overdose, disease and injuries and costs the broader community through drug-related crime, increased risks of transmission of HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne viruses, and social dislocation. Initiation and trial of illicit drugs is occurring at a younger age, magnifying the risk of overdose and isolation from the community.
I do not pretend to have the answers, but I am prepared to seek the best advice and to consult widely to make sure that what we do put in place is the best that could possibly happen. To this end, I am establishing a task force on illicit drugs to consult broadly with the community, front line workers and experts, and to provide me with evidence-based advice on strategies, issues and proposed directions. I have asked that it canvass withdrawal, treatment, rehabilitation, education and prevention strategies relevant to the Northern Territory context. The scope of the task force will cover illicit drugs as defined by the National Drug Strategic Framework. This includes heroin, amphetamines, prescription drugs used in an illicit manner, hallucinogens, cocaine and designer drugs such as ecstasy. It will not cover such substance abuse issues as cannabis use, petrol sniffing, kava, alcohol and tobacco use, which remain of deep concern to this government and will continue to be a focus of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, which begins its first meeting today.
The task force membership will be drawn from a variety of sectors of the Northern Territory community outside of government, and cover areas such as users, ex-users, families, youth, law enforcement, research, indigenous and the treatment world. Given the sensitivity of this critical issue and the need to pay close heed to community concerns, I am very pleased to be able to announce that Dr Valerie Asche has accepted the role as chairperson for this task force.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD: Dr Asche is a very well-known Territorian who has made significant contributions nationally and internationally in her professional field of research microbiology.
To ensure all Territorians have an opportunity to have their say, the task force will conduct community consultation forums in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. In addition, the task force will establish an interactive web site and call for written and oral submissions. The task force will carry out a thorough investigation of the trends in illicit drug use across the Northern Territory and the local links between illicit drug use and crime.
I have asked that the task force take a particular focus on young people and on drug-using parents of children up to 12 years old, the availability of treatment services for these groups, and how gaps can be best filled. The support needs of the families of the person who uses drugs is also a special concern to me, and it will be priority for the task force.
To summarise, the task force will bring together evidence from national and international research with the information obtained through the consultations to make recommendations to me about what will work best in the Territory. This will include the high profile issue of the role and practical application of pharmacotherapies such as buprenorphine and methadone maintenance as an aspect of harm minimisation and in the context of a strategic approach to drug use in the Northern Territory. A final report will be completed and submitted to me by the task force by 31 May next year. The recommendations of the task force will form the implementation of this government’s three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, at last we have a health minister who has started to realise that there are some bigger problems out there than what we have seen in some of her dorothy dix questions and her statements. It is really important that this issue be addressed and I applaud the fact that the government has seen it as a priority area. I applaud the fact that Valerie Asche has been appointed as the chairperson.
It is a pity that cannabis has not been included in this. It is a pity that the current minister does not see fit to travel to remote Aboriginal communities where there are significant illicit drug problems, including cannabis, where I would expect that they would hear this. It could well be that cannabis is not included because the current Chief Minister sees it as nothing more than akin to having a glass of red wine, notwithstanding its illicit status. Maybe the Chief Minister persuaded the minister that cannabis really is such a friendly drug that it should not be included there.
The current Chief Minister is also on the Parliamentary Record as saying there is no drug problem. It is good that the current Chief Minister is in the Parliamentary Record as saying there is no drug problem and it is good to see that this health minister disagrees with her Chief Minister on that important subject.
I look forward to other issues of importance coming to this House to be debated in the health portfolio. Certainly, I see as drugs an early one. The 100 vacancies among our nursing positions I would like to see come forward to this House.
World AIDS Day is on Saturday and I notice that the minister is a keynote speaker. She would be aware of the problems to our near north, with the potential for this disease to affect Territorians and I would hope that she has had briefings on this important issue. I would like to see these issues brought to this parliament so they can be aired in a public way. It is no good to say you are setting up a variety of consultative devices when you do not have the fortitude to bring these issues into this House for all of us to look at, for all of us to debate, and for all of us to interrogate what Labor purports to be answers.
The three-point plan, I think, we will see on foot rather than in rhetoric and I look forward to debate on those issues.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale.
Illicit drugs are a very significant problem in the Northern Territory. When I was doorknocking it was one of the issues that was clearly widespread in the community. There were several areas, both in my electorate and electorates of other people, where it was necessary for us to contact the police regarding drugs in the community. It is an absolutely shameful situation that there are no maintenance programs in the Northern Territory and we will be looking to make sure that there are adequate programs in place and that people will not be required to get a bus to a southern town to get treatment for their drug problems.
I thank the member for Drysdale for recognising that Dr Asche is a very good chairperson and she will certainly bring a high quality and high calibre note to this task force. This will be a very significant task force which will deal with a very important issue and be a very important part of our three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
Weddell Land Acquisition
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, members would be aware that the government recently commenced action to acquire land in Middle Arm west of the Stuart Highway, for the purposes of service corridors and water supply facilities for the proposed gas development. The proposed acquisition involved freehold land and any native title on Crown land. The freehold land comprised two properties and part of a third on Middle Arm Road which provided the only significant elevated site for construction of water supply tanks, to provide a water supply to the proposed gas industry precinct in Middle Arm, in the first instance, and the new town of Weddell as it develops.
The land acquisition process is formally commenced under the requirements of the Land Acquisition Act by the service of the notice of the proposed acquisition on the affected property owners, and notification in the NT News. Prior to this, an inspection of the affected land is carried out to assess whether it is just land or if other property is affected, such as buildings. Unfortunately, in the specific case of the action involving the proposed water tanks site, this preliminary work was not carried out. I have directed the department to rigorously employ identification and consultation procedures in the future to avoid a repeat incident. I must point out that this land has been identified for this type of future use for a decade. However, the former planning documents have not shown it and, over the years, determination on subdivisions have been made under the Planning Act without taking the future requirement into account.
I have directed the department, as a matter of urgency, to identify land that is required for future public infrastructure within the planning scheme. This will place on public record information that is vital for persons to better appreciate the impact future development may have directly, or indirectly, on the land they have an interest in. The department is also putting into place a proper notification on the land information system to advise property owners and purchasers of future government land of infrastructure needs such as water supply for roads. In the case in point, I have directed an engineering review of the alternative design and siting options for the tank.
Another good site on Crown land near the intersection of the Stuart Highway and Cox Peninsula Road has been identified for the water tanks required to service the proposed gas development on Middle Arm. The three property owners have been advised that the formal acquisition action has been abandoned, that alternative sites are being sought, and sincere apologies offered for the distress caused. The owners of two of the properties have been advised that the government would be interested in retaining first option to purchase should they wish to sell in the future. One owner has indicated he may be willing to sell a small part of one block.
I have put into place new procedures now. I have also asked for the identification process to be improved. I expect that this will result in better administrative procedures and actions in the future. In addition, the government amalgamation of agencies will ensure that all agencies involved in planning and infrastructure will be alongside each other. This should create a far better system for all Territorians.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the lands minister might apologise to those people who were going to be affected, their livelihoods ripped out from under them, their houses taken away, because of the incompetence of this minister. What you have to realise is that every one of those lands files which get across your desk could have one of these issues in it, and you have to read them. You obviously did not read the proposed notice of acquisition that, like you said, under the Acquisition Act, you have to sign off on. Obviously, you did not know what you were signing. Someone put it in front of you, one of your staffers - and you better review your staffing situation obviously - put it in front of you and said, ‘Minister, sign here’. The poor people who own those houses open the weekend paper and here was an acquisition notice for their properties without any forewarning.
You had not been to see them and you come up with all of these excuses, and that is a breakdown in communication. There was a whole raft of excuses, until today you finally apologise to those people.
Minister, your incompetence is to blame for this. There is no hiding behind this; the buck stops with you. You are to blame for the incompetence that led to the near acquisition of this land. Obviously, there was always Crown land available and that is what you have to be looking for. You have to be proactive in making these decisions. You have to look at what is presented to you and say, ‘Is this the right decision to make?’ You might remember …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure you have a copy somewhere …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, I cannot hear the reply.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sure you have a copy of the check list I sent you before. There is the minister’s check list before making a decision: one, read the file - and there were a number of things - understand what the file says, check the facts, and if you are in doubt about any of the facts, go and get further advice. That is the lesson you have to learn. It is your incompetence that brought these people to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: You should look at the way things operate. An incompetent, not fit to govern.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly, especially for his checklist. One thing I have to point out, that this government recognised immediately the shortcomings and moved to correct it. I have to point out that the action of the member for Daly, an ex-minister for planning, he signed an official document for land use objectives for Litchfield and in that document the railway suddenly stops outside Palmerston. They notified, and they put in the Town Planning Scheme, all the arterial roads and all the roads in Palmerston but they forgot about the railway. All that was intentional, so people did not find out what is in their backyards.
I put procedures in place in order for people to know what is happening in their backyards. Let me remind the member for Daly, he was the planning minister when he approved subdivisions of blocks that were on a future use corridor for the gas industry - or you did not want a gas industry.
Government’s Transparent Property
Lease Procurement
Lease Procurement
Dr TOYNE (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to report on the government’s new transparent property lease procurement processes.
Last week, the Chief Minister called for expressions of interest to provide public sector office space. Leases for 9000 m2 of public sector office space is set to expire late in 2003. New leasing arrangements will be considered. The government will be looking to new office space to fulfil some of its needs and open up opportunities for better design, improved construction standards, and greater savings through the construction of energy efficient buildings. The new, open tender process announced last week provides Territory administration and procurement processes in line with best practice, to ensure Territorians receive the best deal. Transparent tendering processes provide assurance to developers and property owners, enabling them to compete openly and on a level playing field.
The positive response to the Chief Minister’s announcement from the construction sector shows that reform was long overdue. The announcement will help developers with final investment decisions they must make right now on new building developments that are under consideration. With a number of new developments on the verge of being committed to, this is good news for the Territory with new construction projects able to provide jobs and bring money into the Territory economy.
Mr REED (Katherine): What’s new, Madam Speaker? In terms of this process, it has been applied before. The most recent example was the central Darwin Police Station. It was advertised publicly for expressions of interest, and it went through a very long and complex and investigative process in terms of the proponents who first responded to the advertisements for expressions of interest in such a building. There was a refinement process that followed that, which saw a particular proponent selected.
This is nothing new, nothing to be proud of, it is something that has been done. The government is now simply applying a process that was formerly applied by the CLP government. It is another example of a government with no ability to come up with any innovation or any initiatives of their own. Nothing new in this. It is copying what the former CLP government has done, just as you copied QuickStart. No innovation in your mini-budget that was introduced yesterday - just as you are trapezing around the Northern Territory taking credit for what is happening on the railway, a CLP project, just as the Chief Minister goes down to the wharf and takes credit for what is happening at the wharf, a CLP contract that was let.
When are you going to start doing something? When are you going to start making some decisions? What is going to happen when all of the CLP initiatives stop? The whole Territory is going to stop!
You have got to be innovative. You have to be starting to make some decisions of your own. This wonderful announcement by the minister is just another example of the maudlin position that this government is in. It is a disgrace! You do not have any ability to come up with any innovations of your own and, you are, quite rightly of course, recognising in adopting the former CLP government’s policies, that they were appropriate, that they worked and, more importantly, that they are worth keeping on with.
Dr TOYNE (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I would love to have a hide as thick as the member for Katherine. The man has no shame! Where were the cranes on the skyline for the last year of your government? The reason they were not there is that you were locked into these deals with your silver circle mates that had locked away all of the property market. We are not going to go that way. We are innovative, we are basically saying, ‘Let’s give everyone a go at it. Let’s get some new construction. Let’s give business a level playing field where they know what the deal is, where the goalposts are and where they are going to be able to plan their business operations and developments’.
That is what we are doing. That is what you failed to do for the last many years, and that is why this place slowed to a walk.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let’s just settle down before we go on.
Northern Territory Table Grape Industry
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a report on the table grape industry in the Northern Territory, a great success story. There has been continued growth in the industry with an estimated area planted of approximately 370 ha in season 2000. Currently, there are seven property owners producing table grapes in the Ti Tree area, which includes the Pine Hill area. Five properties are located in the Ti Tree Farm’s area, with Ti Tree Farm the largest. There are also two properties located on Pine Hill Station. Territory Grapes is the largest development with approximately 220 ha planted. Territory Grapes is one of six properties spread between the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales owned by the Table Grape Growers of Australia. This spread allows the Table Grape Growers of Australia to supply the markets continuously for a four to five-month period.
There are a number of players involved with the table grape industry in the Territory and I am pleased to inform Territorians and this House that their hard work is producing some fantastic dividends. Jabiru Farm, which is located 10 km to the north of Territory Grapes, consists of approximately 50 ha of table grapes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: One company owns the property, with the vines managed by another company on behalf of shareholders. Fortunately … Even during a good news story, we have people chattering opposite. You might want to listen to this, this is a good news story ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: Fortunately, the crop potential was approximately 20% higher than the amount harvested last season …
Mr Reed interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Don’t give any to the member for Katherine, he won’t like them, they will make him sour.
There were significant crop losses due to prolonged rain prior to and throughout the harvest period. However, there is good news, with plantings increased this year by a further 40 ha to a total area planted of approximately 410 ha. We are informed that the current crop loads on the majority of mature vines are good. Young vines, although not in full production, are also carrying satisfactory crops. The quality of the crop is high as the fruit nears maturity. The harvest of the earliest variety began last week, approximately 12 November.
There are four table grape varieties grown which are: Flame Seedless, the earliest maturing variety, which is red and seedless; Menindee Seedless, a large white berry which matures approximately in the third week of November; Thompson Seedless, a large white berry which matures approximately the first week of December; and Red Globe, a large seeded grape with matures late December, early January and is popular in South East Asian countries. We are looking to markets in Jakarta for that particular variety at the moment.
All the fruit is marketed on domestic markets, with some produce being exported either directly or off the market floor. The main domestic markets include Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Tasmania. I am also very excited with the export market opening up for Territory table grapes. Last season, a significant quantity of Thompson Seedless grapes was harvested and packed specifically for the Hong Kong market. A quantity of Red Globe grapes was also exported to South East Asia, where it received a premium price.
Territory growers market their produce either individually through market agents, or sell direct to supermarkets. Table Grape Growers of Australia sell direct to the supermarkets and source a significant quantity of table grapes from other smaller, local growers. Due to the number of properties this company owns, they are able to supply the earliest table grapes from the Northern Territory mid-season, and the latest varieties from the southern states.
The industry is a rising star for the Territory. This is particularly significant in relation to development of this region of the Northern Territory. This industry employs a significant number of people during the peak season, with substantial investments in Alice Springs To realise further developments of the industry and the region there remains work to be done. As plantings continue to increase, further market development will be essential if the margins currently enjoyed by the industry are to be maintained.
The industry has just formed a peak body to represent the table grape industry at the national level. This will assist with the proposed formation of an Australian Table Grape Growers Association and help highlight national issues for the table grape industry. This peak industry body will provide a collective voice to convey industry issues and concerns to the government.
The horticulture division of my department is actively involved with the industry and the area producing, providing a range of research, development and support services.
I am very pleased to announce to the House that the estimated potential value of the table grape crop this season is a staggering $25m, with a yield of 4500 tonnes. It has great potential and some grapes will be coming around to honourable members to taste the product themselves, apart from the member for Katherine.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the minister said this is a good news story and, in fact, it is a very good news story. The table grape production area at Ti Tree is a fantastic story and if it was not for the CLP government and the partnership with private enterprise, it would not exist. The minister has talked eloquently about the production that is going on there, and I commend the private owners of property at Ti Tree for all of the great work that they are doing and the increased production that is going on. You should, minister, take the time to go down there and have a look. You have a great brief from your department and they have done a good job in keeping you informed, but you should really go and have a look at this place.
What you should also look at while you are there is the potential - I suppose you will not have much time to get around to all these things because you will be overseas, or will you be with the business, or will you be with the pastoral industry, but anyway, I digress. The thing the minister should take great notice of is the Pine Hill Station property that allows for hundreds of hectares of expansion of the Ti Tree growing area and the water exploration that has been done currently – well, it was under our government; I do not know about this government. The initiative to buy Pine Hill Station by the CLP government - and we copped a lot of flack from your side, I have to say, when we bought that - was a great initiative to allow this to become the most significant grape growing area in Australia, and it will, because of the initiatives of the CLP government.
While you are down there you should go and have a look at Owen Springs Station and then come back and tell us, along with your lands minister, what you are going to do with that, because there is great concern in Alice Springs as to where that might end up. Another great purchase with foresight by the CLP government, and we are waiting with open ears to find out what your plans are for Owen Springs Station.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on grapes. I actually started some of my early life in horticulture in Mildura learning how to prune them, so whilst they are an important industry they are also a lot of work. I understand how much work does go into the industry. It is a very important industry. I am not trying to put a dampener on it because I enjoy grapes, but earlier this year there were some meetings with growers and it was reported on the Country Hour that there were very low recordings of uranium in the water. There was going to be a report back on the effect of those readings in the water. I am wondering whether the minister, in his response, can find out whether that issue has been resolved because it was an important issue. It was raised by the department and the growers and I wonder if that issue has been finalised.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I hope honourable members can actually taste the success of the Territory in these grapes. I have no problems doing a Barry Coulter and eating a few myself. I am worried about the uranium in the water flowing through to the grapes, but I will check out the issue for the member for Nelson.
It is a good news story and we are not so churlish on this side of the House not to recognise some of the initiatives of the former government - unlike the members opposite who do not recognise the things that we are doing. We will follow through with this. Yes, I am very keen to visit these farms whilst they are in the harvest period. It is a great success story. We have huge potential for developing farming produce, agribusiness, in the Northern Territory. As the new minister for the area, I am very excited to look at the potential developments in the future and it is full steam ahead, to take the railway analogy, to developing horticulture and agribusiness opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have given permission for various media to broadcast, with sound and vision, the reply by the Leader of the Opposition to the November 2001 mini-budget ministerial statement.
MOTION
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me at the outset make it clear that we in the opposition believe this Labor government has the right to reprioritise the budget according to its own policies and priorities and its own political philosophies. By winning the majority of seats - although not the popular vote - at the general election, it is undoubtedly clear that it has the ability and responsibility …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I would ask that the government listen to this reply in the same way the opposition afforded them that courtesy.
By winning the majority of seats, although not the popular vote at the general election, it undoubtedly has the ability and responsibility to put in place its policies and promises, and we welcome some of the initiatives, even if they are recycled CLP ones. To be frank, we welcome the fact that this government is finally doing something.
Having said that, let me make two initial comments. First, it is unfortunate the government has chosen this method of rewriting the Appropriation Act so that this parliament has no opportunity to question ministers on exactly how and where the Territory’s money will be spent. With increased borrowings of $100m, an increase of $170m in gross outlays, new taxes and increased charges, surely it would have been appropriate to allow this parliament to scrutinise these major changes? Instead, the government intends to achieve its aims by executive action and to bypass the processes of this parliament. Previous budgets have faced intense scrutiny but, sadly, it is not going to be the case with this new ‘open and accountable’ Labor government.
The second general comment I make is: why does this government feel the need to blame someone to justify what it has been given the right, by the Territory electorate, to do? You were elected to govern. Why not have the courage of your own convictions and say upfront: ‘This is the way we are going to spend the Territory’s money and this is the way Territorians are going to pay for it’? That would be open, honest and accountable government. Instead, you have spent three months attempting to put a case that the Territory’s finances were in a parlous state; that the budget brought down in May was unsustainable. And how have you addressed this mythical monster that you yourselves created? Well, you simply increase debt by borrowing an extra $100m.
I will remind the Chief Minister of what she said in the appropriation debate in May this year: ‘Labor is not about spending more money’, you said. Yet your mini-budget increases outlays by $171m. She said:
- The CLP way is to saddle Territorians with more debt, high interest payments, high taxes and charges and
increasingly low levels of public services.
That is what the Chief Minister said in May.
Yesterday, she increased debt by $100m, introduced a new tax, increased charges and announced plans to cut back the operating costs and salaries of the public service by $120m over the next few years - and you are still reneging on numerous of your promises in the infamous Labor’s financial statement that was issued four days before the general election.
Let me turn to the alleged black hole, and I refer to the mythical one. This is the mythical black hole of $107m, not the real one that was created yesterday in the mini-budget of $126m. Both Percy Allan and the Treasury have said that, in their opinion, the financial requirements of departments, particularly health, education and some law and order functions, would need more money before the end of the financial year. Who would deny that health, education, and law and order need more money? When do these areas not need more money? But it is a government’s role and responsibility to decide how much it will spend and then to allocate that money accordingly. The previous government did that in its May budget. Then comes a change of government and departments are asked: ‘Do you need more money?’ ‘Yes of course we do’, say the departments. ‘And while we are at it’, says the new government, ‘we will not sell NT Fleet and therefore forgo $50m in revenue’.
They called in Percy Allan to tell them the obvious, that by 30 June 2002 they could easily spend an extra $107m over and above what the previous government had decided in its budget. That, Territorians, is the so-called black hole: a decision by the previous government to rein in expenditure rather than increase debt is somehow turned into an unsustainable position. Yet borrowing more money, increasing base funding for agencies and raising new taxes and charges is regarded now as fiscally responsible. An alleged shortfall of $107m on 30 June 2002 is somehow, in someone’s logic, a worse position than a real deficit of $126m on 30 June 2002. The facts are that the government has decided to increase the base funding of a number of agencies and add in another $13m of its own initiatives for this year. In order to finance this increase in spending they have a three prong strategy: (1) borrow money and therefore increase Territory debt by $100m; (2) introduce new taxes and increase charges on ordinary Territorians; and (3) save money by cutting back on the operational and salary areas of the public service.
We said the Labor Party would not be able to pay for its promises. We said it would not be able to make the savings it was claiming without new taxes and charges, and we have been proved correct. If the Chief Minister and Treasurer wants to be honest she would have come into this parliament yesterday and admitted that fact. She would have stood up and said: ‘We promised Territorians we were going to take these initiatives, and we will’. To be fair to Territorians she should have said: ‘We got it wrong, we promised too much’. She should have said: ‘We will have to postpone some of our promises and we will have to renege on our promise to not introduce new taxes’. She should have said: ‘We will renege on our promise to business and not contribute another $9m in 2002-03 to absorb the cost of the HIH liabilities’.
Labor’s financial statement shows another $9m to fund these liabilities as the already agreed funding runs out in January, but the mini-budget has dropped that contribution. Or is that something, I ask, for next year and another levy - another tax on Territorians, as her colleague, the member for Wanguri, has suggested, and as the budget now makes clear? In fact, the budget paper states that this government is going to defer the introduction of payroll tax deductions due to: ‘… the more pressing impact on business of the current plans to levy all employers for the liabilities arising from the HIH collapse …’. That is on page 59 of Budget Paper No 3.
Paying for that liability, as the member for Wanguri, and the Chief Minister well knows, is much more than a $90 tax that has been put on motor vehicles in her mini-budget. It is a $50m outstanding liability on Territorians which you have said, the member for Wanguri, all Territorians will pay for. And what is in the budget? Silence, silence is in this present mini-budget, so you are deceiving Territorians by not telling them how, over this term, you will pay for those outstanding liabilities. Or have I missed that announcement somehow of that new tax in the Chief Minister’s speech? Just as I missed the announcement that another Labor promise to increase stamp duty exemption for first home buyers has also been dumped.
These actions by the government have nothing to do with the previous administration. Have a look at Budget Paper No 3 and the revised list of government initiatives. Just take the savings areas - most of the savings she claims she was going to make in her pre-election fully-costed document have evaporated. Before the election, Labor was going to save $55m on consultancies. We tried to tell them that such savings were not there. Now what do we find on page 63 of Budget Paper No 3? After investigation they found out consultancies covered core business activities and could not be cut. Instead, they have imposed a savings measure that they hope will realise savings of $5.5m over the next four years. $5.5m, and evaporated $55m that they were going to cut.
How many times did we tell them that savings and the cuts to consultancies would not work? How many times did we tell them that consultancies covered core business activities, and where does it appear in the Chief Minister and Treasurer’s speech that they got it wrong in the fully-costed Access-approved financial statement? No, she wouldn’t admit it, it’s not there. Or what about the $60m that was going to be saved by the adoption of counter cyclical capital works program, something the member for Arnhem and the previous Minister for Transport and Infrastructure showed some expert knowledge on? Since they’ve got into government they have suddenly realised: ‘The construction industry is still heavily dependent on capital works funds spending by the Northern Territory government’. Well, welcome to the real world!
What about the $26.7m they planned to save on executive management? That has gone as well, and we know why it has gone. It is now a much more ambitious slash and burn program that is now called Budget Improvement Measures. The government is now planning to save $120m from these measures. This government is essentially demanding that the public sector perform its current task and deliver Labor’s election promises and save $120m over the life of this parliament. Budget papers stated that the savings target of 4% in a full year, to be calculated on a salaries and on-cost inclusive basis, is to be implemented.
The areas of health, education, police and corrections have been spared the full shock of these required savings that, even with these agencies contribution to the savings set at 1%, costs and cuts will be very substantial in real dollar terms. Whatever the government is planning here does not sound like good news to the public service or for public service job security. The major cost of running government, as we all know, is wages. How will $50m be saved from these measures in slightly more than 18 months? A reduction in the wage bill is how they will save that money. Just where exactly is the government expecting these savings to come from if it is not further to erode its now broken promise to not reduce the size of the public service? Does the government expect $120m of savings to be generated by the reduced use of biros and notepads? No. Does the government expect $15m to be saved before July next year by public servants turning off the lights? No. Don’t kid us, don’t kid us. To meet its savings target, the public service has to save more than $500 000 a week between now and the end of the financial year, and how on earth does the government expect that to be achieved?
It cannot be done without reducing the major component of the cost of running the public sector, and that is pay packets. Added to this is another $4.4m in savings Labor has identified as coming from its public service restructure announced earlier this month. Exactly where are these savings going to come from? The government must know where they are going to come from because it has put a figure on it. The challenge for the government in the course of this debate is to break down for us and for public servants what is the source of that $4.4m? If they even attempt to address this challenge, such an attempt will be a tortured effort to avoid using phrases such as ‘staff reductions’ and ‘job reductions’. I notice in the presentation of yesterday’s mini-budget that the column identifying staffing levels of each agency has been dropped for the first time as I recall. I wonder why that has happened? Is this another example of this new open, honest and accountable government? Maybe the presence of such detail would reveal the bottom line of the Labor government’s public service restructure and the so-called budget improvement measures. If such staffing levels were included in the mini-budget, I suspect they would be noticeably less than those contained in the May budget.
The Chief Minister talked about no forced redundancies and no program of voluntary redundancies. Instead, she talks about attrition and how chief executive officers will help to handle it. In other words, CEOs are being told they have to save money, so, ‘don’t replace staff when they leave, and by the way, find ways to encourage many of them to leave’. The Chief Minister talks about a 10% attrition rate in the public service, but that figure relates to the permanent public service labour force, and about half of that is in the education and health fields - both areas where the government claims it is going to increase employment, not cut it. The attrition rate for the total public service - permanent, contract and casual - is more like 28%. Again, about 40% of that is in the protected areas of health and education. If you exclude police, which is another area where the government intends to recruit - and I might say, more slowly than it had planned - as well as health and education, then the rest of the public service is facing a very nervous few months ahead of them.
They will either have no jobs or no colleagues as CEOs are forced to find these savings. Once more, an open and accountable government would be upfront and tell us that their target is to reduce the public service by 1500 jobs, or whatever the number of jobs they have targeted to achieve these particular savings. Instead, what the Chief Minister does, is hide behind her chief executive officers and say: ‘They have the responsibility to manage it’. She is hiding behind cute phrases such as ‘budget improvement measures’. She is hiding behind statements such as: ‘Well, of course there is a 10% attrition rate and CEOs will just have to manage that’. The government should not delude itself. It will be held to account on its end gain of reducing public service staffing.
Turning to the revenue measures contained in the mini-budget. In one hit, this government threw out its election promise of no new taxes and charges with its $90 hit on the cost of registering or reregistering a motor vehicle. The Chief Minister says it is a levy, not a tax. Well, if it looks like a tax, and it quacks like a tax, then it is a tax! If you look at the Australian Concise Oxford dictionary, it defines a tax as ‘a contribution to government revenue; compulsory levy on individuals, properties, businesses, goods, etc’. If being hit for $90 as a compulsory contribution to government revenue is not a tax, then good luck in trying to sell that to Territorians.
Then there is the ridiculous facade of calling it ‘the temporary budget improvement levy’. Again, if you are being honest with Territorians and you intend to impose it for three years, and it will raise $24m, what it is, is a significant impost on the hip pocket of the majority of Territorians. However, it does nothing - next to nothing - to improve the bottom line of the budgets for the next three years. So, do not tell fibs and call it some sort of a budget improvement levy.
The reason we do not hear the government describe this $90 grab into Territorians’ wallets as a tax is that they want to deceive Territorians into thinking that this government will stand by its election commitments. We are hearing the same too-cute-by-half noises out of the Chief Minister that we heard when she maintained that sacking the head of a public service department is not the same as sacking a public servant. An insult again to the intelligence of Territorians, a shallow attempt at deceiving Territorians, and a vindictive approach to one particular individual.
Let us look at this $90 slug on the cost of registering a vehicle. One of the things that governments confront when doing these across-the-board revenue-raising measures, is the effects such measures have on non-profit groups and charities. Has the government made any provision for relief from this new tax for groups such as Anglicare and the Red Cross? Has the government considered exempting non-government organisations such as those running night patrols from this new tax? If it has not - and there has been no statement to the contrary - then I believe it is going to face some opposition from those groups alone. What about the various industry associations that are developing opportunities for Territory businesses on a non-profit basis? These associations are often running on tight budgets, the bulk of which is provided by the government, in many cases. Yet, under Labor’s new tax they get hit for nearly $100 just to keep their work vehicle on the road.
Other revenue measures in the mini-budget include a 20% hike in the cost of a driver’s licence and 5% increases to water and sewerage charges. These increases will transfer more than $42m from the pockets of Territorians to the government over the next four financial years. It is worth pointing out that the CPI in the Territory rose by 1.9% during the previous 12 months. This puts the true nature of these increases into an economic context. This is a lust for revenue that is behind these increases rather than a desire to match the level of charges with the level of inflation. As a result of this lack of restraint, Territorians will now pay $314 for sewerage charges, the second highest price in the country and well above the national average of $286. All of these increases will leave Territorians with less money in their pockets and reduce their spending power. This will translate into reduced turnover for business. This will translate into less money being spent on discretionary areas such as entertainment and leisure which, coincidentally, are often businesses that employ a goodly number of staff.
It is an interesting exercise to go through the government’s initiatives as outlined in Budget Paper No 3, and compare it to the much-vaunted fully-costed Access seal of approval, Labor’s financial statement. You will recall the present Chief Minister made much of the fact it was fully costed with actual amounts against each item. But, how many of these promises have become, as stated throughout the books, ‘this initiative will be undertaken within existing resources’.
There is improved access to teleconference and telemedicine facilities, once costed at $320 000, now to be undertaken within existing resources. Or accelerate the planning and introduction of electronic health records once costed at $660 000, now reduced to within existing resources. What about the establishment of a Territory health council and the additional support for the development and distribution of indigenous health care manuals to all remote clinics, and the additional support to develop links with specialist in major teaching hospitals interstate to visit remote areas? All have lost their funding and the Health Department must now …
Ms Lawrie: The man who opposed an interpreter service. You are a joke.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I made the comment yesterday, the new member for Karama does nothing in this Chamber except squeal occasionally like a cat on heat. I gave them the courtesy yesterday of listening in silence and I would ask the member for Karama, if she has nothing more of value to contribute in this Chamber, to kindly either leave or shut up!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, you know the convention. We listened yesterday in silence. You should observe the same convention.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I add, what about the cut in funding for the increase in regional health care teams by 25 personnel, with specialist skills in child health to visit remote area clinics and to provide relief staffing arrangements in communities when required? In the fully-costed Labor’s financial statement, this was to cost $10.37m. Now it has been adjusted to: ‘a more appropriate level’. In other words, it has been cut back by a third to $6.88m.
Then there is the 24-hour call service in Darwin for people with disabilities. It no longer gets any new money; the department has to now fund it from existing resources. I am waiting to hear what you are going to do with the Palmerston Health Precinct too. A health precinct - I mention to the minister for health - that does not even have a wheelchair. Have you been out there? It does not even have a wheelchair in it. You squeal about improvements in health. People go up to that health precinct and there is not even a wheelchair. That health precinct was designed …
Ms Martin: Didn’t you notice when you were Chief Minister it had no wheelchair?
Mr BURKE: I will tell you the logic of that health precinct, so when you try and tell us what you are going to do with it, you understand very clearly. That is, when a person in Palmerston or the rural area has a problem they go to that health precinct and the system takes over. It is not a 24-hour GP service. It is the system outreached from Royal Darwin that takes over, takes that person, and takes care of the problem. If it fails in that duty, it has failed as a health precinct. I wait to hear what you intend to do with it, and if you have not mentioned it in your mini-budget, I assume there will be no change. If there is a change, it is a deceit to Palmerston and rural customers.
All of these things - I ask, are these part of the $136m to be spent on the government’s own initiatives or are they cuts in the present health budget? What about the postponed projects like the drug rehabilitation services? It is part of the government’s plan, we hear so often, to tackle drug-related crime except, in this case, they put it off for a year or two. While we are speaking about health, what about the shortfall in the funding of the redevelopment of both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital? The health minister admitted, and I quote her own letter:
- Since taking government Labor has realised that additional funding will be required in the first year
and therefore spending commitments announced for the following years will need to be adjusted.
This mini-budget has not made that adjustment. So where is the money coming from? The commitment in the mini-budget remains at $25m even though the actual cost, we all know, and the health minister has admitted, is $32.6m. Was her admission too late to be included in the budget papers? What exactly has happened? Either someone is not telling the truth or some people are not talking to each other. Mostly, you are hoping that no one will notice.
Let us look at the wording of that particular commitment, and I quote from Labor’s financial statement, which is repeated in Budget Paper No. 3:
- With the exception of the redevelopment of Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals now underway, there has
been little spending committed to our hospitals and clinics over the last decade. The government will dedicate
capital spending of $25m a year … over its first term to upgrade our hospitals and clinics.
The truth is that this translates to this government cutting capital spending on our clinics and our hospitals by more than $7m, and that is a simple fact. There will not be one cent for capital expenditure on Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek or Katherine Hospitals and nothing that I can find for the clinics.
This is just one area, albeit a very important one, where this government is trying to play a smoke-and-mirrors game. It claims to have increased base funding for health, but then imposes a whole series of its own initiatives without funding, including such a major item as the capital expenditure on our two major hospitals. Again I say - and I am happy to say it often – they, as the government, have the right to reorder the spending priorities, but why can’t they be upfront and say clearly what exactly they are doing? Instead, they claim there is a black hole and departments are underfunded.
The Chief Minister says the government has to go into debt and raise taxes in order to give the departments those funds. But it is they who are imposing cuts and new cuts on those departments. You have to ask: are the new taxes and the new borrowings paying for the alleged underfunding, or are they paying for this government’s own initiatives? What programs are being dumped by health or any other department in order to pay for the government’s initiatives, and are they being funded from existing resources? Obviously, I have not yet discovered that page in the budget papers. I am sure it is there somewhere, because what we have now, we are told, is an honest, open and accountable government.
The whole notion of a black hole is a farce. It has become a time-honoured practice of new governments for the past 40 years to blame the previous administration for the parlous state of government finances. But this government cannot even get that right. The Chief Minister and Treasurer says: ‘You have left us in a terrible state, with a black hole of $107m, so we will fix it by creating a black hole of $127m’. How you figure that one out is beyond a poor, simple man like me.
Before I finish, let me address two points. The first is what would we have done, because I am sure you say that and throw it off in the Chamber. Simple, very simple. We would have implemented the budget we brought down in May and we would have contained the cost of government. We would have honoured our election promises - promises that were realistic, not promises that were promises for everyone, every player wins a prize. We would have run government in a fiscally responsible manner, because we only made commitments that we could keep. If you want to see an example of that, it was the contractor who spoke yesterday. For 13 years he has been in business in the Northern Territory and from August through November every year in preparation for the wet season he got paid. Contracts improved, because we had the money and we made sure of a duty of care to Territorians and made sure this place was prepared for the Wet.
What has happened since this Labor government has come to power? Nothing! Nothing! Total indecision - ministers who do not have a clue. A Minister for Transport and Infrastructure who lasted about two weeks before he had to be gotten rid of - did not have a clue what the capital works program was. A minister who signs documents that takes people’s houses. A minister who signs documents, which he does not know what he is signing, and signs documents that takes people’s houses, and then tries to blame a previous government. A minister for health who has been shown to be totally incompetent; has no idea what the health portfolio is all about, and has been in the job four months. Evidence of that alone is the fact that the Chief Minister gave her no more of a load because she cannot even carry the one she has. We said that Labor promised too much, and now we must suffer the consequences, all Territorians, of new taxes, increased charges and lost jobs.
The second point is the wonderful spin the Chief Minister has produced in the past 24 hours that is aimed at gagging all opposition to her actions because, you see, if the Opposition Leader or the former Treasurer ask a question in this House, she starts by saying: ‘But you are not allowed to ask me that question. You have demonstrated in the government that you are not allowed to ask those sorts of questions. So don’t criticise me on budgetary matters’.
I have enormous respect for the political adroitness of my colleague, the member for Katherine, but I can tell you that neither he nor I can match her in the process of dissembling. She is a classic. She honed her skills in opposition and is rejoicing in them in government, and we are no match for her mendacity. She has the gall to state in one breath that we have forfeited our right to comment on her actions, but on the other hand, could we please offer her bipartisan support?
Notwithstanding her cant, it is incumbent on us to raise the issues and I have attempted to do that in response to her mini-budget statement. The bottom line is that this new Labor government wishes to implement its policies and impose its philosophy on Territorians. As we warned during the election campaign, the Territory can ill-afford those policies; the Territory can ill-afford this philosophy. The cost is increasing debt over the next four years, new and increased taxes and charges and, worst of all, the loss of jobs for Territorians in the public service.
Some of us are going to have to pay for this Labor government. For some of us, it will be $200 or more in extra charges announced so far. I look forward to the honesty, so called, of this government in saying how much additional will Territorians pay to meet the incumbent liability of the HIH collapse which is $50m outstanding, as you well know. You have been briefed on it, the member for Wanguri. For others, sadly, it will be their employment.
I said at the beginning, the government has the right to implement its policies, it has the power to increase charges and introduce new taxes, it has the ability to cut the number of public servants by 10%. What it does not have, unfortunately, is the courage of its convictions. It does not have the guts to say that we are the government now, and no matter how much hurt and pain is involved, this is what we are going to do. It does not have the intestinal fortitude to allow the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of its actions, and until it does all of these things, this government and its Chief Minister will be pretenders posing as a government.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honorable members I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kormilda College students accompanied by their teachers. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PRESENTATION OF
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members you have been given a brief of the activity at Government House this morning. I hope you have had a chance to read through it. The Address-In-Reply will be presented to His Honour the Administrator at about 11.20 to 11.30, as soon as we can all gather over there. I invite you all to accompany me.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001, Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2001
Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Terms of Reference –
Select Committee on Substance Abuse
in the Community
Terms of Reference –
Select Committee on Substance Abuse
in the Community
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the motion foreshadowed yesterday. That -
1. Paragraph 3 of the resolution of the Assembly dated 16 October 2001 relating to the Select Committee on
Substance Abuse in the Community be varied by adding after the word ‘committee’, the words ‘or any
subcommittee’; and
2. The new paragraph (3a) and (3b) be added to read as follows:
(3a) that the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee
to be deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee
at any time when there is no chairman or the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
(3b) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members and to refer to any
such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine and that the quorum of a
subcommittee shall be 2.
It is a straightforward motion in the sense that it is quite self-explanatory. It simply allows flexibility in terms of the ability to have co-chairmen of that committee depending where the committee is meeting and what location at any time. Similarly, in relation to paragraph (3b), the power to appoint subcommittees consisting of at least two or more of its members so that the committee itself would have the power to refer to the subcommittee particular questions - there may be questions in a particular location, there may be questions in relation to a particular substance in which there is expertise available on the committee by way of a subcommittee.
It adds that flexibility that the committee such as this, which will travel the length and breadth of the Territory over the life of its term, needs. I ask all members to support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to reform the Police Arbitral Tribunal. The bill will establish a three member tribunal and, when passed, will also establish in a formal, legal manner the mechanism enabling conciliation between the Commissioner of Police and the Northern Territory Police Association of disputes involving the remuneration and terms and conditions of members of the Police Force of the Northern Territory below the rank of Commander.
In introducing this bill, the government honours an election promise to reform the tribunal. The clauses and definitions which provide for the appointment of the chairperson and other members are drafted to ensure that the composition of the tribunal is fair and appropriate. The chairperson, appointed by the minister, will be a member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or a suitably qualified and experienced person. The other two members, being the Police Association’s nominee and the minister’s nominee, will be appointed by the minister. The minister will appoint these members after considering the written recommendation of the Police Association in respect of the association’s nominee and the recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and Public Employment in relation to the minister’s nominee. The tribunal will therefore have balance and expertise including the operational insight brought to the tribunal by the Police Association’s nominee; the administrative and executive insight brought by the minister’s nominee; and the industrial relations and legal expertise brought by the chairperson.
The members of the tribunal will be appointed for a term of up to three years and this will assist the tribunal in exercising its functions independently and without extraneous pressure. Members will be able to be re-appointed.
The bill provides also for the cessation of an appointment and for the filling of vacancies. A system of appointment of deputy members to sit when members are unavailable is also provided for.
The tribunal’s powers and the process under the current legislation for making, amending or varying a determination remain unchanged. A landmark feature of the bill is the power of the chairperson to formally direct the parties to conciliation. The parties will be able to activate the conciliation process on written request following a meeting with the chairperson.
The conciliator will fill a flexible role which will be primarily directed to assisting the Commissioner and the Police Association to reach arrangements or agreements in resolution of their dispute. The mechanism will allow conciliation of all manner of differences concerning the remuneration, and terms and conditions of service of the members of the Northern Territory Police.
It is important to note that agreements reached by the parties through the conciliation process must be brought before the tribunal for approval if such agreements affect the terms of the determination or consent agreement previously made or approved under the Police Administration Act. This process ensures that any such changes agreed by the parties are appropriate and not inconsistent with the other provisions of existing determinations or consent agreements. In this way the existing scheme of the act, which provides status to tribunal determinations, is fully preserved.
A further change to the legislative scheme regulating the Police Arbitral Tribunal introduced by this bill is the right of appeal proposed by clause 8. A right of appeal can only be granted by statute. The new section 50A will provide such a right so the Police Association or the Commissioner is able to appeal questions of law with the leave of the Supreme Court. This will be of significant assistance to the parties by providing further guarantee that their disputes will be resolved quickly and according to law.
It is constructive legislation that will assist the expeditious resolution of industrial grievances and disputes. Its provisions will hopefully prevent the financial and industrial expense of complex litigation such as occurred with the housing allowance dispute which was taken as far as the Supreme Court in 2000.
This bill is designed to provide the members of the Police Force of the Northern Territory and its Commissioner with a practical and fair procedure within which to have determined or, where appropriate, reach agreement on the remuneration and terms and conditions of serving members below the rank of Commander.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 5)
(Serial 23)
(Serial 23)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to create offences related to the sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, raised the issue of the adequacy of existing state and territory laws concerning sexual servitude or sex slavery in February 1997 after the discovery in Melbourne of an international prostitution ring recruiting women in Thailand to work in Australia under slave-like conditions.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General requested that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, the MCCOC, examine a Commonwealth proposal to develop laws relating to sex slavery. The MCCOC report which was released in November 1998, after a widespread public consultation process, proposed the enactment of model legislation covering slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services.
This international trade in people for the purposes of sexual exploitation is increasing. The trade involves recruiting people from one country and relocating them to another to work as sex slaves in servile conditions for little, if any, reward. Workers are often guarded by heavy security and their movements strictly controlled. Intimidation, threats and use of force are apparently commonplace. To comprehensively prohibit such conduct, Commonwealth and state and territory legislation is required. The Commonwealth legislation applies where the conduct has an international element. For example, it prohibits the conduct of people outside Australia in procuring persons to come to Australia to provide sexual services in conditions of servitude. The Commonwealth legislation also creates new slavery offences which are solely within their jurisdiction.
State/territory legislation is required to prohibit persons forcing people to act as prostitutes within Australia. It also makes it an offence to recruit for commercial sexual services using deception and to use children in any way for commercial sexual purposes. This bill will form part of a package of complementary state/territory laws. South Australia and the ACT have already enacted the model state/territory legislation and it is under active consideration in Victoria and New South Wales.
This bill targets people who, by the use of force or threat, assert a degree of dominance over a worker that effectively denies the worker the freedom to stop providing sexual services or to leave the place where the service has been provided. The force of threats need not be against the sex worker but may be against another person, such as the sex worker’s child. It will be an offence to cause someone to enter into or remain in sexual servitude and it will also be an offence to conduct a business that involves the sexual servitude of others. The definition of sexual services is wide enough to cover other sex work such as erotic dancing and pornography, not just prostitution. The question of whether a person is in sexual servitude will be a question of fact to be determined according to whether a reasonable adult would consider in the circumstances that a person is not free to stop providing services or leave the place or area.
The maximum penalty for sexual servitude offences against an adult is 15 years imprisonment; 20 years if the offences involve a child of or over 12 years of age; and life imprisonment if a child under the age of 12 years is involved. These penalties reflect the serious and abhorrent nature of the crime. This bill also makes it an offence to deceive another person about the fact that they are being recruited for sexual services, for example, where a person is told that they will be employed as a waitress when the intention is that they will be employed as a prostitute. It is not necessary that the deception involve an element of sexual servitude.
Sexual services is defined as ‘the commercial use or display of the body of the person providing the services for the sexual gratification of others’. Therefore, the deceptive recruiting offence will apply if the recruit is deceived into entering into an engagement that will involve sex work generally and not just prostitution. The deceptive conduct offence has the maximum penalty of 10 years, and when the person deceived is a child the offender is liable to imprisonment for 15 years.
The bill is an important component of the network of national protection to ensure that women are protected from this abhorrent behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 24) and Unit Titles Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 25): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
CULLEN BAY MARINA AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 25)
(Serial 24)
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 25)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
These bills deal with the by-law making powers given to the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation established under the Cullen Bay Marina Act and to estate and building corporations currently established, or which may in the future be established, under the Unit Titles Act. These amendments apply to the Unit Titles Act as amended by the Unit Titles Amendment Act (No 1) 2001. That amendment act is expected to commence operation in early 2002.
Under the present laws, such corporations have broad powers to make by-laws concerning the management and use of common property and the control of such matters as vehicles, vessels, wharves and berths, pollution, noise and nuisance control, and the general duties of the owners and occupiers of the land.
However, it appears that the by-laws must relate to the common property of the corporation. Such property is the land or water in the development that is owned collectively by the owners of the individual lots within the development. All of those by-law making powers exist so as to facilitate communal living. However, it may also be necessary that the by-law making power extend to those parts of the land development that are privately-owned rather than collectively-owned. For example, it is often the case that parts of the marina in a foreshore development are owned by the corporation while others are owned by the individual land owners. In such cases it is not possible for the corporation to control the use of the waterways unless it has control of both the common property and the privately-owned land.
The same point can be made in respect to noise control, general pollution controls and the controls necessary for communal health and safety.
At the present time, a limited number of by-laws have been made. The main ones relate to the developments at Cullen Bay and Tipperary Waters. In both cases, the by-laws have provisions in them that only work if the by-law making power applies to the whole of the land and the water in the development, for example, the various by-laws that control living in boats anchored in the marina.
The proposal for the need to amend the legislation was made by the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation to the previous government. The contentious issue was the validity or not of by-laws controlling the extent to which boats anchored in the privately-owned parts of the marina could be inhabited on a permanent basis. I understand that my predecessor provided in-principle support to the corporation’s suggestion that the legislation be amended.
In determining this government’s approach to the issue we have balanced the interests of individual lot owners against the interests of the local communities living in these developments. We are confident that all of the initial purchases of land in Cullen Bay and Tipperary Waters would have made their purchasing decisions on the assumption that the by-laws validly applied to the whole of the waterways in the developments. Accordingly, we have decided that it is appropriate for this legislation both to validate the current by-laws and to permit new by-laws to be made in respect to the whole of the development. It must be noted that this validation of the by-laws will only apply from the time of commencement of the new acts. It will not affect the legality or otherwise of matters purportedly regulated by the by-laws in their current form.
The Cullen Bay Marina Amendment Bill 2001 also provides for the review of penalties for breaches of the act, and for those penalties as reviewed to be expressed in terms of penalty units as permitted by the Penalties Act. The penalties have been substantially increased. These increases reflect the view that penalties should be structured so as to provide a meaningful range of penalties that may be imposed by the courts.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Public Trustee Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 27) and Administration and Probate Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 26): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 26)
PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 27)
(Serial 26)
PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 27)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The main purpose of these bills is to implement reforms identified as a consequence of the National Competition Policy Review of the Public Trustee Act and the Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998. In April 1995 the Commonwealth, states and territories signed three intergovernmental agreements that comprised the National Competition Policy Reform Package. Compliance with agreed national competition policy reforms is a prerequisite for a series of competition payments to the Territory from the Commonwealth. These payments have been estimated at over $7m per annum from 2001-02.
One of the national competition policy agreements, namely the Competition Principles Agreement, obliges the Territory along with the states to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive. Within the context of the Competition Principles Agreement, a very broad approach is taken as to what provisions are anti-competitive. A provision may be anti-competitive if it does any of the following:
- governs the entry or exit of firms or individuals into or out of the markets;
controls prices or production levels;
restricts the quality, level or location of goods and services available;
restricts advertising and promotional opportunities;
restricts price or type of input used in the production process;
is likely to confer significant costs on business, or
from pressures of competition.
Critically, it can be seen that a provision is anti-competitive if it has the effect of imposing costs on business. This examination requires that the objectives of the legislation be identified and confirmed as to their current application. It then requires that each restriction on competition be assessed to determine if it is in the net public interest. Thus, it is plain that the competition policy does not require the removal of all provisions that may be anti-competitive. Rather, it requires that all state and territory governments reach a judgment as to whether an anti-competitive provision can be justified as being in the public interest after regard is had to the costs and the benefits of the restriction.
In summary, the guiding principle underpinning each review is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that:
- (1) the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the costs of the restriction; and
(2) the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The Public Trustee Act was identified as possibly containing anti-competitive provisions. This act as proposed to be amended by the not yet commenced Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998 has been reviewed by a team comprising representatives from the Northern Territory departments of the Attorney-General, Treasury, Industries and Business and Chief Minister. The review team released an issues paper in 2000 and provided a report to the previous government in June 2001.
The review team identified the following objectives as being current for the Public Trustee:
- (1) to provide a manager, administrator, executor or trustee of an estate or of a property of last resort
incorporating various community service obligations;
(3) to establish common funds for general investment purposes.
The review team recommended that these objectives be set out in the act. The government accepts these recommendations. We are committed to a strong Office of the Public Trustee that is committed to ensuring that there is a competent trustee and executor service available to all of the citizens of the Northern Territory.
The review team identified a number of provisions of the Public Trustee Act that are anti-competitive. In the main, these are provisions operating so as to provide the Public Trustee with minor cost advantages over competitors when administrating small estates. These provisions include those that permit the Public Trustee to administer estates of small value without the need to obtain the approval of the Supreme Court. Other provisions include those that give the Public Trustee the right to obtain information about estates and to take various measures designed to minimise unnecessary levels of disputation. The review team recommended that most of these operational advantages be retained but that they be extended so as to apply to other professional personal representatives. The government accepts these recommendations.
Consequently, the bills provide for a repeal of numerous sections of the Public Trustee Act and the re-enactment of the provisions in the Administration and Probate Act. These provisions as rewritten will mean that all professional personal representatives will operate on a level playing field in respect of the administration of estates and trusts. For the purpose of the Administration and Probate Act, a professional personal representative will be a person who is one or the other of the following: (1) the Public Trustee; (2) a corporation approved under the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act; or (3) a legal practitioner. This definition describes the current group of persons who can lawfully administer estates for the payment of a fee.
A second area of provisions that maybe anti-competitive are those dealing with government support of the business operations of the Public Trustee. Currently, section 28 provides an indemnity in respect of the operations of the common funds administered by the Public Trustee and the Public Trustee Investment Board. Section 97 provides for protection of Public Trustee employees and agents from personal liabilities. The main potential problem with these provisions is that they could be administered so there is not competitive neutrality between the Public Trustee and its private sector competitors.
The review team recommended that the provisions be amended so that the Public Trustee in setting the levy provided for in the Public Trustee Amendment Act 1998 must take into account advice from the Northern Territory Treasurer as to the value of the indemnity and guarantees provided to the Public Trustee. The government accepts these recommendations.
The review team also recommended removal of the provision in the act which states that the Public Trustee is not required to have an auctioneer’s licence. The government accepts that recommendation. The Auctioneers Act has all of the appropriate controls including certain exemptions for government bodies.
The bills also provide for certain other reforms and revisions, these include:
- (1) the imposition on the Public Trustee of a duty to provide appropriate information to beneficiaries
or their representatives;
estate or trust to provide a detailed account of the position of the estate or trust;
(3) the reduction in the size of the Public Trustee Investment Board as contemplated by the Public Trustee
Amendment Act 1998 so that the board is to comprise three rather seven members;
(4) a review of the penalties in the Public Trustee Act and the conversion of them so that they are stated in terms
of penalty units rather than in monetary amounts;
(5) minor revisions to remove sexist use of language; and
(6) transitional matters designed to ensure that the changes proposed by the bills do not affect the current
administration of estates, except where this is made plain in the drafting of the bills.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
(Serial 28)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to define and limit the vicarious liability of employers and principals for the acts of their workers and agents. The bill limits vicarious liability through the inclusion of some clearly-defined defences to a claim of vicarious liability. It is unclear whether the Anti-Discrimination Act, as it currently stands, encompasses the notion of vicarious liability of employers and principals. Over the almost 10 years of the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act, it has generally been accepted by government and private employers that the act does incorporate this notion. However, recent litigation in the Supreme Court has called this assumption into doubt.
This bill seeks to eliminate this doubt by clearly defining the notion of vicarious liability as it applies in the act. The bill also establishes clear defences for employers and principals to a claim of vicarious liability. The bill is not retrospective. With respect to complaints of discriminatory conduct occurring before the amendment comes into effect, whatever the Supreme Court finds is the position under the act as it currently stands, will be the law that applies to those complaints.
All Australian jurisdictions, in their anti-discrimination laws, include a specific vicarious liability provision. Generally, that provision is similar to subsection (1) of the new section 105 the bill would introduce. That subsection clearly defines vicarious liability under the act. The inclusion of this provision ensures consistency between the Territory Anti-Discrimination Act and the Commonwealth race, sex and disability discrimination legislation, which operates concurrently with the Territory act. This ensures that the Territory employers have the benefit of clear and consistent approach to anti-discrimination matters.
Other Australian anti-discrimination legislation also creates a defence to a claim of vicarious liability where an employer has ‘taken all reasonable steps’ to prevent their workers from engaging in discriminatory practices. That defence is incorporated in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 105. However, this bill would improve on the standard anti-discrimination vicarious liability clauses in two significant respects. Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 105 clearly sets out the matters that may be included when the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is considering whether an employer has taken all reasonable steps. These matters include actions such as the provision of anti-discrimination training and equal opportunity management plans. The proposed new subsection recognises that not all employers have the same resources. The subsection also provides that the commissioner may consider the size and financial positions of an employer when considering whether they have taken all reasonable steps.
The other significant feature in this bill, when compared to other Australian anti-discrimination legislation, is contained in subsection (4) of the proposed new section 105. This provides that when the commissioner, after a hearing, is making an award of compensation in a case that involves vicarious liability, he may consider what steps were taken by the employer to prevent the discrimination in deciding the apportionment of damages. In the event the commissioner finds that the employer has not taken all reasonable steps so as to constitute a complete defence to a claim of discrimination involving vicarious liability, it is still open to consider what steps the employer did take in determining how much compensation should be paid by each party.
The bill will make the Anti-Discrimination Act a more workable piece of legislation. By encouraging employers to engage in anti-discrimination training, the bill serves to further the objects of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill illustrates this government’s strong commitment to ensuring a fair and just community that ensures dignity and respect for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
CORONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 29)
(Serial 29)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Coroners Act. The amendments will essentially provide three major changes. The first is to provide that a witness can be compelled at an inquest to answer a question subject to certain conditions. The second is to provide that the coroner may reverse a decision to not hold an inquest, or may reopen an inquest where it is reasonable to do so. The third is to provide that agencies to whom a copy of the coroner’s recommendations has been supplied, must respond in writing to those recommendations.
The Northern Territory legislation unconditionally protects the privilege by providing that a person ‘shall not be compelled to answer a question that may tend to incriminate the person’. Other jurisdictions, namely Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT and the Commonwealth, have legislated a clear intention to exclude the privilege by providing that evidence given by a witness who has been compelled to answer a question in an inquest, cannot be used in any other proceedings against the witness. South Australia provides that a person can refuse to answer a question if the coroner is satisfied that the answer is incriminating. In Queensland, a person cannot refuse to answer a question without just excuse. This amendment, which has been developed in consultation with the Territory Coroner, proposes that the coroner can compel a witness at an inquest to answer a question, where it appears to the coroner to be expedient to the ends of justice to do so. However, if the coroner orders a witness to answer a question, the witness must be granted a certificate that prevents his or her statement being used in evidence in any other proceeding against the witness.
The objective of the coronial inquest is to find the truth about all circumstances of the death. In recent cases in the Territory this objective has been frustrated by witnesses refusing to answer questions. For example, in the coronial investigation into the death of a woman whose body was found buried in a creek bed in Alice Springs, two men allegedly involved declined to give evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination pursuant to section 38 of the Northern Territory Coroners Act.
The making of sensible recommendations in relation to public health or safety, or the administration of justice, may also be frustrated where medical practitioners refuse to answer questions on the basis of self-incrimination. It may be that in these cases, the concern for these witnesses may not be that he or she may be charged with a criminal offence, but that civil or disciplinary proceedings may result from the giving of the evidence. It is important to emphasise that the effect of the amendment is not to provide an indemnity from prosecution or protection against civil action or disciplinary action. The witness could still be charged with a criminal offence following the inquest, or investigations taken with regard to civil or disciplinary action. It is just that the actual evidence given to the coroner cannot be used in subsequent proceedings.
The policy behind the amendment is to get to the truth. The policy is, therefore, better fulfilled by extending the protection afforded by a certificate and should extend to all proceedings. As inquests are generally held in open court, and evidence and findings are not generally the subject of suppression orders, if a confession is reported in the press, the guarantee of a fair trial will be eroded. This is particularly so in a small community such as the Territory. For that reason, I also emphasise that the act does contain discretionary powers in the coroner to suppress evidence in an appropriate case.
Section 16 and section 44 of the Coroners Act relate to the coroner’s decision not to hold an inquest, and the procedure with regard to reopening an inquest. These sections have been amended so that the coroner can reverse the decision not to hold an inquest where further information or new evidence is available and to provide the coroner with the power to reopen an inquest.
The amendment to section 44 allows the coroner to make an administrative change of decision where there is a reasonable need to do so to reopen an inquest. Currently, only ‘a person’ on application to the Supreme Court may have a inquest reopened. The present amendment will provide in effect a ‘slip rule’ to provide a power to correct mistakes or omissions. These amendments are aimed at increasing the efficiency of coronial inquests.
Recommendation 15 and part of recommendation 16 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody are being implemented in clause 8 of the bill. The recommendations relate to the requirement for the coroner and the government to be informed where the recommendations made by the coroner have been considered. The act currently requires the coroner to provide a copy of each report and recommendation resulting from the inquest into the death of a person held in custody to the Attorney-General who is then responsible for providing the report to the minister of the agency to which the report relates. The act also provides for the coroner to make recommendations to the Attorney-General on a matter including public health or safety or the administration of justice, and requires the coroner to report to the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions if he believes that a crime may have been committed in connection with the death.
The bill amends and extends the relevant sections to provide a comprehensive reporting mechanism with regard to deaths in care or custody. The proposed provisions will require the Chief Executive Officer of the agency to which the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has provided a report of an inquest, to provide, within three months of receiving the report, a written report to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General outlining the action taken by the agency in response to the recommendations. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General will be responsible for providing a copy of the report to parliament and may provide a copy of the report to the coroner. The coroner may provide that report to any person whom the coroner considers has sufficient interest in the inquest.
Just as the holding of an inquest into a death in custody and the making of recommendations to prevent similar deaths are matters of public interest, equally it is in the public interest that some mechanism is established to ensure that the relevant authorities have received and considered those recommendations. It is not a question of compelling action but ensuring proper consideration is given to recommendations and appropriate action taken where practical.
The reporting requirement will provide valuable feedback to the government and will give some satisfaction to those people who were involved in the inquest that the recommendations of the coroner are given due consideration. In view of the legislative developments in other states and territories which have modified the classic common law privilege against self-incrimination, and in view of the clear intention in coroners acts that the coroner should carry out a thorough investigatory process, we consider that these amendments are in the public interest, and will enhance the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
JUVENILE JUSTICE AMENDMENT
BILL (No 3)
(Serial 31)
BILL (No 3)
(Serial 31)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to omit the current section 44(1A) of the Juvenile Justice Act and substitute a new section 44(1A) to permit the court to decide if it is considering sentencing a juvenile to a term of detention, whether a report on the circumstances of a juvenile should be ordered. At present, the legislation provides that if a court is considering sentencing a juvenile to a term of detention or imprisonment, it must order a report on the circumstances of the juvenile unless the offence charged is a property offence. It is not necessary to obtain a report if the offence was a property offence as most repeat offenders found guilty of a property offence received a mandatory term of detention. The recent repeal of the mandatory sentencing provisions of the act removed all references to the words ‘property offence’, but failed to remove the references to the words ‘in this section’. This amendment now corrects that oversight.
As already stated section 44(1) of the act provides that a court must order a report on the circumstances of a juvenile before imposing a sentence of detention or imprisonment. These reports are provided by staff from the Northern Territory Correctional Services and are important as they provide the report with all the background information about the juvenile in order to help the court decide what is the appropriate sentence in all of the circumstance of the individual case. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that these reports are provided as soon as possible, it is often necessary to obtain information from several agencies, sometimes interstate agencies, and they can take up to six weeks to prepare.
There are problems associated with the necessity to obtain a report before sentencing every juvenile on every occasion. For example, sometimes the court is only intending to impose a suspended sentence, yet it is still required to obtain a detailed report. This means that juveniles might have to wait up to six weeks before they can learn what sentence they are to receive. There are some offenders who have appeared before court on numerous occasions and these offenders have had several reports prepared about them. In some cases, the sentencing magistrates are well acquainted with the background details of the offender and the offender’s family. These offenders must also have to wait to be sentenced even if there has been no change in their circumstances.
There are also occasions when a juvenile offender has been found guilty of an offence and it is inappropriate to grant them bail. In these situations it is possible that a juvenile might be detained beyond the duration of the anticipated sentence pending the preparation of the report. This situation needs to be rectified. It is recognised that it is essential that a court carefully considers all the necessary information about a juvenile before it decides what is an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances of the case. That is accepted as an essential principle of sentencing. However, it is important that the court be given the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the report is necessary. The proposed section 44(1A) will provide the court with that discretion and will speed up the administration of justice.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 20)
(Serial 20)
Continued from 18 October 2001. Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I think it is worthwhile placing on the record, in speaking to the motion that the Leader of Government Business has brought forward, that it would be a matter of courtesy at least in the short term if he was able to advise us a few minutes before bringing on a matter like this so that the shadow Attorney-General could be ready. The Leader of Government Business has been remiss in just walking into the Chamber here and placing the acid on the shadow Attorney-General in such a fashion.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, can I just respond by way of apology to the member for Macdonnell and the shadow Attorney-General. It is certainly not my practice to jump to my feet and rearrange things without good reason. No 1 on the Notice Paper, of course, stands under the Treasurer who is unavoidably detained just at the moment. I would not normally do this and I appreciate how difficult it is because it happened to me on a number of occasions when I was on that side of the House. So I do appreciate the concern, and please accept my apologies.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest the Whips get together to make sure that any changes are known to either sides also.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in relation to the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill (Serial 20), I have looked at the legislation and also had meetings with representatives from the Northern Territory Law Society. They inform me that negotiations relating to the drafting of this amendment have been occurring over a fairly lengthy period of time. Indeed, most of the work was done with the previous administration.
The amendment relates to, of course, the complaints committee and also the appointment of managers to legal practitioners in certain situations. As I said, most of the work being done with the previous administration. The Law Society, has no real objection; in fact, it is supporting the proposed amendment. The opposition also supports the proposed bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their unqualified support for the bill. I presume we can go to the committee process. Thank you for that. You are quite right. This has been a protracted negotiation with the Law Society. As you can see from the bill, it is quite a comprehensive renovation of the existing Legal Practitioners Act to bring things more in line with the way the profession sees the process should be run. I believe it is going to make for a more streamlined and a more practical process. Thank you for your support and we will move to committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment standing in my name. Schedule 6
The amendment involves clauses 9(c) and 16(b) of the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill 2001, and provides that the legal practitioners complaint committee may refer findings against legal practitioners to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can then impose one or more of the penalties set out in the section 52 of the act. However, section 51B of the act provides that the Supreme Court, in dealing with an appeal from a finding of the Legal Practitioners Committee, can only impose the penalties that could have been imposed by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. Such appeals can involve rehearings of the matter, thus it is possible that new material might come before the court. Such material might be such as to justify the imposition of a stronger level of penalties contained in section 52 of the act.
The president of the Bar Association of the Northern Territory has drawn this matter to my attention and I agree with him that there is a potential anomaly that ought to be rectified. Accordingly, the schedule proposes that clause 14 of the bill be amended so that section 51B of the act provides that the Supreme Court, in imposing penalties following an appeal, can impose any of the penalties mentioned in section 52 of the act.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 30) passing through all stages of these sittings.
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR VEHICLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
(Serial 30)
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the opposition, on behalf of all Territorians, very strongly opposes this legislation on the simple basis that it is completely unnecessary. It will be a substantial impost on Territorians in a financial way. From the point of view of alternatives that the government has available to it to address the issues that it perceives to have to address, there are, indeed, tangible alternatives whereby the government does not have to dip into the pockets of Territorians.
That in itself gets back to the fact that the government, in the election campaign, said it would introduce no new taxes and charges and here we are, 100 days or so from it being elected to government, breaking that promise, introducing a new tax. They can be smart …
Ms Martin: Rubbish.
Mr REED: … and the Treasurer says ‘rubbish’. Well, she can say rubbish. She can call it a levy if she wishes, but if she goes and has a look at the reference books she will find that a levy is a tax and a tax is a levy, and any new imposition on tax payers and rate payers that requires specific legislation, by definition, must be new. If she thinks that she is going to be able to convince Territorians that this is not a new tax that will rip $90 a year off Territorians, then she better go down the mall for a walk, as I did at lunchtime, and hear from Territorians just what they think about this piece of legislation. They did not require any encouragement to come and espouse their views in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.
It will be $90 per car per family. A lot of families in the Northern Territory have two cars, so they are up for $180 already, in terms of the impost of this particular piece of legislation. In addition to that, they will be facing increased water and sewerage charges; they will have increased licence fee charges; they will have increased inspection fees for their vehicles. That will amount to something in the order of $300 per family that they will have to fork out to this Labor government if they, in fact, have two cars and, for example, two toilets in their home or unit or what have you.
That will be money that will be taken from their disposable incomes, and it will not only be felt personally in relation to their own finances, but it will be felt by businesses right across the Northern Territory. Those businesses which sell microwave ovens will not be selling them because people won’t have the $300 to buy them. People who have restaurants and used to take advantage of a disposable income that some people might spend in those restaurants, now have that taken from them. There are, of course, a range of other activities that Territorians will have to withdraw from because of the loss of this disposable income.
This comes from a Chief Minister and Treasurer who, in opposition, said that the impost on Territorians in relation to the cost of living is already too high and that government should be doing something to reduce the cost of living in the Northern Territory. This government, of course, at the first opportunity that it has had, has taken the chance to whip money off people.
The reason that it is unnecessary, totally unnecessary, is first of all in regard to the mythical $107m black hole. If that were the case - that is, if there was a $107m black hole - then one would think that all the government had to raise was $107m to overcome the problem. The Treasurer might want to explain then to Territorians why she is going to raise something in the order of $160m-plus from the initiatives that she has announced. That in itself is deceitful enough, but to tell Territorians that this $90 is required to fill a black hole and that it is only going to last three years when, in fact, she is going to collect in additional taxes, increased charges and of course other savings in relation to the wind-back of the public service and other initiatives which she announced yesterday in her mini-budget, an amount something in the order of 50% more than the amount of money she wants. Thereby lies the Labor lie that this is to solve a black hole, a mythical black hole.
If that was the case, they would only be raising the amount required to fill the mythical black hole. But, in fact, they are going far in excessive of that and the real reason why this activity is being pursued is to fund Labor’s promises that they undertook in the election campaign and now find, as they were told in the election campaign by the CLP, that they were going to be unsustainable and they have to get the money from somewhere and they are going to get it out of Territorians’ pockets. This impost will have a big impact on individuals right across the Northern Territory. It is unnecessary and it will be seen as that and it will not be welcomed.
Madam Speaker, in terms of the actual charge itself, the $90, another concern that we have is that many of the agencies that the government funds such as community based non-profit organisations, it seems that they will have to pay the levy. That is to say the legislation does not include any options for those community-based organisations, hard-working organisations such as Somerville Community Services, Red Cross, night patrols perhaps - many organisations that the government funds to provide community-based services, notwithstanding that their funding is stretched and their efforts are very extended in terms of providing services to the Northern Territory and people in need in particular - will have to pay $90 for every vehicle that they have because there are no exemptions included in this legislation for those organisations.
The Chief Minister has made a lot of noise about not impacting on the business community and that can be supported by not providing or placing additional imposts on the business community. I daresay that those community-based organisations - many of whom raise funds through their own activities, be it campaigning for funds, seeking funds through the mail from individuals even across the Northern Territory in the case of Red Cross and Somerville Community Services just to name a couple - now are going to be faced with an unnecessary impost and it will be seen as being more unnecessary for them than it is for the individuals because perhaps they are less able to afford it. In relation to the funds that they raise, if $90 per vehicle that they use has now to be paid from the donations that they receive, that is going to be $90 for every vehicle that they have that they deliver services to Territorians in need that they won’t have to deliver those services. That is an outrage. Members in this Chamber should be aware just what they are doing in relation to this imposition on community-based service providers.
On the one hand, the government is providing them with funds to provide services to those in need; on the other hand, it is now going to, with this legislation which is totally unnecessary, rip it off them. That, I think, is completely unsustainable. When these organisations are aware that that is going to be the impost on them, they are going to be pretty cross. They are going to be pretty cross for some very good reasons because they will be aware that the money that this government is saving through the initiatives they announced yesterday far exceeds what the mythical black hole, in fact, is said to be. They will see this just as a money grab and they will see themselves in a position, as service providers to people in need across the community, as funding Labor Party election promises. How do you think they are going to feel about that?
It is an abhorrent situation that this government has allowed itself to get into. I am afraid that I cannot find it anywhere in this legislation where there is the ability for the government to exclude community-based non-profit organisations, and those other service providers that fall into that type of a category, from the collection of this fee. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to advise, in her response, whether or not she sees that as a concern and whether or not there is going to be a mechanism put in place for those organisations to be able to avail themselves of some form of assistance and being omitted from the extent of this legislation. Or alternatively - albeit that it would be cumbersome but perhaps at least overcome the problem - will the government grants to those types of organisations be increased to the extent that this impost will be covered? That would have another disadvantage in that it would decrease the effectiveness of the collection of the moneys to be gathered by this legislation, but so be it.
It is a very ill-directed piece of legislation, an ill-considered piece of legislation if organisations of this kind are going to be caught in it. The Chief Minister and Treasurer has an obligation to explain to this House and to those organisations whether or not it will be.
The other thing I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to advise us is: what is the number of vehicles that will be included in this new tax? How many of them, precisely, is it expected that it will apply to and the basis on which that was assessed?
There are, quite apart from the individual and private concerns in relation to this legislation, some issues that have not been taken into account and, from the overall point of view, the opposition cannot support the legislation. The impact of it extends beyond the community-based organisations that I have mentioned. The member for Nelson, for example, as a recent participant in local government may well be asking the question as to whether or not it applies to local government. Local government is again an area of activity in the Northern Territory that provides services to the community. Are they to be caught in this net of unnecessary tax grabbing of tax payers money, albeit indirectly in this case? It will be another impost. Local government across the Northern Territory would operate a lot of vehicles that fall within the category to which this new tax will apply. I daresay that they, too, will be considering the implications of it. Perhaps the member and others may be pursuing those sorts of issues.
The tax is unnecessary, notwithstanding the bleatings of the Treasurer and other members of the government. It will, together with the other fundraising and economic measures that were introduced yesterday, far exceed the mythical black hole, and in far exceeding the mythical black hole amount of $107m, thereby exposes the government to what their real intent was. Their real intent was to pay for their election promises, and that is what Territorians are being asked to do by this impost of this new level of taxation.
With those words, on behalf of Territorians who very strongly oppose this bill, and no doubt, notwithstanding the opposition’s failure to support this legislation - the government does have the numbers and they will, in turn, have to answer to the electorate in relation to the imposition of it. If they think they are going to get away with it by blaming me or blaming the former government for it, then I feel that they are going to be very sadly mistaken. It is they who have introduced this legislation, it is they who have been exposed as being the proponents of the legislation for purposes other than those for which they say it is meant to fix - that is the black hole - when their measures, in fact, will far exceed the amount that is said to be required.
I think that they have greatly underestimated Territorians if they think that these excuses that they put forward ranging from ‘It is not a new tax, it is just a levy’ - well, it does not matter to those Territorians whose pockets are going to dipped into to rip out $90 for the Labor Party’s promises. They do not care what they have it for. They do not care if it is a levy, they do not care if it is a tax, they do not care what they call it. They do not care if the government blames the former government, the CLP, because it is the government that is introducing this legislation, it is the government that is going to force it through, it is the government that is going to take $90 out of every car owner’s pocket in the Northern Territory. It is the government, under the way this legislation is drafted, that is going to place an imposition on community-based organisations and local government and others, because of its imposition - and for reasons that are totally unfounded. The opposition very strongly opposes this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about this bill. My arguments are not to do with whether we should be raising levies or taxes, I just believe this piece of legislation is not fair. I specifically refer again to the section 4(12) in the act - and it is referred to on page 8 of the budget statement. The reasons for exemptions are specifically stated. These are heavy vehicles, trailers, caravans, tractors, mobile plants, motorised wheelchairs, motorised golf buggies, ride-on mowers and also motor vehicles of a prescribed class of motor vehicles, and goods vehicles of greater than 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass. The reason they are given that exemption from the levy is to minimise the impact on business.
I have a problem there, because, to take one example, what has a caravan got to do with business? If we are going to apply the levy, then we should apply it to those things which will have an impact on business, and a caravan, I do not believe, has an impact on business. Even trailers, unless you are talking about a work trailer. A trailer for a boat would not be regarded, unless it was for a fishing tour company, as for business.
The one that I find most difficult to believe is what would normally be regarded as a luxury item, and that is a motorised golf buggy. I gather that golf buggies are registered because they do cross into carparks. It seems to me that is an anomaly in that section of the act.
I know that when any taxes or levies are applied people certainly will suffer, but if we are going to have an exemption, then the exemption itself has to be fair. The other issue is that the act does allow an exemption of a goods vehicle but it says of greater than 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass. Therefore, it exempts, as I said before, a large number of self-employed people especially, who do have goods vehicles and those vehicles are used primarily for work. Again, on page 8 of the budget statement, it is basically saying this $90 per annum will be applied to vehicles capable of being used for private and domestic purposes. Most utes - and I know about utes - generally have one seat extra. I can tell you, to get someone to sit in there you have to remove all the papers and the gumboots and Lord knows what, to sit on that one seat. I would not regard them as a private or domestic-purpose vehicle. They should be exempted as a goods vehicle, primarily used for business. That clause really needs re-working to make it fair.
I agree with what the member for Katherine raised about the issues of charitable organisations and local government could also be exempted on the grounds that they use their vehicles for business. You could either scrap this whole thing and say: ‘Right, you are all going to feel the pain’, or if you are going to bring exemptions in, those exemptions must be fair, otherwise they just cause more argument and more discussion and cries of ‘Well, it’s good for him, why isn’t it good for the other person?’
The other area is the issue I raised yesterday about pensioner concessions. My feeling is that pensioners do have a hard time. I was trying to find some information about what pensioners’ discount already applies to registration of vehicles. The understanding that I have from the limited information I received, is that the pensioner discount on the registration of vehicles has not risen for quite a long time. It has not kept up with the increase in registration fees, and I think a lot of that is due to third party insurance. So, not only have they got behind the eight-ball as regards their discount on registration, they now also have another impost of $45. To some extent, they are actually a little worse off when you look at the totality of what has happened. The government should do one of two things - perhaps it could scrap the pensioner concession to nil on their first car, and perhaps it should have raised the total levy to $91 or $92 - whatever amount extra it would have meant to cover that small concession.
The other thing is whether this particular method of raising money is appropriate. Perhaps I would rather see - as poker machines and the effect that poker machines throughout Australia have always been frowned on - perhaps taxes should have been on something like this, which is a luxury. In other words, if it is put on income or expenditure - wherever you want to put it on – that really is not necessary. In other words, we tax things that people did not have to do, but they do because they like it. That would have been a preferred option than raising money through the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act.
I cannot support the act the way it is at the present time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I sense the former Treasurer is beginning to, if not enjoy the role of opposition, at least get an appreciation for the lack of discipline that it allows you to enjoy in the House, because you are able to get up and not support measures that he knows, well within himself, that these are entirely necessary. But added to that little luxury that opposition affords members in the sense of all accountability and no responsibility or vice versa - whichever way you want to use that terminology – there is the added layer of hypocrisy that his stance brings to this debate. It is very easy for opposition to oppose any difficult measures that the government has to bring down: ‘Not us, we are not going to vote for this. We will divide on this and we will see their names recorded in Hansard in defence of honest Territorians’, because they stood and divided and opposed this nasty revenue measure that this government has had to introduce.
But we do have to balance that attitude of the opposition and the stance of the former Treasurer because he, probably more than anyone else, assisted a little bit by the member for Drysdale and possibly by the former Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, certainly those three had a key role in leading the Territory into the difficulties of fiscal management that we find.
Words cannot describe how I felt when we first met with Treasury officials after being sworn into office. We were sitting in a room to be told that the budget was in an unsustainable position. This is a document that had passed through this Chamber less than 12 weeks previously and of course the questions we had were, ‘How so? How can this be?’ The very people that we thought were largely responsible for putting the budget together and getting it into the Assembly were here, 12 weeks after it had gone through this Assembly, saying it was unsustainable, it will not get you there. It was only subsequent to that that we began to get a feel that it was not Treasury officials who had put a lot of these figures into this budget. It was not Treasury officials who had misled this Chamber and Territorians and allowed unsustainable budget papers - really fraudulent budget papers - to be submitted and passed through this Chamber. It was in fact the government and in fact the former Treasurer himself and, of course, the role of the former minister for health, the member for Drysdale.
How did that happen? It happened because in first place they used figures in the estimates for final consumption expenditure knowing that those figures were false. So they falsely inserted figures in there so that when final consumption came through in those months later they were able to point and say: ‘Look at this, there has actually been an increase’.
The Auditor-General in his report to the Legislative Assembly has not been fooled at all, and I would not expect he would be. He talks about comparison of 2000-01 actual outcome and estimated actuals. $14m of that underestimate that he refers to in final consumption expenditure was caused by reductions made to the estimates prepared by two agencies. Those subsequently required funding to reinstate those amounts to meet the normal operational commitments which had been forecast in their estimates.
Now the situation in relation to the department of health has been well covered in this Chamber, not so the Department of Education. If we go to page 22 of his report, the Auditor-General asks: ‘How reliable was the financial consumption of expenditure estimate under the Department of Education?’, and I quote:
- By March 2001, the department had better identified its budgetary needs and 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, but the forward estimate in the government’s
2001-02 budget paper still showed $204m.
The government approved the $6m increase but the papers still showed the same $204m. The actual outlays recorded for personnel costs for the year eventually totally $212m.
The department’s submission to the March 2001 Cabinet meeting had, in fact, identified additional base funding
needs for the year of $11.44m.
The $6m increased base funding approved in March 2001, and $5.3m additionally approved in June 2001,
eventually provided the necessary level of funds to meet the department’s expenditure needs for the year.
The $6m increased base funding of March 2001 was also approved for the following three years, and will receive
increments in response to forecast Enterprise Bargaining Agreement increases. Offsetting that funding, however, is
the 2% efficiency dividend reduction applied in the forward estimates to personnel and operational costs. This offset
has the effect of producing forward estimates which are unlikely to portray the expenditure needs of the department.
The recent independent review of the Northern Territory’s financial position by Professor Percy Allan also identified
this issue generally across government.
In total, the $14m reduction across both agencies had the effect of reducing the estimated result for final
consumption expenditure, yet both subsequently required funding to reinstate those amounts to meet the
normal operational commitments which they had forecast in their estimates.
So that enabled the government, of course, at the time the budget went through, to put a figure for the next financial year in the budget papers and show, ‘Look at the increase we are giving health, look at the increase we are giving education’, knowing all of the time that it was a fraudulent fudged figure for that estimate for final consumption expenditure. Deliberately forged so that they could show the next year’s budget papers as having an increase.
It is that level of interference by ministers, by the former Treasurer, in the preparation of those documents that led to that situation. We have to ask ourselves, how, when the budget went through here it was headed for a $12m deficit for the financial year, not too bad, quite manageable you would think in all circumstances, but in fact it was closer to $130m?
In terms of how this happened, I think Professor Percy Allan was quite right in his report and it did not happen simply this financial year. It became a management tool on behalf of government, whether consciously employed or not it was an absolute failure - but the strategy seemed to be that you deliberately underfund the agency against what its real needs will be for the financial year as a way of enforcing discipline, or some financial and fiscal responsibility, into the agencies. But it does not seem that they ever told the agencies this is what you have; you have to live within it. This is the amount of money, these are the resources you will have for this financial year, that is all you get, you are going to have to live within it. Of course, we saw this in terms of EBAs, this same strategy over many years where they would tell a particular industry sector that was negotiating their enterprise bargaining agreement that there is no more. There is a bit of industrial strife, a bit of disputation, it might roll on for a few weeks, it gets a bit hot in the community. Well, hang on, we have another half percent or we have another 1% to bring to the table.
So, they go so far in the fight for discipline but when it got a bit hot, they always gave up. It did not matter whether it was the union, the teachers, the nurses arguing for more money, it was always to be found eventually. In the same way, they deliberately under-funded agencies to the point where they simply could not get through the financial year. The CEO is inevitably forced back to the respective minister for additional resourcing and additional funding and eventually the minister, under growing pressure from the CEO and the agency itself and the possibility of cuts to services, is forced to go to Cabinet. Cabinet of course is forced to bow to the inevitable and put the increased funding in that should have been there in the first place.
If government was serious about employing that type of strategy as a management tool, as a way of acquiring a fiscal responsibility and disciplining the system, it should have been more insistent on it. It should have pointed out to CEOs right at the outset, this is all you are going to get. We expect you to continue to deliver services, we expect you to keep your staff all in place and you are going to manage within this budgetary framework. But not so, because as soon as it probably got past Christmas most years, in they would come, one after the other, because they simply had not been given the resources to get through in the first place.
This last financial year that has finished up in this mythical black hole that the former Treasurer refers to, is a result of that three or four years of management like that so that the gap between what the agencies were given to manage and get through the financial year on the one hand and what they were actually required to get through, grew ever larger. It would have continued to grow ever larger because there was no discipline on behalf of our predecessors ever to rein it in. It was a strategy that did not work. I have explained that that gap was getting ever larger until, of course, government changed and we, as the government, are left with picking up the pieces of this growing gap.
We recognise this levy is an impost on the community, and the way the former Treasurer was participating in debate here, almost accusing the government of extracting some joy or some delight in having to put this impost on the community, and we recognise it. We recognise it very much as an impost and we would, of course, prefer not to have had to do it. Given the situation that we face, there are only two things you can do - it is no different to a household, albeit on a different scale. You have income and revenue on the one hand, you have expenditure and outgoings on the other, and you have to try to make a match as closely as possible if you are going to be in a sustainable position over the longer term.
The fairest way in terms of the revenue is to spread it, in our view, as thinly and as widely as possible. Notwithstanding that, we do recognise it for the impost that it is, but at the same time we recognise we are asking a large part of the Northern Territory community to contribute for the good of the Northern Territory overall. This levy will be in place for three years. It will contribute to bringing the Territory budgetary position back to a sustainable position earlier than would otherwise have been achieved. We envisaged, at the time that we put our costings down, and we took a great deal of effort to get those through Access Economics, ticked off against a bottom line prediction of a $12m deficit. The former Treasurer stands here and says, ‘This is all about funding Labor Party promises’, and commitments that we made during the election campaign. Commitments that we stand by and we will deliver because we are wise enough, in retrospect, to have said that we will deliver over four years. None of them were first year promises. They were all term promises and they are commitments that we stand by and will deliver. It would have been much easier for us to meet those commitments were it not for the budget deficit position that we found ourselves in.
This levy is nothing to do with funding Labor Party election commitments. We made those commitments. We made them on the basis of the budgetary position that was passed through this Chamber, and it was only 12 weeks later that we found out the fraud that they represented.
We recognise this as an impost. As I said, we would prefer not to do it. We do ask Territorians to share in this over the next three years because times are tougher than we would otherwise have wanted. It is just too cute and it is just too coy for the opposition to come in here and oppose a measure for which they are 100% responsible.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I fully support the shadow Treasurer’s position that this is a totally unnecessary taxation impost on the people of the Northern Territory. Let me say at the outset that I am curious to hear all of the interjections while the shadow Treasurer was on his feet, from members opposite, especially from the opposition backbench, those people who represent the northern suburbs, who are now not climbing to their feet, who are stunningly conspicuous by their absence from this debate, because they know full well that if they stand up in this Chamber and say: ‘We support this new tax’, that its going to bite them on the backside once they go back to the northern suburbs.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I invite the members opposite to get to their feet and tell the people of the northern suburbs how much you support this new tax - how much you support this new tax. I will tell you something, they do not have the courage or the determination to do so, because they are going to be partaking in the absolute dishonesty which this new tax is. It is a clear and deliberate attempt for them to skulk around and hide between the cracks in the pavement whilst the waters of the tide of the deceit from the government floods over the people of the Northern Territory.
I find this an absolutely astonishing process that we are going through at the moment. Let us have a look at what happened between the May budget in 2000-01 and the mini-budget which was delivered to the people of the Northern Territory last night. What happened in between was the fact that we got ‘percified’. Professor Percy Allan was the major differentiating factor between the two budgets. Let us have a look at what Mr Percy Allan did not do. What he did not do in relation to …
Mr Kiely: Professor Percy Allan.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Sanderson. If you have something to say, get on your feet and say it. Climb up on your feet and say: ‘I support this tax. I want to bring this tax down on the people of the Northern Territory’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us look at the ‘percification’ that is occurring to the people in the northern suburbs, as well as Territorians everywhere. I notice from the Treasury papers, Budget Paper No 3, Appendix 2.2, which appeared on page 37, that the figure that is demonstrated is a $12m deficit, which was what the then Treasurer presented to this House. Not $107m. There is no annotation or footnote to say that there was a differentation in what we expected.
A member: Which table is this?
Mr ELFERINK: Table 2.2 …
Mr Kiely: What page?
Mr ELFERINK: 37.
Mr Kiely: Paragraph?
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, would you like a crayon and for me to write it out on a large piece of paper for you? Okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, there it is - $12m. If Treasury felt that this was unsustainable, surely there would be a footnote or some sort of expression in relation to this prediction in the paperwork here. And then we see in the mini-budget for 2001-02, a projected deficit of $129m. Mr Percy Allan - Professor Percy Allan - tells us that the projected blow-out was $107m. What he does not allow for, of course, is the sale of NT Fleet, which in these budget papers, is valued at over $50m.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, according to these budget papers, the valuation of NT Fleet is over $50m. The Treasurer made it abundantly clear when he came into this Chamber that the sale of NT Fleet was going to be offset against the debt that was going to be run up in that period, thus bringing us close to the $12m figure. The other thing that Professor Percy Allan does is say that you guys have not predicted a flood. You guys have not predicted an earthquake. You blokes have not predicted a plague of frogs, or whatever, and as a consequence, I believe he puts a figure of $40m on that. Where does that figure of $40m come from? I believe that professorship is still, grant you, in the realm of the mortal and you must - unless he has some particular ability to predict a natural disaster and the value of it, I think it is very difficult to apply a value.
Dr Burns: It is a contingency.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah ! Unless you are able to predict something that is going to occur and put a value on it, I think it is very difficult to guess how much a contingency is going to be. Perhaps the purchase of a power line had to be a contingency at one point or another.
The point is that you guys over there are raising a tax to raise $50m, or $42m, and what are we seeing? A perfectly good asset, which the former Treasurer had said that we were going to sell, which would raise the same amount. So the question is, why don’t you sell NT Fleet in accordance with the budgetary papers handed down in the May budget? It is a straightforward question. Then nobody would have to pay this ridiculous impost which has been thrust upon the shoulders of the people in the northern suburbs – the people who the backbench over there have been elected to represent.
The other question I have is, why is this going through on urgency? Surely the few months that the normal process would take up to February next year would allow us to consider this and to pass our attention to this issue properly. But we have a piece of legislation here which has been dumped in front of us, carries no second reading speech whatsoever, so we have only to guess at the political nature of this particular new tax. Three months, is that going to make so much difference to your outcome at the end of the period, Treasurer? Or is it the fact that you simply do not want to see a new tax sitting in the public arena for a further three months whilst the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the northern suburbs get to discuss the matter of the new tax which is coming their way? Of course, you do not. There is nothing urgent in this other than an urgent desire to protect yourself from political damage by bringing on a tax through the normal processes.
I am also very worried about subsection (5) in the legislation, and I draw members’ attention to clause 4, section 12(5) and I quote:
- The regulations may prescribe the amount of the Temporary Budget Improvement Levy or prescribe a method for
calculating the amount of the Temporary Budget Improvement Levy.
This is actually ‘We can raise this at any point by a ministerial stroke of the pen. We will only have to bring the legislation to the House once …’ - once only – ‘… and after that it is a matter of regulation. We just sign off on it and pump it through’. So the next thing that the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the northern suburbs discover is when they are registering their car, they are now paying $100 or they are now paying $120 or perhaps this broad-based levy that the minister for industries and business has to consider for the HIH processes can whack an extra $90 on it, or even an extra $100.
‘Perhaps we are going to find ourselves in a situation whilst we are raising levies left, right and centre …’, say the government, ‘… we can pick up the need to raise the HIH levy which is not funded in the budget projections for the next few years’. Not funded in those tables. ‘Where would be a good place that we could raise those taxes? Well, gee whiz! Look. We can raise these taxes by the stroke of a pen in our you-beaut piece of …’ - what is it called? – ‘… Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’.
I am astonished that if you are going to put a figure of $90 on it and promise the people of the Northern Territory you are not going to raise it , that you are going to slip a little subsection in there which says: ‘Oh gee. We are going to leave a back door in this for us to ramp it up any time we damn well please.’ If the Treasurer does not want to reassure the people of the northern suburbs and the people of the Northern Territory as a whole that she is not going to ramp up the amounts, then it is simple: remove the clause. Simply get rid of it. Leave it at a flat rate of $90. If she stands up in here and says: ‘Oh, I promise I am not going to do this. I am not going to ramp up the amount of money that I am going to be charging through this tax,’ then that is not good enough. It is a totally superfluous clause unless there is a clear and deliberate intention to ramp up the value of the tax.
I am absolutely mortified that they would even try to slip it in and sneak it through. But, perhaps that is what they were intending to do when you consider that they were pushing this through on urgency for political reasons. Part of the political reasons they are pushing it through on urgency is so that hopefully nobody would notice the difficult but carefully-worded subsection (5) to section 12 of the new act.
Dr Burns: But you did.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection of the member for Johnston who says: ‘But you did’. Well, it is my job. I read this stuff when it comes across my desk. It is what I get paid to do by the people of the Northern Territory when I entered this parliament, as it should be your job. I would be curious to hear your comments when you get to your feet and talk about it. I would be curious to hear that he will look carefully at this and that he will fight for the people of the Northern Territory to make sure that this tax is not increased. Let us see the member for Johnston come walk into this Chamber and say: ‘I am going to put my political career on the line, my affiliation to the ALP on the line, and say: “If this tax goes up one more cent, I will leave the ALP”.’ Let us see him stand up and do that in this Chamber. I bet you he does not.
This is very cute of the Leader of Government Business to come in here and say: ‘It is a lapse of discipline.’ It is very cute now that the Shadow Treasurer can come into this Chamber and start opposing bills when we had to show the discipline of the past to make sure that all of this stuff passed. The fact of the matter is it was the now government’s lack of discipline in the past which has got them into a situation where they have to impose these taxes on people of the Northern Territory. The fact of the matter is that their promises prior to the last election far exceed the $129m deficit that they have noted in their budget papers. I would estimate that those promises will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Dunham: Over $350m.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Over $350m’, says the member for Drysdale, and I believe that. They are extraordinary promises. It was an utter lack of discipline based on the fact that they did not expect to win - they did not expect to win. The Chief Minister, on the very night of the election result itself, stood in front of the national media and went: ‘Oh, golly, we won! I did not expect that. This is a complete surprise to me. We thought we might pick up one or two seats.’ So, here we have this raft of promises which have to be paid for. It is cute in the extreme for the Leader of Government Business to walk into this Chamber …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I question the relevance of the current speaker to the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: As you are probably aware, member for Karama, we do get rather wide-ranging in our debates in this House. Member for Macdonnell, though, would you try to keep your comments relevant to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am responding, of course, to the Leader of Government Business who thought it was entirely relevant to go down this path. It is incumbent on me as a member of opposition, and one of the commonsense members of this House, to respond to the Leader of Government Business’ comments. I can understand the member for Karama will be feeling very sensitive about supporting a new tax which she has to levy on her constituency, and I could imagine the she would very much want to silence a member of the opposition in relation to this issue.
The fact of the matter is that they never expected to be in a position where they had to levy a new tax, and they have find some way to pay for some of these exorbitant promises that they have made. It is cute in the extreme that the Leader of Government Business comes into this Chamber and says: ‘You must be disciplined in your approach.’ They must have been horrified when they realised in many respects that they were going to have to go down this path, and they must have been horrified when they were going to have to introduce a new tax which they could up in terms of the subsection (5) which I mentioned earlier.
The other question I would like to ask the Treasurer is in terms of contingencies, which the member for Johnston seems to be so very concerned about. I would ask how much of this tax is going to go to a contingency fund in case there is a cyclone, or in case there is a plague of frogs, or in case there is a major fire, or something that you cannot predict? How much you have put into that contingency fund as a whole? When do you expect the next disaster to appear on the on the radar screen? I notice that the Treasurer is laughing, because she cannot, and the reason that she cannot is because she is as mortal as the rest of us. But is there any contingency? That is a very straightforward question.
What they are doing is they are imposing a tax, a pay-for-Labor-promises tax. That is all it is. That is all they are trying to do. They could start pursuing the budgetary processes put in place by the last government, such as the sale of NT Fleet, and they would not have to impose this tax. They simply would not have to do it. I find it absolutely astonishing that they have the brass and the audacity to come into this place. I look forward to the contribution from the Labor backbench in relation to how they support this tax and how they support taxing Territorians in this extreme way.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the Martin Labor government has moved this mini-budget to redress the financial disaster left to us by the CLP …
Mr Elferink: Do you support the tax?
Dr BURNS: I will come to that. The twisted financial wreckage we inherited from the CLP will need four years to rebuild. In her mini-budget, the Treasurer and Chief Minister has systematically detailed how this government will implement a realistic deficit reduction strategy over the next four years to bring the Northern Territory budget into surplus - something that you did not have, a deficit reduction strategy! In stark contrast to the previous government, which repeatedly allowed the budget deficit to blow out over the past three financial years - and that is on the record - thereby demonstrating appalling financial management.
Last year, the 2000-01 financial year, was a prime example. A planned deficit of approximately $45m blew out to just under $150m, and your precious power line was part of that. In essence, the Territory public purse was caught in what I will term the ‘CLP crocodile jaws’. I will explain what I mean by that. These jaws were formed when the CLP government allowed actual expenditure to exceed target expenditure, and keep rocketing upward in an ever-widening gap. This led to a dangerous situation of ever-increasing debt without a deficit reduction strategy. Indeed, the way in which the previous government continued to rack up public debt with no adequate debt reduction strategy, was a matter of comment by the Auditor-General who further questioned the spurious way in which you reported net debt. In other words, you tried to ignore it by the way you reported it, but it was there. We knew it was there.
The mini-budget contains a detailed and realistic plan to reduce the deficit. In the 2004-05 budget, there will be a $4m surplus. Our plan is responsible and detailed, and it has been well accepted by the business community.
On the subject of the charge that is going to be levied, I support it. I support it because it is part of the responsible strategy to bring us back into surplus. It is part of a realistic deficit reduction strategy and yes, there is pain, but the pain was caused by your crocodile jaws, by your putting things on the never-never, by racking up public debt, by doing things like buying a $45m power line that you did not really need to purchase. That is what you did. So I am forced to support it through your actions. I support the Chief Minister and the Treasurer in everything that has been pulled down in this mini-budget. However, the mini-budget does not seek to make cuts to public expenditure but rather, to slow down growth to an acceptable level so that we can bring the Northern Territory budget back into deficit.
Hospitals, health and community services, schools, police and emergency services and custodial services have largely been quarantined in the budget improvement measures. While overall growth in public outlays has been slowed, there has been an additional $8.7m for capital works and a further $6m for repairs and maintenance - all designed to create additional work in this sector. The reinstatement of the QuickStart program will also give a much needed stimulus to the construction industry. Education, employment and training are priorities for this government and, as the Treasurer has foreshadowed, there is an extra $10m of increased funding in this area. This mainly relates to $5m for the increased operational funding for schools and an additional 20 teachers for the 2002 school year. This will increase, progressively, to an additional 100 teachers by the end of the government’s term.
Vocational education and training is also a priority and I am fortunate to have the Casuarina Senior College in the Johnston electorate. This is a priority of theirs - they are trying to train young people younger and fit them into jobs and employment. They certainly welcome the extension of vocational education and training down to year 9. Now an additional $1.2m has been provided for the fit-out of three schools. All positive things, all in line with our election promises which we pledge to deliver to Territorians, and we will over the next four years. We will also deliver to them a process, in terms of budgets, that is transparent and responsible, and we will deliver a surplus in 2004.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the bill and it being rushed through on urgency. In my view it is unnecessary. I also have some concerns about the position that the bill operates in our legislative scheme and the framework. Before I go on to that and talk about the bill in more detail and also the principle act, I will make some general comments.
In my view, the tax burden which exists, and which forms part of the mini-budget which was handed down this week, falls largely upon rural people. If you take a pastoralist or someone who pays an annual Crown lease, he has not only had the annual lease fee increased by 100%, this particular person now has to bear the burden of this levy of $90 per vehicle. That may not affect the champagne socialists living in other areas and supporters of the Labor Party, but it is going to affect real people.
It is a cop-out to describe this amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act as anything short of a tax. It has been referred to as a levy, it has been referred to as a revenue measure by the Deputy Leader. Indeed, our own Chief Minister slipped up earlier when she referred to this proposal as a tax which is, of course, what it is.
The business community, of course - first of all, unfortunately, apart from through the ballot box, did not have any choice as to what taxes the government deems fit for our community. I can tell you that the feedback that I have had, and indeed, common sense dictates that if you take money out of the community, that is going to reduce the spending power which people have, which ultimately will reflect how much money they are going to spend through retailers and that money is out of circulation. So, it will have an effect. It is a tax. I suppose the comparison would be a person who has a household budget. Rather than look closely at that budget and make the necessary changes, or go out and work a bit harder to earn a bit more money, what they have done - and this is the special power which governments have which, of course, a household budget does not have - they have gone and taxed further money from another source, that is, the other taxpayers of the Northern Territory.
The other concern I have, and this from a philosophical perspective, is that the tax which is contained in the proposed bill is a flat tax with a limited number of exemptions. It applies, of course, to the rural resident who has a 1978 model HZ Holden and trundles around and it is only worth a couple of thousand dollars, and exactly same rate applies to a champagne socialist who drives around in his Rolls Royce and wants to save the world. There are a number of other mechanisms which would be available, certainly to government, if they were serious about being more equitable in relation to this particular tax. It can be attached to stamp duty. I, in fact, support the member for Nelson’s comments in relation to senior citizens. The tax, for example, could have been $91 per vehicle and that would allow complete exemption for our senior citizens, particularly in my electorate of Goyder, where, as a community, we are trying to do all that we can to keep our senior citizens on their 5 acre blocks for longer in the community where they belong and close to their families. There is no effective public transport in the rural area for logistical reasons, so it is not uncommon for families to have two to four vehicles. As I touched upon earlier, being rural people, they will feel the brunt of this particular burden.
I trust the Chief Minister is across the legislation. I look forward to going through it in the committee stage, but it creates an illogical surge path. This is a tax and it is contained in an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. The normal canons of construction dictate that if you are going to have a tax, if you are going to burden the people with something, then it has to be clear, it has to be accessible and easily accessible. You do not go and hide this type of tax in an act which has a completely different purpose.
The other concern I have, and it is a bit of a decay - and I will make some comments about it and then take the point a bit further tomorrow in relation to some other legislation. A trend which seems to be occurring - I, too, am a recent arrival in this parliament - but a trend which I have seen and which is unfortunate, is that the name of the particular act, the Temporary Budget Improvement Levy - that’s section 12 - we have the situation where the government are trying to create some high moral ground between the government and the opposition. Rather than call it what it really is, which is a tax, and put it in the correct act, we have the situation where it has been slipped into the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been given a name in terms of section 12 which is, in my view, inappropriate. It could be called just a registration levy but rather, as is obvious to all members in this Chamber, the government’s opted for the phrase ‘Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’. We could call it anything - the ‘Labor save the world agenda levy’, the ‘champagne socialist levy’ - whatever you want to call it, but it is inappropriate.
Indeed it is a long-standing convention which, of course, the government sees fit to disregard, is that you do not bring politics into a piece of legislation. If you had an ounce of integrity you would just call it a registration levy and if you were serious about quality legislation for the Northern Territory people and making it accessible to people, and if the Attorney-General was serious about really focussing on legislation and debating it openly and honestly in this parliament, then it would be a separate act. A separate act which is clear and concise and people who have not had the pleasure of sitting in this parliament and listening to you could find it easily.
In terms of the act itself, I can touch upon it but no doubt the Chief Minister who introduced it would be across the act and of course has the principle act before her and will be aware and I can just flag these queries. The Chief Minister can perhaps clarify some of the concerns which I will amplify now.
In section 12 of the proposed act, there is an obligation upon the registrar. It says, in certain situations, the registrar must not register a motor vehicle to which this section applies unless the temporary budget improvement levy - the act is peppered with this inappropriate phrase but for the sake of this particular point I will refer to it by its full name as contained in the act – is paid. If it is not paid the registrar has a statutory obligation not to register the vehicle. When the Chief Minister instructed her counsel to draft that, I am sure she would have had a look at the legislation before she jumped into it.
Section 13 of the principle act talks about the prescribed fees applying to certain vehicles under the Road Transport Charges Laws. Section 13A - we will go through this in more detail in the committee stage - but if you get the gist of this, 13A talks about a person, in accordance with the act, applying to the registrar, paying their insurance contribution and then paying to the deputy registrar - that is the person at the front counter of the MVR - the prescribed fee for a vehicle which comes within the scope of transport charges laws and any other fees. Now we have fees here. We do not have levy or tax but any other fees. The deputy registrar, or the other officers, shall give that person a certificate. Section 13A, down the very bottom, talks about that certificate once it has been issued, then the vehicle is deemed to be registered. We have the situation where one part of your act says, you pay the money, the prescribed fee and those minor requisites, and the vehicle is deemed to be registered. Then you have another portion of the act saying that the registrar shall not register the vehicle unless this Temporary Budget Improvement Levy is paid. It is an ambiguity which, I imagine, if the matter ever came to be prosecuted in the magistrates court …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, are you referring to section 12A or 13A?
Mr MALEY: Section 13A of the principal act. You cannot read an amending bill in isolation. The first thing you have to do is look at the principle act to really understand how it fits in. This is not an act to be read in isolation; it is part of a much larger act, of course, which has been in operation in the Territory for a period of time.
Here we have a taxing act, which is always read narrowly, and if there is an ambiguity it will be resolved in favour of the taxpayer, which is contrary to section 13A, which says the vehicle is deemed to be registered and no offence is committed. Indeed, there is another positive obligation on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and/or his deputy, in certain situations. There are some real problems there and I look forward to them being answered in the committee stage.
I am really flagging this, I am not sure what the answer is, but I am keen to find out what GST implications, if any, there are on this particular tax. I know it is a tax on a tax, but there may be some ambiguity there, particularly in regard to the nature of the terminology used in section 12. Another difficulty which may arise is that I am confused and at a loss to see where the trade plates that are transferred from vehicle to vehicle, how that fits into the scheme and whether the levy is going to apply to those particular trade plates.
The point raised by the member for Macdonnell, that is the fact that section 12, subsections (4) and (5), need to be clarified. If the act, as I said, is read narrowly, then it would probably make subsection (5) surplusage and unnecessary.
For all those reasons, and there are a few other things I will touch upon at the committee stage, the act is unfair. It is ill-conceived, it is not in the proper form. There is probably one other thing that the act demonstrates, which is not something contained in the text, but I have sat here patiently since parliament sat, since the election of 18 August, and I have watched with interest the government deliver on some of its core and non-core promises. Really, it strikes at the very heart of the government and the Chief Minister’s integrity and her honesty, when there is lots of literature around that there will be no new taxes or charges, and then within 100 days of this new government taking place, she has the audacity to introduce this particular bill.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Now, look the Chief Minister can smile and perhaps can get a bit of support from the troops, but the reality is that many people understood that was the promise. The promise has been made and I am happy for the Deputy Chief Minister to put a spin on things - that is his job - but at the end of the day there are some hard facts which no one can escape. There is a core promise which has been broken. The other reality is, and people are aware of this, there were other options which were available. So, just like a clock that strikes for the thirteenth time, it casts a shadow over the credibility, integrity and honesty of the person who uttered those words and then in the same breath, they introduced this particular tax.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this will probably interest the member for Macdonnell, because I know that he was crying out for this sort of admission. I rise today to give my full support. Let me say it again to the members over there. I rise today to give my full support to the Treasurer for the innovative and equitable manner, and how she plans to lead us away from what most assuredly was a bleak economic future under the sleight-of-hand fiscal management of the previous CLP government, with all of their underfunded promises. That is what this is all about, that is what this mini-budget is all about.
We have heard it before, but it needs to be said time and time again. I am going to say it here, that the CLP approach was to run the budget into the ground, strip government capacity to play a central role in the economy and slash and burn the public sector. That was their approach. If they were back in government that is what they would be doing right now. They have done it before and they will do it again.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I can’t hear the member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: You will not get another chance here. But I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been around the Territory. I am only a relatively new chum, I have only been here 15 or 16 years, I have not got any stripes yet. In that brief time that I have been here, I had the good fortune not to be caught up in the Economic Review Committee razor gang that slashed its way through the public service in the early 1990s. I had the good fortune not to be there. However, good fortune does not last forever, does it? Misfortune must visit people every now and then. However, I was employed in the Northern Territory public sector some years later when they went at it again. Planning for bloody growth, Planning for Growth.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Language!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Watch your language, please.
Mr KIELY: Of course, I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got caught up in the moment. I should stand with my hands on my head. I shall place my hands strategically upon my hip as I have seen other more mature members of this House do. Is this the better stance to take?
Planning for Growth was known and openly derided throughout the public sector as ‘pruning for growth’. There were, indeed, many comparisons made by those who have suffered under the seemingly erratic hand of the ERC and the approach by the CLP on this, their latest blunt instrument, to cut jobs. Indeed, there are quite a number of people who I worked with prior to entering this House who foreshadowed such an event that is happening again. Public servants were not blind to the Mandrake-like approach that the CLP had to portraying an infeasible economic performance as one of good economic management.
Dr Burns: They have got the gesticulator over there, anyway.
Mr KIELY: Indeed, indeed. The last CLP budget could not even be saved by their own spin doctors who so ably covered up their poor performances on many previous occasions. That is how crook it was. ‘Everyone, come look at this!’ It was amazing. You were caught up in your own fantasy world that you could keep on fooling people.
The proof is in the pudding isn’t it?
This is a good mini-budget for all Territorians, and here is another concept that I will lay on this crowd over here. This is a good mini-budget because it is honest …
Mr MALEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I seek a point of clarification. Just for my learned friend’s information …
Ms Scrymgour: He is not your learned friend.
Mr MALEY: Well, the member for Sanderson. He cannot be heard on the speakers and on the various transmitting devices unless he stands closer to the microphone. I am doing my duty here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if you could place your arm on your other hip, please.
Mr KIELY: Now where was I? That’s right, I was talking about honesty. There is another new concept for you. There is another new concept. Honesty in budget. Right, let us deal with that. This is where the Martin Labor government has its strength. Because honesty, that is what families and business want in budgets. They want honesty and that is what we are delivering. They are tired of the misrepresentations and promises of glowing futures that evaporate over time or remain dangled before them like sweets promised to a child as a reward for good behaviour in front of the visiting grandparents. That is all you have ever delivered. Promises dangling, which evaporated. This is one of the great telling differences between a Martin Labor government and what is now the discredited CLP opposition.
This budget incorporates Labor’s election commitments and reorders government spending to increase the priority given to the essential areas of health, education and the all important services. Capital works, which this lot keep on trotting out all the time, is a significant component of our economy and, sadly, this is yet another area that the CLP simply underfunded, and even more sadly, this ongoing underfunding would finally lead to a situation where new works would grind to a halt. That is what Territorians had to look forward to if they had remained in government.
Well, as we have heard, the Martin Labor mini-budget is structured to ensure an injection of additional - let me say that again - additional $10m cash. There is another word for you. Another new concept – cash. Each of the works programmed this financial year, despite the abysmal state the former CLP government left the budget in, and the news is even better. The news is even better because this money will be spread throughout Territory communities. You see, that is what this government is all about. It is about spreading it across the Territory. It is not about just being tucked up into little corners, looking after mates. We are spreading the money across the Territory so that all communities can have the benefit of it. There is funding going not only to Darwin; it is going to Katherine. It is going to Alice Springs. It is going into Tennant Creek. It is going to Gove. This is a Territory mini-budget. It is for all Territorians, not just its mates.
This budget is a blueprint for growth. There are real annual increases in finding consumption expenditure and new fixed capital expenditure is expected to average slightly more over the forward estimate period than the previous five years. What this mini-budget does for all Territorians is it does away with the uncertainty. It does away with the uncertainty brought about by the CLP’s callous disregard for proper and ethical economic management.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I make a contribution to this debate in order to highlight the hypocrisy of those opposite. I only plan to be a couple of minutes, but, once again, that depends on interjections from the members opposite.
We need to be very clear about what we are dealing with here. As I am aware, this is a levy on an existing charge and it seems to be something that the members opposite do not fully comprehend. It is not a new tax.
- Mr Dunham: Oh!
Mr Dunham: You’re in government. You can get those figures. Ring them up.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Drysdale says: ‘Ring them up. Find out.’ I will. It will be interesting for Territorians to know that, especially for members of this Chamber to be aware of it, because we know the problems we are confronted with have been brought about by the financial mismanagement of the members opposite, especially the former Treasurer and the former Chief Minister. It was spend, spend, spend. We know, as we discovered, they had made all these lovely promises but they did not put the cash allocations to many of those projects, nor did they put timeframes to many of them. Obviously, Territorians have woken up to that and have decided that we should play A grade and they should play B grade for four years.
We are the ones now who have to pick up the pieces and clean up this rotten mess. This is not about raising revenue to fund our election commitments. This is about addressing the grave budgetary position that we inherited. This is a temporary levy which has the single objective of restoring the sustainability of the government’s budgetary position. It is a levy that will be shared by all Northern Territorians including members of this Assembly.
Mr Dunham: No, only people who drive motor cars.
Mr AH KIT: We will wait for your contribution when we discuss the RTD stuff tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see what your contribution is going to be on the rejection.
Mr Dunham: I have only just read it, mate. Not like you mob, we did not get it early.
Mr AH KIT: It has been tabled. You have time to read it and no doubt you will be organising your comments for tomorrow, but it will be very interesting and I will be waiting.
This is a levy that will be shared by all Territorians including members of this Assembly. It is a levy that none of us will enjoy paying, but I think that we should remember that it is a CLP levy. It is the compulsory liability payment that the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, and the member for Katherine, Mike Reed, have inflicted upon Territorians, to pay for their gross incompetence and total dishonesty.
If Northern Territorians are looking for someone to blame for this levy, then they need to look no further than the opposition benches. They are the people who left us with a deficit of $107m. You are the people who behaved irresponsibly and dishonestly in government and you sought to hide the truth from Northern Territorians in the lead-up to the election. It is now up to us to clean up that deficit and keep faith on our election commitments because we are a government of financial and political integrity.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: It is foreign to the members opposite. They do not clearly understand those words. That means we need to generate savings on the expenditure side of the budget, and look for initiatives to lift the revenue. This bill is aimed at getting a temporary lift to the revenue of $24m over three years by providing for a $90 a year levy on motor vehicle registrations. That is less than $2 per week for three years to pay for the incompetence and deceit of the CLP.
Sadly, with the legacy of 26 years with the CLP running the show, not only do we face overcoming the damage that they have inflicted upon the Northern Territory over that time, but we also have to carry the burden of their incompetence for another three years. When Northern Territorians next register their motor vehicle, they should remember that it is the hands of Denis Burke and Mike Reed who are in their pockets. It is the CLP levy.
We are determined to make the application of the levy as fair as possible. The bill contains hardship provisions which will provide for a 50% reduction in the levy for holders of pensioner cards, and certain classes of vehicles will be exempt. This is a fair measure which will ensure that the burden of what was left behind by the former discredited CLP government is shared across the Northern Territory, and once the damage has been repaired, the will levy will disappear. This is a responsible economic measure that should be supported and those opposite should hang their heads in shame for inflicting so much damage across the Territory to ordinary Territorians.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a bizarre debate. One of the problems we have in terms of the members, particularly the member for Karama who called a point of order that she thought we were digressing from the subject, is that it is very difficult to define what the subject is. What is it we are talking about?
Under normal circumstances, when you get a document of this ilk - and we have had many of them in this parliament - they would be subjected to the full light of parliamentary debate and scrutiny. They would be debated in committee for some hours, in fact, days, and they would be subject to very intensive questioning of the type that could come, for instance, from concerned bodies, the community and others. The reason we are having this debate is because this document will not get that scrutiny and there is one document that, by some fault or accident or whatever, the Labor party has to subject to the scrutiny of this House and that is a revenue garnering bill. That is this bill we are talking about.
So it is interesting, for instance, that the transport minister has not spoken on this debate, because it has nothing to do with transport. It has nothing to do with the Motor Vehicle Registry. It has nothing to do with motor cars. It has nothing to do with being deployed in that particular area. It is to do with raising tax. That is what it is about. We realise, as a very famous person once said, death and taxes are inevitable. We know tax is inevitable. We know that every government will raise them, and we know that there will never be a stage where they will be universally applauded by the public for doing so. They are givens.
As legislators, as we are here, we are going to impose our collective hand into the pockets of taxpayers and we must pose some questions. We must ask ourselves, for instance, is it fair? Is this a fair tax? We must ask if it is simple. We must ask is this is a tax that through its complexity would render it able to be avoided by people who are clever or have lots of money. We must look at its purpose. We must look at how it is understood. And we must look at why we are doing it.
If we apply these rhetorical questions to this particular tax, the first thing we have to ask is: is it fair? There has been proposed by those opposite that it is fair because there was a target that it had to meet - a target of $107m. It is a fairly simple mathematical exercise to say: ‘Okay, let us raise the tax until we get to $107m, and then stop. We will not need it after that’. If we do need it after that, as the calculations by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition showed, it is being used for a purpose beyond which the rhetoric in this House would have us believe. Is it enough tax? Is it too much tax? These are questions that we should pose to ourselves. The simplicity to operate, that is probably the hallmark of this particular bill, is that it is very simple. I guess that this is the route that has been chosen by the government. This is a very simple tax to implement. You merely go to those people who already garner fees and other revenue for the government, who already have security devices on their premises, already engage Chubb Security to cart cash around, they already have their electronic machinery and you just say, ‘You can get this stuff as well’.
The member for Arnhem would have us believe that this is a little addendum. He said it is just an additional piece of tax. Well, it is not. It is brand new, it stands alone, it has its own little name. We are led to believe it has its own purpose. There are some who have contributed to this debate who believe that it even has a quantum; it has a ceiling. Once it has reached it, we can put this act to bed and say: ‘It did what we wanted it to do and it can now disappear’.
There are some who would argue that a tax should have a nexus. For instance, if it is a community tax that applies to all - as again, the member for Arnhem said - maybe all people should pay it. This is a tax that applies to people who own motor cars. Here in the Territory you could make a simple assumption that it is fairly common, there are high levels of motor vehicle ownership. That is not the step that the member for Arnhem would have us believe, in that this tax applies universally across the populous, because it does not. There are some faults with it. The benefits, as I said, are that is a very simple tax to drop in. There is another benefit in that people already pay a fairly substantial registration fee that amounts to some hundreds of dollars, and it could be that if this tax is tucked in there, it might not be noticed in years 2, 3, 4 or 5.
I, too, have a problem with it being able to be changed by administrative whim without having to come back to this parliament. I think that is a very significant flaw in this piece of legislation, because if that latitude was available to the current government, we would not be debating this. They would have merely exercised that executive power that they have, garnered this tax, and we would be none the wiser as to having this debate that we are having now. So, I think it is important to put it on the record for what it is. I think it is important that we strip down some of the charade, because they are not going to get away with it for several years by saying: ‘We had this $107m problem and you have had to live with the tax ever since’.
I am a bit disappointed too, Mr Deputy Speaker - and I hope you do not take this as a reflection on yourself - that the language in this debate is getting very close to a censure debate, and the House is getting to a stage where there are many words that are being used such as ‘dishonourable’ and ‘fraud’. ‘Dishonest’, was allowed by Madam Speaker this morning - and I think that some of these things are untested.
For mine, there are some issues, I believe, that fall within the province of the PAC and I believe they should be left there. For those in this parliament who would judge the outcome of the PAC, I think is an offence to that particular institution, that particular organ of this parliament. I think it should be left to that particular investigation to look beyond what some people might believe, from a very spartan investigation and a spartan amount of documents. I shall not venture there, because there is a more appropriate place and that can come back to this parliament at the appropriate time. It is worth revisiting some of the matters that attend on that. One of the matter is the words of the current Chief Minister when she involved herself in the censure debate relating to matters relating to the budget, and I quote for the benefit of Hansard, from page 24 of debates, Thursday 25 October:
- As Chief Minister of my government the bucks stops with me. I cannot walk away from any issue, particularly
one that deals with the ethical standing of the government. Deliberately lying and fraudulently misrepresenting
financial information to this parliament and the people of the Territory is simply unacceptable.
They are, indeed, fine words. They are fine words that say that if there is anything in these documents that is misrepresenting then the buck stops right there. I can find several, and if we had the opportunity to debate these papers right out, those words would ring in the ears of the current Chief Minister, because there are a number of things in here that deserve a much greater interrogation than we are able to give merely by looking at an extraneous bill under a strange piece of legislation to garner tax. If we look to the mini-budget, which is where the money is to be deployed, if we look to the issues in here you can see that there are some substantial discrepancies in the rhetoric of those opposite. I think that they have to, possibly, put some of that discipline the Deputy Leader talked about into their debate. We know it is a tax, so call it a tax. We know it is to fund your promises, don’t be shy about it, tell people that is what it is about. We know that the amounts received will be far and beyond that which is required for the fictitious black hole.
We know these papers demonstrate to us that our estimate for the sale of NT Fleet was not a bad one. We thought you could flog it off for $50m. In the budget papers here presented by the current Treasurer, it is now valued at $59m. We think that if they had gone ahead with that particular thing, they might have found themselves in a much better position than having to levy tax. If they have taken some of the good leads that we provided for them, they might have found themselves in a position that is not of their making. The choice not to sell the NT Fleet was a choice made by this government. It has some $60m attached to it. Now, whether you want to put it into this sump called the black hole is a matter for you, but it is your choice. It is your choice, as a government, to say: ‘We have an asset which we can sell and it will yield possibly $59m …’ - if these budget papers are right – ‘… or we can choose not to’. In choosing not to, it is not a matter that you can lay at the feet of this opposition. There has been some issue also about ‘the cupboard was bare. The contractors came to us to find money and there was no money’. These current budget papers make a comparison between 2000-01 May budget and 2001-02 mini-budget. I have gone to the capital works program, estimated expenditure by construction agency and the two charts - they are on pages 66 and 67 for the benefit of those who wish to pursue this debate - and it has the works revoted in. Capital works, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a strange beast, they can take place over a couple of years and the cash has got to flow, notwithstanding that budget appropriations lapse.
What some people would have use believe, including the current transport minister - and I did urge him this morning to be cautious with his choice of words so he did not mislead parliament - is that it talks about the cash. The cash is listed there. For instance, for issues like Territory roads, the cash is $15.9m. That is how much was budgeted. In the mini-budget it is $16.6m. An issue for me, as a person reading this budget is, if the $15.9m is not there, if that cash is not available, if that figure is fictious, how much of the $16.6m is there? If the budget papers are merely talking about the bit on the top, and the cupboard was bare as in zero, the $16.6m is also a fabrication. It is really important if people are saying, ‘There is a continuous flow of budget papers, these were wrong and these were right’, for the purpose of comparability we have to know how much credit we can put in them. There are those opposite who would say there can be no credit put in any of them. That is not what Percy Allan said, in fact.
Dr Burns: No, that is what your Under Treasurer said.
Mr DUNHAM: Percy Allan did say that the papers were well put together - and we will come to the Under Treasurer. The Under Treasurer, not the Treasurer. The Under Treasurer is alleged to have said that the budget position is unsustainable. I would be interested to know the basis for that call. If he said it was …
Dr Burns: All his expertise!
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t you put words in his mouth.
If he said, for instance, that it is unsustainable because the deficit that was too high, well, it is now higher. If he said it was unsustainable because some of the larger agencies were requesting more money than was available to them, well, now they are getting more. If he said it was unsustainable because the cuts that might be available would not be met, that could well be the case now because we have some mixed messages coming from those opposite. One is that we would get all the savings in but some of the savings are not coming from public servants being sacked, retrenched, no job losses. In this fairy tale world the Chief Minister is now leading us into, you can go and borrow money; you can give departments more. You do not have to have any rigour and exercise expenditure discipline. You can give everybody jobs. In fact, where there are two CEOs in the same job, keep paying them the same amount and we will all live happily ever after. This cannot work.
What those opposite have to do now is not talk the talk, they have to walk the walk. And the walk over the next six months is going to be very difficult for them because some of these things will come home to roost. I will be particularly interested to know how the QuickStart program which was plagiarised from the good policy developed by the previous government, is going to go. It is my sad belief that there is going to a lack of confidence amongst first home buyers and first home builders particularly. That confidence is going to come from the fact that there are many people who are dependent not only on the public service for jobs within but the public service for the general contribution it makes through its spending power. Some of those people will make choices about whether they actually do rent or build. I would hope that when we get the report, it comes back and it says: ‘Guess what? It exceeded our wildest expectations. We now have many, many more homes being built than we would have thought’. I will happily stand up here and say, ‘Well, thank goodness for that. That is a vote of confidence in the economic policies of the current government’. I suspect that might not be the case.
Some of these figures here might need a bit more looking at. Given that we won’t have a lot of time to talk about matters relating to the budget, it is important to talk about some of the issues that fall within my portfolio areas, particularly Territory health. I am interested that there is a …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a bill before the House with a specific purpose and I do not know why the member feels he can stray into unrelated areas. There is very much a question of relevancy.
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to speak to the point of order?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you can answer that.
Mr DUNHAM: The reason I believe it is important to stray here is that is exactly what you did with your contribution for starters, and it is what all of us are empowered to do because we are not talking about the Motor Vehicle Act and the moneys raised thus being deployed within that act. We are talking about something you are calling a temporary budget enhancement jump-down turn-around pick-a-bale-of-cotton, whatever it is. But the matters, the purpose for which the money is raised will be for - you guessed it Mr Deputy Speaker - the budget. I think it is entirely appropriate that moneys that are being garnered out of this taxing agency, this fee levying agency and then deployed elsewhere, I think it is entirely relevant we look where they have been deployed. That is a reasonable assumption. There are those opposite who, in their contribution, have said we had to deploy it because of our ineptitude. Okay, I listened to that. I thought, well, it is probably a bit out of bounds but I think that is what they are using the tax for; they are using it to put into general purposes. They think they can blame us, that is their contribution to the debate.
My contribution to the debate is actually to go to their patent, which is a little bit less emotive, a little bit less specious …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It goes to the issue of relevance again. The next item of business on the paper is debate on the mini-budget. We are currently debating a piece of legislation, the bill before us specifically in regards to the temporary budget improvement measure and the member for Drysdale has opportunities later this afternoon in this debate to get onto the issues that he talks about. So to expedite business before the House, he has an opportunity to get into this area later, I would seek that you would ask him to contain his remarks to the bill that is before us.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the much abbreviated capacity that we have to contribute to the debate that I may need two opportunities. I do not believe that that is extravagant because a lot of these things have to be put on the permanent public record in much the same way as in May we spent some three days debating this. I think that the contributions of those of us on this side over these two debates, which may contribute several hours, is entirely appropriate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I rule on that point of order? I would allow that the member for Drysdale continue on the basis that, one, this is an urgency motion and I think that there is limited time in which it can be debated. The other matter is that we are dealing with, even thought it is an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act we are dealing with something which is called a temporary budget improvement levy so discussion about the budget I would regard as being relevant to this particular debate. You may continue.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Going to the issues of where the money will be deployed is a really important issue for us to discuss. There are some people who would have it that we are raising this money and it is a CLP tax and every time they take the money you go and blame Burkey because he is the bloke who did it and there will be a big run on labels that describe the purpose for which this tax is to be put. It is really important that we discuss, whether it is factual or not, the way that corporate budget papers show how the money is put. We should be discussing this. Another reason why it is good to discuss it now is to give the current health minister some capacity to be able to contribute in the later debate as to the significant blowouts in Territory Health Services funding.
There are significant blowouts incorporated in this budget and if they go to a third factor - I mean we have factor one, the legendary black hole. We have factor two, Labor’s promises that they are trying to fudge in under cover of darkness and pretend it is to do with the black hole. Factor three is more important. Factor three is, do you have control of your departments? Have you really, really got control of your departments? One of the indicators for that is to look at whether certain things that were expected to come in at a certain level will come in at a certain level and this was seen as fundamental by one of the previous speakers. They said that the money does not come in at the right level, well, you know that goes to the incompetence of the CEO. So it will be interesting to see how some of these figures have expanded. I am particularly keen for the health minister to give significant discussion to the $34m additional monies, some of which are not for new activities, they are for existing activities which have blown out significantly and as we work off that trend line the question I would put is, is this sustainable?
Would the Under Treasurer use this word if he is advising on a health budget that $34m increase over seven months, seven months is sustainable? Now, if that is the case, next year’s outlays should be pretty significant. These are not once-offs. These are recurrent. These are to do with cross border charging, air med services, increase to funding for hospitals - hospitals are something like $16m blown out. So in six or seven months the health minister is going to look to a $16m blowout in our hospitals. I would be really keen to interrogate that and I hope it features largely in discussions
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, you used the word dodgey numbers. So we need to be able to discuss these numbers. $34m is the kind of funding a small department could get. It is an enormous amount of funding. I am not saying it is not warranted. I merely wish the proper rigours of our democratic system, including the interrogation of budget papers through this House, be done because it is absolutely astonishing that they can bring in budget papers like this in the form of a statement, a statement, and talk about millions and millions of dollars of extra appropriation of cuts.
They can abridge these documents in such a way as to leave out very important information on staffing. Don’t think you are going to get away with it. There are many people in the Public Service who know budget documents, they read budget documents, they are familiar with them and they prepare them. They know that there is a column in there called staffing. If the Chief Minister wants to run, ‘Well, we’ve changed the names’, it is to protect the guilty probably, but, ‘We’ve changed the names, it is all a bit up in the air’. If that is the case, you cannot form a budget because, somewhere along the line, somebody has been able to amalgamate all these figures from the various units that are now in amalgamated units, add it all up and say this is what the new department will need. We have a really big problem here if they are saying they know how much they are going to spend but they do not have a clue how many people are going to work for them, because it is a salient issue in this budget to look to where the savings are going to come from.
The business about racking up debt, the twisted wreckage of the previous government and all those kinds of words, these budget papers contain an additional $100m worth of borrowing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition put it to us that it is like a house, you go out and you work out how much is going to come in, and you work out how much you are going to spend. Well somewhere in there he has to work out whether he is going to make a visit to the bank, because if that is what he wants to do, if he wants to put it to this parliament that this is as simple as your household budget, what he is saying is: ‘Strewth love, we’re not getting enough here in our pay cheques to be able to pay all these bills going out. What we’re going to do is, we’re going to have to cut some of that. What we might do is just nip down to the bank and get some more money, and while you are there, listen, spend the money. On the way back can you buy a new washing machine and fridge or whatever’ That is what this budget has done.
What this budget has done, is they have borrowed the money, they have spent the money, they have tried to tell us they are reducing their outgoings, and at the same time they are totally silent on the biggest expenditure reduction measure, and that is what they are going to do to public servants. So let’s put that into the debate and see what is going to happen. I have only a few minutes left …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Well, thank God’, says the Chief Minister. I think it is really important that she be called to task on this, because she has the gall to come to this place, to drop a bill without a second reading speech, to drop a statement that incorporates hundreds of millions of dollars, and then not expect us to speak to it. If that is the case …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There was a second reading speech. There has a been a slight complication about its incorporation in Hansard, but there certainly was. If you recall yesterday before Question Time, there was.
Madam SPEAKER: It was given yesterday. You will receive it later.
Mr DUNHAM: In that case, I apologise, there was a second reading speech. I will read it enthralled. The member for Sanderson talked about the CLP and how it made all these promises and never kept them, and that they hadn’t stopped tricking people because they used to dangle these little things in front of them like a grandparent. If I recall the maiden speeches, all these people who came here from other places, all said: ‘I came to the Territory and I fell in love with the place. I just loved it, I loved the lifestyle, I loved all the sporting things the government did, I loved the education, the health, it was just wonderful’. This is not spontaneous generation. This does not just come out of an amorphous blob and whoompa! there is a school. What happens when people fall in love with this place is, you have to give some credit to those who were the major architects, contributors, builders in this place. And that was us. We are not ashamed of anything we did in the 26 years that it is attributed to …
Mr Kiely: No that’s it, you are not ashamed, that is the amazing thing. You are not ashamed.
Mr DUNHAM: We are not ashamed of one bit of it. If some people had been here a little longer than the member for Sanderson, they would see that we came from a very low base, a very low base indeed. I think it is a great tribute to the work of the CLP government, that we are able to attract people even of his ilk. Not that we really want to, but when you look at people like him finding the place attractive, that speaks loud volumes for those of us on this side, and we have no shame in it. We think we made a great contribution to this place. We are totally focussed, totally dedicated to the work of looking after Territorians and their best interests, and we will continue to do it. We will continue to do it through the budget process because, in the event that we do not believe that this budget is in the best interests of Territorians, we will tell them. That is exactly what the contributors on this side have done, we have told them we will not be supporting this bill.
If the government has half an ounce of integrity, they will at least pull the capacity for them to up the tax by various administrative actions, rather than coming back to here. I agree with my colleague, that it offends some of the canons of this institution that they have politicised a piece of legislation in this way. I think it is also an offence to the parliament that it is being slipped through as some sort of a pseudo fee/levy when it is an out and out tax to be deployed within the gross outlays that are incorporated in the budget. I too, like my other colleagues, will be voicing my great disappointment, disaffection and dissatisfaction with this bill. I look forward to seeing the names of those opposite who support it in Hansard.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it was a very disappointing contribution from members on the other side. I did not really expect that we would get support, but to see such a consistent level of denial about the parlous state of the Territory’s finances which were left to this new government and Territorians, is hard to understand. To hear member after member try to pretend that the massive deficit that was not recognised in the May budget, and was 12 weeks later demonstrated quite clearly by Treasury that it did exist, is extraordinary. The twistings and turnings we have heard from the debate in here is setting new standards of weasel words for even this parliament. It is very disappointing. I do not think any government, particularly any new government, likes to see that you have to put on additional revenue measures, but there is a stark action that is required from this government, and we simply cannot allow the unsustainable financial position facing Territorians to continue.
It was also extraordinary to see how we got into such difficult budgetary times, because when I listen to the argument presented by members of the opposition, it made no sense, absolutely no sense. We have a deficit of $107m which was identified earlier on. That $107m has now blown out. Even with savings it blew out to $139m and that was with things like the unexpected such as carry-over items. Whoa, are they unexpected? No. Dollars that needed to be spent in the Power and Water Authority on whimsical little items like repairs and maintenance at Channel Island that had not been funded by the previous administration year after year after year. Replacing the SCADA system for the pipeline, which had been on, which had been requested of the previous administration, year after year, and ignored. These items that now contribute to $139m are not fantasy items. They are absolutely fundamentals. We saw the way that the previous administration dealt with them. You forged the budget figures, that is how you dealt with them.
There was a 6% growth happening every year but it was never recognised in the allocations to agencies, never. And you wondered why the gaping difference between our expenditure and our revenue-raising capacity, and the revenues we were getting in, just kept on growing. The crocodile jaws of Treasury. Yet, no recognition. This attempt to say that all this is about Labor’s election initiatives - $13m they cost this year. $13m against $139m of deficit which goes with the $149m last year and the $91m of the year before. And you say you are great financial managers! You left Territorians, after 27 years, an unsustainable budgetary situation. ‘Unsustainable’, coming from the Treasury. That is why we got the independent expert in, and yes, it was confirmed.
Mr Elferink: And what was his first recommendation? Change the way the budget works.
Ms MARTIN: I pick up the member for Macdonnell’s comments. Of course we had to change the way the budget works. We had a Treasurer who sat in his office writing the bottom line: ‘I do not like the fact that the deficit is going to be larger this coming year so I think I will make it about a ninth of what it might be as a conservative estimate. I think $12m, in the run up to election, looks like a good deficit for this year’.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: What a load of rubbish! To pick up on this business about the fleet, the calculations for selling the fleet were done three years ago before your mates brought in the new tax arrangements. They were done then. There was no recalculation done before the May budget. There was no recalculation done about what were the benefits for the Territory, and they simply were not there. It was going to cost us money in recurrence to go ahead with the stupid idea of selling the fleet. And that was one of the first things Treasury said to me: ‘Don’t sell the fleet; it does not work. It does not work under John Howard’s new tax arrangements’. Those calculations were not redone before our Treasurer sat there and said: ‘Hey guys, have I got a good idea about trying to make the deficit look better? We are going to sell the fleet’.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you direct your remarks to me? Would the members on the opposite side refrain from passing remarks across to the Chief Minister? We might have your response without so many interjections.
Ms MARTIN: It came as quite a shock to Treasury when they realised that the previous administration was going to sell the fleet. You have been exposed for the kind of fraudulent budget managers that you are. It is very sad for a new government to have to increase charges but that is a fact of life. The Temporary Budget Improvement Levy is only for three years. It is spelled out very clearly in the legislation. It is for $90 and no matter the weasel words we hear from those on the other side, this is an increase to an already existing revenue measure. We all pay our car registrations and this is an increase. I do not know how the opposition can sit there saying it is a new tax when it is a current measure. We pay car registrations. This is an increase to your car registration. So just let it sink in.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We were flirting with the idea of calling it the ‘contributory liability payment’. It would have been fair. It would have been a fair tax. It would have been fair to say: ‘It is this mob across there who have caused it’. The contributory liability payment would have been fair, and Territorians would have known very clearly why this revenue had to be raised. We need it, sadly, because there is a major hole in the budget. This will raise $42m over the three years, and that was made very clear in the budget statement yesterday which I am sure you all read. It is a broad base tax. Territorians will contribute because they know we need to move towards a sustainable budget situation.
The cost per household is about an average of $133 based on 1.5 cars per household. The figures that we heard from the opposition spokesperson for Treasury were simply out of kilter. $133 on the calculations. It is for cars that are predominantly used in a domestic way. It is for domestic usage vehicles and all Territorians will be sharing the burden of this. I say to Territorians, I am sorry about that. I am sorry that we were left with an unsustainable budget situation, but the expectation is for this new government to make sure that we have a budgetary situation that is sustainable and that we are moving with a well spelt out budget deficit strategy to surplus by the year 2004-05. It is a three year measure on an existing measure and it is broad based. I am sorry to say to Territorians it has to be there, but that is a fact of life. We could not simply follow the CLP school of budget management because this place would have been broke.
I would like to respond to a couple of issues raised by the member for Nelson. The concessions for pensioners are very wide. We have a very broad category of a 50% rate for pensioners and that is a fair calculation. Also in regards to the ubiquitous rural ute. It might only have one extra seat and it might even be a bit dodgy in terms of being able to sit on that seat, but when a vehicle is used for domestic purposes, where those utes are also used, then that comes within the terms of this levy. We will monitor the introduction of the levy. We think it is fair and reasonable. We wish that we did not have to put it on, but we were left with an unsustainable position by the previous administration and we are certainly determined that the Territory, for our future, will have a sustainable budgetary situation.
Madam Speaker, I certainly commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 2 and 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, if I could start with the title of the section. You have instructed your counsel to name this particular amendment Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. Why have you done that when, clearly on the face of the document, it is an inappropriate reference and there are a number of other more appropriate names? Second, could you explain to me why you have allowed a political aspect to creep into the drafting of this clause by using the term ‘Temporary Budget Improvement Levy’?
Ms MARTIN: We actually thought we were being very kind. We were going to call it the ‘Contributory Liability Payment’ but we decided to be non-political about this and actually call it a Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. That is exactly what it is. It makes it very clear. It will be on every registration. We have made it very clear that is a temporary levy because it is on for three years. That is enshrined here in the legislation. It is a levy on an existing charge. That makes it very clear as well. It is to do with budgets and budget mismanagement from the previous administration and it will certainly improve the bottom line of the budget. I think it is straightforward.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I disagree with the Chief Minister wholeheartedly. The title of this particular levy is clearly intended to have a political effect. It is an affront to the people who have to read legislation in the future. The question I have for the Chief Minister on this issue is that if it is part of the vehicle registration amount why not just call it the registration amount? Why is she introducing a piece of legislation on an amount which could be, by the minister’s stroke of hand, simply made more expensive? This, for all of the world, looks like a separate levy. It has no parallels with the motor vehicle registration fee. If it did the minister could simply direct that the fee was increased. That has not been done. This has been introduced by legislation as a separate item and it will appear as a separate item on the certificate of registration as per the instructions of the minister. I am quite astonished, frankly, that she would have the audacity to try to come into this House and tell us that this is just a ramp-up of the registration fee. Why is she introducing a piece of legislation to do something that she could otherwise do?
Ms MARTIN: I suppose I keep repeating what I have said now for the last day and a half. If it takes that long I will keep repeating it until 10 o’clock, if it takes that time. This is a temporary measure because we have a problem with our budget. It is a temporary measure on an existing charge. For the purposes of transparency, for the purposes of clarity, we are choosing to do it this way. It says very clearly to Territorians, this is a temporary increase in your registration because we need to deal with a major problem left to us by the Country Liberal Party with our budget. It will be introduced and it will disappear. It has a very defined time. It has a sunset clause and it is targeted towards helping our budget recover because our budget got very sick under the CLP. I am explaining so I do not get any more questions about this, because really, we need to move on. There are important issues we need to have debated about the mini-budget, and this is wasting the time of the House purposely.
Mr Reed: We are not allowed to ask questions?
Ms MARTIN: I am still on my feet, and you can sit down, thank you.
This is about transparency and clarity. It is about ensuring that Territorians understand very clearly that we have a problem with our budget. That this is a temporary measure to alleviate those problems with the budget. It will not alleviate all the problems with the budget. We could not possibly do that in any revenue measure because the deficit and debt you left was far too big. This, over three years, will produce $42m and that should be made very clear to Territorians. The description is a very fair one - a temporary budget improvement levy that, in legislation, says there is a beginning date and an end date and that is the charge.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister was quite correct when she came into this House before and said she presented a second reading speech. In fact, I have the second reading speeches, it is two pages and the interesting thing is the Chief Minister then has the audacity to come here and tell us about open, honest and accountable government. In fact, the second reading speech was so quick the Hansard missed it, blink, they missed it. The reason for this is because she has come into this Chamber and all she is trying to do is make a political statement on every registration certificate that will be issued. Nothing prevents the Chief Minister or her minister simply signing the order to ramp-up the registration fee and then ramp it down in a few years time. The reason they have done this is purely political. If wasting the time of the House is, in the Chief Minister’s estimation, the audacity to try to question or raise objections to the political way in which she is using this legislation and her government department which has to enforce this legislation, then I will waste the time of this House.
In terms of open and honest explaining - one paragraph. Then she describes what is in the act, but one paragraph as to why she is introducing it, which is why we have to go through this tortuous and arduous committee stage to extract from the open, honest and accountable Chief Minister exactly what she is trying to do. Frankly, in terms of arrogance, we were a mere candle next to the lighthouse which are the members opposite.
Mr DUNHAM: I ask the Chief Minister, in the event that this bill is passed, will it sit with her portfolio responsibilities under the Administrative Arrangements Order, given that she has had carriage of the bill, that she has introduced the bill, done the second reading speech and it is patently a bill for the Treasurer not the minister responsible for the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ms MARTIN: And your question was? I am sorry, I missed what the point of the question was.
Mr DUNHAM: I asked the Chief Minister if, under the Administrative Arrangements Order - you do not know what that is? Okay. If, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, this bill, if passed, will sit within your portfolio responsibilities, given that it is patently nothing to do with the minister with responsibility for the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ms MARTIN: As Treasurer, because this is a revenue measure, I had carriage of it. The Motor Vehicles Act sits within another minister, but, as carriage of the revenue measure, I have it. It is my decision.
Mr ELFERINK: Just a more general question, this applies more to the whole of the act. I ask the Treasurer or the Chief Minister quite simply, has any flaw in the act been brought to her attention which will affect the operation of the act?
Ms MARTIN: This is a very straightforward piece of legislation and I am confident, when enacted, it will achieve the purpose that we are aiming for. It is a measure that increases an existing charge, it is designed for vehicles that have domestic usage and it has some exemptions which are spelled out in the act. We will continue to monitor it over the next three years.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, you said a few moments ago that you were in favour of legislation being clear and you used the word ‘clarity’. The short title to the legislation - and I will read it out again for you: Temporary Budget Improvement Levy. A levy is defined as – I am reading from a Macquarie dictionary – ‘that which is raised as a tax’, so, the levy is describing the amount of money raised as a tax. A tax is defined as ‘the compulsory monetary contribution demanded by a government for its support and levied on incomes, property etc’, isn’t the correct terminology to use the word ‘tax’ as opposed to ‘levy’?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, why did you instruct you counsel to draft such a lengthy title to this section when the trends all around Australia is to have a short, succinct plain English reference in a short title, such as, Tax or Registration Tax? Why did you instruct your counsel to have such a lengthy, drawn-out title which is contained and scattered throughout sections 12 and 12A?
Ms MARTIN: This levy is temporary. This levy has to do with the budget that was handed down by the previous administration. You were not here but the previous administration handed it down. It will improve the budgetary situation and is a levy on an existing charge. I think it is good to describe what you are doing. I am sorry if it offends some principle that you hold dear, but Temporary Budget Improvement Levy says what it is, and that is what we decided to do.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I wish to return to a question I asked before. Has the Chief Minister been made aware of any flaw in this piece of legislation which will affect its operation?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, you have caused to be drafted section 12 and in your final address you refer to the section as being an increase in a pre-existing tax, an increase on car registration. Why then did you see fit to utilise the mechanism of drafting sections 12 and 12A when you could have increased the prescribed fee referred to in section 13 of the principal act?
Ms MARTIN: As I understand the question from the member for Goyder, he is asking why did we not just increase the prescribed fee?
Mr MALEY: I can clarify it for you. You have said in this Chamber that this is an increase in car registration.
Ms MARTIN: It is.
Mr MALEY: You are trying to get away, and understandably, from any suggestion that you have introduced a new tax and you can call it whatever you want to call it. I am asking you, if you say that it really is and you are being truthful about it, an increase in car registration, why did you not just increase the prescribed fee which is car registration? Why did you introduce sections 12 and 12A which is not consistent with what you said 10 minutes ago, that this is just merely an increase in car registration which could have been done by way of an amendment to the regulation prescribed fee under section 13?
Ms MARTIN: The purpose of this increase is to make it broadly based but not to create an unnecessary impost on those doing business with a vehicle. So it is targeted for domestic usage and because it is targeted for domestic usage, and that means Territorians across the board but not doubling up if a car is used in a different way, and you could say that trucks and that kind of thing that are used specifically for business across above a certain tonnage, fit that kind of category. We wanted to make it specific to that domestic usage therefore, section 12.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask the Chief Minister how many eligible vehicles – and I asked her this in my contribution to the second reading - how many eligible vehicles does this legislation apply to? You might not have this information readily available. I would be happy if you would give me an undertaking that you could provide it before the end of the sittings or whatever.
Ms MARTIN: Up to about 100 000.
Mr REED: 100 000? Up to?
Ms MARTIN: Within that range. Okay? 95 000 to 100 000.
Mr REED: 95 000 to 100 000. I ask the Treasurer a matter that I also raised in the second reading. On behalf of volunteer organisations and community groups and non-profit charitable organisations, I give the Treasurer another opportunity to consider their position in relation to this legislation, the impost that it will impose on them, and as I mentioned again in the second reading, local government and community government councils. In relation to this particular section will she consider the addition of a part (g) that would exempt motor vehicles owned by non-profit charitable organisations and perhaps an part (h) which would exclude local and community government councils?
Ms MARTIN: The great sadness for this new government is that we have had to do this in the first place because of the budgetary situation that we inherited, to the deceit that you as Treasurer, perpetrated on Territorians. I believe that Territorians across the board will recognise the need for this budget improvement measure. I said yesterday when I announced it that I was sorry that we had to do it and that it was a tough measure but across the board, we are asking Territorians to contribute to fixing the hole left in the budget, the one that you covered up when you brought down your last budget. What Territorians want is a sustainable situation moving to the future and contributions through this measure, through this levy, are how we are going to move towards that. Our calculations are that it will raise something like $42m over three years. There is a lot more work to be done to bring the budget under control, to bring the budget back to a sustainable level that will actually underpin our growth for the future. There is some hurt now but there will be a brighter future because of it.
Mr REED: Chief Minister, I think back to the second reading contribution that I made, and when I raised this particular issue on behalf of non-profit and charitable organisations and churches and the like, the surprise that suddenly came to her face. I asked her in the consideration of the drafting of this legislation whether she or other persons gave any consideration to this matter and if you did, you would know how many vehicles you would have had some work done to be able to be informed as to the number of vehicles that this exclusion would have applied to and therefore you would have a cost and a potential reduced amount of revenue that would apply to it. So, what consideration was given to non-profit groups, churches and other charitable organisations?
Ms MARTIN: This was a carefully considered piece of budget improvement measure and we looked very carefully at the impact, particularly on people on pensions, Territorians who are on pensions and ensured that the pensioner concession was as widely available as possible and that is at a 50% rate. I get a bit taken aback at the hypocrisy of someone like the member for Katherine. The absolute hypocrisy when you know why this measure is necessary because of the deceit, the falsifying of facts in budgets that we saw and you try to pretend that we do not need a measure like this. It is necessary that it be broad based. It is necessary …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman, I ask that the member for Drysdale withdraw that remark.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes. Bearing in mind the statements made earlier, I think you should withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I seek your clarification, Mr Chairman . The word was used this morning and when I asked for it to be withdrawn it was ruled by the Speaker to be okay.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am the Chair of this particular section of the meeting and you did mention before that you were worried about the language today. I think it should be withdrawn.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I would further point out that in the contribution just made by the Chief Minister she used several words that in other circumstances …
Mr CHAIRMAN: For the time being withdraw it. I will also confer with the Speaker later on.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw.
Mr REED: On the last response from the Chief Minister. Charitable organisations, churches and other people affected by this, notwithstanding that ordinary Territorians will be, are not concerned about your excuses. You are, you are immersed in them. But whoever you want to blame this happens to be your legislation. You are imposing this on Territorians and you are imposing it on churches, charitable groups and non-profit organisations. So, whoever you want to blame you cannot duck out from under it. On behalf of those organisations, can I ask you again how many vehicles would have been affected had you provided a specific exemption for them? Further to that, are you prepared to consider it, bearing in mind that as far as I can recollect, this will be the first piece of legislation of this kind that will be introduced into this parliament and passed that will affect organisations of that kind to the extent that it does?
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in contributing to this discussion, let us look at the real reason why we are even debating this legislation at the moment.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: No, because this is very important. It is okay for the member for Katherine to say, ‘Well, we have to discount the reasons, let’s look at the detail’. Let’s look at the budget papers. Let’s look at the budget papers from Treasury and I refer the member for Katherine …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Can I just explain that in the third reading, the debate is quite specific to the particular section that is being considered at the time and in that regard, the contribution being made by the minister is quite irrelevant. We are being specifically directed here in relation to a very pertinent and specific part of the act.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman, a member at any time in stages of committee debate may rise to their feet and contribute to the debate, as they see fit. It is not Question Time. You can’t stand and demand an answer. If the member for Wanguri wants to stand and contribute to this debate, he is entirely entitled to do so.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! I will ask some advice first. I rule against the point of order on the grounds similar to what I allowed before, that even in the committee stage, this matter still has to be relevant. We are dealing with an urgency bill, and we are also dealing with something that is called a temporary budget improvement levy, so I have allowed it before and I will allow it now.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just going to the point of why we are debating this legislation, let’s look at the budget papers, Budget Paper No 3 actually presented in accordance with the fiscal integrity legislation we have here. For once, these are Treasury papers, out of Treasury, not out of the former Treasury minister’s office, and let’s see exactly what these Treasury papers have to say in terms of what we inherited in government.
I quote from page 1 of Budget Paper No 3:
However, immediately following the election, the Treasury advised the government that the underlying
budget position was unsustainable …
We have heard a lot words from people on the other side asking where did this word come from. It is in the Under Treasurer’s documents here, ‘unsustainable’.
… being closer to a deficit to $102m than the $12m that had been estimated in the budget papers. The reason
for the difference was twofold. The first was that the estimated outcome included $50m from a one-off sale related
to the sale of NT Fleet assets thus masking part of the underlying deficit.
$50m, yes that is a cash injection, but that does not get to the underlying structural deficit that we inherited from the members opposite.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: ‘The second reason’, and the member for Drysdale should listen to this, because he was a culprit.
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, understated and
increases in the budget for these purposes during 2001-02 would be required.
So that is why we are here because of your deliberate deception in understating the budget outcomes, failing to fund through the appropriation debates that amount of money, and we have to consider this levy in this light. The direct reason that we are here today, and having to impose this levy that we certainly did not go to the election on, saying this is what we are going to do, was because of your deliberate deception and fraud in the previous budget.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Wanguri, are you referring to the government or the …
Mr HENDERSON: The previous government.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister has not answered my questions in relation to the number of vehicles owned by charitable, non-profit organisations and churches that this legislation is going to apply to.
Ms MARTIN: I think the member for Katherine, having been the former Treasurer, would understand that that data is not readily available.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, she is the Treasurer, she is the Chief Minister, and any information is available. To suggest that the names of owners of motor vehicles could not be acquired, when they are all on a government recorded system, is just ridiculous and trite. It will be an answer that will be of interest to these charitable organisations because it now exposes the Chief Minister, in terms of the fact that the government did not clearly consider this matter before this legislation or during the course of it being drafted. She is in fact being quite deceitful in her earlier remarks in suggesting that yes, they did give some consideration to it. Well, clearly you haven’t. You have been caught out and these organisations will be advised of that accordingly.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer has told us that this particular revenue raising piece of legislation is going to accrue some $42m over the next few years. At $90 a vehicle by 100 000 vehicles per year, and I use the maximum figures she provided - how, over three years, does that get to $42m?
Ms MARTIN: Good point, good point. I gave you a global figure for the revenue measures, $27m. Let me say, as opposed to the previous administration, if I inadvertently give the wrong figure, I am happy to say it was.
Mr DUNHAM: Only when he twigged you. That you had $27m not $42m.
Ms MARTIN: No, I was reminded that $42m is an overall figure for revenue measures and $24m is this for three years. So let me just make it very clear. If I got it a little wrong before, then maybe it is the weariness of listening to the idiocy of your arguments.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I want to pursue another point here. If there are some 95 000 to 100 000 vehicles to which this legislation is going to apply, and we look at those hardworking community-based organisations and churches across the Territory, and assume that they might have, I don’t know, 1000 vehicles all up, you are not talking about a lot of money. Will you consider then, if you won’t apply an exemption for these organisations - bearing in mind that you will be diverting money from providing help through those organisations to needy Territorians - increasing the financial assistance that they receive from your government to offset the burden of this new tax?
Ms MARTIN: I say to the member for Katherine, we will monitor the implementation of this levy.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, that gives these organisations no joy at all. They will be starting to pay this new tax from tomorrow. From the point of view of it being monitored, that is going to amount to no assistance to them at all. The fact is that the very small amount of money, well, members of the opposite side, this is a very important issue in terms of services to needy Territorians, that is going to be diverted into the coffers of government and away from the coffers of those organisations that provide the services. These are the very organisations that the former opposition used to wax lyrical about, about all the good work that they do for Territorians and, indeed, the fact that the former government should have provided them with more financial assistance.
Within a few months of this government being in power we find that the tables have turned directly 180 degrees and that they are now imposing on these organisations an additional debt, unforeseen, they have not been able to program for it. They can see that the business community has been set aside in relation to the effect of this legislation and this new tax, but they, as very important organisations providing essential services, in fact, in many cases, life support services, to needy and sick Territorians and this government, this so-called compassionate leader of government, this Chief Minister, is going, for the sake of $90 000, $100 000, it is not a lot of money in terms of the government, but it is an awful amount of money in terms of these organisations, particularly to the recipients of the assistance that they provide.
I ask, finally, on behalf of those sick Territorians, the needy Territorians and of the services that are provided by these community-based organisations, church groups and whatever, will the Chief Minister undertake to put in place an exemption for these organisations given, in global terms, the small amount of money that would be involved?
Ms MARTIN: I gave my answer previously.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I wish to draw the Treasurer’s attention to subsection (5), section 12, which is being discussed in clause (4), in relation to the section which empowers, by regulation, the alteration, nominally the increase, of this amount of the levy. Does the Chief Minister and Treasurer, or does the government, in any way intend to increase this levy?
- Ms MARTIN: No.
- I told the department to go back and look at the options for a community-based levy.
So he is telling the department to go back to a community-based levy. This provides a mechanism to engage in the development of such a levy. If the minister has no intention of ramping it up, why does she not just simply remove it right now?
Ms MARTIN: It just shows that you are not looking laterally. This is very well a measure that we could use to reduce the amount.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, if that is the case, if she believes that it is only a matter of reducing the amount, word the section accordingly. Reassure Territorians that this slug is going to be the only slug and nothing more.
A member: It is a refusal to answer.
Ms MARTIN: I gave an answer previously. The rhetoric we hear does not need an answer every time that somebody bangs on the desk.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, section 12(2) of the proposed bill talks about a positive obligation on the registrar not to register the motor vehicle unless this temporary budget improvement levy is paid. Do you think, when read with section 13A of the principal act, that is inconsistent because there is a deeming provision saying that when you pay your contribution, you get a certificate and then the vehicle is deemed to be registered and they are both positive obligations on the registrar. Do you think sections 12 and 13A are inconsistent?
Ms MARTIN: Section 12(2) and section 13 of the principal act work well together. It simply says they are complementary and the levy will be paid and 12(2) provides that mechanism to work with the principal act.
Mr MALEY: I will just walk you through a bit slower. They are not complementary. My question to you is: can you explain how these two sections can operate and why they are not mutually exclusive? You have one section, 13A, saying that if you pay the prescribed fee to the MVR and then you pay your insurance, then the MVR through the Deputy Registrar is required to issue you a certificate. And then at the end of that section, it says: ‘Where a certificate is issued under this section, the motor vehicle in respect of which or the person in …’ rah, rah, rah ‘ …the application is made is deemed to be registered …’. So, on a strict reading of that, it is not the registrar who registers the vehicle. He issues a certificate then it is deemed to be registered. You have in the provision which you have drafted and you are introducing, a clause that says the registrar must not register the vehicle unless the temporary budget improvement levy has been paid. They are inconsistent. I am asking you: do you think they are inconsistent? Perhaps you might concede that you overlooked a minor amendment which could be incorporated into section 13A.
Ms MARTIN: The two sections work together, sections 12(2) and 13. The best drafting advice is being used and I am confident that it will work together. I understand the concerns of a young lawyer in this House, but let me tell you that we have expert counsel and it will work.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I refer to the actual levy of $90 and to statements made by the Chief Minister that people with private plated cars and public servants and others will be paying the levy. Given that this act does not provide a device for that to occur and given that there are certain protocols dealing with impositions on public servants under contracts, can you describe for the House the mechanism that will be used to extract that $90 from those public servants with private plated cars?
Ms MARTIN: There are provisions that allow it to be collected from people like ourselves and it will be collected through mechanisms that will be put into place, after tax, so rest assured it will be done well and that Stephen Dunham of Leanyer will be paying his contribution.
Mr DUNHAM: I don’t rest assured at all, Chief Minister, because this act appears to be silent on that and you are telling us that there will be mechanisms put in place that are not before this House and a call on a tax on people who are not aware of it - and I am talking about public servants here - myself, I will see it when it comes - but I would have assumed that this would be a matter that not only would we be talking about to concerned public servants, you would be talking to unions and others that represent their interests about an imposition of this type and that you would bring a whole package of legislation forward that, whether it was in the Public Service Act or anywhere else, that would enable us to see it in its entirety.
Ms MARTIN: I refer the member to Section 12(8) where it spells out clearly where it is going to happen and I think you can rest assured that this tax will be imposed equitably and will be recovered from a government car user with private plates.
Mr DUNHAM: Are the unions happy with this when you consulted with them, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN: Are the unions happy when we consulted with them? I can’t quite work out the relevance here, but let me assure you that unionists in the Territory understand the kind of budget deceit that was perpetrated by this previous administration. They understand it, certainly, and it is a bit cute for somebody from the Country Liberal Party to suddenly start bleating about the rights of unionists when they stood in here year after year with you beating up on unionists simply for being unionists. So, don’t be half cute.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, what do you say in response to the proposition that there are no enforcement provisions contained in section 12, remembering that from a prosecutorial perspective if section 13A is not affected by section 12 then, providing you pay your prescribed fee, the car is registered. So how are you going to recover the $90 from people who refuse to pay it, remembering that they are not committing an offence of driving an unregistered or uninsured car because the vehicle is deemed to be insured under section 13A. How are you going to recover their $90 if section 13A can continue to co-exist simultaneously with section 12?
Ms MARTIN: I would have thought, member for Goyder, that you would actually take clause 12(2) to heart because it says that a registrar must not register a motor vehicle unless the levy has been paid. Simple.
Mr MALEY: I will make it simpler for you. Section 13A says you issue a certificate, the vehicle is registered. The registrar does not register vehicles. That is simple. If you understand that, you will understand my question. My question is, if I am prosecuting you, for not paying the $90 for an unregistered, uninsured vehicle on the basis that you did not pay the $90, I would be unsuccessful because section 13A deems the vehicle registered irrespective of whether or not the $90 is paid. How are you going to deal with that prosecutorial anomaly?
Ms MARTIN: It is quite straightforward. I appreciate your previous career as a defence lawyer, but I think it is quite straightforward that a registrar will not register a car unless that levy is paid. The best drafting advice that we have here says that they will work together and cars will not be registered unless that levy is paid. I respect the wisdom of your years in the court but I am confident that our drafting has it right.
Mr ELFERINK: Chief Minister, what is the effect of this on trader’s plates?
Ms MARTIN: Trader’s plates?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. You do not know what they are, do you? You do not know what trader’s plates are?
Ms MARTIN: It applies.
Mr REED: Could the Chief Minister explain then. Trader’s plates, as I understand, are held by businesses. Businesses are exempt. How does it apply to a business, through a trader’s plate?
Ms MARTIN: This is a broad-based tax …
Mr REED: I am sorry?
Ms MARTIN: This is a broad-based levy. What we are seeing in here at the moment is an attempt to simply try to justify what the Country Liberal Party has done over the last few years …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It simply has. Because you are refusing to recognise this is a justifiable levy. You are trying to pretend that there is no black hole in the budget. You are trying to pretend that somehow you were proper fiscal managers, and you weren’t. This is designed to raise a levy on domestic usage, predominantly raise it. That is the intention of the levy and I am confident that we will achieve it.
Mr REED: Notwithstanding all the waffle, I did not get the answer. Trader’s plates are held by businesses. Businesses, by this legislation, are exempt. The Motor Traders Association, I would have thought, would be very interested in the answer of the Chief Minister that this $90 applies to each trader’s plate which they hold, notwithstanding that they have been told that businesses are exempt. We are not being difficult in relation to this matter. That is a legitimate question, we are asking it on behalf of business. For you to be so trite as to suggest that it is for all sorts of other reasons is just wrong. Could you give you us an answer to the question?
Ms MARTIN: First of all, I never stated that businesses were exempt. This is a levy targeting a broad base, on cars, on vehicles that are used for domestic use. I think that, within that, where there is some impact as you have identified, that is quite justified.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister, has now - I think your problem might be that you do not understand what a trader’s plate is. I am not being smart here. A trader’s plate is owned by a motor vehicle trader to be able to use those plates to get the vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Registry to register it so that it is not unregistered in the meantime, if you know what I mean. A vehicle with a trader’s plate cannot be used for domestic purposes. It can only be used for the purposes of conducting motor vehicle business and the use of the plates for that purpose at that time.
Ms MARTIN: The levy will apply and I am confident that it will be borne fairly across the community.
Mr REED: Can I ask the Chief Minister then, how many trader’s plates are there in the Northern Territory held by motor vehicle traders?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have those figures with me.
Mr REED: I’m sorry?
Ms MARTIN: I do not have those figures with me.
Mr REED: I am not surprised, you did not even know what they were. But it does demonstrate that - and this is the point that you made earlier, Mr Chairman - hurrying legislation of this kind through, to be able to get your money out of taxpayers’ pockets as quickly as possible, in an obscene way, has inherent dangers. We now have two examples where the government has been caught out. They clearly gave no consideration to this tax and the impost it will have on churches, other charitable organisations and service providers to the community. We now know that whilst business is being told that it is not going to be an impost on them that, in fact, motor vehicle traders will have this impost on them. Further to that, of course, the government did not even bother to find out more detail about the classification of vehicles. 95 000 to 100 000 by $90 a year equals - so it is now being clearly demonstrated that this has simply been a money grabbing exercise and let’s get into taxpayers’ pockets. From the point of view of where that all leads, who really cares? Didn’t take into account the impost that this was going to have on certain sections of the community and now, even whilst they are being provided with an opportunity to reduce that impact, to provide some exemptions in relation to charitable organisations, the Chief Minister and Treasurer gives a flat no.
In relation to motor vehicle trader’s plates, not only did she not know what they were - never heard of them before - but says, ‘It will apply to them because it applies to any vehicle used for a domestic purpose’. Well, you cannot use, whilst you have trader’s plates on a vehicle, the vehicle for domestic purposes, for any purpose other than directly related to the trade of the vehicle in relation to that business. We are clearly demonstrating that you have not thought this through, that this is just a lust for money in terms of whatever you can grab from Territorians. In relation to these matters, do not be so small-minded as to be a little gracious in relation to being able to do it.
How many motor vehicle traders would there be in the Northern Territory - 100? They might have one or two or three trader’s plates each. You will be able to keep your commitment to the business community by not imposing this tax on them. More importantly, as I said earlier, I implore the government to consider the exemptions for those other church and community groups.
Ms MARTIN: I say to the member for Katherine, I take your comments on board. I accept that perhaps I do not know the full details of every single piece of information that you want here, but I will take those comments on board and we will look at them.
Mr REED: Is that in relation to the trader’s plates and/or the charitable organisations? Are we talking just about trader’s plates here? So the Leader of the Opposition nods, yes, and says yes.
Members: Chief Minister.
Ms Martin: Denis isn’t here.
Mr REED: The Chief Minister, rather. Well, you called yourself the Leader of the Opposition the other day.
In terms of the motor vehicle trader’s plates, the government will undertake to give consideration as to whether or not they will be excluded? I take it on the basis that, if you are satisfied with the fact that they are not used for domestic purposes, that they are purely business, then it won’t apply. Thank you.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, section 12(1)(f) talks about a motor vehicle of a prescribed class of motor vehicles. Have any motor vehicles been prescribed, if so where? Could you provide a copy of the prescribed vehicles that have been prescribed so far to the Chamber?
Ms MARTIN: Once the act is through, they will be identified but at this stage the prescribed class of motor vehicles will be taxis, private hires and minibuses.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, in the second reading speech which was received earlier, there was a reference to a vehicle used primarily for business use. What formula if any, or what mechanism do you foreshadow to utilise when you consider a vehicle which is part business, part domestic and how will the levy apply if at all to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: We are identifying taxis, private hires and minibuses as being of that prescribed class of motor vehicle. Identifiably they are commercial vehicles and the rest will be subject to the levy.
Mr MALEY: To clarify the question for you. A one tonne ute is FBT free and a law firm can buy a one tonne ute; it is used for business purposes during the day and for driving to and from work but on weekends you cannot claim the tax deduction. It is a domestic use vehicle. Will the levy apply to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: I wonder, Mr Chairman, if the Chief Minister could explain. You just indicated those vehicles that would be exempt – hire cars, taxis and the like. You failed to mention TV vehicles, that is tourist vehicles and pastoral vehicles but I am thinking of specific registered and plated vehicles and tourist vehicles is the one.
Ms MARTIN: We have identified the taxi, the private hire and the minibuses and with the other motor vehicles excluded from the levy, which there is quite a significant area, we are confident that it gives it a reasonable coverage and a fair coverage.
Mr REED: It gives the tax a fair coverage but it does not give the business the appropriate coverage given that you told business people that this would not apply to them. Now, tourist vehicles can only be so registered for a business. A tourist vehicle is a means of transporting someone on a tourist operation solely for business and a financial return. That is to say, those people who own and operate tourist vehicles do so as their job, as their business. Are you saying that they are not exempt from this tax?
Ms MARTIN: If they come under the excluded from the levy, and there are motor vehicles that come under that which are identified, then they won’t pay the levy. If they do, they will.
Mr REED: Well, Mr Chairman, this is a rather unfair way to deal with peoples’ livelihoods. I wonder if the Chief Minister would be so kind as to be able to give us a copy of those vehicles that are included and those that are excluded because we are going now, on top of the church and charitable organisations, on top of trader plates held by motor vehicle traders, find that here is another section of the community that is to suffer this tax having been advised by the government that business will not have this tax applied to them.
I take it, Mr Chairman, that you would know quite a few tourist vehicle operators and you know how important they are to the Northern Territory and the essential service that they provide. In providing that service they are conducting their business. They are actually in business. In fact, I do not think a private person can get a tourist vehicle licence. I am not sure. That is correct? So one has to be in business to get a TV licence yet, notwithstanding that this legislation we are told does not apply to businesses, this person that has to be in business to get a TV licence will not be exempted from this tax.
Can the Chief Minister tell us yes, they are included in it and that is in direct conflict with her former statements that businesses won’t apply? Or no they are not or, perhaps to give her a way out, does she want to treat it the same way as the motor vehicle trader’s plates and say we will have to have a look into this because we have messed it up and we will consider it in the context of the information that has come to light tonight?
Ms MARTIN: Again I say to the member for Katherine, we can take a look at that in terms of the regulations and I take your comments on board.
Mr REED: Well, I thank the honourable Chief Minister for that, Mr Chairman. On behalf of those tour operators and those hardworking business people of the Northern Territory who are currently sitting at home conducting their business and trying to earn a quid and generate some economic activity in the Northern Territory in the belief that they will not have this impost thrust upon them, I remind the Chief Minister of her earlier comments that she was of the belief that our contributions in this third reading, in these committee stages, were simply for the purpose of wasting time, keeping members in the House and indeed, just trying to be mischievous.
We have, as an opposition, been searching and quite productive in this regard and certainly on behalf of the churches and charitable organisations put their case, albeit we have been unsuccessful. But in the case of two industry groups, two business which work hard to sustain themselves and to generate economic activity in the Northern Territory, we have very adequately put their case and we may well win something for them. They are clearly being very much overlooked by this government which, in the grab and lust for money, has not given this legislation adequate consideration. It is poorly drafted and it is simply going to apply - or would have applied - to whoever the government wanted to apply it to had we as an opposition not looked after their interests.
Ms MARTIN: It is healthy we are having discussions about this but it would have been more important if the previous administration had thought about the unsustainable budgetary situation you put Territorians in before we hear these kind of sanctimonious words in here. It is important that this be a broad based levy. It is very important for Territorians that broadly they contribute towards getting our position back to a sustainable one in budgetary terms and I take the comments on board.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I accept all that and all those trite comments about whose fault it is. It really does not matter a fig whose fault it is. We are talking here about your new tax. It is a new tax which requires specific legislation to be able to enact it and as such is a new tax, quacks like a new tax, walks like a new tax and is a new tax. Now, it is also a very poorly drafted tax and we will take particular care to ensure that what you have told Territorians when you stood up, for example, in front of the Chamber of Commerce at lunch yesterday and came back here and waxed lyrical about it and said, ‘However, I have protected the business community of the Northern Territory because this will not apply to businesses’, when we find in the nitty gritty of searching through this legislation in the committee stages, but for the CLP opposition searching it would have applied to at least two businesses, and I must say who knows how many others, through your incompetence in terms of the way that you have drafted it, the way you are going to snap into people’s wallets and get their money. I think that that has been a very useful exercise.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I just want it placed on the record, and I think the answer is going to be yes, but could the Chief Minister just confirm this. Are you saying that a subcontractor who uses his vehicle Monday to Friday, going from site to site, and on the weekends maybe for the odd hour or two his wife uses the vehicle to pick up kids, drop kids off, and the vehicle is used for domestic purposes, are you saying the levy will apply to that vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: Let’s take this up just on behalf of another sector of the business community. I dare say there are a few contractors who work out of the back of a ute in your electorate, Mr Chairman. Here we have the picture of the carpenter. He has the circular saw and the boxes of tools and the extension leads, the ladder and everything else in the back of the ute. He is out there working hard to try to earn a crust and conduct a business throughout the week, probably six days a week. Sunday morning comes and, oh dear, mum says, no milk for the cornflakes for the kids. The car is in the garage …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Sanderson! Order! We will carry on this debate in a civil manner.
Mr REED: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The car is in the garage, and parked in front of the car is the ute. Because the wife of this contractor says, ‘I’ll use your ute just to slip down and get a carton of milk at the corner store, because I’d rather do that than move the ute and get the car out and off you go,’ that deems it to be a vehicle that this tax will apply to, notwithstanding that for five or six days of the week at least, it is a business vehicle. Now, there are a couple of points that arise from this. First of all, these business people are of the view that they are exempt because the Chief Minister has told them yesterday that they are exempt. The other point is what assessment process is used to determine whether or not this vehicle is going to be used on Sunday morning to slip down and get the Sunday Territorian and carton of milk to put on the cornflakes for the kids? How do you determine what that use will be, whether it be domestic for 5% of the week and 95% of the week for business use, and who is going to draw the line, and how are they going to do it?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Katherine is enjoying the sound of his own words. Where a vehicle has a domestic use, the levy applies.
Mr REED: So that is, let’s get this straight, Mr Chairman, thank you. Any level of domestic use? So, Joe the carpenter goes into the Motor Vehicle Registry, ‘I want to get my vehicle registered’. What questions does he have to answer? Is it - register this vehicle, Joe’s Carpentry Services, Bees Creek Road, Bees Creek. I’m here to register my vehicle. Will he be asked, does your missus use this to go and get the Sunday Territorian and a carton of milk on Sunday morning? Or, will this vehicle ever be used for a domestic purpose, whether it is one use a week, a month, a year? How is the criteria going to be written, how is it going to be applied, and what is going to be the penalty, I ask the Chief Minister, if someone infringes this law, if someone tells a lie for example, or if someone just makes an honest mistake? – ‘No, it’s never really used. I get home, I just park it up the driveway on the weekend and it just sits there until Sunday when I hop into it’. Quite a legitimate response because it is the business ute. But on the other hand, of course, if this person is picked up somewhere by the police, and the missus is driving, not the contractor, will the police be asking, have you paid the levy?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, don’t be ridiculous. The kind of vehicle it is, if it is capable of being used for domestic use, it will pay the levy.
Mr REED: In case Hansard did not pick that up, the Chief Minister said: ‘If the vehicle is capable of being used for domestic use, it will pay the levy’. Any utility is capable of being used for domestic use. I do not know how many businesses there are in the Northern Territory with a utility, but I would expect that there would be lots, just to put it briefly. Now, that is to say, here we have another group of businesses, this time, much broader than just the tourist plate registered vehicles, because we now know that every vehicle in the Northern Territory, whether it is the Coca Cola ute that goes out and fixes the vending machine, or any other utility which is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle, will have this applied. Is that correct?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: It is! So we are now finding, like drawing teeth …
Ms MARTIN: It is a broad based levy.
Mr REED: Yes, this is a broad based levy, and this is the very point that we are getting to. This is a broad based levy that businesses yesterday were told would not apply to them. This will not apply to businesses, that is what you told the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, did you not? Yes. Now we find that if it is a utility of an air conditioning repair shop, which is capable of being used for domestic purposes, that applies. They pay the levy. Don’t be afraid to speak up, this is your legislation. Do I hear a yes?
Ms MARTIN: I’m not on my feet. Sit down.
Mr REED: I hear a yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I remind the Chief Minister of her, albeit short, second reading speech yesterday and I quote from the speech:
- An increase to another tax would aggravate the effects of already high business taxes, weaken the Territory’s
economic base, retard recovery and thus impact on jobs. The government is not prepared to risk further pressure
on jobs.
With that in mind, I have in my electorate several tourist operators who run multiple vehicles. They are not big operations, they are small, one works from a three bedroom flat which is attached to a duplex. What message do I take to him from you about his tour plates on his five motor cycles.
Ms MARTIN: I discussed the issue with the member for Katherine and we are taking it on board.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, are you aware that some motorcycles, particularly of a smaller cubic capacity, and there are hundreds of members of the Darwin Motor Cycle Club who have small cubic capacity motorcycles, who pay, I am not sure of the exact figure, but less than $100 a year registration. First of all, were you aware of that, and secondly, do you realise that this is a 100% increase on the registration of some motorcycles?
Ms MARTIN: It will apply to motorcycles. It is a broad based levy and this is the mechanism that we are using to collect it. This is a levy that is needed because your party mismanaged the Territory’s finances. Mismanaged the Territory’s finances, and we need a mechanism. The mechanism we are using is to increase registrations for a limited period. It is one that enables Territorians to contribute to getting our budget back into a sustainable way. It does come down to less than $2 per week, and this is the mechanism we are using. We have recognised that we are targeting it on vehicles that have a domestic use. This is the mechanism we are using. I have said to the member for Katherine we will take the TV plates and we will look at the trader’s plates, but have no doubt about it, this is a broad based levy. The mechanism we are using is to increase registrations, but this is a measure for Territorians to get our budget situation back into a sustainable situation.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, this has gone somewhat past the intent of this legislation and this new tax, to the honesty and the integrity of the Chief Minister, in that yesterday she gave a commitment at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon and, indeed, in this House, that this tax would not apply to businesses and that that was in direct response to requests from the business community not to impose on them any further charges. Now, in that context and given her assurances in that regard, what I would now like her to tell me is: what is the overriding criteria in relation to her words ‘capable of being used for domestic purposes’? If Joe the carpenter, when he is registering the vehicle notwithstanding that it is a ute capable of being used for domestic purposes, says: ‘That is never used for domestic purposes. It is my business vehicle and the Chief Minister said businesses will not be affected or impacted by this new $90 tax, so I will not pay it.’ Is that the principle consideration or is your ‘any vehicle capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’ the principle criteria, which is in fact what you have told us? I want that point clarified, please.
Ms MARTIN: I say again: this levy is a mechanism to be able to raise revenue and it will apply broadly to vehicles that have a domestic usage, that are capable of having that domestic usage. It does minimise the impact on business, but is about Territorians contributing to the budget black hole that was left by the Country Liberal Party. So it is a broad based tax and you can chase this round and round and round, but that is the fact of the matter.
This is a mechanism for raising that revenue, important revenue to raise for the Territory’s future sustainability and it is one we are committed to. It is one that is very unfortunate that we have had to do. We would not have had to do it if you, as Treasurer, had not defrauded Territorians by putting fudged figures in the budget papers and that is the bottom line. So, all of these words that we are hearing again and again are simply you trying to avoid the fact that this should in fact be called the Contributory Liability Payment and sheeted home to the CLP.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, we are past all that. You see, that is the difficulty that the Chief Minister has now found herself in, this hastily conjured up legislation to extract money by way of a new tax. She has in fact, not only her, but other members and in particular, the Deputy Chief Minister who, in his contribution to the second reading debate, specifically made mention of the fact that this legislation will not apply to business because the government did not want to impose on business and that they had had discussions with the business community to ensure that that would not be the case. The Chief Minister gave the same assurances, and what we are talking about here is the integrity of the word of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister in that they have given those assurances and only now, as the detail of this legislation is being debated, do we find that they have deliberately misled the business community in that whether or not you have a vehicle that you only use for your business, and that you were told yesterday that this tax would not apply to, it is going to apply because the criteria simply says ‘is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’. For a government that purports to be supporting business and not imposing any further burden in terms of additional taxes on business, you have committed a heinous crime in that everything from the Coca Cola ute, fully sign written, owned by the Coca Cola distributor here in Darwin, probably garaged in the Coca Cola yard every weekend and may have no ability of being used as a domestic vehicle …
Mr Stirling: Then it does not pay.
Mr REED: Yes, it does. Your boss has told us that it does, I am sorry. It is capable of being used as a domestic vehicle. It is capable. That is the criteria for paying it. We have been through all this to the extent of the carpenter who says that it is not going to be used for domestic purposes, but the Chief Minister has told us that the overriding criteria is ‘capable of being used as a domestic vehicle’. We now find that the Deputy Leader of the government and the Leader of the government, the Chief Minister, are in conflict. The Chief Minister says: ‘No, they will have to pay because it is capable of being used’ and the Deputy Leader says: ‘They will not have to pay because it is going to be locked in a yard.’ Well, you are wrong, we have been advised by the Chief Minister and we have exposed the real intent of this legislation and the deceitful nature of its application and the deceitful way in which the government has advised the business community that it will not be applied to them when in fact we find it will be applied to business across the board. The government has misled the business community, has misled all of the hard working small contractors across the Northern Territory and indeed is now going to …
Dr Burns: You have no credibility saying any of these things. No credibility.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection, Mr Chairman, because it was with some interest that I noted the member for Johnston vociferously supporting this legislation and that will not go without notice. I take this opportunity because of his interjection to be able to put that on the record. It was he who supported this legislation. What he should have been doing if he was doing his job was, on behalf of the hardworking contractors in his electorate, saying to his boss, ‘Will this apply to Joe the carpenter around the corner from me with his three kids who has a ute and a family car and will he have to pay that on his business ute?’ The member for Johnston was clearly of the belief that it would not, when in fact he tonight has been educated that it will. You, too, have been caught out in relation to this.
Mr STIRLING: It is the ultimate in hypocrisy, Mr Chairman, for the former Treasurer to get in here and pretend that he is bleeding all over the place on behalf of business. His government, that government, had it been re-elected would have been in to business up to its ears, taxing them all over the place because he knew, at the time he put the budget into this House with a forecast $12m deficit, he knew then that it was going to past $100m. Why did they put the nonsense in the budget about the $50m that they were going to get for NT Fleet? The biggest lie of all that you put that in there. You had it on the book for three years and you could not do it.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The honourable member knows that he cannot say that I lied. ‘My lie’. He personalised it. It was directed at me and I ask that he withdraw it.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw any reference to lying. The biggest fraud in the budget papers was this feeble attempt to cover up the deficit that he knew - he was claiming that it was $12m - at the time he knew it was going to go close to $100m or over. That is why they had the charade of flogging off NT Fleet for $50m when he knew that he could not do it and it would not realise one cent. It was just a pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact that they were in deep trouble.
The best thing that happened to this mob, Mr Chairman, was they got turfed out because they would have been exposed anyway. They would have had an ERC or a mini-budget that would have put 1991 to shame. It would have put any other cuts that they ever put into this place way, way to shame. So it ill behoves the former Treasurer come in here, pretend to be bleeding all over the place on behalf of business because they are going to pay this registration levy that is going to apply across the Northern Territory because everybody has to contribute to the mess you created.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I should comment that although I have allowed broad discussion, we still should be sticking to the bill - and the bill is fairly broad. We will try and keep to the bill as close as we can even though it does cover fairly broad issues.
Mr BALDWIN: Getting back to the issue at hand here, Mr Chairman, rather than diatribe that is coming from the other side.
Mr Stirling: You blokes caused it. Where were you, Tim? You probably weren’t even in Cabinet. You would not have known what was going on.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Just following on from the types of vehicles that have been asked about and the clarification that has been sought, albeit we have not got the clarification yet, but it is coming I understand. On behalf of my constituents - and I am sure this will be of concern to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries - but I need clarification on all those vehicles that are owned and operated by - if we leave out the corporate owners of pastoral properties and get down to the owner-operators - many of those people operate with one registered town vehicle. It could be classified as a business vehicle because it is always used on the property every day, whether it is a Toyota ute, whether it is a Toyota station wagon, whether it is a Nissan or whatever. It is a personal vehicle in one sense, and it is a business vehicle in another sense. On behalf of those people - which is a very large sector of people, I have to add …
Mr Elferink: And lots of registered vehicles.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, who have multiple registered vehicles in some cases, but in some cases one or two. Could you clarify for them whether or not this tax will apply to them and those vehicles?
Ms MARTIN: The important thing is to quote from the budget speech yesterday. In case you were not listening it clarifies this very simply:
- The levy is set at $90 per annum and applies to vehicles capable of being used for private and domestic purposes.
Certain vehicles, including heavy vehicles, trailers, caravans, tractors, and mobile plant machinery are excluded
from the levy to minimise the impact on business.
Okay, let’s get this very straight. This is a mechanism – I say it again - to raise revenue, to be able to deal with the budget situation that we inherited from the previous administration. That was a deceitful budget that was brought down, there were fraudulent figures, and this is very clear in the budget speech given yesterday, in the budget papers. It is a mechanism. It minimises the impact on business from the way we have constructed it; it minimises the impact. But vehicles that are capable of being used for private and domestic purposes will pay the levy. Okay? That is very straightforward and I think that unless you have issues to raise that are different from this, then we should move on.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, does the new tax apply to hire cars?
Ms MARTIN: You mean private hire cars?
Mr REED: Hire cars, rental cars, rent-a-car.
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: Why?
Ms MARTIN: Because they are vehicles capable of being used for domestic purposes.
Mr REED: Thank you, and that being the case, you would be aware that the owner and manager of Thrifty Car Rental was on the radio this morning. He said that if this additional impost is applied to his company which is a tourist operation basically - it services the tourist industry - and particularly at this time when the level of tourism activity is reduced because of circumstances of which you are aware, he will be faced with no alternative but to sack two employees. How do you reconcile putting two people out of work who, I guess, themselves would have a car to go to work? They will probably go interstate because they won’t be able to get work here, so you will lose there two by $90. You will see a decreased level of business activity simply because of the way that you have set the criteria to apply your new Labor election promises tax.
Ms MARTIN: We have been in discussion with the rental car companies and we are expecting a submission from them.
Mr REED: You are accepting a submission from them?
Ms MARTIN: Expecting, and I made that commitment yesterday.
Mr REED: We have now found again, that here is another component of this particular piece of legislation that has not been thought through in its drafting. I wonder now if the Chief Minister could explain to me what is the difference between a Holden Commodore sedan with a taxi name on the side of it to which this tax does not apply - however the vehicle can still be used for domestic purposes because of the style of vehicle - and the rental car which has a Thrifty Car Rental sticker on the side of it? What is the difference? They are both capable, in your words, of being used for domestic purposes. Where is the differentiation drawn? The other point, of course, is that they are both vehicles of a business to which you said your tax would not apply.
Ms MARTIN: No, and I think it is very important that the member for Katherine does not verbal me. It is very important that you remember the words in the budget speech which were ‘the levy is designed to minimise the impact on business’. We have been specific about taxis and private hires and minibuses. I have said to the rental car business that we will talk about it, I said that yesterday, and we are expecting a submission. So there ends it.
Mr REED: Well no, there does not end it, because there ends the demonstration that this legislation is poorly considered. From the point of view of the two employees - bearing in mind that this legislation – let’s work this through then. You are going to get a submission from the car rental companies. This new tax applies from tomorrow. Mr Thrifty goes into register a car on Monday morning. Because the industry has not provided the submission and you have not considered it, he has to pay the tax, does he not? Or, are you going to set the tax aside for car rental companies whilst you await and then consider their submission? Or, are you going to do the alternative and follow through on the dilemma that the Thrifty Car Rental company, and no doubt others, find themselves in, in that, if this applied to them - as it surely will by Monday next week - then they are going to have to put two people off. Those two employees are going to put off before Christmas. I dare say that they are not going to be too concerned with submissions and your subsequent consideration of them, because they are going to be pretty well concerned about the wellbeing of their families. So, what immediate action are you going to take, rather than having a little bit of a chat as a second thought, to the rental companies and awaiting their submission? Will you defer the application, in the meantime, of this new tax to car rental companies?
Ms MARTIN: In reference to car rental companies, it is being dealt with quickly. I do not think you should have any concerns about that. In terms of the discussions, they will happen quickly.
Mr REED: That does not give me a lot of comfort on behalf of car rental companies, and the two people who are about to be laid off. The ‘trust me, I’m Clare Martin, Chief Minister’ answer, will not work with me and it won’t work with the car rental companies. These people are dealing with the livelihoods of their business, and they are dealing with the livelihoods of, in this particular case, at least two employees leading up to Christmas.
Whilst the members opposite might want to hurry and get out of here and continually interject and see this all as rather trite, the opposition sees this as the future of Territory businesses, and that is who we are pursuing this on behalf of, and also, of course, the future of those people who are faced with being sacked in the lead-up to Christmas because of the imposition tomorrow of this new tax. What is speedy? Is speedy you will deal with it tomorrow or Friday or over the weekend, or Monday, or the following week, or the following month? For the Chief Minister to stand up and say ‘speedy’ when she has given assurances that this would not apply to business in the first instance, when she has demonstrated tonight that she was not even aware that it was going to apply to businesses because she had to ask her advisors: ‘Will it apply to the carpenter’s ute?’ ‘Yes it will’, and ‘What’s a traders plate?’ I mean this has not been thought through at all and only through the searching of the opposition tonight have we found the impost of it across the Northern Territory
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection because that is very instructive in that, if the government had discussions with the car rental companies yesterday and in particular the Thrifty Car Rental Company, he was not satisfied because this very morning he was on the radio saying that not withstanding of course now that we know these discussions took place, he is going to have to sack two people before Christmas. So, quick enough in your words isn’t good enough. I ask the Chief Minister specifically, will she until this matter is given due consideration, set aside the application of this new tax to car rental companies so that their businesses in these difficult times with tourism the way it is, will not be impacted upon and we will save at least two jobs of Thrifty Car Rental company employees before Christmas and perhaps others?
Ms MARTIN: It is a pity that the kind of outrage that we are hearing from the member for Katherine was not considered when things like the HIH impost was simply being handed to Territory business. You have suddenly discovered the Territory business after years and years of making them pay one of the highest payroll tax regimes in Australia. So it will be dealt with speedily, you have my assurance.
Mr REED: Well, that little trite response, Mr Chairman, will not satisfy the two people who face the sack before Christmas. I expect they would be horrified when they see what the Chief Minister said and they will see it. From the point of view of the opposition, we have tried on their behalf to get you to act properly and to put in place a system that would set car rental companies aside until such time as this is paid. Even if the government were to be a little bit imaginative and say, alright, we’ll put any monies paid on this new tax by car rental companies into a trust account, that is set it aside from consolidated revenue, until such times it is set out. The Chief Minister isn’t even capable tonight of being a little bit compassionate in light of the fact that two people might get the sack because of her new tax and to be able to act as a Chief Minister, make a decision on her feet and say, we will do something to help this industry. They have clearly demonstrated to us through the comments of the owner of Thrifty Car Rentals that it will impact unfairly on the rental car companies and it will lead to sackings. The Chief Minister only has to do something as simple as that and she is not prepared to do it and she relies simply on a personal attack on me, which does not help one iota the two people facing the sack at Thrifty Car Rentals.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, St Vincent de Paul runs in my electorate a very good service providing care …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: …and food through a travelling van - it’s not a funny question, it’s a serious question and it concerns the fact that organisations …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I can’t hear the member.
Ms CARTER: St Vincent de Paul runs a program which has a mobile food van going out to help the people who are homeless in the electorate. You just said that you are going to allow for submissions from rental car firms to come in and lobby you for relief from this new tax. With regard to non-profit organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, would you look upon allowing them to also put through a submission to allow some sort of relief from this?
Ms MARTIN: I repeat, it is a broad based tax. It is interesting that the member for Port Darwin thinks that St Vincent de Paul is in the electorate of Port Darwin, it is not. You have been trying to get rid of them for such a long time and made unflattering public comments about them.
Ms Carter: It provides a service in my electorate.
Ms MARTIN: I make the comment again, this is a broad based levy. This is a broad based levy. It is a mechanism for raising revenue to tackle the black hole left to the Territory by the previous administration.
Dr BURNS: I find the question from the member for Port Darwin quite disgusting. As someone who has been involved with St Vincent de Paul for quite some time I am quite aware of her efforts to close St Vincent de Paul down, to shift it out.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The actual activities in the context of the St Vincent de Paul that the member was raising has nothing to do with the legislation. He is pursuing the operation of the agency, not the legislation.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, I accept the point of order. I think the comments related to a introductory remarks and they really have nothing to do with this act, so leave it there.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister, during the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The member for Daly called me a degenerate.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Daly, will you withdraw that comment, please.
Mr BALDWIN: Of course I withdraw it. He is not a degenerate.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to the Chief Minister. While the Deputy Opposition Leader was on his feet the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development referred to his comments as pedantic whilst the Deputy Opposition Leader was talking about the two people. Does the Chief Minister agree with the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as being pedantic?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman, as to relevance to the debate on the legislation to that question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I accept that. I do not believe the question is relevant.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Chief Minister. You are aware of course that there are quite a number of motorhomes located not only in the rural area but through some caravan parks in the northern suburbs. A motorhome is of course a vehicle, a motorised caravan in which people live. It stays most of the time in a caravan park. It is given a special exemption under section 135 but is still required to be registered. Will those people have to pay your levy?
Ms MARTIN: I refer the member to section 12(1) and I think it spelt it out very clearly in there.
Mr MALEY: This section 12(1) - I hope it’s the same one - it says the exemption by a heavy vehicle, motor omnibus, a goods vehicle greater than 3.5 tonnes gross mass vehicles and then rah rah rah. Are you saying that a motor omnibus includes a motorhome; is that what you are saying? Do you know what a motorhome is?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, a caravan.
Mr MALEY: Okay, you are comfortable that a motorhome falls in the exemption, is that what you’re saying? Oh, she thinks it is a caravan.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Goyder, we are just going on conversation. Your question is?
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Can the member for Goyder refer to the Chief Minister as the Chief Minister.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do so. Continue with your question.
Mr MALEY: I thought I did. Which category of exemptions contained in 12(1) do you say clearly applies to motorhomes.
Ms MARTIN: Under a caravan. If we look at (d).
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, (d) applies specifically to vehicles which do not have a motor. They are vehicles which are towed by a vehicle with a motor, vis a trailer including a caravan. Now a motorhome is something quite different as the name implies, home with motor, that is caravan, no motor. So just to try to spell it out to the Chief Minister, to be precise, and in fairness to those persons who do own a motorhome, which of the categories in part 1(a) through (f) covers a motorhome? Or has it been excluded? I mean if it has been excluded and you want to add it …
Ms MARTIN: It will fall within the definition of a caravan, which is very broadly defined.
Mr REED: Would the Chief Minister then accept a suggestion that the words be added to part (d), ‘a trailer, caravan or motorhome’ to be specific?
Ms MARTIN: We are confident it covers it.
Mr REED: You are confident it covers it, so it is a no in relation to motorhome owners.
Ms MARTIN: We are confident it is covered under 12(1)(d).
Mr REED: You are believe it is covered under 12(1)(d)?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr REED: So we can take the assurance from the Chief Minister, that in the event that a motorhome owner is forced to pay, perhaps in the future, your tax, that the contributions to this debate will mean that that person will be reimbursed, or vice versa of course, that the interpretation of this particular piece of legislation in relation to the person sitting behind the desk at the Motor Vehicle Registry will be adequately explained so as to include motorhome, because when one goes to register a motorhome, the inspection requirements, Mr Chairman, as you would be aware, are somewhat different to a caravan. That is to say, the roadworthiness of the vehicle in relation to the condition of the motor and the exhaust emissions and what-have-you are something quite separate to the considerations that are given to the registration of a caravan. It is a legitimate question that the honourable member for Goyder raises because the issues are quite different, in a technical sense, in relation to the consideration of the registration of a motorhome.
Ms MARTIN: I am advised that it is covered within that.
Mr BALDWIN: I am just getting back to my pastoral properties, Mr Chairman, because it was not clarified before. In the case of those owner/operators on pastoral properties, Chief Minister, some of them are operating as sole traders. They purchase their vehicles with all the tax exemptions, GST exemptions and what-have-you that apply to primary producers, and they are inherently a family business, they can’t get away from that, and they purchase their vehicles within that context. But they are capable, and they are used for domestic use, and domestic use might be driving across the station to the next one to have a barbecue, one would think. So, is this another sector of business that is not being exempted? Could you clarify that, yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: I clarify it by referring you to what I said. This levy applies to vehicles that are capable of use for private and domestic use. You are not understanding what this levy is about. It is a mechanism to raise revenue. It is a mechanism to raise revenue and it is to raise revenue to tackle the unsustainable budget situation that we inherited, and that is a vehicle capable of being used for domestic use, and is used for domestic use, as you outlined, and so the levy will apply.
Mr BALDWIN: Is that a yes, that this is another sector of business that won’t be exempt then, is that a yes?
Ms MARTIN: If you understand, again, what I said, there are exempt vehicles. They are, on the whole, large vehicles, they are taxis, and what we have done is minimise the impact on business. But have no doubt about it, this revenue raising measure is broadly based, it applies to many Territorians. I am very disappointed that it has to, but it is a fact of life, because you could not manage the budget, and worse still, you were dishonest about it. So let’s understand what it is. We have to raise some revenue. We have to raise $24m over three years, and then this levy will go, and that is enshrined in the legislation.
Mr BALDWIN: From that, and I will be sending this out to my pastoral properties, and that is why I am trying to make it very clear. From that, I take it how thick you are, I know how thick you are, Chief Minister, from that, the tax is going to apply to this business sector, the pastoral industry, yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: It is applying to Territorians.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: Well, I am assuming your constituents are Territorians, yes it applies.
Mr BALDWIN: So, on top of the 100% rental increase that you have applied to the pastoral industry, 100% increase, which other business would accept that? None of them. 100% increase on the rental of their properties. You are now saying that this new levy, that you stood up yesterday in the Chamber of Commerce and said would not apply to businesses, is now going to apply to the pastoral property sector.
Ms MARTIN: I have made the answer very clear. I have made the answer very clear and I don’t know how clearer I can make it.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, I just want to take you back to your assertion that the term ‘caravan’ as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act includes an omnibus. How can you reconcile that assertion with the fact that whilst it is not defined in this act, it is defined in the Traffic Act, or regs, to mean a literal interpretation of the term ‘caravan’, that is without a motor that you tow around, and that is the interpretation that a court would use when looking at the term ‘caravan’ here. That is not consistent with your interpretation. How can you reconcile the difference?
Ms MARTIN: I would just like to clarify it for the member for Goyder. The details as set out in 12(1) are ones that we are confident will reduce the impact on business, and will also allow ones like ride-on mowers to be excluded, but in terms of achieving the outcome of this being a broad based levy, it will apply unless those exemptions apply.
Mr MALEY: I am a bit confused, and it is difficult to understand what you meant when you made that last statement. But I can now articulate with a bit more certainty then that in the Caravan Parks Act there is a definition of caravan, and I am indebted to my friend, the member for Macdonnell, for pointing that out to me, which does not include a motorhome. So there is little doubt, on a literal interpretation, or having regard to the use of the term ‘caravan’ in other acts, that it does not include motorhomes. Are you saying that those people who register their motorhomes, and these are vehicles which are rarely driven on the road, and they pay a nominal fee pursuant to section 135, are you saying that they will now be slugged with the Labor champagne socialist tax, oh sorry, the temporary budget improvement levy. Are you saying that those people have to pay for your promises?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Goyder, what is in the Caravan Parks Act is not relevant to this debate. I have said all I am going to say on this. If we go through and we say a heavy vehicle is exempt, a motor omnibus or goods vehicle of greater than a 3.5 tonne gross vehicle mass, a motor tractor, a trailer including a caravan, a motorised wheelchair, a motorised golf buggy or ride-on lawnmower, a motor vehicle of a prescribed class of motor vehicles - those are the exemptions. This is a broad based levy and this is applying broadly across Territorians and it applies to vehicles that are capable of being used for private and domestic purposes and that is what we are spelling out very clearly.
Mr REED: Does the motorhome owner pay the fee? Yes or no?
Ms MARTIN: My advice is that the motorhome owner will.
Mr REED: We have now done the full circle, for only 20 minutes ago, the motorhome owner was exempt under trailers and caravans. Through the pursuit of this matter by the honourable member for Goyder and others, we now find that it does in fact apply. How far do we have to keep pursuing this legislation and these categories of who is in and who is not?
Mr MALEY: A point of order, Mr Chairman!
Mr CHAIRMAN: You have a point of order against the member for Katherine?
Mr MALEY: I complain about an utterance which came from the member for Arafura and she described me as dishonourable as opposed to honourable. I ask that she retract that or step outside and say it then I can take care of it legally.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Arafura, would you withdraw that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw the remark.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, we find now that there is another point of confusion and indeed, total misunderstanding of this legislation by none other than the Chief Minister and Treasurer where 20 minutes ago she told us that motorhomes were exempt. What, Chief Minister, we asked, exemption do they come under? And she advised us 12(1)(d) - trailer including caravan. I can give an assurance, she said, that motorhomes are covered under that exemption. Now under further examination and pursuit of that matter by the opposition, we are told by the Chief Minister that indeed a motorhome is a vehicle capable of being used for domestic use and they will have to pay the $90 notwithstanding that they get a reduced fee because they are not used very often. I ask the Chief Minister, is it necessary for us to go through each and every category from motorcycle to military tank to find out what this tax applies to? If she is going to keep changing her mind and she is in such a mess over this particular legislation, we are going to keep pursuing it tonight on behalf of Territorians because she does not know herself, as she has now demonstrated, what it applies to, what the exemptions are and who has to pay and who does not have to pay. I hope the Chief Minister can provide some further clarification in relation to these important matters.
Ms MARTIN: I have clarified the matters satisfactorily. I have clarified the matters adequately. The exemptions are spelled out quite clearly in section 12(1). You can go round and round and round as many times as you like, but that is clearly spelt out.
Mr REED: To pursue that just a little bit further for a final clarification, Mr Chairman, in relation to motorhomes, we have had two answers from the Chief Minister: first of all, that it definitely did not apply to motorhomes and that they were included in the exemptions in the legislation; more recently we have been advised that motorhome owners do have to pay the $90 tax. Could the Chief Minister please now unequivocally state whether or not motorhome owners will have to pay this $90 tax? Yes or no? That is all we want and that is that bit done. This is a fine state of affairs when the office worker in the Chief Minister’s office is telling them what the legislation is. Great stuff.
Ms MARTIN: I have gone through the exemptions and we have looked at them. In terms of (d) a trailer including a caravan, and as far as I am concerned I have gone through those exemptions and clarified it and that is the situation.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister has not clarified it because she has given us two answers. She has, in the first instance, given us an answer that this tax does not apply to motorhomes and that it is covered under the exemption of trailer and caravan and more recently, she has told us that it does apply to motorhomes. We simply now need a clarification. For her to stand up and say, my previous answers were correct when one of them was ‘yes’ and one of them was ‘no’ does not help the motorhome owner. We have to be able to convey - and quite logically and responsibly, the government has to be able to tell Territorians who has to pay this tax. Is it a yes or is it a no for motorhome owners? Simple answer.
Ms MARTIN: Having taken further advice, my advice is that they are covered under 12(1)(d). So they will fit the exemption. So my advice originally was the correct one and that is where it stays.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, now that we have the third answer, we have gone from yes, they are covered under the exemption to no, they are not covered under the exemption to yes, they are covered under the exemption. I now simply, as a matter of fairness to the motorhome owner, and if we can just picture ourselves in the Motor Vehicle Registry, if there has been some confusion in relation to whether this applies to motorhomes here as we are discussing the legislation, can we just save that confusion in the Motor Vehicle Registry by simply adding the words, and it is nothing big to give up, it is simply a point of clarification: ‘trailer, caravan and motorhome’? Otherwise, you can imagine that in the Motor Vehicle Registry they have the potential to be going through this same trauma. It is simply a point of clarification and commonsense in relation to helping out the lady behind the counter or the guy behind the counter at the Motor Vehicle Registry and the owner of a motorhome when this matter is being discussed as being, ‘Oh, God, I don’t know if it is in or out’.
Mr STIRLING: The former Treasurer can go on all he likes, Mr Chairman. The intent has been made clear here by the Treasurer that they are covered. Now that is the end of the story. You can say what you like as to what might occur in MVR. It has been stated that it is covered under that category. That is the advice, that is the intent of the legislation. That is where it ends. You can get up on your feet all night until midnight. It does not make any difference. You have your answer.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I think the Chief Minister was beginning to understand the situation that could develop. If there is that level of confusion here in relation to the advice that has been given by the very people who drafted this legislation, can’t you understand that that confusion has a hundredfold chance of coming to fruition at the counter at the time a vehicle is being registered? The simple addition of ‘motorhome’ in (d) would overcome any of that because the clerk behind the counter will not have access to these third reading debates and it is just a very simple matter. I mean, are you so proud that you would not clarify this matter particularly given that in the course of the debate over the last half hour, you yourself, the owner of this legislation, have gone from no, it does not apply to them to yes, it does apply to them to oh, no, I’m sorry, it does not? We do not want that circumstance arising at the Motor Vehicle Registry. They can do without the angst. So, please, can’t you consider just putting ‘and motorhome’?
Ms MARTIN: It won’t. I have clarified the matter and it won’t.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just one small question. Does the GST apply to motor vehicle registration, and if it does, will this be calculated before or after the addition of this levy?
A member: Is it inclusive or not inclusive?
Mr ELFERINK: Inclusive, that’s the one.
Ms MARTIN: The GST will not apply. There is a mechanism being put in place currently with the levy that it will not apply.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, I need you to clarify this - do the special permits which the Top End Junior Motorcycle Club and some of the members of the Darwin Motorcycle Club receive in terms of registration for their small bore motorcycles and dirt squirts, does the levy apply to them? And if not, which category of the exemption do they come under, under section 12(1)?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Goyder, if a vehicle is registered and comes under the categories, the vehicle is registered, then the levy will apply. If the vehicle is registered with the MVR and is not subject to exemptions then the levy will apply.
Mr MALEY: So, just for the record for all those members of those two important associations, it applies to the registration of small bore motorcycles and dirt squirts, who pay their nominal $30 registration a year and are used - but they register it for third party compensation reasons. You are saying that their parents have to fork out now for each and every child the $90 levy on those small bore motorcycles because they are registered. You will not consider showing some latitude and some commonsense in incorporating them into the exemptions contained in section 12(1)? Is that what you are saying to those mums and dads?
Ms MARTIN: We could spend all night going through this. What I think the opposition should be doing is looking at the Motor Vehicles Act in reference to this. The definitions are given and I think it is important that you make reference to the Motor Vehicles Act in terms of how it applies. We have spelt it out quite clearly and if you can’t do that work, then it is very unfortunate.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just going back to the GST issue. I do understand by the explanation I received before, that the GST amount was incorporated already in the $90, if so …
Ms MARTIN: It will not apply, it will not apply.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, this is a simple question for you to respond to, it is yes or no. It is your legislation, you own this, you can’t preface any comment you make with ‘my advice’, because you are responsible for the consequences which flow from section 12. I want you to put on the record, on Hansard - and you can look away and smirk …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Chairman. I would ask him to direct his comments through the Chair as required by the standing orders.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Can you say yes or no?
Mr STIRLING: I ask him to respond to the point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Will you direct your questions to the Chair.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister. Could the Chief Minister respond simply and categorically with a yes or no as to whether or not this exemption, which has been drafted and introduced by the Chief Minister - and she has an obligation to make sure it is clear and not ambiguous - does it apply to the members of the Top End Junior Motorcycle Club, the Darwin Motorcycle Club and those members of the Speedway Association who are required to register their small bore motorcycles and four-wheelers, pursuant to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Traffic Act? Can I have a yes or a no?
Ms MARTIN: That is very interesting that the member for Goyder has not been long in this place and does not seem to understand that we in here apply the broad legislation. The application is determined by organisations like the MVR. We apply the broad legislation, and I think that you have not quite grasped what we do in here. So, we are spelling out the broad terms of this legislation, we have spelt out broadly the exemptions and they will be applied according to the acts that are in place. I suggest that the member for Goyder settle down in terms of his ferociousness, and understand what this process is about.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, that is an outrageous response from the Chief Minister. For her to suggest that we are here just drawing the broad circles in terms of legislation and you foist it upon some poor clerk in the Motor Vehicle Registry to interpret, when she, as the Chief Minister and Treasurer, has tonight been shown to be so dreadfully incompetent in relation to this urgency motion to pass this legislation, that she herself has not been able to understand it - and it is her idea. Now, if she cannot understand it, and if she cannot convey in clear and concise terms in the form of this legislation to the poor, long-suffering public servants who have to apply it, how in the name of hell does she expect them to be able to interpret it when she does not know what it means?
We have asked her on one occasion, does this apply to motorhomes - no it doesn’t. Why not - it is covered in the exemptions. We asked her again about the very same issue - yes it does. On a third occasion of testing that particular matter in relation to motorhomes, she says: ‘Sorry, I made a mistake, it does apply’. If she does not know what she is doing with this legislation, then how are the people in the Northern Territory who have to pay this new tax going to interpret it and, more importantly, the hard-working public servants, of which there are going to be many hundreds, if not 1000 or more fewer, who have to do her work, without having adequate guidance to be able to do it, and without her even understanding what she wants them to do. To stand up here tritely and say: ‘The member for Goyder should understand that we are just sort of drawing big circles here in the hope that some poor soul will be able to understand what we, as a government, want’.
Well, that is not what this House is all about. This House is about adequate, professional and direct legislation so that both Territorians and the public servants who have to apply it, know what the government wants and how it should be done. The Chief Minister will be well advised to change her attitude in relation to these matters, if that is the attitude that she is going to adopt. It is outrageous to suggest that that is the actual position. We have shown tonight the inadequacy of this government, and we have shown that they have told Territorians the big fib in relation to whom this legislation is going to apply, and within 24 hours of it being announced, and the business community told it would not be imposed on them, we now find that it will be. We now find that it is going to be applied to six and seven-year-old children who have a dirt bike that is not as high as this desk and probably their only recreation that they have, the only enjoyment that they have, is throw all of the money that their families can muster together to pursue their motorcycle activities of a weekend, for which they currently pay something in the order of $30 registration which covers insurance.
We are now told, Mr Chairman, that those kids across the Northern Territory, be they in Darwin motorcycles clubs, the rural area, Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin, Tennant Creek, that they are going to have pay an additional $90. They only pay $30 at present, and for some of these kids, it is the only sporting pursuit that they have. We find that this rushed-through legislation is now going to take away from them. What do they do? Do they forgo buying the safety helmet for riding their motorbike so that they can pay the legislation? Do they forgo purchasing the arm and leg guards so that they can pay the legislation? Do they have to give up their sport altogether because this Labor government has reached into their parent’s pockets?
Every question we have asked tonight in relation to this legislation has exposed just how far this unfair and unnecessary new tax reaches into the pockets of Territorians. It reaches into the business community. It reaches into the jobs of people in the rental car industry at least two of whom are going to lose their job and be on the employment scrap heap before Christmas potentially because of the actions of this government. It reaches into the person who owns the motorhome who only pays a minimal amount for their vehicle registration each year because their vehicle does not go on the street more than one or two days a year, but has to be protected under the legislation, they too will be slugged and extra $90.
And of course, we have heard of the other foibles in relation to this legislation as regards tourist operators who were yesterday not included in this legislation, but today, are and their business is impacted upon. We found that Joe the carpenter across the Northern Territory and anyone who has a ute for whatever purpose, whether you are an airconditioner mechanic, whether you are the Coca Cola vendor, whether you deliver the orange juice, are going to have to pay this tax, when yesterday we were told they were not.
So, the Chief Minister should be able to very clearly understand why we are pursuing this matter to the extent that we are. It is a great shame, because it was not our intention, nor did we think it would be necessary, to pursue this legislation to this extent. But we have found, in questioning the Chief Minister tonight, that she knows very little about this legislation that she has nurtured and introduced. Every time we have asked her a question, in some places at least, we’ve got different and conflicting answers. Well, it is not good enough and the transcripts of these debates will be circulated far and wide, because we have seen tonight, Mr Chairman, this government exposed to the extent that they not only have concealed the real reason for this new tax, they not only have mislead Territorians as to who will have to pay it, there was certainly no mention yesterday, when the Chief Minister was waxing lyrical about what she was going to do to progress the Northern Territory, that six and seven-year-old kids, who, perhaps their only sporting and recreational pursuit is motorcycle riding in their much supported clubs across the Northern Territory will now have to pay this $90 impost.
It is an absolute disgrace, and I am sure that Territorians, many of whom have been so upset about it already simply following the headlines of the newspaper today, when they find out the real detail of this legislation, when they find out that it was so poorly pursued and poorly drafted that not even the Chief Minister and Treasurer knew its extent and knew who it would apply to, they will be aghast at your incompetence. They will be aghast at this Labor government’s intent to get into their pockets, even to the extent of five or six-year-old kids and their own activities in relation to their sporting and recreational pursuits. It is quite clear, the ineptness of this government, and indeed the inability of them to be able to convey to Territorians the truth in relation to the intent of this legislation, its scope that it will cover, and they should be absolutely ashamed of their performance here tonight. The fact that they are rushing this legislation through quite unnecessarily so that they can apply it in the next day or so, get into the pockets of Territorians when of course, the rest of the measures in the mini-budget, in terms of assisting the Northern Territory economy, as regards the small amount of additional capital works money that has been put in place, won’t start to take effect until after the Christmas break, because of the fact that it has been one of the lowest priorities of this government, rather than other issues that they have pursued.
This has been a disgraceful performance tonight, and a disgraceful demonstration of incompetence of a government, and of a Chief Minister and a Treasurer, and I am sure that when Territorians find out the full scope of that incompetence and the impact of this new tax, they will be horrified to the extent that the opposition is. I am very pleased tonight that we have been able to pursue in relation to so many classes of Territorians, whether they be young sporting kids, business people, people employed by the rental car companies, whether they be in the pastoral industry, or the tourism industry, we have defended them all tonight. I am pleased to be able to say that we have been able to make some ground, albeit very reluctantly given on behalf of the Chief Minister, and no firm commitment made, can I say, for example, on behalf of the …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Katherine, your time is up.
Mr REED: … that the Chief Minister will look into it.
Mr BALDWIN: I have just one last question. I will just take you to 12(5), and it is about the regulations, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, asked a question regarding this section. Obviously this allows you, under regulation, to change the amount of tax that the temporary budget improvement levy is attributed to registration. We have heard today that there is a shortfall that has not been taken care of in the mini-budget for the HIH collapse. The liability in the HIH that doesn’t go beyond January, I think you said, with the $6m that is in the mini-budget. Will you be using this mechanism to raise that additional funding and a new levy for the HIH?
Ms MARTIN: No.
Mr BALDWIN: That is a categoric no. Thank you. That is all I wanted.
Mr REED: Well, can the Chief Minister stand up and loudly say no?
Ms MARTIN: No. And I again, I refer, if you had been in the House during the debate, that that is there, and maybe we will reduce the level, it is a capacity to change, that is all.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Chief Minister. Moving forward to (7). You have drafted a clause which says:
- If –
(a) a pensioner or a member of a prescribed class of person intends to register a motor vehicle …
And you have a sub-definition. It goes on to effectively say they get it at half price. What, if any, people had been prescribed and come into the scope of prescribed class of persons? If you have prescribed persons, what are they, and does it include unemployed people or single mothers?
Ms MARTIN: Again I refer to the outline given in the budget speech, and I would expect at least questions to have reference back to what was said in the budget speech. The 50% concession applies to holders of the NT pensioner concession card, holders of a Commonwealth health care card and pensioner health benefit card issued under the Commonwealth Social Security Act. It is in the bill; it is very clearly put.
Mr MALEY: I appreciate you reading out the definition of pensioner. I have no difficulty with the definition of pensioner. My question to you, could you answer it …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Could you be brief, member for Goyder? Member for Goyder.
Mr MALEY: Sorry, my question to the Chief Minister is what persons, if any, have been prescribed. I did not, and I have not asked for a literal reading of the definition of pensioner contained in (9).
Ms MARTIN: I gave the answer fully before.
Mr MALEY: With respect, the Chief Minister, has not given the answer. I will ask for it one more time. What …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. It is a repetitious question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I have allowed repetition of the questions, especially in the committee stage, and I will allow it.
Mr MALEY: In (7), there is a specific reference to people or a class of people being prescribed and the term is ‘prescribed class of persons’. What class of persons have been prescribed and could those people be particularised, or the class of people particularised?
Ms MARTIN: I tell the member again. The 50% concession, as identified in the budget speech, is set out there in terms of any other prescribed people. No, they are not identified and there is no intention at this stage.
Mr REED: So there is no-one in that at the moment, is there?
Ms MARTIN: No. So we spelt it out clearly.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for Katherine speaks, I might make the comment that there is a section in here about members to discontinue speech under standing order 70:
The Speaker, after having called the attention of the Assembly to the conduct of a member who persists in
irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or the arguments used by other members in
debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech: provided such a member shall have the right to require that
the question whether he be further heard be put and therefore such a question shall be put without amendment
or debate.
I have let it go. There has been a fair bit of repetitious questions and we have been going a long time but I will allow it to a point, otherwise I might call on this standing order.
Mr REED: But we don’t get an answer.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I realise that, but if you do not get an answer, then blame the other side. But if the question is still put and the same answer is coming, I would take that as being tedious repetition. I have allowed a fairly broad interpretation of that and I will continue to do so.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask, through you, the Chief Minister if she could advise the House how many pensioners there are under the Pensioner Concession Scheme who will fit into this category of the reduced application of this new tax, and what would have been the cost had they been given a full exemption in relation to it? It is a matter that you might be interested in pursuing too, and I do so partly on your behalf, Mr Chairman.
Ms MARTIN: Probably about a rough figure of about 19 000 Territorians would fit under that category.
Mr REED: I thank the Chief Minister for that advice. In relation to those particular matters, and given the attitude of the Labor Party when they were in opposition and their very firm view that pensioners in the Northern Territory find it tough to live for of all sorts of reasons, and the oft stated case that the then Leader of the Opposition used to direct to the then government that, whenever government did anything, they should exclude pensioners because they already find it difficult enough and that imposition of additional costs on them is unfair and should not be done and they should be exempted from, for example, new taxes of this kind. Could I ask the Chief Minister why she could not go the rest of the way and give them a full exemption, and on behalf of pensioners, can I say, Mr Chairman, that they will not want to hear an answer ‘because it was Mike Reed’s fault’. This is the Chief Minister’s legislation. This is this Labor government’s legislation. They have the ability to alter it, and they have the capacity to apply it in a way that will not impact on pensioners or those who do find it tough in terms of surviving in the community, and those who the Chief Minister herself in a former life used to stand up for and tell the former government that it should not impose, in fact, it should clearly exempt the impost of any kind on pensioners.
Ms MARTIN: The decision to put a very broad based levy in place was that it would cover across the community. We were very concerned to make sure that the categories of 50% concessions were as wide as possible, and I think we have achieved that. Again, I say to Territorians it is very unfortunate that we have to have this revenue raising measure, but it is a temporary budget improvement levy, directly relating to the fact that there was a black hole left in the budget. The full levy is at $90, which comes in under less than $2 per week, and at 50% of that, it is under $1 per week.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I can recall in previous budget debates, the imposition of additional, for example, water charges in particular, where there has been a response that this is only going to cost people $2 a month, or $2 a pay, that is a fortnight, only to have that theory or that reasoning for imposing additional costs, in this case on pensioners, soundly rejected by the then Leader of the Opposition, and particularly as it did pertain to pensioners. Why is it, can the Chief Minister tell me Mr Chairman, that but six or eight months ago, the Chief Minister was of the view that pensioners should be exempt from increased charges of this kind when the CLP government was in place, yet now, when she is in government, it is a case of don’t watch what they say, watch what they do, which is something quite different to what in fact they promised.
Mr MALEY: The Chief Minister, several times tonight, has referred members of the opposition to her budget speech and her budget statement. At page 8 of the budget statement there is a some amplification of what is supposed to be contained in the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, Mr Chairman. And it says, ‘arrangements have been made to ensure the cost of the levy is passed through parliamentarians and government workers who are provided with a’, now I emphasise this, ‘private plated government vehicle for their private use’. The section which is supposed to reflect that intent is subsection (8). I will not read it out in totality, but just paraphrasing it ‘an agency of the Territory may recover from a government car user who is, was or is to be provided with a motor vehicle for his or her private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement’ yah yah yah. There is no reference to a government vehicle with a private plate, so is it the intent of government, through section 12(8) to recover the $90 levy from vehicles which are used by public servants and home garaged, which do not have private plates?
Ms MARTIN: No, it is not. We made it very clear - private plates.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I would, through you, like to ask the Chief Minister - does the new $90 tax apply to all government vehicles? That is, if the government is now, as it has been stated tonight, going to apply this new tax to businesses, will it apply it to its own businesses as a matter of fairness and equity to all Territorians?
Ms MARTIN: Could the member repeat the question?
Mr REED: Could I repeat the question?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, please.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, through you, could the Chief Minister advise if the government is going to apply this new $90 tax to all government vehicles? As a matter of fairness and equity, given that it has now tonight advised that you are going to apply the new $90 tax to all businesses in the Northern Territory, will you apply it to your business?
Ms MARTIN: What is happening is that those government workers who have private plated vehicles will meet the cost personally. Parliamentarians will also meet the cost personally. Agencies will be paying in terms of all government vehicles, but when it comes to individuals, it is those with private plated cars who will pay and parliamentarians.
Mr REED: So all government vehicles that could be used for domestic purposes, the sedans, the utes, the panel vans, the what-have-you, they will be paying the $90 fee? Every government agency or NT Fleet en masse for all government vehicles?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that will be paid through agencies, but when it comes to private individuals, the ones with private plated cars, they will pay individually and we parliamentarians will pay.
Mr REED: So it is a matter now that – what are there? How many cars in NT Fleet? 2000?
Mr Baldwin: Four and a half thousand.
Mr REED: Two, I thought, but anyway, whatever. Will government agencies be funded to pay this $90 tax? That is to say will it be go-round money? You provide them with the $90 per vehicle and they then pay it back to you, or will they have to find it out of existing resources and find themselves in a position where they, too, like business have had this imposed upon them and they have to find it from within the resources that you are about to reduce?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, these will be paid along with the additional costs of running cars.
Mr REED: Yes, they will be paid, but will you be allocating additional funds to the departments to pay this?
Ms MARTIN: From within existing resources.
Mr REED: From within existing resources. So, apart from those vehicles that are private plated, there will be no other reimbursements to agencies by the user?
Ms MARTIN: No, as I am advised.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the Chief Minister is in error. Section 12(8) of the proposed bill states, and it is clear on the face of the document, that the $90 levy is recoverable from all government employees who use their vehicle for private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement. That is the interpretation which a court will give to this. Fortunately, a court will not have to go to the Hansard unless there is an ambiguity. What is contained in the budget statement at page 8 in the fourth paragraph, and what has been repeated by the Chief Minister, is not reflected in the legislation. My question then is to the Chief Minister: will an amendment be made to properly reflect what the Chief Minister has said both in this Chamber and what was said in the budget statement to section 12(8) of the proposed bill?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Goyder can stand in here and say we are wrong, but we are not and it works properly and it does relate to private plated vehicles.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one quick question in relation to section 12(7). Is it possible for a pensioner or prescribed class of person to get their exemption for more than one vehicle?
Ms MARTIN: No, it is not.
Mr ELFERINK: On the tail end of that, so a pensioner who has a couple of kids, puts them on the Pee-Wee 50s can get the exemption for one vehicle only, probably their own and the Pee-Wee 50s will all incur the full $90 charge?
Ms MARTIN: One vehicle.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I ask the Chief Minister: if there are no classifications within ‘prescribed class of persons’, why was ‘prescribed class of persons’ included in section 12(7)(a)?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Katherine has been around long enough with legislation to know that even though there is no identified prescribed class of person at this stage, it is for unforseen circumstances and that is just a mechanism of legislation. The member for Katherine understands that very clearly.
Mr REED: Well, I do, particularly in the context of tonight’s debate because there have been a lot of prescribed people who were formerly unprescribed. The Chief Minister is now getting to the real answers that we have been seeking. Now that we have seen where this has come from and the lack of understanding the Chief Minister and Treasurer has had in this is that that’s the catch-all phrase: ‘Oh, we’ve missed someone. Let’s stick them in as a prescribed class of person.’ That is the phrase in the drafting of this legislation that will be used for unforseen circumstances in relation to tourist vehicles or what have you to be able to pick up on the messiness of the drafting of this legislation and the hasty passage of it.
Mr Chairman, you made reference today in Question Time about the unseemly haste in relation to this legislation. Prophetic words, given tonight’s debate, from you today. May I say right in the bull’s eye in terms of the inadequacy of this legislation, the incompetence of the government in producing it and rushing it through and the impost that it is going to have on Territorians who, when they sat down to tea tonight, had no idea that this was going to impact on them, that little Johnnie on his Pee-Wee Squirt Bike tomorrow is going to get the bad news that he has to find $90.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my comments are addressed to the Chief Minister in relation to auto museums such as the Alice Springs Road Transport Hall of Fame. Going along with the answer that the Chief Minister supplied to subsection (7), even if she prescribes a body like the Road Transport Hall of Fame as a prescribed body, only one vehicle of the many that they have registered, as I understand it, under their name, will be exempt and the rest of the vehicles will carry the full load of $90 each. Considering that this is a voluntary organisation with, as I understand it, many vehicles registered to them, how does the Chief Minister feel that their impost is going to affect those sorts of organisations and what is she prepared to do about it right now?
Ms MARTIN: We seem to be going round and round in certain categories. We have made it very clear that it is a broad based levy. It is a mechanism for raising revenue to fix the budgetary situation we have inherited. It is a tough measure, but it is one that is applied from tomorrow, and it will be off in three years.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is an example of why this should not be going through on urgency. We have raised issue after issue in this Chamber. None of them have been considered. The Chief Minister did not even know what a trader’s plate was, and now voluntary organisations are looking down the barrel. I think the Chief Minister wants to take this legislation out of here, redo it, reintroduce it in the next term and then allow it to go through a full consultation and debate process which they have not pursued on this occasion. This is the open, honest and accountable government which was going to consult with Northern Territorians. Unfortunately, here is the Vaseline, guys, and watch it coming because it is coming tomorrow.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, just in relation to subsection (8), and I know that this has pursued previously, I suggest to the Chief Minister as a matter of clarity and fairness that the words ‘private plated’ be inserted after ‘recover from a’? That is, to read: ‘An agency of the Territory may recover from a private plated government car user…’ because whilst you say in your budget speech that it applies to private plated users, this can clearly be interpreted and could be applied, potentially in the future, to any person who has and home garages any government vehicle. The descriptive words in relation to just what class of government vehicle it applies to are missing. Perhaps they were there in an early draft and they have dropped out. The simple insertion of ‘private plated’ prior to ‘government’ would clarify the situation, eliminate all the doubt and conform then directly with your budget speech.
Ms MARTIN: My advice is that the drafting is accurate and properly reflects what is the intention, and this will mean that those with private plated vehicles will in fact pay the levy. I am confident that the drafters have got it right.
Mr REED: In terms of that can I just say that it is not specific. It is currently very broad: ‘An agency of the Territory may recover from a government car user who is, was or is to be provided with a motor vehicle’ – not a private plated vehicle, but ‘a motor vehicle for his or her private use under a contract of employment or other arrangement …’ Now, the other arrangement might be that he takes the car home as a private car.
Ms MARTIN: It is not supposed to be used privately. That is the deal. You know that.
Mr REED: The very act of taking it home under the Fringe Benefit Tax is private use. You don’t understand what private use is.
In terms of a simple insertion there of ‘private plated government car’ would clarify the issue, take away all doubt and at least demonstrate in a minor way that this government does want to get this legislation right. You do not want to end up with a mess.
Ms MARTIN: The Deputy Opposition Leader is not understanding what the issue is here. He is referring to restricted private use. This clearly says ‘private use’. It is very clear.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the Chief Minister in regards to subsection 8. Why is it that the Chief Minister has used the words ‘may recover from a government car user’ when, through the balance of section 12, there are these positive mandatory obligations using the word ‘shall’? Why is the word ‘may’ there? And if it is foreshadowed that the government is not going to recover this levy from some government car users and not others, could those ones which are going to be subject to this exemption at the discretion of the government be particularised tonight?
Ms MARTIN: I would have thought that the member understood a bit more clearly. It is the appropriate word to use. It is the one that sets out the recovery and…
Mr Dunham: It gives them discretion.
Ms MARTIN: No, it does not. It sets it out clearly and it is the word that you would find appropriate to a court situation. There is no point here. Mr Chairman, on the point that you raised earlier about going over and over and over particular clauses that we are getting very seriously into the repetitious.
Mr REED: Can I say in relation to that comment by the Chief Minister, the very purpose of the committee stages is to get down to this level of detail. Dare I say that on behalf of many groups of Territorians tonight, had we not, this legislation would have been very unclear and Territorians would have been very ill-informed because the government failed to recognise the scope of this legislation, its application and the way that it is going to be applied in terms of pretty well everybody. It is rather trite of her to say that she is tired and she wants to go home.
To seek a clarification of that last answer that the Chief Minister gave to the member for Goyder, can she then give us an assurance that every user of a private plated government car will pay the $90 and there are to be no exemptions?
Ms MARTIN: Private plated users will pay and there will be no exemptions, including the member for Katherine.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is fairly straight forward and quick. Why is there a difference between the dates of cessation between subparagraphs (a) and (b)?
Ms MARTIN: This act applies when passed in this House, but the registration notices are sent out six weeks before they actually fall due, so these dates reflect that. So when you look at when the first will go out, I am taking you back to section 12(3), registrations apply on 28 November from those that are due to expire from 4 January 2002. These dates simply reflect that. It is a three year period.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the Chief Minister for her comments. I also wish to point out, of course, that this happens conveniently immediately prior to the next election if we go full term. It is going to be a little bit cute. I can already see the claims by the Chief Minister as we approach the next election: ‘Oh, look what we’ve done to registration in the Northern Territory; we have lowered the rate for you.’ This is just part of the cute little strategy that you are building your political outcomes into this piece of legislation.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will just go back to Clause 1, the short title.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I cannot support this third reading. This is a stupid piece of legislation which has been brought forward with flaw after flaw built into in. It has been brought on in a state of urgency in an attempt to deceive Northern Territorians about its impact. This urgency is absolutely unnecessary considering that we are talking about a government with a four year term and it would have to wait an extra few months to have this process go through properly. This government came to power promising consultation, promising to talk to people of the Northern Territory, but have they spoken to the people who own car museums and own vintage cars? No, they have not. Have they spoken to the tourist vehicle plated cars? No, they have not. Did the Chief Minister know what a trader’s plate was? No, she did not. Has she spoken to the cattle industry of the Northern Territory and its effects? No, she has not. Has she spoken to the hire car companies who hire vehicles and who will lose jobs as a result of this? No, she has not. Has she spoken to those people who run vehicles for the purposes of business, small vehicles like utilities? No, she has not. Campervans - she was unable to identify the difference between motorhomes and caravans for us, she was not clear.
This legislation has been pushed through. This legislation has been rammed down Territorians throats, it is ill-considered, it is ill-conceived and it demonstrates that this government has absolutely no interest in any sort of process that they promised the people of the Northern Territory prior to coming to government. They talk about open, fair and accountable government, if you read the good government statement by which the then Leader of the Opposition claimed that she was going to bring to the Northern Territory. She has deceived Northern Territorians, she has lied to Territorians about it as she has done in this place.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The honourable member knows that he can’t accuse the Chief Minister of lying unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell withdraw, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word lied. She had absolutely engaged in bald faced misrepresentations to the people of the Northern Territory. This is the government which was going to bring itself forward as a champion of the downtrodden …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, would you resume your seat. The debate in this House has been untidy enough this evening. You have had plenty of time to express your opinions and speak to this bill. Let’s now have the third reading with a bit of dignity.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I do pick up on the point that all of the members opposite had a great deal of time to contribute to the debate in the committee process and all we heard from them on two occasions was, ‘Yes, we support this tax unquestioned’. If we had the audacity to question the tax, they sucked air through their teeth, and they sighed and they blew air and said it’s awful that you are being so rigorous about this piece of legislation. Yet we had to extract as though we were torturing them, extract each individual organisation and classification of people they are going to lumber with this tax. Despite the deceit that they peddled to the business community we discovered that the people in the business community are going to affected, and we didn’t hear that in the second reading speech.
The second reading speech was barely over a page long yet we had to spend 4 hours pulling teeth, extracting bits of information, tearing the guts out of this piece of legislation. The Chief Minister has 40 minutes to deliver the second reading speech. What did we get? A little over two minutes perhaps. In fact, it was so quick that Hansard blinked and missed it entirely. The Chief Minister could have come into this Chamber and clearly explained the intention of this legislation, but she was unable to because they were pushing it through on urgency. Pushing it through, jamming it down people’s throats and now we are being the villains because we have the audacity to do what an opposition should do and interrogate a stupid piece of legislation which is ultimately going to have a detrimental effect on a whole bunch of people that not even the Chief Minister understood would be victims of this piece of taxation. Constantly running back to the advisors booth saying what does this mean, what does that mean. The fact of the matter is, she didn’t even understand it, and if she had allowed her processes of good government to go forward and her processes of consultation with the public, she would have known this stuff.
At the outset of the committee stage I asked the Chief Minister if she was aware of any flaws and she said no. Well, there was flaw after flaw after flaw. This is a stupid piece of legislation, it is an indictment on the government that brings it forward. It is bad in law let alone in what it is trying to achieve in terms of revenue collection. It is just simply a political stunt to try to damage a former government when all they are effectively saying is that we can’t govern ourselves, we have to blame the people. Anybody who supports this piece of legislation stands in betrayal of Territorians.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am compelled on behalf of Territorians to make some closing remarks into this legislation. At the outset …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members I have already spoken once.
Mr REED: At the outset of the debate on this piece of urgency legislation, five hours ago, I indicated that the opposition would not be supporting it, that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation, and that it impose unfairly on Territorians. At that stage we were of the belief that it would be imposed upon Territory families so to speak, but not Territory businesses because that was the advice that the government gave us. That was the advice that governments gave to Territorians and that was the advice that people were, if you like, comforted by.
Only some hours later, well into the debate, and following the searching questions of the opposition on behalf of different groups of Territorians, be they pensioners, be they motorhome owners, be they business people, be they rent-a-car companies, be they pastoralists, did we find that the broad impact of this legislation was much wider than was indicated by the government, that is to say they had concealed its intent. That is a very serious and nasty thing for a government to do. For this government to conceal the intent of legislation, when introducing it yesterday, the Chief Minister, as the member for Macdonnell has just said, had some 45 minutes to explain to Territorians and to this House its full scope and intent. She instead gave some very broad wafflings in relation to matters that you could describe as purely of a political nature and gave a paragraph or so of what the legislation was to do carefully avoiding the fact that it was going to impose on all business people in the Northern Territory who have a vehicle that is capable of being used for domestic purposes. In addition to that, it is going to hit the kids with Pee Wee squirt bikes to the extent where they currently pay $30, they will now pay $120. It is just an inconceivable application of an unfair and unnecessary and unwarranted tax.
In all fairness to the Chief Minister, I really don’t think that she understood that it would apply to Pee Wee squirt bikes. She had no idea. And that was demonstrated tonight because every time she was asked a question - especially when we really found through our questioning that the scope of this legislation was much broader than was first advised - she did not know the answer and had to seek it. A demonstration of a Chief Minister and Treasurer who is not up to the job and not capable of performing it.
Madam Speaker, we have been pleased as an opposition tonight to be able, as it turns out, to pursue on behalf of virtually every Territorian the full depth of this legislation, its scope and its application. We have exposed the government for what it is: it is deceitful and it has been deliberately, in this case, misleading in terms of the application of this unnecessary tax even to the extent where they have refused to accept it as a tax and tried to form a belief, and as the member for Goyder clearly demonstrated, the interpretations in law of a levy and a tax are no different. A tax is a levy and a levy is a tax.
From the point of view of this government, I hope that we will hear some positive responses from the consultations that the Leader of the Opposition is going to undertake with tourist vehicle operators and with indeed the rental car companies because …
Ms Martin: Denis is going to do it, is he?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition is now being frivolous about it …
Members: The Chief Minister!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: it which does generate concern because you just wonder about how serious she was in relation to this intent.
Madam Speaker, we have pursued this to the end on behalf of Territorians and we have been able to be very pleased as it happens, to be able to clarify a number of points in relation to many owners of registered vehicles who would otherwise be imposed upon in relation to this matter.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, just to pick up on a few remarks from the former Treasurer in relation to deceit. It was all in the act. If it was anything other than that, why weren’t we forced to accept a raft of amendments and finish up with a totally different bill to what we started out with? The bill passed without amendment from memory. Where is the deceit?
The man up the back here, Madam Speaker, is asking questions that the answers were clearly on the next page of the bill. They were clearly on the next page of the bill. If he had bothered to turn the page over and have a read of it instead of being the smarty pants that he thinks that he is, and getting up and raising all these questions instead of reading the bill through himself, he would have had the answers there and then. But that of course did not suit them. They wanted to drag this out as long as they possibly could. They have that right, we don’t oppose that at all. It is a process of democratic debate in this institution and we respect that.
In relation to remarks from the member for Macdonnell, the same thing applies, it was all there. He can talk about deceit, or having exposed the government, the words are there. It is all in the bill before us that has been passed and now becomes law. It is simply a matter of them having read it before they get in here and carry on as they did for something like five hours or five and a half hours, I don’t know. It is a fact that governments do have to pursue bills and process bills on urgency from time to time, not by choice but by a process of the fact that you want it to get in place for good reasons and have it take effect without delay. There would be all sorts of get outs if this was to take the normal process of legislation and come back in February.
But it is passed without amendment, and the Chief Minister will undertake those consultations that she has committed to, not the Leader of the Opposition, who could not even be bothered to be in the Chamber here this evening whilst this bill processed. So important was it to the opposition, your boss was too lazy to be here.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy has been around this Chamber long enough, and drawn enough points of order himself, to know that he cannot reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member.
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business should know that. Withdraw that remark.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I just want to reply to that feeble attempt by the Leader of Government Business to put down the process that we have just been through. I find it just unbelievable that he would come in here and try to defend the feeble attempt by the Chief Minister to understand, or to get us to believe that she understands, this legislation. This is a bill for a new tax that is to raise, how much Chief Minister? Is it $42m or …
Ms Martin: $24m.
Mr BALDWIN: $24m. She didn’t even know how much it was going to raise. $24m in tax brought into this House in urgency. I ask you, have you seen that happen before in this House? Never, never has that process been applied. This is a brand new tax on Territorians that is being brought in here on urgency, and the Leader of Government Business has the audacity to say to us, why didn’t we check the legislation?
Why didn’t we go through it. He came in here yesterday, a second reading speech that we didn’t get until today, not delivered to our desks. Madam Speaker, it is just outrageous that the Leader of Government Business gets up here and blames us for not trying to amend the bill. In fact, we had two amendments suggested to the Chief Minister that she would not take up, simple one word amendment, Madam Speaker. Simple one word amendments she couldn’t agree to on the floor of this House because we never had any other opportunity to look at this legislation.
Members interjecting:
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell!
Mr BALDWIN: We have the Leader of Government Business stand up in this House and try to make feeble excuses for the Chief Minister for the process, the very important process of a new tax bill, no appropriation bill, a new tax bill, and we get lambasted by him for trying to do what a good opposition would do.
We started this process at four o’clock, Madam Speaker, it is now quarter past nine. Five and a quarter hours, and it took that long because we have never seen the piece of legislation, we haven’t had a chance for a briefing. Normally something of this importance would lay on the Table between sittings and we would all have a look at it. We would be able to talk to all of those respective groups that we have raised tonight, pastoralists, the motorbike associations, the charities. The museum that owns 40-odd vehicles - it is going to impinge on every one of their vehicles. $4000 you are going to give the Alice Springs Museum. What are you going to do about that Minister for Central Australia? Have you talked to them? We haven’t had a chance to talk to them because this came in here on urgency. Now don’t talk to us about process, Leader of Government Business, this is an outrageous way of doing business, and it certainly does not reflect what this government promised when they were in opposition, that they would have fair and transparent processes.
If this is the way they are going to do business, then we will take all the time we have to, to make sure that Territorians are reflected in terms of important pieces of legislation.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. The subject of the debate has been the garnering of money, as we talked about before the bill was debated in committee.
Madam SPEAKER: I will just remind speakers that they must speak to the bill in the third reading.
Mr DUNHAM: Yep! The bill that we have before us therefore is a garnering measure that deploys the money. Now, in the course of the debate we have heard that this is necessary because of actions of the previous government. Those actions of the previous government so offended the sensibilities of those opposite that they believed that we should be censured and that we had even abrogated our capacity to be able to speak about it on some occasions. I seek to read into Hansard some excerpts from Labor’s good government which I think are salient and relevant to the debate. I quote, ‘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’.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance to the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am not sure whether this is relevant to the bill. You must speak to the bill. I ask the member for Drysdale to think about that. Relevance. For third reading speeches it must be on the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, during the course of my maiden speech I made a pledge to the people of the Territory, indeed, in the Chamber, that I would do all I could to make sure that only good law passes through this parliament. Good law means a clear intent. It means clear words on the face of the document. Indeed, some of the fatherhood statements that the member for Stuart made, and other things in the parliament, gave me some hope that perhaps there was a genuine attempt on behalf of the government to also pursue that goal.
There have been three demonstrated ambiguities quite constructively pointed out in this piece of legislation - ambiguities which could have been solved easily and simply by way of insertion of this one word. The very fact that it has been raised in this parliament on the floor means that, in a very real sense that in itself could be construed as an ambiguity. It is very rare that a government has the opportunity to correct a piece of legislation genuinely and constructively. I am putting on the record that this piece of legislation is not good law, it is bad law. And as with some of the comments that were made in respect of it, putting aside the political rhetoric, the act of parliament should be sacrosanct. It should not contain any political reference, it should be clear it is for all Territorians, applying to all people who live in our respective electorates, and to rush it through on urgency, to ignore the quite genuine concerns of the opposition is a disgrace.
It grinds me and it offends all the principles of process and fairness. It does the member for Nhulunbuy a personal disservice when he comes in, makes some very general and non-constructive comments and then leaves, and then has the audacity to stand up and suggest that points which were quite validly made were made irresponsibly. In the circumstances, I cannot support this bill.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, just picking up on a few points raised by members opposite, let us not forget the reason why we are debating this bill on urgency this evening. The reason is to repair the gaping deficit that we inherited from the previous government.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The speaker is covering ground that I was ruled out of order on.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister, speak to the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the bill, the opposition, despite trawling through this bill clause by clause, has failed to identify any specific ambiguities. Yes, they played the game tonight. We did take on the issue of the private rental car operators at the Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday. We are waiting for a proposal from the private rental car operators as to how an alternative mechanism could be used to collect that revenue. We have listened to the community. It is a broad based levy.
For the member for Macdonnell to make the point that the Chief Minister had to take advice from Attorney-General’s people in the boxes here, the member for Macdonnell has been here for long enough and has sat through as many appropriation debates as he has, and every single time, at every single appropriation debate, they could not answer a question without turning to the advisor. So to point out that this was something somehow unusual is just not the case. It goes to show what a very short and convenient memory he has.
We have to put this bill through on urgency. We have to repair the budget. That is what we are doing this evening.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! Before we continue, I ask all members to stop their chatter across the Chamber.
MOTION
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Note Statement - Mini-Budget
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the impact of the mini-budget on my areas of ministerial responsibility. I can agree with just one comment from the Leader of the Opposition when he gave his response, and that is that employment, education and training, and police, fire and emergency services have received additional funding. Unfortunately, his comments about a farcical black hole, a lack of courage and the size of the budget deficit are simply wrong and another example of his lack of understanding of the budget and the budgetary processes and his whinging and whining approach.
It is something that Professor Percy Allan, officers from Treasury, this government and all other objective observers have had no difficulty understanding.
The new Department of Employment, Education and Training was established on 13 November 2001. It is made up of the old Department of Education, Employment and Training, the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority and the Work Health Authority. Some elements of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment will also be incorporated in the department, but the exact details of functions, funds and employees are yet to be settled pending passage of the necessary legislation and a thorough examination of those functions and activities. I assert that the independence of the Commissioner for Public Employment will be maintained.
At first glance, it might appear that the $446.75m budget for DEET is simply an amalgamation of the parts that now make up the whole, catering for approximately 3600 staff, most of whom work in schools. But the DEET budget has been increased by over $16m for all its components from the one introduced by the previous government. This government was elected on a promise of focussing on employment, education and training. We are honouring that promise. The new approach of the philosophy goes deeper than the simple allocation of an increased level of funding for these functions.
Before I go to the budget in detail, I want to talk about that new approach and philosophy. The potential of every Territorian will not be maximised without a greater emphasis on and coordination of education and training, and a strategic approach by government to employment. That is true whether you are an indigenous Territorian or non-indigenous; whether you live in one of our urban centres or you live in a rural or remote community; whether you are an employee; an employer looking for qualified and skilled employees; or you are a student or someone trying to gain entry to the workforce. And it is true if you are participating in the local Northern Territory economy or if you are trying to compete, or wanting to compete, in the wider Australian or the world economy. It is true for whatever industry you pose that question.
Our approach is straight forward: government effort aimed at maximising the potential of Territorians whether as individuals or in the workforce must be underpinned by a strategy and must be coordinated. We will develop a strategy for educating our children from pre-school to university. There will be a strategy that will ensure we have an appropriately skilled local workforce that adapts and meets the needs of the economy as it changes inevitably over time. There will be a strategy that ensures that our workplaces are safer and efficient, with minimal industrial or other conflict. The various elements in that equation – education, training, employment and the workplace – are intrinsically linked and need to be coordinated across government. Establishing appropriate organisational arrangements is an essential starting point, and this we have done. Hence the establishment of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The advice flowing to government will cover all elements and the implementation of government decisions in these areas will be delivered more efficiently and effectively.
We have inherited a legacy that lacked strategy and coordination and the will to tackle the hard issues. In schools, we inherited a lack of strategy on what to do about the chronic budget problem in education, Territory students not meeting national benchmarks, the location and upkeep of our schools, the balance between government and non-government schools, the approach to funding in the non-government sector, the inequity between resources going to urban and non-urban education, and attracting and retaining high quality teachers. In the important areas of indigenous education, while work has been done on a strategy, we inherited a lack of will to do anything about the problem on the ground. This issue will be addressed. In the equally important area of information technology in schools, the Territory simply came to it too late. The other states and territories have been in the game for years. The list goes on.
In the tertiary sector, there was a lack of strategy toward the Northern Territory University and its problems. There was no employment and training strategy for the Northern Territory. There was training taking place but there was not enough analysis of need, nor listening to industry, nor was there sufficient accountability for, or outcomes from, the training resources provided by government. The current management and advisory arrangements involving the NTETA Board, Training Advisory Councils, Territory and Commonwealth funding requirements will be reviewed. We want to build a better working relationship with the Commonwealth government and agencies. I was pleased to meet, albeit briefly, with the former federal Minister for Education, Dr Kemp, in Canberra a couple of weeks ago. It was a positive meeting from the point of view of what we wanted to discuss. One of them was the Commonwealth DEETYA representative on the Collins Task Force Implementation Group, and the discussion ranged also across the Northern Territory University. Responsibility for education at the federal level has now shifted across to Brendan Nelson, MHR, and I look forward to getting in touch with him and establishing a positive working relationship with him and the federal government as soon as possible because we need them onside with the work that has to be done.
The restructuring of the government agencies charged with delivering employment, education and training services is aimed at developing the strategies I mentioned and the coordination and improvement of service delivery. Within the new department, the CEO and management team will be required to ensure that the new department is itself a leader and role model in the field of employment, training, staff development, communication, occupational health, and service delivery. It would be appropriate that that be the case. It is our own Department of Employment, Education and Training, and if that can’t be the role model for the rest of the agencies, then I will go he.
The budget allocation in this mini-budget will provide DEET with the necessary resources to deliver. The total DEET budget for 2001-02 will be increased from that introduced by the previous government by $16.174m to a total of $446.75m. The government schools’ budget increases by $17.256m to $299.78m, and this increase is spread across pre-, primary and secondary education. The extra funds will solve the problem that the Department of Education has had with its budget for several years.
Every Territorian concerned about the education of their children should ask the question why it was not addressed sooner. A large part of the education budget is fixed. There is a large fixed cost in running schools and the largest cost, that of teacher and support staff costs, is set by a formula and is therefore known. Despite this, the department was funded on a drip-feed basis for years. The $5m increase to the base budget will fund recurrent salary costs, including the recently negotiated EBA pay increase for teachers, an agreement which has been supported overwhelmingly by teachers and will now be presented to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for formal approval over, from memory, 1423 votes in favour, 237 votes against and, interestingly enough, 7 informal. One wonders why you would chose to vote informally in such a ballot but that was the case.
$1.2m extra is provided for fit-out and establishment costs for various schools including the new primary school at Girraween, and the rebuild of the fire-damaged Ramingining School. Initiatives of the new government also allowed for: $1.1m to start the process of employing 100 extra teachers over the life of this government. The first of these will be employed for the start of the 2002 school year. Priority will be regional and remote schools - the areas of greatest need as identified in the Collins Report into indigenous education and special needs. The actual distribution and allocation will occur after appropriate consultations of stakeholders including schools, teachers, parents, communities, unions and others.
The Vocational Education and Training Program will have a further $0.5m invested to extend the program to Year 9 level. $120 000 of new funding is provided in 2001-02 to establish a new Student Teacher Bursary Scheme, an initiative aimed at increasing the number of Territorians entering the teaching profession, increasing long term retention of teachers, and reducing recruitment costs. Bursaries will be provided for a minimum of 20 students to attend NTU and other accredited NT training institutions for teacher training each year. Criteria for the bursaries will be developed, as will obligations and responsibilities for recipients. The actual numbers and level of the bursary will be set having regard to the relationship with Commonwealth-funded education allowances.
In recognition of the value we place in the non-government sector, a further $1.419m will be made available in this budget. This will cover any increases necessary to honour the current policy of funding non-government students at 20% of the cost of educating a student in a government school; and the commitments entered into for assistance for the provision of capital infrastructure by non-government schools. I am pleased to advise members of the Assembly and those in the non-government school sector, that I will be in a position to talk to them soon about the government’s approach to both recurrent and capital assistance funding.
Assistance to the NTU has been increased again. The issue of funding for the NTU is the subject of the strategic positioning project undertaken by KPMG and now under consideration by the university council. Once the council’s views are known, the government will be in a position to consider what further steps may be necessary to support the NTU. The existing situation is unsatisfactory. The university community must take a lead role in developing solutions which do not rely on ongoing or periodic injections of government finances or other special treatment. I was encouraged, again, in discussion with the former Minister for Education at a federal level, Dr Kemp, who very clearly saw the Northern Territory government as having a role in where NTU goes in terms of the future and expressed a willingness of the Commonwealth to come to the table with the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory University if we were to get involved. I am hoping that that level of commitment, that interest, that support expressed by Dr Kemp for the Northern Territory University will, of course, be the same attitude that Dr Nelson brings to the portfolio.
Whilst Centralian College funding has been slightly reduced by $137 000, that is something we would not have liked to have seen done, but it has to be taken into context of an $11m budget. I am conscious of the successful efforts made by Centralian College to expand its operations; its improved performance and training delivery including the recent linkage with the Canberra Institute of Technology. Centralian College’s efforts will continue to be supported.
The budget allocation for the Office of Commissioner for Public Employment remains substantially the same as the original budget for 2001-02, except for a small contribution towards overcoming the overall budget black hole inherited from the previous government. $1.5m additional funding has been provided for the purchase of training programs to be delivered to Territorians. These funds are a rollover of Commonwealth moneys unspent in 2000-01. This boost is in line with the government’s commitment to having a real employment and training strategy that meets the needs of industry.
$6m will be provided to the nominal insurer to cover the initial liability on the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme resulting from the collapse of HIH Insurance. The collapse of HIH has led to an unfunded workers compensation liability in the Northern Territory which could be in excess of $50m. It will be some time before that actual liability can be accurately assessed. The government is currently investigating the best way of funding this liability. The $6m is an initial grant to provide time to explore funding options.
All members are now well aware of the budget position we inherited on taking office. The effort to recover the Northern Territory’s precarious position will take hard work, some sacrifice and several years to achieve.
I have in the past few minutes explained those areas of budget increases for DEET and the purposes for which those extra funds are provided. While the general area of employment, education and training is one of particular interest to the government, because it is so closely linked with our future wellbeing, it is not immune from some pain in assisting us to improve the overall budget provision. To this end, DEET has had funds extracted from what its budget would have been for the following:
- $190 000 of expected savings arising from the establishment of DEET itself. This will come from more
efficient delivery of corporate services such as finance, human resources, IT, public relations;
$250 000 has been taken from the budget in anticipation of those improvements being achieved; and
on priority issues and doing business smarter.
All members of the public who are very concerned about education, training and employment for themselves and their children, need to understand that if were not for the budget situation we found on taking office, those savings would not be necessary and an additional $2.45m could this year have been invested in the future of all Territorians.
In relation to Police, Fire and Emergency Services for the financial year 2001-02, NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services have a revised budget allocation, after transfers for the changes arising from the new departmental structure, of $131.41m. The agency will also receive $1m for IT outsourcing. It will be a transfer from DCIS to Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. I advised the House earlier this year, the Commissioner of Police had informed me that the projected expenditure for the 2001-02 financial year was likely to exceed the available allocation. After consideration of the commissioner’s views, Police, Fire and Emergency Services has been given funding for the 2001 Police Consent Agreement, for a large portion of the cost of the Falconio investigation and for communication functions. In addition, approval of the carry-over of funds from last financial year for emergency management, together with funding for additional police to meet this government’s election commitment has been made. After these variations, the total funding available to Police, Fire and Emergency Services will be $132.41m, an increase of over $2.3m from the original allocation. The Commissioner of Police has advised of necessary adjustments to specific allocations to ensure that any expenditure that can be reined in, is reined in.
However, I wish to advise the House that while every endeavour to meet the target will be made, steps that will impact on service delivery or the health and safety of staff, will certainly not be taken. At this stage Police, Fire and Emergency Services do not see that there will be any adverse impact on operations or service delivery, but this will need to be carefully monitored and further advice will be forthcoming to me at any time there is any difficulty encountered. I am sure the new Police Commissioner will find that Police, Fire and Emergency Services is in far better shape than when Commissioner Bates arrived. Establishment and resource levels have been increased substantially and I recognise and pay tribute to the efforts of Commissioner Bates. He just simply did a superb job in seeing that large growth of the police force. The new commissioner now has a very different role from that undertaken by Commissioner Bates, because we now have a police force at or around optimum levels with the extra 50 police to come in over this four-year term of government. I would see that there would be very much a development of, and a realising of the full potential of, the police as a resource unit in terms of getting absolute best out of them. I would think that the new commissioner comes well suited to that role. It will be very much an HR role and a moulding and a developing and looking after the service that we have. As I said, the challenge to the new commissioner, Paul White, is to refine and develop from that very solid base.
As far as the racing, gaming and licensing ministry is concerned, these activities are undertaken by Northern Territory Treasury Services. An additional $70 000 has been allocated to assist with Sky Channel coverage of the Darwin Cup; and a further $330 000 has been provided to cover a gaming system evaluation, ultimately to be funded from revenue paid by license holders.
The mini-budget is sound; it restores and repairs the damage and economic vandalism of our predecessors. It sets the Territory budget on a sustainable path. Most importantly, it provides for ongoing and improved service delivery in key areas of education, employment and training, and police fire and emergency services. The mini-budget reflects the views, concerns and aspirations expressed by the community at the economic summit. The mini-budget was developed in a sensible and considered way. It is not a slash and burn budget such as we saw in early 1991, such as we saw with Planning for Growth, such as we saw with the development of DCIS. It is not a budget of rubbery figures, or, as we saw as recently as the last budget, a budget with deceitful figures. I congratulate the Chief Minister and Treasurer on her achievement.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, as the new Minister for Justice and Attorney General, I am delighted to greet the mini-budget and offer some comments on it tonight. It takes significant steps towards restoring the Territory’s budget and delivering effective crime prevention and law enforcement strategies. The mini-budget does what the CLP government refused to do. The CLP failed to be honest and it refused to be financially responsible. It went on spending money it did not have. We now have to restore financial responsibility and the sustainability of the budget itself. Even though the CLP has wreaked such damage this government remains committed to improving the lifestyle of Territorians and tackling the hard issues that are faced at the current time. We can restore the Territory’s finances and deliver on our programs which will make real improvements to lives of Territorians.
The mini-budget meets the challenge of getting the finances right, but also starts to advance some of the key government programs and projects which will make a difference in areas like crime prevention, law enforcement, and in remote communities. Crime prevention and law enforcement is a particular area for which I have carriage. This government is committed to delivering comprehensive and practical crime prevention and law enforcement programs. I am delighted to be able to highlight the initiatives in the mini-budget that will assist Territorians in fighting crime, and our Territory police deliver an effective crime prevention strategy and help all Territorians. Some of these will start this financial year; other initiatives have been included in the forward estimates to start in a financially responsible way over the first term of the government. The area of crime prevention is one of my particular responsibilities within our government, as I said before, one in which I will work in close partnership with my colleague, the Minster for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and my colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Services.
The mini-budget provides a range of carefully crafted initiatives from more police assistance to victims and new ways to deal with wayward youth to be delivered over the government’s first term. Police are the front-line crime fighters. This government will boost police numbers with 50 extra police in its first year, providing the on-the-ground support for the government’s Tough on Drugs policy and the six point crime prevention plan. $640 000 in this mini-budget will allow 10 police officers to be recruited from January next year. A new multi-purpose police, fire and emergency services station for the Darwin rural area is proposed and it will help to improve police response times in an area where some 20 000 Territorians live. Its cost of $1m will be addressed in the 2002-03 and future years’ capital works program. New police offices and facilities will help the police force to prevent crime, effectively investigate crime and respond more quickly when crime occurs.
In the areas of drugs, this government intends to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Our three point plan to tackle illicit drug use is one of the cornerstones of our crime prevention strategy. The law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and drug dealing is point 1 in our Tough on Drugs plan. Boosting the resources of the drug squad is an essential part of this strategy and has been a long held priority of Labor in opposition and now in government. The link between illicit drug dependency and crime, particularly property crime, is well recognised. One way to reduce illicit drug use is to attack the supply side, to crack down on the people who profit from importing, manufacturing and distributing illicit drugs. To do this, the police need resources and they need law. Part of the government’s plan to tackle drug-related crime is to double the size of the drug squad from 20 to 40 officers through the increase in police numbers over the next four years.
But attacking the supply side is not enough. Drug treatment and rehabilitation is part of the government’s plan to be tough on the causes of crime. Commencing in 2003-04, funding assistance will be provided to non-government organisations for treatment and rehabilitation facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs and to help purchase three half-way houses and provide ongoing funding for improved drug rehabilitation services.
I am looking forward to outlining in more detail the government’s comprehensive anti-drug strategy next year. To bring that strategy together we have established a multi-departmental committee which has begun meeting and is building up a very widely-ranged set of initiatives against drug use and drug manufacture and distribution in the Northern Territory. It consists of the health department, the police department, Attorney-General’s department and we expect to have some quite detailed proposals for action early next year.
The government’s six point plan for crime prevention forms a solid basis for a comprehensive, integrated crime prevention strategy. The establishment of a new crime prevention unit in the Department of Justice will be funded through resources freed up by administrative restructure. This specialist unit will be dedicated to coordinating and driving the implementation of the government’s six point crime prevention plan, developing whole-of-government solutions and making recommendations to Cabinet, and making a real difference in the lives of Territorians.
A number of initiatives funded by this mini-budget or included in forward estimates for the next financial year, will support the crime prevention plan, encourage community participation and help to start community-based projects to reduce crime. Financial assistance to the Neighbourhood Watch and NTSafe programs will be increased by $250 000 per year from the year 2002-03 to enable more community-based initiatives to reduce crime.
I am pleased that funding to enable the introduction of the youth patrol night patrol and safety house to help children in the Darwin area who are in need or at risk has been brought forward from 2002-03 to the current financial year. Under this initiative, non-government organisations were invited to tender to run the night patrol service. To support the service, the government plans to provide a Territory Housing house at a peppercorn rent. This will ensure supervised emergency overnight accommodation is available to help vulnerable, young people.
School attendance officers are another initiative to help young people in need. By 2004-05, eight school attendance officers will be located throughout the Territory to help address behavioural problems in schools and truancy by school students. This important initiative will provide help to children who need it, and help to keep them in school. $170 000 has been included in the forward estimates for 2002-03, to start the initiative with the employment of the first two officers. The government diversionary programs for wayward students will also start in the next financial year. $0.5m has been included in the forward estimates, starting next financial year, to introduce programs to get students who truant back into the classroom and off the streets. Those programs will give the school attendance officers the tools they need to ensure they can make a real difference in children’s lives and in the lives of people in the neighbourhoods where they may well be causing problems at the moment.
We have made it very clear going into government that putting victims first is one of the key components of our six point plan in the priorities of this government. When a crime happens the people who suffer are the victims, and this government understands that they need help and support to get them through. We know from personal experience, and as local members, the loss and devastation people feel when their homes are broken into and their possessions stolen. The incoming Police Commissioner, Paul White, has said break and enters will be a priority for the police force. He has put offenders on notice with his announcement of a crackdown on home break-ins when he takes over. This mini-budget helps the victims of home break-ins by providing $30 000 this financial year to help clean up and secure their homes after such break-ins. This money will be used to provide immediate and real assistance to victims. It can be used to replace broken windows or locks, or help with the cleaning when the victim’s home has been trashed. These practical measures will be available through community groups who are best placed to help victims through the trauma of a house break-in. The government will be holding discussions with stakeholders such as VOCAL - the Victims of Crime Assistance League - and the Victims Support Unit on the most effective ways in which this money can be used.
The construction of the Palmerston Courthouse at a cost of $5m will be addressed in the development of the 2002-03 budget and in future years’ capital works programs. Court facilities located at Palmerston will mean that witnesses and victims, and offenders in Palmerston and rural areas no longer have to travel to Darwin for court appearances. Local support programs can be delivered more effectively through the facility, and the mediation and victim impact conferences can take place in the local community.
Turning now to other issues. I want to look at the issues that will impact on Territorians wherever they live. The boost this budget provides to the number of nurses and teachers employed in the Territory will be welcome wherever Territorians live, particularly after the years of neglect by the CLP in this important area of service delivery. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, spending in the Territory on public education has been well below national standards. Good public education is a fundamental requirement for our children, our community and our economy. Over its first term, the government will employ 100 extra teachers. This mini-budget starts to rectify the CLP’s neglect by providing $1.1m this financial year to see this important initiative kicked off with an extra 20 teachers. This means more attention will be paid to the children who need it including those with special education needs. It also supports the government’s efforts to increase the retention rates for students, and indigenous students in particular, in line with the Collins Report into Indigenous Education.
As the Chief Minister has already made clear, this mini-budget reorders government spending to increase the priority given to health. Despite the black hole the government inherited by the CLP, this mini-budget will ensure that the government can, in its first term, still deliver on its commitment to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 and increase their pay levels by 15%. $2.7m allocated in this mini-budget will enable 10 additional nurses to be recruited this financial year. Those numbers will increase progressively at an achievable rate to the 75 new positions the government committed to by the year 2004-05.
I would like to highlight some of the initiatives and projects that will particularly benefit Central Australia. First, I would like to emphasise that nothing in the mini-budget will affect core services to the bush. Core services will be maintained and, where possible, improved by increasing the productivity of the public service. In Central Australia, we look forward to the construction of the National Indigenous Museum and Cultural Centre in Alice Springs. In conjunction with the Commonwealth and private sector, it will be addressed in the development of the 2002-03 and future years’ capital works programs. Originally proposed as a stand-alone facility, indigenous bodies have indicated to the government that these resources should be combined with existing projects, particularly the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs, the Desert Peoples Precinct - which has already been provided with $250 000 - along with an additional $200 000 for operational requirements in the Alice Springs Cultural Precinct. This approach demonstrates the government’s commitment to enhance Alice Springs as a national centre for indigenous culture and learning.
I would also like to talk about the Vocational Educational and Training Scheme. Under the CLP, the administration of the VET Scheme became increasingly centralised in Darwin. As a result, the development and coordination of training for indigenous communities and others in regional and remote areas has suffered. This worrying trend, affecting those communities most in need, will start to be reversed from the year 2002-03 when extra funding is proposed to employ extra regional VET coordinators. Five VET coordinators will eventually be located in the Territory’s regional centres. They will perform a crucial role linking training programs to regional development needs to ensure properly trained people are available across a wide range of service delivery areas.
I am very pleased to see that the funding of $400 000 for the renal dialysis service in Tennant Creek has been included in the forward estimates for 2002-03. As part of the government’s commitment to indigenous organisations taking a greater role in service provision through the Indigenous Framework Agreements, Anyinginyi Congress will be assisted to provide this service.
I would like to highlight some of the remote programs that will impact on the electorate of Stuart as well as other remote electorates around the Territory. Looking at the regional health care teams, $220 000 provided in this mini-budget sees the start of increases to regional health care teams which are to be supplemented by an additional 25 staff - professionals with specialist skills in child health and school nursing, speech therapy and occupational therapy. Those teams will help the remote clinics which are too often overwhelmed with the number and range of cases which present in the communities. They will visit schools and clinics in the regions on a regular basis to identify childhood health problems, and to help provide treatment and care within communities. To help ensure communities have continued access to trained staff, those nurses will also be available to fill in when permanent staff are on leave.
To help indigenous youth in remote communities, the government will increase grants to community government councils by $300 000 per annum to employ sport and recreation officers. $150 000 provided in this mini-budget starts this process. Indigenous youth in remote communities are especially vulnerable to the problems caused by social dislocation. Left to their own devices, without recreational opportunities, they can find themselves in trouble with the law. The sport and recreation officers will promote participation in sport and help to develop the sporting talents of young people in our remote communities.
I am pleased to say that this government’s commitment to implementing many of the recommendations of the Collins Report into Indigenous Education is now beginning to be implemented. As well as the employment of 100 extra teachers, which will help support the retention of indigenous students, those recommendations which require little or no additional funding other than the reallocation of priorities within the Department of Employment, Education and Training, or the inclusion of communities in developing programs for students, will now be implemented.
In conclusion, this mini-budget presents to the people of the Territory a financially responsible and sustainable plan for the government’s first term. Many of the government’s spending priorities have been reworked to ensure we can deliver on our election commitments in a financially responsible way. Putting the Territory on a firm financial footing requires some tough decisions, but the increased priority being given to health, education and law enforcement ensures essential services and programs are going to be maintained. I am happy to be able to speak on the mini-budget today. I commend the Chief Minister and the Treasurer’s statement to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the mini-budget delivered by the Treasurer and Chief Minister. The Martin Labor government inherited a set of published budget papers that were a work of fiction, a gross fraud on the people of the Northern Territory. The Public Accounts Committee is investigating how deliberate and manipulative that fraud was and who were the key perpetrators, so I will not go into any other details here, although I am confident the facts will be brought to light by the Public Accounts Committee.
This mini-budget is about finally providing some accurate, accountable information to Territorians on the state of the Territory’s finances, and about beginning the hard process of balancing the books so that we can move ahead with growing our economy in a fiscally sustainable way. The Martin Labor government inherited a deficit of approximately $140m from the CLP, a deficit which was unsustainable. The government has had to make some hard decisions in terms of revenue and saving measures in this mini-budget to rein in the growth in expenditure under the previous government, under the spend, spend, spend philosophy of the former Chief Minister. The Leader of the Opposition’s mantra has been to spend, spend, spend. The Gordon Gecko of the CLP and his mantra that ‘debt is good’. We have rejected that irresponsible approach, and the Treasurer has delivered a mini-budget that is both fiscally responsible and sustainable and also delivers on the Labor Party’s election commitments.
The historic Economic Development Summit called by the Chief Minister and held in this Assembly from 4 to 6 November was a key part of the process of informing the government of the priorities of the broader Territory community in shaping the mini-budget. I was very pleased to be involved in organising the summit, and I wish to place on the record my appreciation of the fantastic work by my department under John Carroll in making the summit happen in a very short time period. The summit was about bringing together a diverse range of people representing a broad cross section of the Territory community to discuss together the challenges facing the Territory and to set the priorities for a strategy that will see the Territory continue to grow in the future and deliver the better future we all want for our children.
I thank all of those who participated in the summit, the organisers and the co-chairs, Neville Walker and Bob Collins, for delivering a productive and inclusive forum for Territorians and for putting concrete suggestions on how to move forward together to grow our economy. The feedback I have received from participants and observers at the summit has been fantastic and I am committed to following up on the key summit recommendations to deliver concrete outcomes for the Territory community.
A primary focus of our government’s first term will be on economic development and job creation. This will require a coordinated approach across government to maximise the economic potential of the Territory, working together with the private sector to deliver economic growth and jobs in key industry sectors including tourism, small business, primary industry and resource development both in our domestic markets and internationally.
The public service restructure recently announced by the Chief Minister brings the functions for supporting these key industry sectors together in an integrated focussed way under the auspices of the new Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development for which I have the great privilege of being minister. The department includes the regulatory and research functions of the former Departments of Primary Industries and Fisheries and Mines and Energy, the industry development functions, business registration and regulation functions of the former Department of Industries and Business, as well as providing whole-of-government advice to me in my capacity as Minister for Energy. The department will also incorporate the Department of Asian Relations and Trade which will become more focussed on delivering measurable, trade-related outcomes for Territory companies and for facilitating productive overseas investment in the Northern Territory economy.
As Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Territory development I expect to work closely with the Office of Territory Development and with our Territory Ambassador, Bob Collins, both in delivering the outcomes of the Economic Development Summit and in attracting and delivering major projects that will boost the Territory economy and, again, deliver on that key commitment: jobs, jobs and more jobs.
The key functional responsibilities in my department are outlined in the mini-budget papers and I will quote them briefly:
- increasing the gross value of primary industry production by assisting new primary industries to
establish, and existing industry to expand, with an emphasis on strong regional growth in the
Northern Territory;
ensuring ecologically sustainable development and use of resources;
provision of information, advisory and facilitation services to stimulate business and industry
development;
management of a regulatory framework for access to the Territory’s primary resources and for health,
safety and environmental management;
facilitation of trade and investment between the Northern Territory and its regional partners and other
trading partners; and
maintaining strong links with trading partners, international governments and the private sector.
I am confident that under the capable management of Peter Blake, the newly appointed Secretary of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development and his team, working with the resilient and entrepreneurial individuals and companies which comprise the private sector in the Northern Territory, we will deliver on these outcomes.
I am also honoured to have been appointed Minister for Tourism in the recent ministerial changes. The structure and responsibilities of the Tourist Commission are basically unchanged by the restructure, with the NT Tourist Commission picking up responsibility for some tourist infrastructure previously the responsibility of the former Department of Industries and Business. In the week or so I have been minister, I have met with a number of the peak industry groups in the tourism sector including the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Tourism Export Council and the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association. I have also met with senior executives of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission responsible for marketing the Territory as a tourist destination both domestically and internationally.
The tourism industry internationally has suffered since the events of 11 September with one recent report predicting tourist numbers overall as being down by 16% on the equivalent time last year. In Australia and particularly here in the Territory, we have suffered the double blow of the collapse of Ansett. The slowing international economy will also inevitably have an impact on the overall volume of tourist travel. It is not an easy time to be a tourism operator and we are certainly going to be working with those people and everybody in the tourism sector to get them through this tough time.
However, in my meetings with the Tourist Commission and with industry representatives from here in Darwin, from regional areas and Central Australia, I have been struck by their pragmatism and their willingness to work cooperatively together and with government to get through this period and to capitalise on the better times which everybody is confident lie ahead. A large part of the seat capacity lost through the Ansett collapse has been picked up by Qantas into Darwin and to Alice Springs and Ayers Rock. The introduction of Virgin to the Territory in December will be a fantastic Christmas present for travellers to Darwin with more cheaper seats available and also travellers from Darwin to interstate. This, of course, has spin-offs for hotels, restaurants, bars and tourism operators in the Territory and hence, jobs for Territorians -a massive return on that $2m investment; the consequential returns will be tens of millions of dollars to the Northern Territory economy.
The government is also continuing talks with Virgin on the option of flying in to Alice Springs next year. The lower international, and consequently domestic, petrol price is also making road travel cheaper and more attractive. I have asked the Tourist Commission to investigate further options for expanding on this growth sector to encourage self-drive holidays into the Northern Territory. The Tourist Commission is also concentrating its marketing budget, which has been quarantined from any budget reduction, in attracting more domestic tourists as a cost effective strategy to keep numbers up whilst the problems with the airline industry internationally continue. I will definitely get out and talk to more tourist operators in the coming months, and I value their feedback on the best way to tailor the Northern Territory’s marketing message to maximise the number of tourists visiting the Territory. We have a fantastic product here to sell and, despite the trials of the last few months, we will get on with the job of selling it.
The mini-budget delivers on a number of election promises relevant to my portfolio. Despite the economic vandalism of the previous CLP government, we are committed to delivering on our commitments in a fiscally responsible manner. Recreational fishing is a source of enjoyment for a large number of Territorians and is a major attraction for tourists to the Territory. We have the best fishing in Australia and our fishing stocks are a valuable asset which need to be sensibly managed.
Key initiatives in the budget for recreational fishing include:
- improved facilities. Labor will commit $500 000 each year commencing in 2002-03 to improve boating
infrastructure such as launching ramps, road access, camp grounds and artificial reefs. It is envisaged that
this infrastructure will be deployed in conjunction of opening up new areas and certainly, that will be done
in consultation with AFANT in terms of prioritising that spend for the term of our government. We will also
be increasing AFANT’s funding. Labor recognises AFANT as the peak recreational fishing body in the Northern
Territory. Accordingly, we will increase AFANT’s base grant to $100 000 per year and it will be on triennial
funding. There is certainty of that grant and they will be able to get on with the job of promoting their industry,
recreational fishing, which they do so well. I will be working with them to develop the tourism aspects of
recreational fishing in the Northern Territory. I believe we can do a lot more to get people up here to share in
this resource and the spin off for the economy will be considerable. I look forward to working with AFANT to
achieving that goal;
we will be establishing a River Watch Program. This is a similar program to Neighbourhood Watch but for
waterways instead of streets. This will initially be conducted as a trial and responsible fishermen will be given
an active role in protecting our rivers and waterways; and
we will be establishing indigenous community fishing offices. This will allow communities to have more
involvement in the protection and management of their fishing resources. It is anticipated the program will
provide up to five full time positions across the Northern Territory.
These plans were all part of our fully costed plan to build a better Territory and the November mini-budget puts the initiatives into action. The mini-budget also puts into place key initiatives for business. Funding has been provided to establish short course business skills workshops to be conducted around the Territory to provide small business with the technical skills and advice to manage their operations more effectively in an increasingly competitive world and a globalised economy.
Funding has also been provided for the establishment for business case managers to provide a one-stop-shop for businesses in their dealings with government, to cut through red tape and focus on delivering outcomes for business. Both of these initiatives will be managed through the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development.
As the Chief Minister has already outlined, this is a responsible budget which addresses the unsustainable legacy which the CLP left and it does deliver on Labor’s election promises and moves the budget into surplus this term, a very key initiative.
Certainly, the former Chief Minister would be the only conservative leader, the only Tory ex-leader in the country, or leader who believed that deficit budgets running into the hundreds of millions of dollars was somehow a responsible economic strategy and a budgetary strategy. The Leader of the Opposition and the former Treasurer continue to be in a state of denial over the legacy they left the Territory. They think they can mislead Territorians into believing that the black hole they left does not exist. One group of Territorians they certainly can’t fool is the business community. Unlike the former Treasurer, the business community knows very well how to read the books. They know that the CLP’s black hole is real; the CLP’s stance on this gives them no credibility with the Territory business community. I welcome the business community’s balanced and supportive …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We don’t have a quorum. Minister continue.
Mr HENDERSON: I will say it again and it is a pity that the other side is not here to hear it but one group of Territorians they can’t fool is the business community. The business community does know how to read a set of books and the former Treasurer and the former Chief Minister can use all the weasel words they like, talk about rhubarb, but the business community does know that the fiscal legacy of 26 years of CLP governments has left the Territory’s books in a very, very bad shape. The fact that we are going to be bringing the Northern Territory back into surplus within the first year of our government is a significant achievement, and one that I certainly as minister in this government, look forward to delivering on.
I welcome the business community’s balanced and supportive comments on the mini-budget, which should be on the Parliamentary Record. To quote from today’s NT News:
“It is a fair and equitable budget,” said Carole Frost from the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
Paul Shaft from CSC has described the budget as well rounded.
The Territory Construction Agency has welcomed the reintroduction of QuickStart for two months, which has
the potential to deliver the construction of 100 new homes and inject $20m into the economy.
The business community has welcomed the budget as fair, responsible and necessary.
Unlike the members opposite who continue to be in a state of denial and I am surprised that the new members opposite, who were not part of the decision making process have fallen in behind them. Obviously, they can’t read a set of books, because the legacy is very real and the unsustainable budget that we inherited 12 weeks after it was brought down in this parliament, 12 weeks after the Treasurer handed down a set of budget papers in this place, placed them on this Table here on the public record, that stated that there would be a deficit of $12m this year. Well, that myth has certainly been blown sky high, and for members opposite still to be in a state of denial on that does not hold them in high regard in the community. The community does know the state of the economy and the state of the government’s books here in the Northern Territory. The fact that we have delivered a responsible mini-budget, that commits to our election promises and brings the budget back into surplus within four years is a very real achievement. I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Treasurer on the statement before this House.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the mini-budget handed down by this government is a direct result of the failure of the CLP to manage the Territory economy. As members of this House would be aware, this year the former government was caught out misleading Territorians about the true fiscal health of the Territory economy. I will shortly detail the health promises of our government, and the implementation of these promises in the Health and Community Services portfolio. We have tackled the black hole left to us by the former CLP government whilst limiting the impact of revenue measures as much as possible. Let’s just dwell on the previous government’s approach for a moment.
The CLP were driven by political expediency not economic responsibility. When I became minister, I was appalled by the extent of the underfunding of the portfolio. The department did not even have the funds to carry out established programs, programs that were part of its core business. The shortfall was $20m. To put underfunding of this magnitude into perspective, the entire 2001-02 Katherine Hospital budget is $14.2m and the East Arnhem district budget, excluding Gove District Hospital is $7.76m. In the context of the non-government sector, the department funds 180 agencies to a total of $65m. In other words, $20m represents approximately one third of funding to the non-government sector. $20m also represents a reduction of around 250 nursing, or equivalent, staff. Clearly this is not an insignificant shortfall for any organisation to manage, let alone a portfolio of the size, complexity and importance to Territorians as health.
Had the CLP been re-elected on 18 August, they would no doubt have resorted to more of the same budget techniques. In contrast, on coming to office, and being given the true picture from Treasury, we immediately set in train urgent remedial action. Firstly, we moved to identify the true magnitude of the CLP’s deceit by bringing in Professor Allan to give us an independent and accurate picture. In the interests of transparency and accountability, we shared that information with the community by holding the economic summit. We involved the broader community in finding solutions to balance growth, expansion and development, whilst bringing in responsible fiscal management. Thirdly, we restructured the public sector, bringing in efficiencies of scale and removing duplication. Our fourth action has been to deliver this mini-budget, setting out our plans for the next four years in a revised financial climate.
In response to what we have inherited, we could have made major cuts to the health portfolio. However, through the mini-budget process, this portfolio has received an increase of $34.2m in total, comprising $17.3m base funding and $16.9m for one-off expenditure items. I will now go into further detail about how the mini-budget affects this portfolio and our election promises.
Our highest priority was rectifying the shortfall in base funding to enable the department to carry out its core functions. The most important component of the increase for base funding, is $6.9m to meet growth and demand for services. This funding has been applied to meet the service provision needs in hospitals; rural and remote health services; increase disease control; family and children’s services; and other community service areas: $800 000 for the provision of services for children and adolescents in my care, pursuant to the Community Welfare Act; $5m to provide an adequate funding base for cross-border charging where patients requiring more complex treatment are referred interstate; $4m relating to the recent nurses nursing enterprise bargaining agreement; $1.1m for the continuation of the rural primary care information system, which is currently operating in Tiwi and Katherine West; and $200 000 for aero-medical services.
I shall now address how this mini-budget meets our health election commitments. High quality care of our children is essential to the future of the Territory. On top of having Australia’s highest cost of living, the cost of childcare is an additional burden on Territory families. It will be great news for the large number of families in the Territory with children in childcare that this government will be increasing the Northern Territory Child Care subsidy by $7.50 per place per week from 1 July 2002. This equates to $2.76m over the following three years. Another of our major initiatives of particular interest to the people of Barkly is the provision of renal dialysis services in Tennant Creek. In this mini-budget, $410 000 is provided from year 2002-03 onward for this new service. This will mean that renal patients will be able to access services nearer to their country, an important consideration for those with this debilitating disease.
We are committed to tackling head-on the issue of attracting and retaining nurses. Commencing January 2002, a refresher course is being conducted in Darwin to enable up to 20 out-of-practice nurses to update their skills and return to the nursing workforce. Five clinical nurse educators are currently being recruited to support this effort. In Central Australia, government is supporting the development of a School of Nursing to be affiliated with the Northern Territory University and Flinders University. This strategy has considerable potential for attracting candidates from Central Australia into the nursing profession. This complements wider work being undertaken by the department, the Australian Nursing Federation, Northern Territory University and Flinders University to develop a range of strategies to increase nursing numbers. In addition, we will now meet our promised increase of 75 nurses over four years rather than the original period of two years in light of the world-wide shortage of nurses.
Last week, I met with a group of key stakeholders to expedite matters in relation to attracting and retaining nurses in the Territory. There were representatives from the Nursing Board, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Darwin Private Hospital, the Northern Territory University School of Nursing, the Royal College of Nursing and various staff from my department. This was a very successful meeting, one of a number I intend to hold, where the complexity of the current nursing staffing crisis was fully canvassed. It is only through such collaboration that solutions will be found.
The professional development and training of health staff is another critical area for ensuring quality health service delivery. We are increasing professional development and training funding from my department’s personnel budget from 0.9% to 1.2% from next financial year. This is a 33% increase which will equate to over $2m in additional funding over this government’s first term.
Our capital expenditure commitment for the upgrading of the Territory’s Health and Community Services infrastructure is vital to the wellbeing of the health sector and the local construction industry. Just last week, the Leader of the Opposition publicly criticised me and this government in relation to funding estimates for completion for the upgrade of the Darwin and Alice Springs Hospital, saying we had underestimated the amounts required. We can certainly see why the Leader of the Opposition was never made Treasurer. He simply does not understand the figures nor the written advice that I have given him. We came to government with a commitment that we would spend $25m per annum over our first term on facilities and equipment to upgrade the hospitals and clinics. That was always meant to be the minimum. We also undertook to meet the former government’s capital work commitments. This financial year, we will invest in excess of $35m excluding minor new works on community infrastructure.
In relation to the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals redevelopment and fit out, it is clear that we have more than met our election commitment with the amount allocated for this year. This year we will be spending well in excess of $25m in order to complete the capital works program for the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals. It is anticipated that the Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment will be completed this financial year four months ahead of schedule. Because the Alice Springs Hospital will be completed ahead of schedule any adjustments in following years will be in relation to how our minimum of $25m is allocated. We do not have our sums wrong. We are meeting our commitments. And we will continue to spend a minimum of $100m over our term of government on health facilities and equipment. This $100m will cover other election promises such the construction of an oncology and radiotherapy unit for Royal Darwin Hospital. As members would be aware patients requiring radiotherapy for cancer presently have to travel interstate for treatment. This is both costly and unsatisfactory from the patients point of view. We have therefore committed $2m for oncology and radiotherapy in 2002-03 with $12.47m provided in the forward estimates for 2003-04. The department is preparing detailed plans for the establishment of the unit.
The early identification and treatment of childhood illnesses has an enormous impact on future health status. This statement has been made in this House before on many occasions. I assure members, and the community, that this government will provide more than just rhetoric to address the problems of indigenous health. In the second half of this financial year, $220 000 is provided to the department for increasing the staffing of regional health care teams by 25 personnel with specialist skills in child health. This will be followed up next year with an additional $2m for a total commitment of $2.22m recurrent thereafter.
The value that the community places on access to high quality emergency medical care cannot be underestimated. The chronic shortage of accident emergency department staff at Royal Darwin Hospital should never have been allowed to develop to the extent that it is today. My department will continue to pursue recruitment and retention of a range of accident and emergency staff and additional $510 000 recurrent has been provided from 2002-03 to facilitate this.
This government has an ambitious program ahead of it, more than time permits me to address in detail today. It is worth noting however that the forward estimates have provision for:
- $310 000 in 2003-04 for school health programs;
$3m in 2002-03 for construction of a hospice at Royal Darwin Hospital;
$2.5m in 2004-05 for the construction of a birthing centre;
$560 000 from 2003-04 current in capital for improved drug rehabilitation services;
$120 000 in 2002-03 to establish an Office of Children and Families;
$250 000 in 2001-02 to allow greater flexibility in remuneration arrangements for specialist staff; and
$170 000 in 2002-03 to assist the Darwin Family Centre to upgrade its facility.
Members will notice that in this mini-budget health has been largely quarantined from the budget improvement targets applied across the board by government. Together with schools, police and emergency services and custodial services, health will be subject to only a 0.5% budget improvement measure for the remainder of this year and 1% in the following year. This quarantining of key functional areas will continue in subsequent years in relation to the annual productivity dividend where only one quarter of 1% will be applied.
The former government has a lot of answer for. It misled Territorians about the funds allocated to this important portfolio. The next few years are going to be tough for Territorians financially and it is evident that we have the CLP to blame. All of us will be affected by this mini-budget as it attempts to wipe out the deficit left by the CLP by the year 2004-05 but this government is committed to delivering on health. The opposition’s blatant public denial and hypocrisy regarding the black hole it has left the Territory is outrageous.
In conclusion, this is an excellent mini-budget based on sound and realistic fiscal management, something the former government knows nothing about. It will get the Territory out of the black hole that the CLP left us in and at the same time ensure the Territory’s growth and development within resources for the next four years. I commend it to the House.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, the mini-budget presented to the Assembly yesterday by the Treasurer and Chief Minister presents a responsible budget. A mini-budget balances the problems caused by the CLP budget black hole with the need for the new government to keep the economy on track. It provides a stimulus to business, in particular the construction industry. The mini-budget also commences and maps out the program to deliver on Labor’s election commitments. Of major importance, it starts the process of addressing the budget problem. The mini-budget highlights the difference between Labor’s responsible approach to fiscal management and the CLP’s mismanagement. Our approach is responsible and reinforces essential key elements for the Territory economy.
The CLP approach was to run the budget into the ground, strip government of the capacity to play a central role in the economy, and slash and burn the public sector and services to the public. Who can forget the ERC process of the early 1990s that slashed its way through the public service? Who can forget the so-called Planning for Growth that cut public service positions and at same time expanded the budget deficit?
The management of the Territory’s finances is central to the delivery of good government. Spiralling debt levels and spiralling interest payments ultimately leads to fewer police officers, fewer nurses, fewer teachers. That was the legacy of the CLP’s financial mismanagement. Territorians know it, the business community knows it. Since taking office Labor has implemented three major initiatives in regard to economic and financial management. We brought together businesses, industry, workers, unions and the community in an economic summit to provide community input to government on the way forward. We have introduced changes to the public sector to make the delivery of services more streamlined and efficient. Now we have set into place corrective measures that will bring the budget out of deficit.
The CLP’s mismanagement had a major impact on the capital works program. Elements of the works program in the CLP’s last budget were simply unfunded. For example, the revoted amount of the capital works program in the CLP’s last two budgets increased from $88.6m in 2000-01 to $152.2m in 2001-02. It almost doubled. However, the cash that was actually allocated to capital works grew by just 5% in the same two budgets. The end result is that by the end of this year, on the CLP’s own estimates, the revoted capital works in the former Department of Transport and Works would have been greater than the actual capital allocation in the current financial year. Under this scenario, new work would grind to a halt. How did they plan to address this problem in the event that Territorians had been so unlucky for them to have been re-elected? What was the CLP’s post-election agenda? Cuts? New taxes? Higher taxes? Or simply the bankcard? We have seen it all before.
The government recognises the needs of the construction industry. The government plans to spend significantly more this year on capital works, some $30m more cash, than the CLP did in its last financial year. That is an expansion of almost 10%. This government has worked hard to ensure an injection of an additional $10m in cash into the works program this financial year, despite the abysmal state that the former CLP government left the budget in. In addition, the capital works program for the Power and Water Authority has also been increased by $2m in the mini-budget. These projects are funded through the initiatives of this government and a recognition of the needs of the construction industry.
I now turn to the revenue measures announced in the mini-budget to assist in addressing the Burke and Reed black hole. The government has introduced a temporary budget improvement levy on motor vehicle registration. This is required to reduce the unsustainable budget deficit forced onto Territorians by the deceit of the former CLP government. This measure is legislated to apply for the next three years only. It is a temporary levy applying while the government’s deficit reduction strategy sets the foundation to return the underlying budget to surplus in future years.
Private licensing fees have increased from $20 per year to $24 per year. Pastoral leases rents will increase from 1% to 2% from 1 July 2002, but hardship criteria has been established for appropriate circumstances. The government remains committed to maintain its freeze on franchised electricity tariffs. The government has moved to increased water and sewerage charges by 5% from 1 January 2002. This increase is in line with a national agreement to reflect the real cost of water services in user charges. For an average household, water charges will increase by approximately $18 per year, and sewerage charges will increase by $15 per year. In many cases, the increase in households of commercial water charges could be avoided totally by the adoption of water conservation practices. The Power and Water Authority is ready and able to provide advice to businesses and households on water conservation measures. PAWA will also introduce a Trade Waste Code for the acceptance of non-domestic strength sewerage into PAWA’s sewers. The application of a Trade Waste Code helps to ensure that the quality of the treated waste water that is ultimately discharged into the environment complies with the appropriate environmental standards. The key objective of these programs is a reduction in the volumes discharged to the environment and improving the quality of the waste water that is ultimately discharged in Darwin Harbour and other outflows including the Ilparpa claypan in Alice Springs.
I now turn my comments to the restructure of the public sector. In announcing the restructure of the public sector, the government announced the establishment of a new Industrial Land Corporation. This new corporation will incorporate the current Trade Development Zone Authority and be expanded to cover the proposed industrial development areas in the vicinity of the East Arm Port, Middle Arm and Glyde Point. The new corporation will provide improved coordination for the development of major industries associated with the completion of the railway and the port, and will be critical in facilitating the arrival of Timor Sea gas onshore. The corporation will be responsible for developing the major industrial estates for these new industries and facilitate their establishment by coordinating environmental and developmental approvals on a whole-of-government basis.
This new body will be working closely with the Office of Territory Development, the Darwin Port Corporation and, of course, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment provides a major opportunity to coordinate planning and development of the Territory’s economic infrastructure, while ensuring the protection and conservation of our natural environment and heritage. A new executive management group is in place and consolidation of the new entity is well underway. In line with the government’s commitment to provide stability to the public service, the chief executive officer of the new department has focussed on listening and communicating with staff through this time of transition.
I am very confident that the new department will capitalise on synergies and identify improvements in service delivery and outcomes for Territorians. I am pleased to report that the department is already looking how we can improve services and streamline the interface with business and the community within the fiscal constraints that have regrettably been left behind by the former CLP government. The government is committed to the environmentally and socially responsible development of the Northern Territory. The amalgamation of the three former agencies will facilitate a more coordinated approach to development than was previously the case.
The Power and Water Authority and the Darwin Port Corporation are largely unaffected by the restructure of the public sector. PAWA will transfer to government owned corporation status upon passage of the government owned corporations legislation during these sittings. This legislation will improve PAWA’s ability to perform on a more commercial basis and will establish clearer lines of accountability. PAWA staff and the board will continue to focus on efficiency of service delivery and improving services to the community. The under-grounding of power lines in Darwin’s older suburbs is an important commitment made by the government. This is a very large project that will impact on residents as the work is being done. PAWA is currently developing a range of options to be examined by government.
The mini-budget sets out the government’s priorities and its commitments to implementation of election promises. The mini-budget sets out a strategy to address the budget black hole. It is a responsible budget statement that will ensure Territorians benefit from the implementation of the government’s commitments. It ensures Territorians will continue to enjoy excellent government services into the future. It ensures Territorians will continue to enjoy these services without an overhanging debt and without increasing interest costs and increasing taxes. This would have been the future under any continuation of the CLP’s administration. I commend the Treasurer’s statement.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the mini-budget delivered by the Chief Minister and Treasurer yesterday. I commend the Treasurer for her very forthright and responsible action in reining in a very rampant and irresponsible budget perpetrated by the previous CLP administration, which was clearly unsustainable due to their reckless management of the Territory economy, and their deliberate attempt to hoodwink the people of the Territory in a less than honest way by masking a budget deficit of $107m.
This mini-budget is important in that it sets some very important parameters in respect to the Territory’s long-term future as we work towards physical sustainability. Obviously, the introduction of the fiscal integrity and transparency legislation upon which this budget is framed will set a standard not previously experienced in the Territory and will provide a more accurate assessment of our ongoing financial status. Prior to the election of the Martin government, we made it very clear that we would honour our pledges to the people of the Territory and we have done this in a very responsible way. I am pleased that our commitments to health …
Mr Elferink: What, by backdooring a registration fee?
Mr McADAM: We’ll come to that later.
I am pleased that our commitments to health, education and law enforcement have been complied with, and in particular, I applaud the Treasurer in taking the axe to previous extravagances of the CLP regime in regards to travel costs, marketing, public relations, consultancies and wastage in the public sector.
I will now refer to our initiatives which I believe will reap real benefits for the Territory and the bush. The development and distribution of indigenous healthcare manuals to communities in the regions will greatly enhance the capacity of inexperienced doctors, nurses, and health workers to respond in a real way in tackling the unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates of all constituents in my electorate. This initiative, along with our commitment to support links with specialists in major training hospitals interstate, will add a new innovative dimension in addressing the health problems experienced in the communities. I have always been of the view that governments alone cannot make inroads in improving the health conditions of people in the bush. Non-government organisations such as Fred Hollows, World Vision, and Mdicins Sans Frontires must be encouraged to be involved and I am delighted that we have chosen to go down this track.
Yesterday, I referred to 25 young people in Borrooloola and Robinson River who were afflicted with hearing deficiency problems. Our commitment to establish a strict program of health monitoring, hopefully, will go a long in addressing this matter. I also applaud the Martin government in encouraging community controlled and based health programs to be participants. The involvement of the Department of Education incorporating a partnership with health based programs is also welcomed.
The establishment of a renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek is long overdue and will be truly appreciated by all decent, caring Territorians. Over time, I have never been able to fully understand the previous government’s failure to respond to this critical need. Many of my constituents who live in places like Elliott, Ali Curung, Epenarra, Canteen Creek and the small homelands will be so much better off. Their ongoing financial burden and social dislocation will be alleviated in part and I am most pleased that Territory Health Services will cooperate and work very closely with Anyinginyi Congress, Julalikari Council and other stakeholders in the Barkly and have it up and running by September of next year.
The establishment of the Territory Arts Board, thus allowing the assessment of grant applications by peers, is also welcome. I believe that this will negate the previous blatant political patronage by the previous government, and I look forward to representation from the Barkly.
I also welcome a commitment of a trial youth program in Borooloola. This initiative must be specifically targeted to ensure that we can get maximum benefit for our youth. They are our future and we must plan and invest wisely. This initiative can be linked in with our strategy to increase grants to community government councils and to employ extra or indeed, more, sports and recreation officers in the bush. We must acknowledge in this House that our young people are being compromised by not allowing them to develop their full potential and capacity to achieve their aspirations and dreams. It is important to understand that whether you live at Canteen Creek, Corrella Creek, Casuarina or Cullen Bay, your aspirations are equally important.
I now wish to address regional economic development opportunities. Our commitment to facilitate fishing access agreements between AFANT and indigenous and pastoral land holders to improve access to recreational fishing can and will provide real opportunities to grow this very important industry. If we are strategic and committed, it will provide real opportunities for jobs in the bush as well as enhancing our excellent reputation as being a premier recreational fishing destination. I also welcome the commitment of $0.5m to improve infrastructure such as ramp access and camping grounds, and further look forward to the appointment of a person from the Borooloola region or Gulf region on the proposed Ministerial Advisory Council on Fishing.
The appointment of indigenous community fishing officers is also a very innovative and cost effective initiative in the protection and management of fishing resources in the regions and I know that the Mabunji Aboriginal Corporation in Borooloola will be very open and supportive in implementing this program with the Department of Fisheries.
Our willingness to work with the land councils is already paying dividends in respect of mineral exploration, horticultural development and development across the board. Without a doubt, herein lies the difference between ourselves and the previous administration who collectively squandered economic and social growth in the Territory. Twenty-six years of absolute waste. Twenty-six years of being totally exclusive and in doing so you deliberately set out to compromise and you inhibited and restricted real growth in the regions.
Members interjecting.
Mr McADAM: You cannot deny it. Go to the member for Macdonnell and he will fully confirm what I have just said.
Mr Elferink: Well, actually, no. I actually have a few problems with what you are saying.
Mr McADAM: The employment of an extra 100 teachers will also go a long way to addressing our inadequate staffing ratios in the regions and commence the long journey of tackling literacy and numeracy shortfalls and retention rates. Our commitment to address truancy and behavioural problems in schools with the introduction of school attendance officers will also be welcomed in the communities. Our government’s commitment to allocate a further $0.5m commencing 2002-03 to assist in taking non-attending students and non-achieving students back to the classroom is welcome and must be linked to a comprehensive strategy incorporating youth in sports and recreation programs. All of these objectives cannot be achieved in isolation.
There are many successful models that can provide a platform in respect of the extension of VET programs in schools down to Year 9. Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation in Tennant Creek has already pioneered many successful outcomes in regards to school-to-work programs. This initiative must be developed very closely with the private sector and where appropriate, with CDEP programs. Realistically, we have to move away from training for training’s sake and be fair dinkum in providing real jobs based on realistic outcomes, where possible, in the bush.
There can be no doubt that we will be judged by our capacity to deliver an area of education in the communities, and I will commit to the minister for education and Bob Collins, my absolute support in their endeavours.
In conclusion, the key to the outcomes of this mini-budget will be our capacity and ability to engage all sectors of the Territory in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill as evidenced by the Economic Development Summit held here in Darwin in November. Madam Speaker, I applaud the Treasurer for having the courage to make the hard decisions in the interests of all the people in the Territory.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak about the mini-budget and its effect on crime prevention. I support this budget and the moves that we have taken to implement debt reduction but still deliver on a crime prevention and law enforcement strategy. The Auditor-General showed concern regarding the now infamous CLP net debt reporting, and the CLP and their former cabinet members, in particular, the member for Brennan, the member for Katherine and the member of Drysdale. They should at this late stage in the debate on the mini-budget, stop playing political games and own up to their former government’s mismanagement and possibly move from the leadership of the CLP and let someone like the member for Greatorex lead them into a more fiscal and responsible period of time.
I support our budget but I dislike the fact that we have inherited such a dishonest deficit. I am proud that our mini-budget continues a detailed and realistic plan to reduce the deficit in the year 2004-05. The budget will be $4m in surplus. Hospitals, health and community service, schools, police and emergency services have been, on the whole, safeguarded for future generations.
I will be pushing for positive programs across the broad and diverse Northern Territory regions, whether in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Gove, etc, that will assist future Territorians in making their lives happy. I plead with the new members of the CLP, do not fall for the B grade team’s old tricks. Look at the budget for what it is. Our mini-budget is a trustworthy document that can be relied upon. We have heard the member for Brennan, the member for Drysdale and the suspicious looking member for Katherine speak in defence of their budget deficit. Their skins are as thick as crocodile skins. The present and the future have left you behind. Your accountability practices, as noted by the Auditor-General, are no longer acceptable. I trust that all members of the CLP have looked at the Auditor’s-General report and should not be standing up and defending your current leadership.
I am excited about the future of crime prevention and the development of the Labor Crime Prevention Strategy. The government’s six-point crime prevention plan looks at crime in an holistic manner. The positive and forward-thinking establishment of the new crime prevention unit in the Department of Justice will assist in dealing with crime prevention. The old CLP government used crime for political gain. What a despicable group of scaremongers. I say to the new CLP members, turn your back on this type of tactic. I am quite serious when I say this. You should turn your back on the whole CLP tactic of scaremongering for political gain. There are some members of the CLP who have real legal experience. They should show leadership and not drum up fear during future election campaigns. It is not only showing a lack of political leadership, but it also declines to deal with real crime prevention by admitting crime prevention and community safety has been second rate when compared with the possibility of winning an election.
The Labor government will take positive steps. Firstly, financial assistance to the Neighbourhood Watch and NTSafe programs will be increased by $250 000 per year from the year 2002-03 to enable more community-based initiatives to reduce crime. I welcome this initiative to fund the introduction of a youth night patrol and safety house to help children in the Darwin area, as well as areas throughout the Northern Territory, but particularly Darwin, as my electorate is within the Darwin boundary. This will be brought forward to the current financial year. This is a fantastic initiative and will be an important step in crime prevention. As a prevention initiative, this will assist with preventing youth entering the legal system as possible offenders or subjects of the legal system as victims. This program, I hope, will be supported by all members of parliament.
I support the concept in the mini-budget to tender by NGOs, or non-government organisations, to run a night patrol service, and government providing Territory housing at a peppercorn rate. This initiative has real benefits for young Territorians. What the former government strategies did not recognise was that the locking-up of large numbers of youth, young adults and mature adults, has a real destructive and negative effect on small communities within the Northern Territory boundaries. Labor will be tough on crime. Labor want serious crime to be seriously punished. However, it is my belief, and it should be the belief of all parliamentarians, and members of this House, that crime prevention is better than increased damage and injury to communities and victims. I appeal to members of this parliament to work towards providing young Territorians a life away from crime. Therefore, I congratulate members of this government for the initiatives of school attendance officers, to help address behavioural problems in schools and truancy by school students.
Another important strategy that government supports is the boost to police numbers - 50 extra police in this first term, 10 new by January next year. This will assist thousands of Territorians who need, want and, most importantly, have to have to serve the community and protect their personal safety needs. This is a huge issue that the CLP ignored for many years. These new police officers will help the police force to prevent crime, effectively investigate crime and respond quickly when crime arises.
I also look forward to the positive introduction of our three-point plan to tackle illicit drugs. It will be a foundation of our crime prevention strategy. Zero tolerance on drug production and drug dealings is of major importance to all Territorians. This group of people should be the real target of all prevention. We will be properly resourcing the Drug Squad as a high priority in our crime prevention strategy. Over a period of time, certain members of this House have described the drug problem as minuscule. As many people who have lived in the Territory for a number of years will openly admit, the drug problem is, in fact, becoming widespread and quite dangerous. People in this House with legal and health backgrounds will know that the link between illicit drugs and illicit drug dependency and crime, particularly property crime, is well recognised and needs addressing as soon as possible.
I would like to finish by saying that the Labor government, under the circumstances, has delivered a mini-budget which is responsible, which has tried to deal with issues, which has delivered on promises, and is attacking crime in a positive manner. I therefore ask all parliamentarians in this House to support this mini-budget.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House be now adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have someone to first move that the debate be adjourned. No, I need the debate to be adjourned.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Daly was across here and said there was no one else talking from your side. Can you get yourselves coordinated. Your leader is not here, your deputy is not here, you Whip is not here. Get yourselves organised. I know we did in opposition.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe in order that the House be adjourned it would be required that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: I am saying, I need someone to adjourn the debate. And it is usually a member on the opposite side. Member for Nelson, would you move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to make a report to honourable members in regard to the recent graduation parade at the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service headquarters held on Friday, 15 November 2001. His Honour, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr John Anictomatis, was present along with Mr Brian Bates, AM APM, Commissioner of Police and also the CEO of police, fire and emergency services, along with Mr Iain Rae, ASFM, Director, Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services.
This year, Central Australia experienced unprecedented fires due to record levels of rainfall last wet season caused by degrading ex-tropical cyclones. On 11 September, the world saw the results of terrorism with fire and the collapse of buildings. While people were trying to escape from the World Trade Centre, firefighters were running in to assist with the evacuation. We all now know the danger of that with 340 firefighters dead. Since then we have also seen the biological threat of anthrax, even here in the Northern Territory. The common denominator of all these incidents is firefighters.
The occupation of a firefighter is a difficult but rewarding one. At times, they face life threatening situations and deal with death and injury as a matter of course. They deal with these situations in a calm and professional manner to help people of our community when they are in desperate need. It was therefore a privilege to attend their most recent graduation ceremony. I had the pleasure of representing my colleague, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, at this enjoyable ceremony. Unfortunately, he had to travel to Canberra to be at the national training awards and asked me to attend this ceremony on his behalf. I also had the pleasure of presenting the graduating recruits with their certificates in firefighting operations. These certificates comply with the Australian National Fire Competencies and are endorsed by the Australian National Training Authority.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service considers national training standards vital in equipping firefighters with the skills and knowledge they require in their evermore complex and demanding roles. For example, just consider the complexities of responding to an anthrax incident and the knowledge and skills required. Tertiary qualifications and national training standards are about the continuing professionalisation of our fire service.
The successful graduates were Bradley Fong, Brett Francis, Adam Gould, Michael Hutton, Brendon Magnoli, Jeff McKeown, Darren Morris, Mark Ratsch and Darren Sharp. The graduates competed not only to become qualified firefighters in the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Unit but were also vying for the fitness award and the Silver Axe award. The fitness award obviously speaks for itself and it shows up the firefighters who are recruited as they are subjected to a 15 week strenuous fitness schedule. Their progress and performance is monitored and constantly assessed. Feats they have to prove themselves well in and get overall best results include the following areas: endurance, strength, flexibility, self-motivation and teamwork. I was proud to see that Bradley Fong was announced the winner of the fitness award. The Silver Axe award is a traditional award presented to the recruit who, during the recruit course, shows exemplary achievement in all facets of fire service activities, namely, academic achievement, practical firefighting ability, leadership, communication skills, social interaction, personal development and teamwork ability. It was a pleasure to see that the winner of the Silver Axe award was Mr Mark Ratsch.
The Administrator presented the national medals and clasps to many of the firefighters including many volunteers who came in and were present from areas as far away as, from memory, Batchelor, Adelaide River and there were some representatives and I think recipients of some awards from your electorate of Goyder, Mr Deputy Speaker. The national medal was established in 1975 and recognises long service in organisations that protect life and property at some risk to their members. Nine firefighters received the national medal for 15 years service. Five received the clasp for 25 years service, and one firefighter, Fred Settele, received his second clasp for 35 years service including service with the Royal Australian Navy. That is a significant contribution to community service and I commend Mr Settele for that.
The Triservice of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services is one of the most envied in Australia simply because of the unity and cooperation that exists in that department. This government and the community are proud of the professional way Police, Fire and Emergency Services serves and protects our community.
In conclusion, I congratulate all the graduating recruits on what was a very arduous period of training and learning and I congratulate them on their achievement in become professional firefighters. I thank the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service for the opportunity to attend not only an entertaining but very informative ceremony. I acknowledge the Director of the Fire and Rescue Service, Mr Iain Rae; the recruit selection panel consisting of Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Robert Naumann; Divisional Commander Ian Lockley; Helen Marris, the Police Policy Officer, Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the instructors, Andrew Smith and Brett Pollini; the Course Coordinator, Wayne Green, and additional instructors, Alan Stephens, Tom Konieczny, Anthony Parkinson, Peter Johnson, Wayne Tourell, Peter Van Boxtel, Brian Stewart, Jan Isherwood-Hicks, Phil Lovelock, and Russell Ruehland from the Accident Investigation Unit; and Shirley Bergin. Special thanks also to the operational staff, City Wreckers, Windscreeens O’Brien, LP Gas Solutions, Morgans Motors and the Grove Caf.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, Wanguri Primary School is celebrating is 25th anniversary this year. Opening in 1976, Wanguri Primary has grown, survived and indeed thrived during the last quarter of a century. Wanguri Primary is based in the heart of Wanguri and it is a great place of learning for our children and I am pleased that my youngest is currently at pre-school there. The Labor government is committed to the best possible education for our children. Education is an investment to the Territory’s future and since becoming the local member for Wanguri, it has been my great pleasure to work closely with the Wanguri School. All staff, students and parents who have worked at Wanguri Primary over the past 25 years should be proud of their hard work and endeavour.
Wanguri Primary School is an important part of Darwin and the Northern Territory’s bright and vibrant community and contributes strongly to our distinct identify. All staff, students and parents have over the past 25 years helped grow a strong tradition of community values, support and interaction. Specifically, I thank and recognise those people, particularly the school council chaired by Lea Rowe, who take their time out of their day for love, not money to contribute to the health and well being of Wanguri Primary, its staff and its students. I congratulate the Wanguri community, Principal Viv Jennings, the teachers, the teacher’s aides, and the students on a primary school that has lasted and thrived over the last 25 years. I wish them all the best for the next 25 years and I look forward to continuing to work with all at Wanguri Primary School.
It gives me great pleasure when I have a chance to report to parliament about good things happening in the community. Recently, students from Dripstone High School performed an invaluable service for the early intervention services part of Carpentaria Disability Services. In the first semester of this year, Evelyn Harrison from Carpentaria Disability Services approached Dripstone High School teacher, Bill Henry, about his technical studies students making some equipment for Carpentaria. Bill jumped at the idea. Rather than constantly doing the same projects and technical studies, Bill Henry and his class of year 10s decided it would be great to do something different. Spread over a five week period, the students, with material donated from a Winnellie cabinetmaker, created useful equipment such as scooter boards, balance beams, trolleys, chairs, stacking boxes and rocker boards, all of which will be used across a range of activities and will be of benefit for years to come.
It was extremely generous of them. It is an example of the goodwill that exists in our small business community. The additional idea will help spawn many others. Bill Henry is now thinking about another project for the 2002 class of year 10s - a trailer for another organisation that assists people with disabilities. I wish Bill and his technical studies class the best of luck with getting that project up and running.
On behalf of the community and Carpentaria Disability Services, I thank and applaud the people involved in this project: Bill Henry, whose effort and commitments in taking up Evelyn Harrison’s initial idea of putting it into practice; Evelyn Harrison for not only thinking of this idea but also giving our high school students an opportunity to constructively contribute to our community; and finally, Dripstone High’s Year 10 technical studies class for their hard work, dedication and selflessness, and demonstrating maturity that many people often lament is lacking in our youth, but is really there in abundance. It is a story that can warm our hearts as we head into the festive season.
I also take the opportunity tonight to publicly acknowledge the good work of the Hakka Association and the positive contribution they make to our community. George Mu, a long time member of the Hakka Association introduced me to the Hakka and recently provided me with the history of the association. I have known George for some time and he is a tireless volunteer. George is an excellent ambassador for the values and work of the Hakka Association. The Hakka are people originally a people from Central and Northern China. The Hakka have spread and migrated to many areas around the world, including Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Europe and America. The Hakka Association of the Northern Territory was formed in 1994 and has grown from strength to strength. It is now a member of the World Hakka Association. The World Association has members from East Timor, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Taiwan and China.
It was my pleasure to attend a function organised by the Northern Territory Hakka Association on 3 November at the Cyprus Community Club which was hosted by the new President, George Mu. Over 380 people attended on the evening and I really enjoyed meeting new people and catching up with old friends. The evening was a celebration of the recently elected committee of the association and I wish the new committee the best of luck and look forward to working with them and continuing my good relationship with the Northern Territory Hakka Association.
The Hakka Association is an association which truly does give back to the community. They are always willing to help out and are generous with their time. Community groups such as the Hakka Association are vital to the bright and vibrant community, the multicultural community, we enjoy here in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak of a man I have known for quite some time, but got to know very well in the few months that I was the Minister for Local Government and that is Bob Beadman. Bob is due to retire at the end of this year. I know that he plans to hitch up his caravan and take off on a good, long, hard tour of the country, and spend his days enjoying seeing this country as a retired person, rather than as a working person.
I first met Bob when he returned to the Territory in 1994 to take up the position of chief executive officer of the Department of Lands, Housing and Local Government. I met him on many social occasions and eventually worked with him in a professional capacity when I was promoted to be the Minister for Local Government. I developed a very close working relationship with this man. I found him to be very personable, very ethical and professional in his approach to his work and the advice that I received from Bob was something that I felt I could always rely on, and rely on without any concerns.
Since 1973, Bob has been involved in Aboriginal Affairs at senior levels and previously had worked in the Top End and in Central Australia on many occasions. He also spent time in Queensland and Canberra. He acted at the deputy secretary level on numerous occasions. Career highlights for Bob include working with the Torres Strait Islanders, at the Prime Minister’s request, on Australia’s international border with Papua New Guinea. He also spent two extended periods as the senior private secretary to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and representing Australia at an International Labour Organisation and the United Nations working group on indigenous people.
When he was appointed to head up the Department of Lands, Housing and Local Government in October 1994, it was his return trip to the Territory. He was somebody who had much experience in the Territory and when he came back he brought all his experience of the Territory with him, including all the experience he had in working in various departments, including with the federal government. Before his appointment to the Territory, Bob was also the general manager of Corporate Services with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in Canberra. Since returning to the Territory, he has been closely involved in developing the Housing 2003 package; the policy reform in local government; and in local government, the Next Steps measures.
He also had a strong interest in breaking Aboriginal welfare dependency and replacing it with economic self-sufficiency. And I can vouch for that, in that he wrote quarterly newsletters which were sent throughout the Territory within the departments of Local Government, Housing and Aboriginal Development. The manuscripts he produced were very interesting reading. I had one occasion to share the newsletter with the housing ministers from around the country as well as the housing minister from New Zealand, when they came to Alice Springs for a meeting of the Ministerial Council for Housing. It was also at that time that we went to Hermannsberg to look at indigenous housing in Central Australia and I gave a report on that at the last parliament.
Although born and bred in Canberra, Bob enjoys the lifestyle that Territory has to offer. He loves the bush and spends his holidays and most weekends exploring out of the way places. He enjoys visiting communities and remote areas and catching up with acquaintances he had met in his DAA days. Bob’s interests include all sports, particularly fishing and travelling the Territory.
I will recount some of his employment background. In 1958, Bob worked with the departments of Interior, Treasury, Education and Science in management areas. In 1973, he joined the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, later to be known as ATSIC. In 1976, he spent two periods as Acting Senior Private Secretary for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and was also posted as Senior Representative in Torres Strait during the negotiations with Papua New Guinea over the international border. By 1978, he acted as regional director, or state manager, of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Darwin and was appointed Regional Director in Alice Springs in 1980. In 1984, he was the Assistant Secretary, Heritage Legislation Branch in Canberra with responsibility for, amongst other things, the Aboriginal Land Right s(Northern Territory) Act; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act.
By 1988, he was the first Assistant Secretary for the Heritage and Legal Division. In 1990, he was the General Manager of the Policy Development Division of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. He then became a member of the ATSIC delegation through the United Nations Working Group on indigenous population in Geneva in relation to developing its draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people. In 1992, he became the General Manager, Corporate Services Division of ATSIC, and then came to the Northern Territory in 1994.
I wish Bob and his spouse, Monica, well in their retirement. Bob has contributed much to the Territory. His heart is in the Territory and I am sure that even during his travels he will always be thinking of the Territory and he will be returning on a regular basis to catch up with old friends and to see how the Territory has progressed under this new government and, hopefully, under the CLP government in future years.
Last Sunday I was with my colleagues, the member for Port Darwin, the member for Katherine and the member for Daly to attend the funeral of Lily Ah Toy.
Ms Lawrie: It was Saturday.
Dr LIM: And yourself. I am sorry. I did see you at the end of the morning. I did miss you out, and the member for Karama.
Lily Ah Toy was born Lily Wong. In 1988, the then member for Jingili did a fairly detailed adjournment on Lily Ah Toy. It would be remiss of me to try to paraphrase what was said then because the member for Jingili, Mr Steve Balch, was extremely eloquent and did such a fine job that I think I should not try to repeat it.
I met Lily Ah Toy when I first came in contact with the Chung Wah Society in Darwin. Having not been born in Darwin myself and having not visited Darwin much in the early 1980s when I first arrived in the Territory, I did not get to know the Chinese population until I was elected and had the opportunity to come to Darwin more regularly. I met Lily at one of the Chung Wah Society functions. Lily Ah Toy struck me because her first name happens to be my sister’s first name also and I suppose among Chinese Lily was a pretty name, it relates to a flower, and I think maybe that was the reason why it was picked up.
I remember her then as an elderly lady, very much with it, very active in the Chung Wah Society and our superficial relationship carried on for a few years through our mutual activities at the Chung Wah Society. I also met Lawrence Ah Toy, her son, through his activities with the horticultural industry in the Territory. He delivered his mother’s eulogy at the Uniting Church last Saturday and he also drew our attention to the speech made by the former member for Jingili in 1998. Members may recall that when we visited the Administrator today, Lily Ah Toy’s portrait was hanging in the Drawing Room. I think it was the acquisition for the year 2000 and it is a great likeness of Lily Ah Toy. The family love that portrait and, again, Lawrence also drew our attention to that portrait. I send my condolences to the family.
Lily Ah Toy was a much loved person in the Territory and her contribution, as stated by everybody, will never be surpassed by anyone.
In the few minutes left to me, I don’t want prolong the debate between the member for Braitling and myself, but she said something about my letter to her last night in the adjournment debate. It was in relation to an allegation that I rang up people who signed a petition in relation to the Salvation Army Hostel. For the life of me I cannot remember ringing anybody so it is now my word against hers and so on. I don’t think it is worth pursuing except that I have to put on record that the petition was delivered to my office in Alice Springs when I was already up here for the sittings of parliament. It was brought in by a person who found three or four sheets of the petition in Alice Springs after the rest of the petition had been collected by someone else. Because the petition was delivered to my office it was air bagged to me and within a day or so the petition was tabled in this parliament.
All my recollection is that it was done with due process and I had no occasion to ring anybody. I don’t even remember who signed the petition. Anyway, be that as it may, I leave it at that, and as I said at the last adjournment when I alluded to this topic, I do not intend to pursue it any further except to ensure that there is no call for any issue relating to privileges in the event that I am accused of having breached any parliamentary privilege. That would be a most unfortunate event.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on record that the member for Nelson is indeed a true gentleman. Thank you.
I rise tonight, finally, to note the achievements of Sanderson High School in striving to implement practical reconciliation for Territorians. Sanderson High has a sizeable indigenous student population so practical reconciliation provides greater awareness of indigenous culture therefore promoting harmony in the school community. I am delighted to advise the Ninth Legislative Assembly that Sanderson High won the Australian Education Union’s National Reconciliation Award for 2001. The high school won this $500 award last month.
The award is given to Australian Education Union members in acknowledgement of their contribution to advancing reconciliation within a school community. I am extremely proud of the effort of Sanderson High to effect reconciliation. To this end, Sanderson High held a Reconciliation Day that I attended earlier this year on 30 May entitled Peace Under the Southern Sky. Some 32 activities were held throughout the day that began with a concert and formal welcome to Larrakia land by the Reverend Wally Fejo. The audience of dignitaries, parents, staff and students enjoyed inspirational performances by students and guest artists, singer/songwriter, Neil Murray and renowned didjeredoo player, Adrian Ross.
I have to say that many people present felt very deeply moved by the majesty and beauty of reconciliation through song and drama that lovely May morning. While dignitaries enjoyed morning tea, the students moved off to participate in drumming, spear making, coconut weaving, bush medicine and crab tying workshops along with traditional art and craft, singing, music, dance, and drama performances. At lunch time, everyone enjoyed a taste of culture with traditional bush foods prepared by members of the school’s indigenous community. Some students also participated in a theatre performance where personal stories of reconciliation were dramatised by the Darwin Playback Theatre Company. In the afternoon, the boys played in an Aussie Rules football match commentated by the ABC sports announcer, Charlie King, while NTFL coaches, Mark Motlop and Russell Jeffrey, generously gave their time to take on the coaching jerseys of the Sanderson Jabirus and the Sanderson Marlins.
It is important to note that more than 800 primary school students visited Sanderson High to enjoy some of these activities. Indeed, each primary student came to the school with a flag they had made, either an indigenous flag, Torres Strait Island flag or indeed the Australian flag. The flags were planted in the school lawns to create a large and very colourful rainbow serpent. Students also wrote and recorded a song for reconciliation which called for the children of the future to come together as one and help make the world a better place. With your indulgence I seek to read the words of this song into the Parliamentary Record:
- Song of Reconciliation
Children of the future,
Come gather around now,
The burning flame of our destiny
bring us together as one
(cry, cry, cry, cry)
So hear us now as we walk through the valley of life
between the mountains we’re searching for,
the peace we’ve known exists.
(cry, cry, cry, cry)
Every day it is war after war,
(war after war)
Families are torn apart every day.
If it weren’t for the music
We wouldn’t be together as one.
So let’s all join together and make a better world,
Make a safer world for us,
Let’s make a better world,
Make a safer world for us.
Listen to the sound of your heart
as we all come together as one
to stop all the wars,
we can make a better, safer place
Make a better place for us.
We can make a safer place,
make a better place for us.
A woman’s cry. A father’s cry.
A baby’s cry. A brother’s cry.
A sister’s cry. We all cry.
I congratulate the students of Sanderson High for embracing reconciliation. I congratulate the school’s Principal, Mrs Denise Wilkowski for encouraging the celebration of reconciliation. Special thanks also must appropriately go to the high school’s organising committee who worked hard for months to plan the day. I make special mention of Paul Tolliday who selflessly dedicates many, many hours of his time to promote reconciliation in our schools. Recognition and thanks should also be given to Mr Gerry De La Cruz, Chairperson of the Sanderson High ASSPA Committee. How proud we all should be of our Sanderson High School taking out a national award.
Indeed, Sanderson High has not been resting on its laurels. I had the privilege yesterday of representing the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development at the Youth Business Awards held in the Stranger’s Lounge which was launched by my colleague, the Minister for Education, Training and Employment, the Honourable Syd Stirling. The Youth Business Awards recognise the hard work of high school students who have developed and managed a small business as part of their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. I am delighted to say that again, Sanderson High showed its excellence and took out the Youth Business Award Winner for 2001. My hearty congratulations go to Sanderson High students, Cathy Holmes, Mark Nichols, David Stoner and Aleja Perkins who traded as Mimic Productions. Mimic Productions sold a range of active entertainment products that include Randsaks and their most popular item, Bunji Balls.
As we are all aware, enthusiasm and ingenuity do not bring about success and business on its own. Successful business is also a result of effective training and business thrives with relevant support. In view of this, I also congratulate the students’ teacher, Ms Desley Pigeon. In recognition of Ms Pigeon’s achievement in nurturing her obviously very able and talented students, I had the pleasure of presenting Ms Pigeon with the Youth Business Award school winner for 2001.
My congratulations also go to a couple of enthusiastic and talented young women, Jacqui McCann and Michelle Immonen who traded as Unee Productions and won a participation award. Jacqui and Michelle embraced the opportunity to run a small business by creating a range of products including personalised jewellery, toffees, signature bears, lip gloss and an Aboriginal painting. I had the opportunity to chat to these very positive young women following the awards and they fill me with great hope for our future.
It is an honour to be the member for Karama and I am reminded daily of the tremendous residents and school communities in our northern suburbs. I look forward to continuing to work with and support my local Sanderson High School.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the rural area has many successes but one success that does not always show up on a balance sheet is our young people. An example of this is shown by the recent great successes of the Southern Districts Cricket Club. This club is producing some great cricketers and it is those cricketers that I would like to talk about tonight. One of those cricketers is Ken Skewes who comes from a famous rural family in Humpty Doo, and I quote from the Litchfield Times:
Ken Skewes was selected from three finalists to win the TIO Sports Award category of the Australia Day Council’s
Northern Territory Young Australian of the Year Awards 2002. His prizes included a magnificent trophy and a
$1000 award saver account from the Commonwealth Bank. He and six other category winners will represent
the Northern Territory at the national awards culminating with the announcement of the Young Australian of the
Year 2002 at Parliament House in Canberrra prior to Australia Day.
Ken is an outstanding young cricketer. The Taminmin High School student was elected for the national
under 17 squad to represent Australia against England in April 2001. Playing a leading role, the right handed
batsmen top scored for the Aussies with 51 runs. Ken represented the Northern Territory in the under 17 side of
the national championships in Brisbane held in January 2001. He has also been included in the Australian
under 19 training squad for 2002 International Cricket Club World Cup to be held in New Zealand during
January and February 2002.
As well as representing at a national and international level, he continues to play very successfully as a skipper
of his school team and with the Institute of Sport side in the Darwin A grade competition each week. Ken recently
won the 2000 Northern Territory Institute of Sports Batting Improvement and Bowling Performance Award and
despite the rigors of his sporting regime, Ken excelled academically and became the year 10 dux of the school in
2000. Ken Skewes is a fine and developing young athlete whose goal is to play professional cricket for Australia
one day.
Twelve young Southern Districts Club players have been selected to represent the Northern Territory. Shane Copain and Brentley Holmes will be playing in the national under 15s in Bundaberg this January. Nick Akers, Mitchell Wright, Reece Street, Bobby Docking and Jonathon Hewitson are all set to play in the under 17 Shell Shield in Adelaide also in January. Duane Richards, Stephen Regan, Michael Barry, Ken Skewes and Ryan Leloux will all compete in the under 17s national titles in Melbourne in January and Ken Skewes has also been selected to the under 19 national titles to be held in Newcastle in December. All these young cricketers have enormous talent and commitment to the game.
All this goes to show what a wonderful club the Southern Districts Cricket Club is. Under the stewardship of the president, Geoff Akers, this club is developing a great pool of cricketing talent in the rural area and this is highlighted by the number of cricketers from this club who are representing the Northern Territory. Just last week, the club held an auction dinner night which raised over $3000 to help with the airfares of these young cricketers. Special note should be made of John Schultz who raised over $1000 by wheeling a wheelbarrow from Humpty Doo to the Fred’s Pass Clubrooms. He is still recovering. Special mention should be made of a founder of the club, Jock Bremner, and a former member of this parliament, Ray Hanrahan, who together showed their auctioneering skills on the night. The Southern Districts Cricket Club may not have won any premierships this year, but this does not lessen the fact that it is a great club and is an important avenue for youth in the rural area to expend their energy and improve their cricketing skills. I wish them well in the new cricketing season.
I would also like to announce that Paul Smith from Soccer NT is working on establishing a soccer club in the rural area. Paul has sent out a form to assess the level of interest to all the schools in the rural area. He has so far received over 120 replies and believes that that will allow him to start a club with teams in most age groups. Already he has found a home on a new oval at Fred’s Pass and is having a meeting at Bees Creek Primary School this weekend to establish a committee to get the club on its way. I know the Deputy Speaker and member for Goyder also supports this new initiative and so do I. I am proud to have been asked to be a patron of the new club.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the people who have helped me over the year, especially my electorate officer, Joanne van Os and her family; and to my sister Trish and her husband, Tony, who have been through many elections over many years with me. I thank my wife, Imelda, for her support and my family as well. Thanks to all the people in Nelson; whether they voted for me or not is irrelevant. I thank them for their encouragement. I thank the staff and fellow members of the Legislative Assembly for their assistance especially as a new member to this strange place. I know that politics sometimes causes differences between members but I do hope at this time of the year we can come together in the festive season. I would like to finish off by wishing everyone a happy Christmas and a happy and safe new year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to members’ attention a very important letter that I have received from the Australian Light Horse Association Limited which is actually based, as I understand it, in New South Wales. This letter was signed by Laurie Ward who travelled to Calgary in North America with a Territorian resident, one Mark Gibbons. I seek leave from honourable members to table a photograph of the two gentlemen in Calgary.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: For the edification of all members in the Chamber, who are listening quite attentively to this because it is a very important issue, the work done by people like Mr Ward and Mr Gibbons helps to remind us of the battles which were fought not only by the Light Horse but by the Australian military as a whole to protect our freedoms and indeed in this modern world, where our freedoms are once again under attack. It is important to acknowledge the history of the men who have gone into battle in earlier times to develop those freedoms in the first place. The remembering of such things is very important. To take the message forward is very important. Honourable members will notice in the photograph that there is a Territory flag flying in Calgary such is the passion for the Northern Territory of Mr Gibbons.
Also in the letter that I received from Mr Ward, is from the Horse Report, a south east Queensland and northern New South Wales equestrian news magazine, Stampede Success, an article by Bob Anthony Junior, which I think is worth reading into Hansard. So I quote:
Members of the Mudgeeraba 14th Light Horse regiment are riding high after proving to be a huge hit at the
world famous Calgary Stampede in Canada. Group Captain Ray Edwards said the Light Horse had been
invited to participate in this year’s stampede, after first approaching organisers in 1997. Ray said that
at first the Canadians were unsure of what the Light Horse was and who they represented, but after seeing
videos of them in action and at the commemoration of the Boer War in South Africa, the Troop were finally
invited to take part. It proved to be a real winner in more ways than one, with the Light Horse contingent
being judged the best mounted unit out of 144 entries.
That is an excellent result. Indeed, the Canadians would feel some sort of sympathy with Australian troops, just by the by, because of battles like Spioen Kop fought during the Boer War, saw many Canadians fall as well as Australians in that dreadful conflict. Anyway, to continue my quote:
- ‘We were up against all sorts of units from Mounties to Canadian Indians, wagons, mounted police and all
types, but when the crowd saw our slouch hats and feathers, they immediately identified us as Australians,’
Ray said. ‘The parade attracts more than 350 000 people along its five kilometre route and it was a proud
time for us all’.
I believe that one could not help but have goosebumps as a result of such an appearance.
- The Mudgeeraba Light Horse also placed second in the Best Presented category. Add to that the challenge
of providing some tent pegging demonstrations and Ray said the Troop was unsure of how they would do it,
especially since they had to use borrowed horses. Their task was made even more difficult after the first two
lots of horses they tried proved to be unsuitable. ‘It wasn’t until a horse trainer named Tom Bews had heard
about us and come to see us,’ said Ray. ‘One of the blokes recognised Tom from the time he spent in Australia
as a rough rider at the Warwick Rodeo. He found us six suitable horses and really saved the day. The Canadians
hadn’t seen tent pegging before, and we only planned to give about three demonstrations, but because of the
popularity of our shows we were asked to do another three.’
Now having conquered the Stampede, the Mudgeeraba 14th Light Horse is planning to take 30 troopers to the
2003 ANZAC Day Service at Gallipoli. Ray said it would be a tribute to the thousands of Light Horsemen who
served in that campaign. ‘Many of the soldiers were Light Horsemen who had left their horses in the Middle East
and went to Gallipoli,’ he said.
I am proud to read this into Hansard, because it demonstrates that there are people in the Territory and further afield who care very much about the liberties and freedoms that these sorts of people have fought for, the battles fought by the Light Horse, in repeated conflicts and the soldiers buried on foreign fields all around the globe. I would like to pay tribute to those people who in turn paid tribute to the people who saved our liberal democracy.
I rise tonight to pass on my Christmas message. I think that it will be a fairly busy night in here tomorrow night. I would like to start by thanking, once again, my former electorate officer, Michael Jones, who served me long and hard up until just prior to the last election. Michael has gone on to pursue a career in real estate, and knowing his skills and adroit nature, he will conquer the real estate industry in Alice Springs.
Ms Carney: He sold my unit.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, we’ve heard from the member for Araluen that Mr Jones sold her unit, demonstrating the type of guy he is, he is a real go out there and get ‘em sort of guy. He is not what you would call old, I think he is about 23 or 24 now, he joined me when he was 21 and he is now, of course the Vice President of the Country Liberal Party. He is an alderman in the Town Council, he is a young man with a very bright future, and it was a great pleasure to provide him with work as my electorate officer. I enjoyed his time with me, and I wish him and Brooke Wright, his partner, the very , very best into the future.
I also acknowledge my new electorate officer, Jan Derby. She joined me a short time ago, and with passionate enthusiasm she threw herself into the election process and without her sort of support, her sort of enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of so many other CLP members, I might add, I would not have been able to do what I did, and the media would not have been calling me Lazarus for about a week after the election.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Larry Cavalero, a fellow I have known for a couple of years now, who has done some work for me, not only around my office, but further afield. Larry, unfortunately, is leaving Alice Springs. He has been offered a position in Clare in South Australia, and my very great and heartfelt thanks go out to him for his efforts for me, as well as to his good wife, and I wish them the very best. I am certain it is not the last I will see of Larry.
I pass on my thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, Ian ‘Lumpy’ McNeill, Gaddy, David Horton and Stokesy for their efforts and the other staff members who have been in and out of this Chamber; it must be an awful place in which to work. I think if we asked other people to work in an environment when they were constantly being yelled around, they would probably have some grounds to lodge a complaint about their work environment. But stoically, staff of this Legislative Assembly do a great job in putting up with our belligerent and bad behaviour, and they do it with aplomb and an approach of stoicism. My thanks also go to the committee staff, Rick Gray and Terry, for their kindnesses and good work for us, as well as the rest of the staff. To you guys up there in Hansard, I thank you very much, I wish you also a very great Christmas. I think that also some of the people who are forgotten here are our Chubb Security people who stand for long, and I am sure certainly boring, hours, around this building, protecting us from the less savoury elements of society that being a member of parliament often attracts attention from. There they are, once again standing there, and in recent times, immediately prior to the last election, as certain bits of legislation were passed, we had to see people like Warren from the front desk actually get people out of the public galleries here. Once again, it is not something they were immediately expecting, but I think that it is something that the Chubb security staff handled well. To Esther and to Aaron and to the rest of them out there, I thank them very much for their kindnesses and for their protection.
Finally, and I always finish with this one and I think it is a very important one, to my wife, who I still love, and continue to love after four years of being in the parliament and over ten years of marriage now. In fact, we are coming up for our 11th anniversary very shortly. We have been together for some 13 years, much to the annoyance of my mother-in-law to start off with, but she has come around quite nicely. But I have to say that I am still madly, truly, deeply, passionately in love with my wife. God knows why, but she chooses to take the same approach to me, but I am grateful that she does. She has put up with all the garbage that my chosen field produces and she has done so with great patience.
Once again, she is off to sea in the not so distant future. She is an extremely capable woman. She has been asked to return to sea to run a hospital on a seismic vessel. I won’t get to see that much of her, or as much as I would like to of her, all of next year, but I know that this is her chosen career, this is what she does and she loves doing it. I would never dream of standing in her way, or trying to even stand in her way, because the joy that I see her have in her life as a result of pursuing those things that she wants to, fills me with a great sense of passion for her. Her love of life is to me in many ways an inspiration. So off she goes to Calcutta next week. From there she will catch her boat, wherever that may be, and I will just have to have a marriage by e-mail for a few weeks, but that’s life and I adore her nonetheless for her disappearances.
I also pass on my Christmas messages to all the members of this House. This is a sometimes ugly job, and it can grate and be emotionally demanding, and it can do all sorts of horrible things to you. At the end of the day, I believe, that by and large we are here to improve the outcomes and the common wealth of the people of the Northern Territory. You have to remember of course that the only way to change government other than by a democratic process is by force of arms, and the worst we do in here is yell at each other. When you consider some of the outcomes in some of the other countries in the world, this building is a monument to our achievements as a civilised people. They have won government. They have a chance to prove themselves and we will see what they do with it. So, Merry Christmas to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and Merry Christmas to all.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been a particular pleasure to hear your comments tonight and I must just put on the record, I am sure that all the members here have benefited from the articulate way in which you have expressed yourself.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise at this late hour to place on the Parliamentary Record a report of a very important public meeting that occurred in Palmerston last Thursday. I also place on the record my genuine disappointment at some of the comments that have been made in this parliament and aside regarding my involvement in gathering the people of my community together. Those comments have been made by members opposite. The Attorney-General in fact, has made comment and I record:
It is very interesting to see the CLP members currently drawing together forums and really talking up the levels
of crime and the problems they are having, as though we, in this elected position, have no interest in our
communities.
I am stunned to even hear comments like, ‘So you think you are solving crime in Palmerston’. I must say that to me is a genuine disappointment. The attitude of the involvement of each of us who have been elected by our communities to participate in the affairs of our community and to empower the people in our community. The issues of crime, law and order and so on are not solved in this parliament. They are solved by the empowering of citizens and being involved in their concerns. I for one, as I know members on both sides, would be required to be involved in such activities. I need to give a report because it is something that is quite an honour to me to report of the role, albeit a small role, that I have been able to play in bringing the people of Palmerston together to assist them to have a say in their own affairs. I have the humble position of being able to represent the concerns of those citizens.
The background of the forum is strictly not political. It is certainly, more than anything, a role that I take to endeavour the community to be able to face its own concerns. I play my part just as every other member of the community plays its part in addressing issues of concern. As local member, I was saddened to hear of friends of mine and members of the community who had suffered housebreaks and to hear how it had affected them, their anger, their frustration, their grief. I felt no other course of action but to be involved in bringing together people who have similar plights, and to see if we could find a way of making some progress and some sense of this and to channel our anger in positive ways. That effectively was the background.
The Acting Deputy Speaker is very well aware of the program of the evening and I do acknowledge his valuable contribution on that evening. The first part of it was to gain a genuine insight into the effect of crime on people and too often we may be talking about law but it actually involves people. People working together, suffering together and trying to solve their own problems. So, the first part of it was to hear the effect of crime on people.
The second stage was to understand what agencies there are in our community that would assist us in minimising crime in the community and to gain a fair appraisal of the role of the Northern Territory police. Commander Mark McAdie, and the staff of the NT Police, I appreciate the time that you made for the citizens of Palmerston and to explain the role that you have particularly in the light of the anger that people feel and perhaps feeling that because we pay taxes the police are there, therefore there should be no crimes, so why was I broken into. I would say that Commander Mark McAdie did a fine job in being able to explain the role of the Northern Territory police in this particular situation.
We then looked at other agencies such as VOCAL, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, and how they can assist in alleviating the grievance of a victim. I must say it was heartening to hear of a launch of a new program which should be launched formally next year where there is a group of volunteers who will be able to work alongside victims to guide a victim through the process immediately after a burglary or a housebreak, in this particular case anyway. There was a representative from the Victims Support Unit who made a very valuable contribution. It was good for citizens to be able to hear and learn of these agencies as well as Neighbourhood Watch, with Sergeant Rod Strong. Another very active committee in Palmerston is the Palmerston Crime Committee. The nucleus of that committee is Mayor Annette Burke who does a fine job in keeping our community together and focussed and working as a harmonious unit.
Whilst I am talking about agencies within our community to minimise crime, I acknowledge in the budget the Magistrates Court being moved to Palmerston. That was actually expressed on the evening by members who had gathered and that would be a positive move because it is a community working together to be involved in solving its own problems. Having a Magistrates Court within Palmerston would certainly be a positive step, so I acknowledge and it is good to have that mentioned in the budget.
There were 60-odd people who turned up to be involved in this. To each one of them, although I can’t mention them by name but they certainly are involved in a newsletter, the fact that they were able to step out of their own concerns about how crime is affecting them personally and to take the far greater, more nobler step of being involved in a public meeting where they can give voice to their concerns and collectively to come up with some kind of direction, to each one of them I pay tribute.
Out of the group of 60-odd people there were four members who were nominated to continue on the agenda that was raised that evening. They are Mark Nolan, Peter Cardo, Paul Mitchener and Lisa Wright. We have met since then to make sure that we are agreed on what we would like to achieve and to establish strategies to progress the agenda. These four members are also members now of the Palmerston Crime Prevention Committee, and so that plugs it into an existing agency. The core concern that was raised by this group was juvenile crime, and the concern was how can we effectively minimise the role of juvenile crime, or the part that juvenile crime plays in our community? We understood the constraints upon police. I think the group came to the decision that the next meeting must be with the judiciary so that we gain an understanding as a group of how the judiciary can respond to concerns regarding juvenile crime.
Our report from the meeting stated that the first issue was that the victims of crime very much want to be able to express their concerns directly to members of the judiciary. The meeting that we had on Monday reconfirmed this and to that end we have made the moves to form another meeting before Christmas for members of the Palmerston community, and particularly victims of crime, to be able to speak to the judiciary. I have approached Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley, and I am pleased to report that he has expressed great interest in being involved in that meeting.
The issue of victim offender conferencing as opposed to a direct presentation to the courts was explored by the members present at the meeting. That will also form another component of the meeting which will be held just before Christmas - victim offender conferencing, as well as the court structure. There is also general agreement that there are underlying issues regarding how we as a community have input into the issues of juvenile justice. There is an understanding, I would be safe to report, that the justice system alone, just as the police system alone, cannot prevent juvenile crime. There are many aspects to this problem, and I think that was one of the outcomes, though confusing initially, but understanding that we have actually bitten off something very difficult to chew. How can we actually participate in this? It is not just Neighbourhood Watch. It is not just joining a crime prevention committee. It is not just coming to a public meeting and having your say. It is not paying your taxes and hoping that the police would do it. There are many aspects to this.
There was another agreement, I would venture to say, with regard to early intervention. There are proactive things that we can do as well as reactive things. I am happy to say that it came up very strongly at the meeting that the DARE program and the involvement of school-based constables in the equation is very, very important. The proactive role of policing is as important as the reactive role. We have to make sure that our young people are engaged in our community. Sporting groups have a part to play in that as do youth councils and committees and so on. Our young people must be actively engaged in the community. Our justice system policies and programs must be tied to other social policies and programs. It is all a part of a whole. Not one thing in isolation can fix the problem. There is a general consensus about things that would help prevent or minimise juvenile crime and that is coordination of activities. That is the very thing we are endeavouring to achieve through the community meeting, that we coordinate the activities in our community. Public education is critical, we must get together and talk about it.
There is no fun, there is no joy in being able to slate blame here, there, and everywhere - the types of issue that we hear raised time and time again - the politics of blame. It is not a matter of blaming anybody else and causing responsibility transfer from me to someone else. We, together, have to be involved and public education is critical in this respect in terms of juvenile crime. Many community members must come together and participate. In some ways I would have to feel as a facilitator in this community program, that I have taken the tiger by the tail because I did not really know what was going to happen as a result of calling a public meeting and seeing what level of anger I may have to manage as a facilitator. It is a credit to the Palmerston community, in this case, that though there was anger, undeniable anger, deep anger, there was this greater consciousness of being a member of a community, and how we can channel that anger down positive pathways.
The program has only just begun, whatever this program be, but it certainly is empowering of citizens to get together and the pubic education program will certainly be accentuated through this. Hopefully, with the goodwill of all participants, we will be able to make some sort of progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with these few words I close and wish you a Merry Christmas, and everybody else in this Chamber. All those who work behind the scenes, thank you for the support that you give each one of us individually. And together may we progress the true welfare of all Territorians and get on with the game.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on record my brief Christmas message. Christmas is a time for family and, indeed, no truer words have been said when you think about the families that live in the electorate of Goyder. There is a real sense of family and, on a very personal level, it is a time when the town Maleys come out and spend the day with the rural Maleys. It is a time of getting together and enjoying each other’s company.
There is absolutely no doubt that I could not have endured the changes which occurred this year without the support of my family and, in particular, the love and support of my partner, Vanessa Farmer, my loyal brother and best friend, Gerard Maley, who is starting the first year of his law degree next year and I wish him all the very best with his endeavours. My Mum has been a pillar of support, not only accompanying me to many social functions, but assisting me throughout the course of the year and particularly around the election. Of course, my father, John Vincent Maley, with his constant wise words; I miss him dearly as he spends some of his time interstate. And, of course, my extended family, Chris Maley and Louise Maley. I have to thank Chris for all the business advice that he gives me, and wish him and all the staff at McLaren’s, the law firm which he owns and operates, a Merry, Merry Christmas.
The good people of Goyder - I have to place on the record that in my view I have simply the best electorate in the Northern Territory. They are warm-hearted and decent, and it has been a pleasure to represent them since 18 August in the parliament of the Northern Territory.
My previous work, which certainly consumed almost all of my time and 100% of my passion, was at Withnall & Maley, and I would like to wish them a Merry Christmas and a safe new year. Sally Pfitzner, my former partner, the employed solicitors Maria Savvas, Vanessa Lee, Sam McGrath and our articled clerk, Deborah Hepburn. Also to the support staff who do a fantastic job. I am not going to name them all - Melissa, Kylie and the team have been fantastic. And John Withnall, my former law partner, who taught me an enormous amount about the law but also, more importantly, taught me how to behave and how to run a business.
Finally, and more generally, I wish a Merry Christmas and a happy new year to the people of the Northern Territory. To my parliamentary colleagues, the staff of this institution and indeed, a Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to make my Christmas wishes clear and on the Parliamentary Record, because I suspect that tomorrow might be a bit of a log jam. I will start in the traditional way by thanking my branch, the Vanderlin Branch, who saw me through another successful election recently. To my electorate officer, Beth Hodgkison, who does a great job for me out in the Hibiscus Shoppingtown for the Drysdale electorate and we will shortly be moving into the Palmerston area which is closer to the people who vote for me.
I thank also, my wife, Marie, who is my predominant political advisor on all matters relating to politics, and my family who are very forthright, giving me advice on a whole range of issues. I am in the fortunate position of having a dozen or so very politically aware members of my family who take great pleasure, I think, in telling me where I have erred or what I should be doing and when and how.
I also take this opportunity to remind people it is the Christmas holidays and to take it easy on the roads and to take it easy with the evil drink. We will all be drinking, it is inevitable, and we will all be going to places and let’s hope people can do it safely in the wet season conditions that prevail here in Darwin.
I also would like to reflect a little on the last year. It has certainly brought some surprises and changes to us. It would be a rare person standing in this parliament who would have believed that a mere one year ago we would be sitting here now with Clare Martin now as the Chief Minister and some of the people on the opposite benches who one wonders how they could have presented themselves as attractive candidates in an election, but nevertheless did so, and now see themselves in this place.
The next year, I suspect, will bring even more surprises and joy. There seems to be a concerted push to arrange some scapegoating, and it is a pity to hear the contributions to the budget debate running the same rhetoric, the same line, and not really venturing into the innards of the budget. But nonetheless, let them do it, for mine, if that is the recipe that they want to all use, just be aware of the cake they are going to bake. I suspect that the little plot that may have worked well with their colleagues in the state of Victoria and the state of Western Australia and which are now being replicated here, may seem like very good politics to them, but what they are doing is entirely evident to us. The next six months or so they would want to be pretty quick on their feet because I think they might have some surprises in store for them. One of the surprises is I don’t believe they have the confidence of the Northern Territory people. I believe that that is something that you have to earn and I do not believe that it was adequately earned at the ballot box. Although I am not discounting democracy and democratic processes that see me in this place, I will say that they should not assume that they have widespread support from the Northern Territory community. Neither should they assume that the myths that they are peddling have widespread currency or belief.
I look forward to the next year. It will be a year of great joy, some adventure, and in my own particular circumstances, a bit more time for some of the things that I enjoy with a passion, and that is things that involve a bit of time with my family and being in the Northern Territory and travelling in some of the activities that are here. Sadly, over the last couple of years, things have been on the backburner because of my job commitments. That has changed and that is the silver lining in the cloud. I hope to stand up in this parliament in a year and boast about the many crabs and fish I have caught and look to the sorry sight opposite, where I am sure they will be hanging their head in shame at some of the things they boasted they could do easily, and have fallen. One hundred days is a very short time and we have already seen several of them trip over. The next six months is going to be a very testing time for the seven people who see themselves as ministers of the crown.
I wish them well, nonetheless, because I do not believe this place can see a calamity of great consequence happen here - it is just too destructive. So it is my valiant hope that they don’t fall over and explode. It is my valiant hope that they can fumble through and when we regain government in the next four years they have not made such a mess of it that it takes a long time to fix up. The things that they are parading now as messes are things that I would have gladly inherited. I am sure I could have made a much better fist of it than these people will, but that remains for us to be seen.
For those people who are listening, who are keen, the parliament marches on, even in recess, and the Public Accounts Committee will be meeting on Friday this week and on Wednesday and Thursday next week. There will be a spectacle of sorts where it is expected that a group of people will gather to see justice being done. I entreat people to come along if that is what they want to see, and I entreat people to look at the evidence as it is presented. In my particular case, I would like my colleagues on the PAC to likewise show great impartiality and an enquiring mind in the matters that will come before the PAC.
With those few words, I wish everybody well. I do apologise to the parliamentary staff who are up late listening to this. I thank Hansard and the people in the parliament who do the great job they do. I also thank those people who are involved in security and the other issues of great importance in this House to keep it going.
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall join you for a celebratory glass of wine if I am the last speaker, which it appears I may well be.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder.
Mr MALEY(Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to put on record that I was going to put on the record the particularly good job you have done this evening.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder.
- Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016