2002-08-20
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise that I have given permission for various media to broadcast live, and rebroadcast with sound and vision, the presentation of the budget and the Treasurer’s speech; for 8-TOP FM radio to broadcast live the presentation of the budget and the Treasurer’s speech; and the Northern Territory News to take photographs.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Timor Sea Gas - Update
Timor Sea Gas - Update
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, Darwin is well positioned and has the infrastructure to substantially support oil and gas exploration and development in the Timor Sea and eastern Indonesia. Current operations in the Timor Sea include a modest exploration program and oil production from floating facilities on the Jabiru, Challis, Elang/Kakatua and Laminaria/Corallina and Buffalo fields. Members would be aware that Laminaria is the biggest producing oil field in Australia today.
Additionally, construction and installation of facilities to bring the Bayu-Undan field into production has commenced and is providing work for local business. The business community has been very responsive to Phillips in support of its Darwin area operations. Whilst still in the start-up phase, it is estimated that 20 new jobs have already been created in Darwin.
Phillips has established its own supply base in Pruen Road, Berrimah, while a number of project contractors are utilising the supply base services of Darwin Offshore Logistics Base and Southern Cross Logistics. The supply base has a local operating expense of $2.4m a year, and in May/June this year, the first two months of full operation of the base, approximately $19m worth of cargo was shipped out of Darwin to Phillips operations in the Timor Sea.
On the basis of the Phillips project, Baker Hughes Inteq commissioned a new $2.3m drilling mud plant which is now operating at East Arm wharf. Similarly, Halliburton Group’s Sperry Sun subsidiary has made a $500 000 commitment to expand its drilling and services business in Darwin and has constructed a laboratory to allow it to calibrate equipment used in real time logging and well-drilling. Through its SubSea 7 Group, Halliburton has also placed its pace-setting Subsea Well Intervention System equipment in Darwin with Upstream Petroleum.
Phillips’ decision to pipe gas from Bayu-Undan to Darwin was deferred in July 2001 due to unresolved tax issues. Phillips and East Timor have reached an agreement to allow construction of a gas pipeline to Darwin. The Australian and East Timorese governments have also agreed to terms but need to ratify that agreement in their respective parliaments.
The Territory is to provide infrastructure support to the project. In return, we expect Phillips to make a firm commitment to use Darwin to support both the offshore and onshore aspects of the project and to prepare a local industry participation plan.
The Greater Sunrise fields are also expected to form the basis of large scale gas and liquids development in this decade. Two options are being considered: a single fixed platform combined with subsea wells and a floating LNG barge versus more extensive field infrastructure offshore with a pipeline to Darwin.
The joint venture partners are revisiting the onshore gas delivery option and expect to conclude their study around mid-October. Clearly, the government’s preference is to see the gas piped to Darwin to supply Territory and interstate domestic customers as well as to be manufactured into LNG and chemical products.
Studies to convert the gas at Evans Shoal field to methanol on an offshore concrete gravity based structure are being undertaken by Methanol Australia. We will be attempting to have the concrete structures built here following studies by groups such as Kaverner, Aker and Thiess which suggest Darwin is good place to build such structures.
The future developments of other Timor Sea gas fields including Petrel and Tern, Scott Reef/Brecknock, the Brewster area of discoveries, Prometheus, Blacktip and, in Indonesian waters, Abadi, will also provide opportunities for Territory business.
The undeveloped discoveries of Audacious, Tenacious, Montara, Hingkip, Jahal, Kuda Tasi and Oliver are relatively small by world standards, but could all be brought into production this decade.
Farther to our north and perhaps the world’s largest LNG project at Tengguh in Papua, the recent announcement that BP had won a large LNG contract with China was excellent news for this project. Development work is scheduled to commence in 2002-03. Darwin is being considered as a base for further exploration and the project supply and service support. A number of companies with a presence in Darwin are already working on the project or are bidding for work.
Darwin is already well prepared to service the growing oil and gas province of the Timor and Arafura Seas. Several global oil service companies are represented here either in their own right or through alliances and agents. Local companies provide a wide range of support services including fixed wing aircraft, fabrication, inspection, catering, diving, environmental and safety equipment.
The purchasing of operational and maintenance supplies and services by Timor Sea operators through local offices is already significant. Woodside, for example, has increased local content from 50% to 70% of non-labour costs. The Bayu-Undan liquids project alone is expected to have an annual operational spend of around $100m, and the planned LNG plant will provide considerable construction phase as well as operational phase and service work.
Madam Speaker, there is clearly a lot more work to do, but the government is working closely with industry to maximise the benefits of these significant resources in the Timor Sea for all Territorians.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his synopsis of current activities with regards to Timor Sea gas.
I am particularly interested in the work that is being done to optimise the offshore supply base capabilities for Darwin, particularly in the East Arm Port area. I would hope that the government would bring forward a more fulsome statement at some stage which indicates clearly what is being done and also what the government is doing in terms of identifying future land that can be made available for these offshore supply base facilities and what actual initiatives the government is pursuing to encourage some of those supply base organisations to see the advantage of Darwin now and into the future.
There is no doubt that we are all working to ensure that Sunrise gas comes onshore, but as the minister quite rightly says, there are a range of additional opportunities, all of which imply in one way or another that Darwin is ideally suited to be the centre for offshore supply base activities. That is something that I am pleased to see the government is working on.
You have the opposition’s support in this endeavour. I would just like to see in future something come forward in a full statement, with clear indications of what land is being made available for these large scale activities in future.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and commit to this House that once we get some certainty over the Phillips plant at Wickham Point, when Phillips press the green light, we will be bringing a full statement to this House about how we are going to maximise employment and contract and business opportunities for that project. But until the parliament of East Timor and the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia ratify the treaty signed between Prime Minister Alkatiri and Prime Minister Howard, Phillips are not pressing the green button just yet. But we are nearly over the hurdle and government is doing a lot of work behind the scenes with Phillips to ensure the best possible outcome for the Northern Territory.
In regard to land for oil and gas service and supply, we will be bringing a statement to the House. We have already flagged the establishment of the Industrial Land Corporation which my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning will bring to the House for a full debate in the future.
Garma Festival
Mr AH KIT (Assisting Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I wish to report on the Garma Festival of Traditional Culture held last week just outside of Nhulunbuy.
Last Friday, the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and I travelled to Nhulunbuy to attend the official closing of the Yothu Yindi Foundation’s annual Garma Forum. The theme of this year’s forum was Djakamirri Wangawu, indigenous people and the environment. For the benefit of those who may not know of the underlying philosophy behind the Garma Forum, I will take a moment to quote Gunygulu Yunupingu to try to put into a few words the meaning of Garma:
- A garma is a sort of place - of rich resources for many people, this garma thing. For all Yolgnu (people).
Like this, all yolgnu always used to come to this thing garma, coming together, all different groups.
Garma happens when people with different ideas and values come together and these people negotiate that knowledge in a respectful learning environment. Running simultaneously with the Garma Forum is the Garma Festival, a schedule of programmed activities such as bush tucker workshops, string making, bush medicine and weaving. There are spear making and hunting workshops, interpretive walks through Yolgnu country, as well as a Yidaki master class and dance and music workshops. In fact, I witnessed mining executives walking around proudly with spears and woomeras that they had personally been taught to make. More than 1000 people attended this year’s Garma Festival and Forum.
Back to the forum. Held at Gulkula, a short drive from Nhulunbuy, this year’s Garma Forum focussed on the environment. This forum allows for people to open their hearts to the message of the land at Gulkula in north-east Arnhem Land and to embrace the practice, preservation and maintenance of traditional dance, song, which is known as manikay; art, miny’tji; and ceremony, bunggul; on Yolgnu lands. This year’s Garma Forum was a meeting place for indigenous peoples, scientists, conservationists, natural resource industry representatives, social scientists, and eco-tourism representatives, to name just a few typical attendees.
Madam Speaker, one particular outcome of the forum, one that is very close to my heart, is that from the Garma Symposium on Music and Performance, which was convened by Mandawuy Yunupingu, Marcia Langton and Allan Marrett, at the Yirrnga Music Development Centre at Gunyangara, from 10 to 12 August. The statement recognises the importance of songs, dances, and ceremonial performances for not only Yolgnu but also other indigenous cultures in Australia. One of the proposals from the symposium was the establishment of local knowledge centres to allow for the repatriation of sound and visual records for communities.
Madam Speaker, you may recall that I have spoken previously about this government’s support for the establishment of indigenous knowledge centres, especially the one at Galiwinku. Already the community has fully embraced the project and an incredible amount of interest has been shown by stakeholders who have attended briefing sessions in my office.
I am proud to say that the Labor Government has pre-empted the call from the Garma Forum Symposium on calling on and pursuing local, state, and territory and federal governments to provide funding for such places of storage of traditional indigenous culture. Songs, dances and associated ceremonies are the basis of sustaining indigenous cultures. Performance traditions are the foundation for indigenous peoples’ personal wellbeing. It is a high priority for most indigenous people to continue such traditions. The Northern Territory government, to my knowledge, has never had an indigenous arts strategy or policy. The Chief Minister, who encompasses both indigenous affairs and the arts in her portfolios, is looking to deliver the strategy within the year.
A festival of this magnitude cannot happen without sponsors, and I list the major contributors: Alcan, Rio Tinto, Telstra, the Australia Council, Air North, Perkins Shipping, TIO, Shell, Westpac and ATSIC.
We congratulate the Garma organisers and the Yothu Yindi Foundation on the celebration of another successful Garma Festival.
Nursing Career Structure Review
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House the nursing career structure review. During the negotiations for the Nursing Certified Agreement 2001-03, a commitment was made to review the nursing career structure.
Stage 2 of the nursing career structure review is nearing completion with a vote by departmental nursing staff on a recommended career structure scheduled for finalisation this month. The outcome of this vote, coupled with the ballot by the Australian Nursing Federation, will determine whether the recommended career structure is implemented. A vote of Australian Nursing Federation Northern Territory Branch members was taken midway through the review process, and found that 82% of members supported the draft career structure model. The Australian Nursing Federation ballot of its members will be finalised on 29 August.
The review has been overseen by an executive steering committee that included Australian Nursing Federation representation, and has involved extensive input and work by reference and working groups; a series of broad consultation processes across the Territory; and input from staff members and other interested parties.
There are three key elements of the recommended nursing career structure. These are: the graduate transition support program; exemplary practice for non-promotional registered nurses and enrolled nurses; and the work evaluation system for nursing professionals. The graduate transition support program provides supported entry of graduates into the workplace; four weeks supernumerary time in first clinical placement and one week in subsequent placements; six education days in graduate year and training for preceptors; graduate positions in some remote communities; and additional clinical educators along with graduate program coordinators.
Exemplary Practice is available for Nurses, EN, and Nurse 2, RN classifications. The Exemplary Practice concept was developed from models used for nursing in other states and in other professions. The EP criteria focusses upon the areas of clinical practice, professional development and professional behaviours. Exemplary Practice is paid an allowance that increases with each enterprise bargaining agreement.
Work evaluation system for nursing professionals is another area. The Mercer Work Evaluation System for Nursing Professionals is an independently developed evaluation system consistent with the job evaluation system process used throughout the Northern Territory Public Service. The evaluation tool has been specifically developed for the nursing profession to evaluate promotional nursing positions.
All nurses registered in the Northern Territory have regularly received newsletter updates regarding progress on the career structure review. Additional information is also available on the Department of Health and Community Services Intranet and Internet web sites, including the Exemplary Practice documents, original discussion papers, newsletters, and recommended career structure and salary scales.
For three weeks leading up to the votes by nursing staff, the project officer from my department, a Mr Paul Nieuwenhoven, the Northern Territory Branch Secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, have conducted information sessions for nursing staff across the Territory. A letter from the chair of the executive steering committee has been sent with ballot papers to all departmental nursing staff providing information regarding the individual’s current classification and reclassification under the recommended career structure. Details regarding salary structure and Exemplary Practice allowance were also provided.
I am confident that the proposed nursing career structure, if accepted by nurses, will put the Northern Territory in an even stronger position to recruit and retain nurses.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the nursing career structure is something that has been underway for some time, including in the period when I was health minister. It is an essential task that the government undertakes. We would commend the government on continuing this review and career structure, and to continue to engage with nurses about issues of importance to them.
I flag to the minister that I have heard some disquiet about level RN2 and the Exemplary Practice, both of which are good initiatives. However, there is a down side that should be described to nurses. There was some criticism, in fact, of the ANF in not adequately describing some of the negatives and seemingly to take the government’s position. That came from Royal Darwin Hospital to me only in the last couple of weeks.
The issue with Exemplary Practice is that it is for a period, and that period lapses. It could well be that nurses in this particular grade are on maternity leave, and it would mean that when they came back they would revert to a lower position. That is an issue of concern and is something that should be discussed in the open. While many nurses would like the career structure in its entirety, they have to be pretty frank about some of the things that might be problematic for them. I would encourage the minister to canvass some of those areas, particularly in the Level 2 and Exemplary Practice, because there is concern about some of the negatives that attach to it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his comments. It is true that there has been a small group of nurses who have been concerned about some of the issues in this career structure. I have been advised by the department that in further consultation with most of those nurses, some of the things which they have been talking about have actually been as a result of a misunderstanding in relation to the career structure review. However, I would be quite happy to offer the member for Drysdale a full briefing on this career structure after the vote has been taken.
Landcare Board and Pastoral Lands Board - Membership
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, over recent weeks I have been pleased to announce a restructure in the membership of two very important government boards, the Pastoral Lands Board and the Landcare Council.
The Landcare Council received a fairly close review by government. The government views this as a peak community and industry body which will advise the Territory government on natural resources management issues. The government called for expressions of interest in May for individuals with experience in 13 categories. A total of 48 nominations were received.
Previously, membership was based on organisational representation rather than skills based in particular fields. It has led to some expression of concern by some groups who feel they are no longer represented, but I am confident that by going down the path of seeking people with particular skills and expertise, we are achieving a better balance and focus in the group.
This council will be working with government to develop and maintain a strategic analysis of natural resource management issues affecting the Territory. They will also liaise with the Commonwealth on environmental initiatives and funding.
I am proud to reappoint Mr Jim Forwood to Chair the Landcare Board. The membership of the Landcare Council of the Northern Territory consists of Mr David Alexander, with 19 years of continuous broad based employment experience in Aboriginal land management; Mr Peter Cooke, with 30 years experience with Aboriginal people in the north; Dr Colleen O’Malley, a member of various Territory national committees in regards to the conversation of biodiversity; Mr Garry Lambert, a Darwin City Council alderman; Ms Michelle Rodrigo, regional manager for an environmental NGO in Alice Springs, Banduk Marika, traditional owner from north-east Arnhem Land; Iain Smith with responsibilities in agriculture, in aquaculture on land and sea and wild catch harvest; Mr Christopher Nott, manager of Alcoota Station; Georgia Holt, member of a Territorian pastoral family; Stuart Kenny, ability to community to both agricultural and horticultural sectors plus liaison with industry groups and government; Faye Lawton, seven years in the environmental field of gold mining; Professor Gordon Duff; Mr Mike Burgess, Executive Director, Natural Resource Division; Dr Wayne Mollah, and Mr Patrick O’Leary.
It is no accident that I have also appointed Mr Forwood to Chair the Pastoral Lands Board. I believe there is significant synergy between the Landcare Council and the Pastoral Lands Board. Both organisations are about protection and sustainability of our natural resources. I felt this was a good opportunity to bring the chairmanship of those organisations together.
I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Lawrence Ah Toy, the previous Chair. He has been a tireless worker in this area and the government is extremely grateful for his work over many years. The new Pastoral Lands Board is Mr Jim Forwood, the Chair; Mr Russell Anderson; Mr John Childs; Mr Jim Hayes and Mr Steven Craig; and Executive Officer, Ms Judy Bartolo. All these people bring to the board expertise in different aspects of pastoral management and natural resource management. I am particularly pleased that Mr Steven Craig from Mistake Creek Station was able to accept my invitation to the board. It is a strong reflection of an increasing involvement by Aboriginal Territorians in the pastoral industry and he will bring an important perspective to the board.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for announcing those in the House, even though they have been widely accepted publicly. I, too, congratulate Jim Forwood on his appointment again as the Chairman of the Landcare Council NT and his additional appointment as Chairman of the Pastoral Lands Board. I have said to Jim that he is going to be a very busy man and no doubt he will be. In fact, he has given up all of his other work to take on the new role of Pastoral Lands Board Chairman. The board has a fair bit of diversity in the nature of the issues that they look at.
I would also like to congratulate all of the members on their appointment including those members from my region and the member for Katherine’s region, Stuart Kenny and Georgia Holt. I am sure they will be very well received in their representation for Landcare and I am sure likewise all of the other members.
I put on the record my thanks to Laurence Ah Toy who is the former Chairman of the Pastoral Lands Board and who brought the Pastoral Lands Board to a new level of investigation in terms of the work that they did over the last few years and the members who are no longer Pastoral Lands Board members and who were appointed when I was the minister responsible. They did a great job. They caused a few upsets around the place, but they have brought the awareness levels of pastoralists in terms of all of the Landcare issues to a new set of heights and I am sure this new Pastoral Lands Board, will do a similar job. I look forward to working with them.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I am very pleased to see bipartisan support for the appointment of Jim Forwood to the Landcare Council and the Pastoral the Lands Board.
A significant difference is that this time, we actually sought people with expertise in particular fields so they will complement the Landcare Council, and at the same time we appointed the same person as Chairman of the Landcare Council and the Pastoral Lands Board because we identified the synergy between the two boards. I would like to assure the people of the Territory that the people we appointed have expertise in specific areas, and they are going to complement the Landcare Council and the Pastoral Board.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 81)
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. As the Chief Minister and Treasurer foreshadowed in her Ministerial Report on Public Liability and related matters, the government is committed to implementing solutions that are appropriate and workable for the Territory. Our overriding aim is to assist in improving the affordability and availability of public liability and medical indemnity insurance.
Today I present to the Assembly the first component of the government’s package of legislative reforms, a bill to amend the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. The purpose of this bill is to amend the act to replicate changes that are being made to the Commonwealth’s Trade Practices Act. These changes will operate to assist providers of risky recreational activities, such as adventure tourism operators and certain sporting groups, who are currently prevented from relying on waivers.
Under the proposed amendments, a supplier of recreational services will have the ability to require as a condition of the supply that a participant relinquish their rights to sue for death and personal injury which might result from undertaking the activities. Allowing people to assume some of the risk of the recreational activity they are participating in will, in turn, lessen the risk faced by the provider of the activity, thereby encouraging lower public liability insurance premiums.
This bill also implements a commitment made by the Territory government at the national ministerial meeting on public liability insurance held on 30 May 2002. At this meeting, ministers agreed to introduce any changes that were required to state and territory legislation to complement the Commonwealth government’s commitment to amend the Trade Practices Act to allow for the self-assumption of risk by people who choose to participate in inherently risky activities.
This bill mirrors the Commonwealth legislation except in respect of one matter. Under the Northern Territory bill, the proposed new section 68A(1)(e) makes it plain that a statutory warranty or right under section 66 can only be excluded, restricted or modified if the provider of the service ensures that the person entering into a contract for recreational services should be aware of the general effect of the exclusion, restriction or modification.
The same section also stipulates that a person entering into a contract for recreational services should have a reasonable opportunity to consider whether or not to enter into a contract on that basis. This addition has been made having regard to the fact that the intention of the amendment of the act is not that of sanctioning the reckless provision of recreational services. Rather, the intention is to permit consumers and providers of recreational services to reach an agreement and understanding of the legal basis on which the services are being supplied. It is very important that the consumer be aware of the risks and the potential consequences if things go wrong.
The government remains committed to ensuring that the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act continues to deliver appropriate protection to consumers. However, the act also needs to promote an environment in which consumers have an informed choice. In allowing people to voluntarily waive their right to sue, it is important to achieve a balance between protecting consumers and allowing them to take responsibility for themselves. This bill seeks to achieve that balance in a way that will benefit consumers and the many small businesses and other providers of recreational activities which involve a degree of risk.
The government will also be closely monitoring the development and application of the waivers by the relevant industries to ensure that this balance continues to be achieved. The effect of the amendments will be to leave the common law issues as to the extent to which a provider of services may, by contract, absolve him or her self from negligence. Courts usually jealously guard the rights of individuals in terms of assessing what individuals have actually agreed to, especially when they are giving away rights. The courts are unlikely to uphold a waiver where a service provider has engaged in gross negligence, or carelessness of the kind outside that contemplated by most clients when engaging in recreational activity after having entered into an agreement accepting the usual risks. This bill does not affect the general law that restricts the powers of persons who are not adults to enter into binding contracts.
The current national review of the law of negligence is considering, amongst other things, the interaction between the Trade Practices Act and the common law principles applied in negligence, particularly in respect of waivers and voluntary assumption of risk. While I am introducing this bill in its current form, the government will consider whether changes are required at the committee stage, following completion of the national review. The government will also take into account any committee stage amendments to the Commonwealth’s Trade Practices Amendment (Liability for Recreational Services) Bill 2002, and the developments in other jurisdictions. I will ensure that a full briefing is made available to all members opposite and to the Independent members, should significant committee stage amendments be proposed.
This bill is the first in a series of bills to be introduced by the government over the next few months in response to the insurance difficulties currently being experienced by small businesses, not-for-profit organisations and other sections of the community. While I now commend the bill to honourable members, I feel the need to make some broader comments about the reforms still to come before this House.
It is fair to say that the reform packages do involve some very basic value judgments on the part of and in collaboration with the Northern Territory community. We talk a lot about the Territory lifestyle, our community here in the Northern Territory, and the close responsibility and relationships that people living in this part of Australia bear to each other. These reforms, in that they deal with some very fundamental relationships within our community, do require all members of the House to think very carefully about the values that would be promulgated by not only the current arrangements, but also any proposals for reform that come before this House.
When you look at it, the formation of human communities predate insurance arrangements by hundreds of thousands of years. It is probably a miracle we survived given that, but I would imagine that a Neanderthal hunter armed with a spear and a burning stick would be a pretty bad insurance risk for any company to take up. Wherever a human community has formed, we have carried fundamental values regarding our protection of each other and our support for each other, that have been, more recently in human history, built into these insurance arrangements. The fundamental relationships that I am talking about are the need to support community members who have suffered some misfortune, particularly injury or impairment, or death in the case of the family unit; the need to have punishments for negligent actions by a member of a community; and the overall responsibility of whatever leadership pertains to that community for providing support for its members.
If you take those fundamental principles – certainly, if you look back in previous times prior to the era of insurance - probably Ben Hur would have been a good example of a person indulging in recreational pursuits that carry a high risk. I do not know whether he would be called Ben or Hur, but Ben Hur would have drawn some support, I guess, from his patrons in that it would be a very high likelihood that he would suffer misfortune whilst chariot racing. If he had made a major mistake during a race and come a major cropper, then I would imagine that his patrons would have to step in and support he and his family following that misfortune. However, if the chariot wheel had fallen off as a result of some idiot not putting the pin into the hub properly, I would think that Ben Hur would not have signed away any rights to redress in that situation. He would probably have made a beeline for the person who made the mistake and belt him over the head with whatever weapon came to hand. The rewards that were given to people in these high risk sports at the time came from the richer members of the community who did sponsor their activities. However, all of the principles that we still look to in terms of insurance cover were probably very much to the fore even in those pre-insurance times.
In our communities these days, the values are increasingly mediated through insurance and contractual arrangements which are put in dollar sums and commodity terms. They can either be the type of cover that we all take out over our houses, our homes, events in terms of public liability, and it can also have large areas covered by the government directly, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs covering the misfortunes that might have been suffered by servicemen and servicewomen during their service to their country. We do already exclude areas from private insurance that the government system picks up for the sake of support of the citizens.
One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that there is also a domain of direct support. People who suffer misfortune, particularly in the Northern Territory community, often do receive direct help from their neighbourhoods, their friends, the organisations that they belong to. I think we are a very good example of communities that have not lost that responsibility to each other. I have often seen major appeals go around our communities. For example, in Alice Springs when someone suffers a calamitous accident, it is as much a community initiative as any formal coverage that will come to the rescue of that person. We do have charities and neighbourhoods that care about each other, and extended families that come in to play.
When we are talking about reforming these areas, we have to keep in mind that we need to look at all three domains to contribute to any alleviation of the current difficulties, where the insurance industry needs to be shown to be responsible corporate citizens in the way that they respond to any alleviation of exposure that we may offer them through legislative reform. We also need to see that they are committing to our community alongside what government and the community itself can do.
In terms of the Northern Territory, as a government and as a parliament, we can mobilise our communities to look at the values we are placing on these activities that are coming under peril because of the insurance crisis we are in. There are things we can do outside legislation; there are things we can do outside the financial and contractual issues that pertain to protection of individuals. We have to find balances that go beyond the formal level of legislation and the operation of the law, and the operation of the insurance industry.
I wanted to make these comments today to invite all members in to this debate because this will go, as a protracted process, through this parliament. We will be looking potentially at tort law reform; looking at caps and thresholds of awards; the setting of prejudgment interest on damages awards; setting of discount rates for calculating awards for future losses; limiting the circumstances and amounts of damages for gratuitous attendant care; prohibiting the recovery of damages if the injured person was engaged in a criminal activity, providing that taking of recreational drugs will be taken into account in contributory negligence; limiting punitive exemplary and exaggerated damages or excluding those from insurance cover; and so on.
There will be many issues of law and legislation will be brought to this House in trying to deal with the current crisis in insurance cover. But the bottom line of all this is the community values, the activities that we want to retain in our community. I would certainly like to see the members of this House, as well as contributing to the direct debate on legislative reform and looking at the operation of the financial considerations of the insurance industry, that we contribute to this as a community debate as well as to what areas can we work with our community to provide some alleviation of these coverage issues outside the formal process of the House.
I will finish my remarks there, but we will come back to this when this first bill is debated and when we foreshadow further bills. But let us all start thinking about these processes. They are fundamental to our community and I am sure we can do a little bit better than Ben Hur.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act primarily to bring a broader range of residential aged care facilities under the licensing scheme provided by the act. The bill also amends the name of the act, provides for more appropriate nursing care requirements, introduces a clear statement of the objectives of the act, allows for a body corporate incorporated under Commonwealth law to hold a license to operate a private hospital or nursing home, and removes the requirement for a short term replacement Matron to be approved by the Chief Health Officer.
The Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act was passed in 1981. It provides protection for the patients and residents of private hospitals and nursing homes by way of a licensing scheme and regular inspections. The proposed amendments are consistent with the recommendations of a National Competition Policy review of the act conducted on behalf of the Department of Health and Community Services. That review found that although there is a strong net benefit for the retention of a licensing scheme, several of the anti-competitive features of the act did not meet the stage two public interest test set down in the 1995 competition policy agreements.
There are currently seven licensed nursing homes operating in the Northern Territory housing approximately 266 residents. There are a further three facilities currently operating which can offer a mixture of high and low level care with a total of approximately 100 residents. These residential style facilities currently do not required a license under the act to operate.
There are three reasons to bring these facilities under the act. First, with the introduction of the Commonwealth Aged Care Reforms in the Aged Care Act the philosophy of ‘ageing in place’ has been adopted by the Territory. In essence, this allows for residents of a low care facilities, formerly referred to as hostels, to remain in that facility even if their needs require high level or nursing home care. This has resulted in some former hostels caring for high care residents and former nursing homes catering for residents with low care needs. Second, because although the two broad classes of residential care facilities are in effect competing in the same market, one is competitively disadvantaged by the licensing requirements of the act. Third, and most importantly, because all senior Territorians who, for whatever reason, are no longer able to live independently deserve the fullest possible protection.
Accordingly, the most significant amendment in this bill is the substitution of the term ‘nursing home’ with the term ‘residential aged care facility.’ This new term will be defined as a facility which provides residential care within the meaning of the Commonwealth Aged Care Act. In effect, any such facility which is funded by the Commonwealth under the Aged Care Act will also be licensed by the Territory. This amendment will also ensure consistency with Commonwealth and industry terminology.
While this may seem to amount to duplication in regulation, unnecessary red tape, it should be remembered that Commonwealth regulation in this area focusses on funding matters. Under the Commonwealth legislation, it is possible for a residential aged care facility to go uninspected for up to three years. That this dual regulatory regime is in the best interests of the residents is recognised by the management of the residential aged care facilities affected by this bill who support its introduction. New inspection and licensing processes have been developed to ensure a complementary approach with the Commonwealth regulations.
Section 20(d) of the existing act places an onus on the manager of a private hospital or nursing home to ensure that a registered nurse is on duty at all times. This requirement may prove unduly onerous to facilities which provide a lower level of care to residents and ultimately lead to their closure. The amendments will allow for more appropriate levels of nursing care to be prescribed. This will operate on a tiered system, with the level of required nursing care increasing proportionately to the needs of residents.
The bill modifies the requirement to replace a matron of a private hospital or residential aged care facility with a person who has been approved by the Chief Health Officer. This requirement is overly bureaucratic and can result in delays in temporarily filling such a position with no demonstrable benefits. The bill provides instead that the replacement matron must be suitably qualified and that the name of the replacement must be provided to the Chief Health Officer within seven days.
The bill also introduces a requirement that a body corporate licensee be incorporated under the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 to replace the current provision requiring incorporation under Northern Territory law. This amendment reflects the recent referral by all states and territories of their corporations powers to the Commonwealth.
Finally, the bill introduces to the act a clear statement of its objectives: to protect the health and wellbeing of patients in private hospitals and residents of residential aged care facilities, and to provide community confidence by ensuring that those enterprises are operated only by suitably qualified persons or bodies.
The development of this bill has taken place in consultation with the Commonwealth, and regular updates have been provided to other jurisdictions through national aged care officials’ meetings. I understand that there is considerable interest in the model which this bill introduces and that it is being seen as a best practice option by the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions, particularly given the unfortunate events which have been reported in aged care facilities elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Economic Development
Strategy – Building a Better Territory
Note Statement – Economic Development
Strategy – Building a Better Territory
Continued from 15 August 2002.Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the economic development strategy for the NT, Building a Better Territory, presented to this House by the first Labor Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay.
This is an important document for the future of the Northern Territory for a number of reasons. It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Chief Minister has been the driving force behind the positive steps taken by this government in addressing the economy sadly left by the CLP in terrible shape. The economic development strategy for the NT has been developed in circumstances any leader, party or government would be proud of in the western world.
The opposition, though begrudgingly, would have to give credit where credit is due. They will whinge and whine about the business circumstances of the Territory at present to all who will listen, but they will conveniently forget to mention the sad state of affairs that they left the budget, and the subsequent discovery of the now infamous black hole.
It is fair to say that if you were a small business operator and purchased a business under an assumption that the figures added up to what you believed would make a business economically viable, and then you find oops! like the now infamous Enron, the then Treasurer’s figures were not as presented to the stake holders or shareholders reliably – in this case, the NT voters.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There has been an allegation that the former Treasurer had actions similar to those of the directors of Enron. That has not been established, Madam Speaker, and it is a scurrilous accusation to make.
Madam SPEAKER: We have had these points of order raised before, and if the former Treasurer feels maligned by what is said he can do it by way of personal explanation. There is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, the directors of Enron are facing gaol sentences, and that is not the case with the former Treasurer.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, what I am saying - and I have talked this over with the Clerk - is if someone believes they have been misquoted by a member in the parliament then it is up to the member concerned to make an explanation. The member, of course, must realise that whatever he says in this parliament, he has freedom of speech to do so, and we are very lucky to have that parliamentary privilege, but of course with it comes a responsibility. So whatever you say, you should make sure you can verify with evidence and it be accurate. Member for Millner, continue.
Mr BONSON: Madam Speaker, I hope that the new members of this House, on the other side, and particularly the members for Goyder and Araluen, fully understand there is no future or credibility in the old CLP vanguard. Coupled with budget deceit is the fact that the Chief Minister and members of the government had to work in an environment that included the terror of 11 September, and the near back-breaking collapse of the tourism/freight industry when Ansett collapsed. In true pioneering spirit, the Labor government showed all people the traits of a true Territory fighter: smart, nous, ingenuity, courage and determination. Most important was the knowledge of all Territorians that our best would be good enough.
I praise the statement for a number of reasons: the courage and determination that sets out our economic objectives, objectives that are soundly based on fact, achievable objectives that can be attained in a realistic time frame, unlike the drivel and propaganda of Foundations for our Future, the CLP propaganda outlining how to achieve failure over a long period of time.
The government’s economic strategy document is a document that all Territorians can be proud of. This document is inclusive of all views of all Territorians. The Chief Minister said in this House when dealing with this strategy:
- In preparing the economic development strategy, government was guided by the views expressed
during the summit.
That is, of course, the Economic Development Summit November 2001. The Chief Minister continued:
- I am pleased to be able to announce today that all the initiatives identified at the summit have been
incorporated in one form or another in this strategy.
An important outcome of the summit was the restoration of faith in government in this Territory and
the formation of financial accountability and responsibility.
I now outline a number of things in which I have a personal interest in this statement. A applaud the recognition that the delivery of gas onshore by 2006 is a priority, a priority that the opposition should stop talking down. The gas project will not be the answer to all our problems. However, gas will deliver jobs and economic development to people in the suburbs of Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and also remote areas. Our challenge as a government is to bring gas onshore, while maximising the benefits to our society and minimising, through proper environmental management, effects on our lifestyles.
The other important project is the linking of the new $200m Port of Darwin to real jobs and economic wealth for all Territorians and Australians in general. I believe the railway experience to be similar to that of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. When I was in Sydney, the people of that great city did not fully become excited about the games until they arrived. The railway will create real excitement for all Australians once it is completed.
Two other items of interest I would like to speak about include improving economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians, and the possibility of Internet-related technologies improving economic wealth of remote Territorian residents. As the Chief Minister outlined in her statement, indigenous Territorians are vital to our economy and security in future years. This does not mean they are the most important component but, rather, they are a vital component. This is the simple example I use when discussing economic issues with the public: I often refer to the fact that indigenous Territorians make up 26% to 30% of the Territory’s population. However, I believe that indigenous Territorians have not been properly involved in the economic future and development of the Territory.
I recognise, like many members of this House, that there are many reasons for this, and it has occurred over a long period of time. One of them has been the history of race relations in this country. A sad chapter in this history has been the politics of division in the Northern Territory. I am happy to say that through the national process of reconciliation and recognition of native title rights, and the shift in indigenous politics over the last 10 years, positive steps have been taken to deal with many economic and social issues facing indigenous Australians. However, we lack in the Territory - as a whole, and as a business operation - the ability to bring indigenous Territorians into the fold.
At present the NT economy could be classified as unsustainable, similar to CLP budgets. The reason for this, I believe, is that 26% to 30% of our population, for many reasons - too many to discuss at present - have not been performing economically. There is no blame in this; it is just a stated fact. I say that the reasons for this are complex and various, but to simply put this matter to all Territorians: if the Territory was a business, it would not be operating at its best and fullest capacity. For example, it would be up to the managers of this business - in this case the NT government - to improve and maintain viability of its business. Common sense and business acumen tells us - and all Territorians - that investment is required in indigenous people throughout the Northern Territory. This investment will help the Territory economy perform better in the short- and long-term.
I appeal to the CLP to support those initiatives as outlined by the Chief Minister in the economic development strategy, for the benefit of all Territorians. I thank the Chief Minister on behalf of all Territorians: black, white, green or purple.
One of the exciting examples was outlined by the Attorney-General through the Internet technology in remote areas. An example of such a business is the Didge E-mail Coffee Club. It is owned by an indigenous person who has a fantastic idea. I had the pleasure to have a coffee and discuss issues and ideas with him while visiting Katherine during the show. Aboriginal art is an area that the government should and will be investing in, and I believe this will be of benefit to all Territorians. It is a business that, properly invested in, will allow employment for indigenous people and supply them with economic independence.
Investing in indigenous people is something often overlooked. Aboriginal people are long-term Territory residents. Aboriginal people …
Madam Speaker, I believe that time might be running short so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No. 8 from His Honour the Administrator, recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act authorising the issuing and expending of public monies of the Territory in respect of the year 30 June 2003.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2002-03
(Serial 89)
(Serial 89)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. I table the 2002-03 Northern Territory Budget Papers:
Budget Paper No 1 – Budget Speech;
Budget Paper No 2 – Fiscal and Economic Outlook;
Budget Paper No 3 – The Budget;
Budget Paper No 4 – Capital Works Program;
Budget Paper No 5 – Northern Territory Economy;
Budget Paper No 6 – Issues in Public Finance;
Budget Overview;
Building our Community;
Regional Highlights; and
Northern Territory Economy Overview, August 2002
Madam Speaker, one year and two days ago Territorians voted for a change. They wanted a new government committed to the core issues: job creation, better education and health care, and building safer communities. They wanted a fresh team with energy and enthusiasm and the ability to listen. Above all, they wanted a strong economy but an economy that would help with everyone’s fortune, from Nakara to Ngukurr to Nyirripi. This is the mandate that I proudly assumed along with my Labor team a year ago, the first Labor team since self-government.
Today, I am pleased to present the Territory’s 25th Budget, my first as Treasurer and Chief Minister. For all these reasons, this is an historic budget. It is a budget that delivers for Territorians today and invests for tomorrow.
The Territory’s budget has always been an opportunity to outline for Territorians how their finances will be managed. But the Territory is a society and a community, not just an economy. The budget tells us how we deliver real programs to people with real needs. It is not only about numbers, it is about people and building partnerships with our community. Importantly, it is also an opportunity to report on how we are progressing on our long-term commitments to the people of the Territory.
I am very pleased to stand here today and say there are positive signs that our economy is on the way to recovery. While we have farther to go, we have certainly come a long way in the last year. The Territory’s official trend unemployment rate is down to 4.2%, equal lowest in the nation, down from a rate of more than 7.5% when we took office. Under this government, 3600 new jobs have been created; 2200 of them full-time positions.
Treasury forecasts that the Territory economy will grow by 3.7% this financial year, compared with 1.7% in 2001-02, as the upswing continues. In addition, the latest Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey also confirms that business confidence is increasing, particularly in the retail and construction industries. Household spending and private capital investment are expected to grow strongly as railway related engineering and other construction projects proceed.
In response to the difficult situation we inherited from the previous government, I have carefully formulated a responsible but responsive budget which delivers results for Territorians today while investing for future prosperity. Honourable members will recall that when we gained office, we found the budget deficit to be nine times higher than had been reported by our predecessors with a debt that was growing at an unsustainable rate. We took the only responsible course, and immediate steps were taken to put the budget back in eventual balance.
The 2002-03 budget continues that responsible path and our plan for a balanced budget by 2004-05 is on track. The mini-budget last November set us on this road to financial recovery. This budget continues with strong fiscal management, but we have also been able to provide funding for new and expanded programs. We all want a strong economy with the benefits shared by all Territorians. That is why I have allocated significant resources to my government’s key priority areas of improving health and education, fighting crime and antisocial behaviour to make our community safer, creating jobs for Territorians and promoting economic growth, and providing access and opportunities for training and employment.
Among our most important measures, I am pleased to announce real increases in funding as follows:
Health will increase by $20m to $527m, a 4% increase;
a 10% increase.
I am also very pleased to announce a substantial increase in infrastructure investment. The total infrastructure investment approved in this budget is $432m for capital works, repairs and maintenance, with a cash allocation of $333m.
This is the largest investment in Territory infrastructure since self-government. This amount does not include PowerWater spending, which would take the total to $513m. The government has made this substantial investment to underpin our key priorities. It will also boost the construction industry at a time when its most needed, and will keep skilled trades people in the Territory.
I also want to outline two more key initiatives in this budget aimed at increasing home ownership for Territorians and making the Territory a more attractive place to live. The stamp duty concession threshold for first home owners will be increased from $80 000 to $125 000, raising the maximum concession from $2096 to $3640. In addition, for all other home buyers, a new rebate of up to $1500 will be available for contracts entered into from today for the purchase of a principal place of residence. This means from today, every Territorian who buys their own home will get a rebate on their stamp duty. Together these two measures should assist more than 2500 Territory households per year. Both initiatives should further improve home ownership rates, provide a much needed boost to the residential housing market, and cut the cost of living to Territorians. The new measures will see the Territory’s stamp duty on the family home fall below the national average to be one of the lowest in the nation.
To assist business, we are also changing stamp duty arrangements applying to franchises. From today, a substantially lower lease rate of duty will be applied to the purchase and renewal of a franchise. We will introduce a new stamp duty exemption for certain transfers of properties between companies within a closely held corporate group. This exemption should assist businesses to establish more efficient corporate structures without incurring heavy costs. These revenue measures will cost $2.9m. In fact, our taxes paid per Territorian remain the second lowest in Australia.
Before turning to other key elements in the budget, I would like to provide a brief report on the state of the Territory economy. Last year, after two years of weak onshore growth, economic activity started to show signs of recovery. In 2001-02, the Territory’s gross state product is estimated to have increased by 1.7%. This is less than the 5% forecast in the mini-budget due to lower offshore oil production. However, this reduction masked the pick up in onshore growth which has been experienced since November. Offshore oil production is anticipated to level out in the coming year.
Consumption, which is a good indicator of onshore economic activity, has strengthened. Investment in housing has started to recover, and construction of the railway has provided a major boost to the economy.
Growth has not been experienced across all parts of the economy. Population growth was low due to net migration away from the Territory, although it is expected to pick up in the 2002-03 year. The tourism industry suffered following the events of last September, but we are expecting a recovery in international visitors, leading to stronger tourism growth.
As I have said, Treasury forecasts Territory gross state product to grow by 3.7% in 2002-03, with solid growth in household spending.
Encouraging signs on the job front have been associated with an improvement in the unemployment rate. As I said, since my government took office, the trend unemployment rate has fallen from more than 7.5% to 4.2%. Continued railway construction activity and a growing economy will lead to further employment growth. Tourism related employment should strengthen as the industry recovers. Price and wage pressures are expected to remain contained, with the Darwin Consumer Price Index forecast to remain largely unchanged in 2002-03 despite the pick up in domestic activity. At the national level, there is likely to be a gradual easing of inflation throughout 2002-03, with levels falling back towards 2.5% by year’s end.
Although conditions appear to be improving, the overseas recovery is weak and the tail end of the world downturn will continue to dampen exports in the short term. The upturn in Territory construction will continue in 2002-03. There will be strong growth in engineering construction related to the railway and stage 2 of East Arm Port. Solid growth is expected in office, retail and hotel related building.
Over the medium term, Territory economic growth prospects are strong. Growth in the Territory gross state product is forecast to average 5% over the next five years. The Defence Force plans further expansion, and there are several potential gas related projects under consideration.
Further out, the operational phase of the railway, scheduled to commence in 2004, will provide an important link between southern Australia and overseas markets. Combined with the new East Arm Port, the railway has the potential to see Darwin develop into a nationally important transport hub.
The outlook for energy production in the Timor Sea is very positive. Oil production will dominate in the short to medium term, while gas extraction and manufacturing could dominate in the longer term as we realise our vision of bringing gas onshore. Plans to bring gas from the Bayu-Undan field to a liquefied natural gas plant in Darwin are expected to result in a fivefold increase in gas sales. The development of the larger Sunrise gas field in the Timor Sea is still under negotiation, but if brought onshore would have a substantial impact on the Territory economy.
This budget continues my government’s commitment to financial management reform, and this is the first Territory budget to be prepared under the new Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. I have taken the opportunity in this, my first budget, to make some substantive changes to the information presented in the budget papers and related budget books.
Budget Paper No 2 is the Fiscal and Economic Outlook, the new budget paper which meets the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, including a detailed discussion of the government’s fiscal strategy and fiscal outlook. Detailed information about agency budgets is now provided in Budget Paper No 3, presented in terms of accrual operating expenses and outputs and outcomes. This is the first time agency budgets have been delivered in this way and performance measures and targets are detailed for each agency output.
Major changes have been made to the budget related papers so they are presented in a far more informative and accessible format. An improved Budget Overview provides an excellent summary of the key features of the 2002-03 budget. Regional Highlights presents the government’s initiatives, programs and expenditures in the budget in a single book. It provides details for each region in the Territory, as well as Territory-wide information.
Building Our Community is a new book which completes the set and provides a comprehensive summary of the government’s social initiatives, policies, programs and expenditures. It focusses on several important sectors of the community – women, children and families, seniors, youth, the disabled, indigenous and multi-cultural Territorians.
As part of the new legislative requirements, the budget includes a new fiscal strategy and encompasses the November 2001 deficit reduction strategy. The government’s medium-term fiscal objectives are:
kerbing the growth in net debt and unfunded liabilities, while continuing to provide adequate
levels of service to the community;
debt and total liabilities.
The government’s fiscal strategy is based on three key principles:
providing sustainable government services;
I now outline some changes to the way we present budget figures. These changes are in line with Professor Percy Allan’s report into the Territory’s finances and the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
In the past, Treasury presented budget accounts for the total public sector including PowerWater. This was the long-standing practice in the Territory. However, Professor Allan recommended that the Territory’s budget focus be on the general government sector, as is the practice in all states and the Commonwealth. The reason is that the general government sector is supported by tax revenues and is under greater ministerial control compared with our four trading enterprises PowerWater, the Darwin Port Corporation, the Darwin Bus Service and Housing Business Services which operate commercially and generate their own revenue.
On this basis, I can announce that one of the key targets included in our new fiscal strategy is for the general government sector to be in balance by 2004-05, a more ambitious target than the one announced in November 2001.
In another move to modernise our accounting procedures, this budget also sees the introduction of accrual output-based financial management arrangements. Accrual financial information, which is used by all other governments, ensures that the full costs, including the appropriate management of existing assets and recognition of future liabilities, are properly considered.
As part of these changes, the responsibility for repairs and maintenance in 2002-03 has transferred from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment to agencies, giving them greater control over their assets. This has resulted in a $35m reduction in the budget for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and a commensurate increase in agency budgets. The objective of these reforms is to provide substantially improved information to the Territory community, parliament, ministers and agency managers. Better information will contribute to improved decision-making and increased accountability.
I am pleased to announce that our estimate for last financial year’s deficit was on target. The estimated outcome for general government is a cash deficit of $117m compared with $139m at the time of the mini-budget. The reason for the difference is the carry-over of $22m in commitments into 2002-03. This is the usual level of transfer between years, and a similar amount is expected to be carried out of this year into the next. For the total public sector, which includes general government agencies and the Territory’s trading enterprises, the estimated outcome is a deficit of $112m compared with $126m at the mini-budget.
While there is a similar level of carry-over of expenditure into 2002-03, PowerWater - the Territory’s largest trading enterprise - made a large one-off payment in 2002 in relation to the settlement of a long-standing dispute regarding gas transportation arrangements. This settlement was not anticipated in the mini-budget.
Turning to 2002-03, the estimated outcome for the general government sector is a cash deficit of $95m which, after taking into account the $22m carry-over, is only $1m more than the forward estimates prepared in November 2001. The estimated outcome for the total public sector is a deficit of $87m. This is $44m more than estimated at the time of the mini-budget due to that general government carry-over and additional expenses of PowerWater associated with improved payment arrangements and increased maintenance expenses in 2002-03 as announced by PowerWater last week.
While there is little difference in the underlying general government bottom line, the 2002-03 budget contains variations to the forward estimates published in November 2001. The Territory received $83m more in grants from the Commonwealth, $76m of which is due to the increased relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in recognition of the Territory’s greatest service delivery needs and costs. These additional funds will be used to improve health and education services and infrastructure.
The Territory’s capital works program is boosted by $43m. An extra $30m is provided for new recurrent programs and for cost increases of $15m.
As I have said, this budget is about delivering today and investing for tomorrow. It provides the basis to implement the policies on which we were elected. One of my government’s highest priorities is education and training. We need to prepare Territorians for the future by providing high quality accessible education for all. Accordingly, my government has increased the education and training budget by $14m - a 3% increase - to $505m. This is in addition to the $7m ongoing provided in November.
One of my government’s major election commitments was to employ 100 extra teachers by 2004-05. This budget provides for a further 20 teachers to be employed in 2002-03, in addition to the 20 extra teachers already provided for in the mini-budget. These extra teachers are essential to raise the standard of public education and lift retention rates, particularly for indigenous students in our schools. Total additional funding of $3.2m is provided in 2002-03, rising to $8.1m ongoing from 2004-05.
We will also employ Student Attendance Officers in a program costing $170 000, increasing to $680 000 by 2004-05.
An additional $500 000 will establish diversionary programs for wayward students. More inclusion support workers to assistant students with disability and impairments will be provided at a cost of $460 000.
Education is about lifelong learning and requires investment in training and higher education. A total of $3.4m is allocated to develop and implement the government’s Employment and Training Strategy, and $1m is allocated for the Training Remote Youth Program aimed at 14 to 19 year-olds.
Vocational Education and Training programs continue to be extended to Year 9, costing $1m. This will improve the relevance of school-based education and aims to increase retention rates and school to work transition rates.
To encourage Territorians to take up teaching as a career, $490 000, rising to $1m in 2004-05, is provided for the Student Teacher Bursary Scheme. The importance of the Northern Territory University to the Territory community is acknowledged through increased funding of $2m this year to a total of $5m. Batchelor College and the university will receive grants totalling $1.8m for minor new works and repairs and maintenance.
To further promote diversity and the educational choices available to Territorians, an additional $607 000 has been included in capital and recurrent assistance for the non-government school sector. Grants for school councils for school supplies will increase by 21%, and this is the first significant rise since 1993-94.
The long awaited upgrading of Parap Primary School facilities will commence at a cost of $2.2m. A further $2.1m is approved to construct a new multi-purpose hall at Nhulunbuy High School, and $1.3m is provided to complete stage 2 of the upgrading of the airconditioning at Alice Springs High School.
Another of my government’s key commitments is the improvement of health services and health infrastructure for all Territorians. This budget delivers an additional $20m for the health portfolio for a large range of initiatives as well as boosting ongoing programs. This represents a 4% increase, bringing the total to $527m. This is in addition to the $22m ongoing provided in November.
This government is committed to the recruitment and retention of nurses and other health professionals to better deliver on our health priorities. Included in the 2002-03 budget is an additional $8m, increasing to $11.6m by 2004-05, to employ 75 extra hospital nurses over four years, a process that commenced last year in the mini-budget. A further $7.1m has been provided to improve health outcomes, particularly for indigenous Territorians, to be allocated following the completion of the current Strategic Review of Health and Community Services.
An important election commitment was for a hospice in Darwin. This will be established on the Royal Darwin Hospital campus for in-patient palliative care with a project cost of $3m. The hospital redevelopment will be completed this year with a further $14.4m to be spent. Another $2.4m has been approved for a new, more environmentally safe incinerator and a new low load boiler.
The Alice Springs Hospital will receive $700 000 for an additional airconditioning chiller necessary to complete the significant redevelopment works.
A new mortuary is to be constructed at the Katherine Hospital, costing $350 000.
Non-government organisations provide many essential community services on behalf of the government. In recognition of the importance of this sector and the cost pressures currently being experienced, $6m is provided to organisations to maintain their levels of services. Territory families will benefit through a further $610 000 which will be provided for the Northern Territory Child Care Subsidy, increasing the total funding of the subsidy to $2.7m. This raises the subsidy by $7.50 per week for every child care place.
Health care teams, as promised, are being established in regional centres at a cost of $2.2m per year, targetted specifically at improving children’s health in remote areas.
Additional funding of $260 000 in 2002-03 increasing to $540 000 in 2004-05 will be provided to St John Ambulance to increase services in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas.
The Katherine region will benefit with the development of a transitional care unit for the aged at the Rocky Ridge Nursing Home which will provide short-term care for people prior to returning to their communities. The total cost is $630 000 per year which includes Commonwealth funding and reallocated Territory funding.
A renal dialysis facility will be constructed at Tennant Creek at the cost of $505 000 with an annual recurrent budget of $410 000. This will enable Barkly renal patients to be treated in Tennant Creek rather than having to relocate with their families to Alice Springs to receive ongoing treatment.
Another key priority for my government has been to expand the services necessary to ensure community safety. An important element is additional police resources. The budget includes $2.6m for another intake to meet the government’s commitment of 50 additional police and seven support staff over our first term in office. Funding this year will enable police resources to increase by 10 police officers and two support staff. By 2004-05, the total cost of this initiative will be $6.5m a year.
Police effectiveness in the Darwin CBD will be enhanced with the completion of a new police station in the Mitchell Centre. The facility will be customized with security surveillance and other specialized requirements at a cost of $2.1m, enabling the station to be self-sufficient during disasters.
The Mounted Patrol provides an effective form of policing and a new facility is approved for construction at the Peter McAulay Centre at a cost of $350 000.
Police effectiveness in crime reduction will be further enhanced by new telecommunications interception equipment at a cost of $820 000 and an improved radio communications system, $730,000.
Neighbourhood Watch will be substantially boosted with an extra $110 000 in funding for community-based initiatives.
As part of the government’s commitment to increase the fire service by 16 extra fire officers over four years at a total cost of $1.4m, five more officers will commence in 2002-03 at a cost of $460 000. The major fire appliance replacement program continues with $570 000 for two fire fighting vehicles.
This budget demonstrates the government’s determination to tackle the drug crime cycle. Expenditure of $500 000 in 2002-03 has been approved as our initial response to the recommendations of the Illicit Drugs Task Force. A three-year strategic plan is being finalised. A drug court will be established at a cost of $150 000 this year, with ongoing funding of $300 000 from 2003-04, and Community Justice and Mediation Centres will be trialled over two years commencing in 2003 at a total cost of $300 000.
Increased support to women and families is provided through an additional $200 000 for the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy to strengthen coordination and planning, and to improve service delivery. This boosts funding for the strategy to a total of $500 000 a year and is a key part of the government’s $1.2m Domestic Violence Strategy.
Additional child protection and family support workers will be employed at a cost of $500 000 a year, including four indigenous community workers.
For too long, antisocial behaviour has been a problem in the community, affecting our way of life and our business enterprises. This is a complex problem requiring a sustained government and community effort, and our first step will be to work in partnership with indigenous Territorians. The new Darwin-based Itinerant Strategy, funded at $500 000, will work to resolve itinerant antisocial behaviour issues.
A Youth Night Patrol and Safety House will be established in Darwin at a cost of $320 000 per annum, and youth activity programs will be trialled in Nightcliff and Borroloola, costing $310 000 per year.
To complement the current liquor restrictions in Alice Springs, $400 000 is provided for a day patrol, youth initiatives and extended hours at the sobering up shelter.
Turning now to business, jobs and economic development, one of our first major actions was to hold the Economic Development Summit and from that, the Economic Development Strategy was prepared. That document contains a substantial number of initiatives already underway.
I have announced the government’s package on effective ways of dealing with the public liability insurance crisis, including a package of bills to be introduced in this and the next two sittings of the Legislative Assembly.
A major review of procurement practices has commenced and it is expected this will lead to substantial changes in the way the government undertakes its procurement processes.
Funding of $250 000 has been provided to establish a network of business case managers to assist in reducing the red tape burden on businesses needing various government approvals. Short course business skills workshops, at an initial cost of $390 000, with $260 000 ongoing, will be established to encourage the capacity of businessmen and women to effectively manage their operations in an increasingly competitive environment.
The tourism industry is a major employer and it is vital to the Territory economy. An additional $1m over two years will be directed to increasing the Territory’s international tourism marketing effort in a recognition of the ground we need to recover in this important sector of the industry. This will bring the total marketing budget to more than $20m per year and will include campaigns in Japan, the UK, Europe, America, New Zealand and across the backpacker market.
Further promotion of the Territory’s tourism opportunities will be undertaken when the premier international business tourism trade show, Dreamtime, is hosted in Alice Springs in September. Dreamtime will be held at the new Alice Springs Convention Centre which I opened in March this year.
Improving access to air services to, from and within the Territory will be progressed with the appointment of an aviation specialist at a cost of $130 000. This is a project undertaken in conjunction with NT airports.
Tourism infrastructure at Nitmiluk National Park will be improved, with $350 000 to construct stairways, walkways, and tour launch landings at the second and third gorge crossovers, and $400 000 will further extend the parking area in Watarrka National Park.
The mining industry continues to be a major contributor to our economy, and this budget includes $4m for the fourth year of the geological survey.
Primary Industry is a key industry sector, and $460 000 is provided for animal disease surveillance across the Territory to enhance and protect our domestic and international trade in livestock. This is part of the national approach agreed by the Council of Australian Governments for Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness, particularly for foot and mouth and mad cow disease.
The post-entry quarantine facility will be upgraded at a cost of $150 000 to meet Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service standards to protect the ornamentals, nursery and exotic fruit industries, and the environment.
Development work at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre continues to increase production of Barramundi fry and trials to commercialise mud crab aquaculture. Operation of the centre will be enhanced with a $429 000 waste water treatment system. The Pivot Aquaculture venture in the Tiwi Islands will receive $520 000 in financial assistance.
The needs of the emerging gas industries are recognised through the funding of $500 000 to establish the Energy Northern Territory Research Institute to investigate and fund research priorities, and develop training programs and opportunities relevant to the oil and gas industries.
This government was elected to govern for all Territorians, and this budget acknowledges the needs of remote Territory communities. Increased resources are being devoted towards building the capacity of our communities. Effective partnerships are being established and will be the basis on which resource allocation is determined.
Capital works totalling $3.3m are approved for remote school infrastructure. This includes $1m each for facilities at Maningrida and Papunya, $400 000 for the Milyakburra School, $340 000 to extend Minyerri School, and $410 000 to upgrade Homeland Centres.
A new $1m police station is to be built at Kintore. This will enable a permanent police presence in the region. A further $540 000 will go to upgrading police holding cells at Avon Downs, Daly River and Galiwinku as part of the ongoing program which responds to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
The Yuendumu Health Centre is to be upgraded at a cost of $820 000, and a new $1.5m health centre will be constructed at Milikapiti.
Additional funding of $160 000 is allocated to increase to 39 the number of sport and recreation officers in remote communities, at a total cost of nearly $1.5m.
Provision of essential health, education, police and other government services in remote communities depends on being able to attract and retain staff. Adequate housing is a major issue, and the capital works program includes a further $11m for government employee housing; specifically 20 new houses for teachers, replacement of houses beyond repair, and upgrading of other existing housing.
In recognition of the large unmet community housing needs in remote communities, an additional $6.3m in Territory and Commonwealth funds is included in the budget for housing in remote areas. This brings the total contribution from the Territory budget to the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory to $31m, and the total expenditure by IHANT in remote areas to $57m.
New capital improvements and the expansion of essential power, water and sewerage services in remote communities total $8.2m, and include major works at Docker River, Papunya, Hermannsburg, Numbulwar, Maningrida, Wadeye, Peppimenarti and Canteen Creek.
Transport infrastructure will be improved with the allocation of $4m in the capital works program to upgrade and seal airstrips in the remote communities of Kintore, Lajamanu, Gapuwiyak, Pirlangimpi and Kalkarindji. $500 000 is allocated to upgrade the road between Ngukurr and Numbulwar, and a further $500 000 is allocated for the road between Lajamanu and Tennant Creek.
Adequate housing is essential for strong communities. This budget delivers on a range of housing initiatives. The changes that I announced to stamp duty arrangements for home owners in the Territory will make it easier for Territorians to own their own homes and will contribute to population stability.
Demand for the HomeStart scheme exceeded expectations last financial year, and an extra $3m has been allocated in 2002-03 in anticipation of a continued higher level of demand for assistance through the scheme. The scheme now provides a total of $28m in assistance for low to moderate income earners buying their own homes. This is the highest ever level of HomeStart assistance.
As part of the government’s commitment to being a good landlord, $3m is approved for the provision of security screens in public housing dwellings, and a further $1m for other upgrading work.
Expanded public housing in Darwin and Palmerston totalling $2m, as well as $500 000 for crisis and medium-term accommodation is included in the budget. $3m is set aside for redevelopment of the Kurringal Flats complex, including demolition of three current accommodation blocks. Existing tenants will be relocated to more appropriate housing.
Funding of $1.2m and land at no cost will be provided to HPA Incorporated to construct nine home units at Palmerston for people with disabilities, and two houses will be provided to Carpentaria Disability Services for use as supported accommodation. Also, six units in Tennant Creek will be modified for renal patients and allocated to Anyinginyi Congress under the Industry Housing Assistance Scheme.
Stage 2 of the East Arm Port is proceeding at a cost of $58.3m, including the bulk liquids terminal, commencement of railway access and reclamation embankments, an inter-modal container terminal, and relocation of the crane. A further $550 000 is approved to construct the Port Operations Centre building.
An additional $6.6m for construction of railway-related infrastructure such as fencing and crossings has been allocated.
In preparation for the approval of gas onshore from Bayu-Undan, $11m is included in the capital works program for power and water supply infrastructure for Wickham Point.
As part of flood plain management measures, $880 000 is approved to construct the Lovegrove Retardation Basin in Alice Springs. Also, the Finke River bridge will be constructed at a cost of $5.5m as part of the flood immunity program.
Transport infrastructure across the Territory will be improved with a range of major capital works. Almost $13.5m is included in the capital works program for national highways including widening sections of roads, upgrading bridges and improving black spot areas, safety, and amenities along highways.
Selected sections of the Tanami Road will be widened and sealed, with Stage 1 costing $1.5m. The seal will be completed on the Central Arnhem Road to Beswick and crossings will be improved at a cost of $1m.
Various crossings on the Roper Highway will be upgraded for $500 000. Gravelling and drainage improvements will be undertaken on the road between Umbakumba and Angurugu on Groote Eylandt for $500 000.
A total of $1.5m is allocated to upgrading various beef roads including Oolloo and Fleming Roads in the Katherine/Daly Basin area, the Barkly Stock Route between Elliott and Anthony’s Lagoon, and Calvert Road in the Tennant Creek region.
The sealed road to Belyuen will be extended a further 7 km for $1m and a further $1m will upgrade the Fog Bay road.
In 2002-03 the government will provide a $1.5m capital grant to PowerWater to commence the 20 year program of undergrounding power lines in Darwin. This is in addition to PowerWater’s own contribution of $500 000. Ongoing full year funding from 2003-04 will be $3m and $1m respectively.
The Territory lifestyle is precious to us all and this budget provides a number of new initiatives to promote and enhance our unique way of life.
A Plan of Management will be developed to monitor and protect Darwin Harbour, and an Integrated Coastal and Marine Management Policy for the Territory will be developed at a cost of $200 000. This includes establishing a community based Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee to develop the plan and oversee its implementation.
Access to recreational fishing infrastructure will be improved with $500 000 to upgrade the Dinah Beach and Buffalo Creek boat ramps.
A further $1.5m has been included in the capital works program for urban enhancement and heritage works.
An additional undercover area will be provided at the Palmerston Bus Interchange at a cost of $300 000.
Leanyer Recreation Park is to be upgraded to increase safety measures at the lake, and provide additional recreation facilities at a cost of $800 000.
Technical theatre equipment at the Araluen Centre in Alice Springs will be upgraded for $250 000, and $380 000 will replace the security system at the Bullocky Point Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
The Territory’s thriving arts community will receive a boost through additional support for Territory-based events and festivals featuring local artists, with an extra $300 000 in the budget. This is on top of the annual $2.9m arts sponsorship program which itself has been increased by $250 000 and includes funding to stage a contemporary music event every two years.
To promote cultural facilities in regional centres, a capital grant of $1.5m will complete the Nyinkka Nyunyu Indigenous Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek. The government will support 2002 The Year of the Outback with $630 000 for various activities including the feature event, Outback Expo.
In recognition of the Territory’s rich and culturally diverse society, a total of $790 000 will be provided through the Ethnic Affairs Sponsorship Program which is a significant increase on previous years.
Following a comprehensive review, revised arrangements have been put in place for the Community Benefit Fund. The fund will incorporate the Lotteries Fund and will provide $600 000 of much needed community grants to organisations across the Territory. This is in addition to expanded gambling amelioration and education programs. The Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing will announce further details.
In recognition of the importance of sport to Territorians, significant works are already underway at the Marrara Sporting Complex. $800 000 will resurface the athletics track at Arafura Stadium, including the javelin and long jump run-up areas, and $1.3m will continue the upgrading of Football Park to host international cricket matches.
The Alice Springs Masters Games will be staged in October at a cost of $810 000 and $2m will be spent on hosting the Arafura Games in May next year.
The Department of Chief Minister will take on a far more proactive role in the area of social policy development, economic development strategies and whole-of-government coordination.
The Community Engagement Division has been established to bring necessary whole-of-government policy direction and leadership to social policy arenas that are important to my government and to the community. The Division includes the Offices of Women’s Policy, Indigenous Policy, Senior Territorians, Ethnic Affairs and Youth Affairs.
The Office of Territory Development runs in parallel, providing a strategic focus on Territory development including major projects such as oil and gas and the railway, and attracting business to the Territory from interstate and overseas across a range of industries. The department has received an additional $2m to undertake these broader functions.
While we have achieved much in this, our first budget, there is much more to be done during the term of this government. As I outlined in my recent Economic Development Strategy, the government’s vision for the Territory requires long-term planning on a broad scale. We are aiming for nothing less than to become an equitable society with opportunities available to all Territorians, a thriving business and investment hub in northern Australia, and a skilled and innovative people with confidence in the future. If we work in partnership, it is a vision and a blueprint for action I know we can achieve.
This budget is a further down-payment on the positive plan we were elected to deliver a year ago. It invests for the future within the firm bounds of responsible economic and fiscal management. The increase in capital works spending will further promote economic development and provide a much needed stimulus to our construction industry. Reducing taxes will also promote greater business activity, particularly in the residential housing market.
This budget provides expanded services in the areas of greatest need. There have been substantial increases in health, education, community safety and services to remote communities. These additional resources should result in real improvements in these very important areas and help fulfil our promise to govern in the interests of all Territorians.
I am proud to present this blueprint for the Territory’s future development. It is a budget that delivers for today and invests for tomorrow.
Before I commend this bill to the House, I would like to put on the record my thanks to Treasury. Treasury have done the equivalent of four budgets in 15 months. They did the 2001 May budget, the mini-budget in November, and this budget - because it is both in accrual and cash - is the equivalent of two budgets. They have done the most gigantic amount of work; they have done it with great commitment and great expertise, and I just want to put on the record my thanks as Treasurer and our thanks as a parliament for the enormous work they do, and to thank the Under Treasurer, particularly, for her work.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
- Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Gaming Control Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 82) and Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 83):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to,
respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third reading
of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, it has occurred in the past that this government has presented cognate bills which were not closely related, and I would like an explanation from the minister as to why he wants to move the motion in this fashion so that we, as a House, can be satisfied that the relationship between the bills that he is proposing is sufficiently close as to support the cognate motion.
Mr STIRLING: I can assure the member that the bills are indeed closely related as the second reading speech, if I am able to proceed with it, will clearly demonstrate.
Motion agreed to.
GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 82)
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 83)
(Serial 82)
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 83)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The Gaming Control Amendment Bill and the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill provide for necessary changes to the Gaming Control Act and the Gaming Machine Act that arise from a review of the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund.
The bills are brief and comprise only a small portion of the changes needed to address the problems identified with the operation of the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund.
However, before I outline the content and effect of these bills, I think it is important to place them and other extensive action that I have undertaken to increase the transparency and accountability of the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund into their proper context.
Following the report of the Select Committee on Effects of Poker Machines in Community Venues, cash paying gaming machines were extended to community venues - into clubs and hotels in 1996-97. Tax rates for clubs and hotels were set at levels comparable to those operating in other Australian states, and sufficient to cover the rebate paid to casinos for loss of exclusivity.
However, one of the key considerations in the introduction of community gaming machines was the concept of community benefit through the disbursement of some gaming machine profits. This contribution is intended to be over and above the tax paid by gaming machine licensees. Club licensees are required to contribute to community benefit by using some of the gaming machine profits for community purposes, including the improvement of facilities.
To date, it has proven difficult to monitor club licensees’ contributions owing to the complexity and vagueness of reporting provisions contained in the Gaming Machine Act. In contrast, hotel licensees pay a community benefit levy of 10% of their profits. This money is paid into the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund and is used to fund gambling amelioration programs and to provide grants to community organisations - in practical terms, the significant revenue source for the fund.
Although regular disbursements have been paid for gambling amelioration services and sport and recreation infrastructure, disbursements for other community grants has been irregular. This is largely because of the lack of clarity associated with this program and the overlap with other grant programs. These problems arise from the absence of comprehensive and appropriate guidelines for the administration of the fund.
In the lead-up to the last election, the fund was used by the previous government to source the newly created Small Grants Program - and much has been said and reported upon in regards to that exercise and the subsequent exposure of the fund’s lack of accountability, transparency and administrative adequacy.
I will not go into the details now, but will state that 38% of the funds allocated in that pre-election spree have still not been acquitted, and this includes the $7000 allocation to the previously defunct Casuarina Security Association.
The new Community Benefit Fund will have explicit purposes for which funds may be granted, and these will be defined in the act and supported by detailed guidelines. The purposes are:
research into gambling activity, including the social and economic impact of gambling on
individuals, families and the community;
provision of counselling, rehabilitation and support services for problem gamblers and
their families in the Territory;
Territory; and
The fund will be administered by a committee comprised of three government officers and at least three members from the community. The committee will consider applications for grants from the fund and make recommendations to the minister.
Comprehensive policy guidelines have been drafted to cover the manner in which the Community Benefit Fund will be administered. These guidelines include defined responsibilities for the minister, the committee, and a new secretariat created to support the committee. The guidelines cover the division of monies between the fund’s two major programs - gambling amelioration and research, and community benefit grants. They give clear eligibility criteria and application procedures for people interested in obtaining grants. Importantly, the guidelines also deal with grant accountability, audit and acquittal.
Apart from its role in administering the fund, the Community Benefit Committee will also monitor and report on the contributions made by club licensees to the community in order to ensure that appropriate community support flows from clubs that operate gaming machines.
These bills change the manner in which clubs are required to report on their contribution, and provide the committee with the power necessary to obtain this information. I intend to give strong attention to the contributions to community benefit made by clubs.
I turn now to the content of the bills. Together, the Gaming Control Amendment Bill and the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill relocate the fund from the Gaming Machine Act to the Gaming Control Act. Relocation is necessary to provide a fund for the deposit of liquidated unclaimed lottery prizes and monies forfeited under the Gaming Control Act.
The Gaming Control Amendment bill repeals sections 43, 44 and 50 of the Gaming Control Act thereby abolishing the Lotteries Fund and the Sport and Recreation Development Fund and eliminating references to the now defunct Gaming Machine Turnover Levy Fund. Transitional provisions deal with the current balances in these funds.
The abolition of the Lotteries Fund does not mean the end of grants for sport and recreation development purposes or charitable organisations. Funds will continue to be paid for sport and recreation development purposes, albeit from the consolidated revenue account rather than the Lotteries Fund. Furthermore, the amount of the funds will continue to be determined as part of the normal budgetary processes, as has been the case for many years.
The new legislative arrangements will make no practical differences to sport and recreation groups which seek grants through the Department of Community Development. Funds for grants to charitable organisations will continue to be paid under the enhanced arrangements for the Community Benefit Fund wherein $600 000 has been allocated for such grants in 2002-03.
The bill also introduces a new Part 5A that establishes the new fund, specifies the purposes for which the fund is to be used, and identifies the payments going in to and out of the fund. Section 68B of the new part preserves the existing power of the minister to establish a committee to administer the fund and to determine how the fund is to operate. It enhances the power of the committee to obtain the information it needs to report on the contribution of clubs and hotels to the community and it provides for an annual report from the committee. Section 68C establishes the revenue sources for the fund and determines how the fund will operate. This section will be supported by the detailed guidelines I have already outlined, covering every aspect of the operation of the committee and the fund itself.
The Gaming Machine Amendment Bill makes appropriate transitional provisions for the relocation of the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund and addresses difficulties associated with the oversight and evaluation of contributions to community amenity made by club licencees from the profits of gaming machine operations.
Feedback from club licencees indicated that the existing provisions of section 36 are complex, vague and administratively burdensome. The amended section provides a general power to the Director of Licensing to obtain information from licencees on the manner in which licensees utilise gaming machine profits.
The bills are brief but their effect, when supported by detail policy guidelines and administrative procedures, profoundly improves the accountability, transparency and effectiveness of the community benefit program. These bills are a part of the government’s budget package. Budget Paper No 3 provides a number of references to the anticipated impact of this legislative change. As such, the government will seek to have the bills passed through all stages on the final day of the September sittings following the passage of the Appropriation Bill. This will give the opposition and Independent members sufficient time to consider the bills and seek a briefing where required.
I am confident that all members will support the passage of the bills. Most importantly, I believe they represent an important step towards a fairer, better and more accountable system of grants for our community groups.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 88)
(Serial 88)
Bill present and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Financial Management Act was introduced in 1995 and has undergone a number of minor amendments since that time, generally to aid administrative efficiency in financial management practices. The amendments contained in this bill are of greater substance and are designed to give authority to key aspects of the Working for Outcomes framework.
As members are aware, Working for Outcomes is the new financial and performance management framework currently being implemented across government agencies and is the most significant program of financial reform since the introduction of the Financial Management Act.
The new framework represents a major shift in focus in the way in which agencies receive appropriation and the way in which agencies are accountable for their performance in delivering services to the community. The framework is also fundamentally different from the existing cash-based input-focussed framework in the current Financial Management Act.
The new framework will commence for the 2002-03 financial year and will be implemented in stages over a number of years. This bill therefore represents the first in a series of amendments that will be required to provide legislative authority for Working for Outcomes.
The Financial Management Act currently recognises only one type of appropriation in the form of allocation to an activity. Further, the term ‘allocation’ is defined in relation to gross expenditure which means that agencies can only spend agency revenue if they have obtained the appropriate allocation coverage, and are required to seek approval for additional allocation if agency revenue increases.
Compared with the current act, there are three fundamental differences in the way in which appropriation is provided to agencies under the Working for Outcomes framework. First, separate categories of appropriation for agencies designed as either being outputs or capital purposes; second, appropriation at a whole-of-agency level; and third, output appropriation net of agency revenue.
In order to reflect the changed appropriation arrangements in the act, the bill contains amendments to introduce the concept of ‘purpose’ which relates to a purpose of funding. This concept provides a mechanism to enable the classification of appropriation into separate categories. The two categories of appropriation that will apply to agencies are output appropriation and capital appropriation.
Additionally, the bill modifies the definition of ‘allocation’ to redefine appropriation in relation to funding from the Central Holding Authority rather than in the context of gross agency expenditure and to delete the reference to ‘activity’.
These changes facilitate provision of appropriation net of agency revenue and at the whole-of-agency level. Flowing from these changes, the bill makes consequential amendments to other definitions and sections in the act, to delete reference to ‘activity’ and incorporate the concept of ‘purpose’.
The changed appropriation arrangements also necessitate changes to the budget variation processes prescribed in the act. In particular, the draft bill replaces the current requirements relating to transfers between activities with more contemporary provisions that focus on appropriation purpose and agencies in prescribing requirements for budget variation processes.
As indicated, the bill also introduces the Working for Outcomes concept of a Central Holding Authority. The Central Holding Authority is the name of the parent body that will supercede and replace the consolidated revenue account as the central pool of funds from which appropriation payments, approved by parliament, by the Appropriation Act, will be paid to agencies.
In addition, the Central Holding Authority will make whole-of-government payments such as superannuation and interest on the Territory’s borrowings.
Given the Central Holding Authority’s specific and unique role and limited functions, it is not appropriate for it to be created as an agency. However, it is necessary for accountability and control reasons, that payments from the Central Holding Authority are authorised in much the same way that payments made by an agency are authorised by an accountable officer.
It is also necessary that the Central Holding Authority be subject to requirements for sound financial management practices. In this regard, the bill provides for the Treasurer to determine an accountable officer of the Central Holding Authority and specifies financial management responsibilities for this accountable officer similar to those that apply to agency accountable officers.
Minor amendments have also been incorporated into the bill to amend the reporting requirements relating to the Treasurer’s quarterly financial statements to allow these statements to be prepared on an accrual basis rather than a cash basis. Accrual reporting requirements relating to the Treasurer’s annual financial statements and those of agencies will be incorporated into amendments to be enacted later in the year.
The Working for Outcomes framework applies accrual accounting to agencies. This means that agencies will hold assets and liabilities, and will need to recognise equity in the same way as government business divisions. An amendment has been made to allow the equity and dividend provisions in the act that currently relate to government business divisions to also relate to agencies. While equity transactions are anticipated, agencies would not generally be expected to be in a position to return dividends. However, this amendment establishes the authority should an appropriate situation arise.
A further amendment has been made to extend the existing provision, where allocation is not required for investments, to also enable the repayment of debt principal by the Central Holding Authority without allocation. The repayment of debt, along with the investment function, is a financing mechanism and as such has not previously been included as allocation. It is not appropriate for this position to be altered.
The application of debt funds and investments to capital works projects is covered by allocation through capital appropriations specified in the Appropriation Act
Minor changes have also been made to align the act with contemporary accounting practices by repealing provisions relating to the setting off of revenue and expenditure where amounts are recouped or refunded.
In addition, minor changes have also been made to align terminology in the act with that contained in the Commonwealth Banking Act and Corporations Act following the Commonwealth’s recent reform of the financial services sector.
The bill contains some technical provisions to facilitate transition from the requirements of the current Financial Management Act to those that apply following the passage of this bill. These transitional arrangements relate to the period from 1 July 2002 to commencement of the Financial Management Act amendments. The transitional provisions give legal capacity to actions performed during the interim period that are in compliance with the act.
In the same context, the bill provides certainty to actions undertaken by the Central Holding Authority in compliance with these amendments by deeming the Under Treasurer to be the accountable officer of the Central Holding Authority for this transitional period.
This bill is part of the government’s budget package. As such, the government will seek to have the bill passed through all stages on the final day of the September sittings following the passage of the Appropriation Bill. This will give the opposition and the Independent members sufficient time to consider the bills and seek a briefing if they require one.
In summary, the focus of the bills is on those amendments necessary to provide legislative capacity for the changed appropriation arrangements from the 2002-03 year, and that apply from the 2002-03 Appropriation Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Estimates Committee – Appointment of and Terms of Reference
Estimates Committee – Appointment of and Terms of Reference
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave in order to be able to speak to the formation of the Proposed Sessional Orders surrounding the Estimates Committee.
Leave granted.
Mr STIRLING: I thank the House for that because I have been in fairly constant liaison over the past few days with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I think we are fairly close. I would like to update the Assembly on where the process is up to. I do not think we have complete agreement, having seen a couple of amendments from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but this is the place to have that debate and go from here with a process by which we will scrutinise the budget this year.
Members have had the benefit of the Proposed Sessional Orders since 23 May. As I said, I have been in informal discussions - I think my office has spoken with the member for Nelson as well - with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is pleasing that nearly all the areas of the proposals are almost in agreement, I think, from those informal discussions.
We as a parliament appear to agree on the thrust of what the government has proposed, and I welcome this because I think the government has the mix right in terms of reform, but also keeping strongly to some of the traditions of the Territory system that has served us in the past.
In a few areas there are different views. That is not surprising when we consider that it is a reform process, but it is important to recognise that this is reform. I certainly believe things are changing for the better. For the first time, a forum will be provided, open to all the community and the media, for ministers and senior departmental officials to be asked questions about the Appropriation Bill. It is an opportunity that was denied to the opposition for 26 years, but we are very pleased to say that this reform will be introduced to scrutinise our first full budget.
This reform will see a committee created, something that is different from the past where the parliament remained sitting as the Committee of the Whole. The Private Member’s Bill the member for Drysdale introduced earlier this year signalled that the opposition now shared the government’s view that a committee was the appropriate way to scrutinise the Appropriation Bill.
Being a committee, it is important to recognise it is not just about one side of the House or the other. In the opposition’s private bill, there wasn’t a spot for an Independent member. The government believes the parliamentary committee should involve the Independent member, and I think we should be well served by the members of the to-be-formed Estimates Committee. The opposition should have confidence in their two members, both are very experienced, and the government has talent there as well. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who will be Chair of the Estimates Committee, showed exceptional qualities in the recent Public Account Committee hearings. The member for Nelson, as an Independent, is clearly there.
We make no apologies for things changing, nor for the system proposed not being exactly in line with systems elsewhere. It is a reform process for the Territory with its own and different conditions, not for any other jurisdiction.
The areas attracting some informal discussion appear to be the hours of operation and role of local members. The amended schedule which has been circulated reflects some changes that the government is proposing. In relation to the role of local members, I would expect the opposition and the Independent member to appreciate that the government has removed any form of restriction which was attracting some concern. That restriction hinged around the ability of a member to - originally it was in the form of being allowed to ask questions in relation to their electorate. That form of words and that restriction does go under the proposed changes.
In terms of hours, the sessional orders will provide a starting time and a finishing time, and allow the committee to organise its own affairs, including the setting of meal and other breaks. The finishing time is 11.30 pm, but that is a maximum; the committee is free to adjourn earlier. Operating beyond 11.30 pm is seen by government as lacking accountability and justification. We question how likely it is that members of the public would attend after that hour, and the same could be said for our media outlets. The government does not think it reasonable for a once-a-year process to take place when there is next to no chance of any more than a very small number of third parties in attendance to witness the process.
The process is conducted by politicians but it is for the community as well. Having a budget scrutiny process occur in the dead of night is certainly not open and transparent, and I would be surprised by anyone who would recommend that.
The sessional orders will not set precise times for ministers and chief executive officers to appear. This will be for the committee to work through. I expect - but I cannot and do not dictate - that if we take history as a guide, that day one would see two ministers; the long middle day see three ministers; and the last day two ministers. However, ultimately that is the committee’s call as they work through the process.
I should also mention the first day would also involve the Legislative Assembly's appropriation. This will see a relatively brief appearance from yourself, Madam Speaker. This is only proper since the Speaker is now not a member of the government as previously, but does carry responsibility for a considerable budget within the Appropriation Bill - that of the Legislative Assembly. I am sure the Speaker will handle duties before the Estimates Committee with aplomb.
If I could go to the changes in detail on the amendment schedule where, under (b) on the proposed sessional orders, other members may participate in hearings to the extent of asking questions relating to their electorate responsibilities, that goes out. In (b), Membership - that was around clause 8 – it is ‘omit all words after “deliberation”’. That removes that provision that was restricting shadow ministers and other members in their participation.
Clause 17(c), Sitting Times, had (a), (b), (c) in relation to times. A new clause 17 would be:
- Unless otherwise ordered by the committee, the committee shall sit during the following periods:
because we come into the House as a whole on that Tuesday morning before the committee commences. So that would commence at 11 am on the first day,
- … and adjourns at 11.30 pm.
That is left in that form of words so that they can break for meal times as they see fit.
If we bear in mind that we conceivably would want four or five hours for the committee to report back to the House as a whole, if you go anywhere beyond 7 pm on Thursday 19 September, the parliament is headed for a fairly late session indeed.
Under clause 43, there is a change of words. The new form of words is:
- When the report of the Estimates Committee is presented, it shall be taken into consideration forthwith.
That is simply to reflect the fact that the committee on its completion of business would report back to parliament as a whole and then everyone, I would imagine, would participate in that debate. At the close of that debate, the Appropriation Bill would be passed.
Clause 46:
When the bill has been agreed to by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the Assembly the
third reading shall be taken into consideration forthwith.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for updating us on the government’s position in relation to the establishment of an Estimates Committee and the changes that he has just indicated by way of that motion.
If we can just look broadly at where we have come from in relation to this, the government does not like the process that was formerly in place and the minister has just indicated his reasoning for that. Can I just say that regardless of the disadvantages that members opposite consider to exist in relation to that system, it did have one very strong plank in terms of the ability of all members of this House to search to the nth degree the budget and to ask ministers questions in relation to the budget as they saw fit.
In that context, there was only one limit to the number of questions and the time that could be committed to the questioning of a particular minister and that was: ‘Are there any further questions of this minister?’ The only thing that brought that debate and questioning to an end was the response: ‘No’. Then the process would move on to the next minister.
The remaining major concern, I suppose, that we have in relation to the amendments and the process that is being proposed now is that there is a limit by virtue of the fixed time that is being set aside and the timing that has been proposed by the minister in relation to the conduct of an Estimates Committee.
We recognise the government’s intention and ability to proceed with this process in any event by force of numbers if nothing else. I take this opportunity to thank the minister for the consultative process that he has applied. I have met with him a number of times directly, and discussed it over the telephone with him on a number of occasions as well, and we have made a lot of progress. I am not sure that it has been the most satisfactory way to progress this issue given that I am but one of 25 members in this House and for the minister and I to be negotiating an outcome and a result rather sets aside the responsibilities and the desire of other members to participate in such a debate, particularly people like the two Independent members and, of course, our own members.
If we look at where this has come from with the first debate taking place in the sittings in May and at the end of that debate a decision was made that the Public Accounts Committee would visit Tasmania for reasons stated and which I will now not repeat, to look at the system that they have in place in relation to running an Estimates Committee and to come back to this Assembly and report, and for that report to be debated and melded into the debate that we are now having, and at the end of that long process, out would come an Estimates Committee that would have been very thoroughly considered, broad debate undertaken and a result that everyone would have been happy with.
Now, we are in a bit of an unusual position in that I have had the opportunity to talk to the minister about this process. I think limited opportunities have been extended to the member for Nelson, and we still have not debated any report from the Public Accounts Committee in relation to their visit to Tasmania. That stands on the Notice Paper at No 4 and is a glaring anomaly in relation to not having been included in the debate, not having been considered in the context of what those members who went to Tasmania saw and reported on, and is completely isolated from the current process.
Quite apart from that nonsensical issue as regards the process that we are trying to work through, there is the cost to the tax payer in relation to the five folk - five members travelled off to Tasmania. I don’t know what the fares were, but they were probably $2500 return for each member. There was accommodation and other support costs in relation to that. So we are looking at something in the order of $15-20 000 that was spent by five members who went to Tasmania to consider a Public Accounts Committee process, to report back to this House and we’re not going to debate it.
Mr Stirling: Three of them spoke last sittings. Where were you? They spoke last sittings.
Mr REED: Well, we are not going to debate it. Not only are we not going to debate it, those matters will not be taken into consideration in establishing the Estimates Committee in the form of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is very important to put those matters on the record because what we set out to do in May has turned out to look quite a different animal and it is not a pretty animal. In fact, in terms of parliamentary debate, it is quite an ugly beast in relation to the process that we embarked on and the animal that we have ended up with. It has been rather stillborn. It is a great shame that we had an opportunity to be very thorough in this process and that the whole system has been derailed and, now, following the introduction of the budget, we finally get to debate the introduction of an Estimates Committee.
Now, the minister has been co-operative to the extent that in the to-ing an fro-ing and the discussions that I have had with him and reporting back to my party members, the opportunity to consider a whole range of issues and to have some set aside and, for the record by way of example there was an intention on behalf of the government to limit MLAs in the scope of questions that they could ask - that is, members of this House were to be restricted to asking questions that only pertained to their electorate, and when you consider that this is a parliament of the Northern Territory and that all members have a responsibility to pursue the interests and the wellbeing of all Territorians regardless of where they live and, indeed, that members’ responsibilities extend beyond their electorate boundaries in regard to many of the business activities and social activities that occur in their electorates and, as a consequence, would, by virtue of their responsibilities as members of the Legislative Assembly, need to be able to ask questions that pertain to the whole of the budget and not be constrained in that regard.
I am pleased to say that the minister, after some discussion, set that restriction aside and, indeed, that is catered for in relation to the amendment that the proposes to clause 8. I do ask, though, if the minister across the floor could indicate that in amending clause 8, which if amended as proposed, would read:
- Members of the Assembly may participate in the meetings of the committee and have the right
to receive documentation provided to the committee, to attend the committee’s hearings and
participate in its deliberations.
Full stop. If the full stop and the deletions thereafter only include what is now sections (a) and (b), or if the following remains:
- These provisions should be interpreted so as not to exclude committee members and shadow
ministers from asking questions relating to their electorate responsibilities …
because that underpins the intended amendment in relation to those amendments in the first paragraph.
Mr Stirling: I can indicate across the floor, Madam Speaker, clause 8, omit all words after ‘deliberations’, full stop.
Mr REED: All words? I would suggest, Madam Speaker, for clarity and to be sure to give all members, 25 members, of the House the assurance that there is no ability for a misinterpretation, that it would be appropriate to retain the last sentence. I would ask the minister to consider that suggestion.
Madam Speaker, this is a trial process. We have been assured by the minister that once we have been through this Estimates Committee process and used whatever comes out of today’s debate in September to scrutinize the 2002-03 budget, that there will be a further review of the committee so established and its effectiveness in relation to what deliberations take place in the course of the week set aside in September. It is worthy of putting that on the record. I don’t think the government’s intentions have changed in that regard. It may be well worth having that as a tail-ender in relation to the overall motion, that there is an intention to review this process, based on the operation of it, next month. The minister might also want to consider that.
In terms of it being a trial, I think it is important that it is recorded and that intention is at least reaffirmed by the minister. Perhaps then we might finally get to see the full deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee’s visit to Tasmania, and their expressions of that experience in terms of seeing how the Tasmanian Estimates Committee worked, and being able to then apply that to the formal processes to be applied into the future.
It is also worthy of note that the Estimates Committee is going to be outside this Chamber in terms of both the physical process and the actual technical processes, and that does mean that this House sits for three days less per year, effectively. Arguably, much of the business that will be pursued in the Public Accounts Committee will be much the same as would have occurred had it occurred in this House. But there is a difference, and I think it should be recognised in terms of the change to the overall sitting days of this House. Once we leave this Chamber and we are in a committee, so structured, then I would interpret that as not being ‘in parliament’, but absent from the House in a committee. It is worthy also of recording that.
It is noteworthy, too, that because of the current structure of the parliament and the way daily business is applied, that there will be no Question Time. There will be a loss of one Question Time a year. Some would argue that that is no big deal. The fact is that it is a reduction in the ability of non-government members to scrutinize the government in relation to their activities.
It was formerly the practice, you would be aware, Madam Speaker, that a Question Time would occur on the first day of the Appropriation debate after which it would then proceed into the Appropriation debate. That sitting day will now not include a Question Time.
To pick up on a few other points, there is a concern also that because of the structure of the Estimates Committee, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will have the ability to allow or disallow as he sees fit a question of a minister from another member. Whilst that may end up not being a concern, it is an issue that should at this stage be highlighted in that if we are to have a free and open debate and discussion, and the budget is to be fully scrutinised by non-government members - or indeed backbenchers on the government’s side - then there should be no constraints or no constraints beyond those that might exist if the questions were being addressed in this Chamber to ensure that full and open scrutiny can take place.
I was heartened, Madam Speaker, from a discussion with yourself this morning where you explained that it would be the intention that either yourself or the Clerk and/or you and the Clerk would be in the committee throughout those debates, and that that would provide all members with a safety net, if you like, in relation to the conduct of the committee, and to ensure that there was an even-handed consideration of whether or not questions were appropriate and allowed to proceed and be dealt with by the respective minister.
We are concerned in relation to the overall time constraints. This is a matter that I discussed at length with the minister. There was an original intention to limit each minister to four-and-a-half hours maximum questioning. That would have been a constraint that could not have been tolerated; it would be unheard of, certainly in this parliament, in relation to a limitation on the ability for a budget to be scrutinised at the agency level through the ministers. I am pleased to say that, during the course of discussions with the minister, that that has been set aside, as he alluded to in his contribution to this debate this afternoon.’
Nonetheless, a limit has been applied based on an average that has occurred over the years, and that is something in the order of 30 hours. To get an average, there has obviously in the past been debate that has gone well beyond 30 hours and on occasions there have been appropriation debates that have been less than 30 hours. But the critical point in relation to that is that if there was a need at some particular time, it was the government members or some of them - it was the Labor Party of the day - that determined how long the appropriation debate should run. That was based simply on one factor: the number of questions that they had and the time it took them to ask them. At the end of the questioning of a particular minister: ‘Does any member have any further questions of this minister?’ ‘No.’ That was the only constraint in relation to time.
Admittedly, that took place in the wee small hours of the morning, and that may not have been satisfactory.
Mr Stirling: It was not satisfactory.
Mr REED: The minister interjects: ‘It was not satisfactory’. The fact is that it did afford an unlimited opportunity in terms of time for ministers to be scrutinised in relation to the responsibilities that they held. We are concerned in relation to constraints that could flow in the adoption of the process now proposed.
Let me give a few examples. One is that the structure will be different. Shadow ministers will not have priority in terms of first being able to ask questions of ministers; that will fall to members of the PAC. If they have a long line of questioning, that is going to constrain the time available to a shadow minister and that in turn will constrain the time available to another member who may want to ask questions of a particular minister in relation to matters pertaining to the Territory or to their electorates in fulfilling their responsibilities to all Territorians as members of this House. To place any constraint on the ability of a member to scrutinise a budget is a very serious matter in terms of a Westminster parliamentary system.
There are other constraints in relation to the amendments proposed by the minister: the committee may suspend from time to time. I ask the minister if he would clarify in his closing remarks whether or not in ‘suspending from time to time’ for whatever reasons …
Mr Stirling: Lunch.
Mr REED: Well no, no. It does not constrain; it is not constrained to time.
Mr Stirling: You don’t have to give them time to eat?
Mr REED: Well, the minister, by interjection, says ‘for lunch’. If the minister wants to add in his amendments ‘for lunch and dinner for an hour’ or whatever time it might be, that is fine. But there is no limit in relation to the committee suspending from time to time for a convenience break or a cup of tea or what have you. If the minister cannot be more specific in relation to that, and if he is agreeable and wants to give a nod across the floor, I am happy to move an amendment to that:
… the committee may suspend from time to time for one hour at lunch and one hour at tea on the
appropriate days …
and that will better define what those breaks are. But if breaks are possible at the discretion of the Chairman or another member for other reasons, then I would think it be appropriate that time-on in the football sense be provided, because …
Mr Stirling: Come off the interchange bench?
Mr REED: Well, the minister laughs …
Mr Stirling: You want a process that starts at 11 o’clock and does not stop for the next 80 hours. That’s what you want. You have to have some rules. You have to have some process.
Mr REED: We are happy to stop for lunch and dinner, that is fine. But if you are going to have breaks at other times, and the member for Nelson might be concerned about this, in terms of …
Mr Stirling: I am sure he would want to have a feed.
Mr REED: Well, he may. He may and if he does, then he would recognise that that would diminish the overall time available in relation to the sittings of the Estimates Committee and its deliberations. This matter could be easily resolved by the adoption of the amendment which I have today circulated that adds to the motion and demonstrates that we can overcome these issues by ensuring that there will be no constraints in relation to a member’s time to address questions to a minister.
It does not mean - and I emphasise, Madam Speaker - it does not mean that we are proposing that we sit beyond 11.30 pm into the wee small hours of the morning. We can see some justification for not doing that. But if we are going to change a process and make it better, then in making it better let’s not place constraints on it. The worst possible constraint that can be placed on an Estimates Committee is to run out of time. So, Madam Speaker, I move my amendment …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine …
Mr REED: I seek leave to …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we already have a question before the Chair so we have to deal with that one.
Mr REED: That is true, yes. I foreshadow, Madam Speaker, that I will be moving an amendment to enable the committee to be unfettered in relation to the timing available for members to question ministers.
We are not suggesting that it would not be necessary to sit beyond 11.30 pm as prescribed in the suggested times in the amendment by the minister, but that if it is necessary for additional time then the committee, given that it would be sitting on Thursday, could then sit on Friday. Everyone is going to be here; all of the out-of-town members are going to be in Darwin and it would be appropriate to, rather than trying to squeeze this thing like a sausage machine into the three days, given that it is a different process, given that we are embarking on the unknown in relation to just what the flow of business is going to be and what the questioning processes are going to be, at least provide an ability to ensure that we don’t get to a stage where at a particular time, a member or members may have questions that they want to ask of a minister but cannot ask them because time has run out.
That is not democracy. That is not an improvement. That is not an advancement. It is important that we consider the democratic processes and if we are going to, as we are embarking on, hopefully, improve the system, let’s improve it in a way that is going to be entirely satisfactory and not diminish the opportunities of members to fulfil their responsibilities in this House. Average times have little to do with what the overall timing is. I can recall, as a former health minister, being questioned for eight hours straight …
Mr Stirling: You weren’t very good; that’s why it took so long. You weren’t very good at the answers.
Mr REED: The minister can be funny about it and say that we weren’t very good at answering questions or whatever his reasons might be, but I would like to think that this debate is a little bit more serious than that because if it isn’t serious, why are we participating in it at all?
Why did we go to the expense of $20 000-odd of sending five members off to Tasmania to see what the processes there were for their consideration in relation to adopting them in this House? I mean, if in May the advice provided to this House by the minister was not intended to be followed through, that is a great shame because we really are wasting our time.
So, they are the principal issues in relation to the government’s position. I ask again for the minister to consider further clarification of (d) in his proposed amendments to clause 17 in relation to the suspension of the committee.
In terms of clause 43, that seems to be logical in relation to the consideration forthwith of a report back to the House. That was what was always intended and that is fairly logical. Similarly with 46:
- When the bill has been agreed to by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the Assembly the
third reading shall be taken into consideration forthwith.
Now, if we just reflect on what has happened in this House immediately prior to this debate, what we are talking about here is fitting this into a predetermined time scale and the committee reporting back to this House at, I think, 7.30 pm on the final day, on Thursday, it must be 8 pm.
Mr Stirling: Seven.
Mr REED: Seven. Okay, at 7 pm on the Thursday for debate to pursue then until 11.30 pm. Now, if the government is truly concerned about sitting late, why then are we faced with the announcement today that there will be some bills dealt with on urgency that have to be considered after the appropriation debate during the next sittings? It is all becoming rather farcical when at one time we cannot organise a properly programmed appropriation debate because of time constraints during the course of that week, and today we learn that there are going to be a number of bills that have to be considered and debated after this process has been finalised.
Let us be a little bit more broad in terms of our interpretation and planning in relation to this process so that we make sure that we do get it right, because it will only serve to inhibit the operations of this House if we do not. That then is going to be carried through and forward, I fear, when we review what happens next month after we have been through the first estimates process in the PAC format. We would have then a constraint placed upon us in determining the longer term arrangements under which this House is going to consider appropriation debates and bills into the future. This is the foundation for where we are going in relation to future Estimates Committees, how the House is going to deal with that, and we, I think, deserve to get it right, if not for ourselves, certainly for Territorians.
I ask the honourable the minister to take into account those requests and suggestions and, as I foreshadowed, we will be moving another amendment at the appropriate time.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, let me clarify, members, what you are debating. You are debating the amendments as circulated by the Leader of Government Business to the original motion. We had a question before the Chair, that is why we couldn’t accept the member for Katherine’s amendments until we have dealt with this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Leader for his changes to the ability of MLAs, especially backbenchers, to be able to ask any question they like. That is an important change.
Speaking to the amendments, I believe that the time limits the government is asking for are too limiting. I know that those people who have come from parliament before realise that you sat up all night and you answered lots of questions – well, I don’t come from that background. I believe staying up half the night is a silly idea and it is not conducive to good debate. I am not sure why we cannot extend the day until the Friday after at least. If people are given plenty of warning ahead, those who have to change their travel, who have to travel to other parts of the Territory, certainly could plan that in.
By having sittings late at night, you are not helping the public. One of the reasons the minister stated for having an Estimates Committee was for a significant role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the performance of the executive branch of government, there is unparalleled opportunity to gather information and operations of the government. The committee process will allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability, all things that relate to what the public want to know as well as members of this House. By allowing an extra day - and I don’t believe that 11.30 is a good time to finish; I think we should finish at 10 o’clock and allow the extra day to occur.
The other reason we should allow the extra day to occur is because we have to come back and give consideration to the report of the Estimates Committee forthwith on that same day, so if we were to come back at 7 o’clock on the Thursday, we would all be pretty worn out and have to turn around and debate things again, whereas by having the report of the Estimates Committee on the Friday would allow for better debate.
I take note of the member for Katherine who spoke about the committee may suspend from time to time and it is worth clarifying what that is. I mean, I don’t expect the committee to be using that in a silly manner, but I think that it is worth clarifying and perhaps having it incorporated in the amendment.
The other issue I would like to raise – these dates relate to what were supposed to be sitting days and, again, I realise that from the previous budget Question Time, this was all held while parliament was in Committee of the Whole.
Coming back to the Tasmanian experience; they did not have this process while the Assembly sat. I do notice that in clause 18 states that the Estimates Committee may sit only when the Assembly is not sitting. I realise that the way around that, of course, is to adjourn the sittings. But I would presume that when I see a calendar of the sittings for the year, and it says there are three days in September, that means we are sitting for three days. I always had a presumption that we would be sitting outside of these normal sittings, that this committee would run at a different time all together.
I believe that this lessens the opportunity for parliament to sit. A common complaint from the public is that we do not sit often enough, and here we are basically wiping out three days of the sittings of parliament. It would have been much more appropriate for Estimates Committee hearings to have occurred outside the sittings of parliament. I ask the Leader of Government Business: is that what is going to happen, even though clause 18 says the Estimates Committee may sit only when the Assembly is not sitting? In actual fact, we are only sitting from 10 am to 11 am on Tuesday 17th, and that is it. I would like clarification on that.
The other matter that concerns me is the summing up. My belief from when we were in Tasmania - and I stand corrected if I am wrong here – is when the Estimates Committee came back to parliament to report, I thought that each minister was reported on so that everybody had a chance to speak on those portfolios. The way it is written here is that we are going to sum up in five hours the entire budget for all departments. I may be wrong there, but I had the impression that in Tasmania each minister’s portfolios were reported on. They were dot points and everybody in parliament could then debate only on those dot points. But that was for each portfolio. This clause 44 appears to be putting all that in one lump sum and then I would have 10 minutes to discuss seven portfolios. My recollection of the Tasmanian system was that is the reason you came back to parliament. You came back to parliament to discuss those dot points. Here we will be trying to discuss that at the end of the committee stage.
I must admit I did not hear quite all the bills that were being discussed in their second reading just before we debated this motion, but I would like to ask: are the bills just read out earlier on their second reading all going to be passed before the Estimate Committee sits?
A member: After.
Mr WOOD: After? So, when we come back in those same sittings, are we going to debate them then?
Mr Reed: Yes. Do the five hours and then pass the bills.
Mr WOOD: I would like clarification of how that is all going to work, just so I understand what is happening with those bills.
We talked about time limits on members speaking. Again, in Tasmania, they had a clock. The word mentioned was ‘time out’ or ‘time on’ or whatever you want to call it. If there was wasting of time, the Chairman could basically hold a stopwatch and say: ‘We are not counting that bit’. In other words, there was a minimum time for questions. In 4.5 hours per minister - and some ministers have seven portfolios, that brings the time right down. Then, if the government, naturally, would like to ask questions, would like to say they would have half the questions and the other side have the other half of the questions …
Mr Stirling: There is no time limit per minister.
Mr WOOD: No, but what happens if we run out of time? We have a time limit on the total discussion, haven’t we?
Mr Stirling: 32.5 hours.
Mr WOOD: That’s right, but if the 2.5 hours or whatever is up – I am trying to look at the practical side of it. If you have one minister with seven portfolios and my maths makes 4.5 hours per minister, so you divide 7 into 4.5 hours and you get whatever, and then if the government wishes to ask questions of its own minister, which is fair enough, but they are more than likely be going to be questions that make the government look good in the public’s eye, and that’s fair enough, but opposition and other members have a job to question the government seriously about matters that concern them. So you might be getting down to 10 minutes per portfolio. The practical issues here perhaps have not been quite worked out.
I would support – I know we are not speaking to that, but I would support any move that allowed an extension of time so that we had adequate time to answer the questions and I believe one way certainly is to use Friday as a reserve day, and the government should at least consider that.
I don’t think it will do any harm; it will look far better in the public eye if the government says: ‘We have left ourselves open to full public scrutiny. We haven’t had a gag’ – which is what it will look like if we run out of time, and it may not happen. But if we find that it is gagged, people will say the government was just trying to avoid the questions.
With that, I would like to say even though I support some of these amendments, I believe that to have the restrictions of time as shown here could possibly work against not only the government, but would work against those people here who would like to adequately question both the minister and his executive officers.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to make some comments about the whole mess that this Estimates Committee has become. When parliament decided to send the PAC to Tasmania to look at the process there, I thought we went away looking at how best to establish the Estimates Committee. I believe whatever we establish today needs to be compared with what we had previously using the CLP process as the benchmark. If the process of the Estimates Committee is going to be seen and promoted by the government as the better system, then it has to be better than what the benchmark was.
The benchmark provided unlimited time per minister …
Mr Stirling: No CEO. No television. No budget officer.
Dr LIM: Hang on. Wait. The benchmark provided every minister open access to any questions possible and public servants were available in the Chamber to advise the minister and from the minister to then advise the questioner as to what the response would be. That was the first thing that was applicable. The ministers were there from the start of the committee process until all questions were exhausted. I don’t believe that that is possible in this situation when you have restricted hours - as delineated earlier, it works out that there were about 37 hours all told …
Mr Stirling: 37.5.
Dr LIM: … from 11 am to 11.30 pm the first day; 9 am to 11 pm on the second day; and 9 am to 7 pm on the third day – 37.5 hours is what the Deputy Chief Minister said.
Now, you take six hours away for lunch, that leaves you with about 30.5 hours, and then as the member for Nelson suggested earlier, each minister on average would get only 4.5 hours. If it is only 4.5 hours, really then you are talking about very, very few …
Mr Stirling: The 32.5 hours is lunches out.
Dr LIM: … very, very few minutes per portfolio per minister.
Another issue that has to be considered is the amendments that the Leader of Government Business has proposed. First of all, in clause 9, and I read:
- In allocating the call, the Chairman should ensure a balanced distribution of questions, but accord
preference first to committee members followed by shadow ministers and other members.
If you recall past practice, the opposition of the day was accorded essentially a free run of questions to all ministers. Occasionally, other members of the Assembly also questioned the ministers but in fact the opposition members of the day were accorded any questions they liked at any time while the minister was on his feet.
Clause 9 accords committee members first preference. It opens up the committee process to a lot of dorothy dixers if government members choose to do so. If you are talking about only four hours per minister - and remember there are three members of government on the PAC, now the Estimates Committee, they can actually use up half the time per minister asking dorothy dixers which therefore reduces the time even further for the Independent member or the members of the opposition. I do not think that is fair. I do not believe that is fair at all.
When we first started ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Dr LIM: When we talk about the committee as run in Tasmania, there were fixed hours that the committee sat during which the minister had to respond to questions. Time out by the ministers for toilet breaks or whatever was faithfully noted and added on the end of the day’s session.
When all questions are completed, a report is then produced by the Estimates Committee, in dot point, which was then presented to parliament at its next sitting following which those dot points were debated.
The process as outlined by the Deputy Chief Minister does not provide any of that at all. One therefore has to ask: what is the purpose of this Estimates Committee? It is purported to be a better process than previously, but the reality of it is that it would not allow an accurate and open process.
Now, this is the government that says we are open and transparent. Yet at the same time, they are going to prevent an open and transparent estimates process.
Mr Henderson: No.
Dr LIM: Members can deny it as much as they like, but I say to you, Madam Speaker, it is a fact of life that the way it is now, we are going to be stampeded over and we will get absolutely nowhere.
The benchmark was set by the CLP government. The government right now does not agree that that was a good process. Sure, I recall that some nights the questioning on the budget went to very, very late hours and it perhaps was not the best way possible. However, it allowed - and I repeat, it allowed - every minister to be thoroughly interrogated and all questions were asked by members of the opposition of the day until all questions were exhausted. That, I believe, needs to continue.
When we went away to Tasmania to look at this process, it was generally agreed, while not contained in the report that we did when we came back, that the estimates process would take place outside of the normal sitting days. That, obviously, will not be the case now. So where does that leave us? We are going to be sitting three fewer days this year, and then when we come back to parliament to report on the estimates process, we have other business to attend, commencing at 7pm on the third day of that particular week of sittings.
Another point that was made in our report from the PAC of June this year, and it was on page 4 of the report, I read for the record:
- The rules do not allow for a member to ask a series of questions, but the current procedure is that the
Chair can, at his or her discretion, permit a member to continue a particular line of questioning if it is
considered appropriate.
I would like to see that locked into the terms of reference for the Estimates Committee. There is nothing hard and fast to allow a member to pursue a line of questioning until the questions on that line of questioning are exhausted. In past practice with the PAC, there has been many a time when instead of allowing a whole string of questions to be asked, members are told they are not allowed to do so, and questioning was then passed onto another member.
It is important to lock it in so that any member can pursue a line of questioning and come to a logical end. If that does not occur it will make the estimates a lot more difficult.
In all, I believe that our earlier thoughts that the estimates process for each minister should be between seven to nine hours should continue. We should not say that it goes on forever or without any limit, let’s opt to extend to, say, four days from 11 am the first day right through to Friday afternoon, having each minister come in tandem after the first minister is finished, the second one comes on at the appropriate time. That way we can use the full length of the estimates time usefully. Who knows? We might finish very early. If we finish early, as has happened in previous years, then we can all finish the sittings within those three days. But if we cannot, then at least Friday is available and we should use that.
There was a time when there was consideration that we might have two committees running at the same time. I thought that was a bit unnecessary. I believe one committee could do the work just as well as long as any member of the Assembly can be at the committee and ask questions freely, without any constraint. I see that the amendment as proposed by the Leader of Government Business has allowed that to be so.
I say to the government again if they want to make this Estimates Committee an open and transparent process, as they have been so quick to claim, then let us make it so. Let’s make it transparent; let’s make it freely available to all members to ask all sorts of questions of all ministers without undue time constraint. If we can do that, then the whole process will be fair and open. Otherwise it will be a mockery of the whole system and it will be such a waste of time sending us to Tasmania and getting nowhere.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Greatorex for his contribution.
I have been sitting here, listening patiently, taking it in, because I am pretty impressed by this Road to Damascus change that we have seen occur from the opposition benches. Far be it from me to drag up the past …
Ms Carter: Our system was better than yours. It was more open than your system - unlimited time.
Mr KIELY: ‘When I was a nurse,’ is that what you are saying?
When I was having a look back through Hansard, I noticed that in the Appropriation Bill debate of 1999-2000 on 8 June 1999, the then member for Daly, I think it was, shouted across the floor. He shouted across the floor when the matter of an Estimates Committee up. He shouted out to the then opposition benches - I think it was to the previous member for Wanguri, Mr Bailey. He shouted across: ‘If you want an estimates committee, go to Canberra’. I guess you can read into that, perhaps, they did not want an Estimates Committee here. It is good to see that they want one now. Then again, this was not an isolated incident. I do not want you to think that this is the member for Daly is the only one over there who thought the Estimates Committee was not a worthwhile institution. The feel I have from the opposition – and I am very pleased about this - is that they believe the Estimates Committee is the best thing to be happening in here at this point.
Anyway, then I think it was on 28 June 2000, the previous Treasurer, the opposition shadow Treasurer, the member for Katherine, stated to the member for Fannie Bay, who is now the Chief Minister, condescendingly …
Ms Carter: Not in the year 2000, he wasn’t.
Mr KIELY: He condescendingly rebuked her on her notion about having an Estimates Committee when she questioned the Appropriations Bill at that time.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am not sure if the speaker is aware he will get another opportunity to speak on matters relating to the motion. We are actually speaking to the amendment that has been put by his Leader of Government Business which deals with times and the omission of various clauses and whatever. It would seem that he is confused about what his statement should be about.
Ms Lawrie: No point of order! He is speaking to it.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, technically, the member is quite right, but the Speaker before you has given considerable latitude to both sides on whether they are talking to the motion or, in fact, the amendments. Whilst I agree with the point of order technically, that has not been the ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. At the outset of this debate, Madam Speaker cautioned members about straying too far. If the Leader of Government Business was of that opinion during the member for Greatorex’s contribution, he was at every liberty to pull up the member for Greatorex on a point of order. Consequently, I believe we should adhere to the instruction of Madam Speaker at the beginning of the debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Comments have been noted. There is no formal point of order, but I would advise the speaker to stay closer to the tone of this motion.
Mr KIELY: Let me say, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I am staying close to the tone of this debate. It is important, because we have heard an argument about different times and why they are important to have it. It is important that we set the framework as to where this may come from, and this is what I am leading to.
We had this rebuttal of an Estimates Committee back in 28 June, and this is a second time for the then government of that date. Then on 10 October 2000, the then Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, absolutely derided the idea of an Estimates Committee and I will quote him here. This in a motion put up by the member for Fannie Bay. The Opposition Leader said:
- The opposition’s next point resurrects that old favourite, the estimates committee. Not content with
having three full days and nights to question ministers on every last detail of the budget, they want to
harass our public servants.
What I am getting to here is that, on three different occasions – that was just a cursory search - I found them deriding, running down the effectiveness, not absolutely imploring the idea of an Estimates Committee to the point that the intention of the Estimates Committee was to harass public servants. Now we are at the point where they are saying that the model proposed by the government is not suitable; that the government is not genuine in its attempts to establish an adequate Estimates Committee.
I wonder what their motivations are and the arguments that they are mounting, because I do not find their arguments at all strong. When we talk about clause 8, the time restrictions, we now have an opposition over there which I believe is lazy. It is lazy to the point that it will not accept change and it will not accept that it has to start working…
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr KIELY: …in order - it has to interrogate a budget for a change, because they are so lazy, that they will not do a thing.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Once again, the member will have every opportunity to make these comments during the debate of the motion as a whole. What we are doing at the moment is debating some amendments. Those amendments go to issues such as what happens after the word ‘deliberations’ in clause 8, or in clause 17 ‘times allotted’, as well as further amendments dealing with when the bill is going to be brought back to this Chamber.
My point of order is relevance on the discussion over the amendments. The member will have every opportunity to make these comments during the general debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask that the comments of the honourable member be closer to the amendments that are before us at the moment.
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I don’t know how much closer I can get to it when I state that clause 8, I am talking about restrictions. I don’t know how much closer I can get to it.
We talk about these time restrictions. You see, we asked - and we have asked all through the private sector and the public sector - for our institutions and our organisations to work smarter. That is the ask that we have of them, and in this day and age, we have great information tools. We know that there are greater efficiencies to be had. I do not think the opposition, because they are caught in a time warp - they are saying a year ago the CLP was the best thing and that is the benchmark. Well, it was not. We have been telling you for ages that it is not. We have put something before you and you can’t accept it. If you would get out of this time warp and stop being lazy and start applying yourselves to the efficiencies that you would ask of other people then we will see that the time given for people to go through the estimates process is adequate. It is adequate.
The whole idea of an Estimates Committee and an estimates process is so that the budget can be interrogated fully, factually and to the benefit of the public. Let me say that the time line that has been picked, 30 hours, is an historic period of time, that has gone over for the interrogation of it.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: What it is - you see, I could cop this argument about having it opened up, opened up, opened up. But we have a lazy, lazy, lazy opposition that will not take the time to get down and interrogate it and actually look for substance, look for anomalies, look how the money is being spent. No. What they will use this extra time for, if that’s the case, and they have proved it because in the three times that I mentioned, and there was a lot more times than that, they derided the need for the community to have an Estimates Committee. All they want is time to go and dig up dirt, to change the whole complexion of the what the Estimates Committee is meant for. I find the falsehoods that they spread about, their disingenuous way of saying, ‘We want an Estimates Committee’ …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Disingenuous and falsehood are similes for lying and he should not be using words of that nature.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope we are keeping track of these points of order and how many times they have been ruled they are not points of order, just as a matter of interest. It goes to show another laziness inherent on that side. It is up to us to be more effective. It is up to us to be more effective in government; it is up to the opposition to be more effective in opposition.
There has been some talk from the former Treasurer about the PAC going to Tasmania and having a look at the Estimates Committee there, and he was implying that he didn’t think that this was a good use of tax payers’ money. The PAC came back and tabled a substantial report that everyone has had the chance to go through …
Mr Elferink: Which hasn’t been debated out and hasn’t been the subject of any motion of this House.
Mr KIELY: It has been sitting on the Table. Once again, members of this side have not been lazy. We have had a look at that report. We have studied it. We have reported back to our people. Members on the other side, the lazy side, the lay-down-let’s-have-a-sleep-and-let’s-have-a-whinge side, that side, they have had ample time to have a look at this. They have had ample time to look at how to work smarter through the whole Estimates Committee but, they refuse to. They refuse to.
Dr Burns: Out counting light bulbs.
Mr KIELY: They are, they are. I would suggest that they should wait until the lights come on.
Mr Dunham: You think it is a trivial issue, do you, street lighting?
Mr KIELY: Well …
Mr Henderson: They work in Wanguri.
Mr Dunham: They work in Wanguri? That’s interesting. There’s a street light whiteboard strategy, is there? They don’t work in Port Darwin.
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am just aghast at the …
Mr Bonson: Shock, in shock.
Mr KIELY: And shock - thank you, member for Millner - and sad, these are all words I could use about the focus of this debate from the opposition benches. It is not one about making a good Estimates Committee; it is not one saying: ‘Look, this is how we can get it to work’. I question their real intention of saying: ‘We want this thing to run day in day out until we fall off our feet like some drunken cocky’ …
Mr Dunham: Fully! Fully debated.
Mr KIELY: … because they have not exhibited any stamina, any will to put their shoulder to the stone and to push real hard and to get things done.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: I believe that what we are seeing here is theatre. Straight up theatre. I do not believe there is any intention from the other side that an Estimates Committee should go over 30 hours. I reckon they will be lucky to make it on time. We will have to do phone-arounds in the morning. We will have to give them the Telstra number to get them here on time. They will think: ‘Great! We won’t have to come in. The bells won’t ring, we’ll be here’. Well, they will be required to work on this one. That is what it is all about. They will be required to work through this process and I don’t think they have the wherewithal.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in relation to the amendments to the motion before the House. Before we examine the amendments, it is important to understand the whole process that we are talking about. That has been somehow lost in this debate. The question is: what is an estimates process? An estimates process is a process by which we examine a budget that is brought into this Chamber by the Treasurer – and when I say ‘we’, I am not referring to the opposition; I am referring to the 24 other members who make up the parliament of the Northern Territory. Those 24 other members have the job of scrutinising what is ultimately over $3 bn dollars worth of spending.
Mr Ah Kit: How many questions were asked by backbenchers in the CLP government? None!
Mr ELFERINK: The previous speaker said that we are interested in digging up the dirt on the government. I would hope that all 24 members would be prepared to scrutinise the request for $3 bn worth of spending that the Treasurer brings to this House. That is the process that we are engaged in, and that is the process that the estimates process is aimed at achieving.
For the member for Sanderson to say: ‘We came back from Tasmania and our people were happy with it’ demonstrates to me what I consider probably the most shocking abuse …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! That was not the stated comment that was made. It was no more than 10 minutes ago when I said that it came down and the report was tabled and we had time to look at it. There were no words to that effect.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kiely: The member for Macdonnell has a habit of doing this.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the previous member referred to ‘our people’ and I think that is a shocking thing because what he has done is effectively said: ‘We have come back from Tasmania, we have identified those bits that we are happy with and we are now, through the Leader of Government Business, bringing forward a process which absolutely suits us fine to the House’.
We have a paper from the Public Accounts Committee sitting at item four on the Notice Paper which has yet to be resolved, which has yet to be debated out. This House has made no decisions in relation to that item and, yes, some speakers have spoken to it but the debate is not over, and yet we have a government coming into this Chamber with a revised process; a completely different process, and a process which is not reflected in the undebated motion that still sits before this House.
The member for Sanderson has indicated quite clearly where the government is coming from: this Chamber is not of a great deal of interest to them, and that’s the way that they want to proceed, that is up to them. But to stand up and say ‘Our people are happy’ I think is a dreadful abuse of the trust that has been placed in them by the people of the Northern Territory.
This brings us to the contract that this current government has with the people of the Northern Territory. The contract that this government has was expressed in their Good Government policy paper, which was basically the offer they made to the people of the Northern Territory. The acceptance and the consideration that flowed from that - the acceptance was that we accept your offer, and the consideration that we will give is that we will give you the value of our votes - means this government is now contractually bound to the people of the Northern Territory. It has nothing to do with what the CLP has done in the past, absolutely nothing to do with what the CLP has done in the past. This government has said that an Estimates Committee would allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability. That is out of their own contract with the people of the Northern Territory.
So what I look for when I look at the amendments that are currently before us for deliberation, I am looking for away that this government can produce a system which is more meaningful, thorough and orderly than the system that was in place prior. This government has promised an Estimates Committee, and I don’t doubt it will walk away from this process and say: ‘We have an Estimates Committee’. However, the test of the validity of that committee comes down to that committee’s ability to provide a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability. That means that they are contrasting a process that they think should be in place with the process that was in place. The process that was in place was this House simply going into the committee stages of the budget process and thrashing out the issues. Bearing in mind that the government is asking this House to approve billions of dollars worth of spending, then it is just, right and proper that the budget that the Treasurer has bought before this House suffers complete and utter scrutiny.
I believe that the budget process should go for a lot longer. It is a lot of money that we are talking about. However, I also understand the need for time limits, to a degree, to be in place. We cannot argue out a budget indefinitely, and so there is a need to have a date at which things must stop. The question is: where do you strike the balance? In the former process, the government of the day allowed questioning to continue until there were no more questions. The whole process was exhaustive in its review. Yes, that meant that questioning from time to time went into the wee small hours of the morning, but there was always a test that the former government applied, and that test was that the minister was able to stand up and at the end of questioning say: ‘Are there any more questions?’. They did not have to be written questions. Those questions could spontaneously come from the floor of the House, and the government was prepared to answer them. So that is the bottom line, and this is where I return back to the government’s contract with the people of the Northern Territory: an Estimates Committee would allow for a more meaningful and thorough process.
I turn my attention to clause 17, the second amendment proposed by the Leader of Government Business, and I find that the system which is proposed will not allow for an exhaustive system of questioning. There will be no process available in this system which will allow questions to run to their exhausted limit unless they stick to the time limits outlined in clause 17. No matter how the government wants to label this new committee, the system will be less meaningful and less thorough, and a less orderly process of budget accountability which is contrary to their position outlined in their Good Government document, and the contract that I hold them to have with the people of the Northern Territory.
They are the legitimate government of the Northern Territory, but they have gained that legitimacy on the back of certain promises, and I expect the government to adhere to those promises. This falls far short, and what the Leader of Government Business is asking us to do by allowing for a non-exhaustive process is to allow him, without question, to take on the mantle of the emperor’s new clothes and wear them out there under the title of having an Estimates Committee. Well, I have to say that the picture of the government in the emperor’s new clothes does not make for a very pretty mental picture at all.
This is the benchmark the government set for itself, and the government has failed in the amendments that it has brought to this House, to achieve that benchmark. The benchmark has not been met. This is not a better system; this is not even the same system. This is a system which actually limits the process that used to exist, which means it must be, consequently, less meaningful and less thorough than the process that existed before. To that end, I cannot support those amendments.
Clause 17(1)(d) ‘The committee may suspend from time to time …’ is also of great concern. I am curious if the government would give an unlimited power of arrest to a police officer. I am certain it would not; they would expect all sorts of tests prior to a police officer using his power of arrest. Why is it possible for a government to give itself unlimited ability for any reason at any time to suspend the process that they consider to be more reasonable, fair and open? Surely if they wanted to satisfy me and the rest of the Northern Territory that they were living up to their mandate, they would actually be placing a set of rules upon themselves which did not allow for an abuse of the system. I am utterly unconvinced that 17(1)(d) can represent anything but an abuse of the system.
The government’s new fearful attitude towards the estimates review process - their newfound fear ever since coming into government - was reflected by the original structure of clause 8 in which they tried to limit members of this Chamber from asking questions of the Treasurer’s budget down to their electorate area. I have grave concerns about that attempt, because it shows an underlying desire on the part of government to try and nobble the system as far as they possibly can.
The government has accepted the breach of convention that represents is an important one. However, what the government is proposing to do is to omit after the word ‘deliberations’ all words. I am satisfied that that goes a much longer way to giving us the liberty we need to challenge or question the Treasurer on her requests.
I also share some concern with the member for Nelson in relation to the number of sitting days. However, the member for Nelson has expressed that properly.
Madam Speaker, call it an Estimates Committee, call it a cunning plan if you like, but at the end of the day the process is not as open as it could have been.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on record some reservations and concerns that I have in relation to the proposed amendment to the motion which the Leader of Government Business currently has before the House.
This government chants the mantra of ‘open and accountable government’. We have heard the references to a new government and that apparently, according to them, there were going to mechanisms put into place which would ensure that all Territorians have access to the decision making process and are able to follow what is occurring. For there to truly be an open and democratic government, there needs to be open and informed debate, and very much to the heart of that debate is of course a debate relating to the budget and the appropriation of what is ultimately public monies for governmental purposes. The proposed Estimates Committee goes to the very core of that government process.
In order to determine the emphasis or weight which a government of the day gives to a certain list of priorities, the one yard stick which invariably cuts to the truth and determines what is happening is, of course, where that government is spending its money. Ultimately, the priorities of government manifest themselves in the form of the documents which were tabled today by way of the budget and where the money is going to spent or is not going to be spent and which matters have been given priority. I think there was a proverb that said ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’. If you are going to determine what a government vision is for the place, you really have to go the heart of where they are spending the money, were they see the community stepping forward.
Armed with the mandate from the Northern Territory people, this government said it had a reform agenda. Of course, I was not here prior to the election in August last year, but I am informed that the previous mechanism involved a questioning of the budget where members of the then opposition were allowed to ask questions and there was absolutely no time restraint on that questioning albeit there were some reservations about the length of time it took and sometimes debates not finishing until early in the morning.
The new position which is the amendment to the motion tabled by the Leader of Government Business goes to the very heart of the process by limiting the time which any member from either side of the House has to question a particular minister who may hold more than one or two portfolios and ultimately test that minister’s knowledge of the budgetary process to ensure that all the people of the Northern Territory are aware of where their money is and, perhaps more importantly, is not being spent.
The member for Katherine has gone through a chronology of what has occurred in terms of the research by the Public Accounts Committee and their travel to the Tasmanian parliament. I am not going to go through that again except to say this: it seems in essence the motion does not reflect in a significant way any of the reforms which that Public Accounts Committee could have brought back to this parliament and the government of the day could have incorporated into an Estimates Committee which is accountable, which has integrity and which is reliable in the eyes of Territory people. Time limits are unheard of in the history of the parliament and …
Mr Stirling: Nonsense! Five minutes to ask a question in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I am informed that in the previous budgetary process - perhaps I can just remind the Leader of Government Business of what occurred, and he may have a better idea than me, but members of the then opposition were allowed to ask questions. This occurred and sometimes there was the invitation: ‘Are there any more questions?’ There was no time limit on the questioning of a particular minister. Talking to a minister of the previous government who had a number of very important portfolios, he said that once the questioning by the then opposition went for nine hours, and he played his part in the process to the stage where there simply were no further questions from the then opposition.
The amendment in its current form, the restrictions on time, which will invariably lead to not all the matters being canvassed potentially by the opposition and independent members of parliament, tend to indicate that this government is becoming arrogant. It tends to indicate that they have broken the trust which Territory people placed in them. They see parliament as in inconvenience as opposed to the forum where these matters, should be, could be and must be properly debated for the good of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I speak against the amendments contained in the form of clause 17, the restrictions and time limits to the Estimates Committee.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I shall speak to the motion, but in speaking to the motion, one has to look to the entire process.
We have before us a document parading as Good Government that precedes the election of the Labor Party to government and it deals at some length with the necessity for a committee of the type that we are talking about here. We also have a number of statements that have been made in this House and we have several motions before the House: two on the Notice Paper, one amendment, one notice of an amendment and during my contribution, I am going to give notice of yet another amendment, Madam Speaker. That is why I guess there is some difficulty with this process because it appears to be that it is being invented on the run …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, we are actually debating the amendments.
Mr DUNHAM: That is correct, Madam Speaker, and I am querying why such amendments might exist at such a late hour. I am also giving notice that a further amendment will be coming because of this process. I am quite happy to contain my remarks to the motion before us.
The motion before us deals with prescribing time. That is offensive to most of the commentators that have spoken thus far, certainly to the Independent, and it flies in the face of the other motion on the Table and that is the Tasmanian model that we were sent off to have a look at as some sort of a template.
There are few things that we should talk about in terms of time. One is that there are some benchmarks that must be met by this amendment to Standing Orders. The first benchmark it that it must be at least better than what went before - must be better - and if it doesn’t improve on the system, that leaves the government with some odium about this whole process.
The second thing is that it must achieve what we have all set out to do and that is to fully explore the budget for the benefit of Territorians. There are some commentators who believe in doing so, we will find the dirt - I think that was the contribution by the member for Sanderson - and there may well be lots of dirt there. I don’t know. That is not my intention in progressing with the questioning that will take place.
I do believe a significant amount of time should be available because we have seen, certainly in the PAC, some form relating to matters of this type and when you see that the same persona will be on both committees, a substantial amount of time should be necessary. It could not be described more eloquently than what the member for Sanderson actually did. He ran a contribution to this debate that was irrelevant. He was called to order twice and chose not to do so. He interjected with a variety of emotional and sensational words, and that is something that worries me when we prescribe time in the way that the Leader of Government Business wants to do with the amendment to clause 17. A significant amount of filibustering, running interference could occur, and did occur with the PAC by this particular gentleman, and it is one of those things where we have to be mindful that if we are getting close to the end of a time period …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Drysdale is casting aspersions on the member for Sanderson that are completely unsubstantiated.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order but I will ask the member for Drysdale to get back to the amendments.
Mr DUNHAM: I am posing a scenario, Madam Speaker, that if - I am on the amendment, on clause 17, Madam Speaker. Clause 17, prescribe certain times.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, member for Drysdale, I think you should be containing your remarks to those amendments.
Mr DUNHAM: I am containing them to clause 17, Madam Speaker, where a bell will ring at 11.30. Under the amendment that is here, adjourns at 11.30, and I am speaking to that portion, Madam Speaker. We see it in Question Time sometimes, and we see it in other places, that as the time gets towards relief from a line of questioning, there will be an opportunity for the person that is feeling uncomfortable with being questioned to absent themselves. What I am saying is there is an opportunity here for good government not to be pursued. That is my point. And my point is that it can be done in a variety of ways including running interference, running speeches, questioning techniques that are out of order. I am pointing out that this motion does not take any cognisance of that fact, and when you look at the fact that it has actually happened in the PAC, I think we should be careful.
I was talking about the construction of this where we now have a motion on the Table, and I give notice that I will not speak to it. We will be putting a further motion that the Estimates Committee will have the capacity to interrogate government owned corporations including the new Power and Water Corporation. It is necessary that I put this motion at this late hour because I have only just been informed that, in total contrast to the advice I was given last week - and that is that the CEO told me that he was preparing to front the Estimates Committee. In a direct question, we understood that they would be available. I gave an undertaking that the opposition would not be asking questions of a commercial-in-confidence nature, and I have just had advice that, in fact, that was wrong and that this government owned corporation - there could be others, I’m not sure - will not be available for public scrutiny because there will be another process in place.
I am totally dissatisfied with this on the basis that we haven’t even constructed this yet. This thing is still being built as we speak, and I would not be satisfied to be told that there will be another beast built to look at government owned corporations, don’t you worry about that, trust us, it will be there in the fullness of time. The monies that are available to this government, whether it is through their normal budgeting subventions, or whether they are through government owned corporations, must come under the scrutiny of those people who are here to advocate on behalf of the tax payer, and that includes the Power and Water Corporation. So I bring parliament’s attention to that.
If we talk about the number of hours that are available, it is facile to say that there are 30 hours, historically it was about that amount of time, we can give it to some bean counters who will break it up into various little lumps and after 4.5 hours, everybody is off the hook. I believe that the basic test - and again, this is to see whether this is better than the previous process - is that all members have the capacity to exhaust their questioning of any minister. That was previously what was available to all members of this House, and it should be available to members of this House under the current regime.
It should also be noted that the government accepted that convention, where mainly the opposition had carriage of the questions - there were certainly questions from backbenchers which I advise for the sake of the member for Arnhem who believed that was not the case, but certainly backbenchers asked questions - it was an unwritten protocol of the government that this was a matter for the opposition to talk to the government about its budget. We believed that backbenchers on the government benches had the capacity, through other means, of interrogating the budget. We believed that the ready access that backbenchers have to ministers should mean that they are able to seek those answers in a way other than through this public process.
We believe, therefore, that the primacy for asking questions rests with the opposition and, certainly, with the shadow spokesman. I am not happy with a system that would subvert that primacy; I am not happy with the fact that - notwithstanding that I am a member of the PAC and therefore a member of the new Estimates Committee - I have the capacity to ask all those questions because I do not believe that I or any of my colleagues on those committees should have that primacy. It should first rest with the opposition spokesman for that portfolio and for the local member.
Dr Burns: Because you are so divided you cannot decide what questions to ask.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether I should pick up interjections because they are irrelevant to the motion, and it will probably cause you to ask me to come back to the motion.
I do note that I will have other opportunities to talk about this. I shall be talking about the form of the PAC and I shall be talking about the partiality of the current Chairman and his capacity to be able to do this, but I shall not at this particular time; I will leave that for another occasion.
The test of does it conform with the Good Government promises and the various undertakings made in the mantra to the elections that turned into a mandate for a current government, and the test of ‘does it make it better?’ must be applied to this. I believe that unless we can do that, unless the answers to both of those questions is yes, this government has failed miserably.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the amendments. I know this has been a wide-ranging debate and there have been some points of order about relevance, but a number of members opposite have referred to our paper Good Government that was released prior to the election. It is an important paper because it underlines our pledge to the electorate about good government. The central theme of that was about parliamentary committees and the establishment of an Estimates Committee. This was the promise:
- The current appropriation debate session of parliament will be replaced with an Estimates
Committee process.
It is up front there that those days would be replaced by an Estimates Committee process.
- This is a move that has been called for by Labor and independent commentators for many years.
An Estimates Committee process is followed in every other state and territory, and by the
Commonwealth.
We come back to the bald fact, if you like, the basic fact that there was a resistance here over many years from the former CLP government about even establishing an Estimates Committee. Now that we are going about the business of establishing an Estimates Committee, ‘It is all wrong. It is a beast, it is a beast’. Well, it was a beast when you were in government as well because you never followed up on it.
Reading on from this Good Government paper:
- The CLP obviously holds the scrutiny of government expenditure in contempt as they continue to
rule out the introduction of an Estimates Committee …
The member for Sanderston made a couple of quotes earlier today which amply exemplified that resistance and that opposition from the former CLP government.
Here is the bit that the member for Macdonnell quoted a number of times:
- An Estimates Committee would allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of
budget accountability.
I believe and I hope that I demonstrate by what I am going to talk about now, that the model that is being proposed will give meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability. ‘Orderly process’ is a key phrase because there has been a lot of talk from the other side about – I will have to get the quote where it said ‘exhaustive questioning’. Those were the words used: ‘exhaustive questioning’, that there should not be any time limit, there should be untrammelled time to follow on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, on questions. For the information of members opposite - and I know two of the PAC opposite who were not content just to be going to Tasmania. They travelled on; one to Queensland and one to South Australia - the model in other states and territories is that there are limits. What we did see in Tasmania was a limit on time. There has to be discipline within the time limits. Discipline is an operative word. We have talked about every member having access to the opportunity to be able to ask questions. Well, the fact of the matter is that members opposite should be caucusing. They should be in their party room prioritising the questions that they have to ask and having some order about what they do. Continually, even in this debate, we have seen a number of them jump up the same time. During Question Time we see disorganisation and during the short …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, get back to the amendments, please.
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Speaker. But we are talking about disorder here, so there has to be discipline in time and, if they cannot order their time and their discipline and their questions within the 30 hours, well, there is something sadly lacking, I believe.
Just to pick up on a few issues from different speakers - the member for Katherine talked about the trip to Tasmania and raised the question that possibly this might have been a waste of tax payers’ money. I believe that the trip that we had to Tasmania was very informative for all members, particularly new members to parliament like myself who have not been through an estimates process. Underlying all that we did and all that we saw was an endeavour on our part to implement a model that fitted the Northern Territory, that fitted what’s been there in the past, build on that and move forward and have an improvement.
There has been a lot of talk during this debate about whether the model and the amendments actually represent some sort of improvement. Well, I believe they do. I believe that we have retained the ability of members, whether they are of the opposition or an Independent member, to submit written questions. They can submit as many as they like. They can submit as many as they like, but the discipline comes about picking up the questions which are relevant and which are important and following on with those.
I believe what we did see in Tasmania - because they don’t have written questions – was a lot of wasted time establishing basal figures and basal parameters and descriptors. There was a lot of time wasted there. I think they have seven hours per minister. That is why I believe with written questions, the time spent with each minister has to be considerably less than seven hours. I believe that the way forward in this model of an Estimates Committee is that CEOs are going to be present and that they are going to be available and that the sessions are going to be a lot more interactive, but even more importantly, the media are going to have access to these committee meetings and be able to record them.
These are important things that have been incorporated in this review. But as we foreshadowed, this is a trial. It will be subject to review and we are looking to build on this. There will be lessons for everyone to learn, particularly the new members to this parliament, but it is a trial and it is subject to review.
In terms of ordering the time that we have, which is approximately 30 hours, there are obviously some portfolios which are of more interest and will be subject to more questioning than others. By not having a set limit on questions for a particular minister, that frees the committee up to focus on the larger portfolios. I have spoken to other Estimates Committee members throughout Australia, and there is certainly a lot of interest generically in health and education because they are amongst the biggest spenders and they are probably of particular interest to the electorate. The amendment that is being proposed really gives the committee a lot more flexibility than setting a particular time limit.
The member for Drysdale mentioned government owned corporations and I think he is planning to move an amendment in that regard. Our focus really has to be to establish an estimates process for the mainstream government agencies. Certainly, government owned corporations have to be examined. I doubt whether an Estimates Committee can examine every government owned corporation each year. What I understand happens elsewhere is that there is a bit of rotation in terms of which government owned corporations are examined. I do not want to anticipate debate, but I think my priority here today in talking in this debate is to really focus on the establishment of an Estimates Committee for the mainstream agencies of government. After that we can address the important issue of government owned corporations.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I support the amendments as moved by the Leader of Government Business because I believe that they do give the committee freedom to interrogate the budget. It does give flexibility and for all the reasons that I have outlined previously, they do give a better system for the scrutiny of estimates by this parliament.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I did not intend to involve myself in this debate because I was led to believe that this was a debate that was being conducted in a cooperative manner. On my side of the House, I know that by the instructions that were given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and I know the conversations that occurred between he and the Deputy Chief Minister - that attempting to come forward with a workable solution in terms of how this Estimates Committee is constructed has been conducted, I believe, in a cooperative way.
Therefore it is surprising in some senses, but not in others, that those members of the House, particularly - it is interesting, those members of the House who are so instructive on how these things should occur have never been through an experience in this House in terms of passing a budget. But that is par for the course. We are continually benefited by the intellect and experience of the member for Johnston in his wide ranging experience in terms of how to be a member of parliament and the passage of important legislation such as the budget.
Can I say to the Deputy Chief Minister - and I will confine my comments, Madam Speaker, to him, of course, through you - that in terms of the amendments that have been presented in this debate by the Deputy Chief Minister, in a general sense we don’t oppose those amendments. We are looking for an Estimates Committee that I believe falls on some very simple principles. The first principle is the utterances of the Labor government themselves that they would introduce a system that was an improvement on the past. Now, in the past, any member of this House could ask a question of any minister on anything. There were times, of course, that the House sat late into the evening.
The member for Johnston would imply that the opposition, now the Labor government, were somehow ill-disciplined in the way they organised their questions, were obviously asking questions that were of no merit otherwise they would have confined their questions to a much tighter time frame. Of course, during the passage of the budget in this Chamber, we would have finished on each evening around 11 o’clock at the latest. That wasn’t the case.
On many occasions - and always - it was the opposition, now the government, at the time who felt that the questions they had to ask were sufficiently important that at times this House sat late into the evening. I can remember as Health minister on one occasion leaving this Chamber at almost 4 am. I agree that that is not a way to conduct business in terms of the late hours, but certainly I would have thought an improvement to that system would not have confined the amount of time for the questions to be asked of the minister.
That, simply, is where the argument of the government fails. You must, if you require the support of the opposition, come up with a process that allows all questions to be asked. Certainly, the discipline for organising those questions rests with the opposition primarily, and we intend to exercise that discipline as far as possible. We do not suggest for a moment, Deputy Chief Minister, that the House may have to go past 11.30 pm. We intend to organise ourselves in a way that accords generally with those time frames. However, it is illogical to suggest that a shadow minister or even member, but in particular a shadow spokesperson, could be half way through the questioning of a minister, and that questioning would be curtailed, that minister would leave and a new minister would front up next morning just because it was 11.30 pm. If that is the system that you are proposing, it simply is wrong. I would imagine - and I assume the Deputy Chief Minister will say this - that the questioning of a minister can continue the next day if questions have not been expended the night before. That is the first thing.
The second thing then is in the general time frame that questions have been allowed, you must fall on the first principle, and the first principle is that questions have to be expended. There is no use making reference to committees in Tasmania when that committee sits outside of parliament. You have devised an entirely new system. This is a time allowed for parliament of three days, you have confined the deliberations of this committee at its outset within that period, and you do not know whether or not that time frame will be acceptable or not.
I can give an undertaking from the opposition now, Deputy Chief Minister, that if the questions are not expended in a sufficient time frame, we are quite happy to sit in this House on the Friday, and it can be a four-day sitting of parliament. I do not believe that is the issue, whether or not this sitting of parliament is three days or four days; the issue is that the Labor government has to assure Territorians that when this budget is passed, all questions have been expended. I give the undertaking that we will discipline ourselves as far as possible. What I would require from the government is an undertaking that the opposition will be allowed the full breadth of time necessary, if necessary, to ask all of those questions. I would also say that the first preference has to be given to a shadow minister, and if shadow ministers are to question in line with other members of the committee and other members of parliament, certainly you cannot confine a shadow minister to a tight time frame such as the shadow minister is not able to get questions up because there are other members of parliament asking all sorts of questions either on their electorates or in a general sense so the shadow minister does not expend all his questions.
So it seems to me that on the first principle you must allow the shadow minister to expend all of the questions he or she wishes to ask. Second, you should allow time for any member of this parliament to ask questions. Third, it would be in the government’s own interest to ensure that their own questions from their own members to ministers would be of a lower priority than any opposition member and any Independent in this House.
On those principles, I would have thought that should be easy to accommodate, particularly, Deputy Chief Minister, as you say, this is the first time we are going to do this. If it is the first time we are going to do this, and if we are going to refine it, for God’s sake, why do you want to lock it in stone now and have a fight over it? I give you the undertaking that the opposition will do its best to make sure the process works as the government intends. What we require from the government is an accommodation that the opposition has every opportunity to ask any question it sees fit to ask of any minister.
In that context, I would imagine the government could proudly say to Territorians that not only have they an estimates process, but there was, when we walk back in the Chamber, not one more question that needed to be asked. Whilst you might knock the previous system, members who have been through this House at any budget period know that before that budget was passed, the last question that was asked by the Treasurer was: ‘Is there any other question from anyone before we move into passage of the legislation?’.
The second thing I raise - and I do not know if the Deputy Chief Minister will correct the information that I have had briefly - is that the Power and Water Corporation will be excluded from the estimates process. Again, I would say this: if it is the first year of you doing it, if you have nothing to hide, surely there is no question as to whether or not the Power and Water Corporation would be included in the budget estimates questioning process. It is a corporation that has come to life during this financial year. It is a corporation that has a shareholding minister who is responsible to Territorians, and it also has a minister responsible to ensure that the operational and management aspects of the corporation are conducted in a proper manner. It is owned by the government; it is owned by Territorians and for this first estimates review process, I would have thought there was no question that the Power and Water Corporation would be excluded from the Estimates Committee deliberations.
With those few comments, Madam Speaker, can I indicate that from the opposition’s point of view, we do not oppose these amendments. We certainly wish to propose our amendment in the spirit of which I have spoken to ensure that there are no constraints placed on any member of this House in terms of how they ask questions of ministers in that estimates process.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief in the sense that the Leader of the Opposition has given an indication that they will support these amendments that we are discussing at this stage of the debate.
I appreciate the tone and the context in which the Leader of the Opposition contributed to this debate, because he did bring common sense to it from the position of how he views it. I say to him in reply to his contribution to this debate: the government is not trying to be difficult here. We are not trying to give the opposition a hard time in closing down scrutiny, or less of a role for the opposition than they previously had in parliament as the Committee of the Whole.
However, I think there has been a failure by the opposition to acknowledge several significant enhancements here. We have heard throughout the debate of the ability of all members to ask questions of previous budgets in an unrestricted manner. Whilst that was true, much of it was a charade. We are introducing, formally, to the process the chief executive officer of the agency. We are introducing with the chief executive officer the finance person or the budgets person from that agency. These are the people who are there to provide the level of detail and mechanical complexity in response to a question from any member, that we previously did not have. The answer we used to get when we sat in here as the Committee of the Whole was: ‘You cannot expect me to know that level of detail. You cannot expect me to have all that information at my fingertips’ despite the fact that they had had the question in writing for a week, and sometimes 10 days or two weeks in advance. That was the answer we were given. Alternatively, we were given responses on occasions - some ministers were more cooperative than others – ‘That is not an appropriation question. I am not going to give you an answer’.
We are enhancing the process by bringing formally to the process of the Estimates Committee the chief executive officer and the finance officer so that in the event that a minister does not know the detail, they can ask. There is still a protocol here and the member would ask the question through the Chairman of the minister, and the minister may in fact defer to one of the officers there if they were not across the detail sufficient to provide a proper answer.
No mention and no acknowledgement of the sound and vision broadcast of the estimates process. Again, transparency, accountability. I do not imagine that the TV channels are going to be here very long. However, I imagine radio will be in and around the process, as they were in Committee of the Whole, but again an enhancement of the process, further enhancing the scrutiny of the whole process. Not even begrudging acknowledgement from the opposition, simply no acknowledgement. No acknowledgement of how far this government has gone in setting up a process albeit for the first time; but simply complaint on complaint.
If we go to clause 8 on the proposed sessional order, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was saying:
- Members of the Assembly may participate in the meetings of the committee and have the right
to receive documentation provided to the committee, to attend the committee’s hearings and
participate in its deliberations.
Then he wants another point: ‘Other members may participate …’. It says ‘members of the Assembly’. ‘Members of the Assembly’ means members of the Assembly. We simply do not need another paragraph (a) or another (b) saying ‘other members’. What other members? There are members of the Assembly; they are the 25 elected members and they may participate in the meetings of the committee. We are not going anywhere with that suggestion; it is simply not necessary.
A legitimate question in relation to the review of the process, given that this is in one sense a trial run and we are prepared, obviously, to go back and amend and look and review the process, I thought it had been locked in to the motion before us. It appears not. I give an absolute commitment that I will move a motion in here with a reference to the PAC or the Estimates Committee to review the whole process. It is an understanding that the committee itself has, that it will review the process and report back to parliament at a later date. So I have no problem, and if it is felt necessary to put it in the form of the motion passed today, feel free, but I give an unequivocal commitment that that will occur.
Just how cute do you get? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests they lose a Question Time; they lose one hour of question time. They pick up in this process 32 hours of question time, 32 hours of question time for that week, and he wants to complain about the loss of one hour of Question Time out of the process of parliament. That is absurd.
If we look at the first day, 11 am to 11.30 pm. That is 12.5 hours. If you take an hour lunch and an hour dinner, that gives you 10.5 hours. On Wednesday, 9 am to 11.30 pm, 14.5 hours. Take the hour for lunch and dinner, 12.5 hours left. On the Thursday, 9 am to 7 pm, that is 10 hours. You only need the lunch time break, because nobody else is going to get dinner in here; why should the committee? That is 9 hours. That gives you 32 hours. The average in the last 10 years with nine ministers, albeit this is pretty much the same global budget, was around 30 hours. Now we are giving you 32 hours. I simply don’t know how much more time you would want.
Ms Carter: How much of it will be taken up by Labor MLAs?
Mr STIRLING: Well, it is not my fault that you mob were too lazy to ever ask a question off your backbench when you were in government! Never once did your mob ever get up and ask a question! The member for Wanguri smiles because he well remembers. He well remembers …
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: I asked questions. Others asked questions. That is rot. That is rubbish. That is not true.
Mr Dunham: That’s a lie Syd, that’s a lie.
Mr STIRLING: Well, tell me, did you ever get up and ask them? You would be about the only one. But you are new. I know because I have a memory that goes back 12 years, not just 12 months.
Mr Mills: I certainly did. You check Hansard.
Mr Dunham: You’re lying, mate.
Mr Mills: I’ll show you Hansard.
Mr STIRLING: I take my hat off to the member for Blain! He asked a question, and I was not here to hear it, I am very sorry.
Mr Mills: Well, you said no-one asked a question.
Mr STIRLING: But he is one of the few, he is one of the few.
I welcome any members of government getting in there and asking questions about their electorate or what we are doing in schools and education, and I hope they do, because it is their job.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale called the Leader of Government Business a liar. I ask that he withdraw that comment. Many times.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t want to debate this. If you called the Leader of Government Business that, then you should withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I mentioned that one of his untrue comments was a lie, Madam Speaker.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. That is not what he said. He called him a liar, straight up.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am afraid I did not hear it at the time. If you did, you should withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw it …
Madam SPEAKER: You know the rules. Do not argue. You know the rules.
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to stop there, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I did!
Madam SPEAKER: I was distracted at the time.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the cooperation in large measure from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as we have advanced this through. The government has given considerable ground. But there is always another ask and it is a bit like being across the negotiating table where, you know, how far is far enough or how far is too far because it seemed that no matter what I was prepared and the government may have been prepared to give ground on, it simply seemed to be in the end, to me, a process that demanded to start at a certain time but you did not stop. You simply did not stop. It was there to roll on regardless and eat up the hours.
Mr Dunham: You kept changing the rules.
Mr STIRLING: We did not keep changing the rules.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about government owned corporations.
Mr STIRLING: We reviewed what was being put to us by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, take it back, discuss it with my colleagues and back with an answer. But it just seemed to me that it didn’t matter how far I was prepared to make concessions and give it a break and get the support of my colleagues because there was always another ask.
We arrive at this situation of no members constrained by time in asking questions. Well, the Committee of the Whole in here had five minutes, always has had five minutes as your limit in asking a question. Now, how much longer would you need than five minutes to ask a question? In any case, there is no time limit on asking the questions. It just says:
- Questions and explanations should be brief, avoid irrelevance and tedious repetition.
That probably well gets us there. The Chairman of the Estimates Committee who has to chair this through should probably bear in mind that the former Standing Order in relation to that was five minutes. I thought that was ample.
Mr Reed: But repetitive, five minutes repeating.
Mr STIRLING: You had five minutes. The person asking the question gets five minutes to background their question, put it into context and ask the question. That’s what was under the Committee of the Whole in here.
Mr Reed: Repeating, though. Not just one five minutes.
Mr STIRLING: Of course not. Five minutes per question. Your amendment here is saying no member is constrained by time limits in asking questions. I mean…
Mr Reed: Okay.
Mr STIRLING: You know, the order as it stands, and I support this, says:
- Questions and explanations should be brief and avoid irrelevance and tedious repetition.
We haven’t even put a five minute limit on it which I think is generous. But that is what we are asking be supported.
In relation to meal breaks - and I had initially a view to support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this because as it stands, it reads:
- The committee may suspend from time to time …
The Deputy Leader was always suspicious of such things and it might be a bit open ended and why don’t we say: ‘One hour for lunch and one hour for dinner’. I put that very question to the Chairman. He is a bit quicker than both of us - unless I was being conned, and I don’t put that past the member for Katherine – and his response was: ‘Why should the committee be restrained it wanted to move on? Why should it have to stop for an hour in the event that they were nearly complete, nearly through questions and didn’t want to stop for a break for dinner? They may well go on’.
But if you put it in to the Orders – ‘Stop! Sorry! The committee has to break for an hour, go off to dinner and come back and finish’ and then everyone is that much disadvantaged. I am happy to see it that the committee may suspend from time to time. I don’t believe that the member for Johnston is the sort of Chairman who is going to want to breaking the committee every 15 minutes. He has a view that that will cover the meal breaks and I am of a mind just to leave it there. He is of a view not to constrain the committee any more than it is.
The member for Nelson talked about times in relation to clause 17. I went through those times and I think 32 hours is pretty generous. In relation to the report back on the Thursday evening - and you can only have an estimate on these things - five hours would seem to be pretty generous in allowing members to speak to the committee’s report when they come back and then pass the Appropriation Bill and then pass those other bills associated with the budget.
The question of sitting outside parliamentary sitting times is a bit obscure. The three days in September is set for the Appropriation debate. You are going to have three days for the Appropriation debate, whether it is in the Committee of the Whole or whether, in this case, it is going to be the Estimates Committee. Now all members, by virtue of the fact that they are going to need to be here on the Tuesday morning when parliament convenes, but most members, I would think - and I am certain the member for Nelson is going to be there because he asked questions before he was in government, so he is going to want to be there asking questions.
All members are going to be in and around parliament because it was always going to be the three days for Appropriation, so I am not convinced that it needs to sit outside parliamentary sitting times. If there is a need ever for extra sitting days in the sitting year, the opposition can propose it and government can consider it. If the government had a view that we needed more sitting days, we would simply work with the opposition to decide when was the best time to do it. We are not of a view that extra sitting times are required. This three days is appropriation whether it is the Committee of the Whole or whether it is the Estimates Committee.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to go on for long because I am aware that there are other amendments to come before parliament in relation to this. I thank the opposition for their support on these couple of amendments. They are proposed on behalf of the opposition in any case, so of course they are a bit bound to support them, but nonetheless I thank them for their support.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, one amendment has been circulated and there is another one. I don’t know if the second one has been circulated yet. I have not had time to have them both typed up on the same page, so I seek leave, Madam Speaker, that the two amendments be treated as one in the interests of not coming back for the second one and lengthening the debate.
Leave granted.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, I move that:-
(1) the following words be added to the motion –
- And not withstanding anything contained in the resolution, no member is constrained by the limits
in asking questions of ministers appearing before Estimates Committee prior to the delivery of the
committee’s report to the Assembly;
(2) New section 17A be inserted as follows:
17A Notwithstanding paragraphs 16 and 17, no member shall be constrained by time limits in asking
questions of ministers in the Estimates Committee prior to the delivery of the committee’s report to the
Assembly.
Further, Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment:
- Add at the end of proposed clause 21 the words:–
… for all government departments, agencies and government owned corporations through the
appropriate responsible Minister or ministers.
It is very important that we consider both of these issues. We have demonstrated in relation to the time constraints that the Estimates Committee will face, that it may well limit the ability of members of this House to scrutinise the budget. That is a very serious constraint in terms of a Westminster parliament and democracy and it would be a retrograde step in terms of the process that currently is in place. That is, if you like, the old Estimates Committee process whereby the only reason a minister stopped being questioned is because no member in the House had further questions to ask, and all questions of that minister were exhausted.
That, we believe, is an appropriate process. It is one that enables full and total scrutiny of a minister and his or her responsibilities, and one that we think entirely appropriate. It is indeed the indication that all members were given when in May the House was told that we were to move to an Estimates Committee through the PAC and the model of Tasmania was then spoken of, as I said earlier in the debates. Five PAC members travelled off to Tasmania to have a look at what the process was there, and there was debate in the House in relation to a day per minister. We are not suggesting that that extent should be reached, but we are suggesting that there should be no potential for constraint on debate and a limitation of questions asked of ministers in the areas for which they are responsible. That would be a definite retrograde step and one that I believe we would regret.
In adding those words, we have been careful to ensure that if this amendment is adopted, it does not insist that the PAC as an Estimates Committee sits another day. It simply provides a mechanism whereby if questions remain unasked at the expiration of the time to be allotted as advised by the minister, the subject of the former motion, then there would be the capacity for the committee to sit for an extended time in to the following day, in this case the Friday, and carry the business over.
I don’t know if it would be unlikely, but it would not necessarily flow. In the interests of a full and total debate and scrutiny of the budget, arguably the most important debate of this House in a given year, it is important that there are no constraints and that at the end of the day, the ability for members to question ministers is exhausted rather than being limited by an arbitrary time set by this House - as we appear to be going down the path - simply because of historical timings and striking an average.
Striking an average is not appropriate. We argue strongly against that and ask the minister - although he has indicated that he is not supportive of the proposal - to reconsider it. We are not demanding that the committee sit an extra day; we are simply asking that it has the ability to do so in the event that it is required. It is not going to result in any great additional cost. We are all going to be here so assembled in Parliament House for the very purpose of the activities that we will be pursuing that week, and it will simply mean a bit more work.
In a previous debate, the member for Johnston indicated that we were lazy and would not do the work. If you are lazy, you want to get out of the place as soon as possible; you do not ask for more time to do more work. It is a simple contradiction in terms to suggest that was the basis for us moving in this way. The reason that we are moving this motion is that we are hard-working, we are intending to fully scrutinise the budget and ensure that, on behalf of Territorians, all of the members of this House have a full opportunity to be able to, as they see fit, scrutinise the budget and ask questions of ministers as are considered appropriate by the relevant members either for purposes of purely electorate interest or because of the broader good of the Northern Territory and the need to pursue the issues that arise at the time.
I cannot understand what is unreasonable about that. That is what we are here for. We have a responsibility to those people who have elected us individually, as members, and collectively, as a parliament. To cut that process short and not to allow for a full, open debate is a very severe step backwards and one that I believe, if it is put in place, the government will regret - particularly on the basis that it has been arguing for his process of an Estimates Committee for many years. It has the opportunity to put one in place now that will be effective.
At the same time, though, they are going to hobble it, put constraints upon it, that will not enable the debate and the questioning to proceed to the extent that it did in the past under a system that they consider to be unsatisfactory. Well, if that system was unsatisfactory and it is going to be reduced in time in terms of the ability for members to scrutinise ministers, then, what are they afraid of and why are they keeping from Territorians the potential for their budget to be fully scrutinised?
I move to the second part of the amendment, and that is the inclusion of
- …all government departments, agencies and government owned corporations through the
appropriate responsible Minister or ministers.
This has only come to the fore at this late hour simply because of fortuitous advice that was provided by the opposition spokesman for PowerWater. That was contradictory to advice that he received last week in a briefing that the head of the corporation was almost looking forward - certainly was intending to be present at the Estimates Committee hearing - to be open and frank in relation to answering questions asked of him in relation to the operations of the corporation for which he is responsible.
Today, at the death knell - and sadly, that has been the colour of this debate - we were advised otherwise; that in fact the Power and Water Corporation will not be subject to scrutiny except for those areas where it might receive a CSO from government or some other form of funding or perhaps, say, in relation to dividends and the like. Well, that is not good enough. Regularly in this Chamber, members ask questions of the responsible minister in relation to power and water services and electricity supply in particular, and here we see a constraint on members’ ability to do so of arguably one of the most important service agencies owned by this government.
The former government took the attitude that if it was owned by government and there was a responsible minister, then the responsible minister in the Appropriation debate had to answer questions in relation to it. It is illogical to assume otherwise - and quite wrong in terms of providing advice to members of parliament and in turn disseminating that advice to concerned citizens. The Leader of Government Business, in his closing remarks to the amendments that he put, told us that he is getting a little bit tired of this debate because there is always another ask. Well, how can you avoid always another ask when issues like this emerge in the course of a debate?
It is quite ludicrous to find, as this debate is well advanced, that we are advised not by the government, not by the minister, not by the Leader of Government Business who has been leading this debate and this matter on behalf of the government, but by accident from a contact through one of our members that in fact the Power and Water Corporation is going to be excluded from the debate.
There can but be yet another ask under those circumstances and it is symptomatic of the way that this whole issue has been handled. I went through it earlier in terms of the debate in May, the trapezing off to Tasmania by five members and we were going to have a report back from them which was going to be fully debated in relation to the formation of this Estimates Committee, and that those discussions then would be melded into the eventual colour and structure of an Estimates Committee that we will be using next month.
None of that happened, and it is no surprise that there is always another ask because from our point of view, there is always another issue emerging just at the very last minute. It was fortuitous that this arose an hour ago rather than in another hour when the debate will be finished. So if that is the way the government is going to conduct its business, and if it is going to by concealing information from members, I doubt very much if the member for Nelson was aware that he would not be able to ask questions of the responsible minister for the Power and Water Corporation as to the circumstances that he, too, would be facing as regards to that matter.
It is unfortunate that we have to keep coming up with another issue and another ask, but don’t blame the opposition for that. Look at the way the government has handled this matter and only fed out that information that they thought might be able to be snuck through, that they might be able to get agreement on. In fact, you could accuse the government of deliberately withholding the fact, for example, that government owned corporations would not be the subject of the Appropriation debate in the PAC estimates forum because of the way that it is has become known to us.
It ill behoves the Leader of Government Business to criticise us for always coming up with another ask when it appears that the government has not been fully open and frank with us in terms of just what the scope of this committee is, and it is a shame that the debate has degenerated to this extent because, as I alluded to earlier, the ability to talk to the Leader of Government Business about this important matter has been available and has been quite productive, but it is rather unfortunate that in getting to this stage of the debate, this very advanced stage, we keep uncovering new and emerging issues. That is hardly the way to set up something as important as an Estimates Committee.
I do not know what access the member for Nelson or yourself as Independent members of this House have had to the Leader of Government Business in relation to debating these matters to ensure that Independents are fully availed of opportunities to scrutinise the budget, Madam Speaker. That is just as an important issue as it is for members of the opposition political party, the CLP. It is the cornerstone of a democratic Westminster system of parliament …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: There you go, Madam Speaker. Perhaps that is an indication of the seriousness and the commitment that members opposite have to the conduct of this House, and perhaps it also reveals their real intentions as they set out in May to embark on this process, that they weren’t in fact going to be open, honest and accountable in relation to this Estimates Committee process because the response that we have just heard in relation to that cornerstone of the democratic processes of this parliament and others of its ilk does cause a bit of worry.
That is a great shame. It is something that those members who responded in that way should give a little bit of thought to. Are they committed to this place? Are they committed to making this parliament work in a very effective and appropriate way that will best serve Territorians, or are they rather committed to a process that will just protect their ministers from full and open scrutiny in relation to the Estimates Committee and the ability of all members, be they members of the CLP, Independents or indeed backbenchers on the government benches to be able to find out finer detail of the budget and to be able to report that back to their electorates and constituents?
The minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development can look tired, tedious and roll his eyes to the ceiling and again reconfirm the lack of commitment to which I earlier referred in relation to the government’s intentions as regards this matter, but we do take it as serious. We propose these motions with the intent of making the Estimates Committee work, making it an effective process that will serve Territorians, enable all members of this House to effectively scrutinise the budget and to ask ministers who are responsible for enormous sums of government expenditure to answer questions which Territorians will want to have answered. If they think that is unreasonable, it is a sad day in this parliament. From that point of view, we, too, in turn, would be saddened by such an outcome.
I do, with all sincerity, commend to all members of the House the two amendments I proposed in relation to no time limits in asking questions of ministers. It does not make a commitment to having extra time, but it does provide a mechanism for the Chairman of the PAC to rollover into another day of hearings in the event that questions of ministers are not exhausted, and - just to complete my remarks in relation to government departments, agencies and government owned corporations - will ensure that all expenditure and activities of government and those corporations for which the government is responsible are fully scrutinised on behalf of all Territorians.
In closing, I remind the government that whilst it is are the shareholder of government owned corporations, it holds those shares on behalf of Territorians. Territorians will want to know and be comfortable with the fact that their shares are in safe hands and that the operations of that company are fully scrutinised and that they can be provided in the end with full and detailed information in relation to that company. I do not think we should have a target lesser from that as responsible members of this House.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I do not have the detailed amendment with me, but I would like to place my comments against the amendment in regard to time constraints.
The hypocrisy from the member for Katherine is absolutely staggering - it is amazing, the new vocabulary he has acquired since he assumed his role on the opposition benches - talking about parliamentary democracy, retrograde steps, taking the process seriously, integrity, sincerity. Mr Sincerity himself, the member for Katherine. I think not, Madam Speaker. I think not.
The hypocrisy we have from members opposite in running the line …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What the minister thinks of me has nothing to do with this debate.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: The debate, as you indicated to the minister, should be focussing on the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: I do remind the minister, you are speaking to the amendments. Make your comments relevant.
Mr HENDERSON: I will make my comments relevant in exactly the same way that the member for Katherine did, and I will pick up some of his points, Madam Speaker.
If we look at the framework that we are putting in place here in terms of the Estimates Committee, we have members opposite who had 27 years to introduce a level of parliamentary scrutiny of the budget that has been widely adopted in Westminster parliaments around the world, and certainly around Australia, for many, many years, flatly refuse to introduce such a level of accountability and then have the temerity to come in here and talk about sincerity, about how this new measure should be implemented.
They have no credibility on this issue. On the issue about the time constraints, and the hours and hours that we debated in here in the previous session of the Committee of the Whole, I have participated in two budget debates in opposition and I can remember time and again having to seek information from ministers and questions that on occasions were not answered; they were deemed not to be relevant and there was nowhere to go, or ‘We will get that information back to you. I don’t have it here at the moment. It is detailed information,’ and a commitment to get that information back to us. Of course, unless we chased it down tooth and nail it never did come back to us.
Mr Dunham: I am not sure that is true.
Mr HENDERSON: No. There was never any system in place, and I pick up the member for Drysdale’s comments about it wasn’t true.
I remember an issue exactly pertaining to this particular point where I put a question in under the previous system regarding the details of the $65m of grants to non-government organisations that had been provided in the health area of the budget for many years. This was $65m of public money that was never accounted for in annual reports, never a break down in annual reports as to where that money was going. In the Treasurer’s financial statements, never recorded. I put this question in writing under this previous open, transparent and accountable, best practice system that we used to have in this House, and the minister of the day had a couple of weeks or three weeks to provide me with a full list and details off the floor of the House and it wasn’t there. Wasn’t there. We will get back to you. I wrote a couple of questions.
It took me nearly 12 months to finally receive the information that I had asked for in the previous open, transparent and accountable system that we supposedly had in this place, Madam Speaker. We will provide that level of information back to honourable members opposite that was never provided to us if they thought there was a political motive behind the question. Of course, if you couldn’t be open, transparent and accountable with $65m, I don’t know what you could be!
It all comes down to the desire and the whole culture of government in terms of openness, transparency and accountability. We have introduced the fiscal integrity and transparency legislation. Freedom of information has been put into this place as well as an Estimates Committee where we will have detailed information available to members opposite through the Chief Executive Officers and chief financial officers of departments. The level of accountability of ministers will certainly be improved if members opposite do their homework.
When we talk about not having the time to do the work and there is all this wonderful scrutiny of the government required, there are many other avenues for members opposite to seek information from government. Of course, we have Question Time, an hour every parliamentary sitting day, but we also have Written Questions to ministers. Again, this is an avenue where the opposition can elicit information. We have been in government for some 12 months. We have had five questions. Five questions from members opposite – there is so much detail they want to go through line by line.
We have had a mini-budget since then, and lots of comments about there was no Estimates Committee for the mini-budget. But if there was all of this information that the opposition needed to keep the government honest and ask questions on behalf of Territorians and constituents, where have they been? Five Written Questions from this really hard-working opposition in 12 months. If we talk about the track record, again, of openness, accountability, transparency, the member for Katherine in his remarks talked about this process actually being ‘a retrograde step’ were his words and against Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Let me talk about the adherence to the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy by the previous government for the opposition searching for information. Members opposite …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a great deal of history we could all embark on here. We are talking specifically to a motion to construct something in the future, and these little excursions into the past are something I am sure I will be precluded from doing also.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: I am quite sure that there has been a lot of wandering around the mulberry bush in these speeches this afternoon. We have allowed a certain amount of leniency, but I will remind the minister to address the amendments.
Mr HENDERSON: I will address the amendments in context of the member for Katherine talking about the wonderful structures of democracy that existed previously, and that this initiative from government is actually a retrograde step based on what we had in the past under previous governments. I am talking about oppositions trying to elicit information from the government.
The previous government actually holds the world record - and I do not think it is widely known by Territorians - by having on the Notice Paper the longest running unanswered question in any House of Westminster parliament in Westminster history, these being questions placed by the former member for Wanguri on the Notice Paper back in 1994, and when he finally resigned from parliament in 1999 - three terms - they had not answered by the particular process in place. It was not anything earth shattering; it was about a press release that was issued by the previous Minister for Conservation that directly quoted the member at the time. All he asked in the question was:
- Was the minister aware the press release had been issued and was the quote referred to in the
question fabricated? If so, was the minister directly responsible for the fabrication?
Three terms that sat on the Question Paper, a Westminster record. Again, the commitment and the rhetoric that those members opposite use is far removed from the facts as to how they used to run the place. There were many, many other questions that sat on the Question Paper for year after year; a blanket refusal from ministers opposite to answer those questions - an absolute embarrassment that they held the world record in terms of refusing to answer questions. Well, we will not behave like that. We take the process very seriously and with sincerity, and will be answering the questions that are put to us to the absolute best of our information.
Again, picking up from the comments from the member for Katherine that we would be a government that, with this process, would conceal information. I do not know how he looks at himself in the mirror in the mornings. If we want to talk about concealing information, we only have to go back to the last budget that he handed down as Treasurer where he had placed in the Budget Papers that we would …
Mr DUNHAM: I seek you ruling, Madam Speaker. Is this relevant? Because I shall go there, too, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I don’t want a ruling against me, Madam Speaker, if it is acceptable for him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I think I have already ruled leniency in this debate and I again urge the minister to confine his remarks to the amendments. You know as well as I that there have been remarks in this debate this afternoon that have been well away from the point. I would suggest to the member for Drysdale that he not interrupt anymore. Let’s get on with it.
Mr HENDERSON: I am close to concluding my remarks, Madam Speaker, but I am just putting in context the absolute hypocrisy of members opposite when they talk about a government of 12 months in trying to design a process to conceal information and to be less than open and accountable and transparent which is what we took to the people. They really do not have any credibility in running those arguments when the last budget paper they handed down predicted a deficit of $14m and eight weeks later when we came to government, that had blown out to $107m and even further.
If we actually go just to the heart of the deception and their failure to commit to transparency and accountability, the Public Accounts Committee Report into the Inquiry of the Accuracy of the Budget Data Published in the 2001-02 Budget, and I remind honourable members this is a document that has been tabled and debated in this House, page 218. Again, this goes to the heart of the budget process and how the system that we will be putting in place will be much more open, accountable and transparent than the great model that was held up and is still being held up by members opposite that we inherited.
I go to Mr Chairman in a question to the then Under Treasurer, Mr Clarke. I quote from the Chairman:
- In that [Mr Clarke’s written submission] you detail a conversation that you had with the Treasurer,
Mr Reed. It occurred at the height of the budget finalisation process. And basically, just paraphrasing
what Mr Reed has or what you have written there - in your written submission, you said that in May 2001
Mr Reed as Treasurer became concerned about the lack of growth in the 2001-02 budget numbers for
Health, Education and Police. Is that correct?
- Mr Clarke: Lack of growth. He was concerned about the comparison between one year and the next.
Yes, I guess that’s correct.
The Chairman says:
- Yes. And then subsequent of that meeting, and at Mr Reed’s direction, ultimately at his direction,
the estimated expenditures for the 2000-01 year for Health, Education and Police that were
originally sort of circulated in May or March were reduced so that that growth could be apparent.
Mr Clarke: So that growth could be apparent? I suppose that’s technically correct, yes.
Mr Chairman: So I guess at the bottom of it my question is: without Mr Reed’s intervention, would
those budget estimate figures gone forward into the budget papers unchanged?
- Mr Clarke: Yes, they would have.
So this is the wonderful open and transparent process that we had opposite. The budget papers that were brought into this parliament and that we then went through the Appropriation debate, those were the figures that we were debating, and that was the bill that was passed on behalf of Territorians. At the end of the day, the evidence provided by the Under Treasurer is absolutely categorical that without Mr Reed’s intervention, those budget estimate figures would have gone forward into the budget papers unchanged. They were changed.
So, Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of members opposite to state that what we are putting in place here, which is a part of a suite of legislative reforms to provide a more transparent and accountable process for Territorians, fiscal integrity and transparency legislation, FOI and estimates is somehow a ‘retrograde’ step from what we inherited really does beggar belief.
The process that we have put in place will be a robust process. It will be reviewed at the end of this period and it will be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. Members opposite have absolutely no credibility in the lines that they are trying to run and Territorians certainly do not believe them.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make some comments in relation to the amendments that now lay on the Table. I listened to the member opposite with great care. He spent a great deal of time dwelling on the former CLP government and its processes. I am somewhat taken aback by this because I draw the honourable members’ attention to this document, the position paper of Good Government which now elicits groans from the members opposite. This is a promise. It has nothing to do with the CLP. The Labor Party can point at the members opposite and they can say ‘These people opposite have done nothing, yada, yada, yada’ and so it goes. But this document has nothing to do with the CLP. This document is the promise that Territorians signed up to prior to or during the last election.
Mr Ah Kit: They sure did. That is why you are sitting on that side and we are on this side. It is good you can talk; you wouldn’t respond to my report this morning.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the honourable Minister for Community Development. This is what they signed up to. The fact of the matter is that what this document contains is a promise, and basically, the thrust of this document is quite simple: when you have a unicameral system of parliament and you have an absolute majority, you need checks and balances in place and those are the principles of good governance. This is the criticism we have of the former government. This is the criticism that they make in here.
Isn’t it interesting, now that they are in government, that they start to walk away from this document in many, many ways. This is a contract that this lot over here have with the people of the Northern Territory, and that contract deals with an estimates process. The estimates process that they outline in here is substantially different from the processes that they are bringing before this Chamber now. So they stand, essentially, in breach of their contract with the people of the Northern Territory.
Dr Burns: Demonstrate it! Demonstrate it.
Mr ELFERINK: The document reads:
- An Estimates Committee would allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of
budget accountability.
That is a quote. I find it curious that a more meaningful and thorough process would actually have less time on the books than we would have allowed under the former process. So tell me this: how is it possible that this new process is more thorough when there is a time limit attached to the proposals? When the ministers used to stand up in this Chamber under the former system, it was: ‘Does anybody have a question to ask? Going, going, going, gone!’. It was a totally exhaustive system, and that ability to exhaust the questioning process dries up under the proposals before this Chamber now.
This contract with the people of the Northern Territory that this government has is one that must be honoured. It has nothing to do with me. All I am doing is reminding the members opposite of the contract that they have with the people of the Northern Territory. If they believe that this process is in some way more meaningful, thorough and orderly when in actual fact it takes away sitting days from people in the Northern Territory, when it is less thorough because it imposes restrictions that never used to exist, removes the debate from this Chamber, I am curious to know in what way will this process be more meaningful, thorough, or orderly?
The Estimates Committee is the promise that they made to the people of the Northern Territory, but at the end of the day, it is only going to be a name. I find that a particularly sad way to breach a contract, by simply saying we will have given you a committee, but they are walking away from the processes that they had in mind and the processes they had in mind were the processes that they outlined in this document.
I heard the member for Wanguri speak about other improvements that this government is bringing, but frankly they are vastly different from what they said they would bring forward across the board prior to the last election. This government has breached its responsibilities in maintaining its contract with people.
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear that the member for Karama say ‘wrong’. Where, I am curious to know, are the quarterly reports of ministerial expenditure that were promised in this document? Four quarters have passed since this mob over here came into government on the strength of this promise and I am curious to know whether or not the PAC has received those quarterly reports. This is the point: they held themselves up to be the saviours of the Northern Territory, they would walk across swimming pools to demonstrate how holy they were. Yet now what we see is the reality of Realpolitik coming in to this augment. We promised an Estimates Committee, and I don’t doubt that we will end up with an Estimates Committee. But it is not a committee in any way which reflects the form and shape that they had in mind when they put this contract together for the people of the Northern Territory.
That is demonstrated by a simple act, and that act is allowing members of this Chamber to travel to Tasmania, to come back with a model, bring that model into the Chamber for debate, leave that model sitting on the Table of this Chamber as item four on the Notice Paper where it still stands today, and then introduce an Estimates Committee of their liking and their manufacture when this Chamber has not debated or ruled upon or accepted or in any way dealt with the report from the members who travelled to Tasmania.
So they have come back with a model. That model has now been essentially abandoned because this government doesn’t like the openness that that model brings with it because it might bring them under scrutiny. A demonstration of this, and a demonstration of the government’s goodwill, would be for them to accept the amendment from the member for Katherine in relation to clause 21. The amendment is:
- for all government departments, agencies and government owned corporation through the
appropriate responsible minister or ministers.
That is a very important amendment because the Chief Minister came in to this Chamber the other day and uttered the word she swore she would never utter in government, and that was the word ‘confidential’.
I find it curious that she should, of all people, in answer to a question, say something is confidential when she swore that it wouldn’t be so. There was no such thing - the criticism that used to be levelled at the former government in relation to the use of that word, and the astonishing thing is not a few hours later, she answers the question. The question related to a government owned corporation. This is of grave concern to me because she still hasn’t explained to this House whether she misled the House on that occasion or whether she was simply mistaken in her answer. However, the fact of the matter is that she came in and used the word that would never have passed her lips.
I am gravely concerned that this contract that the people of the Northern Territory voted for has been breached. This government has to understand that the people of the Northern Territory had expectations. What they are being offered at the moment is window dressing. I hope the Chief Minister thinks about this. I hope the Chief Minister bothers to treat this House with the respect it deserves and explain why she said something was confidential when the cameras and microphones were on, and then simply change her tune a couple of hours later because it suited her. It is of grave concern to me that the process that they promised to introduce has been watered down to the point where it means less than the former process.
Surely, if you say that you are going to introduce a more effective system, you are setting a benchmark and the benchmark is that we have a system and we are going to improve upon it. I have no evidence before me on this occasion to demonstrate that there is any improvement in the system other than the fact that CEOs or members of the public service may be questioned, but the trade off has been time limits.
The trade off has been time limits. The other trade off is that, by quarantining government corporations from this process, means that we will be able to elicit less information, not more. Consequently, this process is not thorough. It is less thorough. It is less transparent and therefore does not even reach the benchmark that the former government used to set, and it certainly hasn’t reached the benchmark that the new government set for itself while still in opposition.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to speak against the motion and I will be very brief. I find it very curious - I do not want to say hypocritical, but very curious - that the opposition now is actually demanding that government owned corporations are examined through the Estimates Committee.
I am a new parliamentarian. I have never been in opposition before. However, from what I have read and learned and heard, TIO was never examined. Also, Darnor and Gas Co, power subsidiaries, were never assessed or examined - quite rightly so; they are private companies. PowerWater is a government owned corporation. It has been established under legislation that was proposed by the now opposition, then government. The budget of PowerWater is not part of the Appropriation Bill. Other government owned corporations that do not receive money from the Central Holding Authority, fund their activities from their own charges.
The other thing, of course, is that PowerWater will receive Community Service Obligations. PowerWater is going to be paid by the different departments. This is exactly what we can examine in Estimates Committees. Nobody is hiding anything; nobody is shielding a government owned corporation from the Estimates Committee. But …
Mr Dunham: You are. Your comments now seem to suggest you are not supporting it.
Mr VATSKALIS: No. What we cannot do is ask a corporation we have asked to operate as a business to come to the Estimates Committee and put their budget on the table for everyone to see. The argument is: how are we going to know what is happening there? What you want to know is what the government is doing. How much money is going to PowerWater or any other government owned corporation from the different department budgets to finance certain obligations. You can check that. You can ask the different departments: ‘Where are your Community Service Obligations going, how much it is, how they are spent, why they are spent?’ Nobody denies you that right. You have the right, and this obligation as an opposition to assess it.
About secrecy, about a shield of secrecy, a cover of secrecy - it is nothing. That is not true. It simply is not true. You have the right and the obligation to question any department about the money that is actually going to be spent; money that is going to be forwarded to PowerWater or any other government corporation. This money is included in the budget papers for every individual department. So, here they are in the book; they are obvious. You can look at them; you can examine the department - the minister, the CEO, the bureaucrats - about what is happening and where this money goes.
As for the activities of the Power and Water Corporation, nothing stops you questioning - every single day at Question Time - the responsible minister about the activities of PowerWater. You have done it before. You asked about blackouts, you asked about different aspects, and you can do it again. Nobody stops you. This is a public forum and is being transmitted throughout the Territory, and every Territorian would know about what you are asking about PowerWater.
The budget for the Power and Water Corporation has already been agreed between the board of the corporation and the shareholding minister in the Statement of Corporate Intent, and that was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 15 August, and debate has been adjourned on this matter. However, I believe also you had a copy of the Statement of Corporate Intent. You had a look at it and everything is clearly stated there for PowerWater.
Mr Dunham: Don’t make that assumption.
Mr VATSKALIS: When was the last time that TIO was examined? When was the last time that we gave information about TIO? When was the last time somebody had any information about the Northern Territory Land Corporation?
A member: Never.
Mr VATSKALIS: From what I know – never. Now you come in here in an effort to become a born again democrat, discover Westminster democracy - he discovered the unions; he discovered Aboriginal people …
Mr Stirling: Single mums.
Mr VATSKALIS: Single mums. The next thing, the next one is ethnics. I suppose you know that within a Westminster system, you do not tap telephones of public servants.
The reality is we do not stop you; we do not try to prevent you to ...
Mr Dunham: Well, support the motion then.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will not support the motion for the simple reason …
Mr Dunham: So you are trying to stop us. You can’t have it both ways, Kon. Support the motion.
A member: Not in the bill!
Mr VATSKALIS: Exactly. How can I support the motion when the budget of the Power and Water Corporation is not recorded in the budget books? It is not in the bill. It is not in the Appropriation Bill. The same way that TIO is not there. The same way that the power subsidiaries budget is not there. Nobody asked about TIO coming to the Estimates Committee. Nobody has asked yet for Darnor and Gas Co to come to the Estimates Committee. Why ask for the Power and Water Corporation? They should not come to the Estimates Committee but at the same time, nothing stops you questioning the departments about their Community Service Obligations for work to PowerWater. Nothing stops you. We encourage you. It is your right, your obligation and if you are a good opposition, you will do exactly that.
I will not support this motion for the simple reason you cannot support a motion to put something on the Table and examine it when the budget is not included in the Appropriation Bill; it is not in the budget document.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to talk about dogs on the beach and grants in aid programs of previous years and all that stuff because I shall get an opportunity when the full motion is debated.
I shall restrict my comments only to the amendments that are before us. Enough has been said about matters relating to time. Suffice to say that if there is a diminution of the time that is available to members on the basis of history and previous years, that is a retrograde step. I do not care how they want to measure it, but if there is some capacity to gag the interrogation and questioning from this side of parliament, that is a diminution.
I shall move most of my to comments to the amendment to clause 21 which it would appear from the comments from the operational minister is not supported by government. This is a great pity. If the government is saying to us that some $350m+ tax payer dollars that go to the Power and Water Corporation are not available for the scrutiny of this parliament, I have a big problem.
We are talking about over a third of a billion dollars that the operational minister is saying is barleys. This hollow log cannot be looked into. We have a great problem with this. He has told us: ‘Don’t worry; you can look at the Community Service Obligations’. Let’s look at that. There is a one line Community Service Obligation in the budget papers delivered by the Treasurer, and we believe that line to be erroneous, by the way. There is another line that talks about the undergrounding of power and it does not sit within the appropriation for the Power and Water Corporation, and we will interrogate that.
There is also another line that talks about the dividend which the Treasurer claimed, erroneously, to this House was a confidential figure. Interestingly, when she gave her statement some time later, as the member for Macdonnell pointed out, it ceased being confidential. It would appear that this is a whimsically applied label, this confidentiality, and it is done when in doubt, so you can’t get that because it’s confidential. We know the form of those opposite. We know how Joan Kirner did this. She used instrumentalities such as this to borrow money, claimed it was a dividend and sucked it out of them. So, for all people say about the wonders of Joan Kirner, have a look at what she did with her power instrumentalities. We run the risk of going down that path.
For the sake of history, I will relate I was offered a briefing by the Power and Water Corporation and Treasury officers. It was attended by an officer who is a member of the staff of the Essential Services Minister. At that briefing, one of the first questions I asked was: ‘Is this available for interrogation through the soon-to-be-formed but as yet unknown’ – because, of course, you would know that last week we had no inkling of what the government was going to do – ‘estimates committee?’ The answer I received was ‘Yes, I have been told to prepare myself for estimates,’ and they were quite looking forward to it. They did not believe they had anything to hide. In my term, I offered that the opposition would not be seeking commercial-in-confidence type information in an effort to undermine the commerciality of the instrumentality or to render some assistance to its competitors unfairly - unlike those in government, I might add, who sought to make great mileage out of matters such as this when they were in opposition.
That was the pact. Admittedly, a verbal pact, an oral pact, and it was made only last week. It is only a matter of some hours that I have found that it is the government’s intention to remove this third of a billion dollars of tax payers money from the scrutiny of this parliament. That is unforgivable not only because of the lateness of the hour, but because we are describing what is a Public Accounts Committee, of being told: ‘Don’t worry. There will be some device that will be put in place to look at government owned corporations’. This is a matter that we have discussed in PAC, and I believe that it is a matter that is the prerogative of government so long as that device yields a result to the tax payer, that they have the confidence that their money, their tax payer dollars, has the adequate stewardship of this government.
For the message to come to me, it is barleys, it is not going to go into the Estimates Committee however you might decide it because the thing hasn’t been designed yet; it will go into some other thing which has not been designed and it would appear to be an afterthought because the question was popped last week. I have no apologies for the question. I shall be seeking that those matters that are within the province of the Power and Water Corporation be divulged, and many of them are in the public realm. We want to know about your works priorities; we want to know where there’s going to be extensions to the grid. We want to know about your outages; we want to know about whether your system average outage duration is improving or getting worse. We want to know about some of the rhetoric that the Chief Minister said in her various pronouncements. We want to know if they’re true, we want to know the veracity of things that are paraded out as a Power and Water power project when in fact it is sitting in another department.
The undergrounding of power in Nightcliff has nothing to do with PowerWater other than they are a contractor. They are merely going to get the money from another instrumentality and do it as a contractor. Now, we would like to know about some of the issues of power outages, and we want detail on it. This is $80m worth of promise, the undergrounding of power. The money that has been provided for the power and services to Dundee, strip away the rhetoric: it is still money that has to be spent and we would like to know about that. We would like to know about your priorities; we would like to know about some of the risks attaching to the enterprise called the Power and Water Corporation.
The Chief Minister is very bullish about gas coming onshore. In fact, in her economic statement she talked about her government ensuring that Sunrise gas will come onshore, and I like that optimism; I think it is a great thing. But when you are going into business and you need fuel, whether it is gas, diesel or whatever to power your generation, we would like to know whether there are some risks attaching to that and we would like to know issues relating to the government’s proposal, for instance, for worse case scenarios and calamities. They are things that the tax payer reasonably should know. They don’t want to just be told: ‘You flick the switch on and the power will come on and prices will remain static’, because they know those things to be lies. They know that there will be times that the power doesn’t come on. They know there will be times when power will go up. They know that there will be times when water will go up. They know that these things will have an impact on their business. They know that on occasions it will go up higher, for instance, than CPI and these are questions we will be putting to relevant ministers.
It is not only the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, who has the job of trying to reap as much as she possibly can out of this organisation, but also the operational minister who is responsible for the operations in terms of work safety, environmental record, certainty of power, continuity of power, extensions to infrastructure. We want to know those answers. If you are telling us that once we have finished this tough job of designing an Estimates Committee, we are going to design another one a little bit like it, but it will be able to look at government owned corporations, we don’t trust you. We do not trust you.
So the undertaking we can give you is: in the absence of designing such a beast to interrogate your government owned corporations, let’s have this get up, and we will do it through the Estimates Committee until such time as the other device is available for scrutiny of this parliament. In the absence of having anything before us that allows us to look at this third of a billion dollars, we will put it in here. We also do not like the track record of government where they have falsely claimed that some things are confidential and cannot be answered and within a matter of hours have divulged that information. We do not like the fact that dorothy dixers go to the Treasurer, shareholding minister, for reasons unknown about the minutiae of matters relating to this portfolio area, which areas are getting power augmentation, which stations are being remedied and rectified.
It is a matter of your form that causes us concern. First we have had the back flip, and we don’t like that; that causes some concern. Second, we have had a whimsical approach to what is commercial and what is not. Third, this is being treated as a political plaything and it is being treated as something where, despite what Percy Allan said - he said: ‘Don’t use your government corporations to produce political outcomes’. Perc said it, good on you Perc. Then we had the strange scenario where the Public Accounts Committee found that a government promise of $50m had not been included in the budget. Fifty million dollars worth of political promise to the Power and Water Corporation had not been included in the budget. So we don’t trust your fudgey figures.
We would like this amendment to get up, and we think if the government is interested in making sure that their good reputation, such as it is, is intact, and that these many millions of dollars are able to be adequately addressed, it should put it into the province of the Estimates Committee. When we see what else will replace that, show us that, let’s have a look at that and we will debate it in here. But in the absence of anything else, we cannot - we cannot in the duty that we have here - sign off to having such a big issue of government expenditure, barleys, out of bounds. That cannot happen.
I will give notice that we do not already believe your Community Service Obligation figures. We will be talking about the undergrounding of power because it would appear that it has very little to do with power, and we will be talking about the yield of profit that is coming back to government because it would seem that on the face of it, the rise of some 7.5% could well have been met within profit margins and they are issues the government should have seen as options that were available to it, particularly for some of the larger commercial enterprises around town.
The tourism minister proudly pronounced how there was some half a million dollars to bring an influx of overseas tourists in here. What he didn’t tell us was that the very facilities they would be housed in would be paying an extra million bucks in water and sewerage. So the wonderful, wonderful pronouncement that those sitting in places like Rydges and places like that: ‘Gee! Paul has given us half a million bucks so that we can get more tourists in here, but to get that half a million we’re going to have to spend another million bucks on the great luxury of having water and sewerage in our facilities’.
We think they are questions that should be asked, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. We think there will be people interested in the answers, and we do not believe that they fall in the province of commercial-in-confidence. We do not believe that they are out of bounds in terms of the public view, and we will be absolutely aghast if, in the absence of any other device to look at this area of expenditure, the government does not support this amendment that has been proposed to rectify the backflip of last week.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Treasurer’s amendment addressing time limits and the agencies about which questions can be asked.
I know that over the last few days the Labor Party and the Labor government have been celebrating their first 12 months in power and good luck to them; I am sure we will be doing it when we are back in government. Peoples’ expectations, however, were raised greatly during the election campaign by the Labor Party with regard to, for example, open and accountable government. I myself was somewhat sceptical and my scepticism has borne fruit because the reality is that once you get into government, you find the difficulties and the ideas of being open and accountable and telling everybody and being all encompassing - suddenly it is like: ‘Oh gee! That might get us into a bit of strife there. Oh, dear. Whoops. Well we might just constrain some of those thoughts a little bit’.
Certainly during the last few weeks as the CLP opposition, we have all been waiting on tender hooks wondering how this estimates process is going to come about. I know that our deputy leader has been constantly in contact with your Deputy Chief Minister in an effort to try and find out the details of how the estimates is going to present itself.
Mr Stirling: Not an effort to find out the details at all. It was a process of negotiation, you clown.
Ms CARTER: This demonstrates to me the amount of backwards and forwards …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I think the Deputy Chief Minister should withdraw the comment he made of the member.
Mr STIRLING: The clown was in reference to a person making a statement about which they had no knowledge, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and it is entirely appropriate.
Dr LIM: I think the term is unparliamentary …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, are you talking to the point of order?
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, I believe that the term that the …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: What Standing Order are you referring to, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: Speaking to point or order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe that the Deputy Chief Minister is using unparliamentary language.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice on that one, member for Greatorex. Deputy Chief Minister, in the interest of the context in which that comment was made, I would ask you to withdraw it, please.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Ms CARTER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, from my observation of the last few weeks with the backwards and forwards that has been going on between the two parties and the two areas with regard to the estimates process and trying to figure out what is going to be going on in the next couple of weeks when we sit, it demonstrates to me a level of confusion behind the scenes.
It appears to me dealings with regard to estimates has been one of the most difficult things that the current Labor government has had to come to terms with since they have come in to power. I have the feeling that you are feeling very uncomfortable with what you are up against at the moment because you did promise to be open and accountable. From time to time, the member for Nhulunbuy screams at me in particular ‘hypocrite’ and words such as that. Well, this is an occasion when I believe hypocrisy reigns on your side of government because of your promises to be open and accountable.
My view is that the time constraints which your process is going to place on the Estimates Committee are going to do nothing less than gag the CLP opposition. What is going to happen now is that Labor MLAs in particular will be able to ask questions within the very tight time constraints that we have. Anyone can tell you that what will probably happen is that a significant number of dorothy dix type questions will be asked, and this will cut down on the amount of time available to the opposition and to the Independent members to ask questions of ministers.
Ministers also, because of the time constraints they know that we will be under, will be able to filibuster and fill in time. Looking at the times that have been provided to us, the total time available to the committee is going to be less than 36 hours for questions. If the Labor MLAs take up only 25% of that time, we will be left - opposition and the Independents - with 27 hours in which to fit in our questions. You have seven ministers so if you divide those 27 hours by seven ministers, you have less than four hours per minister. A couple of ministers in particular are interesting.
First of all, we have the member for Wanguri who has eight portfolios. If you divide his four hours by the eight portfolios, then you will have 30 minutes on average per portfolio. The member for Casuarina has six portfolios. If you divide his four hours or less by his six portfolios you will have about 40 minutes.
So these very, very important portfolio areas held by these two ministers will have, on average, between 30 and 40 minutes per portfolio for questions. Now, of course, we are also led to believe that public servants will be present, the CEOs, and they will be able to provide greater detail to the answers than perhaps previously was available. This will take up more time. Therefore there should be no time constraints.
All of this is very ironic, your new set up for the Estimates Committee and the questioning of budget in particular. It is all very ironic. Last Thursday night, on 15 August, we had to enjoy the unbridled crowing from the member for Johnston regarding Labor’s win 12 months ago. He went on about how Labor developed position papers and policies and went to the electorate and won the election. One of these promises, of course, was open and accountable government. The irony is that the member for Johnston is the chair of the PAC and therefore will be the chair of the estimates process. He will be able to judge which questions are or are not okay, the order of questioning, etcetera.
Given his long-term, vitriolic behaviour against the CLP, we could hardly describe this person as impartial. My personal view is that the member for Johnston will be cringing through all of this Labor government mess leading up to this debacle over the scrutiny of the budget, given what was initially his genuine commitment and belief to open government. I believe that when he was elected, he believed and wanted open government. Now he is the poor bunny in the box, having to deal with the situation of being the chair of a committee which really is going to be somewhat of a farce with regards to its ability to allow members of the opposition and the Independents to question government’s behaviour and its budget.
The last thing I believe this will be, is an open and accountable process. The Labor government’s model is hugely disappointing given your hype. This is my third budget. I have sat through two budget processes as a member of the CLP in government, and I was able to ask questions. I make note, in particular, of the member for Wanguri. I can recall hours and hours of questions that he, as the shadow health minister, legitimately asked of our then health minister, the member for Drysdale. It went on for a long time. My view of it was that I was very impressed with how gentlemanly the process was conducted. It appeared to be a process of fairness, of a genuine attempt by both parties to do the right thing by the then Labor shadow minister who was asking good questions and the CLP’s minister was answering well. This went on until the Labor shadow minister’s questions were exhausted. It was all done in a very professional and gentlemanly way.
As I say, I have seen two budget processes in that format, and I was always impressed with how well it was done. It did go for hours; there are no two ways about that, but it went until everybody was satisfied that they had asked the questions that they felt were needed to be asked. So I have to say when the Labor government was elected and you talked about what you were going to do about estimates, I had expectations that at the very least, we would have the questioning openness that the CLP government had. It has come to me as a real surprise that you people, very full of your ideals, have put such a kybosh on the process. My gut feeling is that you all feel uncomfortable with this, and you are all very disappointed yourselves that you are having to go through this situation because you are going to gag the CLP opposition and the Independents.
Logically, you have to ask why. Why are there going to be time constraints on the process? The CLP government was happy to have all questions from all members; there were no constraints at all. I don’t know why you are doing this. It is beyond me. All it indicates is that you are scared and that you feel you might have things to hide. I am telling you this is what people are going to think. Why on earth would you have constraints on the number of questions we can ask?
I have listened to your promises. You talk about fiscal integrity and transparency. It is not happening. Today the Chief Minister made the comment that the budget process will provide improved information to the community. How can that be when our scrutiny of your budget will not be allowed in the sort of detail that it has been in the past? You forget that the opposition here has a role to play, and our role is to scrutinise. You should not feel uncomfortable about it; you should not be setting out to gag what we need to do. This is our role - this is the role of the Independents as well – to have a say, to ask questions until we are satisfied that all the questions that need to be asked have been asked.
The Deputy Chief Minister made a comment earlier on in this debate that there are concerns that parliament will run too late into the night and that there will be nobody left to listen to the answers. Certainly, the CLP opposition and, I know, the Independents will still be here to listen to the answers if we do run late at night. It doesn’t concern me unduly that the media might feel that it is too long to run for them, but we would be here if we needed to. I would be very supportive that if we needed a time, we go into the Friday. I would be happy to go into the Saturday and Sunday as well – whatever amount of time is needed to ask all the questions that we think are needed.
One of my concerns is what order will the questions be asked of ministers? Who will you start with? Who will you finish with? If you are doing it from the budget proposal book here, the last minister in here is the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Lands and Planning, the Environment, Ethnic Affairs, Essential Services, Parks and Wildlife, one of the very large portfolio holdings of a single person. Now, the minister is the last person according to the budget book. Does this mean that he will be the last person who will be questioned?
Mr Stirling: Watch me! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. The way it has always been - in order of the budget papers!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARTER: Apparently I am right, after the screeching. I am right that he will be the last person. My concern, which I believe is legitimate, is that we might be down to 10 minutes or five minutes per portfolio for this person because we have run out of time. I believe it is wrong to constrain our questions by having such important portfolios last in the list of questions to come through.
Mr Stirling: Okay! We’ll up him – up in front of the Chief Minister, just for you!
Ms CARTER: Right. Now, it is my view that the member for Nhulunbuy made fairly insulting interjections to the shadow Treasurer earlier today, implying that when he was Health minister, he needed eight hours to answer questions because he, and I quote: ‘Wasn’t very good at it’.
It will be interesting to compare in the Hansard now, given that it took eight hours at one time for the Labor Party, when they were in opposition, to question our then Health minister. It took you guys eight hours, and you had eight hours to put the questions so now it will be interesting to compare, by looking at Hansard, how many questions did CLP and Independent members get in to your Health minister. How long was she able to speak for? Did we finish all of our questions?
I will bet you the answer is going to be disappointing. There is no way we would get eight hours to put comprehensive questions to the Health minister now. It had nothing to do with the skill of our then Health minister; it had everything to do with the time allowed to him and now the time constraints upon us. It will also be interesting to check how many dorothy dix questions will go to your Health minister from your Labor friends.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I resent that. I absolutely resent that inference. Every member of this Assembly has the opportunity to ask questions in good faith on any issue they want. Now, if she is going to imply that the government backbench is going to be sitting there asking dorothy dixers, she should think about censuring us, Madam Speaker because it is an inference of ill-intent.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin - and please, keep your remarks to the amendments.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also today, we have had interjections and giggling from the ALP benches when the CLP member for Greatorex spoke earlier on this matter. To my mind, the giggling and laughing that has gone on, the smirking, is just a demonstration of the arrogance that you have now developed since you have come into government.
You people 18 months ago would just dye if you saw your behaviour now because these were the sort of allegations that you made to us and now you are doing it because of the position that you are in. Shame on Labor for betraying all Territorians. Your vitriolic hatred of the CLP blinkers you to what is fair for all Territorians. I urge all members of this House to support the CLP opposition amendment to allow limitless time for the questioning of ministers. Our amendment would provide enough time until all questions were exhausted. Let us all work together for Territorians, allowing for the careful examination of Labor’s budget by voting for this amendment.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this amendment for a very good reason: it strikes at a central notion that needs to be addressed, and is coming to the minds of the Northern Territory electorate, that the Labor Party needs to accept the fact that it is now in government. It is now charged with the responsibility of leading. If the debate, as it has been presented and conducted in this Chamber, is falling along the lines where the words from members opposite are basically referring to the CLP which is largely a caricature in their own minds with regard to this issue.
The fact is things have changed. The ALP is now in government and the CLP is in opposition. Times have changed. We need to understand that in terms of a process of forward movement, we are now standing and responding in a way, occupying a space we have never occupied before, just in the same way as the government is standing in a place and occupying a position that it has never occupied before.
In terms of identifying this issue as an issue cast in ancient terms of times former, I would have to say that the government has to understand that it is actually in the role of leadership and our role in opposition is to test the intentions that they put before the electorate and to ensure that they are honouring the intention that they put before that electorate, simply that. It is not very helpful to bring up things of the past because the people of the Northern Territory have made a decision in the last election. As a result of that decision, there are certain things that will be played out to the electorate. That is what they are wanting this Chamber to conduct. That is the issue before this Chamber now. It is a question of leadership. I feel that the current government has made fine sounding rhetoric before the general population about wonderful things that would come to bear if they were in government.
Ms Martin: Like today’s budget? Yes!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: Right on this very point! They seem to think that because they are sitting on this side, therefore we would be acting as they were when they were on this side, therefore there could be no good thing. There could be no good thing in the budget. I would have to say there are a number of good things that members on this side can point to and celebrate, too. There are good aspects to this budget. There is no concern about that.
The issue is in the process that we apply to assessing the underpinnings of that budget. It has to occur because we are not governing by perception. It is the substance that is important in this, and that process that has been put before the people of the Northern Territory, this Estimates Committee, is the mechanism to assess the substance of the rhetoric. The headlines are fine; the general response from different agencies that are my responsibility in opposition are generally good. However, underneath those comments of support, there are many questions of detail. We need to be able to ask those questions of detail through the Estimates Committee. I am not going to flag those issues now; we are talking about the mechanics here.
The issue is not cast in such low level terms as ‘We are the good guys now and you are the bad guys’. It is simply moving forward and putting a mechanism in place so that we can genuinely test the substance of the budget in detail. That is the point.
We are now in opposition. Just imagine for a moment that you were on this side. I am sure you would be casting your arguments in very similar lines, and for very good reason. We support, for the sake of the Northern Territory, that there are open and honest processes put before them.
Mr Stirling: For the first time ever.
Mr MILLS: That is simply rhetoric that we are hearing, and I do not think that it is serving this central purpose much at all.
Mr Stirling: Why didn’t you bring an Estimates Committee in the last 20 years? You had 26 years to do it.
Ms Carney: I was nine and living in Victoria when the CLP came into government, Syd.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for those remarks across the Chamber.
Mr Stirling: In 26 years you never brought one in, and you try to tell us how to do it.
Mr Baldwin: You are supposed to bring in something better.
Mr Stirling: You had no intention of ever doing it!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, enough!
Ms Martin: Where was your commitment?
Mr Wood: Pass the valium.
Madam SPEAKER: Enough!
Mr MILLS: In the issues of leadership ...
Madam SPEAKER: Members! Cease for a moment, member for Blain. I know you are all getting tired and this has been a very long debate, but I am not going to tolerate any more of these unnecessary interjections. Let us just finish this debate and get on with it.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The issue of leadership is on the page at the moment. The issue of the mechanism that is being put before the people of the Northern Territory; that is the issue. How that rhetoric will match in reality is the issue before us all at the moment.
We have had quoted here the statements with regards to Good Government, the position paper that was issued by the Labor Party. I take that quite seriously because that was presented to the people of the Northern Territory. To that end the charter was given for an appropriate committee to be put before the people of the Northern Territory. That was done. They went to Tasmania and came back. I expected that to be unfolded and unpacked so that we could respond to it properly, but it seems to have gone off to one side. I did notice some comments earlier that it appeared it had been digested on one side and they had decided to abandon it. That is the impression that we had from some of the talk that went on in this debate.
Nonetheless, we now have a mechanism that we are responding to. We seek an improvement to this mechanism. The mechanism in front of us - I am looking at it and trying to see how it is actually different from the former mechanisms we had in place. I can see these improvements, these changes: that there will be a CEO we can speak to. I do recall the CEOs and heads of departments were available before, but that we would actually be able to ask them a question. That is a change. The heads of finance would be there. Fine. That may assist. There is also one other improvement, only one other change: there will be a television camera and there will be radio. That is okay. To me, it is not earth shattering, though. They are really, in effect, the most significant changes. All the rest of it is rhetoric and perception that has been pumped up to create an impression to the people of the Northern Territory that once there was this terrible system and nobody knew anything, and now we have a system where everybody will know everything.
It does not quite add up when you actually analyse it and there are only two minor changes to the system before and after. The loss is a significant one. The loss is time. To me, being a new member in this Chamber and a backbencher, to have the system play out right to the very end and the final question was asked: ‘Are there any further questions?’ to me is the aspect that must be included in this model because the people of the Territory are not completely served unless that question can actually be put. Behind the large headline, the details of this budget need to be assessed, and unless we can go to the end, that process may not be able to be accomplished. This system is fundamentally flawed in that respect. I acknowledge the changes, but the loss is a most significant one.
The member for Nhulunbuy may put his hand on his chest and do the exploding head routine and be disgusted that such a thing as dorothy dixers and filibustering could occur. I simply would like to safeguard this process from that occurring because this system as it is constructed now with a time constraint can be corrupted and can be flawed if a government chooses to do so. By removing the constraint, we would prevent that from occurring. For that reason, I believe that this amendment must receive the support of all members of this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak about these amendments from an Independent point of view in case people think otherwise. I am capable of working out things on my own, and I think it is on record that I have had concerns, and the member for Johnston would know that. I feel that the time length should be longer. As I said in the earlier debate, I felt that if anything, we should take on the extra day, and certainly make that available if we have not had enough time in the three days allowed.
My reasoning for not being too happy with putting an unlimited time perhaps stems from the Tasmanian experience which was that the opposition in the Tasmanian government certainly tried to get a lot of mileage out of this process. Each member of parliament had, I think, nine hours or 9.5 hours of possible question time. The first session in the morning would be a whole load of cameras and the radio all lined up behind the opposition. The opposition knew this was good media time, and they were going to be as controversial as possible, and they were going to get in to the government.
I understand it is a new government, and that can be pretty scary because some of the members of the opposition are very experienced in their portfolios over the years, and some of the members of the government are not as experienced. I would imagine that to be a fairly daunting time. But I would say: so what? The reason I say: ‘So what?’ is that in Tasmania, there were certainly opportunities for government to show the opposition up. When I look at the recent Tasmanian results, I would say ‘Did it matter?’ It certainly looks like the ones who came off worst in Tasmania were the opposition - they even lost their leader recently. So what they thought was a process in which they thought they would get some brownie points, it looks like it might have worked in reverse.
I think it is also good for the government. One is that it toughens them up because this is what the process is about, it is about asking the hard questions; and two, it checks out to see whether ministers know their own portfolios. It is good that the CEOs are there. When I put my criticisms about this, and I say this to the member for Nhulunbuy, it is not because I have any great problems with the process. I congratulate the government, and I have said before, I thank the government for sending us down to Tasmania. I believe it is a good process, but I am not going to sit around in parliament and say all things are hunky dory when I think there are some things that need changing. One of these, I believe, is this process of having a longer time. I will say again: for the public to see that one minister’s questioning has been cut off because of a time limit will not be good in the eyes of the public. I don’t think it will do the government good. It would be far better to go the extra mile and, when we are reviewing it, say: ‘That was a waste of time. We didn’t need that much time at all’ and then maybe we can come but, but at least they don’t leave themselves open to criticism that they were gagging debate.
On the second issue which is the idea that the government owned corporations should be questioned, I should go back to the statement that the member for Johnston, who is the Chairman of the PAC, made in the debate on 20 June. In fact, I will just go back to my words in that debate. I said:
- A good issue was raised about the committees covering the government business divisions. It is important
that this does happen since we now have Power and Water as a corporation. It would be good to be able
to interrogate that department about how they are travelling. The important thing it does show you
that government becomes more open and transparent.
The member for Johnston on that day said this:
- An additional issue that was not contained within the original terms of reference that was given to us was
that it was made known to us that the Tasmanian Estimates Committee or a variation of it scrutinised
government business divisions. That is an important thing that probably Estimates Committees should
be doing and that is something that we need to consider.
I fully concur with that. I have concerns if we don’t have the ability to ask questions about the Power and Water Corporation. For instance, in the budget at the moment – again, correct me if I am wrong – it makes the statement that there will be $170 000 on head works in the rural area. Now, does that mean I can’t ask a question about that? Maybe I am wrong, but if someone would like to let me know – I would like to know because I want to know where PowerWater is going to spend that money.
I have other issues. For instance: what is PowerWater’s policy on extending head works in the rural area? There has been some controversy over that in recent times in the Girraween subdivision. Recently in the debate that has been adjourned, I raised an issue about PowerWater: what has happened to the poly pipes that were placed on the electricity lines to stop the bats? They have all been taken off. Does that mean I cannot ask that type of question in an Estimates Committee hearing? We need clarification of that. If it is the case and I cannot ask those questions, if I can’t ask how much money the government is giving PowerWater as part of its Community Service Obligations, I would be pretty disappointed.
I support both these amendments, Madam Speaker, and I do so independently.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will make a relatively small but, I hope, relatively useful contribution to this debate. Obviously as a new member, I am not privy to what has happened in previous parliaments, however I do know one thing and that is that the opposition had the opportunity or the right to ask, exhaustively, questions of the government. That is a right that I understand oppositions throughout Western democracies have in one form or another.
It is important that an opposition has the right to exhaustively ask questions. It is fair. It is right. Importantly, it is democratic. Any opposition, obviously, has to be given the opportunity to question and scrutinise what is contained in the government’s budget. It is for that reason that I strongly support the amendments proposed by the member for Katherine.
I am in a position where I have four or five shadow portfolios. One is significantly larger than the others, and that is the shadow portfolio of tourism. The member for Wanguri has, as I understand it, about eight portfolios. It has been clear from my conduct since becoming a member of this parliament that I have raised a number of issues with the Minister for Tourism. I have moved a motion on General Business day, and I think I have done my job well in trying to hold him to account. Equally, the minister is trying to do his job as best as he can, by telling me that I am not working hard enough and so on.
However, the reality is both of us are trying to do our jobs in the best way we know how. It follows that in order to do my job, I must be afforded the opportunity to ask him as many questions as I see fit in relation to this shadow portfolio. It is possible, as I understand the calculations, that I will be put in the invidious position of very possibly being forced to contain my questioning of the minister to anywhere between 20 to 40 minutes. I would have thought that even the member for Wanguri would have expected more from his shadow in this portfolio. He has other very important portfolios and I guess that, in terms of the pecking order, I might be towards the bottom with Tourism and I may be very constrained in the number of questions I can put to him. In the course of doing my job, it is important that not only I represent the electorate, but I challenge him, I explore issues with the minister on behalf of the tourism industry of the Northern Territory. I am sure he would expect nothing less.
The scheme proposed by the government is lacking because it does not afford me the opportunity that I think any member of an opposition should have as of right. The amendments are important because they put one very simple proposition: that the opposition has, of right, the opportunity to exhaustively ask questions. That was what occurred in the past and it should, in my view, be what occurs in the future.
I know other members have referred to the Labor Party’s discussion paper on Good Government. Indeed, I referred to it in an Adjournment speech last week. A couple of things are worth revisiting. In this paper which the Australian Labor Party issued prior to the election, they had all sorts of statements such as:
- Labor believes that it requires vigilance by the parliament and the people to ensure that democracy is
protected and not whittled away ...
They do not want to see democracy reduced in any way, shape or form. The Labor Party says, on page six of its discussion paper:
- Parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to
account the actions the government.
I would have thought that on any objective view the government has walked away from the pledge it made in this paper to the people of the Northern Territory. You never know, this paper may well have bought a vote for the Labor Party. Someone may well have read this and thought: ‘Isn’t this fantastic?’ When I read it, I don’t mind saying that I was very impressed with the language and the sentiment contained in this document. It is a good read.
I am a small-D democrat at heart, something I feel very strongly about and I would like to think that no one in this Chamber would question me in that regard. The Australian Labor Party has a marvellous opportunity, a wonderful opportunity to set the pace for the future. The CLP has been in government for 26 years. It is the most successful political party in Australia simply by virtue of the fact that it did retain government for 26 years. So it is a big ask for the Australian Labor Party to set an agenda, to set new standards, but it has undertaken to the voters of the Northern Territory that it will do so.
The government has criticised the CLP. Fair enough. I have my own thoughts about the CLP’s track record, some of it marvellous, some of it not so good. Similarly though, I can make up my own mind about this government. To date, on the basis of what has been said in the course of this debate and the preceding debate, I am extremely disappointed. At the very least, I would have thought that this government would rise above its own criticisms of the CLP. The government has become, I think, something of a caricature of how it sees the CLP. Have a look in the mirror. There is a discernible change in the way government presents itself, not just in this House but to the electorate generally. I would have thought that this amendment provides the government with an opportunity to pause and reflect, to be thoughtful about the future of government and opposition. As I said, the government does have marvellous opportunity. It has the honour of governing the Northern Territory and at the very least, I would have thought that it would not walk away from its very clear principles and sentiments contained in its publications before the election.
I draw this analogy: in my past life as a lawyer, I could think of nothing worse than a judge or magistrate limiting my ability to cross-examine a witness. That would be offensive to all lawyers. It is an analogy because that is what the government is seeking to do here. It is seeking to limit the opposition’s ability to test, to explore, to question matters contained in the government. So, I say to the government: please reassess your position.
Ms Martin: You want to be paid by the hour, do you, Jodeen, just like in court?
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up on that interjection, Madam Speaker. It is very clear to me that the Chief Minister does not take this debate seriously at all. She can sit there and smile and laugh and throw basically whatever she likes across the Chamber, but she will be judged in time by the people of the Northern Territory.
I am surprised and very disappointed that the government is seeking to limit us in the same way that I would be surprised and disappointed if, as a lawyer, there was a limit put on my ability to cross-examine. As an opposition, we must have that opportunity. I say to the government: act well, act decently, act with integrity, and at least be democratic. There can be no limit on the opposition in asking questions, and I would urge the government to support the amendment.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there seem to be endless opportunities to participate in this debate if one works hard enough.
Madam SPEAKER: You don’t all have to, you know.
Mr STIRLING: I want to thank the member for Araluen for her comments because she does speak genuinely. I do see where the opposition is coming from in relation to this whole matter. But, if I can go back and put on the record just for the sake of clarity and for all members that if the committee gets off at 11 am on the first day as we expect it would and adjourns at 11.30 pm, that is 12 hours 30minutes. You would take an hour for lunch and an hour for dinner if they wanted - 10.5 hours.
For the benefit of the member for Port Darwin who does not seem to understand - despite the fact that she has been in here for Appropriation debates - that the Budget Papers actually reflect the order of seniority of the ministers from the Chief Minister down. With the exception of yourself this year, Madam Speaker, because for the first time we have an Independent Speaker who is responsible for the Assembly - and this government would never deign to represent you, Madam Speaker, in a way that the Chief Minister would take the questions if you were, in fact, a Speaker and member of the Labor Party. We would expect you to be first up before the committee, and I would not expect very many questions.
In the case of the Speaker before, questions about the Assembly were directed to the Chief Minister in the past on behalf of the Speaker and have never taken more than about 30 minutes. Never. Okay, double it and it gets an hour. That still leaves 9.5 hours for the Chief Minister to follow with her responsibilities as Chief Minister and Treasurer; myself as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and responsibility for Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I gave an indication when I spoke to the motion earlier in the amendments, that we would expect, the Speaker aside, two ministers on the first day, three the second, and two the third. There will be nothing, I suppose, to stop the committee should they get through Speaker, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, reasonably early on that first day to then go and call Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I cannot see a problem with that. So you could already be in to the third minister on the first day. The second day commences at 9 am and goes to 11.30 pm. 14 hours. Take out the hour for lunch and the hour for dinner. You still have 12 hours for three ministers on that day. I understand you had some concerns about the ability to interrogate the Minister for Industry, Business and Resource Development. No one is suggesting you only have 30 minutes or 40 minutes. It is in within that time frame and those three ministers, if the Attorney-General did not get up on the first day and was on the second day, it would be the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development and the Minister for Community Development.
I don’t know how many questions each shadow minister and member of parliament will provide in writing; that will give the committee some indication. But of course, those questions in themselves bring to mind other questions, and we have always seen that, and I expect that to be part of it. Depending on whether it was a two/three/two, a three/three and then you would only perhaps have one on the last day, but the last day is 9 am start and 7 pm finish. That is 10 hours; one hour for lunch - you would not need the dinner time because no other members get the dinner break - so that is nine hours on the last day, for two at the most ministers.
It is up to the committee to roll through this process, so short of saying ‘You go all night and the committee just doesn’t go to bed for three days’, you have to have some sort of process around this. The member for Araluen was not here, but I was certainly on that side when we finished the then minister for Education, the member for Port Darwin, Shane Stone, at 7.20 am. I had gone across to the Hotel Darwin and booked a room at 9 pm, but my bag in my room, paid my money, and came straight back to the House for participation in the Appropriation debate, walked out of here at 7.20 the next morning to go and pick up my bag - I actually had a shower in this building - paid $110 thank you very much. The bag got a good night’s sleep over there, but I never saw the room except to put my bag in and go back to pick it up. That is the stupid situation that we are simply trying to avoid by this process.
Of course, the opposition is going to take the view that we are trying to restrict debate, that we have something to hide, that we are frightened, says the member for Port Darwin. The day I am frightened of her - well, she does frighten me in some ways, but I won’t go there - but the day I am intellectually intimidated by the member for Port Darwin, I will be out of here. I tell you, I would be on my bike; I would be packed up and gone.
I have listened genuinely to the voices of concern on the other side. I have gone a fair way with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have had to convince my colleagues along the way, the same as he has had to, I suppose, go back and check back with his colleagues.
The final point I want to make is this, and you have to bear in mind that it is a first off, and the Estimates Committee itself will be empowered, it will have a reference to investigate the whole process and pick up the shortcomings and come back. That is why it is in this format at the moment. We are quite prepared to admit that if it does not work, pick up why it has not worked and seek to address it.
I would just ask the opposition to show a bit of forebearance and a little bit of tolerance in going into this the first time. It is enhanced and despite the member for Blain’s points, the fact is when you have your Chief Executive Officer and you have your budgets or finance officer from the department, the ability is there to get some accurate, informed answers to your questions. We would want that so that you blokes won’t be out there telling nonsense about this budget. We want you to have the accurate information. We want you to know, for example, member for Blain, that there is about 34 or 35 vacancies in the school system, not 67 as he is wont to say. Even though he has been corrected in here, he goes on Fred McCue the next day and again says it is 67, 68 or 69.
Some people you cannot help; it doesn’t matter how many times you tell them the accurate information, they will still go and mislead and exaggerate. But it is in the government’s interest to have an informed opposition on all aspects of the budget so they are not out there spreading nonsense about it.
Madam Speaker, I have listened and I understand where the opposition is coming from, and it is not unusual that they take that bent, but I would ask them for some forbearance and tolerance. I mean, we will be back in the review process with the opposition to investigate how it has gone – how well it has gone, I would expect – but prepared to make any changes into the future.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am glad I follow on from the member for Nhulunbuy. The thrust of what the member for Nhulunbuy is saying is: go with this process that he has proposed and we will have a look at it after. These very amendments that are being proposed by the opposition and my colleague, the member for Katherine, will actually provide them with a structure that means that they will not have to explain themselves after that process is over because there is every possibility that we will run out of the time to ask all of the questions that we want to ask, and that is the very test here.
With all the words that have been said in this debate, the true test is going to come at the end of the process. If, at the end of the process, there are questions still to be asked or – God forbid! – there are ministers who have not been questioned at all, whether it is one, two or three ministers, then that is going to be the test. It is not us that is going to have to explain the process; it is the government. Their own process.
This motion that has been proposed by the government over time is their own process. It is their right to bring it on. There are some improvements, there is no doubt about that. The fact that the CEOs and the financial officers are going to be there for questioning is a good thing, that we have direct access to them. To my mind, it would be great if the ministers just didn’t turn up. I would prefer, like the federal system, you get the CEOs in and the line managers and you question them. We don’t need the ministers. We will get all the questions we like out of the CEOs. That is a good thing. If they don’t want to turn up but provide their CEOs, that’s fine. I can live with that.
But by doing that, the fact that they are providing access for us to question those departmental officials means that the time taken for the provision of answers could be longer because of the nature of the detailed answers. Whilst that is good for access to all the information that we might require and putting it on the public record, the very logic of it says that it could take longer than the process that was available to the then opposition under the process that we had when we were in government. That is the first set of logic that should be followed, that it will take longer.
The next set of logic – and it has been cast around here many times – is: will backbenchers ask questions? I hope they do. I do not care one way or the other whether they do. The interjection has been thrown by the Leader of Government Business out of his seat that we never asked questions. That is not true. In the past, there have been backbenchers on the CLP side in government who have asked questions. Let’s say they were minimal questions. Let’s just say that. I can remember a time in this parliament…
Dr Burns: For argument’s sake.
Mr BALDWIN: No, that’s fine. It could be. I can remember in this parliament 18 members of government in the CLP government, seven members in the opposition on this side. Nine ministers, so we take them out of the equation; they are the ones being questioned. There are nine CLP backbenchers. They are asking a few questions. There are seven on this side that ask questions. They had, by your account, 32 hours average of question time. That is seven of them. Now, the very logic that there’s actually 10 plus an Independent, tells you that we are going to take more than 32 hours in our questioning. That is pure logic and if you …
Dr Burns: No, it’s not.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, the test will be if there are ministers left on that side at the end of this process who haven’t been questioned, the process has failed. Anybody can tell you that. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you look at it from, whether you are the media, the government, the opposition or Independent members like yourself, Madam Speaker. If there are questions unanswered or, indeed, ministers who haven’t even come before the questioning process, then the process has failed. It is definitely not as good as the old process that was in place under the CLP. It is logical, you cannot argue against that.
I will go, Madam Speaker, because the chortling of the Chairman of the PAC has brought me to ask this question, if you follow the logic through: if we are going to come in here on Tuesday, we are going to do a couple of things, then we are going to adjourn at 11 o’clock into the estimates process. We are going to get yourself up first, Madam Speaker, by all accounts. We have found that out. We get half way through the process, let’s say. So we start Tuesday. Lunch time on Wednesday, the Chairman finds that we have only got through yourself, Madam Speaker, and the Chief Minister. So we are half way through, but we have only done two out of the eight ministers including yourself, Madam Speaker. Now, what is the Chairman going to decide? Is the Chairman going to say: ‘Hang on, we won’t have enough time to get through all the ministers’. Is he going to curtail, with his position as Chairman, the amount of time that we can all question, including his own backbenchers? He will have a problem. The maths won’t add up.
So we get half way into the next day, 24 hours later and we have actually done five, or four plus yourself, and there are a few left over. Now, what are you going to do, Mr Chairman? I would like to know that. Is the Chairman going to say: ‘Righto, we can’t have any more than half an hour on this division of this portfolio because we are going to run out of time and that wouldn’t be good enough. We have to allow good time for everybody to have a good, deep, thorough look at this whole process and the budget’? I can see a big practical problem coming up, Madam Speaker, and the test, as I said, is going to come at the end of the day when there could be questions left and, indeed, ministers left.
The member for Nhulunbuy used the example that perhaps the first day we will get through the Speaker, Chief Minister and himself, and the Chairman might make a decision then to call on the next minister. That’s great. That is how flexible it should be, but it could work the other way. It could be that we are through questioning yourself, Madam Speaker, and half way through the Chief Minister and then he will have to make a decision: ‘Do we extend?’ No, because we are locked in. We are locked in.
The amendment before us actually gives some flexibility to the whole process and, as my colleague the member for Katherine said, it does not lock us into sitting all night. We don’t particularly want to sit all night either. It just allows at the end of the process that there is flexibility in being able to complete what the government purports to be a new and refreshed and equitable, accessible and transparent process of members of this Parliament, not just the opposition, scrutinising the budget.
I would certainly ask the Leader of Government Business, who seems to have full carriage of this motion, to just have another look at that and reconsider why you would not include that so at the end of the day you do not have to face the test of not having the process completed.
I would like to put on the record a few comments about this whole process and how we have come to be debating this for hours and hours on end. It seems to me that the whole process has been one of shoddy management, particularly by the Leader of Government Business - totally shoddy and inept management. We have a debate in this parliament only two sitting days out of the actual process starting. The way we arrived here is by the opposition asking a question. Bear in mind that this was a major plank of Labor for the last year, since they came into government. Prior to that it has been in all the documentation about promises and what have you, but a major plank. We have had a number of sitting days and there has been ample opportunity to bring this in for complete debate in a very rational sense. Nothing happened until we asked the question last Tuesday - a week ago today - of the Chief Minister, who said: ‘Ah, um, well, um, yes. Well, we will get to that after the budget comes down on Tuesday next week’. That was not very well received I do not think by many members, whether it opposition or Independents. We had the Leader of Government Business yell out: ‘Well, we will give you a briefing tomorrow morning’, to the member for Katherine.
The member for Katherine goes along and has the briefing, only to raise a number of issues which I think must have put the Leader of Government Business on a bit of a back foot, because he would had to have gone off and talked to his caucus about where to go and what position to take. There were a number of meetings on this floor - not in debate, but on the back wall - between the Leader of Government Business and our side about coming back with the information on the issues raised and more dialogue going on, more issues raised. Some of us talked to the Independent member sitting on the floor - as I am sure members opposite do - only to find that the Independent member, the member for Nelson, was equally in the dark about the process and the fact that it was evolving. I am sure he went off at that time to seek his own meetings with the Leader of Government Business and gathered some information, albeit not complete.
Today, we again see phone calls going on, and we see more meetings on the floor. We get into the motion itself and we have this silly situation of: ‘Minister, can you actually verify this?’. Normally, a minister, once spoken, can only wrap up at the end of the day, but we have had this minister standing up and saying: ‘Well, I do not know about it. We will have to think about that’, and it has been going on all day today. This is a shoddy way of doing business, particularly ...
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know that you have given a previous ruling that it is broad and sweeping, but surely this is a bit too broad …
Mr Stirling: We will not worry about talking to you next time.
Mr BALDWIN: No, that is good.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member.
Mr KIELY: It is way off the mark; it has no relevance to the actual motion. Latitude is latitude, but this is out with the fairies.
Mr BALDWIN: I would like to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. As you know, we have allowed a lot of latitude, and the member is speaking to the amendments and should stick to the amendments.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I am sure this is embarrassing for some of those on the other side, particularly the backbenchers who have had to put up with this shoddy form of doing business by their Deputy Chief Minister, the Leader of Government Business, who sat back and said: ‘This debate will not take long because the Leader of Government Business has got it all organised with the opposition’ and, supposedly, the member for Nelson. Oh no! We have raised a number of issues that will test this process. Do we get a chance, once we provide some logical reasons for implementing the amendments that we want - at this late hour, because this late hour is the only time in the last year we have had to debate this. It has been brought on in a casual way by the Leader of Government Business. It is deplorable and disgusting that the Leader of Government Business has been allowed to conduct his business - I mean, this the man who tries to emulate Barry Coulter. He worships the feet of Barry Coulter, but he does not even reach the shoelaces of Barry Coulter in the way that he has dealt with this situation.
This is deplorable and this could have been brought on any time in the last few months. I have not even begun on the Tasmanian model. Yes, let’s go and have a look at that and all the nice words the Leader of Government Business said about the Tasmanian model only to find on his members reporting back that: ‘Whoops! We don’t want to go there’, Leader of Government Business. ‘You will have to drop that one; it is a hot potato. We don’t want to see that sort of system here in the Northern Territory because it gives too much opportunity to scrutinise’.
The fact that we are actually debating this motion before we have had a chance to even debate the report is also deplorable particularly when, at the last sittings, I had to go personally to Leader of Government Business to say could we please have 10 minutes, just 10 minutes, for our members of the PAC to be able to get up in this House to provide their comments against the report they were commissioned by this House to write on behalf of the good governance models that this government was talking about. The remaining members have not even had a chance to debate it. The others talked about ‘Haven’t you read it?’. Of course, we have read it! We want to debate it in here and it should be debated before this motion was ever brought on.
It is just deplorable, it is shabby and the Leader of Government Business should hang his head in shame for the way this process has been conducted. We have tried, and we started out in a very conciliatory way, to help this process through. We were not going to get into verbal abuse, but it begun on the other side. They have dug in, and that is fair enough; this is their process. You make it what you want to make it because you will have stand the test of time. The test will come on of Friday of the estimates process in the September sitting. If there are ministers who have not been questioned, God help you.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to address what I consider to be the major furphy of what the opposition is talking about and what they are advocating which is untrammelled time for the operation of the Estimates Committee. I may stand corrected about this, but from my reading and my understanding and discussions with estimates committees elsewhere, nearly all of them have a time limit. They have a time limit by their very nature of how long they operate.
That is different from the Committee of the Whole that used to operate here, and I take what the opposition leader has said. I have never experienced it. I suppose in a way I am talking about something that I have not experienced. But what I do know is that each of these estimates committees elsewhere have a time limit. So we have taken this out of the realm of the Committee of the Whole. We have put it in to an Estimates Committee and within that Estimates Committee, generally it comes down to discipline for the committee to get through the work that it has at hand. In terms of the model that is being developed here, we have tried to take the element of written questions - and members will be able to follow on with supplementary questions arising out of those written questions.
What I am trying to say is this: by having an Estimates Committee, you do necessarily have to put a time limit on it, and that is what members opposite seem to be opposing. In terms of the business of the committee and getting through all the ministers and all the portfolios, I believe a lot of it is incumbent on members opposite, as I tried to say earlier, to show some discipline, to show some unity in the questions that they wanted to distil and they want to hammer at. There is a lot of disunity on the other side. I have pointed to it before. We had this morning a report when two members opposite were trying to get up, or discussing who should get up. They are not even clear about their portfolios or who should be responding to statements here in the House. We have seen them get up in Question Time, very disorganised. I want to get through all the business; I want to interrogate all the ministers and their side has to show some discipline and work hard and get in there and actually and do it.
Madam SPEAKER: The question we are going to vote on now are the amendments as proposed by the member for Katherine. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
- Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
- Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendments negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, we still have another motion, so please resume your seats quickly.
The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to. We are talking about the original motion and the amendments proposed by the Leader of Government Business.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, given that I am an adherent to political process, I have chosen not to speak about the wider issues, only the amendments until this stage. Some issues were canvassed widely, and I have chosen to speak to this motion to talk about them.
Madam SPEAKER: Which is the amended motion now.
Mr DUNHAM: The amended motion, that is correct, Madam Speaker.
In the first place, I think there is some reason for us to have some of these things enshrined in much more detail than is currently available to us with the standing orders that are available, and that is because of some of the form of the PAC, Madam Speaker. We have had a sorry occasion where the protection of one of the government ministers was so poorly handled that on many, many occasions, I think we added up to 60 or 70, the questions posed to the minister were answered in the first instance by somebody else.
We saw the delinquent behaviour of one of the government members, where he was running interference and he has ably demonstrated that again tonight. There were questions ruled out of order, and there was also the suspension from time to time where on one occasion a minister was given the latitude of a short break for a cup of tea or a toilet break, Madam Speaker, and what I would flag to the PAC which I am now a very familiar member of is that we are going to have to change how we do business. This is much more important. It has to be run in a much more orderly way. The Chairman really should be aware of his responsibilities here, and the fact that the gaze of the public will be upon him and you will be in an ante-room or even in the Chamber where we’re hearing this, Madam Speaker, to make sure that some of the behaviour we saw in the PAC will not intrude on this debate.
The Tasmanian motion, like the member for Daly, I believe this thing is out of sequence. I believe it has only been brought on because I brought a Private Member’s Bill to this House, Madam Speaker, and it was when the Private Member’s Bill was to be passed - and remember this was a minimalist bill, the intention of which was to just append an Estimates Committee onto the PAC. At that stage, we were given a variety of assurances, albeit oral, that no, we are going to go for the big, full blown motion, we are going to go for the good government job.
So, we already have an abrogation of an undertaking that it would be in legislation, if I recall the words from Good Government it is because governments have the capacity to change standing orders at whim. We have seen that demonstrated again today. We have departed from the good governance model, we have departed from the template that was provided for us by the Leader of Government Business to go to Tasmania. There is no wonder that we have some trepidation about this because there are so many backflips going on that they would put the Moscow Circus to shame. We think that this is too serious an issue. I would repeat for those on the government benches that the benchmarks they must clear are at least their Good Government policy - and they can’t do that, obviously, because it is not in legislation, but at least to some of the letter of their undertakings, and it should be at least better than what went before.
Apart from the public broadcast, and apart from the fact that public servants will be in the room, most of the other changes are negative, and that is a sad thing to say. With the public servants being in the room, we are yet to see how much access we can have to them because the standing orders still allow that access only via a minister. I am also a bit disturbed that the Leader of Government Business keeps talking about two public servants, the finance officer and the CEO. The minister should bring along the most competent advisor on issues, so if it is my shadow portfolio area of disease control, you would bring along the most knowledgeable person in that area. If it is about child care, you would bring along the most knowledgeable person in that area. So if have got a finance boffin, a CEO and a minister, I can see that there is the potential for some of this to be drawn out a bit and some of it to be taken on notice.
I did note that the member for Wanguri did a little excursion into history about the previous Treasurer and his underestimation of the budget outcome for the health department. It is an issue that I would like to include in this debate because only this morning we asked the Minister for Health whether the vast differentials in the numbers that are available to us in these budget documents did in fact indicate that she may have misled parliament in June. She has given an assurance to this House that in June, she was only aware that the budget would come in on target. We know it has come in with an $18m blowout. So, some of the questions that will be available to us …
Ms Martin: Rubbish! Can you work out the difference between accrual, cash and start coming to terms with that?
Mr DUNHAM: Some of the questions that will be available to us, Madam Speaker, are to reconcile those figures. We know the Chief Minister, who has just screamed out ‘rubbish’, had great difficulty herself with her understanding of a chart that showed a $5m cut to health. Those two figures in Question Time will give a little heads-up to those two particular ministers about the depth of questioning that will be required.
For the people who want to castigate my colleague, the member for Katherine, about an $8m plus or minus estimate - which was about March of that year if I recall - and the difficulties people had with giving him the credibility for that, I would like to see how the reconciliation for this current budget is going to take place. We do not have figures for the previous year. We have figures in these Budget Papers that are called ‘estimate’ when we are in August, and the Under Treasurer has signed off that ‘On 9 August, these figures were as accurate as I could get’.
If Treasury did not know on 9 August what the actuals were, we are in trouble. From 9 August, if the figures that were available on the 30 June were not available to the Treasurer, I have some difficulties with this entire veracity argument that they keep putting to us.
We are seeing some figures still hidden, and it will mean that we have to ask more questions in this period than we have ever had in the past because figures that were readily available – like, for instance, staffing and you could work out which numbers you wanted to ask - we now have to ask across the entire budget because those figures are not there for the entire budget.
With government owned corporations, we are now seeing some many hundreds of millions of dollars being hidden from public view. It is not acceptable. This thing that we have designed, we have told them that it is a matter where we will support them to design something that is demonstrably better than what we had. It is a creature of their making. The opposition has always said: ‘Whatever it is you come up with, you live with’. In closing, you will live with this and it will be an ample demonstration of your arrogance.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Drysdale for his awesome contribution – very awesome indeed. That bloke can fabricate anything. I could not believe it. I thought: ‘Are we in the same parliament?’
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I have tolerated a lot of slanging from both sides. It is getting to that time of the evening where I think we are talking to the amended motion, not talking about members in the House. So come on, let us get on with the debate.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I would like to go to the point where he raised his concerns about the …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have ruled, member for Sanderson. I want you to stick to the amended motion, not a member.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, if you would allow me a little latitude here; the same latitude that was given to others, I would appreciate that.
Madam SPEAKER: I have allowed latitude all day and I am getting to the stage where my patience is beginning to wear very thin. Make sure that your comments reflect the amended motion.
Mr KIELY: It is a bit hard to speak to the amended motion …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the establishment of the Estimates Committee. I would like to pick up on the point about whether the PAC is a body fit enough to perform the duties of the Estimates Committee because it was raised in the debate and the professionalism of the PAC is a point that needs addressing. The member for Drysdale was condescending and patronising in his description of that body. I was on the PAC and I found it to be quite professional. I found some of the behaviour that he was talking about - it is not very nice to get up and give yourself praise. That is no recommendation, is it? He was up there talking about his own behaviour on that committee, and then he was saying that this committee is not fit enough. He has based it on his own behaviour. Let me say that not all members of the PAC behave in that way.
He has also called into question whether there was enough knowledge to be able to perform as an effective Estimates Committee. Let me say that in the PAC, the member for Drysdale held up his former government’s budget papers and the mini-budget and said: ‘Look at ours; ours are much bigger’. Well, look, member for Drysdale, I am holding ours up, and I would say they are a few grams heavier than yours. Now, by the way you do budgets, that means this is a better budget and I think there is one question you can put into the Estimates Committee: how heavy are your documents? That is a really clever one.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am just a little lost. I would like the member to direct me to which clause in the amended motion we are referring.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s a point of order, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, with due deference to the Chair, you have pointed out that the debate must be relevant.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I hope you do have due deference. Well, relevance is what you meant. Member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I would also like to say in regard to the Estimates Committee and the appointment of it, it has been alleged by the member for Drysdale that what the government is proposing for this parliament to adopt is a backflip. He said that he was the one who brought in the bill. This is something for which we have argued for many years and which, as I pointed out in an earlier debate, was derided by the former Treasurer, the former Chief Minister, the member for Daly and I am sure that if I had a look through I would find the member for Drysdale in there, too.
Talk about backflips. That is the biggest backflip. That they should come in here now saying: ‘Good governance, we are the ones for it; we are the party for it’ has such a ring of falsehood that I really wonder as to their motivations as to the whole of this debate. I wonder about their sincerity in trying to get to interrogate the Appropriation Bill. I believe that we will see an abuse of the system. I do not think it will - well, I know it won’t come from us. I believe there will be some half cock-eyed plan put into place which will be aimed at trying to deride and derail the whole system. Let me say, members of the opposition, that the public of the Territory will be listening, will be watching how the Estimates Committee performs.
They will be looking to you to provide that strong opposition that they voted you in to do. Remember that. They voted you in to be a strong opposition. Don’t let the Territory down. Do your work, and let’s make the Estimates Committee work for the whole of the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): It is a curious position that the member for Sanderson has, that he expects us to be a strong opposition, Madam Speaker, but he goes by the mantra: ‘Ah, just sit down and shut up’.
Madam SPEAKER: Ah-ah! Member for Macdonnell, please get to the amended motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am curious that we still have sitting before us in this Chamber and on the Notice Paper a motion from a committee that was sent to Tasmania to come back with a model. I have no idea what happened after the Chairman of that committee delivered his report on that trip to this House, which has yet to be debated, but I would like to know why we suddenly find ourselves with a motion before us without having completed debate on a trip that this Chamber voted for in an effort to try to discover how an estimates committee worked.
I have this mental picture of the Chairman of that committee being taken into a private room somewhere upstairs, after our people have had a look at it, to quote a member opposite, and beaten around the head because obviously this new government has very little interest in being open and accountable, otherwise they would have lived up to the contract that they made with the people of the Northern Territory. It is pretty clear that what they said in opposition and what they do in government are two completely different things. The people of the Northern Territory will be most disappointed, I am certain.
I hope that I will be able to ask some difficult questions during the estimates process. One of the questions I will flag in the beginning is that I am uncertain as to whether this whole budget as presented through all its papers this morning was expressed in accrual terms completely, or if it is a hybrid of accrual and cash terms. It is a simple answer. It can probably even be answered during the debate today by the Treasurer or even from the Leader of Government Business as to whether or not this budget is expressed in accrual terms only.
There are a couple of functional matters that I wish to raise. I am not entirely certain which area or where they physically hope to have this committee, but I have had a good think about it, and although we will not be in session, the physical shape of this Chamber and all the recording equipment and those sorts of things, the Chamber itself might be somewhere we would like to see the government consider having this estimates process.
I expressed my disappointment in the fact that government corporations will not be able to be questioned in relation to the estimates process. The Chief Minister and Treasurer still has to explain to this House why she said one moment that an answer to a question was confidential and the next moment, or the next time she was on her feet giving a statement, about two hours later, actually gave us a figure which was the answer to the question asked during Question Time. I would like to know from her whether she was merely incompetent, or whether she was actually deceiving the people in this House whilst the cameras were switched on. She still owes an answer to this House to that end. When the minister for Health in the past had realised that she had made an error of this sort, she was certainly good enough to correct that error, and that is all I am asking from the Treasurer and Chief Minister.
As we have already debated – and I am not going to dwell on it at length – I am still dissatisfied that we are now going to be working to a time limit. I certainly hope that this government will live up to its promise but so far, it has fallen well short of the mark.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, speaking to the amended motion, I would like to make a few comments. In general terms, I was disappointed in the way this has come to parliament. To some extent there is confusion, at least in my mind. When the Public Accounts Committee did report on its trip to Tasmania, I presumed that that debate was more a summary of what we had done - nothing more, nothing less – and that at some other stage we were going to come back and debate what was going to happen.
On 23 May, which was before we went to Tasmania, the minister gave members an Estimates Committee sheet, which is the one we are debating tonight. Basically, that is what we have back, even though we went to Tasmania in the meantime. I note that the member for Johnston, who is our esteemed Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, did make this statement on return from Tasmania:
- In general terms, the committee commends the Tasmanian model to the parliament. Nevertheless,
in reaching this decision, committee members were also of the opinion that it would be inappropriate
to attempt to provide recommendations within this report as there were a number of broad issues,
and we have some issues of concern in there that are referred to arising from the draft terms of
reference tabled by the Leader of Government Business. These broad issues will require measured
debate in the Legislative Assembly and it is this process which will eventually influence the
specific terms of reference for the first Estimates Committee of the Northern Territory Legislative
Assembly.
My problem is I don’t think we got to that stage and we have been forced into this position tonight. All I can say is there is probably very little we can do about it. It will be voted on tonight. I just feel that process was definitely lacking. I was under the impression that we were come and debate the issue as I believe the member for Johnston had signalled to this House.
I would like to put it on record that I believe this process could have been better than it was …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are some distractions on the side. Member for Macdonnell and Chief Minister.
Mr Dunham: He is merely responding to the Chief Minister, Madam Speaker. He is trying to be quiet.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson is finding it difficult when there is chit-chat going on.
Mr WOOD: Finally, I do realise that the member for Nhulunbuy has said we will revise this and look at it and amend it if necessary. I hope that does happen fairly early after this process is gone through. I certainly will be keeping the member for Nhulunbuy to that promise, and in the case of people who have objected, I suppose what we will end up doing today is sucking it to see.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I don’t want to be churlish. It has been a long debate, five hours and 10 minutes.
However, I do get a bit incensed with the throw away lines of the member for Drysdale and the member for Daly, being accused of being disorganised and backflips. This is after positive consulting and a process of negotiation with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If this government and I are to be accused of backflips and disorganisation, having listened closely to the concerns of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and having responded, and probably about two-thirds of the way to the concerns raised, well he can go to hell, Madam Speaker, and there will be no more consultation on these things; we will bring them in and we will drive them through, the same as they used to do to us.
We never got an invitation to come up and discuss these sorts of moves. Often the first we heard of it was on the floor of the House when they were rammed down our throat. If that is the way they want it – that is not my preference, Madam Speaker. If I am being accused of backflipping when I have listened to the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition in positive discussion with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, unlike these turkeys here, as I said, we won’t bother consulting you again. We will come down and guillotine it in the same way that they did for the 11 years I sat in here in opposition.
It is instructive to look at the time taken in considering appropriation bills in Committee of the Whole. 1985 - four hours, 10 minutes, five hours in 1996, 1987 - 10 hours, 1988 - 10 hours 30 minutes, 1989 - 14 hours, 1990 - 13 hours, 1991 - 26 hours, 1992 - 27 hours, 1993 - 19 hours, 1994 - 17 hours, 1995 - 30 hours, 1996 and 1997, coincidently, both 41 hours and 11 minutes and occurring on the same days. It struck me as too coincidental, but in fact it has been triple checked and, coincidently, 41 hours and 11 minutes, the outstanding long length of debate in all of these times. 1998 - 27 hours, 1999 - 28 hours, 2000 - 28 hours, 2001 - 30 hours.
So, if you go over a period of some 16 years, on just two occasions it exceeded 30 hours, and both to the tune of 41 hours and 11 minutes. This process - 32 hours in committee, five hours back in here in committee report back for debate, 37 hours, and only twice ever exceeded in 16 years of Appropriation debate.
Now, this is the test for the opposition. We could have said 56 hours and if they were hell bent on saying it wasn’t enough, they could run questions to 56 hours and five minutes. We could have set 100 hours, and they could still say: ‘No, you’re limiting it’ and arrange questions for 100 hours and five minutes just to prove that they were right. We have set, in all fairness, 32 hours for the committee itself and five hours back in here, 37 hours, only exceeded twice in 16 years, Madam Speaker. But it is up to the opposition; if they are hell-bent on trying to prove that this is going to be a flawed process, well so be it. They will make sure that they have more than 32 hours worth of questions.
The response from ministers will be timely and brief answers, and they can fire all the questions they like, but I can assure you ministers will not be filibustering and taking lengthy time for answers because I would expect 32 hours to be ample. In the event that it is not, we will see that when it comes. I will table that little document, and I thank Mr Gadd for the research on that issue.
It does get up my nose when I have bent over backwards to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as I said, and go a fair way to meeting their concerns and to be accused of backflipping, dilly dallying and not knowing what I am doing, in response to positive consultation and negotiation – well, they can jam it, because they will not get that treatment again if that is the attitude from the snarling little turkey from Daly comes in here aided and abetted by his grumpy mate, the member for Drysdale. I will bear that in mind next time I am dealing with a member of the opposition and I will be saying very clearly: ‘Why should I concede any point because I will be bagged down there for backflips and being disorganised’. Keep your concerns to yourselves, fellas, because I am not really interested in entering into that debate.
I thank all members for their contribution to what has been now close to a five-and-a-half hour debate. That is it. We will now have the question.
Madam SPEAKER: I will make a couple of comments before I put the question. I have been unimpressed with the content of some contributions to the debate and you know why.
After I have put the question, I refer members to the sections regarding written questions. You should submit them as soon as possible through the committee secretary. It is really important that we get them so we can start actioning them.
I also expect the Chairman to publish procedures and guidelines for the running of this committee before the end of these sittings because it is very important that we all know exactly how the process is going to work.
The question is the amended motion be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to briefly talk about roads again. Roads are my ongoing topic. I have spoken and pointed out to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure about the Docker River Road in the past, and the Mereenie Loop Road of which he now has some experience. I can tell the honourable minister that the Mereenie Loop Road is like a four-lane graded sealed concrete-based highway compared with another favourite road of mine which is the Deep Well Road. I have raised this with the former government and now I raise it with this government.
While I was driving along the Deep Well Road the other day I came across a wash-out by the side of that road. This wash-out was large enough for me to drive along the road until I could find an access point, and then drive into the wash-out and park my vehicle in the middle of it. I then climbed out of my vehicle, climbed up on to the roof of my vehicle, and stepped out onto the surface of the road. I can tell you now that is an extraordinary thing to do; to be able to find yourself in a wash-out which is so deep you can park your own vehicle in it and then not see it from the road surface.
I notice that in the budget appropriations that road funding seems to have been cut, in terms of repairs and maintenance at least, by some $5.89m. Never has the government - either CLP or the current government - spent sufficient money on roads to ensure that the movement of produce across the Northern Territory goes unhindered. However, to see this road in such an appalling and dismal condition is of great concern indeed.
This road has been due for realignment, resealing and work for some four years, and I am becoming increasingly frustrated that every time I drive along that road, I find that the wash-outs are getting deeper and that in some places, the road has been cut so often with grading equipment that the roof of my vehicle is literally at the height of the surrounding countryside. That means that the road has been cut to a depth of about six feet by repeated grades.
It would be a profoundly optimistic road engineer, by any measure, to be able to suggest that a road in that condition is any longer gradable. It only has to rain about an inch and that road is literally under a foot of water and fills up very quickly. There is no clay left in some places. In some places it is purely sand and the condition of that road continues to be of grave concern to me, as is the condition of several other roads in my electorate. I invite the minister to join me for a drive in my electorate. I will happily accommodate him. I will happily make a swag available to him and we can have a bit of a spin around the bush and I can show him some of my favourite bits and show him some places where the owners of commercial vehicles, like cattle stations which have to move cattle, or those people who live in remote communities have the shake, rattle and roll thing happening every time they drive their cars into town.
I am very happy that the government is spending some money on infrastructure in the bush such as schools and police stations and the like, but I would hate to see that a school’s budget, in terms of its capital expenditure is increased and those schools are worked on only to discover that their ongoing R and M budget to their vehicles offsets any sort of gain that the school has achieved because of the poor condition of roads.
These roads are becoming unreasonably dangerous. I know that the minister has instructed his department to cut costs, but some of those cost cutting exercises are dangerous in their own right. Failure to slash the sides of roads like the Lasseter Highway means that kangaroos sit in the scrub or in the bushes right next to the road and those people who have occasion to drive these roads at night, as I did the other night because I had to drive back to Alice Springs, almost invariably hit kangaroos. Indeed, left Curtin Springs one evening about nine o’clock because I absolutely had to be back in Alice Springs, and in that drive back to Alice Springs, I hit six kangaroos, each and every one of them sitting in the tall grass just beside the road.
I am fortunate because I have in my possession a Toyota Landcruiser with a very robust bull bar on the front end and damage to the vehicle was non-existent. However, between Alice Springs and Ayers Rock, we have any number of tourists who are not used to driving on those roads, and indeed the minister has seen fit to reduce the speed limit on the Lasseter Highway down to 110 kilometres an hour because of the danger that those roads pose.
However, to impose a speed limit on a safety ground and then refuse to slash the roads on other grounds sends a very inconsistent message. It is very easy to slap a speed limit on and say it is all for safety sake, but if you are not going to slash the side of the roads, it is not going to be long before one of the kangaroos that sits on the side of the road is going to go straight through the windscreen of a hired Corolla or Magna or Commodore, and then we are going to see more lives lost.
I have raised this issue before in parliament. I have raised it on repeated occasions. Nevertheless the minister continues to turn a blind eye to the issue. I am increasingly frustrated when I see the roads maintenance budget being cut by a further $6m, that these roads are going to become more dangerous, not safer places to be. I urge the minister to revisit this issue. I will gladly take him out anywhere he wants to go in my electorate and even beyond, to show him what the problems are on these roads.
The very week, this was some time ago, during the last sittings, very week that I raised an issue of the Docker River Road, apparently a few days before, a cattle station lost a triple near Docker River and it costs tens of thousands of dollars every time that you lose a truck like that.
In Rome they realised the importance of a road network and they looked after their roads so much, even in their most remote places, that some of those roads such as the Via Apia are still used to this day. However, it seems that the minister himself is incapable of seeing the importance of this. Nevertheless I urge, urge, urge him to revisit these issues and get some funding onto these roads, get some graders onto these roads, get some slashers onto the sides of the roads.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight with sadness to record the death of Mrs Paula Burton, nee Wehr, a long-term resident of Nightcliff who died on 12 June 2002 at the age of 96. She is survived by her daughters Jutta and Helga, grandsons Shaun, Peter, Dennis, Adrian and Michael, grandchildren Danial and Susan and son—in-law Patrick.
Paula was born on 1 December 1905, the third daughter of four children. Her parents were prominent members of society; her father a successful businessman who was involved in state affairs in Germany. From all accounts, Paula had a happy childhood and, like her siblings, was adored by her parents. Once she finished her education, learning a few languages on the way, she travelled extensively in Europe. In her early 20s, she ventured to Persia where she eventually met and married Anton (Tony) Wehr. Two daughters, Jutta and Helga, were born of that union and life appeared to be perfect.
Unfortunately, this all came to sudden end during World War II when in 1942 British and Russian forces occupied Persia and the family was separated. Tony Wehr was taken as a civilian internee and sent to Australia. Paula and the two girls had everything confiscated but for their crucifixes and their clothes.
They arrived in Germany as refugees and found safe haven in a picturesque valley in which nestled the twin villages of Altglashutten and Falkau. Those small farming communities separated by a railway line would be home for the next six years. On a cold November night in 1944, Paula’s beloved Freiburg was destroyed except for the cathedral left towering sentinel-like over masses of charred rubble.
The family lost contact with their father for a few years, but with the help of Red Cross, finally made contact in 1946. Tony, meanwhile, had been released from internment and had decided to stay in Australia. He first found work at Banka Banka Station, then moved to Darwin, working at the old power station at Parap. Once he had established himself and raised the money, he arranged for the family to migrate to Australia in early 1949.
Tragedy struck the family again with the death of Tony in 1951. Paula worked to keep the family together and eventually formed a partnership to start a bakery with a shop popularly known as Wehr’s Cake Shop in Knuckey Street next to the Ah Toy’s store. Paula’s home in Darwin was a Sidney Williams hut, a home where all creatures were welcome. Over the years it seems she had a menagerie of hungry or injured Kite Hawks, snakes, frogs, cats, dogs, pigs and flying foxes. No animal was shooed away by Paula, and no creature was left wanting an offering of food or succour.
The shop closed its doors in the early 1960s and Paula married a local man, Rick Burton, who died in 1991. By then Jutta and Helga had married and produced five grandsons between them and Paula became their true ‘Omi’. Paula was a wonderful mother and grandmother and was always there when needed to help out with sewing, mending, cleaning and especially baby sitting. It wasn’t only the grandsons who were fussed over as Paula unselfishly looked to the welfare of her extended family. To her family, Paula was a gem; a stout, loyal and loving matriarch, one in a million and now sorely missed.
When it came to hospitality, Paula would always produce some fare for refreshments. She enjoyed life very much, loved people and socialising and never said a bad word about anyone. Sadly, as age overtook Paula, she gradually lost her mobility and alertness of mind. I met her late in her life while door knocking in Nightcliff. She was lovingly cared for by her daughter and, while she was very frail, she had a beautiful radiance about her and she had a very lovely smile. I can say that she will be greatly missed by many people in Darwin, and especially by her family.
I move now to another topic. In Question Time on 13 August, the member for Drysdale asked about nursing staff at Alice Springs Hospital. As part of the answer, I advised that I would report further to the House after a meeting between my department and the Australian Nursing Federation. This meeting occurred yesterday afternoon between senior departmental staff and the Secretary of the ANF.
There have also been meetings between ANF delegates and senior departmental staff in Alice Springs. As I advised the House last week, there was a period of some weeks when the hospital was unusually busy, largely due to increased admissions to the paediatric ward. Undoubtedly, this put a large strain on nursing resources, but as members will recognise, it is not possible to staff for an unanticipated crisis.
As of the end of last week, nursing numbers at the Alice Springs Hospital were at the allocated establishment. A range of measures has been put in place to address the concerns of nurses at the hospital. A regime of daily monitoring by the Director of Medical Services and the Executive Director of Nursing on the management of beds, the number of patients awaiting admission in the emergency department, activity and staffing numbers has been established. Following the discussions with the ANF, which I have mentioned, the hospital has established a Bed Management Committee. A working group that will assess nursing numbers at the Alice Springs Hospital has also been established. This working group will consist of three ANF delegates, three other nursing representatives, including a nursing coordinator, a nursing director and a registered nurse, and the Executive Director of Nursing.
This group will work together to develop strategies to address work force issues at the Alice Springs Hospital. The group will meet on a fortnightly basis initially. It will also be responsible for the development of submissions which will have input from both union and management representatives. The department has agreed to work with the ANF to develop a range of strategies, including work on accommodation issues, which would significantly enhance the capacity of Alice Springs Hospital to recruit and retain nurses.
This government is serious about health, as demonstrated by the Budget which the Treasurer brought down today. I can assure Territorians that we are serious about doing our level best to ensure that Territory hospitals are staffed appropriately. The steps that my department has taken over the past week are further evidence of this.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to make comments about the decision handed down in the New South Wales District Court by His Honour Judge Michael Finnane RFD QC in the case of the gang rapist who was sentenced to 55 years gaol with a non-parole period of 40 years. There has been much publicity about this sentence, both for and against, but can I say from the outset that I fully support the judge’s sentence.
Those of you who have come into contact with rape victims will have some understanding of the enormity of the crime and the consequences of the actions and atrocities inflicted upon the victims. I will not go into details of the atrocities that this gang inflicted upon these young women. I am sure everyone here has read the details. However, some of the criticism levelled against the sentence causes me concern and it has mainly come through the legal fraternity. It has been of the nature that the sentence is effectively a life sentence, that the offender would not get as tough a penalty if it had been murder.
Let me say in response to that criticism that these young women, these victims, have had a life sentence imposed upon them, and they now have to live with this crime inflicted upon them for the rest of their lives. I really don’t know how on earth they are going to cope. I will even go as far as to say that at least a murder victim no longer lives with the attack, and is spared the agony of the trial, but these young women were very brave, were prepared to speak up and, unfortunately, had to live again through the atrocities during the trial.
I am hoping this sentence will in fact bring a new benchmark for rape trials, not just in New South Wales, but also in the Territory. The judge made it clear that he believed he was reflecting the expectations of the community and the feedback certainly has indicated that is so, especially from women’s groups. I quote from the Reclaim the Night project coordinator, who did have her letter in the paper today, and which I believe sums up fairly well what many women are feeling. She said:
- For a long time, advocates of social justice have been calling for longer gaol sentences for rapists and
molesters and have been fighting for longer sentences that match the brutality and the hideousness of
the crimes.
The legal system has been long overdue in handing down harsh penalties for rapists. In this particular
case, there should be no furore over the length of sentence when the convicted man himself has cruelly
handed a life sentence to the young women gang raped at his own orchestration.
However, we do indeed advocate punishment that matches the crime and sentences for similar crimes in
the past have not been long enough.
And that sums up very much the feedback that has come back to me.
What concerns me also, I am sure there are many cases of rape that have gone unreported for all sorts of reasons, but this particular sentence and case may give incentive for women to speak up if they feel that justice will be handed down to reflect the ordeal that they had to go through. I particularly urge Aboriginal women to speak up and not accept abuse that is sometimes forced upon them. I say that because of some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention.
I know of a case recently in Alice Springs involving a non-indigenous woman and an Aboriginal male. The women from his community said clearly that he should be gaoled as he had been raping them for years but because of the status of his family, the women felt powerless to act. I know of another non-Aboriginal victim who now dresses in a most odd, unattractive way. Her comment is: ‘Why should I ever try to look attractive again? Why would I ever want to attract attention to myself?’
There have been other cases where women have packed up and left Alice Springs to start their lives again elsewhere. I have often wondered what happened to them and whether they were able to adjust and live their lives as we hope they could. I feel contrite that I did not follow up on many of those cases to find out exactly what happened to those women.
Much criticism has been levelled at the severity of the sentence, but we need to keep in mind that this sentence reflects the cumulative nature of the crimes; that is, three separate gang rapes against four young woman and 21 charges. It was alleged that the sentence is tougher than for murder, but the comparison should be borne in mind of someone committing three murders and the sentence reflecting the cumulation of those three murders. The sentence should not be viewed as one sentence for one rape. As Judge Finnane said, the ultimate degradation of women is rape; it is a crime of domination and contempt.
In the Territory, we have fixed non-parole period for an offence under section 192(3) of the Criminal Code. This section applies to any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person. A person who falls within that section is liable to imprisonment for life. The non-parole period the court shall fix shall be not less than 70% of the period of imprisonment that the offender is to serve under sentence. This could, in fact, be as harsh as the penalty bought down by Judge Finnane if a similar series of offences was tried in the Territory.
I would say to the Attorney-General I would be appalled if we were ever to lessen or repeal the mandatory nature of this minimum non-parole period. Quite frankly, leave it alone. As the New South Wales Attorney-General said, the sentence set a new benchmark, but the judge has responded to the needs of justice and to the expectations of the community. Even the Premier of New South Wales welcomed the sentence stating: ‘It was the sort of sentence the community expects’.
The young women in this case were extremely brave and strong in what they have done. Women everywhere will applaud their strength and courage. I do not think any of us who have never experienced what they went through can fully appreciate the effects on their lives, the betrayal they must feel, the lack of trust they must experience, and the abuse of their bodies. It is indeed just retribution for the bravery of these young women who were prepared to give evidence. It may, indeed, give incentive to other women to come forward.
I commend this decision and hope other members of the judiciary show the same awareness as Judge Finnane.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to congratulate the organisers of the Tropical Garden Spectacular that occurred in the George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens from 9 to 11 August. I commend particularly the very hard-working committee that brought together a very spectacular and beautiful event that many thousands of Top Enders enjoyed over that weekend.
I congratulate Jim Mitchell, the Chairman of the Northern Territory Tropical Garden Spectacular Committee. I also congratulate the President of the Nursery and Garden Industries of NT, Mr Simon Smith, and congratulate another committee member, Jan Tracey. I thank David Griffiths, the Acting Curator of the George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens and Peter Siriotis who is a very energetic Community Coordinator.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Garden Spectacular on the Saturday and worked on the Aussie Tucker stall on behalf of Holy Family School. The Minister for Business, Industries and Resource Development and myself were very busy working. He was there as Patron of the Casuarina Junior Soccer Club. We certainly fed a lot of constituents with burgers, sausage sandwiches, hot dogs and the like. It was a very popular day.
I just want to run through some of the wonderful events from the entertainment program that people enjoyed at the Garden Spectacular. The Greek Orthodox School of Darwin NT are to be congratulated. They had a wonderful dance troop which entertained the crowd. The Irish dancers also put on a fabulous display. The Mediterranean Greek Dancing Group as well as the Indonesian-Australian Association of NT Cultural Group also had terrific dancers.
Taking people through the Friday even were the Pan Hellenic Dancers, the Midnight Oasis Belly dancers and then the Thai-Australian Friendship Association Cultural Group put on a tremendous display. The formal opening was by the Patron, Mrs Jeanette Anictomatis and His Excellency Mr Sawanit Kongsiri, the Ambassador for Thailand was also in attendance. The Thai display was special feature of the Garden Spectacular and it was certainly very beautiful. Many people went into the tranquillity of that Thai display and spent quite some time there. A tremendous five piece jazz band and vocalist provided sunset entertainment on the Friday evening.
On Saturday, I congratulate the Australian Army Band of Darwin for putting on a tremendous performance in the morning and the Chung Wah Society for performing a tremendous Lion Dance. We all know how much the children of Darwin love to see the Chung Wah Society of Darwin come out and do that Lion Dance. The NT School of Music was represented by Francis Diatschenko and Bill Grose who performed some Latin American music.
There was a kids hour of fun that included Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men from ABC television and Chantel the Fairy. I have to say that my five and six year olds got stuck right into that kids hour of fun and they loved it.
The Kiribati South Sea Islanders, the Samoan Dance group, the Tawhirimatea Gods of Wind song and dance troop performed as did Jennifer Sumons who performed classical guitar. There was again the Mediterranean Greek cultural dance troop, the Irish dancers, the Pan Hellenic and - not to be left out - the Litchfield Highland Bagpipes and Highland Dancers and a return by the Midnight Oasis Belly dancers. The Maori dancers made a special attendance and entertained the crowd, as did all the other dance troops on the Sunday.
I have to say it really was heartening to see the exhibitions that were put on by local business people. They went to a great effort with their stalls. I congratulate all of those involved and encourage them to be back there to another spectacular next year. It was a beautiful few days. We are blessed with gorgeous Dry Season weather and certainly the George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens is the perfect venture for this Garden Spectacular.
I am pleased to say that I was able to represent the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, on the Thursday evening to go through some formalities as a preliminary launch to the Garden Spectacular and I, for one, as a parent, can say that there was something there for everyone in the family at that Tropical Garden Spectacular. All ages could enjoy it. There were senior citizens picking up some hints on some of the latest varieties of species that they could get for their gardens as well as the children who had plenty to do. My kids certainly got stuck into the jumping castle, amongst other things.
I want to pay tribute to DIPE; for the first time ever I believe there was a collaboration between Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and Greening Australia. Certainly, the Greening Australia staff were pleased to see that the government was able to engage in collaborative efforts for the Tropical Garden Spectacular and sung the praises of DIPE for its participation.
I know our minister has had a bit of a media event there with a large weed to highlight the problem of noxious weeds in the Territory. I encourage all householders to have a good, hard look at their gardens and make sure that they are getting rid of some of these noxious weeds that have a very detrimental effect on our beautiful environment here in the Territory.
I would also like to use tonight’s adjournment to congratulate the task force that worked with me to submit a report to Minister Vatskalis on the Leanyer Water Park proposal.
We have gone out to the community for a couple of months of community consultation to see what people think of our redevelopment, but I would like to put on the record here this evening my heartfelt thanks to all members of the committee who worked tirelessly with me to come up with the redevelopment proposals. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Len Kiely, the member for Sanderson, Alderman Jo Sangster, Alderman John Bailey. Alderman Cecil Black never participated, but he was certainly a big supporter and unfortunately had to resign from the task force owing to work commitments.
I also thank Mr Ryan Neve, Mr Henry Gray as Principal of Leanyer Primary. He had a steady hand on the tiller and guided us through some energetic debates about the history of the lake, how it was created because he had first-hand knowledge of that process. Ms Sue Parry from the Royal Life Saving Society and her colleague Kath Midgley both put in a lot of effort and energy. Sue Parry spent time over in Townsville videoing the water park there that we based some of the features on in our proposal and she was certainly very supportive of the idea of that water park feature.
I also thank Mr David West from Parks and Wildlife. He was a tremendous assistance throughout the whole process. No request was too large for him. He provided us with a wealth of information about how the park currently operates, what the operational costs are, what a lot of the technical aspects that we had to take into account were. I also thank Mr Ross Boles. Whilst he is an engineer with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, he is also a member of Darwin South Rotary Club who have put in years of effort down at Leanyer Recreation Park in terms of tree planting. So Ross wore a couple of hats on our task force. We certainly co-opted him on to the task force in terms of his engineering expertise, but I know from having addressed the Darwin South Rotary group, he was a very worthy representative of that Rotary organisation.
I also want to thank Mrs Felicity Creed from KidSafe NT. She sought to join the task force and was co-opted on to it when we had some proposals before us for her consideration. Felicity was very valuable by pointing out many of the requirements that we had to take into account about what made recreation safe but also attractive to people, and I thank KidSafe NT wholeheartedly for their input.
I single out for special thanks two of the younger members of the task force. It can be quite daunting when you are a youth to go into a formal process, so I am particularly thanking Ben Hall of the Darwin Skateboarders Association. He put in a big effort. He worked on a youth strategy but also worked on a design for a major extension to that skate park, and the feedback I am receiving from youths of Darwin certainly lets me know that his work is not in vain - they absolutely love what has being proposed in terms of the skate park expansion.
I am singling out Tyce Clee who is a Student Representative Council member from Sanderson High School, a 15 year old. Tyce was at pretty well every meeting. His input was energetic and, I believe, very useful to deliberations of the task force. Tyce has also been a member of Youth Parliament this year, coincidentally. I had no knowledge of that when he was put on to our task force but I have seen the young man mature into a very important representative for his age group and I congratulate him for the hours of effort he has put in to the task force and the outcomes that he has been able to participate in achieving.
Certainly, the work isn’t over yet. The community consultation, as I have stated, is going on at the moment and that will continue for a while yet. We are still seeking feedback on the plans.
I just want to run through some of the features that the task force has come up with. We have a water park theme area; inside fencing that is, as I said, modelled on the Townsville water park which is a very, very popular free water park there on The Strand in Townsville. We have an adjacent wading, swimming area and we have kept the cascading pools, but we have proposed some alterations to them to make them safer such as putting in soft matting and improving sight lines.
I am pleased to say one of the recommendations in the task force report is to have all of the water body area adequately fenced with Australian Standard Pool Fencing as well as a supervisor inside while the water play area is in hours of operation.
One of the other features of the park is a kiosk with a paved umbrella area. It is rare to go anywhere to a major recreation facility and not have somewhere you can buy a cool drink or some ice-cream or something to eat. It was considered a very useful inclusion in the plan to put in a kiosk there. I am also extremely proud of the fact that the recommendation contains a playground for children with disabilities. There is no playground of that nature in the Northern Territory, yet we have a large number of children with disabilities here. Some of the feedback I am getting from the parents of those children with disabilities has been extremely positive.
In the park, as I mentioned earlier, there is an extension of the state park. We put in moguls, which are those humps, for want of a better word, that teenagers often use with their BMX bikes. There will be a bowl, a half pipe, a street course youth area, and at this stage we are recommending a half court basketball court. The feedback I have already received is that people want to see it go to a full court basketball court rather than a half court. So that would be something that might end up going back to the minister for consideration. There is also a graffiti maze proposed there. The kids who I have spoken to in the northern suburbs think that the graffiti maze is a fantastic idea and they are very excited about that.
There is a proposal for a sound shell, a bit of a stage area for youth to jam and play a bit of music, and a very large rollerblading, bikepath, walking track with one of the ideas of having a bit of a road safety overlay on that as an educational tool.
Importantly, there is a proposal for an on-site caretaker which would provide the whole recreation park with greater security but also give people using the park an opportunity to have somewhere to go with any issues or complaints that they have.
I want to put on record my thanks to Telstra. Telstra have come to the party very much so, and are going to provide a public pay phone at the kiosk area. Telstra are putting up a fair amount of money to provide this pay phone. My thanks go to Danny Honan and his staff for being good corporate citizens and recognising the need for a public payphone there, and being prepared to put some money into the project in terms of providing a payphone.
All in all, it is a fairly well rounded proposal with a variety of activities for people to enjoy. There is still a large area for picnicking, a lot of green, open space is contained within the proposal with some beautiful tree planting as part of the proposal.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to raise a couple of points tonight. First, in reference to an adjournment made by the member for Millner about the letter that he received from the Honourable Ron Roberts of the South Australian Parliament. I just thought he ought to know that the letter that he read out for the Hansard, which he read particularly for me, was written to every delegate who attended the conference, so it was not anything that was written to him in particular.
I would like to come now to the issue about the minibus saga that has continued in Alice Springs and in Darwin for the operator that was in question last week, and also about Ashmanor, and I hope the minister for transport is listening or at least, one of his minders is. I have spoken at length with operators of the commercial passenger vehicle industry over the last few days. They pointed out for me that the minister did in fact make quite a few errors in his response to my questions and also to my adjournment debate of last week.
First of all, the minister said in his Adjournment speech of 14 August, and I read into the Hansard:
- What I would like to say is that the time I implemented a cap in Alice Springs, there were 50 minibus
licences operating in Alice Springs. Now there are only 10 minibuses operating in Alice Springs. Over
the last nine months, a large number of people who operate minibuses ask me to transfer their licences
to other towns because of the downturn in business in Alice Springs.
Well, that is not true. Perhaps the minister was misinformed or uninformed when he made such a statement. I suggest to him that he get his information together properly and come back and reinform us as to the real nature of the problem. I am not accusing the minister of misleading the House. He probably made a genuine mistake. He should come in here and admit to his incompetence and set the record right.
Let me explain for the minister. In fact, there was an operator in Alice Springs who had eight minibuses. He had taken five from Darwin and he purchased three in Alice Springs. That was prior to the moratorium. He operated the business for some six months prior to moratorium. He had accreditation, so he had every legal right to hold the commercial vehicle licences.
In November of last year, he actually brought in a partner who was, however, prepared to invest a lot of money into his business on the proviso that the money was to be used to purchase new vehicles with new CVLs so that they can operate a bigger fleet than this operator had. But due to the freeze or the capping of the number of CVLs for minibuses in Alice Springs, this person was not able to expand his fleet. As a consequence, he lost the investor. However, because his fleet was also ageing, he was not able to secure any other funding to purchase new vehicles for his existing CVLs. Consequently, he had to shut down his business. I understand that the CVLs are now in the hands of the MVR and this poor fellow is now working in a bush community for a living.
As for other matters that the minister raised, he then spoke about - and will I read this into Hansard, too:
- We were already short by five minibuses in Alice Springs and there is the potential for another five
minibuses to take licences in Alice Springs.
I skip a couple of lines:
- Mr Benson was given permission from my department and with my signature that he could go down there
with his minibus and operate for three months until the deal went through.
The deal being that he could purchase another CVL in Alice Springs. I continue to quote:
- … but if Mr Benson wants to go to Alice Springs to apply for another licence or two or three, as I said
to you before, there are already five licences available in Alice Springs and he is welcome to do so.
Let me tell the minister that, as of today, Mr Benson is still struggling to purchase any CVLs for minibuses in Alice Springs. He was told by MVR that he was not able to purchase any CVLs down there; that he had to bring his minibus from Alice Springs back to Darwin. I believe there are currently about nine or 10 minibuses operating in Alice Springs. What the minister said last week, is that there are five CVLs available.
I find it curious then that if there are five CVLs available, the local operator in Alice Springs is unable to purchase them and this Mr Benson, who tried to purchase them in Alice Springs, was told he cannot have them because there are other people ahead of him in the waiting for the CVLs.
The minister said last week that the cap is five above the current number of CVLs in Alice Springs yet operators in Alice Springs cannot purchase the CVLs that are sitting there in the MVR. What is the problem? The minister needs to come in here and explain to us what the problem is. Why would MVR not release the CVLs for the current operator who wants to purchase them? Or to Mr Benson, who wants to purchase them to operate in Alice Springs? After all, as the minister said, the number of minibuses in Alice Springs are below the cap. If the minister could come and explain this to us, it would be very good.
With regards Ashmanor, the minister was also wrong. He said, in his response to me in his adjournment, and I quote:
- However, Ashmanor asked to transfer his licence to another company together with his taxis, something
that we absolutely refused because the licence belonged to the government ...
The thing is the taxis are now operated by a different person. They are being driven around Darwin picking up fares, collecting fees and making a living. Now if Ashmanor - which is in liquidation, and the owner of Ashmanor lives interstate - is not operating the CVLs for the taxis, who is? Is this person leasing the CVLs from Ashmanor and then operating the taxis under Ashmanor’s CVL? The minister has not answered the question.
When I asked the minister who is using the plates, he said that the plates remain the property of the government. While he might be technically right, I think what the minister was talking about is that the CVL remains the property of the government. The CVL is allowed to be used by an operator. The plates of a vehicle are registration numbers of the vehicle, that is all it is: a taxi, a car, a bus, a coach all have a number plate and the plate goes with the car. It has nothing to do with whether the government owns it or whatever. It is the CVL, the commercial vehicle licence, that is the relevant factor. So the minister needs to understand what he is talking about when he responds. The minister said:
- He can use them if he wishes …
referring to the plates,
- … if he has a car, the vehicles. If he has not got the vehicles, because he is not bankrupt, he can still
keep his plates without any vehicle. He cannot allow other people to actually use his plates with
other vehicles.
Again, I suggest to you that the minister was confused between plates and commercial vehicle licenses. CVLs are the license to operate a vehicle. The plates are purely registration numbers for the vehicle. So, minister, get yourself fully briefed and get across the issue properly so that you can deal with it.
There is a problem with the CVLs being owned by Ashmanor and cars or taxis operating under the CVLs owned by Ashmanor, yet being operated by somebody else. I understand that the issue about the revised taxi industry was to ensure that people are owner/operators so that nobody or no company or entity can own CVLs but not operate them. Ashmanor owns the CVLs even though it is in liquidation, yet it has somehow allowed another person to operate those vehicles under his CVLs and that is not the intention of the CPV industry.
On speaking further with the people from CPV industry, they are all very concerned that the moratorium has taken so long to resolve, leaving the cap and the restriction of transfer of CVLs from between zones until the end of the year. It is going to cause a lot of imposition and restriction of trade. I am glad that the ACCC has given the minister warning that it will now allow the moratorium to continue past December. It is definitely a restriction of trade. People who wish to expand their businesses cannot expand because of the moratorium.
I know that the minibus operator in Alice Springs would dearly like to have another five vehicles, especially now that the Masters Games is just around the corner. He would like to have all those vehicles there to serve the incoming participants of the Masters Games and he is not able to do so. In not being able to do so, it is not because he has not the capital to expand his business; he cannot expand because MVR will not release the CVLs and are not prepared to give any reason why they are not handing them out; when in fact the number of CVLs operating in Alice Springs is well below the cap. I repeat: it is well below the cap.
The minister himself, in his statement in the adjournment, said that there are up to five CVLs to be picked up in Alice Springs. It is an unanswered question, and all the excuses the minister has made have been unsatisfactory. The industry in Alice Springs, and Mr Benson in Darwin, all want to know what the go is and insist that the minister explain clearly and advise the department that the minister has pronounced an edict those five CVLs should be released. Let us see those five CVLs released so that business can get on with making money and service the community.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the goings on in my electorate and in particular a great community after schools event. It is called the Milo Have a Go program.
Milo Have a Go is all about introducing young children to the joys and pleasures of cricket. It is a modified game whereby young kids can learn the skills of batting, bowling, fielding. What is important is that they also learn skills of team work, comradeship and how to listen to their coaches.
The events are widely attended. As a matter of fact, the group down at the Anula School oval - I might say they are on the Anula School oval thanks to the good hospitality of the Anula Primary School Principal, Liz Gammon and the school council. The kids were actually playing on the council oval, but for reasons of public liability, they were not able to get on it this season so the school graciously and in great community spirit, for which I applaud them, gave the okay for them to play on the school oval.
Now the Milo Have a Go, on this particular round, had something like 67 children who were registered. I will read out all their names - no, I am just joking about that; I won’t read out all their names out. But they had 67 kids down there who were learning, who would turn up on the Monday afternoon on time, all kitted out to play and all their parents would be down, spread around watching.
Parents are actively encouraged to join in and assist in coaching and helping them out. I went down there. My young fellow plays down there, and my young girl. I would go down there whenever I could get off from work which, unfortunately, wasn’t as often as I would like, but either myself or my wife would be down there helping our kids out and we would be roped into assisting the Coordinator, Kay Cowley.
Kay gives up her time freely, happily, to assist the kids. She is a tremendous worker and the spirit and enthusiasm that she puts into this, she is a real champion cricketer in her own right, she plays for the women’s side, keen as mustard. She is involved with the PINTs Football Club and has been for some time, and has been heavily involved with junior cricket throughout Darwin. She has actually, I believe, taken the side down to the Bundaberg competition at which the NT Juniors and Under 15s always fare well.
Now, as I said, there is real community spirit down there, but it could not be done without the help of volunteers, and in particular there is a group of volunteers who did receive a small gift of appreciation from Kay and other members of the Milo Have a Go competition at their presentation night which was on Monday and which, might I say, I had the pleasure of attending. Unfortunately, I could not stay too long as I had business back here in Parliament House with the Budget, but I was offered the opportunity to donate a few sausages and a few pieces of bread. I was happy to do that and if they had wanted me to donate more, I would have happily done that. I got down there and cooked them, and I think I might have barbequed a few too many but that’s okay.
The volunteers who put in more time around the ground, helping the little ones get their skills up are Lynne Brown, Doug Hardcastle, Owen Spencer, Yolani Crowley and Donna Biddle. Now, without these people’s help, the Milo Have a Go cricket competition would not be the success that it is. It has been running for quite some time over various seasons and it is people like these - and there are others who come and go and assist whenever they are needed, but it is the people of this spirit who help make it what it is.
The Milo Have a Go clinic at Anula was the most successful clinic in the NT. It was under the auspices of the PINTs cricket club. The season ran for a total of 16 weeks and the cost of it was $40 per child. For some people that is a bit of a battle, but for a lot of people, they dig deep. The kids get a cap. Every week after their game, they get a couple of little packets of milo, they get encouragement awards, the kids just have a ball down there. I put it to you that it is $40 well invested. I would encourage all parents who can find that money to get behind and get the kids down there with it.
The kids also, at the end of the season party, which, as I said, was on Monday night, some were lucky enough and fortunate enough to win trophies. These individuals who pick up the trophies stand out a little bit, but I would say that every kid down there deserves a trophy of some sort. They all get a bat to acknowledge that they have been down there. I know my own kids are proud as punch and they showed me their bats on Monday night when I got home from work.
Also, special awards were presented to the following players for being PINT cricket club Milo Have a Go 2002 outstanding players. The most improved went to Nadia O’Gallagher and Matthew Miller. I know Nadia, and I know her parents, and her brother, Fergus. They put in really good times, they are a great little family unit and it doesn’t surprise me that Nadia got most improved. The batting award went to Liam Hardcastle and to a mighty little player, Ned Kiely, so they picked that up and that was a pretty good achievement. I wish I could have been there to see that one. The bowling award went to Sean Wilson and Jack Sellick. Let me say that I think that each and every one of these kids who participated all deserve an award, it is just that these ones were the fortunate ones who stood out.
The Milo Cricket Club is also looking at seeking some form of assistance to help the program go along and being run through the PINTs Cricket Club. I would like to put on record now, to Kay Cowley and her husband Roger, who both put in so much to cricket in the Darwin region, my support for what they do, my appreciation as a parent, as a local member and also as a member of the Milo Have a Go fraternity. I state now, that I am right behind their efforts to boost junior cricket along in the Northern Territory, and I wish them all the luck in the future.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak tonight on a research report into alcohol treatment programs in Darwin which was written by an intern student. Members would be aware that there is a system by which students can do an internship with members in this House, and do a research project or other valuable assistance, so it is not only of assistance to members, but it also gives students a chance to experience this House, electorate offices and also look into issues which are of political importance. Alcohol treatment programs in Darwin are a very important issue, and I seek leave to table this report for the information of parliament.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: It is a very comprehensive report. I do not propose tonight to go through all of it except to say that I commend Rhys Michie on his report. It is comprehensive. In respect of the project that Rhys undertook for me, the main objective was to try to ascertain the effectiveness of current alcohol treatment programs in Darwin, and make recommendations to improve them. He had nine main aims, and I would like to state what these were:
identify the demand for alcohol treatment in Darwin;
of substantial funding of the government’s program in terms of itinerants. That has been a very
consultative program;
There are 14 alcohol treatment programs in Darwin; three of them are residential rehabilitation programs, and there are 11 non-residential programs. In terms of results, some of the things that Rhys identified in his executive summary, he says:
- Results identified the trend for individual residential treatment programs to report low success rates,
whilst treatment programs for family members or significant others reported much higher levels of success.
Alcohol treatment programs are very successful at providing benefit to families or significant others in
relationships where someone has alcohol problems.
It also says:
- Alcohol treatment programs that provide counselling to families or significant others also reported
high success rates, clients derived benefit from these programs regardless of the mode of delivery.
Rhys made a number of recommendations in his research report and, once again, I commend him for the amount of work that he did and also for the extensive consultations he undertook. I flag to the House that I will be passing on copies of Rhys’ research report to Minister Ah Kit and also to Minister Aagaard because I am sure they are going to be very interested in this very important issue and in what Rhys found in his report.
I will finish by talking about the six recommendations that Rhys made:
alcohol treatment programs for parents, families and significant others, teenagers and children
should be promoted extensively.
be expanded to complement drug and alcohol education programs operating in high schools. The
program for parents or concerned others should be extensively promoted to derive the greatest
benefit for the community;
community-based support structures, enhancing the reintegration of clients back into the community;
must be encouraged to improve the accessibility to treatment for clients from minority groups with
special needs;
result in more appropriate delivery of programs for minority groups; and
who have completed alcohol treatment programs.
I thank Rhys. He obviously thanked me for giving him an opportunity and the support necessary to undertake this project. Bill Wilson from NTU organised the academic support aspect of this internship; Alcohol and Other Drug Services; Darwin Detoxification Unit; Amity Community Services; Alcohol Awareness and Family Recovery; CAAPS; FORWAARD; Mission Australia; the Salvation Army; and St Vincent de Paul all contributed to the research project and I join with Rhys in thanking them.
I commend this report to honourable members. I also commend the internship program. I hope that more members give interns a chance to undertake this sort of work because I think Rhys Michie has shown just how effective and valuable this sort of work can be.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016