2002-05-23
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make an announcement regarding the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre. Members would be aware that the Cooperative Research Centre is a key initiative of the Alice in Ten Desert Knowledge Australia. It will provide the cutting edge desert research foundation to the desert knowledge effort.
I am delighted to announce today that in recognition of the CRCs importance my government has promised $150 000 over seven years to support its administration and operations. This is a significant commitment to a development that will become a key driver in the growth of Central Australia, building a future based on a thriving desert knowledge economy. This week, the bid for the CRC has been finalised and will be lodged with the federal government next week. The submission is seeking $20m from the federal government over seven years. It has attracted confirmed financial commitments from private sponsors and other state governments of another $7m, and participating agencies from across Australia have committed existing staff time worth a further $64m over that time period.
The CRC will have its headquarters in Alice Springs and a significant proportion of the total $91m resources will be spent there over seven years. In addition to my government’s commitment this will add up to a huge financial boost to Alice Springs and to the Territory. The CRC is based on a cooperative effort between academic and research institutions, community groups, the private sector and relevant levels of government. The Desert Knowledge CRC bid has won the support of a very wide range of organisations and institutions.
The core partners with a major commitment to the CRC are CSIRO, ATSIC, the CLC, Curtin University of Technology and the NTU, the Desert Peoples Centre and both the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments. The strong support of indigenous organisations is particularly notable. Its supporting partners with a smaller but more important involvement include 10 other universities, OPTUS, Accenture and the South Australian government. Chambers of Commerce, regional development organisations, town councils, small business organisations and land councils from desert regions all around Australia are throwing their support behind the CRC.
The basic role of the CRC will be to produce research and results which improve the living conditions of the people living in the desert regions as well as developing new opportunities for employment. It will look for ways to better manage and take advantage of our remarkable natural environments, helping the industries that depend on these resources. For example, in a small way, it will help to develop and commercialise new bush products. It will address the high cost of building and maintaining infrastructure in remote areas thereby making it more attractive to people who live there and manage those lands for all of us. For example, it would look at integrated telecommunications options for maintaining power, water and waste services on small communities, and it will contribute to improving the human capacity of our desert people to take up the new opportunities emerging from that research.
Of course there is research already being done around the country that is relevant to desert communities in all these areas. However, it is patchy and disjointed. Through the CRC we will bring a new focus and integration to this work and reach the critical mass needed to develop new export opportunities for Australian desert knowledge.
The Desert Knowledge CRC will tackle the science of living in extreme conditions, it will implement solutions to the forgotten remote regions and it will contribute practically to reconciliation. The CRC will have a board of management chaired by Paul Wand, a previous director of Rio Tinto and well respected for his work with indigenous people. The remainder of the board will be appointed by the core partners in due course. The CRC’s CEO designate is Dr Mark Stafford-Smith a long time desert resident who has managed CSIRO’s laboratory in Alice Springs for the past six years. There are a series of excellent leaders who bring skills from across the desert regions to the bid.
The CRC is still only in its formative stages dependent now on federal government support. However, there are already a number of people who have worked hard to get it where it is now. Scientists from the CSIRO, public servants and members of the Alice Springs community, including indigenous members of the steering committee, have all been involved. I put on the record my appreciation and support for what they are trying to achieve.
The CRC bid exercise has significantly strengthened the Desert Knowledge Australia Network. I look forward to meeting with members of that network at the August Desert Knowledge Summit that will be such a critical part of the Year of the Outback, Outback Central 2002. It is indeed a very exciting year for desert knowledge Australia.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report on the Desert Knowledge CRC and her sharing that information with us. It is an initiative that was developed, supported and fostered by the former CLP government. We had the vision that Central Australia would have much to contribute to desert and arid zone development and hence the development of the Desert Knowledge Centre.
However, I do not welcome the Chief Minister’s rather mean-spirited contribution of $150 000 over a seven year period. That barely divides up to $21 000 each year or the equivalent of an AO1 or AO2 support person. That is not a particularly large contribution from the Northern Territory government when in fact she is looking at a $20m contribution from the federal government over the next seven years. If the Northern Territory government was really serious about this a more significant contribution should be made which would show Central Australia that this Labor government is committed to Central Australia. This has been very poorly demonstrated so far. The Labor government in this short nine months has shown very little support for Central Australia. The minister for Central Australia is hardly there and the CLP members have been the ones who have been strongest at representing Central Australia.
As the shadow minister for Central Australia, I look forward to being intimately involved with the Desert Knowledge CRC. I will keep a close watch on what this government will contribute to the wellbeing of Central Australia and what it can produce.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very patchy contribution. I know it was only a short time, but I do believe that the member for Greatorex could have done a lot better.
The contribution from the Territory, $150 000 each year for seven years, is an excellent contribution to the CRC. We have worked very hard to get the partnerships. When I indicated in my report how extensive those partnerships are for this CRC, it shows the extent of the work that has been done and the commitments that have been made. We are confident that the federal government will look very favourably at this CRC bid. It is a critical part of the Desert Knowledge project. I acknowledge that the Desert Knowledge project and the work that has been done was initiated by the previous government, and our congratulations to you on that.
We have certainly picked it up and run with it. We have funded an executive position for it because while we actually recognise the hard work done by the community, we need to have a dedicated officer now to move Desert Knowledge forward, move Alice in Ten forward. The churlish remarks about the minister for Central Australia only reflect on those who said them.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I just raise a point of order in the context of the Chief Minister’s comments about the lack of accuracy in the member for Greatorex’s response. I simply make the point, as I have made on previous occasions, that it is difficult for the opposition to provide a reasonable response to these reports given the fact that the first knowledge we have of them is when the minister stands and reads from a prepared script. It would seem to me that if the Chief Minister is concerned about the opposition’s contribution the Standing Orders Committee might consider ministerial statements and ministerial reports being distributed in a timely fashion to allow the opposition to respond adequately.
Madam SPEAKER: Your comments are noted, but it is not a point of order.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I want to give a quick snapshot of the experiences so far with the trial of the restrictions and complementary measures in Alice Springs. I want to remind members that the restrictions are not just restrictions. This is a trial of a raft of complementary measures as well as the restrictions themselves. The complementary measures, just to remind members, include:
That is the package that we are now trialling.
I am concerned that people are jumping the gun on drawing conclusions about the effects of the trial when it is in fact far too early to say what will finally transpire. At this stage I would like to compliment the member for Greatorex for what he said in his newsletter: let us give this a fair go; it is too early to say yet, but we will get back to you as we see a clearer picture. That is the attitude I would like to see around the town, particularly by our MLAs, because we have a very important role in community leadership in this critical episode in the town.
The first statistics on consumption rates will come after three months. So we will know about those at the end of June and at that stage we will have at least an early picture of what strategies are being adopted by both retailers and drinkers regarding their supplies of alcohol. At this stage there are some early issues that have become apparent without - again qualified by the fact that we are very early in the piece and there will be a lot more changes as things go on.
Obviously there are products for substitution. It was pretty clear that the entire drinking population in the town were not going to change to water, so there is a very mixed picture depending on which town camp or drinking spot you could go to in terms of the packaging that is on the ground. The north camps such as Warlpiri Camp or Mt Nancy, Palmer Camp, Hoppy Camp, they have swung almost entirely onto VB. That is due to another factor which I will mention very quickly in this report. Elsewhere in town, Stanley Tawny Port is pretty prominent amongst the packaging and, again, it links back to what retailers are doing.
There are certainly reports of a possible increase in aggressive behaviour. One factor was that there were 3000 to 5000 additional people in town for the Lightning Football Carnival which would have, in any event, caused a degree of increase in antisocial behaviour. Fortified wine, high alcohol content wine, will cause aggressive behaviour and that may well be what we find as we get further into the trial. There are also reports of amphetamine use in the riverbed that would also account for some of the increased aggression if, indeed, that is being experienced. The sobering up shelter reports that there is not an increase in aggression, or at least only a minimal increase if it is there. The police, on the other hand, are saying there has been a significant increase. So, we still have to get a more rigorous evaluation to find out.
Retailers. At this point I would like to name one goodie and one baddie, just to get some idea of the tactics being applied. North Side and East Side Foodlands, Michael Pawelski, I want to give them a real rap today, because they have not only refused to aggressively market the fortified wines as a replacement to the cartons of Fruity Gordo that had been removed by the Liquor Commissioner, but they are running out their stocks of fortified wine at the same time as selling other products. A lot of the reason why we are seeing a lot of VB in the northern town camps is because of Michael Pawelski’s store policy; that is where they shop. If we can get people from very high alcohol content wine onto VB, then we are going in the right direction.
Gap View Hotel is a baddie. There are two pallets, as we speak, of Tawny Port very prominently displayed right where people come to the takeaway, and it is quite clear that that is what they have chosen to take as a replacement product to the 5 litre casks of Fruity Gordo. They are taking their profit out of the intent of this trial, and I think they should show a bit more corporate citizenship than they are.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister chose to name outlets and mention their business practices. I think it is their choice and it is something that people should be allowed to do. We are in a private enterprise system and to say that one person should do something by government advice is very inappropriate and it is disgraceful that you support that. What the minister should be concentrating on is ensuring that there is adequate funding of complementary measures in Alice Springs.
I know the Night Patrol is suffering from quite limited funds so that they cannot operate every night of the week. They are not operating on Sunday nights and Monday nights at the moment. Furthermore, complementary measures included having day patrols. At the moment they are not doing that because they are underfunded. If the minister was serious about making sure that this trial works in Alice Springs, then adequate funding should be put in place. That is not in place, and that concerns me.
I am prepared to wait and see how the trial works. We have very talented people in the reference group who will ensure that a good analysis of the trial will be done. It is a pity that there is a bit of an element of strong arm tactics by some people who are pro-restriction. Their attitude within the community is not particularly good because it produces division, not only within the reference group, but within the community. Let’s wait for the trial, let’s see how it goes, let’s assess it objectively. Let’s not name parties who are supplying alcohol in one form or another. It is people’s choice the way they trade, and people’s choice to buy what they want to, and that is where the government should stop. Fund the complementary measures and ensure that the trial works properly.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, the member for Greatorex has read our motives completely wrongly if he thinks that we are going to be passively watching what is going on within this trial. We want this trial to work. We want to see the level of alcohol consumption reduced in Alice Springs and Central Australia; that is our aim. We will be in active discussion with all players in this. The equation we are working to is both supply and demand. We are not prepared to simply work on the demand side without looking at the supply side; that is why we have alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs.
We might have to focus this; we might have to prevail on individual retailers to try to get them to obey the spirit of what the town is trying to do, but we are not going to be passive in this. We are actively working towards a good outcome for the town. I invite all members, all the MLAs down there, to get in behind this and work actively through your networks to make it work.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence of students from the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at the Northern Territory University accompanied by Michelle Johnson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, the establishment of the Northern Territory Business Round Table was one of the main recommendations of the government’s Economic Development Summit, held last year. I take this opportunity to officially table the Co-Chairs’ report on the summit and once again place on the Parliamentary Record the government’s appreciation of the work of the Co-Chairs, Neville Walker and Bob Collins, and to all participants of the summit.
I am happy to advise members that the Northern Territory Business Round Table is now meeting on a regular monthly basis. The inaugural meeting was held on 19 February in Parliament House and, since then, a further two meetings have been held: one in Tennant Creek on 25 March to coincide with a community Cabinet meeting; the other in Darwin on 23 April. A further meeting is to be held in Palmerston on Thursday, 30 May. Meetings will continue monthly up to November 2002, and recommence in February 2003.
My goal is to chair the round table with my honourable colleague, the Chief Minister, hosting the events. There have been, and will continue to be, opportunities for ministerial colleagues to chair these important meetings. I report to members that the Business Round Table is proving useful for identifying the broad and diverse range of business development issues, as well as issues of common interest for business people.
There are 16 places on the round table. Five of the 16 places have been specifically reserved for key industry associations: the Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Association, Motor Traders, the Minerals Council and the Small Business Association. A further place has been reserved for union representation. The remaining places are for members of the general business community. The round table does not have fixed membership; rather, participants rotate from meeting to meeting.
I will now talk broadly about some of the issues that have been raised. The prohibitive cost of business insurance has been a topical discussion item on the agenda. The insurance market has hardened in recent times and there has been increasing concern regarding the provision of public liability insurance in Australia. Significant increases in premiums and, in some cases, the withdrawal of cover by insurers is having a considerable negative impact on a range of organisations. Data provided by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority shows that between 1998 and 2000 public liability insurance premiums rose by 14% and the cost of claims increased by 52.5%.
There was consensus at the first round table meeting in February that the government needed to go to the federal government’s proposed insurance summits with a clear preferred position. To assist with the formation of this position, the government hosted Northern Territory community forums in Darwin and Alice Springs. Participants at these forums contributed in a meaningful way to the formation of the government’s position on public liability insurance. Business confidence has been discussed. Indicators suggest that economic conditions are improving.
The onshore economy is expected to show some signs of pick-up over the remainder of the year, with the Northern Territory Treasury forecasting growth of 5% in 2001-02. The ABS reports that retail turnover increased by 13.2% in the March quarter, as did new motor vehicle sales increase by 19%. Nevertheless, we are committed to looking at suggestions and to do what is within our power to help. Certainly, current major project developments will boost activity; railway work is beginning to filter through to all regions of the Territory, providing economic activity and support for local business. All these factors point to a more positive environment for business and industry in the Northern Territory.
Government procurement is another issue that participants of the round table would like examined. The government purchase of goods and services does have a significant impact on the economy, and participants raised a number of issues including training of public servants who are purchasing officers for goods and services. The Chief Minister, as Treasurer, gave a commitment that the procurement review previously undertaken would be examined closely in light of the comments, with a view to maximising the effectiveness of the government’s procurement policies.
Regional needs have been raised and discussed, including the benefits of a sound and inclusive regional planning and broad-based regional autonomies.
In discussion at the round table in Tennant Creek key issues covered were crime problems affecting business in Tennant Creek, unlicensed second-hand car dealing, and rail issues. In response, the Northern Territory Police is working closely with the Tennant Creek community to implement an appropriate safety strategy. Consumer Affairs is conducting investigations with a view to mounting prosecutions where appropriate in relation to unlicensed car dealing, and ADrail has put together an information package to assist its subcontractors to clearly understand the documentation requirements for invoicing to ADrail to help them get their invoices paid as quickly as possible.
For the interest of members, further information about the round table can be found on the Internet at www.businessroundtable.nt.gov.au. On top of the information on the round table website, there is ongoing capacity for people to electronically register interest in participating in future round table meetings.
In closing, members can see the business round table does afford an effective means for the government to listen to the business community as it identifies issues that impact on business at the grassroots level. The issues are coming out and we will continue to work in partnership with industry and business in this area.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record the opposition’s support for any meaningful consultation with business. The business round table is one of those tools which government should be using to listen closely to the needs and wants of the private sector. The broad range of people on that round table is a good indication with one reservation, and perhaps I did not hear - perhaps the minister did not go through each and every organisation which has been represented. But there is not, it seems on face value, a representative from women in business. The Women’s Business Council was scrapped earlier this year, and there is certainly a need to listen to that important group.
The minister talked about listening carefully to business and listening to grassroots. I can imagine if the government is serious about listening to business, then they will be listening to the cry of no new taxes. There is talk of the HIH tax. Already business has to endure the motor vehicle registration tax. If this council does not raise that as a serious concern, I would be very surprised. Indeed, with people of the calibre of Neville Walker, one of the co-chairs, I am sure that that particular issue of new taxes and new burdens on business will be raised.
The business round table needs to, in my view, have some set and obtainable outcomes. It cannot be just paying lip-service to business people. We have already had the gabfest of the economic summit where one of the important priorities was the wharf precinct. The next thing we hear is the new Labor government postponing that development for 12 months. Things are tight in the business community. Initiatives or ideas …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Minister in reply.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow spokesperson for his in-principle support for this government initiative. Just picking up on a couple of his points: Women in Business, I can advise that 50% of the participants to date at the round table have been women business operators, business people across the Territory. We take very close care to ensure that we do ensure significant female representation at the round table.
In terms of no new taxes, I can honestly say that this issue has not come out as one of the main issues. I think the business community recognises the legacy of the extraordinary deficit position that we inherited from the previous government. No new taxes - certainly no business likes to pay taxes - and we certainly do not like to impose them, but they are a direct legacy of the fiscal position that we inherited from the previous government. All of the issues that are raised are up on the round table website. It has been mentioned, but it has not been amongst the top five issues that have been raised.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Continued from 22 May 2002.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make my contribution to this debate this morning not in anger, and that would be justified, but with a lot of sadness. I must say that over the time since the budget manipulation was first demonstrated to me and in this parliament, I have gone through a lot of anger over this because in case anyone in this House has forgotten, this was an appalling thing to have been done. This was a morally wrong thing to have done. As the new Treasurer of the Northern Territory, to be told what had been perpetrated on Territorians by the previous government, I was extremely angry. I was in fact sickened because I think what happened and what we have seen demonstrated through the Public Accounts Committee report is sickening. It is sickening for our jurisdiction. When I read through the report and remembered how I felt at the time, I was sickened. I was sickened by what had been done and sickened by those who did it and I do not think we should forget. We should not forget because there is anger in this debate, but in terms of how I will address the issues today, I must say it is more in sadness.
I suppose the cynics would say that the report of the Public Accounts Committee which we had tabled in the House yesterday should be political manna from heaven for a new government. The critics, and we have already heard enough in this vein from members opposite, will claim this report is politically biased. The very fact that an inquiry of this nature was sought by this side of the House and the findings contained in this report is not something any member of this House or any Territorian can take delight in.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to apologise, are you?
Ms MARTIN: As representatives of Territorians, we occupy a privileged position of trust in our community. I pick up on the pathetic interjection from the member for Drysdale who should be apologising to every Territorian for his inadequacy and his unethical behaviour as a minister. Do not sit in here and ask for my apology. Where is yours?
As representatives of Territorians, we occupy a privileged position of trust in our community and I make that point very clearly to the member for Katherine, the member for Drysdale, and the member for Brennan. We occupy a privileged position of trust as perhaps the most visible members of our community on the national and, indeed, on the world stage. Our actions and behaviours as a government, and by that I mean all parliamentarians, demand a high standard of personal and professional integrity.
I am saddened by the circumstances that led to this inquiry and even more so by the legitimate findings and conclusions of this report. It is ironic to sit here on this side of the House after listening to almost a decade of criticism and more from the CLP over Labor’s credibility to manage the finances of the Territory. And did they go on! On and on, parliamentary session after parliamentary session. We were continually berated for the financial record of our interstate colleagues during the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Clearly, that sort of pride and arrogance does come before a fall. This report shows that the CLP has been found sadly wanting in their management of the Territory’s finances and that they deceived both this House and the people of the Territory by trying to hide that mismanagement in the last set of publicly available documents about the state of the Territory’s finances prior to an election.
Ultimately, of course, the CLP deceived themselves by arrogantly believing they could get away with this tampering of the budget data. The evidence presented to the committee makes it absolutely clear: the former Treasurer did tamper with last year’s budget data. I make that very clear. The evidence presented to the committee makes it absolutely clear that the former Treasurer did tamper with last year’s budget data.
The former Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, stated explicitly that without the former Treasurer’s intervention, the Treasury figures for Health, Education and Police would have been presented in the budget papers unchanged - direct link - intervention from the former Treasurer to change those budget papers. If there had not been that direct intervention those figures would have been unchanged.
What is also clear from the report is that this form of intervention was unprecedented and occurred relevantly late in the budget process. There was no clearly thought out rationale on the part of the former Treasurer. The advice given to departments occurred just 12 days out from the presentation of the budget papers. What the former Under Treasurer was asked to do was to provide an accounting rationale for what was clearly a political imperative to show growth in these three key agencies. The former Treasurer obviously knew that what he was doing was highly unethical, or else why would he need the Treasury to devise a rationale to justify his actions? So, what he was doing was highly unethical. He asked Treasury to devise a rationale to explain his highly unethical behaviour.
There are so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The report does not go to the issues of ethics that the current speaker is discussing, and to attribute it to Ken Clarke is the same misinformation as we heard yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order. You know the subject of this report.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I have spoken.
Ms MARTIN: It is a pity, Madam Speaker, that the members opposite did not think about their ethics at the time this was happening last May, rather than protest too loudly now, over a year later.
Mr Dunham: You don’t have any ethics.
Ms MARTIN: And don’t give me lectures about ethics when we have seen what you have done, and have heard the Public Accounts Committee Report.
Mr Dunham: Oh, I am happy to.
Ms MARTIN: There are just so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence.
Mr Burke: We know all about your ethics, when you told a lie about the lease.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark. You know what you said.
Mr BURKE: It was a truthful remark, but I will withdraw the fact that it was made in this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot say that. Just withdraw it unreservedly, without comment.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us make sure the interjections do not cause any more interruptions.
Ms MARTIN: There are just so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence. He claims he wanted the agencies involved to reduce their expenditure to achieve the published estimated outcomes for the year. Yet he used none of the usual mechanisms available to him to ensure that this was the message that those agencies received. Quite the reverse. The agencies were told by Treasury that these changes were for presentational purposes only. They were not to change their behaviour, just a month out from the end of the financial year. They could carry on safely in the knowledge that the appropriation, their legal authority to spend money, was not being adjusted down to match the published estimated outcomes. The former Under Treasurer could not have made it clearer.
The former Under Treasurer made it very clear there were two numbers for these agencies. One for government and agency managers, and the other for public consumption and for this parliament. The rationale discussed between the former Treasurer and the Under Treasurer made no reference at all to cutting agency expenditures in the limited time available in the remainder of the financial year. It focussed on the supposed justification that there would be under-expenditure in these agencies compared to their legal appropriation.
Why, too, did the former Treasurer seek such a justification while in turn making no reference to the fact that such adjustments had been made anywhere in the budget papers, that some new accounting practice had been adopted? After all, he provided an explanation for other items that were explicitly identified in the budget papers, such as the Conditions of Service Trust. Further, if reductions in the budget bottom line were the aim of the Treasurer’s intervention, why didn’t he apply the rationale to all agencies? Why did he just choose Health, Education and Police? Why didn’t he apply this rationale right across the board? I think the member for Nelson identified that correctly last night. The former Treasurer was trying to cover his tracks before the committee, once his actions had become known.
Another reason lies in the other findings of this report. Not only were the agencies of Health, Education and Police adjusted downwards by a total of $16m, but there was the inclusion of a range of other items that all had the effect of reducing the budget bottom line, either in 2000-01 or 2001-02. The first and most significant of these was the treatment of the Conditions of Service Trust to a value of $150m. While the trust had always been included in calculations based on uniform presentation standards, it had, until the 2001-02 budget papers, been excluded from the budget sector or the public account. The publicly stated reason at the time for bringing the Conditions of Service Trust onto the public account was that it was necessary as part of the move to accrual reporting, the Working for Outcomes. This was stated in the former Treasurer’s budget speech on 29 May last year.
But what did the former Under Treasurer say in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee? I quote him:
Again, we have the former Treasurer seeking to improve the perceptions of the budget by this House and the public. I say that word very carefully: ‘the perceptions of the budget’. He sought to hide the true state of the Territory’s financial position for political purposes in an election year.
The former Under Treasurer also revealed in evidence that the proposed sale of NT Fleet was also included, in haste late in the budget process, without any adequate examination by Treasury as to whether the proposal was still justified. Again, his conclusion was that it was included to make the budget bottom line look better. Again, ‘perceptions, look better’.
Subsequent investigations by Treasury provided to my government indicated that the supposed benefits of fleet outsourcing no longer applied due mainly to the changes in tax laws and reduction of interest rates. The former Under Treasurer knew that. He knew that the rationale had been done two to three years before that, and that tax changes had come into place. The arguments that applied previously no longer applied in May last year. Therefore, while the sale would have produced a once-off impact on the budget bottom line in 2001-02, if it had proceeded there would have been increasing operating costs over the longer term for government – ‘there would have been’. Interestingly, because Treasury did not have the time to analyse and update the proposal properly prior to the 2001-02 budget, there was no adjustment to the forward estimates to reflect these higher operating costs - yet another ongoing admission from the budget papers of May last year.
Another factor contributing to an improved bottom line was the deliberate under-estimation of growth in final consumption expenditure for the budget year 2001-02. Professor Percy Allan identified this as being in the order of a $40m under-estimation in 2001-02. This was clearly of concern to Treasury, with the former Under Treasurer advising the then Treasurer that action would need to be taken, but that advice was ignored, especially in the lead up to an election.
What the Territory has seen is a marked deterioration in the budget culture across a number of agencies. The government would publish unrealistically low estimates of expenditure in each year’s budget, but took no measures to ensure the actual outcome was close to the original budget estimate. There were ongoing increases throughout the year and, hence, the ongoing under-estimate of expenditure. Overall, these items combined to amount to almost $260m, more than 10% of the annual budget expenditure. Although these adjustments occurred across two financial years, their impact on net debt was the same as if they had occurred in a single year. All the adjustments had a downward bias on the estimated change in net debt.
The CLP likes to keep the focus on the relatively minor adjustments to Health, Education and Police, which were bad enough in themselves, but it is the big picture that is important. It is clear that the former Treasurer sought to systematically create the impression that the state of the Territory’s finances and the future projections were far rosier than they were in reality. He sought to arrogantly hide the truth from Territorians and from this parliament. Of course, the former Treasurer could not have achieved this deception without the cooperation of a number of people, first among these being his Cabinet colleagues. The report confirms that the member for Drysdale had knowledge of these adjustments. What is not so clear is whether the former member for Nelson understood the consequences. What is also not clear is whether the former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your interjections are beginning to annoy.
Ms MARTIN: What is also not clear is whether the former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister discussed his actions with the then Chief Minister, and whether the member for Brennan had any concerns with the unethical and highly irregular approach that was taken in terms of being able to show growth in three politically sensitive agencies, as well as the overall improvements to the budget bottom lines for 2000-01 and 2001-02.
Mr Burke: You make all these comments but you did not even call me.
Ms MARTIN: What is particularly disturbing, and I hope that when the member for Brennan, the now opposition leader gets to his feet, he does address that. I suspect, Madam Speaker, and it is a real tribute to his leadership, that he did not know.
What is particularly disturbing about the former Treasurer’s action is that he also attempted to compromise the integrity of a number of senior public servants, the CEOs and finance directors in agencies. Yet the culture had emerged over 27 years of CLP rule, and that culture was that the government could get away with whatever it wanted to get away with.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, a point of order. The allegation now is that the Chief Minister attempted to compromise the integrity of the public service. That has not been found in the committee. It reflects on public servants who are still serving officers, and I think it is well and truly out of bounds for this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, if you made that allegation, perhaps you should rephrase it.
Ms MARTIN: He attempted to compromise. He attempted to comprise by directing them for presentational purposes to underestimate.
Madam SPEAKER: I will accept that statement.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Is that not attempting to comprise? What language are we talking in here? There was no point in complaining …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. There is an allegation now from the member for Drysdale that the Chief Minister threatened the CEO of Health. I would like him to substantiate that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, did you say threaten …
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw ‘threaten,’ and I insert in its place, ‘attempted to threaten the CEO of Health.’
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. He has to substantiate that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I think you should withdraw that comment. It is an interjection that perhaps you cannot substantiate within the time.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, my interjection actually is in the report. The point I was trying to make …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I am speaking to the point of order. …is the allegations made by the Chief Minister are not in the report, and reflect likewise on CEOs.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not know the report as thoroughly as you. If the report says ‘attempted to threaten’ …
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to find it?
Madam SPEAKER: No, not at the moment. I am relying on your honesty in what you said.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order? I would really like to have a clear withdrawal, and a withdrawal without the kind of comment and qualifying we have seen from the member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the allegations that the Chief Minister may have attempted to influence CEO Paul Bartholomew.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, now the member for Karama calls my colleague, the member for Drysdale, a cretin. I think she is a cretin herself. Would she like to withdraw?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, did you make that interjection? Withdraw it.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: This is stupid, you know, when you carry on like this.
Ms MARTIN: If I can continue. This is not some theoretical debate, and I understand why passions are getting roused in here, because it was a morally wrong thing to have done. When you do morally wrong things, people do get het up about it. I understand some of the language that is happening.
To return to the position that CEOs and finance directors were put in, there was a culture that the CLP could get away with whatever they wanted, and if you were a CEO or a finance director, there was no point in complaining or raising concerns about the ethics of what was being undertaken. One CEO in Health, Paul Bartholomew, clearly did have concerns …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Drysdale, you have had your say.
Ms MARTIN: … and yet when he raised these concerns with his minister, the member for Drysdale, the opposition spokesperson on health, they were ignored.
Opposition members of the committee and the former Treasurer himself have criticised my use of the terms of ‘fraud’ and ‘corruption’ which I used in the censure debate in October last year.
The former Treasurer has crowed about the fact that the Public Accounts Committee inquiry has been able to find nothing that indicates he is guilty of a crime in the legal sense. I have been called upon to apologise for my comments during that censure debate. I will do no such thing. As I have said on numerous occasions, the Financial Management Act which governs the management of the Territory’s monies is silent on the issue as to how budgetary information is to be compiled. If there is no law covering such matters then of course the former Treasurer cannot be convicted of breaking any law. But that does not exonerate him and the former government for this travesty that they have committed. I was not using the terms ‘fraudulent’ and ‘corrupt’ in the strictly legal sense; they were used in the context of a breach of ethics and public trust that occurred.
However, if the former Treasurer had been operating under the new Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act at the time then he would be guilty of an offence. I have no doubt about that. He would be guilty of an offence.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister’s time has expired.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, given the lengthy interruptions to the Chief Minister’s contribution, I would ask that she be given a couple of minutes to complete her reply.
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: While the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act does prescribe how the budget documentation and financial reports are compiled, what really matters is the culture and integrity of the government as a whole. I want to assure Territorians that a Labor government will not indulge in the crass and unethical manipulations that we have seen under the CLP in recent years. Territorians deserve better than this and under Labor, they are seeing that delivered.
The committee has made a number of recommendations to prevent the events of last year being repeated. I am pleased to report that a number of these have already been implemented or are in train.
Recommendation No 1 was to improve budget documentation. As with a number of the recommendations, these have already been achieved by the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which, unlike the Financial Management Act, deals specifically with how budget information is to be presented and reported. Not only the budget itself, but the provision of mid-year financial reports updating the budget, and the information to be presented in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. A reconciliation between budget, budget revisions and actual outcomes are required under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The committee has called for estimated outcomes to be based on the allocation to each agency at the time the budget data is compiled. This has merit, and I give an undertaking to this parliament to consider this recommendation in future budget presentations. However, what is most important is that the budget and other financial reports have a full explanation of how data was compiled, including any deviation from accepted accounting principles. That is a clear requirement of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
In recommendation No 2, the committee recommends that the practice of ongoing and substantial supplementation to budgets through the year that became standard practice under the CLP be addressed. The Martin government has already addressed this issue in the form of a mini-budget. What the mini-budget did was to provide realistic budgets to agencies which they are expected to adhere to. While some supplementation may always be necessary to deal with unforeseen events, it is the approach of my government that core activities should be properly funded within the budget process - and you saw that happen very clearly within our mini-budget last November.
The third recommendation was to establish an Estimates Committee. I will not go into that issue now as it is the subject of a motion before the House later today.
The fourth recommendation was to do with agency record keeping. This is not something I wish to enforce on agencies through prescriptive laws. Instead, this is a commonsense recommendation which I am sure all NT government agencies will take note of.
The fifth recommendation is adequate evaluation. While I do not want to go into detail of Cabinet documents, I can confirm that the quality of Cabinet documentation is something we all keep a very close eye on. Agency submissions are not considered by Cabinet unless Cabinet is satisfied the information is a sufficiently comprehensive and reliable source on which to base decisions.
Recommendation No 6 concerns the estimates of land sales and this recommendation is noted. Under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act the basis for the land sale estimates will need to be explained.
Recommendation No 7 concerns the review of the conflict of interest in the committee. The CLP’s lack of integrity is well illustrated by their behaviour with regards to the Public Accounts Committee. It seems scarcely credible to me that we could have a situation where a member of the committee, the member for Drysdale, appears as a witness and then is able to deliberate on his own evidence. Given last year’s May budget is the collective responsibility of the Cabinet of the day, it is even questionable that the former Cabinet minister and the member for Greatorex remained on the committee for its deliberations. However, it is entirely consistent with the arrogance of the CLP and its attitudes to ethical behaviour and probity.
Madam Speaker, what the findings of this inquiry show is that it is untenable for the member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale to continue to maintain their roles as shadow spokespersons for their previous ministerial portfolios. One instigated and the other acquiesced in the perpetration of budget manipulation for political ends to the detriment of the people of the Northern Territory and the members of this House. It is a question of the quality of leadership of the current opposition leader for him to now act and relegate the former Treasurer and health minister to his back bench. At the very least, they must be removed from their current shadow portfolios. To fail to act will send a strong signal to all Territorians that the CLP is unchanged and unrepentant, and that it continues to treat the people of the Territory, Madam Speaker, and this parliament, with contempt.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader) Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister said in her comments that a Labor government will not engage in manipulation of the facts. I would submit to this House that this whole episode and the results of this Public Accounts Committee report has been a manipulation of the facts. I intend to go to the facts only in my response, not the rhetoric. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, there has been a tenuous atmosphere in this House in the past. There is now a poisonous atmosphere in this House in terms of the relationships with both sides.
The Labor Party says that the CLP had an attitude of ‘win at all costs.’ What we see is a Labor Party that has an attitude of ‘destroy at all costs’, and destroy a person’s character, with rhetoric. It is an unfortunate situation and it is very sad, and I wonder how we can ever repair the damage that has been done. This has been an extraordinary exercise in political muckraking, coupled with a lynch mentality - let’s string them up and we’ll find out later whether they did anything wrong or not. The trouble is, they have found out that the only thing that smells around here is the government’s abuse of due process and what is the crushed body of justice and fairness.
I find it curious, and I ask the media to ponder on this. Why it was decided, presumably by the Chairman, that some submissions should be included in the body of the Public Accounts Committee report, and others have been tabled, just in passing, so that you have to chase them up through the Tabled Papers office, and it is quite a difficult exercise. You have the report and the appendices, but the real substance is in the Tabled Papers office, which you have to go down, find and then photocopy, and then read to try and get an indication of what is not in this report, but is very relevant. And do you know what? There is not, in this report, Madam Speaker, the official Treasury submission to the PAC report. The official Treasury submission to the PAC is not even included in the PAC report.
I would have thought any fair minded person would say that this would have been a very important part of this inquiry. Certainly, the majority report is made much via the selective quoting of the oral evidence of the former Treasurer and former Under Treasurer, yet they have not even seen fit to include the official submission from Treasury which answers specific questions the PAC put to the department. Why was that? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious. This submission does not fit nicely into the findings that the majority have arrived at, but more of that in a moment.
There are two basic flaws that permeate this report and the thinking of the majority of the committee members. The first is, what is an estimate and who should do the estimating? And the second is, the role of the elected government in formulating the budget. The core of this whole issue is whether an estimate of how much a department would actually spend should be made by the relevant agency or the Treasurer on the advice of Treasury. Anyone who has been involved with the budgeting process would know that every department and every agency would estimate that it is going to spend its full allocation, which would generally be wrong. That is why the estimate is made by the central agency. The Treasury made it clear in their submission to the PAC that agencies traditionally under-spend and then seek carry-overs. Treasury included a table in their submission that showed the under-expenditure by Health, Education and Police over the past five years.
Health’s figures are $13m in 1996-97; $6.3m in 1997-98; $7.3m in 1998-99; $8.4m in 1999-2000; and $3m in 2000-01 - which works out to an average under-expenditure of $7.6m per year. Education’s figures were $3.5m, $4.5m, $5.7m, $1.4m and $2.3m for those periods - an average under-spend of $3.5m a year. Police under-expenditure across the same years was $738 000, $1.6m, $2m, $1.9m and $1.2m - an average under-spend of $1.5m per year.
Let’s put that average under-expenditure up against the adjustments made to those three departments in the estimates in the 2001-02 budget papers. Health’s average under-spend on the estimates for the previous five years was $7.6m; the adjustment was $8m. Education’s average was $3.5m and the adjustment was $6m. Police average under-expenditure was $1.5m and the adjustment was $2m.
What did the departments actually spend? The adjustment to Police estimated they would spend $126.3m; they actually spent $126.6m - not a bad effort at estimating, in my opinion. The estimate for Education was $345.3m; it spent $350.5m but, as the PAC noted, it got an extra $5.3m in June. If you take off that extra last minute funding, Education spent $345.2m, almost exactly reflecting the estimate. At Health, the estimate was adjusted to $436m. Excluding an extra $3.5m added in June, the department spent $444m - exactly to its allocation, and the first time anyone could remember the department doing that. So, the estimate and the actual expenditure was out by $8m. But, as Treasury again pointed out in its official submission to the committee, even after those adjustments departments and agencies under-spent by $26m.
We have had an inquiry, and lengthy and vitriolic debate in this parliament about an estimate that under-estimated expenditure by $8m. Yet, no one seems concerned that, across the whole of government, the estimates predicted another $26m would be spent and it was not. Now, perhaps we should have an inquiry on that.
Estimating the year’s expenditure some months out is an inexact science. I would submit on the figures I have quoted, I believe my colleague, the previous Treasurer, did a pretty good job on the advice of his Treasury officials. In this House on Tuesday, we had examples of two present government ministers both claiming that their departments were estimating they would come in on budget. Yet, the figures released under the signature of the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in her quarterly financial report shows they have had to reduce their average quarterly expenditure by about $11m each to meet their minister’s expectations. The ministers are standing by their departments - Health and Employment, Education and Training - who are estimating that they will spend $11m less this quarter than they have in the previous three quarters. That is their estimate, which logically, is $11m out. Perhaps we should have an inquiry on that.
It is also worth noting that in his answer on Tuesday, the Deputy Chief Minister praised to the hilt - and deservedly so - his CEO, Mr Peter Plummer. The Deputy Chief Minister said Mr Plummer was, and I quote: ‘One of the best CEOs we have had in the entire public service and does a great job’. I agree. I have worked with Peter Plummer as CEO of Health, and I know how good he is. I concur with the Deputy Chief Minister, which is another reason why I cannot understand why the government is so determined to suppress the document from the Education Department to the PAC. Why is that document not there? Mr Plummer, one of the best CEOs they have, as I understand gave a submission to the PAC, yet it has been excluded from the report.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s attitude is also in stark contrast to the findings of his colleagues on the PAC, that replies from Mr Plummer and his colleagues ‘lacked clarity’, page 11 paragraph 2; or that Education’s practices indicate ‘poor budgetary processes and management’, page 11, paragraph 6. The PAC have even put part of the blame for the black hole on Education’s efforts to manage its budget. That is at paragraph 7, page 11.
Now, if I know Peter Plummer, I reckon Peter Plummer would be pretty upset by those sort of findings that are in the PAC report, and I ask the question again: Why is Education’s submission not in the body of this report?
But let’s return to the Health adjustment which has been the cause of most of the ruckus. The Treasury was asked by the committee to comment on the Health CEO’s description of this realignment as ‘artificial and deceptive’. Now this is Treasury reporting on that specific question. Treasury’s response was, and I quote in full:
That is the official Treasury advice. That is the advice which is not in the PAC report. That is what you have to go over to the back room and scurry for and photocopy to get the real answer as to what happened with the budgetary situation in Health.
I believe that pretty well sums up the truth of the situation. Unfortunately, the majority of the committee have chosen to go with the interpretation of events put by the CEO of Health, and not the interpretation of other agencies, including Treasury. To do otherwise would have meant the committee had to return to this House, to the Chief Minister, and say, ‘Whoops, I think we have hung the wrong people’, and thank God we do not have lynching in the Northern Territory because there would be a few carcasses swinging from the trees at this stage and we would not be able to get them down and breathe some life back into them.
There is one other area of Treasury’s submission I would like to quote and it goes to the points raised by the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson is a man of integrity and I know the member for Nelson dwells long and hard on his comments. But he was quoted on the news last night, listened to and I reckon, more than anyone, believes that is the reason why something wrong could have been done. He said he believed that the downward pressure that the former Treasurer said he was trying to put on the Department of Health was something the former Treasurer dreamed up after the inquiry and this issue was raised. I reckon that is a pretty damning statement of the former Treasurer from the member for Nelson. He suggested, I believe, that he had problems with the former Treasurer’s comments that part of his actions in adjusting the estimates for Health was to put pressure on the department to reduce spending. The member for Nelson has said that he believes this is an argument developed by my colleague after these charges were laid. Now, could I direct him to the comments, again, in the Treasury’s official submission on page 2, which says this:
A direct quote from the Treasury response to the submission.
I would suggest that these discussions go to the very point that the former Treasurer has put. These discussions took place before the budget was delivered and show a clear intention to send a signal to Health that the Treasury, and Treasurer, did not trust Health’s figures and expected them to come in under the allocation.
There are two other aspects of the naivety of the majority report I want to mention in relation to estimates before moving on. The first is that the estimate is just that: an estimate of how much a department will spend. It has no effect on the actual allocation, but rather is an estimate that, irrespective of what the department has been budgeted to expend, it is believed it will spend this estimated amount. The second point is something that the majority of report seems to be unable to come to terms with. We are talking about an estimate, a forecast, a prediction. The fact that some unknown factors may or may not influence expenditure in the period between the estimate being made and the end of the financial year is the very reason it is called an estimate. It is not cast in stone; it is not absolute fact.
I want to touch briefly on the role of ministers, Cabinet and particularly Treasurers in the preparation of the budget and its presentation to parliament. In our system of democracy, the people elect their representatives to make decisions, to implement policies for the common good, to allocate tax payers’ money to the benefit of the tax payers and the community. In the perfect world of a bureaucrat, it is about figures, not people. If you need more money, introduce new taxes. If you want to spend less money, cut services. That is why our system gives the final responsibility to the elected representatives and not economic and fiscal experts. The former make the decisions; the latter advise. To do otherwise is to abrogate one of the prime responsibilities of being the elected government.
My colleague, the member for Katherine, accepted that responsibility and made the decisions using the expert advice available to him. If you are going to change that system, then why don’t we return to the old days of having the bureaucrats as official members of the Assembly and abolish the ministers? At least then we would be able to question the people who you say should be making all the decisions. I do not believe we should do that. I believe it is up to the line ministers to interrogate their departments on how to implement the policy of government and the cost of such implementation and bring that to Cabinet. It is then up to Cabinet to make decisions on what will be done and how much will be spent, and it is up to the Treasurer to put it all together.
You are the government now, I say to the Labor Party, and you can hand off all of that responsibility to your departments but democracy in the Territory will be poorer for your decision.
As this report notes in its first paragraph of its first chapter on page 1, the genesis for this Public Accounts Committee inquiry was the tabling in this parliament of a memorandum from the CEO of Territory Health Services to the Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services dated 27 September 2001. In tabling that memorandum the minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
So she asked him to report back to her on these discrepancies. The minister said she asked her CEO to explain the large discrepancy in the figures in the former government’s budget. The CEO begins his answers with the words in the memo:
Now, there have been many words said so far in this debate about misleading words, untruths, manipulation, etcetera, but reading through this report I came across the evidence of Minister Aagaard to the Public Accounts Committee. On at least nine occasions when she was allowed to answer questions in her sworn evidence to the PAC, she said she had no knowledge of what her CEO was going to tell her, that it was a complete shock, that all she had ever discussed with him was the underfunding of Health. What she said in this parliament on 25 October, that she was concerned about what she perceived to be the discrepancies in the budget figures, fits perfectly with the way her CEO answered in his memorandum of 27 September. The totally different story she told the PAC absolutely beggars belief. I quote:
was the mantra she kept repeating to the PAC, and you can find that on page 433 of the transcripts in paragraph 10. But in this Chamber, she made it quite clear she asked him to explain the large discrepancy in the figures and he gave her an answer. Perhaps we should have an inquiry into that discrepancy, an inquiry into the discrepancy between what she told the full Assembly and what she told the committee.
Before concluding, there are two final points I would like to make. The first is, I admit, self-serving. The committee’s report makes it quite clear there is a direct relationship between the censure motion on 25 October and the reference to the PAC on the same date. The committee is so certain of the connection that it quotes in full the censure motion on page 1 of its report and includes, at appendix 11, the Hansard record of the censure debate. As you know, I was named and censured in that motion, and while I know I reflected the decision of this House, I would point out that I was not called to give evidence at the inquiry. No evidence was given against me at the inquiry, and no finding or comment was made about me in the inquiry’s report. After we have endured the spectacle of an inquiry of the PAC to justify that censure, could I be as nave to suggest that as I appear to have emerged untainted, the Chief Minister might at least acknowledge that.
The final point is the most serious of all. Throughout this whole affair, what has been left hanging out there is not just the claim that my colleague, the member for Katherine, got his estimates wrong in relation to one department, nor the allegation that he did it for political purposes. Rather, it has been that somehow or other he has perpetrated a fraud, he has committed an illegal act. He has done something with at least $8m of the public’s money, he has deprived Territorians of much needed health, education and police services, and not one of these statements is true. Not one of those allegations can ever have, or has ever had, any basis in fact. Not one of these insidious implications has been supported by one shred of evidence in fact before the PAC, and not one of those charges has been proved by this report.
This has been a deliberate campaign by the government to impugn the reputation of my colleague and the previous CLP government. On the strength of the report of the committee, dominated by government members, it has failed. It has failed on the findings this committee has presented to the House, and it has failed totally on the evidence presented to that committee. It has been a fraudulent campaign, seethed in hatred and fostered by vissitudes, envy and ignorance.
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I was very disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening remarks, describe relationships between both sides of the House as poisonous. I ask him, Madam Speaker, where is he when you have so graciously hosted a couple of dinners in recent weeks at sittings, where members of both sides have enjoyed your hospitality and that of the guests that you have seen fit to invite into your office? If he bothered, if he was able to come down perhaps to the level of the rest of us and enjoy your hospitality, he would find that relationships are indeed quite cordial.
Where is he when I go on occasions with the member for Katherine for a quiet little beer in the cold Stirling bar out the back? Quite cordial - we sit down and have a quietie - where is he? There is nothing poisonous from this side of the House, and I suggest any poison outside the House is in his own poisoned mind. I would suggest he comes down and takes the opportunity to come to one of your dinners, which I am sure you will continue to hold.
I commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for this report. I think he has done a tremendous job for a recently elected member of this Chamber. I did not appear before the committee, but I did not find very pleasant reading in this report at all. When you see headlines such as ‘A Budget Manipulator,’ you would expect that there might be some contrition. Now I do not expect them to come in here and fall over and apologise, but some contrition from the ministers who were responsible for what they did. The news report was that the former Treasurer felt that the report vindicated him because it had not established a case of fraud against him. That response really is appalling, and I think the member for Nelson got it right, in part, when he said it is now up to the electorate, really, to judge the former Treasurer. I am surprised - not really - a little surprised, that we heard no contrition and no apology, or anywhere near the word ‘sorry’, from the member for Drysdale. He made a contribution in this Chamber yesterday but we did not hear anything of a contrition, a conciliatory nature, because the findings of this report clearly damn both himself and the former Treasurer.
Of course, up until quite recently, and maybe even still the case, the member for Drysdale fancies himself as the next leader. He fancies himself as the next Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that these findings in this report simply mean that that cannot happen - that simply could not happen. It is worth looking into the future because you have to ask yourself: where does the opposition go beyond the member for Brennan, because two of its three most senior frontbenchers have been found to manipulate budget figures. That generational change has to come, and the would-be leader, the member for Drysdale, seems to me to have sunk his chances.
I want to go to page 218 of the report itself. This is where Mr Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, is appearing before the committee and I will pick up from there where the Chairman says:
Thank you Mr Clarke for your written submission to this particular hearing. If I could start off with your written
submission, in the due detail of 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?.
No further questions, your honour. ‘Yes, they would have’.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Hang on! The member for Greatorex tries to get in lend a hand here, because he thinks this isn’t going too well. He gets in and says: ‘Can I just follow on the question you just asked?’. Of course the Chairman says: ‘Okay, thanks Mr Clarke.’ He knows; he’s got the gen: the figures would have been unchanged except for the Treasurer. And the Chairman knows he is sitting on it. He has the answer that everybody was looking for: ‘Okay, thanks Mr Clarke. I’ve got a couple of questions following on from this ...’ But he is cut off, because the member for Greatorex, he is bright enough to see there is a real problem here, but he is not bright enough to shut his mouth. This is the problem.
Mr CLARKE: Oh no, no.
‘Oh, no, no’ ‘Oh, I wish I’d shut my mouth’, but it’s too late – it’s too late, sunshine! You have stepped into the mire because the Chairman - and I could imagine the size of the grin on the Chairman’s face when he was cut off by the member for Greatorex:
It is just delightful that the member for Greatorex …
Mr Dunham: Keep going and get to the bit where he said it was more accurate.
Mr STIRLING: Keep going? Yes, you had your opportunity yesterday, sunshine. You could have picked that up. In that sense, it is all gone, wrapped up. I thank the member for Greatorex for just elaborating that little more, although I am sure the Chairman probably had a similar question ready to pop to Mr Clarke.
The recommendations in the report do give us a chance, as I have said, to look to the future, and the issues of the Estimates Committee appears as recommendation three. For as long as I have been in this Assembly, in my 12th year, I do not know how many budgets, 10 or 11 it has to be, we have argued consistently for some form of estimates process to scrutinise the budget. The CLP always said, ‘Trust us’. For 26 years they said to Territorians, ‘Trust us, we know what we are doing, we don’t need an Estimates Committee’. We can see, of course, what that produced - a budget that was manipulated and two former frontbenchers who today still cannot see what they did was wrong.
Of course, for the 26 years of denial, no sooner in opposition than they bounce in here with a proposal. What for? An Estimates Committee. I never believed it until I found the opposition benches …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe he is reflecting on a bill that is before the House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, we have tolerated your interjections but we did listen to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. I request that you also refrain from your constant interjections. And please only raise points of order that are valid.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, we believe an Estimates Committee will get it right, will enhance budget scrutiny and will bring us into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand. I believe the members of the committee deserve our thanks for that.
The Chair of this committee was undoubtedly put under a great deal of pressure by the CLP members in the media and they made many false accusations about him during the course of this hearing. But to his absolute credit, he stuck to his task and he produced a good report. The other members too, the member for Barkly, the member for Sanderson, the member for Nelson, deserve our thanks for their effort and their time in the process.
I will just touch on the dissenting report, which lacks any credibility at all. Again, I have served on a number of committees in my 11 years in here. I have never seen such an unprofessional piece of material as produced here. If we go to the headings:
I will pick up a couple of these. In relation to the incompetence of the Chairman, I refer to the Northern Territory News, John Loizou:
And I think this says it all:
You do not often read or hear those sorts of things said about politicians. They write him off as incompetent and here we have a description attesting to his patience and good manners. And so well mannered and patient is he that he deferred when he had the next question on his lips to the Under-Treasurer; he deferred to the member for Greatorex. That is how patient and well mannered he is. So in addition to that he has the smarts, he has the political smarts too, because he read that the member for Greatorex was going to do it for him.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … and would a Treasurer always intervene …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, no, no! said Mr Clarke.
Here is an interesting one. ‘The PAC is unable to determine if the current Chief Minister exerted undue pressure on Paul Bartholomew in order to politicise this matter’. There is no evidence, they were unable to determine this. But we have to get the allegation in there, Madam Speaker, so they put it in. They are probably unable to determine a whole lot of things. If it does not get into the report, it is all other than by way of this shoddy minority report: ‘the contempt of parliament; biased; the processes are flawed; should apologise to Mr Burke; the Chief Minister has deliberately or ignorantly misled parliament’. It really defies explanation or analysis. I just don’t know. ‘The Chairman, Dr Burns, is incompetent; it “was chaired by a person who lacked the competence, impartiality and technical acumen to provide a report at a level which should satisfy parliament”’. It leaves your report for dead, I have to say. It leaves your report for dead.
For example, what does this mean:
Indeed, found, several of the Chief Minister’s allegations made to several of the parliament during the …
Where do you get off here? Did anyone proof read this before you put it in? This minority report is really just a dreadful nonsense.
If we want to talk about credibility, why don’t we go to the issue of the member for Drysdale sitting on this committee in the first place? You would not get a more clear conflict of interest than sitting on a committee that is going to be questioning him about his previous performance as a minister.
Territorians do not believe that it is acceptable to manipulate a budget in the fashion that it was. They do not believe it was a crime, but they certainly believe that it was unacceptable. We do believe that the future does look better and the Estimates Committee, which will happen under this government, will take us a step closer to increased scrutiny of the budget and the process. I urge the CLP opposition to take an opportunity to examine themselves and ask whether they want to continue into the future with two front benchers who have so readily demeaned the offices that they held. You ask yourself about the young and restless on the other side, how long will they allow this to occur, to go on into the future? They have to ask themselves would they adopt that same carriage or are they prepared to make a stand in the interests of their own party?
In relation to Education, I am advised that the Education CEO was advised by the Under Treasurer of the proposed reduction in the estimated actuals expenditure for presentational purposes. The CEO made it clear to the Education minister, Chris Lugg, and the Under Treasurer and other Treasury staff were also advised that Education did not agree with the proposed Treasury figures for the estimated actual expenditure. In their view, the representation of the figures was a decision to be made by the Treasurer and the Under Treasurer in the knowledge that Education advised that they did not agree with them. The Education senior team’s concern was to be sure that the estimated reduced reported actual expenditure did not affect the final allocation for Education and they were assured by the Under Treasurer that the allocation would not be affected. And that would have been their overriding concern, to know that the level of funding they had was still in place. I have absolute confidence in the senior team in Education in relation to this matter.
I thank the member for Greatorex for his foresight in jumping in ahead of the chairman of the committee to ask that question of the Under Treasurer. I think that is game, set, match. Thank you, ball boys. Thank you, umpires. Would the Treasurer involve himself in these as a matter of course? ‘Oh, no, no’, said Mr Clarke, and that says it all.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I come to speak after the contribution of the Deputy Chief Minister, because the thread that ran through his contribution to this debate clearly demonstrates the purposeful meaning behind this process. We all have known it, but his continued reference to the desire of the now government to cleanse the opposition bench of experienced members of parliament and former ministers is evident in his contribution, and that was indeed the genesis of the Public Accounts Committee.
I was a member of this parliament when the Public Accounts Committee was first established. I recall an occasion when a number of members from this parliament visited the New South Wales parliament to have a meeting with the then chairman of their Public Accounts Committee, to have a look at the PAC process and to get some understanding of just what it was all about. It was on that occasion in particular that I became aware of the importance of a Public Accounts Committee, the value of a Public Accounts Committee, and the need for it. It was subsequent to that when we reported back that the government agreed to establish a Public Accounts Committee in this parliament.
It is a very important process. I am saddened by the fact that the process that has been used in this case, and the means by which it has been used, as demonstrated by the Deputy Chief Minister with that thread through his contribution to this debate, has been used politically. I hope that some time in the future some student of politics may use this report, and the processes of this particular investigation, as a study of the effectiveness of Public Accounts Committees. Because, when that occurs, when that student does that job and reports back, it will be found that much was lacking in this process.
I will give a couple of examples. The fact that the principal agency in relation to this particular matter, the Northern Territory Treasury, did not have their submission included in the final report. It is in a box …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is untrue. If the honourable member for Katherine cares to look at the appendix at the back of the report, he will see quite a number of submissions from Treasury.
Madam SPEAKER: Listed, but not included in the report; I think that is the problem for the member.
Mr REED: Is it in the report? Can we flick through here and find it?
Madam SPEAKER: It is listed, but it is not included in the appendix, that is what has been claimed.
Mr REED: Is it readily available for members of the public, for the media, and any other interested person, in the context of this very serious issue, to be able to refer to, in the context of the very issues that are entered into in the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee?
The fact that it was deemed necessary to have some reports which have comments of some interest and support to the government’s case, are readily available, in the appendices, are not stashed away somewhere in a box, does lead one to ask, why? What is there to hide in relation to this?
That is a cogent example as to why this report has been presented in the way that it has. Yesterday we saw a very alarming example of the concealing of evidence, indeed, of the fact that an agency central to these investigations put forward a report and a submission and advice to the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the core issues pertaining to this investigation, and that was not included at all. I don’t know to what extent it was considered by the PAC. One of the members of the PAC attempted yesterday to table it. Well, there was uproar in terms of that and, from what I could see of it from here, it looked to be a fairly heavy document in terms of the number of pages it comprised. One can only be led to believe that it contained information of detriment to the government’s case.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The document that he is referring to was not tabled because it was in breach of standing orders; for no other reason than that.
Madam SPEAKER: We understand that it was not allowed.
Mr REED: Thank you. I thank the honourable member for making my point and for strengthening my case, because members of the PAC had seen it. Government members of the PAC clearly decided that it not be considered or incorporated in the report. When an attempt by a member of the PAC to make issues clearer, to make more information available to the public so that they could better understand the full scope of the report, that effort was denied. One can only be left to ask, why the deceit in terms of the retention of information? We will never know that until, of course, perhaps some student in the future takes on the job of looking at what this PAC did.
In this country we have a concept called natural justice and proving things beyond reasonable doubt. That, in relation to a Public Accounts Committee, is a very cogent point. In fact, that is central to the task which they are allotted by this parliament. They are not allotted the task by the government. The Public Accounts Committee answers to this parliament and, in turn, to the people of the Northern Territory. So, it is very important that justice and fairness is adhered to. From the point of view of government members and, indeed, the member for Nelson, I think it is important to reflect on the fact that they have had only nine months or so experience in parliament. I can understand how they would have found some difficulty in understanding the processes of government; understanding the process of the interaction between agencies like Treasury and the Chief Minister’s Department, and the public service generally; understanding the Cabinet process and, in short just having an appropriate level of experience, knowledge and professionalism in terms of parliamentary practice, to be able to pursue the task at hand.
I am not offended but I am disappointed that the member for Nelson was apparently able to be led by the government in relation to these matters. If we look at the genesis of this investigation it was started here in this House, and it was a censure motion by the government against the former Chief Minister and myself as former Treasurer. That is where it all started. Patently obvious. It is right up front in the appendices to the report and the Chief Minister’s contribution to that censure motion is included in full in the report.
If we go to that and consider what the allegations were: the allegations were those of gross fraud; those of fraud; and those of the Treasurer corrupted the budget. Now, by virtue of that presentation and direction that the Chief Minister undertook at that time, in terms of the subsequent PAC committee, they were the allegations; that is what had to be substantiated. It very obviously became apparent to the government members of the Public Accounts Committee during the course of their deliberations, that that could not be proved. I denied that it could be proved in my contribution to the censure debate on the day. So, from the government’s point of view we have to look at, ‘Oh dear, where do we go from here? This has the risk of falling in a huge hole and we will be left with a touch of egg on our faces’.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: It ill behoves the Deputy Chief Minister to interject regarding comments by the former Under Treasurer when the Chairman and the government members on the Public Accounts Committee have stashed away in a box somewhere the formal Treasury submission to this investigation.
It quickly became apparent to the government members that they would be unable to prove their case. They then started to look at what they might be able to salvage out of this process. What they have done is - even having some recognition of the Public Accounts Committee process, natural justice, fairness and having to prove things beyond some reasonable doubt - they had to make the statement that no evidence could be found that I acted unlawfully or illegally. Having had the recognition or the realisation that they would have to make that statement, they then started looking for a fall back. This is where I was disappointed with the member for Nelson, because he should have twigged at this. In looking for a fall back situation, the initial allegations, the genesis of this investigation, the allegations of fraud, gross fraud and corruptness, were clearly not going to be proven. The fact that of 35 government agencies interviewed in the process of the investigation, only one, only one agency, substantiated the government’s case. So one has to ask how, Madam Speaker, is it that the other 34 agencies could be ignored? How could their position be ignored in favour of the position put forward by a single agency?
We heard from the former Chief Minister, and I think the member for Drysdale, the circumstances of the minute that was central to that point, that is the Department of Health’s involvement in this process, and the fact that the minister of the day, the member for Nightcliff, on the one hand said that she had no former knowledge of ….
Dr Burns: Are you going to substantiate what you said to Fred McCue? I challenge you to do that. Are you going to do it?
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to hear what the former Treasurer is saying and would ask in all seriousness of this debate that he be heard in silence.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you have been fairly well behaved in controlling your interjections. I trust both sides of the House to give the courtesy to members on both sides, as occurred now, including the member for Drysdale. It is a reminder to him as well. Member for Johnston, please refrain. Let’s hear the member for Katherine in silence for the rest of his time.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, we have those circumstances, which for unexplained reasons, that again hopefully in the future a student of politics will unveil them, as to how those circumstances came about. And how a single agency’s evidence could be weighted much more favourably in terms of what the government wanted as an outcome, and how the evidence of 34 other agencies could be ignored, in the context of the weight of the argument. I am talking here about natural justice and beyond reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding that we are bearing in mind all of the time in this matter that they had to admit that there was nothing illegal done.
We have that selective advice that was provided by the Department of Health. We also have the very curious circumstance where a person who is now alleged to be central to this whole deal by the government, the former Chief Minister, was not called at all. One has to ask why his participation in these alleged events was better dealt with by omission? Why was the member for Brennan’s involvement in these alleged processes better dealt with by omission? I ask the Public Accounts Committee members and the government and indeed the Independent member, why was his involvement dealt with by omission?
Mr Henderson: He was the head of government. It was implicit that he was involved.
Mr REED: Oh, it is implicit, we hear by interjection. I thank the honourable minister for his interjection that implicitly and by omission, assumptions can be made - a wonderful case the government is building here for natural justice, and for a thorough and fair process of a parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. There are just some examples of how this process has been manipulated.
We hear from the Chief Minister that I was a budget manipulator - in fact, it might have been the Deputy Chief Minister - and that I should be showing some contrition. How could one show some contrition when the genesis of this process started out as I have described, and when they were half way through the process, the committee by majority found that they were not going to be able to reach their destination, which of course they had mapped out right from the very outset. A confirmation of that is that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - and I daresay that this is unequalled by a Public Accounts Committee Chairman in any parliament in Australia - was forced to stop making public comments whilst he was receiving evidence and partaking in the Public Accounts Committee process. He was forced to stop making public comments which were both derogatory of me - that is the one who was being targetted in this process - and of course was supporting a bipartisan point of view. Quite an extraordinary case that a chairman of a parliamentary committee could allow himself to be brought into such a circumstance and into such question.
I want to talk briefly on the member for Nelson’s suggestion that my reasons for what happened were contrived afterwards. I find that remark offensive. The former Chief Minister in his presentation in this debate clearly demonstrated a process that was followed and the circumstances that exist in relation to the formulation of the budget and the machinations that go on in terms of Treasurers are always trying to put downward pressure on departments for expenditure. Of course that was referred to in Treasury’s formal submission which is stashed away in a box somewhere. It is stashed away in a box somewhere because the government members of this committee do not want that information readily available.
I want to make it clear I am not criticising the member for Nelson, nor indeed any members of the committee, because some of them do lack parliamentary experience and knowledge of the operation of government. They will learn that over time. I daresay there will be some of them, and I confidently predict that the member for Nelson will be one of them, who will reflect on the process of this Public Accounts Committee and perhaps even come to believe in the future that it could have been done better, it would have been able to have been done more fairly and there would have been the ability for natural justice to be applied in the real sense. When you get to a position where a committee has to admit that nothing was done illegally, it is grossly unfair and grossly in breach of natural justice to then move to say, ‘Okay, well, we still want to get this lot from a political point of view with the Public Accounts Committee members from the government, so let’s look at something else we can brand them with. So, we’ll come up with some words like morally wrong, and manipulation, and tampering, and all sorts of other words that we might be able to use to besmirch the former Treasurer’.
I have been in politics for 15 years and I am used to all this. I acted with integrity and the best meaning for outcomes for Territorians. Indeed, I again call on the Chief Minister to make an apology in relation to the unfounded allegations that she made against me. We won’t get it because she is not of that ilk; she does not have that sort of integrity. But any process that has been based on omissions, which has adopted a fall-back position because they could not prove what their final destination was and the point that they want to make, is faulty. I find that a sadness, but I hope the parliament learns from it.
I hope that the overall evidence provided in this process is reviewed in the future and that we come across a much fairer outcome in terms of natural justice and the future conduct of the Public Accounts Committee.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support the majority PAC Report, and to commend the Chairman of the committee for his report. I concur with the comments made by the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the Chairman, his dedication and his patience with the committee, and on the excellent report that he has produced.
I want to emphasise from the start that this inquiry was established to investigate the allegations, as they were revealed to me in a memo from my CEO, Mr Paul Bartholomew, that there had been an artificial reduction to my department’s 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget could be falsely presented as a 2.5% increase. At no time did I know that this had happened until I received the memo. There were allegations made this morning that somehow I knew about this in advance. That is completely untrue. What I did know was that there was significant underfunding in the health budget, and the figures were changing from $14m to $20m, and it kept going up. I did ask my CEO, as I stated to the Public Accounts Committee, to provide me with a written statement, and that is what he provided me with.
It is important to remind ourselves that this was a classic example of political interference, in terms of the CLP and budget reporting in an election year. The sleight of hand was designed to gloss over the fact that the budget was in deficit. It was designed, for presentation purposes, to show largesse where there was none.
This inquiry was necessary to establish the accuracy of the budget data published in the 2001-02 budget papers, with respect to both the estimated outcome for 2000-01 and the budget for 2001-02. It was necessary because Territorians deserve to know the truth. The results of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry vindicate our actions in responding to the memo.
Turning to the findings of the PAC, it seems clear that the former Treasurer was the instigator of the actions that led to the need for the Public Accounts Committee hearings. He was the one who told the former Under Treasurer to reduce the estimates in order to show growth in Health, Education and Police. As the committee’s report clearly states, the former Under Treasurer was clear that the estimates would have been published unchanged, and without reduction, but for interference in the process by the member for Katherine. Whilst the actions of the former Treasurer were not illegal, they certainly raise questions of impropriety, of unethical dealings, and of deception. This concept of deception is a recurrent theme in this whole sorry episode.
The inquiry found that the member for Drysdale, as the then minister, by not challenging the deception which had been brought to his attention by his CEO, Mr Bartholomew, was complicit. In other words, in allowing this manipulation to continue, he was a knowing party to it. It was the member for Drysdale who allowed the artificially reduced and false estimate to be published and presented to the parliament and, thus, to the people of the Northern Territory. The member has denied this and, no doubt, will continue to deny it. Instead, he has attempted to run a personal smear campaign against me. All members of this House will be aware of the concentrated attack on me in the run-up to the presentation of this report. I see this as nothing more than a diversionary tactic. I have actually received hundreds of e-mails and letters and telephone calls of support. I would have to say that they have not been particularly complimentary in relation to the member for Drysdale.
The opposition members have been in denial from the outset. Take their minority report. It is really just a continuation of these tactics. The member for Drysdale has criticised members on this side of the House for what he calls ‘running interference’. Certainly, when it comes to muddying the waters, he is the expert. Throughout the inquiry, the opposition members of the committee made a series of attempts to direct attention away from the terms of reference and to the mini-budget. Why? Because they knew that this inquiry would expose the deliberate manipulation perpetrated by the member for Katherine, assisted by the member for Drysdale, whose primary concern was that the manipulation of the budget figures would be shown for what it is: a tawdry attempt to maximise advantage in an election year.
This just cannot be dismissed as the opinion of a biased government. The Independent member of the committee, the member for Nelson, cannot be accused of having a political axe to grind. He says of his involvement in the committee that he felt beholden to make a judgment to the best of his ability and, in general, he supports the findings of the report. In his statement to the House yesterday, the member for Nelson confirmed that opposition members took every opportunity to divert the focus away from their budget fudge on to the distraction of the mini-budget. He also found that the former Treasurer, and I quote:
He goes on to say:
Evasive and contradictory. I can only completely agree with the honourable member.
In a similar vein, the Independent member for Nelson concludes that, while the member for Drysdale did not instigate the idea of manipulating the budget, he still went along with the scheme. Let me quote again:
The importance of this inquiry cannot be overstated. This government moved quickly to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, passed in the November sittings last year. The recommendations contained in this Public Accounts Committee report, if adopted, will assist the government’s aim of restoring credibility to the budget process and give Territorians trust in their representatives to manage public funds in an open and accountable way.
I make particular reference to the fact that the recommendations refer to the conflict of interest of members on a committee when they are also a witness. This is a significant recommendation and one I hope will be taken up. From the public’s point of view someone who is a witness and is also on a committee and, therefore, is judge and jury for themselves quite clearly has a significant conflict of interest. This is an area where we really need to clean up the act.
Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the majority report and once again commend the Chairman of the committee for providing such an excellent report.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, given that we were looking to finish this before lunch, I will be reasonably brief. I just want to pick up on the parts of this report dealing with land sales. There has been a lot of debate in this House and a lot of talk of apologies. Perhaps the Chief Minister would like to offer an apology to those people in the Department of Lands and the then CEO of Lands, John Pinney, and if she likes, even to me for including me …
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I know you wouldn’t, but perhaps the Chief Minister would like to, and I am referring of course to the censure debate that was brought on this House which is contained …
Mr Kiely: Why don’t you talk about your mates?
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr BALDWIN: The censure debate is contained, I see, within this report. On that day, the Chief Minister, without having any information it seems at that time, because the sequence of events seemed that the censure motion came on first and then, or perhaps around about that time, the chairman wrote to all agencies. They received their replies, I know they were received because it is in here, the reply from Mr Pinney on 12 November so that is some weeks after the censure debate, and Mr Pinney gave evidence in December.
So without having any prior knowledge of what the situation was with the Department of Lands in terms of their allocation of land sales in their budget and their forward estimates, which turns out as we know to be a notional figure - the chairman has written it up in his recommendations talking about notional figures - the Chief Minister comes in here and castigates the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment in the censure, and says, and I am quoting here:
A member Including you, wasn’t it?
Mr BALDWIN: I am getting to that. …and in Mr Pinney’s case and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment’s case to explain these differences. I thought Mr Pinney’s letter to the chairman, Dr Chris Burns, was very succinct and very relevant. And at the same time, I might add, I received a letter asking me to appear before the committee which I was happy to do but not with the short notice that I was given, but happy to arrange for a time. The PAC then, according to the transcripts - and I have read the transcripts - got a fulsome explanation as to why this forward estimate appeared as it did, the history of it and why it has always been like that. Certainly the Pinney evidence substantiated all of that. Mr Chambers appeared with Mr Pinney. Even the recommendation that has come down now in the majority report dealing with land sales still does not talk about the notional figure being a problem. It just says vigilance should be exercised when including notional figures within the budget to ensure that the basis of the trend has not changed and the best estimate for the year is provided. So, I do not believe that there will be much change in the way that is presented. There might be some evidence of why you arrived at that figure, but at the end of the day it will still be an estimate. That is what budgets are: they are estimates and they will use a notional figure that can be arrived at in different ways.
Mr Pinney’s letter had attached to it the estimates over quite a number of years in previous budgets. If you look through - even if you went from 1998-99 onwards, there was a notional figure in the budget, an estimate, of $9m and the actual received was $11m. Would you go out investigating that? The notional figure was wrong, but that is what an estimate is. $9m and they actually got in $11m.
The next year they had in their budget, and quite rightly if you look at it, a budget estimate of $11m and they actually raised just over $11m, so excellent work there. The following year they put in a budget estimate of $10.25m based on the fact that they actually got $11-odd million the year before, and the actual was down to $4.352m. So they continued on.
The point is that they will always be notional figures. I think the Chief Minister really jumped the gun in terms of her censure motion and using the words she did in relation to the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. If she had any understanding of how these things worked, she would not have even gone near this and I am sure the chairman would agree with me.
The Pinney evidence was obviously agreed to by the committee to the point where I was no longer required to give evidence, which is a shame. But at the end of the day not only did they get all of this evidence, they had the Pinney letter on 12 November and, on 27 November, the mini-budget came down. Lo! and behold. Which figure did they use? The same figure, $9m: notional figure, best estimate. Just to go chasing this shows what a joke the whole thing was. The Chief Minister, because she jumped the gun without first getting the facts, should apologise not only to Mr John Pinney, who is now the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, but also to the departmental officials and to Treasury officials who obviously vindicated why they had that figure in there. If she is forthcoming, I do not mind receiving an apology as well. That would be a great thing.
I wanted to put that on the record, Madam Speaker. It was a witch hunt from the start. This shows how far and wide they were ranging. Obviously they were disappointed when they did not find anything wrong with land sales. The PAC’s recommendation is really a farce because we know that whatever figure goes in there, because you do not know from one day to the next what piece of land you might sell for strategic development in the Northern Territory, that it will always be a notional figure.
Madam Speaker, really it is a bit like the Treasury document that never got listed or included in this fulsome report here. You know, it is all right to make assumptions, but you should include all of the facts when you are making those assumptions. In terms of this recommendation, it really should not even be in there. It is just a waste of space to vindicate why you actually went looking for this part on your witch hunt, and I will leave it at that. A witch hunt from the start; a witch hunt at the finish.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, as members are aware, this report and the appendices and the transcripts are quite large. Many issues have been raised by honourable members, and I thank them for their contributions. There are some threads or commonalties in the contributions made by various speakers, and I am going to try and bring them together, the major ones at least. I have quite a list of issues that have been raised during debate, and I hope I will be able to address them all.
The member for Drysdale followed me, and he made a very generalised statement that the PAC refused to do its job. Well, I refute that. We heard what the member for Nelson had to say about the PAC, and if I could just quote him, the Independent member: ‘The PAC did adhere to its terms of reference’. We did adhere to our terms of reference. We did do our job to the best of our ability. It is true that four of us were new to the process, and we had a lot to learn, and in particular as chairman, I had a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. I acknowledge that. All in all, I am very satisfied with the job that we did. We did it in a very fair way, and we have tried to present the evidence that was given us, both sides of the evidence, throughout the report, and I think we have reasonably drawn our conclusions from that evidence. I refute what the member for Drysdale said.
There seems to have been a theme through what the opposition members have said during the debate, drawing into question the credibility of Mr Bartholomew, the CEO of what was Territory Health Services, and now CEO of Health and Community Services. There have been things said, ‘Oh, Mr Bartholomew stands alone’, that basically what Mr Bartholomew said was not at all backed up by other witnesses. Well, that may well be the case to an extent. But I would like to read what the committee said on some of these issues. I did not have time during my speech the other day; there were a lot of issues to cover. This is an important issue. I am reading from page 66:
Amongst the agencies affected by the reduction in estimates [which of course is Police, Education and Health]
Mr Bartholomew was the only CEO who believed there was reason for concerns and acted upon his concerns in
regard to what he perceived to be inconsistencies or deliberate deceptions in the data being presented in the
budget papers to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
The parliament and the people of the Northern Territory owe Mr Bartholomew an incredible debt, because I think he is a man of integrity and truth. He stood up and it was painful for him at the time, I would say, and it has been even more painful for him since. But he stood up and told the truth, and for that he showed a lot of integrity.
It says here: ‘
Other CEOs appeared to be reassured when they learnt that the published budget figures did not affect their
capacity to spend to their approved allocation.
A disturbing theme common to all agencies appearing before the Committee was the parochial view of a number
of CEOs that their primary focus was on their own agency’s allocation/expenditure, with little association to the
figures being presented to parliament during the budget process.
I seem to have lost the particular quote there - here we go, almost lost it. I apologise, I don’t have it. Here it is. This is on page 14:
I am not trying to be too critical here, but I believe this really puts in stark contrast the attitude of Mr Bartholomew, who was concerned and did something about it, with the attitude of other CEOs who were concerned, but said, ‘Well, where can I take it?’ It is not so much a reflection on the other CEOs but the prevailing environment in which they were working that they did not feel they could take those concerns elsewhere. There is a lot of be said for Mr Bartholomew’s credibility.
The member for Drydsale raised the issue of some correspondence from the Education Department specifically related to the $6m that was allocated in March 2001 by the Burke Cabinet to the Education Department for personnel costs. He seemed to be weaving a story - and other members opposite - that somehow this was some great conspiracy to hide things; at the end of the day, basically, that this was central to the findings of this particular report. Well, I definitely refute that. And I know that the member for …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has referred to some of the detail in it, and he has also referred to whether it is central or not to the report. There has been nothing divulged about this correspondence, and that is entirely my point; that in tabling it we can make our own judgment. In addressing this matter, I think he should do so in a generic way.
Madam SPEAKER: If you are quoting information that was dealt with in a deliberative session, you should not. We had this point raised yesterday, we clarified …
Dr BURNS: No, I am not, Madam Speaker. I make the point that …
Madam SPEAKER: You are making a general comment …
Dr BURNS: … I am going no further than the discussion that a member opposite had on this particular issue. I will stand by what I have said in Hansard about that.
Madam SPEAKER: And where was this conversation?
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: Where were these comments made? In the House?
Dr BURNS: The honourable member opposite made comments during his debate about this particular matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Fine, fine.
Dr BURNS: I would like to quote from the draft Hansard yesterday. The quote comes from the member for Nelson on this issue, and he is addressing the minority report, section 7:
The member for Greatorex mentioned - and it probably also reflects on Mr Bartholomew - he was trying to say that the extra $34m that was allocated to Health during the mini-budget was some sort of, I guess, indicator of mismanagement or financial incompetence on the part of Mr Bartholomew, and that the Health costs were just sort of escalating out of control without any basis or reference to anything. But I would refer the member to the mini-budget. There were claims that many of the figures that were arrived at within the mini-budget were done with little reference to agencies and that they were mainly the work of Treasury. The Minister for Health and Community Services, in evidence, also said that the figures were actually arrived at between the department and Treasury.
As the Chief Minister also said in her speech, or she might have said during Question Time, what this government is trying to do is secure adequate base funding for those departments like Health and Education which have been chronically underfunded for some time. That is not something that we resile from.
The member for Greatorex was quite correct when he referred to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services coming in - well, their underexpenditure, off the top of my head, was somewhere around $1.6m, not that far off the $2m of the estimates that were reduced. That is quite true. But what the member for Greatorex failed to expand on was that underexpenditure really came about from the fact that they had committed expenditure to some police protection hardware, totalling approximately $2m, or just under $2m. That hardware was coming from overseas and was not delivered. Now, the thing about it was that they did have to pay for it early in the 2001-02 year and, of course, the Commissioner of Police, Mr Bates, had to seek supplementation early in the new year for that $2m.
Here we go, the reference is here. I am reading from page 15 of the report:
Once again, there was not a carry over, but the $2m was still there. Let’s not be under any sort of misapprehension about that.
The member for Greatorex made much of interference being run against questions by members opposite to the Health minister. Yes, I admit that I did intervene on quite a number of occasions. But what I did not appreciate was the way that they were running a vendetta and really being very free with the truth and trying to confabulate - that is a word I have used here before - their questions. Trick questions, trying to startle the Health minister, ridiculous questions.
Here is a ridiculous question. One of the ridiculous questions was about the transmittal letter that comes at the front of the annual report of the Health department. A transmittal letter sets out the obligations of the department under the Financial Management Act, reporting on its accounts and its programs. The members opposite knew quite well that the CEO signing off on that had nothing to do at all with the budget estimates, but still they were trying to run this story, well, if there wasn’t anything wrong, if the CEO signed off on the transmittal letter that puts paid to any suggestion about fiddling the budget estimates. They knew that to be quite wrong and on issues like that, of course I interfered, because they were just trying to mislead the witness and I thought it was a pitiful performance.
There has been a lot of talk about pressure on the agencies from Mr Reed. He wanted to pressure on them and the question was asked during the hearings, ‘Well, why didn’t you communicate with them? Why didn’t you write to them and ask them to reduce their expenditure?’ I guess the wider question is, ‘Why didn’t you actually reduce their allocation instead of just reducing their estimates?’
I would just like to quote a bit of an exchange here. I think the Deputy Chief Minister might like this one. This is Mr Kiely to Mr Reed, page 389:
The member for Greatorex also talked about a memo sent out to - well, it came up in evidence because the member for Drysdale talked about a memo. First of all, he began talking about a memo that had gone out to really harvest savings. When we got down to it, it was a memo from Ms Joanne Schilling that was sent out on one day and withdrawn the next. When it came down to it, even though that particular memo had been widely - you know, I guess there are a few leaks around - e-mails had been sent beyond one unit within Territory Health. We actually found out it was within one unit of Territory Health, that is where the delegations were withdrawn, and in no way could it reach savings anywhere near $8m in six weeks. Now, there were other issues, other memos, other correspondence behind that, that we have heard in deliberative sessions. I am not going to raise them here, but I was …
Mr Dunham: Oh, but I think you should.
Dr BURNS: I won’t say any more. It was just sickening to read some of the stuff that went on there in terms of the thuggery that used to go on behind the scenes under the previous government.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The allegation is that in closed session, in deliberative session, there was correspondence that demonstrated the thuggery that used to go on. Now, that is the allegation. So he is hiding behind the fact that he cannot present this evidence and he is alleging that it does certain things. I think that is well and truly out of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No. We are debating a fairly controversial report. Both sides have used fairly strong allegations.
Mr DUNHAM: That is true, Madam Speaker, but the portion that he is debating now is not a part of the report. It is part of closed session.
Madam SPEAKER: I am ruling that there is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, there was, from this side anyway, and from the member for Nelson, some discussion about the presence of the member for Drysdale on the committee. The member for Sanderson actually fleshed out the precedent that had been given to the committee by the member for Drysdale, a precedent that was very, very indirect. It was a precedent, if I recall, where someone on a Commonwealth parliamentary committee was inquiring into a matter where there would be a witness that he was involved in litigation with. Something quite different from what we saw from the member for Drysdale actually sitting on a committee that was inquiring into a matter that he was intimately involved with.
I would just like to quote from - the member for Nelson hit it on the head. He talks about Mr Dunham’s involvement on the committee. He says:
Mr Dunham: More Nazis.
Dr BURNS: No, I did not say that.
Mr Dunham: You did. It was reported in today’s paper.
Dr BURNS: The quote that I have today could be from someone that you might admire and respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, direct your remarks to me.
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am talking about Blaise Pascal, the French scientist, philosopher and Catholic theologian. He lived between 1623 and 1662. I am sure the member for Drysdale has heard of Blaise Pascal, a remarkable man. This is a quote from Pascal:
Dr BURNS: I am running out of time here. I have canvassed quite a lot of issues. I appreciated the contribution from the member Barkly. He encapsulated a lot from the perspective of the voting public of the Northern Territory. I am quoting from Hansard page 26, the member for Barkly said:
They are words of wisdom from the member for Barkly and I appreciate them.
I will have to be honest, Madam Speaker, here, I think I am always honest, but I did appreciate the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, his contribution was the best from the other side. He did raise some very substantial issues and I think that he argued very well. I would like to dignify his speech and the points that he raised by seriously addressing them. One of the issues that he raised was about the magnitude …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, could I move an extension of time to allow the honourable member to conclude his remarks.
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. We will have to move on.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move to suspend so much of standing orders as is necessary to allow the member for Johnston to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, you have 10 minutes.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): The Leader of the Opposition raised a very important issue, and that was in relation to the magnitude of the carry overs that had been calculated in the Treasury submission. Before I go into that particular question about the magnitude of the carry overs, there has been a lot made of the fact that the Treasury submission is not an appendix within the report. I confess it was an oversight. There was no intention to hide anything from anyone. On the day that Treasury appeared, that document was tabled and it was distributed widely to the press.
It is still freely available to the public, and if people want copies all they have to do is ring me up and I will certainly send them a copy, because a lot of what the Under Treasurer had to say was the fact that it really put the nails in the coffin for the member for Katherine. In that submission he tells how the member for Katherine directed him to change the budget estimates, and how it was done for political motivation. There is a lot more in there.
But the Leader of the Opposition touched on a very important issue about the magnitude of the carry overs. I turn to that particular submission, on page 6. It looks at the total carry over, and in 1999-2000, the carry over for Health was approximately $8.4m. For Education, according to this table, it was $1.3m, and Police was $1.9m. You could argue that at least the reduction in estimates for both Health and for Police might be well justified. However, on the day when we received this, I asked the former Under Treasurer a bit about this. I do not pretend to be an economist or a Treasury person, but I could see, just by the very composition of that table, that there was something wrong with it. As I inquired more, as I inquired with our financial advisor, Mrs Jane Large, I found out that these figures here actually contain the August budgetary refinement process. It was not a carry over, in fact, from one year to another. It was basically from June to July. We are talking about something in August. So, I had further discussions with our advisor, Mrs Jane Large, and it is actually mentioned in our report. Where are we? The magnitude of the carry overs, page 60:
My recollection is that the underexpenditures were probably somewhere in the order of - yes, Police, about $1.6m; for Education somewhere around $5m, certainly not $6m; and for Health somewhere around $4m. That is why Mr Clarke was getting quite panic stricken, particularly with Health, when the former Treasurer wanted to wind it back by $8m. He knew it was not justified. I appreciate the comments made by the Opposition Leader but, basically, the committee did hear evidence that the magnitude of the reductions was nowhere near justified. So, that is an aspect.
I certainly did not agree with the Opposition Leader when he said that the whole report is a manipulation of facts. The very fact that the member for Nelson has come on board with the majority report - there was only one issue in the whole report which related to the former Education minister, and former member for Nelson. That was the only issue he dissented about. He was on board, or is on board, 100% with these facts. It is wrong for the opposition to be attacking the member for Nelson in the way that they have. I believe he is a man of integrity. He is someone of common sense, and he is someone who believes in the truth. The very fact that he has accorded with nearly 99% of our report; where does it leave the opposition? Nowhere healthy, that is what I would say.
I would like to leave the former Treasurer near to last and comment on the contribution by the Health minister. I felt that, here again today, she gave an honest account of herself and a very direct account of herself. She stands with her integrity intact.
The Chief Minister told the House that she was sickened and saddened by what had happened. It is very sad that it has happened, and it is even sadder that the member for Drysdale and the former Treasurer have not either apologised, or said they are sorry or acknowledged that they did the wrong thing. That would be a start to repairing the damage.
The Chief Minister also gave this government’s undertaking for open and transparent processes in government. We have heard about an estimates committee, and I welcome that. She reflected on leadership. The challenge now for the Opposition Leader, is what he is going to do with these two characters. If he is going to leave them in their current positions, I don’t think it sends out a very good message to the electorate. I will reflect again on what the member for Barkly said, ‘I think he has to act; maybe he has to put them in different portfolios. He is going to have to look at a line of succession for the member for Katherine because I get the feeling, from his speech today, that he has probably had near to enough, and that he may move on’.
Mr Dunham: This is part of the report. We have given you an extension to talk about the report, and you talk about whether Mike Reed’s going to retire. It has gone stale. Stick to the bloody message, mate!
Dr BURNS: Well, okay. The Chief Minister talked about the $260m because it is important. She talked about the big picture, because it is important to realise we are not talking about $6m in reduced estimates. We are talking about $260m of disputed elements of the former Treasurer’s budget. We are talking about burgeoning debt that has been piling on year after year in the Northern Territory, and consecutive blow-outs in budgets. I am proud to be part of a government that is really trying to address those issues; really trying to bring in some discipline in terms of budget. We have our sights set on having a small surplus by the fourth year of our term. I am proud of that commitment.
The former Treasurer said that the report needs critical study. I will back this report on critical study in the future or a contemporary report. I am very proud of it. It is extensive, solid, and it addresses the issues, not like the dissenting report put in by the members opposite.
The former Treasurer mentioned the Treasury submission being absent. It is accessible to the public, but as I said it was an oversight. He also talked about our inexperience on this side and the member for Nelson also - well, that is true. We are inexperienced, but I have certainly come through a learning experience, and not all of it pleasant, through my chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee particularly in relation to this inquiry. I concede that I have a lot more to learn and I am eager to learn.
It is sad in terms of the former Treasurer because in evidence to us we invited him to tell us about his achievements during the years that he has been in politics. It would be churlish of anyone to deny that he has made a great contribution to the Territory. He has been a very experienced minister, and there are many things that he pointed to that day that he can justly be proud of. I am never going to take away from that. But in this particular episode he needs to admit that he did do the wrong thing and that would be fitting.
I have another quote here. It is about that. It is about an admission. This was made by Senator William Proxmire in about 1989, and I am not drawing any comparisons here but what he had done was take campaign donations and intervened on the people that he had given the campaign donations for and advocated for them. He just said, ‘Well, there was nothing illegal about it; it was just wrong’, and even if the former Treasurer made a comment like that – ‘there is nothing illegal about it; it was just wrong’ - well, it was wrong. It is incorrect for members opposite to come here and say there was no wrongdoing. There was wrongdoing. Wrong was done to the people and the parliament of the Northern Territory in that artificially reduced estimates came forward to the parliament for political purposes to show non-existent growth in an election year.
That was the wrongdoing. The wrongdoing also was that there was no attempt to draw any description of what had happened within the budget papers. I would suggest to those members opposite who are not part of the old guard to just think about this, and think about succession. Think about reinvigorating and refreshing your party and moving on from this.
In conclusion, I did not get a chance yesterday, but I would like to thank the committee members. We did have our differences and probably still will, but I felt all members of the committee did work hard. We worked very long hours in our deliberations, there is no doubt about that. I would also like to thank Terry Hanley, the secretary of our committee who worked very hard and worked weekends and nights, and Ms Ros Vogeli, and I probably presented Ros with a few nightmares because I am a bit of a pedant when it comes to the presentation of reports and what should be in there and the way it is formatted. But Ros accommodated what I wanted.
I would like to thank also the Hansard staff. They do a fantastic job. I am just amazed at the accuracy of the Hansard staff; the first time around they get it 98% or 99% right. They are working in the middle of the night and they are trying to pick up all sorts of cross-talk. It is very hard for them but they are very, very good.
I would also like to thank the Clerk who helped the committee through a few tough times and gave us advice, and I thank him for his advice. Finally, I would like to thank Mrs Jane Large who, as most people might know, has been a Treasury Department person for many, many years, who took on this job and gave fearless and frank and independent advice to the committee. I really appreciate her efforts and her giving us a first draft of the report.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory acts, regulations, rules and legislative instruments consequential to reforms to the Commonwealth, state and territory acts dealing with the financial sector.
In 1998 and 1999, the Commonwealth, state and territory Financial Sector Reform Acts changed the structure of regulation concerning the financial sector. These amendments have, amongst other things, resulted in the creation of a class of financial institutions known as ‘authorised deposit taking institutions’ or ADIs. ADIs include banks, building societies, credit societies and other financial institutions. The Northern Territory acts and regulations contain numerous references to banks, building societies and credit unions. This bill provides for the replacement of these references by references expressed in current terminology.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 (Serial 56); the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57); and the Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 58), passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to remove administrative processes in the Mining Act which are no longer relevant, and to streamline, where possible, those processes which are placing an unnecessary administrative burden on both industry and government.
The Mining Act came into operation on 1 July 1982. The act has undergone significant amendment since that time, particularly so in recent years as a result of the impact of native title legislation. Implementation of advances in information technology, the introduction of the exploration initiatives and geoscientific programs are all successfully contributing to the continuing growth of mineral exploration activity in the Territory and the way that exploration and mining companies do their business. These advances, along with changing business rules, have led to an increased administrative load on both the industry and government. These have all had a considerable impact on how information is disseminated to industry and the public.
Many of these proposed amendments to the Mining Act are in response to advances in technology and changes in modern business and mining practices. These amendments have been prepared in close consultation with industry representatives and other stakeholders including the Northern Territory Minerals Council and the Extractive Industry Association of the Northern Territory. Additionally, the four land councils in the Territory have been kept abreast of these proposed changes through correspondence and circulation of an information paper and copies of the draft bill. I extend my thanks to all these organisations for the valuable contribution they have made and the support provided for these changes.
While the basic philosophy and operational thrust of the act will not be changed, the proposed series of amendments in the bill are necessary to maintain the continued smooth operation of the act.
Reflecting the use of new technology, a number of amendments are being proposed to alter the way titles information is notified to industry and the public. The current practice is to publish in the Government Gazette all grants, reductions and terminations of exploration and mining titles. However, it is increasingly apparent that industry and other interested parties no longer find this a convenient method as they now have access to the department’s titles information system website where this type of information has been posted for two years since May 2000. In many instances, the use of the website has already replaced the previous system of mailing out of various types of information by the department. Greater emphasis is now being placed on the use of the website and in the future this will result in significant resources and cost savings to government. Generally, the mining industry finds the use of this new medium far more accessible and convenient to use.
Another amendment proposed is the introduction of group reporting by companies that hold two or three or more licences in the same vicinity. This change will make reporting easier for both companies and the government. Currently, the Darwin City area and the large areas of Outer Darwin are covered by reservation from occupations. These reservation from occupations are, in some cases, of historic origins while in others they tend to provide for the better management of mining and extracted tenure. Authorisations are issued to allow for mining and extractive operations in these areas, but these authorisations cannot be transferred, renewed or devolved. This increases the administrative burden on both the extractive industry and government. An authorisation is a major asset of an extractive operator’s business, and like other similar assets, will now be capable of transfer, renewal and devolution following these amendments.
There are a number of mineral leases and mineral claims which have been adjourned sine die, which means, I am advised, until a date to be fixed in the Warden’s Court and, in some instances, have remained unresolved from up to 15 to 20 years. This has meant that the Territory government has been unable to determine such applications whilst they remained adjourned. The amendment proposes that in the future the minister will be able to direct the applicants to relist such applications in the Warden’s Court for determination. In the event of the applicant failing to relist as directed, the minister will be able to refuse the grant of the title. Where the matter is relisted in accordance with the new rules, the Warden must complete the hearing and make a determination, and is unable to adjourn the relisted matter sine die.
These new rules will apply to the operations of the Warden’s Court whether the application was previously adjourned by the warden sine die prior to these amendments commencing. The proposed amendments will clear up the current doubts surrounding these processes and speed up the matters before the Warden’s Court to avoid in the future the current inordinate delays being experienced.
Included in the bill are minor amendments intendant to clarify the act. Also included is the correction of a drafting anomaly where the same section has being inadvertently replicated in the act as a result of previous amendments.
With this bill, the Territory government is showing its commitment to further reducing the administrative burden on the Territory’s resource industry wherever possible. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Oil Refinery Agreement Ratification Act. The focus of the act is now largely historical in nature and ratifies an agreement between the Northern Territory and the Mereenie Joint Venture partners about possible construction of a major oil refinery in Central Australia to process local crude oil. A small oil refinery has been operating for well over a decade in Alice Springs, but the much larger scale refinery, as contemplated by the agreement, has always been viewed as impractical or uneconomic.
You would be aware that in accordance with National Competition Policy all governments are committed to conducting competition reviews of legislation and identifying provisions with potentially anti-competitive restrictions. Where necessary, legislation must be amended or repealed to remove the restrictive provisions, unless retention of the restrictive provisions can be justified as being in the public interest and the objectives of the legislation cannot be met without such restrictions.
A competition policy legislative review was conducted of the Oil Refinery Ratification Agreement Act and found that its provisions are restrictive and anti-competitive. The review recommended repeal of the act and the report was endorsed by the former government. Continued retention of this restricted legislation is considered incompatible with competition principles, and difficult to justify in terms of competition policy.
It is also generally acknowledged that the act has outlived its usefulness, especially given the very limited known onshore petroleum reserves of Central Australia. The government is satisfied that this legislation is no longer necessary and, indeed, inappropriate as reflected in the recommendation of the competition review of the act, and should be immediately repealed. Discussions will be conducted with the Mereenie joint venture partners over the future of the agreement that this act ratifies. The intention is to cancel the agreements in the near future following discussions with the Mereenie joint partners; their initial response is one of support for the government’s intention.
With this repeal bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to the principles of competition policy, and the reform of the statute book to avoid retaining unnecessary or inappropriate legislative restrictions on Territory business wherever possible. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Work Health Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 55) passing through all stages at this sitting.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation Bill 2000-03.
Madam Speaker, this does go back quite some time as we have heard in debate earlier in these sittings. In fact, every appropriation debate that I have taken part in, in this Assembly, where members of the opposition when we were in Committee of the Whole, consistently argued for an estimates committee approach to deliberation of the budget. I can recall one morning in particular where I sensed it was going to be a late night. We had education on the agenda and the shadow minister for education in those days was Neil Bell, the member for Macdonnell. The Minister for Education was the member for Port Darwin, Shane Stone. I ducked across to the Hotel Darwin to book in at about 8.50 pm, thinking it would be handy to locate close to the Assembly because of the lateness of the night. I dropped my bags into the room and took the key, and at 7.25 the next morning I went back to the Hotel Darwin, picked up my bag, paid my bill, thanked them for the room, and came back here and had a shower.
That is only part of the reason why we need an estimates committee process. I know the then government of the day used to say, ‘Well, you have an estimates committee process and it is called the Committee of the Whole’. That gave every member an opportunity to interrogate aspects of the budget of interest to them, whether it was as shadow minister responsibility or whether it was in relation to their electorate. The advantage is that if you take up the estimates committee approach we can bring others into the equation. It will benefit the opposition and benefit of Territorians as a whole. You won’t just have the minister but you will have the expertise from within the department, be it the CEO of the department who will have, and should have, much more exact detail as to the line items in the budget and exactly how much will be expended on particular items than even the minister. That is an opportunity the opposition should be welcoming.
But I am pleased to be able to stand and table this motion today because we …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I raise the point of order as a point of clarification, just to know where we are going with this particular motion. My understanding was that this motion was not going to be debated because it moves to the composition/duties of the actual estimates committee; the way that ministers would be called; who they would be accompanied by; the way that members could speak in the Chamber. I understood that we were going to have some time to consider the substance of how the estimates committee would actually operate prior to that. I imagine a reference to the PAC would be that they consider these terms of reference. But prior to that we would debate the mechanism that the PAC would actually conduct an inquiry as to how an estimates committee would operate.
So I am just confused as to why we are debating this first motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, perhaps I clarify the confusion and hopefully make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to put on the record our remarks, our views as to this. It won’t be debated at these sittings. We will bring it back. In the meantime, and I will deal with this further in my contribution, we would be asking the Public Accounts Committee to have a look at processes. One that has certainly struck our notice is Tasmania. It is a parliament of 25 members, seven ministers, who will utilise their estimates committee process in June of this year. We think it is a valuable opportunity …
Madam SPEAKER: What you are saying is that you are giving your remarks to your motion; it will then be adjourned and brought back in June.
Mr STIRLING: I would ask for an adjournment motion from the other side, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it the same for the next motion?
Mr STIRLING: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You want to adjourn both?
Mr BURKE: We can debate out the second.
Madam SPEAKER: You want to pass the second one but not this one? We will adjourn this one. Okay. So we are all clear on that.
Mr STIRLING: I apologise for any confusion but we do think there is a way through this.
Accountability is a word often championed by oppositions and certainly by ourselves in the past, but this government is serious about accountability and we see the estimates committee as another vehicle in favour of it. In the last 25 years, all Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand parliaments, except for the Northern Territory, have introduced a system for consideration of annual estimates of proposed expenditure by an estimates committee. It is a process proposed to complement the consideration of the annual Appropriation Bill in Committee of the Whole. The key purpose for the referral of budget estimates to committees has been to provide members with a basis for more informed debate. In some instances the consideration of budget estimates by committees has proved so effective in some parliaments the procedure has effectively replaced the Committee of the Whole stage of the budget process.
In support of the implementation of the estimates committee we argue that the committee provide individual members with an unparalleled opportunity to gather information on the operations of government. While members may seek information from the government at Question Time in the Chamber, they can only ask questions of the ministers concerned. Members are not able to question relevant officials directly and as extensively as they would have the opportunity in an estimates committee process. It is further argued that an estimates committee can play a significant role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the performance of the executive branch of government, making ministers and public servants further accountable to parliament for the use of the public resources for which they are held responsible.
I further argue that accountability is much about explanation, as it is about the bald information within the budget papers. The provision of facts and figures is a necessary but not entirely sufficient condition of accountability. What is needed to complete that picture is for relevant officials to explain not just the details of the what and the how of the agency and how they are administered, but also the why. The operation of estimates committees in other parliaments in recent years has been claimed to have achieved a great deal in opening the books of government, contributed to the improvement of the management of the public sector, and markedly increased the accountability of the executive to parliament.
As I said, for many years we did call for an estimates committee, never actioned by the Country Liberal Party, but in somewhat audacious fashion I would think, Madam Speaker, it is the member for Drysdale who sits with a grin on his face, who bounces in here with a proposal to parliament that we should have an estimates committee. I welcome the interest of members opposite and their support for the process, because I would hope that as a member of the committee he does take the opportunity to travel to have a look at an estimates committee in a parliament of very comparable size and nature to our own.
We are taking the first step to implementing what was long called for by our side and was an election commitment. In the Labor Position Paper dated June 2000, the following relevant changes to parliamentary committee structures were identified as follows:
Labor will introduce a new system of statutory committees, one of which would be an estimates committee.
The current appropriation debate session of parliament would be replaced by this estimates committee
process. A move called for by Labor and independent commentators for many years.
And it is a committee process followed in every other state and territory and by the Commonwealth.
It will allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability. The estimates committee will have responsibility to scrutinise the budgetary process and ensure that outcomes sought have actually been achieved. An estimates committee would seek greater accountability for government expenditure of taxes and charges imposed. In developing a model for implementation in our own Assembly, an examination has been conducted of the operations of similar committees in other Australian and New Zealand parliaments. The model which operates in parliaments throughout Australia and New Zealand, with the exception of Victoria, is by way of effectively replacing the Committee of the Whole stage of the annual Appropriation Bill with an estimates committee, a select committee or committees, or referring the estimates to existing legislative and general purpose standing committees.
This model involves common factors such as operations pursuant to standing or sessional orders; scheduling of appearances by ministers by portfolio units; membership including government, opposition and independent members; public hearings; participation by other members in proceedings; the provision for questions and answers to be provided in advance of committee hearings; capacity for questions to be taken on notice and answered at a later time; capacity for dissent or minority statements or reports; the capacity for public officials to be present for questioning and to support the minister in answering questions of administrative detail; the publication of Hansard transcripts of proceedings; and a report back facility to the main legislative body.
The reporting process involves further debate either in the committee or in dealing with the remaining stages of the annual Appropriation Bill. In developing the model tabled today, it is considered that the operations of the estimates committee in the Queensland parliament and the Tasmanian House of Assembly have much to commend them as models in the development of an appropriate procedural and administrative framework for implementation by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Its consideration is largely based on the operation of the unicameral Queensland parliament system and the extensive and detailed procedural rules and supporting documentation. The scale of operation at the Tasmanian House of Assembly with 25 members and seven ministers provides a scale that most approximates that of the Northern Territory Assembly. A draft sessional order to implement procedures, which is largely based on the Queensland and Tasmanian models, is before the parliament.
The key issues, to which I draw the attention of honourable members are: access by television cameras to the proceedings; involvement of senior public servants; proceedings to take place in a committee room; like the existing arrangements, a system of advanced written questions; and the capacity for shadow ministers and local MLAs to participate in the committee to ensure that the same access to getting your electorate or shadow ministry responsibility questions up there exists, as it did in utilising the Chamber as a Committee of the Whole.
We propose to leave debate on this motion for the June sittings. We think this will give members a chance to consider the matter, and to undertake necessary familiarisation between now and then. I exclude the member for Drysdale, Madam Speaker, because he has obviously done his homework on this matter because he has his own business before the Chamber on this. The process we embark upon is a new process. I am confident the framework that we have come up with is a good one, but there are certainly many details to be worked through and there may be need to fine tune certain matters. We think it is another piece in the jigsaw of greater accountability than we saw under the Country Liberal Party in 26 years. The Public Accounts Committee report is further proof positive, we think, of the costs Territorians paid for that lack of accountability throughout that time.
Today really represents another step forward to changing this parliament for the better. It is a model we think is right; we believe is right. But we are not so arrogant to think it is absolutely perfect, and common sense would dictate, Madam Speaker, that we should give the model a bit of a trial run first, and then seriously review it. It is premature to lock it into legislation in the first step before the parliament has had time to give it a go in practice. It may be fine. If so, good, let’s lock it up in legislation. But we do not want to take that step until the parliament has been through it and we are sure that the Public Accounts Committee could then have another look at any deficiencies that it may have. To that end, the motion includes provision for a report to parliament following this year’s process.
I commend the motion to members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Yes, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we were going to adjourn this debate.
Mr REED: Yes, I am aware of that, Madam Speaker, but I find it necessary to make a few remarks and then perhaps seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date. There are just a few matters I would like to clarify before we go on. I understand what we will be doing now is item 7 on the Notice Paper. In relation to this particular issue, this …
Dr Toyne: It comes after 6.
Mr REED: Yes, well, we can put up with the smartiness of the Attorney-General if you want, or you can assist the debate.
I ask the minister to clarify a couple of points. One is that we now have what he has referred to as ‘a model’. He previously explained to the Leader of the Opposition that we have this model and, together with this model, the PAC will investigate processes around the country. Extrapolating from that, I assume that having investigated this model and the other practices around the country, the PAC would come back and establish a committee process for the forthcoming budget. But, in his closing remarks, the minister then indicated that we would use this model for the forthcoming budget, and the deliberations of the PAC would follow later. I wonder if he could just give me some indication across the floor as to what the ...
Mr Stirling: Well, perhaps if we deal with 7. If you want to seek …
Mr REED: I will have some further remarks on this. This is my problem, Madam Speaker. You can see the difficulty. Is this going to be applied for the forthcoming budget? Or is the review being undertaken by the PAC including looking at interstate practices to be applied?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I will allow you to answer that.
Mr STIRLING: He is encouraging me to break standing orders here, Madam Speaker, but in the interests of clarification, yes, we would expect the Public Accounts Committee to have a look at the process in operation, at least in Tasmania. I am aware that is a similar sized parliament; has an estimates committee process; will work in practice, so they would see it in practice, and be suitably informed by that process, and have this model to work on. With what they see in Tasmania, and the model that we have developed and put on the Table, between those two exercises, they would have something for parliament that we would then operate for the 2002-03 budget.
What I was saying by way of locking it into legislation is that we want to use, whatever the finality of that model is, at the appropriation debate later this year, but not lock it into legislation until there is a further review by the Public Accounts Committee, following the parliament having gone through that exercise. We will shake out the deficiencies, shortcomings, strengths and weaknesses in the system, and we may get a better model. We are just saying, we think it is right, we do not want to lock something into legislation before we have tried it and been through it, because we want the best model that will work for us.
Madam SPEAKER: So the model tabled is not the end result?
Mr REED: I thank you for your forbearance, Madam Speaker, and also the comments by the minister. I move that the debate be adjourned, but in so doing seek to continue my remarks at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am glad we sorted this out. It would perhaps have been politic of me to speak with the member for Katherine and the Leader of the Opposition before these motions so that we had a clear understanding exactly of what we were proposing. Item 7 on the Notice Paper is for the purposes of the preparation for the conduct of this estimates committee process that we are talking about for the 2002-03 budget. And that is that the Public Accounts Committee consult with other state or Commonwealth parliamentary committees.
We certainly have a view, and I have said already that Tasmania would seem to be the optimum place, both in terms of size - 25 members, seven ministers, in that format alone it mirrors our own Assembly. The PAC will have the opportunity to see the operation in process, ask questions, get detail, and get further information. And to see it in practice so that they can form views as to how the process itself enhances accountability, as opposed to dealing with the Appropriation Bill in the Committee of the Whole as we have done in the past. That simply is all that this motion is doing. It is to set that in process. I am thankful that we have been able to clarify those issues.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that information. We support this action but I wonder if, in his response, the minister could indicate why there has been no time frame applied to this. It is a bit unusual for the Public Accounts Committee to be asked to do something and not set a time frame, bearing in mind that the intent of this is to have a structure in place for the forthcoming budget discussions. That being the case, I think it would be unfair on the Public Accounts Committee, on behalf of this House, not to advise them what our expectations are in regard to a report back as to the ability then for this House to consider those deliberations; and to ensure that the process is, in fact, as promised by the government, in place and able to be applied for the appropriation debate following the introduction of the next budget. I would appreciate some comments in that regard.
The other very important fact is that there is no mention in this motion - and the minister has not alluded to this in his contribution to this debate - as to the resources that are available to the Public Accounts Committee, and whether you, Madam Speaker, might have sufficient resources within the Legislative Assembly for the Public Accounts Committee. I assume that they will be travelling to the various parliaments. There are a number of them. There would be an officer, or more officers, who would be required to travel with the members of the committee. The expenses could be considerable in terms of travelling interstate. They are not going to be matters that will be able to be undertaken in a short time.
For example, in the previous matter that we discussed, the minister referred to the possibility of the Public Accounts Committee sitting in, as it were, on the budget deliberations in Tasmania, just to see how that process works. That being the case, I would not have thought a day of sitting in is going to do much good. They will probably want to be there for a few days. They will certainly want to inquire - if they are going to be able to report back to us thoroughly - as to how members on both sides of the Houses in Tasmania and, indeed, Independent members and members of the cross benches in the parliament - are served by the process that is applied in the Tasmanian parliament.
That is one insight as to the types of activities that the committee is going to be involved in. That will be expensive time wise, travel wise, and with other logistical needs that will arise. I would like some assurance from the minister that the government will ensure that the Public Accounts Committee is adequately resourced and funded to be able to undertake these investigations. Given that the government has decided to go down this path - and I am not arguing with that - the investigations have to be done properly.
For the second time today, I think back to when the Public Accounts Committee was established. Those trips interstate took some time. Because there was no committee at the time, of course, it was the expense of the Assembly. Those investigations had to be thorough, and the same should apply in this case because it is a big step and a new area that this parliament will be moving into. If we are going to do it, it should be done properly.
I agree that the Public Accounts Committee is the appropriate representative group of this parliament to undertake those investigations and report back to us, but they won’t be able to do it without adequate resources. It is appropriate that a time frame be put in place in fairness to the committee, and in fairness to all members of this House, so that we can be assured that the report will come back to us in time for consideration, introduction and application, in the discussions and deliberations over the next appropriation bill.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for his comments. He would be the only member in this Chamber who would remember as far back as the Public Accounts Committee not even being in existence, so I won’t challenge him on his memory. I certainly was not here, but he has been here a long time.
In relation to time frame, I think the time frame fits itself in the sense that Tasmanian estimates process is early June. We sit later in June so it follows that if some members of the committee are able to get to Tasmania they will have time to deliberate and get some form of recommendations and report back to our June sittings. That is certainly our intention. How many go, who goes with them …
Mr Reed: So report back in the June sittings?
Mr STIRLING: Yes.
Mr Reed: Well, could we not put that in here?
Mr STIRLING: Look, I am happy to put a form of words in there, but this is just sort of self-explanatory. If they visit Tasmania in early June, they have time to get something back to us by the June sittings and then we would deliberate from there.
I would expect a parliamentary officer, perhaps the Clerk - I am not being prescriptive here, and I am not being prescriptive in any sense of who goes – would accompany some members of the committee. I agree with you, a day is probably not enough. They would want to spend two days working through the process with different ministers, so you can see …
Mr Reed: In fairness to the Clerk and others could we not say that we want it back here in the June sittings.
Mr STIRLING: We certainly can. I am not arguing. If you are able, if someone was to give me a form of words saying exactly that, and we put that into the motion, I would be happy to accept that.
Mr REED: If we could just add after committees ‘and report back to the Legislative Assembly before the end of the June 2002 sittings’.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure that we could make that amendment. With the agreement of both sides we could add those words.
Mr STIRLING: I accept that. The Clerk has the words already there.
The question of resources is a valid question, and government will ensure that adequate resources are provided to the Public Accounts Committee such as to allow them to get down and undertake this background and research work including whatever parliamentary officers are required to go with them.
Mr REED: I am sorry to keep - but the way this has evolved, Madam Speaker, could I just ask, given that it appeared earlier that the whole of the committee was going, given that the whole of the committee may not be going, could we get an assurance that it would be a government member and an opposition member and perhaps an independent? At least three members.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. These are details to be worked through. As I said, I am not being prescriptive or laying down, but certainly there would be equal representation, if it was not the whole committee to go, and accompanied by, I would think perhaps the Clerk, but whatever parliamentary official was deemed appropriate. Resourcing will certainly be adequately provided such as they can get there and do the work and report back to us in June.
I thank the member for Katherine for his interest and raising these points because he, like the member for Drysdale, showed no interest in the Public Accounts process for the almost 12 years that I was in this Chamber. I welcome the support of the opposition to this process. I welcome their participating in the work of the Public Accounts Committee, because I think with goodwill on both sides we can get a process that will work to the betterment of the processes of parliament. The end objective is to better inform Territorians overall as to where their hard earned is going in terms of government expenditure. Because that, at the end of the day, is what is driving us along this course. I thank the member for Katherine and the opposition for their support.
Madam SPEAKER: Basically we are saying that the Public Accounts Committee will report back by June. There will be additional funding. We will add the following words to the motion: ‘and report back to the Legislative Assembly before the end of June 2002 sittings’. That is with the agreement of both sides. Who goes will really be up to the Public Accounts Committee to decide.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, despite some of the snide comments made by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, which was unusual for him because he does not usually do it, nor does it suit him, it is clear that the government has listened to the opposition in terms of the bill we introduced on General Business day in February. We are extremely pleased that the government has essentially picked up on our bill and we thank the government for that.
I have had two briefings. The second one was fairly detailed and helpful. I am a little disappointed that, as I understood it, I received an assurance that some advisors would get back to me with additional information or responses. That has not occurred. Nothing swings on those responses but I make the comment anyway.
I remain concerned, or at least have a number of misgivings, about a number of matters contained in the bills and it is appropriate for the sake of the record that I outline them now. Before doing so in some detail, I refer to the second reading speech. That second reading speech has just about everything in it except what it should have, and that is a thorough and detailed explanation of the sections of the bill. In many respects the second reading speech is simply unhelpful. It contains a number of motherhood statements, various expressions of policy which do not, in my view or on any considered view, amount to a thorough and well written second reading speech. I respectfully encourage the Attorney-General, in the future, to present this House with a useful and detailed second reading speech that will go through and address section by section parts of the bills that the government brings before this House.
That being said, in terms of the content of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill, the first concern I have is in relation to the expression used throughout of ‘the court … considers just’. In particular that expression is contained in sections 43I and 43O of the bill. That is not an expression, in my view, that is ordinarily found in legislation. At the briefing, I indicated that the word ‘appropriate’ would be better than the word ‘just’. Having expressed that view, and government having obviously not seen fit to amend the bill, I am unable to press the matter any further. However, I do wish to make it clear that the expression is unusual and may be open to various interpretations. I can well imagine the judges of the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory having different interpretations of the word ‘just’, and there is no guidance whatsoever in the bill. I would expect some confusion to follow accordingly.
Secondly, there is no definition in the bill of ‘Aboriginal community’ in sections 43ZL and 43ZN(2)(b) of the bill, and there needs to be. When a court requests or receives a report on the views of the victim or next of kin, the bill presently provides that such a report merely set out the views of members of the Aboriginal community, and a number of questions should properly or could properly be asked, such as: who in the community?; what is community?; and what happens when some members of the community have views that are different from other members of the same community? No doubt there are other questions that can and will be asked in court rooms in due course. I do not think that is satisfactory.
Similarly, in the case of section 43ZN(2)(b) where a person seeks to vary or revoke a supervision order, the court must be satisfied that if a person comes from an Aboriginal community, then reasonable notice must have been given to the Aboriginal community. Again, it is not defined and it should be. Does the expression ‘Aboriginal community’ mean everyone in the community? Does it mean only those who say anything and express their view? And, if so, to whom and who decides who is and who is not part of the Aboriginal community? There is potential for great confusion in this area and, frankly, I am somewhat surprised that the government is content to let this bill pass without tightening up these clauses.
Thirdly, I am concerned about section 43ZP(1); in particular, the counselling services that are to be provided to a victim or next of kin of a supervised person. Who or what organisation will perform the counselling is far from clear. I am less than enthusiastic about agreeing to legislation that prescribes a particular course of action for a minister of the Crown, namely that he or she must ensure that counselling services are available when, in fact, there is no idea about who or what agency will perform those services and how it will be done.
Fourthly, I am concerned about the transitional provisions. Although I am advised that only three offenders will be affected by this change it is possible that the likes of Anthony Scotty will be released into the community sooner than the community might ordinarily expect. No doubt when, or if, this is imminent the Attorney-General will be forced to consider his position, which may involve perhaps even introducing different legislation designed at protecting members of the community.
Fifthly, there are parts of this legislation that, in my view, are simply very poorly drafted. In some parts, policy is mixed with the legislation, which I believe is contrary to good, sound legal drafting. More importantly, I have misgivings that arise from the possibility of confusion unnecessarily being caused when it is the job of legislators to do all that they can to avoid confusion and uncertainty.
I have raised these concerns in my most recent and most detailed briefing, and while some of those concerns have to some extent been addressed, the answers provided nevertheless create a level of unease within me.
Notwithstanding the misgivings I have, I will support this bill. Indeed, why on earth wouldn’t I, given that I have set out to achieve what I wanted to when I introduced my bill in February, aimed specifically at amending the defects of section 357 of the Criminal Code. The bill presently before us goes further, but I have no objection to that. I remain very pleased that section 357 of the Code will be remedied. Let me remind members of what I said when I introduced the bill:
It did, and despite my misgivings, I support the bill.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. As the minister for Justice and Attorney-General has advised us, this amendment will provide progressive and long overdue reform. The minister has already alerted members that the present system has its genesis back in the 1800s under the Criminal Lunatics Act of the United Kingdom. However, the related issue of fitness to plead for the crime which we are employing actually dates back to medieval and Tudor times.
Judges at that time were unable to proceed with a trial for treason or felony unless the accused entered a plea. If the accused either refused to do so or was unable to do so, the offender could not be tried and convicted. A mechanism for dealing with these individuals developed whereby the accused was given three warnings and, if he or she did not enter a plea after the final warning, he or she was held in a cell and starved until a plea to the charge was entered, or the person died. This process was replaced in 1406 with the procedure whereby the prisoner was both starved and crushed under increasing weights until a plea was entered or the prisoner died. I think we have moved on since then.
Before the court could subject an accused person to this treatment, it needed to make a decision as to whether the accused was mute because of malice, or mute by visitation of God. If the court made the latter finding, the defendant was spared and a plea of not guilty was entered on the assumption that it was a plea the accused would enter into if he or she was able. A distinction, therefore, developed between three types of individuals, namely, the insane, the deaf mute, and a person who simply refused to plea for more calculated reasons.
In 1995, the Victorian Parliamentary Community Development Committee produced an extensive report recommending reforms to a system under which people found either not guilty, or unable to plead by reason of mental impairment, have been detained indefinitely - often for considerably longer than if they had been convicted. This report considered a model mental impairment bill drafted by the Commonwealth Criminal Code Officers Committee, and a report which generated the drafting and introduction of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the model legislation on which our amendment is based. When balancing the rights of people whose disabilities mean they lack usual legal capacity with the community’s expectations of security and safety, too often the tilt is towards inaccurate prejudices held by the community about links between mental impairment and dangerousness or the propensity to offend. Our act will restore this balance.
A significant change is to take decision making power out of the hands of the government and place it with the courts. Currently, the only option open to a judge in situations where a person is found not guilty by reason of mental impairment, is to detain the person indefinitely until the Administrator, acting on the advice of government, decides on release. Under the new act, a judge will rightly have the discretion to impose a range of orders, from unconditional release to supervision orders, where people may, or may not be held, in custody. People will also be able to apply for court release, rather than possibly languishing in prison until a political decision is made. Under this new law, people with severe psychological conditions will no longer run the risk of effectively being political prisoners, kept under the Administrator’s pleasure, because governments, with an eye to the ballot box, have ignored expert advice to release them. For those under the Administrator’s pleasure orders, it means the same courts that initially judged them to be mentally impaired will decide their future.
We are talking about people who are mentally ill. With modern treatments, people are no longer mentally ill for life. Many conditions previously considered incurable respond to treatment. When these people are no longer a danger there is no reason why they should remain in custody. This act contains transitional provisions which provide that the existing Administrator’s pleasure detainees are deemed to be subject to a custodial supervision order, and within six months of the commencement of the legislation, must be brought before the court for a major review. I feel that it is important for members to understand the matters that the court is to take into account when it is reviewing an Administrator’s pleasure detainee. These are:
The court must not make an order releasing the person from custody, or significantly reducing the supervision to which the person is subject, unless the court has obtained and considered two reports, each being prepared by a person who is a psychiatrist or other expert. The court must also be satisfied that the following persons were given reasonable notice of the intention to vary a detainee status: that is the victim of the offence concerned; if the victim concerned is diseased, the victim’s next of kin; the next of kin of the supervised person concerned; and, as the previous speaker mentioned, if the supervised person concerned is a member of an Aboriginal community, the Aboriginal community.
There are only a few detainees who will be affected by this requirement for a review. However, in Victoria where they have a significantly larger psychiatric population, the clinical director of the Thomas Edwin Hospital, which has a mix of maximum and minimum security units, Professor Paul Mullins observed:
I am in full accord with the comments made by the member for Araluen in a press release dated 14 May 2002. As she said, most other jurisdictions have legislation to deal with the offenders who are unfit to plead and it is important the Territory takes steps to deal with such offenders, but it is very much in the interest of all Territorians. I did note her comments in regard to the Attorney-General when he delivered his second reading speech. I find it somewhat disingenuous however, that when she makes a claim in her press release, that while the Martin government brought in various legislative reforms after it came to power, the issue of serious offenders being released into the community was not apparently high in its agenda until she raised it in late February. Well, if she is concerned about the apparent priority we have for the introduction to this legislation, she must be absolutely traumatised by the sitting on its hands attitude of the previous Attorney-General and Minister for Corrections.
Other jurisdictions throughout Australia have progressively implemented these changes since 1995. The member for Araluen has known for many years that change is needed and yet it has taken a Labor government to bring on this change. Not her own party, not one of the old guard, were prepared to put in this change. You have to ask why.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department on developing the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. Legislative reform of this nature in the Territory is certainly long overdue. The amendments proposed in this bill are progressive, consistent with reforms introduced in other jurisdictions and around the world, and will lead to improved circumstances for offenders who have a mental impairment.
These people are among the most stigmatised and marginalised in our community. Individuals who have a mental impairment are by no means a homogenous group. The definition of mental impairment can encompass a range of presentations and circumstances including intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, dementia, involuntary intoxication, and mental illness. Given the different ways in which people are likely to present, it stands to reason that individuals subject to this legislation will have different treatment, supervision and care needs, and will therefore require different types and levels of treatment and care and support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the circumstances surrounding the pathway of these individuals into the criminal justice system are often extremely complex. They require expert advice to fully comprehend the issues and a carefully considered and compassionate response. This bill provides the legislative framework for such a response. One of the most important elements of the proposed reforms is that they will provide protection for people with mental impairment and a range of options for supervision within custodial and community settings which have until now been unavailable.
The proposed amendments balance the rights of the individual to humane treatment and care with the legitimate needs of the community to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk from dangerous or seriously disruptive behaviour. They will also ease the burden and anxiety of the families of these individuals who also experience the stigmatising effects of their loved ones’ behaviour. The existing provisions which the proposed reforms seek to replace are quite clearly archaic remnants of a bygone era which fail to provide an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual to receive appropriate treatment and care, and the protection of the community from the dangerous behaviour of others.
Indeed, under the current arrangements, repeat offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to others in the community and who do not come under the provisions of mental health legislation cannot be detained in a custodial situation because of defects in the fitness to stand trial provisions. At the same time, individuals found not guilty on the grounds of insanity may be held indefinitely when such detention may be unnecessary and inappropriate.
It is widely recognised that individuals within the criminal justice system have a higher prevalence of mental illness and mental disorder than the general population. Factors in the environment that are known to be detrimental to the emotional and social wellbeing of people who have a mental impairment -including isolation, uncertainty and inconsistency in management - need to be minimised wherever possible.
The right of all people to respect for individual human worth, dignity and privacy should not be waived by any circumstance regardless of an individual’s history of offending or their mentally impaired or prisoner status. All persons assessing mental health or disability services either within the health or corrective services systems are entitled to the protection of their civil and human rights and freedom from abuse. The proposed reforms seek to ensure treatment and care are provided in an appropriate environment compatible with the legitimate needs of the community to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk from dangerous or seriously disruptive behaviour and the protection of the individual patient from unacceptable risks of serious damage to self or serious deterioration.
This bill quite appropriately seeks to ensure that decisions to detain, release or transfer mentally impaired individuals found not guilty by reason of mental impairment or unfit for trial be made by courts and not by a political process. The reforms will deliver a legislative framework which recognises the special needs of offenders who have a mental impairment and ensures these offenders are given the same standard of protection that the justice system offers everyone else. They also provide access to a formal legal process to determine an appropriate outcome while reserving a degree of flexibility that will permit those responsible for the health of the person to provide appropriate treatment, care and support.
Recognition is given to the critical information health professionals can contribute as the proposed reforms require the court to seek and consider expert evidence on the condition of the person. It is pleasing to see that the bill has also recognised the need for the courts to engage appropriate professionals who have expert knowledge and experience in the condition giving rise to the mental impairment and guards against simply engaging the most accessible professional available at the time. Given the spectrum of complex presentations likely to come before the courts, it is vital a range of professionals including psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists and speech pathologists be available to provide the quality advice required to assist the courts in making well informed decisions.
There are quite clearly difficulties inherent in providing health and disability services within a correctional facility given the major focus of correctional facilities being secure containment and the focus of health and disability services being assessment, treatment and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the provision of services for individuals subject to this legislation who have a mental impairment is the joint responsibility of health and justice and will be addressed in partnership. It is acknowledged that neither agency has all the expertise or facilities required to develop a service that meets the complex needs of these individuals which includes appropriate custodial facilities, appropriate non-custodial options, attention to security considerations, expert advice to the courts, behaviour management, and assessment and treatment services.
Quite clearly, a cooperative case management approach between my department and the Department of Justice to supervision will have great benefits for these individuals, their families and the community. Clearly, it is not appropriate for health professionals to undertake custodial duties. Health professionals and Community Services staff generally lack custodial training and expertise and only in very specific circumstances do they have a mandate to enforce services on unwilling clients. To assume a custodial approach would also confuse the role of the health professional.
The Department of Justice has expertise in providing security, custodial and risk management while my department has expertise in mental health and disability issues and interventions to respond to them effectively. It is essential our departments work together to develop the most appropriate management strategies for individuals affected by this legislation. The involvement of my department is premised upon each individual’s need for, and likely benefit from, treatment in the case of a treatable illness or an achievable management plan for a permanent condition such as acquired brain injury or intellectual disability. In the latter examples, my department would generally become involved where the person is capable of being taught pro-social skills, where these skills are likely to reduce re-offending and where it has the relevant expertise in terms of the person’s disability to provide effective support and training.
I am pleased to see included in the legislation a range of dispositional options available to the court, including supervision option orders within a community, which will facilitate appropriate treatment, care and support. My department will be contributing to planning and reviewing the care and treatment of people who are placed under supervision orders. Individuals subject to the proposed reforms will have access to treatment and rehabilitation on the basis of relative need and available resources. These services need to be delivered in a setting commensurate with individual needs and legal circumstances, and in a manner that is consistent with the best available evidence. These individuals should also have the opportunity to participate as fully as possible in making decisions about their treatment and rehabilitation.
We should not, as a society, be penalising people for behaviour for which they are not criminally responsible. As is clearly stated in the bill, detention in a prison should be an option of last resort, and people with a mental impairment should only be placed in the mainstream prison population when no other appropriate option is available. The relationship between the treatment and rehabilitation culture of health services and the custodial culture of correctional agencies can be problematic. Similarly, the police, court, corrections and health have a different focus and set of expectations that can at times be difficult to reconcile. Prisoners and detainees have the same right to access equity and quality of health care as the general population.
Correctional facilities will need to provide suitable health facilities with appropriate equipment and trained staff, or arrange for such services to be made available to a standard comparable to regional and community standards. Ideally, custodial practices should be tailored to promote positive emotional, psychological, physical and social wellbeing, and to minimise negative impacts on individuals with a mental impairment who are in custody. Where a person is placed under a custodial supervision order pursuant to these provisions, they must be provided with an environment conducive to their needs within the constraints of needing to maintain a secure and safe environment. The focus of such orders should also be to maximise, wherever possible, the capacity of the individual to be safely re-integrated into the community. The diverse range of people who may be subject to this legislation also need access to quality general medical services, and to be involved to the full extent of their capabilities and without discrimination in educational, occupational and rehabilitation activities.
Finally, issues of a practical and administrative nature will inevitably confront the successful implementation of any legislative reform. These issues will require careful consideration when planning and putting the new arrangements in place. The reforms will have resource implications for my department, given the range of assessments and that regular progress reports on individuals subject to these provisions will be required by the court. The range of provisions and conditions which can be included in the supervision order, such as medication, treatment, supported accommodation and ongoing care are key areas of response for my department.
Arrangements are being put in place to ensure the departments of Health and Community Services and Justice work closely together to plan and develop the protocols, services and facilities that will be essential to the effective functioning of this legislation. A working group comprising officers from the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Justice will also be established to develop options for Cabinet’s consideration for the location and management of an appropriate place for detainees within existing custodial facilities.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I encourage all members to support this Bill.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this bill and commend the minister for introducing it. I do not have the technical background of the member for Araluen on the points she raised, but after the briefing I felt comfortable with the spirit and the intent of the bill.
I welcome these amendments on behalf of the people of Central Australia who have had to bear the consequences in the past decade of at least one man who has been deemed unfit to stand trial. He was discharged by the court and went on to commit further crimes of random violence. I am hoping, minister, that these amendments to some extent will ensure that people in the community are protected from those unprovoked, violent acts committed by people who, for reasons of physical or mental impairment, are not able to stand trial in the ordinary way.
If I can just take the case of Roland Ebatarinja, and how circumstances would have been different if these amendments had been in place a year ago. Roland, as we all know, is a deaf mute and in the past has been ruled unfit to stand trial because of his inability to understand the English language or the legal proceedings. Although that may be true, it does not mean that Roland is not intelligent or that he does not know that he is doing something wrong. It is just that we appear to have no way of knowing whether Roland understands what he is doing or what we are saying to him. According to a recent court report the Supreme Court judge, Justice Dean Mildren, also found it hard to believe that Roland cannot be made to understand that he cannot carry a knife when he can actually learn complex computer games. But what is clear, regardless of Roland’s intelligence or what he knows or what he doesn’t know, is that he poses a significant threat to his family and the community.
Earlier this year, and I am not sure if the minister was in his office at the time, but on the street corner from my office, Roland was witnessed stabbing three people quite cold-bloodedly. One of the victims was seriously wounded. This, of course, occurred less than two years after he was discharged from court on a murder charge because, at that time, he was also declared unfit to stand trial.
Under this new regime, if he had been found guilty at a special hearing, he would have been sent to gaol for at least 15 years, and would not have been on the street outside my office in February of this year. He was arrested for those stabbings and was remanded in custody but, when he appeared in court in March, he was discharged from court again ruled unfit to stand trial. I have to admit the reaction of community was grave concern because here was this man back on the streets. They seemed to think that somehow or other the system had let them down, to allow this man to roam free. It was certainly true that he did cause some concern in one of the camps where he was staying. The minister may even have visited that camp; I am not quite sure if it was him or one of his advisors. At present, Roland is under a voluntary supervision order but that is something he can walk away from at any time and commit yet another violent crime for which he would not face the court.
What would happen to Roland under the new transition provisions of the bill? Would he be reindicted for these offences? I would ask the minister to clarify if that is so under the transition orders. Firstly, he would be arrested and remanded in custody until he appeared again in court. The prosecution and defence would agree that he is unfit to stand trial; this could be done by agreement. If they did not agree, then the matter to stand trial would have to be referred and would be determined by a jury. The first step is to get agreement between the prosecutor and the defence that he was unfit and, if that was not able to happen, then that would be decided by a jury.
I am asking the minister: could you confirm that he could be remanded again until a special hearing took place where he would be tried for the offences and the jury could deliver a qualified verdict of guilty, and the judge could declare him liable to supervision orders? That is the way I read the bill but, not having that background, I would like to have that clarified. From there, the judge would call for reports on Roland’s condition and for alternatives for his care, and could order custodial supervision for the term of his sentence.
That is what we really need to make clear to the public; that this could happen; that he could then be put into custodial supervision. A report on Roland’s condition while in gaol, I take it, would be prepared every 12 months so there would be some sort of review. Between three and six months before the sentence was up the court would convene to determine if he still posed a treat to the community. Could the minister confirm that, if the answer is yes - if he was still deemed to pose a threat to the community - he would remain in custody? It is my understanding these reviews would occur but, if he was deemed unfit at the end of that time, he would remain in custody.
These changes mean the community at large would get some relief from the likes of Roland being on the street, while ensuring that such a person serves time for the violent crimes that he has committed. These amendments also mean that someone like Anthony Scotty, whom the member for Araluen mentioned, who had a mental illness and brain damage, was a repeat offender and eventually murdered Rosemary McIntyre in her home, would hopefully be under a supervised detention order early in the piece. When Anthony Scotty was found not guilty of Rosemary’s murder because of insanity, the jury accepted the evidence of an expert witness, psychiatrist Dr Rodney Milton. He said later that Scotty’s medical history was extraordinary and lengthy, that reading through it was like an orchestra without a conductor, and there was no coordination at all. The coroner consequently found the Department of Correctional Services had clearly failed to supervise Scotty whilst he was at large in the community.
I ask the minister to clarify that these amendments will increase coordination and cooperation in case management across government services. Or that people on non-custodial orders will be better supervised and will at least give the courts wider options when these people come before them. We do not want a repeat of what happened there with the lack of supervision, because certainly, that was one of the most tragic cases, I think, that Alice Springs has witnessed.
Anthony Scotty was a brain damaged petrol sniffer who acted violently without provocation. We did hear earlier, I think, that there are only three such cases at the moment in the Territory, but we have to be practical about this. We are going to see a growing number of these people in Central Australia as a result of the petrol sniffing that is occurring in our communities. Unless something is done to address the problem of petrol sniffing, the courts will have these cases come before them over and over again. We are just on the edge of what is going to happen, the edge of what we will see as a multiple case coming before the court. We really do need to have legislation that will protect the community against such random acts of violence.
Minister, can you confirm that under these amendments the police will have the power to arrest anyone who is on a non-custodial supervision order if they suspect that person is about to pose a threat to himself or the community? Can you reassure me that they may be on a non-custodial supervision order but, if there is any chance at all that they are about to pose a threat, the police will have the power to arrest them? I know that a hearing can change the terms of an order, and that it can be called on urgently. It is really important that there can be some urgent action, if this is the case, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned that the supervised person is not complying with orders. That urgency is something that is needed to make sure people act quickly when there is a problem. Minister, could you also clarify for me that such urgency is there for the police to act?
The rights of a person under a supervisory order are protected by regular reviews. I also welcome the provision that allows for an Aboriginal person’s community to be consulted before any orders are made that might directly affect them. It is difficult, as far as I can see, to define in the act who that would be. In the case of Roland it was certainly his family who have been involved in that consultation, and his grandmother, and he is under her supervision. But we need to have that direct consultation with the family and the people of the community who are most concerned with this case. I welcome that because I believe the families also will be able to put forward their point of view, the concerns that they have, and whether they are actually able and capable of maintaining that supervision.
I support these changes and the effort made here to reassure the community that it is entitled to some further protection from those people who are not responsible for their actions, or who are unable to stand trial in the normal way. I just want the minister in his final summing up to give us those reassurances that what we believe this bill is about, the spirit of this bill, is there; that there are no technical loop holes as sometimes occurs in the writing of legislation; and when this is introduced we can see Roland back in court, and that any future cases will be urgently dealt with, and with the right protection for the community.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise also to say: Good bill, minister. I am glad to see that the member for Araluen brought these issues to the attention of the government and that as a joint thrust on both sides of this House, a good bill has resulted. I congratulate the member for Araluen as well as the Attorney-General for acting on this, and acting on it quickly.
I am fairly close to this because in the past I have had cause on a couple of occasions to deal with Mr Scotty, who now languishes in custody; as well as Mr Ebatarinja when he was still a juvenile before he became a serious villain, if memory serves me correctly. I have no access to my former records in relation to all of this, but I do recall dealing with young Roland. I certainly recall Anthony Scotty because I was present at an arrest of Mr Scotty, when I was off duty, and a subsequent arrest when he was arrested finally for the murder of Rosemary McIntyre, a crime which is etched into my memory and will remain so for the rest of my life.
Normally when a police officer deals with these sorts of things, they tend to be pretty hard about it, but the reason I remember this one so vividly is because of the trauma that even the CIB felt at the time. I have never seen a CIB officer so distraught and distracted by the job that they were doing. I have to say even at this stage as I remember it and talk about it, I have to catch my throat a little bit.
Having said that, Mr Scotty went through a process were he was found insane. However, that did not do anything for the problem that we had with the latter person, Mr Ebatarinja, a matter I believe ended up in the High Court in Ebatarinja v Deland. The High Court ruled, of course, that the question at the committal stage that the magistrate had to ask of the defendant, soon to become the accused, could make no sense to a person not fit to stand trial and therefore that was part of the problem in terms of committing that person to stand trial. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister can fill in the holes for me because it has been a long time since I have read it.
There is one issue that I noticed was absent from the second reading speech and absent from the bill itself. I have already put the minister on notice and I am going to raise the issue simply to get it on the record more than anything else. It does not stand as a criticism. When this issue has arisen in other jurisdictions, the issue has been dealt with properly and I would anticipate it would be no different in this instance. But I think it is worth putting on the record - the issue is the one that I raised during a briefing the other day. I had a concern that where a defence, or for that matter the prosecution, may raise the issue of fitness to plead, it should be done in good faith. Now, I know that the case law is quite strong, but I think this is a an opportunity for the Attorney-General to place on the record that that is his expectation.
Otherwise, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great bill. It fixes up a problem. It has been done in other jurisdictions. I cannot see any injustices flowing from it whatsoever. It certainly fixes up a big hole. This parliament should be proud that we are passing it here today.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. I have had recent first hand experience of the inadequacy and uncertainty of our existing laws when it comes to mentally impaired persons in the criminal justice system.
A violent offence was committed; the alleged offender is severely brain damaged from years of petrol sniffing. It was proposed that he stay with family members at a remote community distant from where the offence was committed. That community is in my electorate and the proposed care-taking arrangement came as a surprise to the alleged offender’s family and to the community generally. Assistance from the courts or from relevant mental health authorities within the Department of Health and Community Services could not be provided because the young man in question was not considered to be suffering from a mental illness.
I travelled to the community and assisted the council and various families and individuals involved in mediating a mutually acceptable care and supervision arrangement, which would protect the community and also cater for the needs of the young man. I am pleased to see that the definition of mental impairment that will be inserted in the Criminal Code will cover not just a narrow concept of mental illness, but also intellectual disability, brain damage and severe personality disorder.
The changes to the Code, and the clarification and enhancement of the role of the court that the changes will bring about, will hopefully turn a spotlight on to the disgracefully neglected problem of the poor diagnosis and chronic undertreatment of mental impairment in remote Aboriginal communities. I preface my comments in this regard by acknowledging and emphasising that the incidence of criminal behaviour amongst mentally impaired individuals is no greater than amongst the rest of the community. It is just that when a mentally impaired person becomes enmeshed in the criminal justice system, both the alleged offender and the system have historically found it difficult to cope.
What the new amendments do is firmly spell out the area of operation of the courts, which includes bringing closure and resolution to a criminal charge, and making a determination as to what should happen to the alleged offender, even when he or she is unable to understand or effectively participate in the trial or hearing process. Correspondingly, the role of both the defence lawyers and mental health and allied professionals are also clarified. I am hopeful that, as a result of the new changes, mentally impaired individuals charged with offences less serious than murder or manslaughter will be advised, or assisted now, to raise fitness to stand trial issues, or plead not guilty, rather than concealing or underplaying their mental impairment for fear that to do otherwise might result in an indeterminate period of detention at the Administrator’s pleasure.
A substantial increase in fitness to stand trial applications and mental impairment-based not guilty pleas should result in a focussing of mental health resources on areas of unmet need. I am particularly referring to the many untreated or inadequately treated mentally impaired individuals in remote Aboriginal communities throughout the Territory, whose behaviour pattern puts them on a collision course with the criminal justice system. The Department of Health and Community Services - and where there is one operating in the relevant area, Aboriginal Health Boards and the medical services - should consider ways of increasing the number and qualifications of mental health professionals on the ground. Where these professionals come from outside the area they are working in, considerable effort will have to be put into cross cultural and language training before such professionals will start being effective.
At the end of the day, my hope is that if another mentally impaired young man is sent to a community in my electorate, at least by way of a precautionary exile arrangement, the courts, with the assistance of suitably qualified mental health professionals, will work closely and cooperatively with the community and its health centre staff, who most of the time are left out of this equation, to deliver safety and protection for the community, for staff, and appropriate treatment and care for the individual.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the other members for their comments. I am certainly not an expert on such a complex and important bill. I would be interested to hear more debate when it gets into the committee stages. I suppose one of the most important things that you should judge this bill on is the balance between justice and the safety of the community. From what I have read and from what I have heard, it certainly goes a long way towards that. I thank members for their comments as it has helped me understand the bill a bit better. I thank the minister for some briefings that have occurred. As I said, I will be interested in further debate about this bill.
My comments are basically on some technical matters. There was a section under 43J(1) where it said: ‘include the words “or after each matter”’. 43J(1) just has a list of requirements. It does not tell you whether you have to take into consideration one or more. I wonder whether those should all be linked with an ‘or’. My good friend, the member for Goyder, might call it a ‘disjunctive or’, I am not sure, but it is an ‘or’.
Under 43ZD, I ask the question: is a lawyer included in the definition under 1(d):
With those comments, I support the bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all members who made a contribution today. It is an important bill and it is a bill that, all being well in our committee stages and our third reading, will become law on 15 June. I can tell you that because it is in the bill itself; that is the commencement date. At that point in time, the justice system has a whole new range of measures by which to deal with these very unresolved areas of the law.
Before I go into giving a response to the issues raised by each of the members, I would like to deal with the matter of who owns this bill. I know it is of importance to the member for Araluen who has a genuine commitment to this area of reform. I could say I own the bill but if I said that I would be wrong. It would be dishonest and it would be a bit egotistical. I do not own the bill. I could say the member for Araluen owns it, but I don’t think that is true either because many people have worked on this, and many people are very concerned about this area. We have seen that today in the debate. There are many people, members of this House, who have been personally touched by the issues that this area of deficiency in our law has raised. I would certainly say that my department has a part-ownership of it because they put in a huge amount of work in developing this legislation. I would like to pay tribute to Sue Oliver and the department for their work, as well.
I would like think that all members of this House own this legislation, as they should own every piece of legislation that comes before us. And through that, the people of the Northern Territory who put us in here for slavery duty for the next four years. So, I think there is a very broad sphere of ownership, and I would like that be just taken as read on all bills that come through this House.
Let’s deal with some of the specifics that members have raised about the legislation before us. The member for Araluen was concerned about the use of ‘just’ or ‘appropriate’. Well, I think that wherever the word ‘just’ is used, there are also guidelines and principles that have been put in front of the court to guide their decision in that particular area of the bill. I personally think the use of the alternative word ‘appropriate’ would be difficult to accept because you could, say, have a body of law in Nazi Germany where there would have been very appropriate decisions being made by courts all the time, but they may not be very just. So I think that ‘just’ at least has a relationship to the intention of the justice system. Either of those terms have a subjective element to them, and we are depending very much on the technical structure of the bill to guide, in many ways and in a more detailed way, the thinking of the court as to what would be a ‘just’ or ‘appropriate’ outcome in terms of that area of the bill.
Regarding the use of the term ‘Aboriginal communities’, this term is very widely used in our legislation. The ‘Aboriginal community’ or ‘community to which the Aborigine belongs’, I can point to the Administration and Probate Act, the Crimes (Victim Assistance) Act, the Commercial and Private Agency Licensing Act, the Family Provisions Act, the Local Court (Adoption of Children) Act and the Status of Children Act as legislation that exists at the moment where that term, or some version of that term, is used. I have worked, as indeed many members of this House have worked, for long periods of time in contact and interaction with Aboriginal communities. There are many practical situations where someone has to make a judgement about who are the kin of a particular individual, which is the defined community and the community of interest that is affected by a particular decision, and then do our very best to get the appropriate people together and reach a properly consulted decision.
There are organisations like the land councils and legal aid services that deal with that practicality day by day and have for many years. To try to be more prescriptive within the actual drafted form of the legislation would be extremely difficult. I do not think that you could possibly build into the structure of this bill all the different contexts in which the word or the concept of Aboriginal community would be potentially applied. It is justified to refer to the practical experiences and the pretty extensive infrastructure we have in the Northern Territory in terms of underwriting that type of consultation. We are probably one of the most experienced in that exercise because of the long operation here of land rights and the body of knowledge that has been built up by anthropology and so on within the land councils and within the other indigenous organisations, and within our own public service in the Northern Territory government. We are comfortable with that term being used in the bill and will see how the practicalities stand up as we go.
I will deal with the member for Nelson’s issues next simply because the bit of paper that the answers are on is next in the pile. There is no relative importance being placed. Question one that you raised was section 43J, the potential use of ‘or’ to link the various options that are being put in front of the court. It is standard drafting to just simply list the items which could be either/or, or some combination of the listing. It might be that the court will use more than one of those possibilities in forming its decision. To put ‘or’ as a sort of mutual exclusive rider on each of those options would in effect force the court to select one only of those options. The intent of the bill is in standard drafting form which is to allow the court to select one or more of those options in forming its decisions. That is why it is put that way.
Mr Wood: They could not write ‘and/or’?
Dr TOYNE: And/or? I can only say that on advice received, which we sought after you raised those points - I will read this out in more detail so you will get a better idea of what the advice was:
The use or non-use of ‘and’ - this is standard drafting tool; an interpretation mechanism and indicates to the
reader that each item stands alone as an alternative, ie. a person is unfit to stand trial if one of these items apply.
For a similar provision see 43F(1) which indicates that the defence of mental impairment maybe raised by (a) the
defence; (b) by prosecution; or (c) by the courts.
So it is one of those possibilities. Whereas in other sections of the bill contrast, for example, section 43M where the question of the accused person’s fitness to stand trial arises at the commital proceedings. The possibilities are (a) accused not discharged; or (b) committal is completed; and (c) the question is reserved for consideration at the trial, and in the case that all of these items or elements should occur. So it is saying that all three have to be occurring.
The second question raised was the interested person within the meaning of section 43ZD(1)(d). Does it include the lawyer? Yes, the circumstances where the lawyer has been appointed as a litigation guardian or is acting on instructions from the next of kin, remembering that lawyers only act on instructions. So interested persons might also include the director of the facility where the person is accommodated, a psychiatrist or treating practitioner. However, it is more likely that these people would act through the Director of Public Prosecutions. When you read the Hansard, you might get the detail of that.
I will go back to another issue raised by the member for Araluen and that is Anthony Scotty. The review would be held within six months of this legislation becoming active. That review would assess the state of his mind and to what degree that constitutes a continuing threat to the community. But equally, the charges against him could be resolved through the other half of the hearing process and that, in turn, would set a limiting period on his custodial supervision. So he would be in with a limiting period set. Now, if it is on a charge of a slaying, that could be as much as 15 years, so there would be quite a secure arrangement put in place where it has been legitimised by the charges against him having been properly heard under these qualified arrangements. There would then be a further review of his condition within three months of the end of that limiting period. So that basically puts him in a more regularised framework of being dealt with in custody.
The points raised by the member for Macdonnell, the good faith argument. The member raised two cases concerning good faith. One was R v Zang NSW CCA 344 (2000). I am learning the law all the time here; it is fantastic. And the other one was R v Tier NSW CCA 53 (2001). Both are decisions of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The New South Wales act has a provision that the court must not conduct an inquiry into a person’s fitness unless it appears to the court that the question has been raised in good faith. The court in both cases concluded that if there is a real or substantial issue as to the unfitness of an accused to stand trial, then justice requires that it be determined. They said that it is impossible to imagine in such circumstances that the question was not raised in good faith.
The NT bill provides that the court must order an investigation into fitness if the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds on which to question the accused person’s fitness to be tried. That’s section 43N(2)(b). If the matter of fitness were raised by the defence and the basis for the concern was not obvious, or the validity of the concern was dubious, it would be appropriate for the judge to seek an elaboration of the matters giving rise to the concern before ordering an investigation.
Within our bill, proposed section 43O recognises that an elaboration might sometimes be required and allows the judge to make orders for the production of any reports that the defence or prosecution may have, or for an examination of the accused person on the giving of a report to the court. If the court believes, after receiving these reports, that there are reasonable grounds on which to question a person’s fitness then they must order an investigation into the person’s fitness. If there are reasonable grounds, then good faith would have to be presumed. The addition of a good faith requirement is therefore considered unnecessary. If the judge did not believe that there were reasonable grounds on which to question the person’s fitness, then the judge would not order an investigation.
In addition, legal practitioners are officers of the court. To suggest that a legal practitioner would raise a matter in bad faith raises questions of a breach of their duty as officers of the court and of professional misconduct. That is why we are not persuaded by any argument to put that provision in the act.
Moving to the member for Macdonnell’s other matter, which was the question of the trial of Ebatarinja v Deland, the High Court said that because the provisions of the Justices Act embody the requirement that a charge should be read to the accused and be heard by them, then the Justices Act actually precluded the type of process that we are contemplating in this legislation. So there is a section that has been placed in the current bill, which is 43M, which specifically says that the hearing can proceed despite the fact that that the provision under the Justices Act has not been complied with. Clearly, with Roland being a deaf mute, he would by definition not be able to hear the charge being read. We have actually circumvented that provision in the Justices Act by that section of the bill.
Turning to the concerns of the member for Braitling. Will we be able to stage a retrial - or a trial in this case because he has not been tried - of Roland Ebatarinja? Yes, clearly this legislation will allow that to happen. The person who has to make that decision is the Director of Public Prosecutions who, as this parliament would know, would be very conversant with this. It is an independent statutory office and it will be the Director of Public Prosecutions who will call on a rehearing. And, yes, once indicted, Roland can be taken into compulsory custody. I will report to members that, in fact, Roland’s voluntary supervision is proceeding very well from our reports, and he is actually learning sign language for the first time under the supervision he is under at the moment.
I do not think he is going to stage a break-out in the next few weeks. If the DPP decides to now re-indict Roland for the offences that he was alleged to have committed, then he can be put into a remand situation, or into some other custodial situation at the discretion of the courts. They may decide that the current arrangements may be sufficient until the hearing is heard, or they may decide that that is not secure enough. It is up the court to make that decision.
The member for Braitling also questioned what happens if a person who had been put into non-custodial supervision subsequently turns or develops a condition that may start to pose a danger to people around them or risk to themselves. Section 43ZF, the emergency power of apprehension, takes care of that possibility in that that will allow the police to apprehend that person and bring them into a custodial situation if the police are reasonably satisfied that that is the situation.
The other matter raised by the member for Braitling was the question of agency cooperation. I think the minister for Health and Community Services alluded to the fact that we do need to have a very close working relationship between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, and it is absolutely inherent in the future care of Roland Ebatarinja and the other individuals who will very likely come under the sway of this new legislation. We have convened a working group, as the minister said, to address the implementation of these amendments. We understand that there are resource implications to the enactment of this law and we will work it out between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Community Services so that there are suitable conditions to put each of these people in.
The bill itself has a provision at a certain point where, if there is a custodial arrangement being required from the court, the CEO for Health has to indicate whether they have a suitable facility and program available. It is only if that is answered in the negative, then gaol becomes the next most suitable. But over time we should be able to develop some arrangements between the Justice Department, Correctional Services and the Department of Health where we can maybe embody both security of custody and treatment of the individuals in the one arrangement. That is certainly what we will be aiming at. We will have a look at the different models for doing that and what resources are required. With that, I will conclude my remarks in the second reading speech. I would suggest, seeing there are committee stage amendments, we will need to go to committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill (Serial 56):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.1 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.2 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.3 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.4 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.5 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.6 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill (Serial 58):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments by referring to advice that has been offered by the honourable minister with regards to how the opposition should conduct themselves in a censure motion. The advice was respectfully received. It is now the turn of the opposition to provide some advice on how we should respond to this amendment bill.
Members opposite would be well aware of our decision to oppose passage of this amendment bill and we do so with the clear support of Territory businesses. The imposition of a levy on business has never been palatable, I am sure, to any member of this Chamber, and I stand on the record and can justify my comments that it has never been palatable to CLP members and never more so than at times such as this.
It is worth noting the following comments and I ask honourable members to consider them carefully:
In my discussions with employer groups in the Northern Territory, a real sense of dismay has come through.
Business has been hit hard year on year by compounding hikes in workers compensation premiums in the last
four years and for them now to be hit with an additional levy, they feel totally besieged. Many businesses have
seen premiums rise 200% to 300 % over the last four years and a levy on this would be hard to swallow for most.
Compelling words. Words, however, that were uttered by the member for Wanguri when he spoke in the second reading speech when the then CLP government placed the initial need for this legislation on the Table. I believe we can substantiate that the landscape has changed to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to place this burden on Territory businesses.
In terms of talking to people and consulting and making sure that the role that we play in here is one of genuine representation, the opposition has taken it upon themselves to apprise members of the business community of the current situation regarding this levy and the scope of the changed landscape with regards to the necessity to place such a burden on business at this critical time. To that end, in apprising the business community of such information, we were surprised, no less impressed, with the prompt response of business to the tune of close to 600 responses in less than 36 hours. Each one of those businesses represents real people and real families who have taken the time to consider what this levy does represent to them as they endeavour to live out their dreams or to eke out a living in these difficult times.
Any member, no matter what side of the House they sit on, knows that it is difficult at this present time. We would all stand in total agreement, particularly when the words that were read out to you previously are the words of the member for Wanguri when this was first entered into this Chamber.
I would like to remind honourable members that we are not debating a bill as much as we are making decisions on behalf of real people. I made a phone call to a constituent today who is an owner/operator of a coffee and doughnut franchise in a major shopping centre. He has been to me on a number of occasions, and the thought crossed my mind that I should just give him a call because I wanted to make sure that the human element is represented in this so that we can respond appropriately. We are not discussing ideas and bills as much as we are discussing the future of individual operators who are endeavouring to move forward and they need to be fairly placed in this debate.
This gentlemen, apart from rising operating costs which are always besetting business - wages, lease payments, and franchise leases - has had to himself in the past year absorb a 400% increase in workers compensation premiums. I know he is desperately struggling with that increase. We are not just talking about numbers and incremental increases which can be justified and passed off here in a Chamber. We are actually talking about the morale of that businessman, how he actually feels and 4% on top of that increase is not just 4%; it is a weight, an additional burden. He has difficulty already getting up in the morning and he cannot even see himself in a position where he can actual get ahead. It is actually sapping his morale and he was horrified to hear that this was even being considered in this Chamber.
I presume every member here has real experience with the struggle of those in business. We understand what they actually feel. Of course we all know. We meet them, we hear them and many of us have had close experience to the actual weight of responsibility of having to pay the wages of those in our employ. In the case of the gentleman I have just referred to, he has to make his way forward in spite of all the wage increases, the increase in compensation premiums and so on. It translates down to something simple as how many more doughnuts he has to actually sell and how many more cups of coffee he has to actually serve. That is the sort of weight, and that is the actual translation of any additional impost. And you can see why it becomes sapping; when we translate that down to what they actually have to do to make up that difference.
This is an issue that particularly galls me. Insult is added to injury when this highest taxing government can do so from a clearly articulated commitment to pass on no new taxes to Territorians. The electorate will decide on this breach of confidence. Members opposite would be well advised to bear the actual implication of adding an additional cost to small business operators such as the close to 600 businesses represented by the faxed responses that the opposition office has received. Each one of those businesses represents real people and real families.
Government parades incremental reversals of negative economic indicators as improvements, or as evidence that the economy has turned the corner. This may make members of this nave government and its 5th floor supporters feel good, but it falls seriously flat in the business sector. Local members, no matter what side of the Chamber we occupy, will agree that these are indeed genuinely difficult times for the majority of Territory businesses. We are all witness to closed businesses in the Darwin CBD and other centres, of building companies folding and leaving town. We can extrapolate the pressures that are behind each one of those profound changes that we see, such as the dislocation to families and so on.
If government members seek to remain aloof from economic hardships faced by businesses, then please do some real and practical research. For example, ask those in the removalist industry how many loads depart the Territory, as opposed to arrive in the Territory. Further, I challenge the minister to contact the National Tattersalls office and receive an update on just how the Territory is faring. I understand figures from the NT have for the very first time in at least a decade dropped below Tasmania. These are difficult times. The issue is not blame here, but it is a reflection of how serious the current situation is, the context that we are dealing with here in considering the imposition of an additional burden on business.
The last thing business needs is another tax. I believe that I can fairly demonstrate to members opposite that they have really little or no option than to support the opposition’s schedule of amendments. This new government has an opportunity to draw back, I believe, from a potentially greater problem than perhaps they are prepared to accept at this point. The electorate is fast becoming cynical of manoeuvring and manipulation. Are individual members content to blindly participate in an exercise that will result in another broken promise. Once is bad enough, but now there is the intention to do so again. Once again, I refer to the words that were uttered by members opposite when they were in opposition. They would be making the same speech I am now making. I urge honourable members opposite, please, to attend to the details of this argument.
The reality is the MVR levy was a new tax - it has been talked about before - on every family and every business. A new tax imposed after an extensive and deliberate public campaign to create a mythical black hole. Territorians will note that the black hole rhetoric has slipped from the Martin government’s vocabulary, and why is this? Firstly, I believe they are smart enough to gauge the rising level of cynicism and have chosen to retract that element from their public vocabulary. Secondly, because there is no such thing as a black hole.
The collapse of HIH in February 2001 was an event of unprecedented national proportions sending financial shock waves that are still reverberating around this country. This collapse left the Workers Compensation Scheme in the NT with a significant liability; members will understand this. At the time that this bill was initially placed before the House it was understood to be in the order of $57m. A number of state governments were affected, and had to act quickly to protect the already overheated insurance industry. The then CLP government reacted as other similarly affected jurisdictions did to provide some reassurance and security to the dangerously exposed nominal insurer.
Failure to do so at that time - failure to put that on the books at that time - would have resulted, potentially, in an increase in premiums up to 30% or more. Amendments to the Work Health Act were presented and passed in May of last year for the primary reason of providing security to the nominal insurer. This is precisely the fact that representatives of the Martin government will attempt to distort and callously misrepresent for their own gain. I suspect they will endeavour to parade this amendment as something that ‘we were actually intending to do; that we were fully bent on imposing an additional weight on industry’. I caution members to attend closely to the arguments as they are presented here, because that is certainly not the case and can be demonstrated as such.
To that effect, I quote from the then Minister Baldwin’s second reading speech where he said:
At that time, with the calculated $57m liability, we were still looking for ways not to impose it, but we had to do so in order to provide the mechanism to cover the nominal insurer. At the time, business leaders were consulted and they were prepared for this outcome. To their credit, they accepted the seriousness of the circumstances and were prepared to wear this levy, if necessary. At the time, this was clearly acknowledged by government and by the opposition. It was understood that it was a significant impost of Territory businesses. Government bought time as the member for Wanguri in his second reading speech urged government to do: ‘We needed to buy some time, we don’t want to do this to business’.
Other options during this time were considered, and they included borrowings by the nominal insurer, reinsurance of the liability, and further government involvement in covering the liability. Time was needed as no one was certain of the full extent of the liability affecting the Territory once all known claims had been assessed and calculated. This investigation was underway following the legislative amendments passed in May 2001 and the CLP government gave business the assurance that, if it did decide a levy was to be imposed, it would not be done before January 2002. And then there was an election - it is important to bear that in mind.
What has Labor done since coming to office? I am not into all that smart business here. It is actually a record of what has happened; it is not a criticism at all. The argument is not falling in those quarters. They committed to credit an additional $6m on top of the former government’s $3m. This $9m was to allow the nominal insurer to meet costs until June 2002. Bear in mind the new government also acknowledged they needed to buy some time and this I believe should now be used to their advantage. It is worth bearing in mind, incidentally, that the Labor government managed to quietly find $6m to buy this time with the nominal insurer when the black hole rhetoric was at fever pitch.
Since New Year, Labor has announced its commitment to impose a 4% levy on Territory business to cover the HIH liability. The minister introduced legislation in the NT parliament just last week. It outlined amendments to tidy up details of the means to efficiently collect this tax on business. In preparing for this legislation, we were provided with an excellent briefing for which, minister, I am immensely grateful. I thank you, sir, and I ask that you pass on our appreciation to your officers. Accompanying me at this briefing was my colleague, the member for Daly, and the member for Nelson. What we learnt at that briefing has equipped me with the knowledge that enables me to confidently face this Chamber and to call, without reserve, for the repeal of this bill.
Government simply should not pass this levy onto business. The landscape as I have said before has changed significantly. We learnt that claims were at one time between 400 and 500. Today they are less than 120. If you are following this, we are talking about when this first hit the scene and what sort of measures had to be put in place for reacting to a new situation facing parliaments all around our country. It was $57m; 400 to 500 claims. Now there are less than 120. That is a significant change. The liability was once predicted to be close to $60m. Now it was found to be $28m.
Mr Stirling: Forget the $9m. What about the $9m we put in. Don’t you count that?
Mr MILLS: It has been mentioned.
Mr Stirling: Well, it goes on top.
Mr MILLS: A 4% levy on top of the original premium would be now imposed on all employers including self-insurers such as the Catholic Church, Woolworths and the NT Public Service, acknowledging that the Territory government would be paying up to half by the fact that the Territory government becomes a self-employer. This levy would need to be put in place for up to 13 years or perhaps more, reporting to the Chamber of what we learnt from the briefing.
I understand that the need for the length of this time is to allow the loans that would be made in the transference of the liability to be repaid. Any shortfall between collected tax revenue and outgoing liability imposts would be made up by government by way of a loan and would be repaid prior to the levy on employers ceasing. This is an important point.
But in light of this, government has a problem. How can it now justify this impost on business? With a $3000m annual budget, $28m is not an insurmountable obstacle to overcome particularly given that government has now a reasonable time to pay and when one balances this with the fact that the NT is now in receipt of what I understood at the time to be $150m additional windfall. That was after the new administration set its operating budget. Now it makes it even more reasonable to demand a solution that does not involve a levy on business.
This Chamber must now seriously consider the following. We faced a significantly reduced liability balanced alongside of a significantly increased revenue. In light of the daily struggle of Territory businesses which are the true engine of our economy, why place an additional weight when there really is reason not to do so?
Interestingly, when the ACT parliament considered their response to their exposure to the HIH liability, they were faced with precisely this scenario. The liability was less than they expected, in their case $30m. Ours is $28m. Then they turned and found that they actually had additional revenue - precisely the situation that faces this government. I phoned the minister responsible at the time and asked, ‘Tell me, what did you do?’ He said, ‘Clearly, in that scenario, we had no option. The solution was obvious’. Government, in the case of the ACT, did the right thing and absorbed and did not pass it on to business.
Armed with this information we thought it appropriate to ensure that business is now informed of this changed landscape. I stand secure in the knowledge that we have the support of Territory businesses because we have communicated with them. Over 500 responses in 24 hours was the initial response. That is a fair indication of the level of feeling in the business sector. 90% of businesses support our call for the repeal of this bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, let’s be under no misapprehension. This is a new tax. The use of the word levy and the other weak justifications we have heard bandied about really cannot hide what it is. It is a tax. It is a new tax on business. Indeed, nothing more clearly demonstrates the enormous gulf between Territory Labor and the CLP more than the introduction - and in the current environment and, quite frankly, where there are other options – of this new tax.
Before I talk about the effect which we believe this new tax will have on the business community and the families who own and operate those businesses, it is important to really understand the level of expertise which Labor brings to this Chamber and which Labor has brought to the government of the Northern Territory. There is effectively no private enterprise experience on Labor’s side of politics and no amount of academic or feel good round tables will assist the Labor government to have a genuine understanding of the effect that this business tax is going to have in the Northern Territory. Whilst it might be said that taxes and death are inevitable, at least we can have some impact on the level of tax as it affects families and businesses in the Northern Territory.
The first thing that a government should do - and my colleague, the member for Blain, has gone through a number of these points and I will just quickly go over some of them and amplify one or two - before you introduce a new tax is to have a look at the environment in which business is operating before the new tax is brought to bear upon them. I am not going to talk about the pledge, the broken and clear election promises which Labor gave prior to the election, the pledges they gave to business, that is really a matter for the Labor representatives and their consciences.
But if you look at the environment in which business currently operates - and the member for Blain, as I said, touched upon some of these - work health premiums have already gone through the roof and in some cases they have doubled or tripled. Public liability continues to be an issue with which Territory business is grappling. They are genuinely tight economic times, things have got a little better, and some people suggest that it is certainly seasonal. In the dry season you would expect things to improve. But Territory business also knows that in 18 weeks or so the wet season will once again be upon us and there will be an economic downturn of sorts. There are a lot of businesses, albeit surviving, which are really on the edge. They are tinkering on the edge of possible disaster and this dry season is a very important time for them. It is probably an analogy, you have a patient who has been losing blood and they have been stabilised. They are on the operating table and what do we have here, Dr Labor coming along and saying we need more blood in the blood bank so eyes turn to the body of business.
It is no wonder that Territory business is firmly of the view that it simply costs more to do business under a Labor government and that is evidenced by the enormous response, and really it is overwhelming, that we have received from Territory business, once they were apprised that this new tax was about to come down upon them.
The Labor government, in my view, is very poorly positioned to offer anything genuinely constructive to do with the economic fabric of the Northern Territory. And tragically, something which clearly the Labor government have lost sight of, is that the economic fabric of our society really completely underpins any sort of social welfare, or real reforms which you intend to make. The modern view, and certainly the view which seems to be coming from Europe and America, is that there has been a complete failure of many of the government welfare-type institutions. More and more, the responsibility for ensuring a healthy and stable environment, economy and family unit falls upon keeping people employed in private enterprise, in the private sector. If people have jobs, they have money in the hip pocket, they have a car, they spend their money and it instils the right sort of principles into society and things move along, and the requirement for non-government welfare institutions is decreased.
You just have to look at the way that the Labor government have dealt with this very important issue. It is not a crocodile story and it is not going to grab the front page of the paper. It is not one of the numerous lame press releases which the government constantly trot out in relation to some sort of social agenda. It is not legislation for the sake of legislation. This is a piece of legislation which will have a genuine effect, yet we have not heard a great deal about it. It is a new tax. In terms of acts of parliament which have been considered since 18 August last year, this is probably one of two acts which will have a real and significant effect on the economic fabric of the Northern Territory, and ultimately, the social fabric. The effect is, of course, a damaging one.
There is no doubt that this type of act, and the effect that it will have, rouses the passions of somebody like the honourable member for Blain. We did not see the proposition of this new tax trotted out as a priority issue in the economic development summit. I did not see it. I have only read the summary of action areas. We did not, and we have not heard any ministerial statements of substance in relation to this new tax. We have not heard the many dorothy dix questions from the plethora of dorothies that we have to endure every Question Time with their standard question and answer time. We have heard two questions, quite surprisingly, playing hypothetical and ‘what ifs’ about Senator Nigel Scullion. But, do you think …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not see the relevance of Senator Nigel Scullion to the discussion on the HIH levy.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am merely drawing a comparison in terms of the publicity which this tax deserves, but has not received. We have looked at other issues, and it just goes to show the priority with which the Labor government view this new tax.
We have had the two probing hypothetical ‘what if’ questions, dorothy dix questions, in relation to Scullion. We have heard, really, nothing of substance about …
Madam SPEAKER: The Senator for the Northern Territory.
Mr MALEY: Senator Nigel Scullion. … really, nothing of substance in relation to this new and quite damaging tax. The government seemed to carefully steer the press away from this issue of a new tax, and the word ‘levy’ comes in. Indeed, there was in interjection earlier this morning and the member for Fannie Bay made the powerful retort about ‘It is not a tax, it is a levy’. I am not sure whether there was some confusion between the motor vehicle registration levy or referring to this levy; but this is a tax. This is similar to the tax which people pay now when they register their motor vehicles. It is a new tax and a burden which we are going to have to endure.
I say that enough is enough. The people of the Northern Territory trusted this new government on 18 August last year, and that trust has been betrayed. If the members of this Chamber genuinely have a scintilla of concern about the business sector - and it is easy to say, ‘Oh, business can pay; business this, business that’, but business is really made up of people and families. Behind every business there are many hardworking Territorians who will have to pay this tax and who, quite understandably, are very upset.
I am calling upon members of this Chamber to support the amendments which the member for Blain will be introducing in the committee stage, to avoid the damaging effect which this new tax will have on the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to support the Deputy Chief Minister in the decisive, albeit difficult and unenviable, but fair action he has undertaken today to respond to the collapse of HIH Insurance last year.
Indeed, the legislation we are debating tonight was not introduced by the CLP. The member for Blain has admitted publicly yesterday, on ABC radio, that the CLP had proposed to introduce this levy to cover workers compensation liability as a result of the HIH collapse. I refer you to the transcript of ABC Drive program yesterday.
This evening we heard the member for Blain clarifying that: ‘Indeed, the CLP were considering introducing it by January 2002’. Well, thank God we did have a change of government. We have saved business an impact of this levy for some months. The reality is that we do not come from the Harry Potter school of accountants. We just don’t wave our magic wand in the air and fudge the figures, and conjure up and move in and out of budgets something like $30m. That is the reality; we are dealing with a figure here, a liability facing Territorians, to the tune of around $30m. It might go up; it could be $37m by the time we have seen this settled. It could go down. But what we are dealing with is around about $30m. That is not an insignificant amount of money for government to find. The member for Blain says, ‘Just use the “windfall that the government received in terms of Commonwealth grants”’. I suggest the member for Blain goes away and reads about Commonwealth grants. Commonwealth grants are assessed on need. They are there to cover need.
Mr Baldwin: What about the GST component?
Ms LAWRIE: Quite clearly – no, the GST component is - the change is, we are getting the GST money instead of what we used to receive in the Commonwealth grants. Quite clearly what the member for Blain would rather us do as a government is remove health services, remove education, remove law and order that is required because of the collapse of an insurance company.
This is just an outrageous proposition from the member for Blain and I say, go away and have a look at Commonwealth grants and have a look at where that money is being addressed, where that need exists, and where the money will address meeting the need. I know this is a new concept for the CLP because for 26 years the CLP has ignored it - completely ignored the need out there in the community. I am proud to be a part of government that does not misuse and misappropriate Commonwealth funds. I know it is a novel concept in the Territory but I am proud to be a part of that new political regime in that respect.
Again, the CLP has made much of the survey conducted with business in recent days. What a curious time frame given that the HIH levy has been anticipated by industry for many months now, been a part of consultations with industry, yet curiously, it has only been in the last few days that the CLP has bothered to contact business with a survey. My goodness! This certainly smacks of a political stunt with a survey having loaded questions. Loaded questions. I refer to a question put to the member for Blain yesterday by the ABC interviewer on the Drive program:
Question: Isn’t it pretty inevitable that if people were asked did they want to pay an extra levy or not, they were
going to say ‘no’?
It was so transparent that it was a political stunt that the interviewer put this question clearly to the member for Blain yesterday. It is disappointing that you take a serious issue of a 4% levy and turn it into some kind of political football. I agree with the member for Blain that businesses out there are hurting. That is not news to anyone in this Chamber. They have been hurting for a long time. There are a lot of business people, because they were hurting, because they have been ignored by the CLP for some time, turned around for the first time in their lives and voted for Labor. And the working relationship that they have with our ministers, the working relationship they have with our Chief Minister, the feedback we are getting is, they know they made the right decision.
You can load your questions. You can put out a spurious survey through the fax machine, or however you chose to do it just a few days ago, but that is not quality surveying at all. I will remind you that the Chamber of Commerce has been quite outspoken on the subject of this levy.
Dr Burns: Should have got Mark Textor to do it.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, even he would have been shamefaced about writing those questions.
Moving away from this CLP obfuscation and confabulation, I will deal with the facts. Government is now enacting a 4% levy on employers workers compensation premiums, generously, and I repeat generously, including government in its application of the levy. This will commence on 1 July this year. The levy is a direct consequence arising from the collapse of HIH insurance and it will meet the nominal insurer’s liability. We are imposing this levy by using legislation put in place by the CLP.
Dr Burns: Could you repeat that, please?
Ms LAWRIE: The Labor government is imposing this levy using legislation put in place by the CLP. The levy will pay for the liability estimated to be around $40m. The CLP bandies around the figure of $28m. They are choosing to ignore the fact that it was a Labor government that has put $9m to ameliorate the impact on business. What the CLP was doing, the path they were headed down was that they would give a $3m loan to business that they were going to expect business to pay back. Being a business person and given the choice of those two options, I know which one I would go for. I would go for the Labor option. It is honest, it is clear, it is fair, and it is not misleading business about the actual impost on them.
Really this is about getting down to honesty and business knew this levy was coming. They knew it was coming. They have expected it for a long time. What we have done is ameliorate the impact on business by putting in a $9m grant and also including government in the catchment of the levy. Without the contributions made by the Labor government the levy would have been 8%. So, as a result of the contribution of the Labor government, we have halved what the levy would have been. It would have been 8%. The efforts we have made with both the grant money and including government in the catchment of the levy, has halved the impost to business. Because of the Labor government’s $9m contribution - not a $3m loan, here, you see it, there, we will take it back again, thank you very much. Harry Potter school of accounting again.
Mr Henderson: With interest.
Ms LAWRIE: With interest. Businesses will be sweating over that one. Thank God we voted Labor. With our $9m contribution and $800 000 contribution the most business will deal with is half of the impost. We have reduced it by half on business. That is a reality.
The government had to develop a rescue package. We are not alone. Every jurisdiction in Australia has had to grapple with this. It is too cute by half that the CLP continue to ignore what has occurred in Western Australia, one jurisdiction as an example where a levy has been imposed. But we had to move on a rescue package to protect employers and employees of the more than …
Mr Baldwin: Rescuing them by taxing them?
Ms LAWRIE: Well, you would have taxed them more! Thank God we are here to protect employers and employees, 1250 Territory employers, who took out workers compensation cover with HIH before its collapse. The government will shoulder close to half the financial burden. We are committing an estimated $800 000 per year to the nominal insurer which administers the HIH claims on top of the $9m we contributed. Under the rescue package, employers will pay an average - and this is information that the CLP chooses to ignore; did not put in the survey - under the rescue package employers will pay will pay an average of just under $1 per week per full time employee. This is the burden. This is the incredible weight that is going to send the doughnut man crashing down into his doughnut machine, an incredible weight.
I listened to the member for Blain talk about the fact that according to his research there has been a 400% blowout in compensation premiums, a 400% increase. Then I hear the member for Goyder, his colleague, a few moments later talk about workers compensation premiums in some cases having doubled or tripled. One member says they have quadrupled, the other says perhaps they have doubled or tripled. Get it together, guys. Your figures are incredibly rubbery but that is what we are used to from the CLP. We are used to rubbery figures.
Madam Speaker: Order! Member for Karama, can you direct your remarks to me not across the to the floor.
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: Absolutely. Very provocative, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Very provocative, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: The practice of rubbery figures is one we have become very used to with the CLP and we have witnessed it again today in the Chamber, unfortunately. You would think that they would start to learn that the Territory populace is getting sick and tired of their obfuscations, confabulations and prevarications.
The $1 per week figure is based on the average worker’s compensation premium of 2.913% of wage costs and the NT average weekly full time wage of $827.80. We are quite happy to do a break down on the figures to show where we are getting that average $1 per week figure. Depending on how many people they employ, around 84%, that is the majority, around 84% of Territory employers will pay a levy of between zero and $4 per week. Western Australia and Tasmania, which have similar workers compensation systems to the NT, have already set levies of 5% and 4% respectively. But let’s just ignore that. Let’s just ignore what is happening in other jurisdictions because, of course, the Territory is so incredibly unique we can do everything in a vacuum here. Already we have seen levies set of 5% and 4% respectively in Western Australia and Tasmania. Proportionately, the Northern Territory had the most businesses covered by HIH, that is a fact.
The collapse of HIH has been an unfortunate fact of life that all governments have had to deal with. In response to the HIH collapse, the previous government, the CLP, made a repayable loan to the nominal insurer. If this had remained the extent of the government’s contribution, employers would be facing a 10% levy oncost.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I would ask the Deputy Chief Minister to withdraw the word that he used.
A member: Not that word again Syd?
Mr Stirling: If you ask Madam Speaker to ask me to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask the Deputy Chief Minister to withdraw the word he used.
Madam SPEAKER: If the word used was unparliamentary, you should withdraw.
Mr Stirling: I withdraw unreservedly.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have less noise from the opposition so that the member for Karama can continue her speech.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The funds raised by the HIH levy and collected by insurance companies will be exclusively paid to a nominal insurer to address the HIH liability. That is, we are not filling up the government coffers. This is not what this is about. This is about meeting an existing liability. Get it right, guys. The government will pay its contributions directly to the nominal insurer. We are being fair. This levy will exhaust itself. It is expected that it will take about 10 years to exhaust this liability.
Mr Baldwin: 11 to 13 years.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that interjection by the member for Daly. Eleven to 13 years is a time frame that was placed when the original liability expectations were higher. So, if you take into account that liability expectations have dropped, as the member for Blain pointed out, we are now down to about 120 claims, then you reduce the time frame down to about 10 years. I am saying ‘about’ because, as we all know, the time frame will shift according to the extent of liability. They are inextricably linked, and why are they inextricably linked? Why?
Mr Baldwin: You are getting a little bit hazy here.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not hazy about it at all, not at all. As soon as the liability has been exhausted, the levy will be lifted. This is a fair piece of legislation being enacted today. It is not something we choose to do in circumstances where we had any options. Our government understands that the business people of the Northern Territory have been suffering under the burden of incompetence by the CLP for decades now. Our economic summit, all of the actions our government has taken since being in government, are showing that we are about working with business, listening to business, responding to business needs, be they small businesses, medium business, large business. We are not just there for the upper end of town and the big businesses. We are working with every level of business. We have business support schemes in place. There is a holistic approach by this government towards supporting business.
In keeping with that approach we are applying the levy as low as we possibly could. By bringing a government into application of the levy - we did not have to, but we chose to - in real terms means that businesses have been saved about half of the impost that they would otherwise have had. Whilst it is a hard decision for government to take, to introduce a levy in a climate where we are finally seeing growth coming back into the business sector of the Territory - after sound financial action taken by this government - we are finally seeing a real turnaround.
I heard the member for Goyder talking about how everyone needs a job, and with jobs everyone is okay. I have to say that in 27 years of CLP government there was never a jobs plan.
Mr Henderson: Not one.
Ms LAWRIE: Not one jobs plan. If it is so important, if it means so much, why did they never have a jobs plan? Well, the Labor government does have a jobs plan. Since Labor took government in the Northern Territory we have seen a drop in the unemployment rate.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: In fact, Territory employment has risen by - and you might want to listen to this because this is fact - Territory employment has risen by 3600 jobs in the past six months. This is what you get when you have government with a plan. This is what you get when you have a government that knows what it is doing; you have a job plan, you see unemployment drop.
Mr Baldwin: So then you tax them.
Ms LAWRIE: The emotive and simplistic interjections by the member for Daly show just what a relief Territorians feel about the fact that they are in opposition and we are in government. He was known as the minister who could never make a decision, and we are starting to see his simplistic and emotive interjections bear out what everyone referred to him as. How sad, never mind, you might want to retire with your mate, the member for Katherine.
Dr Burns: No, he will take his seat, I reckon.
Ms LAWRIE: That’s right, I forgot. That’s right, he is going for an easy …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: So just to recap; the government is imposing the levy at the lowest possible bar. The lowest possible impost on business is what we are about here today. We are not going to ignore a liability, and we are not going to bury our heads in the sand. We are not going to be the Harry Potter accountants that the CLP choose to be. We will take …
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, enough.
Ms LAWRIE: We will take responsible, decisive, but fair action to ameliorate and finally extinguish the liability as a result of the HIH collapse.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for the two briefings we had, which were both informative. I certainly have a greater understanding of what the government is trying to do. But there are some issues that I would like to raise. As a starter, I do believe that the discussion about this bill highlights the fact that putting through bills under urgency can sometimes be a problem when you are trying to look at arguments from both sides as I try to do and get in touch with people who will be affected. Be that as it may, we are here to discuss the bill and I would like to raise some issues.
We all know that the local economy is not in a great state and, whilst I am not blaming the government for matters outside its influence, it does not get away from the fact that some businesses are doing it tough. Some businesses have been directly affected by a reduction in government spending. An example of that is that the amount of maintenance on the Stuart Highway in my electorate certainly has decreased. I know the slashing contractors certainly have not had as much work this year as they have in previous years. But we all hope that when the rail and the gas and the new air wing development at the Palmerston barracks comes to Darwin, things will certainly pick up. But, this has not happened yet.
Business has been hit with increases in others areas such as public liability and property insurance. I have a statement here from a local manufacturer who employs 15 people. Last year, the insurance bill to cover all staff, including workers compensation, was $18 000. For this year, it is $54 000 and does not include the GST or the proposed 4% HIH levy. Businesses are being hit hard and I do not believe this is the time to hit them with this levy. I have heard the arguments that the levy is small. I spoke to another business, in fact it was a business I used to work for, and I think their levy would be $160 which fits in with the figures she gave. But the problem is that they are being hit with so much and that we have an economy which is in a downturn even though there are signs that it will turn around, it is the signal you send, not necessarily the amount, it is the signal you are sending to business: have another tax. And that is what is worrying.
I should note that one of the extra charges that we have discussed here before is the budget development levy. On 27 November the Treasurer said the levy will not apply to goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, gross vehicle mass and heavy vehicles with greater than 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. On page 8 of the mini-budget Paper No 1, it stated that the reason for these exemptions was to minimise the impact on business. As well, there were increases in vehicle inspection fees. Many businesses have utes, cars and light courier vans and many have been affected by this levy. They have been impacted by these levies, even though others in business with heavier vehicles were exempt. I know why the government introduced the levy and governments have the right to raise revenue but regardless, this levy has affected business, especially small business.
In the Treasurer’s second reading on the Motor Vehicle Amendment Bill which included temporary budget improvement levy, the Treasurer said, and I quote:
The reason for the broadly applied increase in motor vehicle registration fees, is that existing taxes fall
predominantly on business. An increase to another tax source would aggravate the effects of already high
business taxes, weaken the Territory’s economic base, retard recovery and thus impact on jobs. The
government is not prepared to risk further pressures on jobs.
In actual fact, because that levy was discriminatory, it did affect businesses. I know of one case of a gentleman, a friend of mine, who has five Holden utes which he uses to run a lawn mowing service. Straight away, he collected a $450 bill this year. His truck is exempt, so it was a discriminatory bill.
I must admit, looking through the records of both parties, I find it very interesting about this whole debate. It is good going back through Hansard and you find one party said one thing one time and another party says another thing another time. But the facts are, we are here today and I thought it may be interesting to go back and read some of the comments that people have made. The CLP member for Daly would remember in the second reading speech on changes to the Work Health Act in June last year, that he said it would consider a levy on businesses to help pay the HIH disaster. I would just like to quote from that particular statement. I just have a couple of quotes from there:
The collapse [that is the HIH collapse] has left an unfunded liability in the order of $50m on the Territory
Workers Compensation Scheme. However, it will be some time before the precise liability can be determined.
Further on it says:
To ensure the viability of the compensation scheme, this amendment is being put forward to provide an alternative
and fairer means of covering the unfunded liability. This amendment will allow a levy on employers to be made
which could be collected by the insurers and then paid into the nominal insurer fund. This scheme of arrangements
would be similar to that operating in the ACT and Western Australia, as well as Tasmania which has a very similar
nominal insurer scheme to that of the Territory, has announced its intention to introduce a levy on employers to
meet the HIH liability.
Another quote is:
On the other hand, Labor promised it would cut taxes, and I quote from a Labor party election flyer:
On the web site there is the speech by the Treasurer to - I think it was the Labor business policy launch - where cutting the HIH workers compensation levy on business and absorb the cost of HIH disaster for 2001 was mentioned. Further on, the Treasurer said this:
Before I finish I will quote a couple of e-mails I received. One is from the Chamber of Commerce. We just asked for their comments on the proposed levy, and I will read this into the Hansard:
The other e-mail I received was from the Palmerston Business Association which just said that no formal adopted position, but it was discussed at a meeting that discussed the increasing costs of doing business. The Palmerston Business Association acknowledges that the HIH collapse is not the fault of the Northern Territory Labor government, but at a time when many local businesses are doing it tough, it is another impost - among several other recent increases in charges and levies.
In light of the fact that many businesses are struggling; that many businesses have had to pay higher charges for public liability, property insurance, workers compensation, the budget development levy, increases now in local government rates and now an HIH levy; that the Labor Party said that the Territory government and not individual businesses would pay for the HIH disaster; that the government had said it will fulfil its promises; that the levy has reduced from about $50m to about $30m; that the government has received extra funding from the Commonwealth of $137m; and bearing in mind that the levy does not have to be paid just in one year - it can be paid as required; that the government should be assisting and encouraging business, not sending signals which say ‘not another tax’, I believe that the government should rethink this bill and consider funding the levy itself.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the question that is before this House comes down simply to this. The question is: has the Territory ever had a higher taxing government? No, it has never had a higher taxing government. Since this government came to power there has never been as many taxes and charges as there are now. This government came to power with promises ringing in the ears of Territorians saying, ‘We will lower your taxes’.
The member for Nelson read some of that stuff out, and it is a great thing to see that the research officer, as well as the member for Nelson, are working so hard. Has the Northern Territory government ever taxed as much as this government does? No, they have not. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation that they are bringing before us because they are bringing forward more and more taxes and they are charging Territorians more and more. They trot out the tired, old black holes and those sorts of things, but the truth of the matter is, has the Territory government ever had as much income as this Territory government has now? No, it has not. The income levels of this government have gone up. The expenditure of the government is going down. Where is the money going? They are stockpiling …
A member: Paying your debt.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, here we go again. Paying for the debt. They have had a wonderful time raising taxes on Territorians and now, in the process, they are rewriting the English language: this is not a tax, this is a levy. This is just a levy, guys, we are not taxing you. We heard, by interjection, the Chief Minister this morning saying, we have not introduced any more taxes. Well, there is good case law in this country, I can tell you that right now, where the courts, especially the High Court, in terms of excise duties, has turned their attentions to these particular issues as to what is a tax and what is not. I must say I am paraphrasing the High Court of Australia, but at the end of the day, in a nutshell, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Yet we hear from the members opposite, that they are not introducing a new tax. What is a tax? Call it what you like, call it a rose. But a rose is a rose, by that or any other name, and what they are introducing is a tax.
That is what they have to understand; it is not a levy. And in any instance, does it really make any difference what it does, it is still an impost. I am dismayed that they can, in one breath talk about honesty, and in the next breath, talk about not saying it is a tax, it is a levy. Well, it is an impost, it is a tax.
In terms of rewriting the English language, I am fascinated to hear the concept of a ‘generous tax’. I would really love to hear from the minister what he thinks a generous tax is, because generosity usually implies some sort of friendly process. But in this case, with friends like that, who really needs enemies! And a generous tax, because government is being taxed. Am I to presume that the member for Karama is under the impression that government employees, when they go to work, are not paying income tax? Or that government does not pay its GST? It is a bizarre and flippant argument to try to mask what this is. This is a tax. And what we are trying to do by using terms like a ‘generous tax’, is that we are just trying to mask it. Oh no, it is not so much, it is only 4%, it is only those little bits. At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, whether the member for Karama likes it or not, whether or not the government likes it, they are imposing a tax.
The playing field has changed. They keep saying the CLP was going to do this, the CLP was going to do that. Well, the truth of the matter is the Deputy Leader of the government is saying, ‘Oh look, the environment is the same as it was’. Well it is not. They have a lot more income than they used to have, and the government could afford to absorb this. By arguing that the playing field is the same, or that we should not change the approach of taxing Territory business because we were going to do it a few months ago, what you are basically saying is that nothing should ever change, and that we should still be using chamber pots and buggy whips. That is the equivalent of the argument. What they are actually doing is muddying the waters. And why are they muddying the waters? Because they are introducing a new tax. That is really where they are going with this.
I love this little gem, this is great: ‘It’s only going to be there for 13 years’. In some jurisdictions you get less for manslaughter. Anyway, it is only going to be there for 13 years. I am wondering if the member for Karama has ever paid attention to the history of payroll tax which was not going to survive World War II. Do we still have payroll tax? Yes, we do. And had the CLP government been lowering payroll tax? Absolutely!
Mr Stirling: Read the sunset clause, John. Read the sunset clause in the bill, instead of misleading yourself and everyone else.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister. This is the point, it is a bill; it is a piece of legislation. It can be changed in 13 years time to accommodate a government, which by that stage, have learned to factor this stuff into the budget and like all governments absolutely addicted to income, let’s see them not repeal this. I would love to come back here in 13 years time, and hear them say, ‘Oh, it’s going to go away. We don’t care about this little old revenue stream’. If that was true, payroll tax would have finished in 1945. I am fascinated by this. This government is wonderful. It said, ‘Oh, gee whiz, we are going to help the economic development of the Northern Territory’.
How often did we hear this government complain about self-promotion when this side of the House was still in government - about things like glossy brochures? Well, guess what? Surprise, surprise! They have come forward with a glossy brochure. Let’s open up the glossy brochure, and who should be on the inside cover? Shock, horror, it’s Clare! Yeah! It’s Clare, and she is coming to do all of the good things. Clare will come down to do for Territorians like a little fairy godmother from the heavens. Well, the little fairy godmother has to pay her way. How does the fairy godmother pay her way? She raises tax! This is an enormously good glossy brochure. They must have been agonising for ages as to whether or not they were going to use black and white or colour, so they opted for both.
I do not particularly begrudge the former government, or even this one, for having glossy brochures. But I have heard so often calls from the members opposite saying, ‘Oh, you have a glossy brochure’, when the former CLP government existed. ‘Oh, you have too many glossy brochures’. The hypocrisy is monumental. There should be a plaque somewhere in this Chamber as a monument to the hypocrisy of the new government. Remember the days when they said, ‘Oh, unemployment, you cannot trust those unemployment figures in the Northern Territory because you have not factored in the effect of the CDEP’. And what do we hear now …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, we are debating the legislation on the Work Health Amendment Bill. I do not know what on earth glossy brochures and unemployment figures have to do with this particular piece of legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: I presume it is to do with the economics of the whole Northern Territory. I will allow that leeway.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will say that I am responding to comments made by the member for Karama who introduced the Economic Development Summit, and unemployment statistics which were raised by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. Actually, no, they were raised by the member for Karama.
The truth of the matter is that the new government is struggling with the same problems that the former government struggled with. But they have more money in the bank than they ever had; they have more income than they ever had; they have lowered the amount of money that they spend by cuts to the public service and other areas; and at the end of the day, they have more income through the proceeds of GST. So, what they are doing is simply this: they are taxing Territorians to pay for the outrageous promises they made before an election they never expected to win.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, can I say at the outset all the rhetoric from members opposite and following on from the member for Macdonnell talking about Labor’s new tax, well, this is a levy to pay for a liability. It is not going into consolidated revenue. It is going to pay for the liability incurred when HIH collapsed in Australia and left injured workers. People whom these members on the other side of the House discovered for the first time in 26 years yesterday when we had nine questions in a row about our wonderful fire officers. First time in 26 years I have heard these people have concerns for workers. Well, this is exactly what this liability is to pay for - injured workers and the injuries that they are continuing to carry as a result of accidents in the workplace. This is what this levy is going to pay. It is not going into consolidated revenue. So, if those members opposite want to discover workers all of a sudden as a wonderful new constituency that they can potentially harvest, then at least be consistent. At least be consistent in your concern for working people, for working Territorians and not have such double sided positions on issues.
What this is about, and it is very cute, what the opposition is about - and I do not blame them for it - but this is the politics. This is the politics from the CLP about trying to reclaim that business community which it so accountably lost a significant part of during the last Territory election. This is the first opportunity that they have had to say, ‘Look, we know we may have been a bit reckless in the past, business community, and we may have gone off on tangents and forgot about the small business sector in the process. We might have got close to our mates a bit too much but, gee, we are behind you this time. We are going to show our bona fides by walking into parliament this week and repeal this evil HIH levy that the Labor party is seeking to impose on you and really draw a line of distinction about we are the party for business’.
This is what this is all about. This is absolutely what it is all about. It is not about responsibility. It is not about fiscal responsibility. It is not about honouring a liability to injured working people. It is all about the politics of the business community. I do not blame them for doing that but at least come in here and have the courage to say so.
We heard the member for Blain talk about these 500. I have been inundated overnight in 24 hours after this garbage, Madam Speaker, which I seek to table if it has not been tabled in the parliament, about the so-called questionnaire, the very misleading questionnaire which was circulated overnight. I table that. I will just go through this and talk about how misleading this questionnaire is. If you are going to put terminology in this way, of course people are going to come back and say, ‘Yes, I support this action’.
I will go to the second dot point: ‘The tax will pay for the $28m liability and work health cover left by the HIH collapse’. Well, that is wrong. For a start the liability is to the tune of $40m, not $28m. It then says the CLP considered a levy when it was feared the liability could be $50m. They did not consider it. They introduced the legislation into the parliament. They passed the legislation.
Then we go down into the changes. What are the changes? ‘The liability is less than half the original estimate’. Wrong. An absolute furphy. That is wrong. ‘The Labor government is to receive an extra $150m windfall every year in revenue from the federal government’. That is absolutely and patently wrong. There was a one year allocation of an additional $70m. The Treasurer and Chief Minister went through this this morning. An extra $60m for a CPI and population increase so we can continue to provide the level of services that Territorians expect us to provide for health, and education, and law enforcement issues, and what have you. It is not a windfall. If members opposite are so nave to believe that the smirking Commonwealth Treasurer, Peter Costello, has just run up the Track and said ‘Oh Clare, lovely to see you. Here is an extra $150m a year, every year, spend it on what you want’. Well, no wonder we are in such a financial mess, Madam Speaker. So that was particularly wrong.
Then it claims Labor can afford the extra $4m a year it wants to take from business. Well, that is wrong. It is actually $2.6m a year because we are putting in $800 000 per year which your legislation failed to pick up. The CLP legislation introduced into this House did not contain a requirement for government to contribute as an employer. So we are kicking in $800 000 every year on top of the $9m which we have already put into this liability.
Then it says: do you support his action? Well, of course they do. Of course they do. If you put this type of garbage out, of course people are going to come back and say yes. But the member for Blain did not mention – okay, they may have got 500. Who knows? They would be lucky to get 50, I suppose. The member for Blain said, ‘We got 500 ticks for yes’. He did not mention the 63 who said no. Before this debate I rang my department - and we all acknowledge the good work of the people in the previous Department of Industries and Business - and said, ‘How much contact have we received from the business community about this levy? What is the level of angst out there?’ I have been doorknocking every weekend recently and I will grant that a number of people have raised the $90 motor vehicle levy. I accept that that is a bit of political pain that we are suffering at the moment, but we are trying to be a responsible government. The word coming back from the department is that they have not had one phone call. Nobody has actually mentioned it. Not one. So I went to my Chief of Staff in the office. You would have thought as minister for industries and business if people were so worked up about this - and I do accept and acknowledge right from the front that we did not want to put this levy on. We do not want to raise any additional revenue from the business community, but we had to be responsible fiscally. I talked to my Chief of Staff and said, ‘How many phone calls and letters have we received on this particular issue?’, and the answer came back: ‘Not one’.
I then went back and said: ‘Well, we have had four business round table meetings. How many times has this been raised?’ Before this garbage that went out yesterday totally misleading the business community, it had been raised three times across the Northern Territory and it was in regard to the process, how it would be recovered, what’s it all about, but certainly not this is going to cripple us and force us out of business.
Obviously, the whole issue of insurance generally and liability issues are very much of a concern to the business community. What this is all about is an opportunity for the opposition, and we are all in the game of politics, to send a bit of rubbish out to the business community, to scare people about this insidious Labor tax that we are imposing on hard working business and seek to gain a bit of cheap political kudos, and rebuild their credibility with the business community. This is what it is all about. But this is just such blatant hypocrisy. Absolute blatant and self-indulgent hypocrisy from those members opposite.
Let’s actually look at what was inherited. The shadow minister for business will be getting up next in this debate and I issue him a challenge ...
Mr Baldwin: He’s been up.
Mr HENDERSON: You’ve been up? What a pity.
When we came to government we inherited a budget position that was unsustainable. This came from none other than the Under Treasurer who worked for the previous CLP administration. We did not put words into his mouth. They were his words: it was an unsustainable budget. We inherited a structurally unsustainable budget. These people, if they had continued on down the path that they were going without making significant changes to either expenditure or revenue, we were going out the door backwards like Argentina. That was the position that we inherited, that we proved through the Public Accounts Committee debate here today that they hoped they would managed to squeak back in and the fraud that was imposed on Territorians would not be discovered.
So here we were with an unsustainable budget. If we go to the findings of Professor Percy Allan, we see that the annual deficit had averaged over $70m over the previous four financial years, peaking at $114m in 2000-01, and our fiscal position as government had deteriorated to the point that between 1998-90 and 2000-01, total expenditure rose by $202m across government, 10.5%, yet total revenue went only up by $103m, 5.4%. These were the infamous crocodile jaws where we were spending our way to the stars, not recovering through revenue at the same time, and going out the door backwards like Argentina. We had some very important and very responsible decisions to make as government to put a halt to this appalling legacy that we inherited from the Country Liberal Party.
And, I suppose, as government, we will be accountable for our decisions. But how do you do that? Well, it is very simple. You do not have to be Einstein. You either have to cut expenditure or raise revenue, or do both. Since we have been in this parliament, members opposite have railed against, they have said it is terrible that we have cut budgets to the public service, that we have actually had to curtail public service expenditure, and we have had to put cuts into public service expenditure. They stood on the other side and said, ‘This is absolutely terrible, you can’t do that, you can’t cut the public service budget’. We then heard, ‘Well, what else could you do?’ Well, maybe we could lay off some public servants. We made a commitment in the election that there would be no forced redundancies, and there have been no forced redundancies. People have left the public service voluntarily, and yes, many of those positions have not been refilled. But that also was an appalling thing to do. You cannot sack anybody and you have to replace every single public servant who leaves the public service so there are no savings there. On the other side, we cannot raise any revenue. That is inappropriate as well. We cannot possibly raise any taxes.
So here we are. If the official position of the opposition - and Territorians are still thanking goodness that they were not re-elected - is that we would continue to see those crocodile jaws grow, because they were not going to cut expenditure, they were not going to lay off public servants and they were not going to raise any more revenue. So, we would have still seen those crocodile jaws growing and growing, and growing to the point that we would have gone out of the door backwards like Argentina.
This is the position that we inherited, and those members opposite are firmly on the record that they would have done absolutely nothing in regards to the fiscal legacy that was left at the end of their last term of government.
We talk about this wonderful new constituency that members opposite have discovered all of a sudden since they have been in opposition. We have had questions about working mothers, we have had feigned concern about Aboriginal health, we have had questions about nurses, and we have had concern for hard working unionists. This amazing constituency that the CLP has inherited since it has come to opposition. And now we have this feigned concern for the business community. They have had nine months to say how they would have redressed the budget legacy that we have inherited. They would not have cut the budget to public service, they would not have sacked a single public servant, they would not have raised any taxes. Well, I would like to know what they would have done, Madam Speaker, because it is outside the record.
Now we have this feigned concern for the business community. The member for Daly - as the member for Karama quite rightly said - had a reputation in the business community of never being able to make a decision. The member for Daly sat on the review for the Work Health Act for about 18 months. There was this big concern about these escalating work health premiums. He was so concerned about it he did not have the guts to implement the recommendations. I will pick up the minister on this point. The previous minister for inactivity sat on this report and it gathered so much dust on the top of the desk you could not see the title of it. The previous government was too gutless to tackle the issues in it. The business community was breaking his door down saying we have to do something about it and, no, it was all too hard. We have so much concern for the business community we are going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs and do nothing.
Then we had the charade when HIH collapsed and there was the initial requirement to fund the nominal insurer. I well recall talking to people in the business community about this. I remember the member for Katherine, white knight in shining armour, going on the radio and saying how great the government is. ‘We are going to kick in …’, was the term, ‘We are going to kick in $3m to the nominal insurer to carry us over …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like for the minister to verify where this ‘kick in’ came from.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Stirling: There is no point of order. It was on ABC radio.
Mr Henderson: Yes, it was ABC radio.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, he is quoting another person in this House and saying that that was the real …
Madam SPEAKER: Many people on both sides have made suggestions on what has been said.
Mr Baldwin: No, but you can’t mislead …
Mr HENDERSON: Well, I am not misleading the House. The ABC transcripts are there. I remember it very well. ‘We were going to kick in $3m to the nominal insurer to buy us a bit of time’. I remember asking the questions at the time: ‘Well, what does this mean? Does this mean the money has been appropriated to the nominal insurer, or what does it mean?’ It was like pulling out hen’s teeth. We finally found out that there was no grant to the nominal insurer. This was a loan. I remember talking to the business community when this came out, and I wish I still had the TCA newsletter that went out when they found out about it.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: You said it was a grant. It was kicked in. Go back through all those transcripts. Never once - never once - did either the previous Minister for Business and Industry or the Treasurer say, ‘We have loaned this money to the nominal insurer, and we will be recovering it by way of a levy, with interest, from the business community’. That is the truth. It was never communicated to the business community. I know. And a very famous newsletter from the TCA went out, and they were pretty aggro about it.
We look at the crocodile tears that members opposite are crying when their track record is so particularly bad on this particular issue. There was no commitment, from day one, to grant any public money to the collapse of HIH, and to fund this ongoing liability. It was going to be a loan to be recovered with interest. Legislation was introduced into the parliament to set up a levy and, absent from that legislation, totally missing from the legislation, was a requirement for government to contribute. So, the entire liability under the CLP, until today - until today - was going to be recovered entirely from the business community.
Compare and contrast that to the position of this government, not only trying to be fiscally responsible and repair the battered and shattered finances of the Northern Territory coffers, but we have contributed. We have lifted $9m worth of CLP levy off the backs of Northern Territory business, and we are now going to be contributing an additional $800 000 a year more than the previous CLP government would have been contributing. Our credentials stand pretty proud compared to this shabby political exercise that we are going to be engaging in here this evening.
I pick up on comments from the Chamber of Commerce and, yes, as business minister, I am in regular contact with the chamber or the peak industry organisations. Through my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, we have been in contact with them; we have put the sunset clause into the legislation; and yes, the position of the business community is - and I agree with them – that this is a community responsible, it is not a business responsibility. I think we have met the community responsibility by the fact that the community, by way of government grants and government contribution to this levy, is going to be about half of the total; that is going to come from the community. So, we have achieved that effect of making this a community responsibility.
Given that the additional funding we have received from the Commonwealth is to pay for service delivery as a result of increased CPI cost as a result of population growth, I would like those members opposite given their public position is not to cut services, not to cut public expenditure, not to dismiss or sack any public servants, and replace every single one of them who leaves, and not to raise any taxes, I would like those members opposite to explain to the people of the Northern Territory how they were going to meet this liability. Apart from the Harry Potter School of Budget Management that left us in an absolute fiscal nightmare that we inherited, I would like them to explain because they cannot do that. Even as an opposition they have to learn to be a smart opposition about it.
It gets even worse when we look at the so-called repeal bill before us tonight. The first part of the repeal is to delete clause 2. Well, clause 2 deems the Northern Territory government as an employer. It is actually the facility by which we take $800 000 a year worth of liability off the backs of business in the Northern Territory and kick in. So they are wanting to delete the very vehicle by which we are going to contribute to the nominal insurer. And that is entirely consistent - at least you are consistent here with the original legislation that you introduced in to the parliament which did not have that clause in there. So at least they are being consistent at this point. They do not believe the Northern Territory government should contribute to this liability fund and the entire liability should fall on the back of business.
Clause 3 deletes the sunset clause. We have had the theatrics of the member for Macdonnell talking about payroll tax going back to 1945. Clause 3 is the clause that puts the sunset clause in. Now you want to take it out. So what is the point of introducing legislation - if they were to be serious it would be to delete the whole bill. But no, we are actually going to be deleting the clauses that give effect to government being a deemed contributor and to putting in the sunset clause.
Madam Speaker, we are engaged in nothing else tonight apart from cheap, political opportunism. That is all it is. This ridiculous flyer that went out scaring the business community was so full of holes that it would have sunk without trace with any cursory reading. We have heard that. I will stand here and acknowledge that to put this levy on was a very hard decision for Cabinet to make. But we have to be responsible, we have to be able to deliver services to Territorians and we have to be creating the fiscal climate that is going to attract investment here in the Northern Territory. No major industry body, no significant investor, is going to come and invest in the Northern Territory whilst those crocodile jaws between expenditure and income continue to grow. They will look at it and say this is an unsustainable government position; the only possible way out of this is either a slash and burn exercise that will cruel the economy, or by increasing taxes and charges.
We believe that in the long term we are being responsible. We accept that we will be judged by the public when our time comes. What we are engaged in here tonight is absolute blatant hypocrisy by members opposite, a totally head in the sand approach in terms of the fiscal position that government finds itself in. We are not going to cut services. We are not going to cut the public sector budget. We are not going to sack any public servants. We are going to replace every public servant who leaves, and we are not going to raise any taxes. Yet somehow we are going to cover a $40m liability. It is a totally illogical position. This is nothing but cheap political grandstanding. We know what they are on about. Territorians will know what they are on about.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I have never heard such a load of crock in all my life from this business minister. Let’s go to a couple of things straight away. Let’s go to the bit about the $3m loan that the CLP government gave to the nominal insurer. Yes, it was a loan. Let’s have a look at the second reading speech from the introduction of the amendments last year. This is Mr Henderson talking, and I am not going to go through the whole lot of the waffle he went on with at that time, but let’s just look at this one paragraph, and I am quoting:
The government has committed to loan monies to the nominal insurer…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the honourable member quote from his contribution to the debate, and point out where he said it was a loan to the nominal insurer?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Good try.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s right. And that is why I am saying it is a load of crock from this fellow on the other side.
I can distinctly remember a briefing I attended with this minister and with good officers from the department at the time, and the question was asked, ‘Is this a loan?’ ‘Yes, it is a loan’.
We made no secret of the fact at the time. We made secret at the time that this was not a loan. In fact, the business community knew that this was a loan. Let’s just look at loans for a minute. Now, you explain this to me: what is going to happen here under this levy is that you are going to raise an amount of money during the year from the levy and it is going to be in the order this next financial year of $2m, let’s say. I am quoting from the briefing. They are going to raise $2m in the first year, roughly, from this levy. The outgoing cost, the liability for workers who have already been injured, and that is the key here, is going to be in the order of $7m. Now, do the sums. Is there a shortfall? $7m going out, $2m coming in. What is the shortfall? $5m. Where is it going to come from? It is going to come from a loan from the government.
Have you told the business community that? That is why it is going to take so long to pay off. Thirteen years it is going to take to pay off this tax. That is if they ever lift it because there is no definite sunset clause in this tax. Thirteen years. Do you know why? Because it is going to paid off before that period of 13 years and then the business community has to pay the loan back to the government. So don’t talk to me about loans. You are the deceptive one and the business community knows that. You are loaning the nominal insurer the shortfall.
Mr Stirling: We have already given them $9m!
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I am going to come to the $9m they have given in a minute. It is a great story; the $9m that they can afford, and I will come back to that. Don’t talk about loans to me. Turn around and ask your good officers.
Mr Stirling interjecting
Mr BALDWIN: I can shout louder than you can, without getting upset. I can keep smiling while I shout.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Before we continue, we do not have to shout so loud. We can all hear. Leader of Government Business, you are going to have your reply in a moment.
Mr Stirling: I’ll be quiet, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Good!
Mr Ah Kit: This is a bid for the new leadership. I know what this is about, member for Daly.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, did you just hear me?
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, did you just hear what I said? You have walked in and taken no notice. I have asked people not to shout across the floor. I know it is very provocative and it is inviting, but let’s hear the member for Daly. Sorry to stop your flow.
Mr BALDWIN: So to talk about loans in here is a load of crock. It is a new spin on the whole thing. The former shadow minister knew all about it in briefings. We made no secret of it. If it was a secret, why would I tell him? The fact is, and you can ask your officers this, Minister for Education, Employment and Training: ‘Are you going to be loaning the nominal insurer to make up the shortfall until you get paid back?’ Yes, you are. There is no doubt about that.
The minister for business also talked about a $40m liability. Yes, that is quite true and that is a gross amount. That is after you add the $9m that has already been paid. But the fact is the net amount that is outstanding according to the briefing of last week is something in the order of $28.5m. It is not $40m. And I want to make a point of that. According to the briefing and my briefing notes of last week it is in the order of $28.5m down from, one year ago, an estimate of greater than $50m. So, that is wrong. That minister is quoting the wrong figure. The net figure as of the last estimate is in the order of $28.5m.
About the phone calls to his department, and they are a great bunch of people down there, I pay tribute to them, they said they have not had any phone calls. I can understand that. That is quite reasonable. The fact that he rang his staff and they have not had any phone calls, that is quite reasonable. But when you go out in the business community this is on everybody’s lips. It is on everybody’s lips as another impost. My colleague, the member for Blain, as well as the member for Nelson, has demonstrated that in terms of the businesses they have been talking to. It is demonstrated, regardless of what the information is in terms of the flier. And you can all have a go at that. That’s fine. I know the minister responsible for this taxing legislation will have a go at that. That’s fine. The end result is over 2500 businesses were sent this and nearly 600, I believe, tonight, sent a reply. I will admit some of them said no. It is in the order of 10%. Some of them said no. They are happy with it. Ten percent are happy with it; 90% are not happy at all. You can play around with the figures, you can do whatever you like. But the fact is that they are going to get hit with another impost on their business at this time.
This is the point that the member for Nelson has been trying to make and probably struggling with in terms of this legislation and trying to get up to speed through the …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, God. Patronising.
Mr BALDWIN: You might call it patronising. I am just trying to articulate what I believe he feels.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I don’t think the minister for health should get into this one, really.
Madam Speaker, that is what it’s all about. The minister for business said we have on there something about ‘Labor can afford the $4m a year it wants to take from business’. And did I really hear him correctly that it wouldn’t be $4m? It would be $2.6m? Well, if it is $2.6m it just strengthens the whole idea that this is affordable by government.
Let’s go back to the beginning, and let me say a couple of things. I say on the record that, throughout this whole debate, the advice by all of those parties concerned, and I am talking here particularly of the departmental officers, and the advice coming from the nominal insurer, the insurance companies and the business community, that the advice has been very sound. It has been very sound since the day of the HIH collapse. To this day, this night, the advice has been very sound. It does not matter which way you spin the advice, it has been good advice.
We had the collapse in February last year; $50m to $60m worth of liability for injured workers. This is not something that you can shy away from. These are claims of people who have been injured.
Mr Stirling: I am glad you acknowledge that.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Speaker, the minister is quite nave if he does not think we know what we are talking about as far as injured workers go. Perhaps some members on the other side have just discovered that there are costs concerned with people who have been injured. But we knew that all of the time. $50m to $60m last February.
The advice at the time was the best advice available through the Department of Industries and Business, through Treasury; from the nominal insurer, from the insurance companies, that something had to be done. What we had to do, first and foremost, was make a decision. Did we want the insurance companies, through the nominal insurer, through their insurance companies, to pick up this liability? Because that is what the act said would have to happen. If that happened, the hike in premiums last year would have been an additional estimated 35%. So we said, ‘Well, that’s no good. We are not going to allow that impost on business’. So what do we have to do? The advice at the time was: ‘You have to move amendments to the legislation in line with other states. That shows you are going to pick up this liability from the community and, in this case, the business community’. I do not shy away from that. Yes, we were proposing a levy on businesses; there is no doubt about that. We had not decided that we would definitely impose it, but to show and to give assurance to the nominal insurer that they would not have to pick it up through their member insurance company premiums, we changed the legislation. You can ask your officers if this is the right advice.
We also said at the time - and it is in the second reading speech - that we would look for every other opportunity to reduce this impost and this liability. That would include whether the nominal insurer could reinsure; whether the nominal insurer could borrow; and all sorts of things. The other thing that we had to get a handle on at that time - and I am still talking back in May last year - is how big this beast was. We knew it was in the order of $50m to $60m; we knew there were 500-odd claims outstanding. So we had to get very factual advice on all of that. That is what we undertook to do. To prove that, we said to the business community, ‘If the levy was decided on …’, paragraph 4, page 5, second reading speech, ‘… if we decided upon a levy it would not be before January 2002’. If we decided.
So we went off to do that work. I can tell you that the officers in my department, the officers in Treasury, the nominal insurer, were looking at every avenue. In the meantime, we made a loan to the nominal insurer to ensure that the current outgoing costs were met. That was of utmost priority; the workers who had been injured had their payments kept up and they were not left stranded. So, the government did loan, and I have talked about the loan.
Then there was an election and things changed. I do not have a problem with that. We were in this period of investigating; there was an election. Of course, the other thing we said we would do at that time is include the public service; and that would take some of the strain off if we had to levy the employers. So, the election came along and there was a mini-budget. One of the things in the mini-budget to come good on the promise that Labor had made, is that they said they would contribute $6m to the liability and that they would convert the $3m that was loaned to the nominal insurer to a grant. So a total of $9m, that’s great. So, there is $9m that supposedly takes care of this financial year that we are currently in. I thought for a while there that perhaps it was not enough; $9m to reach the end of the financial year - and you could argue about that all night but I am not going to because the liability has since changed. So, we have $9m and $9m in a climate that this mob on the other side say was given in a mini-budget, in an environment of a supposed black hole. $9m they can afford in this current financial year when, oh, woe betide, you have left us with no money and all this sort of stuff, and they can afford $9m. Well, what has happened? Since the new year and since having the latest briefings - and I very much appreciate the briefings; the advice has been very sound all the way through this - the current outstanding liability for insured workers’ claims costs is in the order of 120 claims down from an estimated 500 claims.
That is fantastic because that means the nominal insurer, and the NRMA which took on some of that liability work, have really got in there actively to bring to a close many of those claims. So, according to the brief we are down to less than 120 claims and the liability is reduced to $28.5m. It is a considerable drop in a year, it is a considerable change to the landscape.
The other thing we have heard today in the House was this extra money of $137m. There is no denying it, it is extra money on the base every year, $137m. We have heard many claims by government ministers, and I am sure I am going to hear it again from the minister for employment about responsible government and all of that. The fact is that some of the $130m-odd is discretionary money. It does not have to be tagged to anything. It can be used for anything the government chooses, anything it decides the money can be used for. I will just remind you in the time of supposed black hole, $9m they can afford, now they are saying cannot afford anything, not with the extra money, not given we have this extra money or the $26m that is coming in over the next four years. This is a matter of choice, that is all it comes down to.
There are basically two questions. Can the government afford to pay the liability? Well, they have already proven for one year they can afford to pay it. They have already proven that. There is no doubt about that. They have already said it is going to be $9m; we are going to put it in. Beauty. There it is, but next year we cannot afford it. We know we have more money over there but we can’t afford it, so, we have to tax the business. So, that is one question. Can the government afford the liability, yes or no? The answer is yes.
The other question is: does government want to raise this from the business community? And it is a choice. This is about politics. You have to get political about this. There is nothing else for it but politics. It is not about affordability. They can afford it. The minister will say, ‘Oh yeah, well we are going to take away this hospital or that clinic and you mob did this’. They have already afforded $9m. So it was affordable one year. Isn’t it affordable for the next couple of years? Let’s spin this number around a little bit. $28.5m. Let’s use $30m because it is really easy to divide, isn’t it? $30m! Okay, let’s use that figure. Now, you spin it. Which way do you want it? Do you want to pay it off over ten years? How much is that a year?
Ms Carter: Three.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh! $3m a year. Is that affordable? I am glad you picked it up because they were a bit slow on that side. $3m, thank you very much. Is that affordable? Well, it is one third of what you can afford in this financial year. I would say it is affordable. I would say it is very affordable, and over 10 years, not 13 years, like they are going to tax the business community, to pay back the loan they are going to give them to make up the shortfall. Yep, very affordable. $3m.
Okay. Spin it another way. Pick a number. How many years do you want to pay this off over? Five? Let’s try five? How much is that a year? $6m a year. Okay. Is that less than the $9m that you have already paid in this financial year? Yes, it is. One third less. So, is it affordable? Of course it is affordable. That is the first question. It is affordable by government.
Now, the second question: does the government want a new tax on business? Well, that is just a plain and simple choice by government. What have they done here today? What are they doing here today? They are making the choice that yes, they do want a new tax on business. That is what they are putting in here, a new tax on business when it is not necessary. It is not necessary to tax business for this. The ACT, my colleague said he has rung his colleagues in the ACT and that they have contributed.
Mr Kiely: They are another pack of losers, aren’t they?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, but before, when they were in government, do you know what they decided to do? Contribute $30m to their liability. I am not sure, and this came from your briefing too, minister, and perhaps you should have been there, $30m they paid, they contributed. Does that take up the full amount of their liability?
Mr Stirling: How do you know they are not getting it back? They haven’t put their levy in yet.
Mr BALDWIN: They do not need a levy. They have contributed $30m. They can afford it. This government can afford it as well. $30m would wipe out this liability and pay those injured workers from the community taxes, that is, consolidated revenue. That is a choice that this government can make. I have been very frank and very honest. Yes, we were considering a levy. Yes, we might have had to impose it if things had not changed; if it was $60m and if the extra GST receipts had not come in to the coffers.
Dr Burns: And if you had have sold NT Fleet.
Mr Kiely: And if you had not fudged the estimates. Remember the black hole.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, they obviously do not like to hear this because this is what the business community is really saying. They know this is affordable by government. They pleaded with me at the time: ‘Don’t tax us; you pay it’. That is what the Chamber of Commerce is saying in its e-mail to the member for Nelson. That is what they are saying. They are saying:
They are all saying that. Another organisation that is saying the same thing is the Australian Mines and Metals Association. It has always been opposed to it, and still is, and certainly knows that the government can afford to pay this amount of money, whether it is $3m a year or whether it is $10m a year for three years. It does not matter. You can spin them any way you like.
We will be fighting for these amendments. I will just go to those amendments very quickly because the minister for business made a few comments on the amendment schedule before the House, which was circulated in good time. We went to the parliamentary drafter and asked, ‘What is the best way to draft this if you want to get rid of the capacity of government in this bill to levy businesses?’ They said you have to do it this way, exactly as it is being presented here tonight. We went back to them after they wrote it up and said, ‘That does not sound right’. And the minister had a fun and games with it. However, when you look at it, it is actually the right way to do it. Because you have to get rid of those parts that we are inviting defeat on, and introduce and insert a new part that is repealing the main section of the bill, section 164B. The parliamentary drafter was very particular on that, saying that is the right way.
So make as much of it as you like. You are not hurting my ego; you will be hurting the professionalism of the parliamentary drafters. I commend them for doing such great work in the last few days on this so that we could get it distributed in time for everybody to have a look at it and so that we cannot be castigated for bringing in a late amendment. We are not about that. We have been very open about this, and we will be arguing for those clauses to get up in the committee stages of this bill.
The bottom line, though, is that this is a political choice. It is all about whether this mob are gutsy enough to support business and take on this cost themselves.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, someone a long time ago, much more clever than I, said that the first casualty of war is truth. We have certainly seen truth take a march here tonight along with credibility. The credibility of the opposition is exemplified by the member for Daly and the member for Blain because it was the member for Blain who came in here tonight and said, ‘Oh, the House would be aware, members would all be aware of the Country Liberal Party’s opposition to any employment levy’. Well, I ask him, how so? He and a couple of his colleagues availed themselves of a briefing with Work Health earlier this week, and I took time to walk across and ask the member for Daly, and then the member for Blain, did they have any problems with the bill, any questions, any other indication or query; please come back to us and we will endeavour to get another briefing together for you. Not a word, Madam Speaker, that this was such an issue that not only were they going to oppose it but they were actually seeking to defeat it.
The other thing the member for Blain says was it was never palatable with the Country Liberal Party. Well, you have to ask yourself how section 164B, Contributions by Employers, finished up in the Work Health Act last year:
(1) The minister may determine that all employers are required to make contributions
to the Fund.
(2) If the minister makes a determination under subsection (1), each employer must
contribute to the Fund an amount that is equal …
This is totally unpalatable for the CLP. Totally unpalatable for the member for Blain, Madam Speaker. Their own legislation, passed last year in order to put an impost on employers. And, of course, they tell us now that they were taking that view in light of the then believed figure for the levy was somewhere between $40m and $50m. We have heard repeatedly from speakers opposite tonight that the figure is $28.5m. Well, they must be good mind readers, because no one can determine with any precision what that amount will be as it flows over time.
He talked about the number of claims dropping off. Well you would expect that. They cleared up a lot of the claims early on. The silly, fiddly little claims that get cleared up and washed through the system. I bet if you have a look at those 120-odd claims that are left, they are not the little ones, they are serious. They are serious injuries to workers that are going to cost a lot of dough. They are going to cost a lot of dough in medical and rehabilitation and getting these people right, if they ever can. And when they say $28.5m as they consistently did, it is a best guess lowest possible estimate. Lowest possible best picture. It is somewhere between $28.5m and $40m. Now even if it comes in on best picture at $28.5m, plus $9m that this government put into the nominal insurer as a grant, not a loan, you are up to $37.5m now. We get a few claims reopened along the way, which could conceivably happen - they think the person is right, they go back to work, they fall over again. The injury was not resolved; they come back in and you are over the $40m again. Of course, you are looking at the original prediction that I got when I inherited this from my colleague, the member for Wanguri, which was the liability somewhere between $40m and $50m. They come in here and seek to mislead Territorians and this parliament by saying it is $28.5m. It is $28.5m absolute best picture and the most positive aspect you could put on it - between $28.5m and $40m, and you conveniently forget the $9m that this government put in.
We have heard an awful lot tonight. I always enjoy listening to the member for Wanguri because he is genuine; he speaks from the heart on these matters, he understands these issues. And he, of course, alerted the people opposite. Not one of them wanted to mention the real purpose of all this which is to insure those businesses and those employees who are unfortunate enough to be injured at a time when their employer was insured by HIH. That is the bottom line on this: it is looking after those people and making sure that their entitlements to medical treatment and rehabilitation are secure. It was the member for Wanguri who brought that back on track when no one on the other side - because they would not be interested in workers, least of all injured workers. What they cannot get away from - and this is where their credibility really suffers - they put this legislation into place. Last year they passed section 164B of the Work Health Act, ‘Contributions by employers’. But they tell us now, ‘But we were never going to do it’. Oh, get real! Why did you take the effort to write legislation? Why did you have parliamentary drafters draw this up, bring it into this House, use the time of this parliament to pass this legislation, and then say, ‘But we were never going to use it’? Well, I simply do not believe you. I am sorry, I think there is a huge credibility gap there.
No contribution from our predecessors. A kick-in. Kicked in $3m to the nominal insurer: ‘And it’s a loan guys, you have to pay it back, and it will be with interest’. We converted the $3m that was already in the nominal insurer – we plonked $6m on top of it - and said: ‘It is a grant, guys. It is not repayable. It does not attract interest’. It is $9m off the backs of business against this liability.
They, of course, from that side of the House when they were in government, were not going to do anything. They put in $3m as a loan. They then passed the legislation necessary to put a levy on - although they say now, ‘Of course we were never going to do that’. That levy would have been in the order of 8% to 10%, and that would have been driving business out of town and to the wall.
It is just too cute that you can say, on the one hand when you are in government and by your actions demonstrate you are not going to do a damn thing for the business world: ‘They can wear this’. And yet, from the sanctuary of opposition, no accountability from opposition so, ‘Well, it is all government. It has to be all government - how dare you put any impost on business?’ Too cute by half.
When you get to it, if you look at the average premium based on average weekly wage, which is $43 000 in the Northern Territory, the average effect is $1 per week per employee. Sure, that is $52 per employee per year. You can quickly multiply that for the smaller businesses. How many people they have employed, that is the ask. At the same time, of course, this government is contributing over $800 000 a year by placing us into the scheme as an insurer. We do not have to do that, as the member for Karama pointed out, but we are doing that as a further contribution to the nominal insurer to further break and reduce the impost on business.
We heard of jurisdictions similarly affected by HIH. No one mentioned Western Australia. What is their levy, I ask myself - 5%. A 5% levy in Western Australia. Tasmania – what is their levy? - 4%. The ACT is interesting because this misinformation here again today and I tell you what, anytime these guys go to another briefing, Madam Speaker, I will be there. I will be there. Because they come back with misinformation from these briefings and if I go …
Mr Baldwin: How do you know? You weren’t there.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I have the information from the same person you were getting it from but it has been delivered in a slightly different form in here tonight. If we look at the ACT’s situation, the member for Blain says $30m. Try $54m. $30m put in by government but it can be repaid to government by a levy which by all indications will be imposed soon by the ACT government. This levy will be needed to recover the $24m in addition to the $30m because it is $54m not $30m that you are talking about. And, of course, could potentially repay the $30m that they have already put in. So, you can’t play these games even in opposition where you do not have to have any accountability. You cannot come in and make these things up because you get half the story at the briefing and you come in and say, ‘Well, the ACT has covered the whole $30m’. Well, there ain’t $30m. It is $54m. There is $30m in there. They are working on what the levy will be and I bet they are exercising their minds somewhat furiously as I speak as to what the size of the levy they impose will be, and whether they go for the entire $54m and try to haul the $30m back that they have already had to put in, or whether they just levy it against the $24m in addition to the $30m that is already in there.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, Western Australia is 5%, Tasmania is 4%, and the ACT is still deliberating.
The member for Wanguri really said it all. I commend him again on his speech because he is very good. He has a great understanding of the business world and business community. They certainly regard him as a friend out there and he speaks their language and is getting on very well. He pointed to amendment schedule number 15 of the Work Health Amendment Bill proposed by the opposition tonight. If you go to clause 2 which invites defeat, that is the very clause that puts government in there as an insurer, makes the government put in $800 000 to $900 000 a year and further takes the impost off business.
Take out clause 3. This is …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It is very late and it is the last day. The wicket is starting to crumble, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate getting through this last session.
Clause 3 takes out the sunset clause that does not exist. There is no sunset clause in here, we have been told repeatedly by members opposite. I refer members to page 2 where it says, ‘the minister by notice in the gazette…’. This is at (5) half way down the page. You should read it because you don’t think it is in there. ‘The minister by notice in the gazette under (b) if a determination requires contributions for the purpose of discharging a particular liability must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
What don’t you understand about revoke? What don’t you understand about ‘when that liability is discharged’? It is a sunset clause. When the liability is discharged the minister must revoke the determination. It is called a sunset clause. Maybe you have not seen one in that fashion before. I would not have the temerity to question our drafters. They do a fantastic job, Madam Speaker, and if they regard that as being suitable to ensure that government removes the levy at the time when that liability is discharged, it is good enough for me. And it is a pity it is not good enough for members opposite. But that does not suit their cause.
I was glad that the member for Wanguri went through the trashy sheet that went out to employers because it is misleading. It is dishonest and it is a fabrication of what actually is going on. I can inform the opposition that their amendments will get short shrift from this government because what we have seen tonight from the opposition benches is a lack of truth in the debate and a credibility that is just shot all over the place. Because from the government benches, business …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is talking about a lack of truth which implies that we are telling lies. I would ask him to rephrase that.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we will allow lack of truth.
Mr BALDWIN: That is all right to use, is it? Madam Speaker, can I just clarify, ‘lack of truth’ is all right to use?
Madam SPEAKER: Lack of truth is not lying, is it?
Mr BALDWIN: So it is okay to use it? Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: What we have seen in relation to creditability of the opposition this evening is a stance taken from the point of view of the government last year. Yes, business has to accept - tragically, unfortunately -but business is going to have to accept the impost to get through this HIH thing. ‘It is not our fault; it is not us’, said the CLP government, ‘It is not our fault. It is very sad’. They might be mates to the Liberal Party. They contributed millions of dollars to Liberal Party campaign funds over the years, but it is not their fault that HIH went broke. ‘It is not the business world, but unfortunately we are going to have to put a levy on them, we are going to have to put an impost on them. We will put $3m in. We will kick in $3m to the nominal insurer, but it will be a loan and we will make sure that we get that back with interest’.
They come in here tonight, having given no indication of a view until the Leader of the Opposition pops up the other day and says, ‘You have all this money; you can pay it’. No credibility whatsoever. They have gone from ‘business pay all’ to ‘government pay all’. What has happened in between? There has been a transfer of power. They have gone from government to opposition and that about says it all.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I approach this matter in good faith. I attended the briefings and what I learnt at the briefings has determined the position that I have taken. I have availed myself of previous debates. Granted, it can be treated with understandable scepticism on the other side, but my position in this has been to endeavour to demonstrate that it is possible for this levy to be withdrawn from business. There have been endeavours on the other side to construct a logic that sustains their intent to levy. There has been reference to dishonesty and opportunism. It can be read as such. But I can tell you what has fuelled my fire is the response that we got from business, not so much in the faxes we received but in the phone calls, and particularly in the ongoing relationship with the way business is at the moment with regards to the substantial increases in insurance premiums.
I believe that this government could be persuaded to consider other options. We can throw up words but I endeavoured to bring in to this that we are actually talking about people. Maybe there is some way that we can have some room to move. What may be called on this side a windfall - it won’t be acknowledged on that side as a windfall - nonetheless it is $150m or thereabouts. Anyone would know that if an amount came into a household budget and it was tied to a specific item it would certainly give you room to move.
Regarding the comments made by the member for Wanguri, our position has been that we do not want this vehicle. We are not looking under the hood, under the bonnet, to tinker with bits and pieces of it. We simply stand for representing business to say, don’t do it. Do not do it to business. By asking members opposite to defeat this, you are saying yes to business, you are withdrawing an impost on business, and I would suggest to you that business would respond for you and perform for you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have some regard for the member for Blain. At heart he is a decent fellow, and I do not doubt his honesty as an individual. But when he says they received 500 responses in response to the misinformation, this does him no credit. This gives him no credit. Where does it say in here, for example, that the government of the Northern Territory is placing itself into the scheme as a self-insurer contributing to it? Where does it say that? It does not at all. The effect of your amendment here is to take the government out as a self-insurer, to stop the government of the Northern Territory contributing to the nominal insurer, to stop the nominal insurer receiving $800 000 to $900 000 a year. And who would have to pick that up? It would be business. That is the dishonesty of their approach when they came in here tonight.
Why on earth circulate an amendment bill to take the government out as a self-insurer, so it contributes to the liability; to take out the sunset clause, which ensures the minister must revoke the determination as soon as the liability is discharged; when what you really wanted to do was defeat it. You could have done that by repealing your own amendment which you put through as section 164B of the Work Health Act. If that is repealed, game, set, match, the job is all over. You did not have to go this way. I do not understand why you would seek to do this. I am disappointed that you stand behind a document such as this. It says somewhere here that the tax will pay for the $28m liability. In the member for Daly’s words, three or four times he said it, it was $28.5m. What he did not go on to say was that is absolutely the best rosy picture, the best optimistic picture you can get. It is between $28.5m and $40m. And if it is best picture, and God hope that it is, best picture $28.5m, it is still $37.5m overall because they conveniently forget the fact that this government placed $9m into the nominal insurer in an effort to reduce the impost that would find its way back to business by way of increased premiums.
It really does the member for Blain no credit. I think at heart he is an honest and decent bloke, but he comes in here and hides behind the shabby misinformation that goes out in documentation like this. If you tell them big enough, Mr Chairman, you will get the phone calls. If you are going to tell a story, tell the truth and put it out there.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, just picking up on that, it is a shame and I know – well, I don’t think the minister is stupid - but it is a shame he did not come to that briefing because the question that was asked in that briefing was, ‘What is the best latest estimate of the liability?’ And the answer was, ‘$28.5m’. I was there; the minister was not. So $28.5m is the current best estimate on that liability. That is what was said in the briefing. So, $40m, that is his words, not the briefing. As I said right at the beginning, the information and the advice through all of this has been very, very sound. I am just going on that sound advice.
As to the clause we are debating here, inviting defeat of the government to include the public service in this. Of course it sounds a funny way of doing it; taking the government out of it. But the fact is that when you follow all of this and repeal the provision to be able to levy employers – and obviously what we are debating and arguing here is that the government will pick up this liability - of course you do not need the public service to be included because they were already being paid from the government’s coffers. This is the way the drafter said is the best way to do it. Of course you have to take the sunset clause out because employers won’t be paying a tax; they won’t have to have a sunset clause in there because it is going to be picked up …
Mr Henderson: You said there wasn’t a sunset clause.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, it’s not, and I will argue that on behalf of some of the associations that have written in. Something you promised to put in there. Why didn’t they put in sunset clause similar to the rego tax - a definite period - if they are so concerned about that?
The fact is that this is the logical way to do it, according to the parliamentary drafter if you are going to repeal section 164B of the act; and we are following that. Of course, you won’t need any get-out clause. You won’t need to have the public service included if the government was gutsy enough to pick up this tax on behalf of business. It is a simple political choice, as I said before, and it is an affordable choice for this government.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, this is where I have a real difficulty with the member for Daly and the opposition on their stance because he says $28.5m was the information he was given. But he conveniently forgets the $9m that has already been paid.
Their information, and they said it earlier in the debate, was, ‘We were advised that the outstanding liability was between $40m and $50m’. Now, at $40m you put a levy on. Even passed the legislation, even amend the act to put a levy on it, because it was between possibly $40m and $50m.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr STIRLING: Well, suddenly, at $37.5m, even on your own figures, a minimum of $37.5m, plus the possibility of some claims being revisited, it would not be hard to imagine that they could get very close to $40m. But, at $39 999 000.99, no levy. No levy; the government has to pay it all. But, at $40m, zero, zero, zero, zero of one cent – ‘Ah! Levy. Have to have a levy’. Well, it does not work like that. Practical politics does not work like that. You are at saying $37.5m, no levy; at best picture, $40m – ‘Oh, probably big levy; no government in there - 8%’. Well, we have chosen a different way. We say that the potential is there for it still to be in the order of $40m; it is certainly $37.5m. Whether it is to be $37.5m or $40m, we have decided that the best way to clean this up is to put the government in there contributing and have that levy at 4% until this liability is cleared.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I am beginning to think that perhaps the minister is stupid. The fact is that the $9m I accounted for in my second reading, when I said the current best estimate, or of the briefing last week, was $28.5m. I acknowledge that there was $9m put into the liability. That is the gross amount if you want to look at the totallity of the figures. There is no doubt about that; I acknowledge that. But, the fact is - and I made this point very clearly, I thought - this government paid $9m in this financial year, in the climate of a supposed black hole, which they could then afford $9m and they are saying now they cannot afford that amount of money, or less, in the ensuing years, and spin the numbers. I have done the exercise for him. Perhaps the Treasurer should have been in here. I mean $28.5m, let’s call it $30m over 10 years. I mean they are simple sums. $3m a year. Affordable. I do not mind how the minister wants to spin it, but out there, they know it is affordable, and that is why we have introduced these clauses. The public service does not have to be included.
The clause that they are calling a sunset clause does not have to be included. Section 164B does not have to be in there because this government can afford it. And that is the truth of the matter, and all it takes is a gutsy little political decision. That’s all.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, we have the honourable minister holding up a fax and making allegations that we are in the business of misrepresentation. We went to a briefing and came away with information that changed the way we thought about this issue all together. In the interests of someone who would represent an open, honest and transparent government, acting to ensure that those who are being affected by the decision that is made here, it is in our best interests to make sure that those being affected understand exactly what has happened. Exactly the nature, the size, the scope of this liability as communicated. That is the purpose for the communication. Simply to involve and to include and to apprise the community that is directly affected by the decision that is being intent on being made by members opposite. They need to know what the facts are.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in listening to the member for Blain’s words, he used ‘exactly’ what the issues were, and ‘accurately’. This is the communication. This is the perpetration, the misinformation that was sent out to the business community. It is hardly exact, and it is hardly accurate. It is totally misleading. We have had this before. There is no mention in this ‘exact’ and ‘accurate’ document that this government has contributed $9m to date to the nominal insurer.
This ‘exact’ and ‘precise’ information is not contained in this piece of rubbish that has gone out to the business community. Neither is the fact that the government, as an employer, will also be contributing 4% into the liability. This is not an ‘exact’ and ‘accurate’ dissertation of the legislation that we are debating here tonight. It is misleading and totally inaccurate.
Moving to the third dot point under ‘The Facts’. That the CLP ‘considered a levy’. It did more than consider the levy. It was the government of the day which introduced the vehicle to impose a levy on the business community, and not to impose and not to allow for the government to contribute to it. So hardly facts, hardly exact. A total shambles.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I just want to make a remark about the concern expressed by ministers in relation to the leaflet that has been circulated to the business community and explain to members opposite, especially the minister for business, whom I thought would have understood these things, just a couple of points. First of all, the business community is not as silly as the minister implies. That is to say business is quite aware of what the circumstances are. If the government had done the job that it purports to have done, that is if they had fairly and thoroughly advised the business community about the circumstances pertaining to this new tax, then there is no need in any event - the argument to have included on that leaflet that fact that there was a government contribution is void.
It is the government that should be selling this tax. It is their tax. It is their responsibility to explain what they might be contributing in any way towards this tax. If they had done their job, I put it to you and other members, the business community would be very much aware of it. And I would expect that the government would have done their job because they told us they have done their job. If they have been duplicitous and have not explained fully to business…
Dr Toyne interjecting
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chairman. I would ask the Attorney-General to withdraw.
Dr TOYNE: I happily withdraw, Mr Chairman. It was just to see if they were awake or not.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I must have missed something, I was concentrating on the member’s dialogue. Member for Katherine.
Mr REED: So, if they have been duplicitous and have not informed the business community, when they have told this House they have, then the government has a problem. It ill behoves them…
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The member is on his feet. Order, please!
Mr REED: I know they do not like to hear it, but they are going to hear it. It ill behoves them to try to cast the blame on either the business community or the opposition. The opposition is doing its job in testing this legislation. The opposition is doing its job in supporting a position that the business community want supported. If the members opposite are concerned about that then they are going to be very frustrated the more time they spend in the House. Some of them have only been here for nine months and if this is their attitude, in terms of this parliament which represents the people across the Northern Territory and we as an opposition and members of this House rightly expressing those representations, then these people have a problem. They have a very serious problem.
If the minister for business was offended by some 2000 leaflets that were sent out and the enormous response of some 25%, if he has a problem with the business community being provided an opportunity to express their view on a very serious impost in relation to their businesses, well let him have a problem. Let him explain that when he is next talking to the business community and industry groups that he is offended that they should be afforded an opportunity to express their point of view in relation to legislation that this government is going to pass through this House, and not having an opportunity for the business to express a point of view on it.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I seek clarification from the minister on the sunset clause. It is an issue of concern. A sunset clause that is discrete and specific. We have the Sydney Harbour Bridge which was built by a toll. The bridge is well and truly built and the people are still paying that toll. I sense that we have that kind of open door at the end of this one. Please ensure that it is going to be closed. How can that be quantified?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, we had questions from the other side earlier in the week about where is the sunset clause. You have left out the sunset clause that you said was going to be in there. You said it was going to be in there as a direct result of representation from the Chamber of Commerce, because the Chamber of Commerce said, quite clearly and quite properly, ‘If you are going to have a levy like this, we want to see transparency in it. We want to see that when the liability is finally discharged, that levy goes’. That is healthy cynicism and no problem at all. So we responded. The response was to bring this amendment bill in with a clear sunset clause. I do not understand why this is not a sunset clause when it says, ‘the minister by notice in the gazette, if a determination requires contributions for the purpose of discharging a particular liability, must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
The member for Blain has another opportunity, as we all do in committee, to explain the difficulties the opposition has with this. I see the member for Katherine may be ready to speak. I am hoping to hear what the problem with this is. I am not great at legislation but I can understand this. It says to me that once the liability is discharged, the minister must, by notice in the gazette, revoke it.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, there are real concerns in relation to the sunset clause. You demonstrated with the $90 tax on registration of vehicles that it would expire at a particular date. That is, the sun goes down in relation to a particular piece of legislation on a stated date. That does not occur in relation to clause 5. If you are sincere about a sunset clause, for example, bearing in mind that you have already stated that this liability will be in place for 11 to 13 years, if you are committed to the advice that you provided this House and, indeed, the business community, you might want to consider adding after the word ‘discharged’, replacing the full stop with a comma, and inserting the words, for example, ‘or no later than 13 years after introduction’. That surely would give some people a level of assurance.
There is a bigger problem though, I would have thought, in terms of the business community, with 5(a) where you are saying, ‘ … may vary or revoke a determination under this section’. If you are going to vary a determination, that leaves it open to the government, without returning to this House for debate, and without consulting the business community. Vary includes increase. Vary can go up or vary can go down in terms of the impost of this new tax.
A member: It could go down.
Mr REED: Well, not necessarily so. The cheque is in the mail says the minister, and we are expecting the business community to believe that vary means reduce. I would also suggest to the minister that in terms of 5(a), rather than ‘may vary or revoke’, he may wish to insert in there ‘may reduce the levy or vary the determination under this section’, or something to that effect. Because if you are expecting to convince the business community that their interests are indeed at heart, and I am not one bit convinced that you are interested in that regard, you will at least put some form of definite qualification in this.
Sadly, that may be necessary, because I have a distinct feeling that you are not going to support the opposition’s amendments not to have a new tax at all, and for government to remove this impost on the business community and take it on yourselves.
We have been advised, and one can only go on the advice. We are regularly told by the government, if you want information, go and have a briefing. Indeed, I think you have been told that yourself, Mr Chairman. Well, if we go and have a briefing and we are told, and it is not just the opposition, not just the individuals who go and get the briefing, who are told this information. We are told that information, and we then take that in confidence to go and explain that to the community and the business community. We have been advised by the government that the liability is $28.5m. It is just unconscionable, if indeed that was not the right amount that the member for Daly was advised in a briefing …
Mr Baldwin: And Nelson.
Mr REED: It is just unbelievable that that might be the case. Well, the member for Nelson yourself, you were involved. So, if we are to have the ability to place any value on the information that is provided in these briefings, that we are expected to pass on to the broader community, then the information has to be correct. Because we have been told $28.5m, we must expect that that is the total liability. That being the case, it is appropriate that the government does take the tough decision and not proceed with this tax. But in the event that it does, the very least it could do is to be just a tad honest, accountable …
Mr Burke: Transparent.
Mr REED: … and transparent to the business community with the legislation in regard …
Ms Lawrie: Mmm!
Mr REED: I hear ‘Mmm’ from the members opposite and I thank you for that interjection, because it draws me to a point that I was going to make. I have been in this House, as I said before, for 15 years …
Ms Martin: The longest of all!
Mr REED: The longest of all of us - and while you are here every day seems longer. But I enjoy it.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr REED: The member for Karama must go down in the annals of that 15 years of history by her statement that: ‘This is a generous, repeat, generous tax’. That is something that is going to be conveyed to the business community - government member says: ‘We introduce a generous tax’. I can only liken that to a nice assault, perhaps a pleasant murder. That is the level at which this government approaches the business community. That is the sincerity, that is the transparency, that is the honesty that they are injecting in their approach to the business community.
I have to say that there are two very definite opportunities for the government to redeem themselves. One is to reject their initial intention to introduce and apply this new tax, and to adopt the amendments that have been put forward by the good member; and the other, of course, if they find that distasteful, is at least to ensure that there is no ability to increase the tax but only reduce it - not vary it - and indeed, to stick by their words. If $28.5m is indeed the maximum liability as you were told in a briefing, and that that liability …
Mr Stirling: No, not true; you are misleading them. The minimum.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr REED: … and, indeed, if this liability is to last for 11 to 13 years, we can only expect that the 13 years is the maximum, and that the 11 years is the minimum. Okay, well, we will take the maximum, at least in the understanding that that will inject a sunset clause and that within 13 years of the application of this legislation, with assent of this legislation and its application, then the business community will have the sound knowledge that it will, in fact, be repealed and that there will be a sunset clause that will have some meaning to them, and they will know when the tax is going to be withdrawn.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I thank the member for Katherine for his remarks, particularly clearing up this question around a sunset clause and the need, as he sees it, for some sort of date in there. I pick up, though, a critical thing he said because he has taken this misinformation about the level of liability another step further than even the members for Daly and Blain. They both said in here that is was $28.5m. The member for Katherine says now that, at its worst, it is $28.5m. Let me make it very clear what was said at that briefing.
Mr Baldwin: You were not there. I will show you my notes.
Mr STIRLING: I have it on good authority from one who was. Because the public servant said after that it was $28.5m at best but could be as high as $40m. Well, I have not heard that. The public servant said it at the briefing. As good as, best picture $28.5m but could be as high as $40m. And we had the member for Katherine come in on the back of this, whom I assume was not at the briefing saying, ‘at its worst’. Well, we are turning the whole picture completely around so we will probably see another one of these which did not even acknowledge $28.5m. It acknowledges $28m. So we will probably see another one of these go out now saying, ‘Oh, at worst’. Well, it ain’t at worst. It is absolute best picture $28.5m. At worst $40m. And the public servant said that at the briefing.
And if you want to be selective about what you choose to bring back from briefings, I will make sure I sit on every one that you go to. I will make sure I sit right on your backside at every briefing so I know and you won’t get away with misquoting or misleading information from what is given to you at a briefing in future. It goes for the member for Blain because he shared in this little charade here tonight. The member for Katherine, well, he will always put his own spin on it because he comes in late and says at the worst picture $28m, he calls it; of course it is $28.5m.
Mr Chairman, in relation to this question of the sunset clause, the member for Katherine himself says, ‘Well, you do not know how long it is going to be because it is an unfolding picture’. That is what we are arguing about here. You don’t know, I don’t know what the full extent of the liability is and of course that will determine the length of time for which the levy is in place. But really, for the life of me, I have listened to you, trying to understand what your concerns were and whether there was a way through to meet those concerns. But I cannot see how this can be – ‘must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
Now, you talk about transparency. The nominal insurer will report every year in the Work Health annual report revenue in, the liabilities out and the known state of the question year by year. That is pretty public. That is a pretty public document and we can all see for ourselves year by year, revenue in, outstanding liabilities, getting close, and there can be no hiding this. Once the liability is discharged, the minister must revoke the determination by notice in the gazette. I have heard you out. I understand what you are saying and I see no need to change that with the transparency that we get through the publication of the Work Health annual report.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the honourable minister conveniently overlooked the other point that I raised and that was in relation to point 5(a), that is ‘may vary’ which I indicated could be up or could be down. My suggestion was that the word ‘reduce’ be applied at least in relation to the level of tax and levy that is applied to the business community.
That is a very reasonable request on behalf of business. If the liability is known, we know the period of the liability, we know that it is going to be no more than 13 years as we have been assured earlier on. In terms of just a little bit of confidence that the business community might be able to take out of this, apart from the government getting their hands in the business community’s coffers again and their pockets, and reducing the prospects of employing more Territorians, can we at least on their behalf take into account their legitimate concerns in relation to the potential for the government to vary the rate without coming back to this House, without consulting business, doing it simply by regulation, given that the legislation will be passed here tonight.
I plead on behalf of the business community that if the government has any ounce of respect, or intends to retain any after this exercise, that they might consider the word ‘reduce’ in relation to the amount of the taxation.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 3 stand as printed.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman …
Mr CHAIRMAN: There was no one standing.
Mr REED: Well, I will just take the opportunity to put on the record that that plea on behalf of the business community has been ignored by the government. It did not even attract the respect of a response. We will be making this debate broadly known to the business community as is our responsibility. It is only fair that in the first instance we gave the government the opportunity to squarely place a limit. Their failure to do so, and they are ignoring this particular point…
Ms Martin: Do you think you have credibility with the business community, do you, Mike?
Mr REED: The Chief Minister will get no points interjecting because there will be only one interpretation placed on this by the business community and that is that there is a real prospect of this government increasing the rate. For if they did not intend to do so, they would have no hesitation in placing the word ‘reduce’ in relation to placing limits on the amount of the taxation that they are going to levy. The very fact that they are not prepared to do that will create concern across the business community and rightly so.
If this government wants to be open, honest and transparent, then they have a chance to do that. But the fact that the minister does not even get to his feet to respond on behalf of the business community demonstrates an extreme paucity of knowledge, concern and interest in the business community and the impost that this tax is going to have upon them.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the member for Katherine completely ignores the fact of the transparency in this process, as I said before, because we can all get to see the Work Health annual report year by year, see the revenues going in, see what the outstanding liabilities are. It would be quite clearly known to all at such time as the liability was fully discharged and the minister has no choice but to revoke the determination. A great deal of thought has gone into this in terms of the fairness, and the level of the levy. No doubt ACT is going through this at the moment. Western Australia did. Tasmania did. But we have structured it in such a way that I could, and can, rule out, and I would rule out unequivocally that there would be any increase.
The transparency is there. He knows that. He can get hold of the Work Health annual report later this year when it comes out, and the picture will be clearer over time, particularly in relation to the total amount of the liability outstanding, as will the revenues into it. I do not see any need to change it.
Mr REED: I am sorry to labour the point, Mr Chairman, but I really must. I can see why the minister is so uncomfortable in responding and why in responding he is focussed on 5(b) which is really the sunset clause and just in very brief passing towards the end of his last remarks, made some comment in relation to the actual size of the levy. So, the business community cannot draw any confidence. Indeed, in his last remark, which was very oblique - to be kind to it rather than not hitting the target at all - in relation to a possible variation to the levy upwards, all he has done is increase the potential for anxiety in the business community. He has given them no assurance at all that the variation does not mean increase. It is a very simple process for him to undertake now to substitute the word ‘reduce’. It seems that the business community’s interest is going to be abandoned and they will have to live with that anxiety for some 13 years that this tax is going to be in place.
They will learn, as they are learning very quickly, that open, honest, transparent government is pretty opaque. I will leave it at that because it does not need to be stated any more firmly than that. We will be able to demonstrate that as an opposition we very strongly pursued their interests which were ignored by this government and indeed very flatly rejected.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the member for Nhulunbuy and seeks clarification. Almost everyone has referred to the fact that business is most certainly caught by this new amendment and the new legislation, but if section 3 of the principal act defines the term ‘employer’ and you are a charity with a PAYG employee, are charities also caught by subparagraph 4?
Mr STIRLING: The simple advice is if you are paying workers compensation premiums now, you pay the levy; if you are not, you don’t.
Mr MALEY: I take that that charities are caught by this. Can I pose a similar question with a non-profitable sporting organisation in the northern suburbs? Can you tell Territorians whether they are also caught by the broad definition of employer contained in section 3?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, they know if they are paying workers compensation premiums on behalf of their employees, or they have employees and they are paying workers compensation premiums, or they do not. I have nothing to answer here. It is simply if they pay workers compensation, the levy will apply.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Proposed new clause:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman. in light of the intent of those opposite to continue, I move that a proposed new clause be inserted: New clause 3, Repeal. Section 164B of the Work Health Act is repealed for the reasons that have been outlined for quite some time now. The argument has been mounted to and fro, and it is quite evident that those on the opposite side are intent on pushing past every sound reason that is offered to seek their consideration of the issue at hand, and that is the heavy burden on business at the moment.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I won’t dwell on this - it has been pretty well exhausted through second reading debate - except to say that I simply cannot accept what was put to me by the member for Daly earlier. They passed this amendment 164B in the knowledge that it was to create and facilitate a way to impose a levy on businesses. I cannot accept that the member for Daly can stand here tonight and say, ‘Yes, we did pass that amendment, but we were never going to use it. We were never going to put a levy on business’. I cannot accept the logic that you would spend the time, obviously a Cabinet decision, to have this bill drafted, to send it to parliamentary drafters, to have it come back through Cabinet, ticked off again, to bring it into this parliament and pass it and then say we were never going to use it. Well, I just do not accept that. It really is the cheapest of politics and political opportunism to pass legislation when you are in government but then from the luxury of opposition, where there is no accountability, disclaim your own legislation. When it was $40m to $50m you put this in. You put in a levy and now it is $37.5m you say the government should put in, $37.5m, you conveniently forget the $9m that we put in there as a grant …
Mr Burke: Which you will get back
Mr STIRLING: You grubby little people. You put $3m as a loan and wanted interest! Can you get cheaper than that? I am not taken with this at all. This really does underline the deceit and the hypocrisy and the political opportunism at its cheapest base level that you will ever see, underlined in repealing their own legislation.
Mr BALDWIN: It would be nice if some of the others contributed to this committee stage. That is what you do in committee stages, you jump together. So, feel free.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: The minister obviously was not listening to the debate earlier on. Yes, we did introduce the levy; I have been through all of that. Yes, it was an option; that is in the second reading speech.
Mr Stirling: But we weren’t going to use.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, it was an option; we have been totally honest. On advice, on good advice. The good advice is still there. We have been through all of that. Yes, we did loan $3m to the nominal insurer. Yes, that’s right, the shadow minister for business was fully aware of that at the time; it is in his second reading speech, wasn’t it …
Mr Henderson: So, I told them; they didn’t know it.
Mr BALDWIN: ‘The government has committed to loan monies’, that is Mr Henderson in the second reading speech. Everyone was fully aware. This has been a totally open situation from the time that HIH collapsed. We did loan; there is no doubt about that. This mob did put in $9m in this financial year. They are going to ‘loan’ the nominal insurer in the ensuing years because the new tax on business will not bring in enough revenue to pay the outgoing costs of those injured workers. So, they are going to loan, and they cannot get away from that fact. To say that this is deceitful and conniving, and all the words that the minister used, it is simply the choice - I keep coming back to that. It is simply whether government can afford it - yes or no.
We have shown that it is affordable. It is simply a choice of whether or not this Labor government, like the other Labor governments in the other states, want to tax business rather than pay for this themselves. It is affordable. For the minister to stand up here and try to spin these numbers - he can spin them anyway he likes, but the business community understand this wholly and solely.
They have talked about average costs to businesses, and they are right. The average cost is determined to be around about $1 per worker per week for the time of this liability. But, let’s take an individual business that has more than the average employment wage bill. What is it going to cost them? You have given, Mr Chairman, a demonstration of the businesses you have talked to. Those figures can be done if the wage bill was 10%, that the premium on the wage bill comes in around $10 000. We have heard figures – ‘rubbery’ they were called by the member for Karama who does not understand that they can go up by 400% depending on individual businesses. They can go up by 10% or 200%, and they have. So, individually, this is a big impost on a lot of businesses. It could be the straw to break the camel’s back. And this government is going to be the one to break them with their new tax on business.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that the proposed new clause be inserted in the bill.
The committee 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
Amendment negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave is granted?
Mr Baldwin: The noes have it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, leave is not granted. You have to move a suspension of standing orders.
Mr STIRLING: I have just done it.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You made the decision that leave was not granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am just asking for - you have to seek leave. Oh, you received that this morning.
Mr STIRLING: I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill be read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to give notice of a motion.
Leave denied.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! How could we possibly have a situation in this House where, when there is nothing before the Chair, a member cannot rise to give notice of a motion? What sort of debacle have we descended to in this parliament?
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The member is giving notice of a motion. Now, what sort of debacle have we descended to in this House, in this open, honest, transparent, inclusive government where a member cannot get to their feet when there is nothing before the Chair and give notice of a motion?
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. A member at any time when there is no question before the Chair may stand. The member is only giving notice of motion. Would you accept it?
Mr STIRLING : Madam Speaker, I just do not know where these guys’ memories have gone. Never in my 11 years, never, never were we given at any time leave to present a motion just because it suited us or because it suits them to get more misinformation out to the business world because that is what this will be about in the same way as that rubbish was peddled there and used by the member for Wanguri earlier. Never, Madam Speaker.
And if you can prove to me one occasion that you ever did that you ever did allow leave for the opposition to bob up and put something on the books, well I’ll go he. The fact is, Madam Speaker, he has had all day and half the night now, as I stand here speaking, to signal an intention through the Whip, or to me as Leader of Government Business and say, ‘Look, we want to give notice of this motion.’ Well, you can go he.
Mr REED: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, whether the member sought leave earlier or seeks it now is, as you have said - a member has a right at any time when there is no business before the House to seek such leave. In relation to…
Ms Martin: And we have a right to say no.
Mr REED: Oh, as an inclusive government, you certainly have. It rather demolishes your inclusiveness. It would have taken the same amount of time, and I dare say the member would have finished already, and I remind the Leader of Government Business that in the next sittings there will be a General Business day. It is quite appropriate that a member of the opposition seeks an opportunity to put on the Notice Paper a motion for that day. The Chief Minister is the head of the government, she is not the head of this parliament, Madam Speaker, you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, you must realise, and I reiterate, that any member of this House can stand when there is no question before the Chair and give notice of motion. This motion cannot be discussed or debated until the June sittings. All the member is asking to do is to give notice. It would have been common courtesy for the Whips to have known, which would have perhaps not have raised a situation as has occurred. But, at the moment, leave is not granted, but the Leader of Government Business must be aware that there is a General Business day coming up in the June sittings and, as he flagged earlier to me, members could give notice today or on the first day of sittings.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. First of all there is provision for notices during the day. The member for Blain could have bobbed up earlier in the day when notices were called by yourself from the Chair. I accept that when no question is before the Chair, he can. But I do thank you for pointing out the common courtesy that the member for Blain should have extended to either the Whip or myself.
Mr Burke: It’s a courtesy.
Mr STIRLING: Well, simply it would not have happened. It would not have happened under you guys when you were in government. We were never given leave at any time of the day. Madam Speaker, there was a provision for notices, and we always gave notice on the day before, generally, the General Business day. But if he is giving notice of something that they want to put forward on the General Business day, by all means. But I would expect, in future, some cooperation. We let the opposition know generally what is occurring and we would expect no less in return.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I simply want to balance the comments that are being made and that is that we have standing orders in this House. Clearly, on many occasions notice can be given. But there will be occasions when a motion may not be necessary, depending on how the business of the House is being conducted. But it has to be conducted with a certain outcome.
Obviously the motion might need to be proposed. That is simply what is happening in this case. To suggest somehow that that is some break in convention, that somehow it contravenes long standing processes is simply wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the member for Blain to clarify. Is this a motion that you intend to debate on General Business day?
Mr MILLS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, under those circumstances I will put the question again. Is leave granted? I heard a ‘no’. So leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING: No, there are no ‘no’s.’
Madam SPEAKER: I thought I heard no. Okay. Leave is granted.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move - That this Assembly, acknowledging the hurt being felt in the community particularly by employers in relation to escalating workers compensation costs, and in full awareness that further imposts on business will see jobs lost, urges the Labor Government to:
(1) make provision in the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 for sufficient funds to meet the forecast costs
for 2002-03 of the workers compensation liabilities arising from the collapse of HIH; and
(2) put in place a system whereby the funding of this liability in future years can be met without
recourse to further imposts on employers.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, on 25 October 2001, I tabled the Batchelor Institute Indigenous Tertiary Education’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year 2000.
I am now advised by Veronica Arbon, Director of Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education that the copy of the annual report forwarded to me for tabling did not include notes (1) (2) and (28) of the financial statements. Ms Arbon advises that these notes were inadvertently omitted from the financial statements published in the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Annual Report and Financial Statements.
In order to have a full and accurate report, I now table a complete version of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Financial Statements for the year 2000. Attached also is a copy of the letter from Ms Arbon advising of this omission.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to advise the House on the directions and policies that this government will be implementing in relation to occupational health and safety in Territory workplaces, workers compensation, and the operations of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety.
In November 2001, the government, as part of the drive to restructure and rejuvenate the Northern Territory Public Service, transferred the functions and responsibilities of the old Work Health Authority from the Department of Industries and Business into the new amalgamated Department of Employment, Education and Training. The decision was not taken lightly. For many years, we had complaints from industry players: employers, unions, insurers, lawyers, individual workers, and even other government agencies, that the Work Health Authority was not performing to reasonable expectations. These concerns included:
These concerns, in turn, fed a general impression in some sectors of the working community that the Work Health Authority was a toothless tiger when it came to occupational health and safety and, worse, that poor and sloppy work practices in Territory industries were okay and not a major concern for government.
Occupational health and safety in our Territory workplaces is a major concern to this government. Measured against other states and territories, our overall accident and injury rates are okay, but they are not reducing at the same trend rate as the Australian average. In some industries, they are the worst or second worst in the country. These figures are drawn from Commonwealth government’s third report on Comparative Performance Monitoring to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council of 2001.
The industries with significant need for improvement include:
Unfortunately, while subject to the statistical variation of small jurisdictions, our fatality rate across all industries for the year 1999-2000 was the highest in Australia at just over six workers per 100 000 employees.
The relocation of the new Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety within DEET is a first, but important, step in refocussing the attention of the office towards the people who matter most in the work health arena - the workers themselves. We expect the new office to develop strong linkages with the employment, education and training arms of the department; linkages which will improve the quality and penetration of OH&S training programs across all industries, and particularly across those industries where the need to improve occupational health and safety has been identified.
I want to stress that the government recognises that simply reforming our own agency structures and procedures will not be enough to secure significant improvements in our work health environment. We do need the cooperation and support of the industries concerned, and of the employees within those industries. In order to achieve this aim, regular consultation will occur between representatives of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety, the Northern Territory Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Association and the Trades and Labour Council and affiliated unions, on occupational health and safety related concerns. These regular consultations will assist in providing the office with more timely and direct industry liaison and feedback, as well as to assist in establishing occupational health and safety priority activities to secure improve industry occupational health and safety performance and outcomes.
I also intend to reconvene the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council, provision for which exists under the current Work Health Act, but which has not met for almost two years. Such bodies are essential to the development of sound government policies, especially in those areas where the interaction of government and private sector practice and procedure must fit together if common objectives such as the health and safety of Territory workers is to be achieved. Already, several joint projects have been facilitated by the office in relation to gas installations at markets, tree lopping practices in the gardening industry, and in prevention of falls in workplaces. These joint projects are also part of the more proactive role for the whole department in securing OH&S outcomes across identified industries. Targeted OH&S education programs are already provided in Darwin and regional centres, and we will consider further proposals to expand this function and service through collaborative projects with the Curriculum Services Branch of DEET, to offer expanded contemporary occupational health and safety program choices to all Year 10 to Year 12 students in Northern Territory secondary schools. We will also seek to develop specifically targeted occupational health and safety education awareness courses for employees in remote localities.
The extension of such programs to schools reflects the fact that an increasing number of our school aged children are participating in VET in school programs and in part-time and casual work in a range of service industries. These children need to be aware of at least the basic rights and rules of occupational health and safety in the workplace, preferably before they take up employment or commence a workplace training program. We cannot rely on good luck to see them mature to adulthood in one piece.
One further area requiring improvement which must be mentioned is data management. Data relating to injuries, OH&S complaints, investigations, the performance of various employers across industry is currently stored and retrieved from an information system which was established for the Work Health Authority more than a decade ago. The system has been developed in an ad hoc manner and now has up to 10 Access databases which are not compatible with the main record system. Getting the data system up to speed is clearly crucial to the provision of quality policy advice to government and to meeting our agreed national reporting obligations.
So far I have outlined some of the operational and functional changes which this government has introduced or will introduce to the regulation and management of occupational health and safety in Territory workplaces.
I now turn to the government’s policy approach. The government has identified three stages of policy development implementation. The first stage involves the implementation of recommendations from the review of the compensation scheme; a review, the results and recommendations of which the previous government sat on for 14 months without doing anything. This government, by contrast has approved 26 of the 35 recommendations, 17 of which are expected to be introduced in the June 2002 sittings. These recommendations relate to:
These changes are aimed at improving the overall efficiency of the scheme and will go some way to alleviating some of the problems that workers, employers and insurers have encountered in recent years.
The second stage involves the public release and discussion of the Lord Report, which was commissioned by then Minister for Industries and Business, the Honourable Tim Baldwin, in June 2001 and which was provided to the government December 2001 by Dr Trevor Lord. Terms of reference for that review on the subsequent report were to:
I must say that Dr Lord’s report is comprehensive and will provide a sound basis for discussion of these difficult issues for all stakeholders. That consultation will also include discussion of the mediation system as it currently operates in the Territory and consideration of the cost and timeliness of the mediation and litigation processes as they currently affect parties to work health claims. Subject to the consultation process, legislation in relation to these issues is envisaged by the end of the year.
Stage 3 will involve a review of the occupational health and safety provisions of the Work Health Act. In particular:
The exact terms of reference for this review will be released in the next couple of months.
I wish to emphasise that stage 3 is in many ways as important if not more important than stage 1 and stage 2 which deal with processes after the event, after the accident, and the injury has occurred. Stage 3 will deal with the situation in workplaces before any injury occurs. Awareness, education, training and, most importantly, prevention strategies and practices are the key to fewer injuries. They are the key too, to reducing the number of claims and thereby reducing the pressure on premiums which should mean a reduction in cost to employers.
There is another reason why this government is committed to an overhaul of these elements of the work health system. It is, because we are, as a responsible government, looking to the future. In the future we can see not only the railway around the corner, but also gas and the increasing industrialisation of the Territory landscape as new industries and industries to service those new industries grow with many types of new jobs and work practices growing as a result.
We do not resile from this future nor do we say as the former government so often said, ‘Well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it’. We intend to prepare for that future, and it is in the interests of all Territory workers and their families and children that we do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement with just a few words. Generally, I see that the nub of this is contained on page 5 where the minister states that it is not simply reforming the agency structures and procedures. That is not enough to do it. But it is to seek the cooperation and support of the industries concerned and the employees within those industries. That to me is the nub and within that lies the challenge.
I support the intention to engage in regular consultations between representatives of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety, the NT Business Council, the NT Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Agency, and the NT Trades and Labour Council and its affiliated unions, and so on. That has to be the way to go forward. That there is really the challenge, as I said before.
Those who would apprise themselves of this statement would be, I am sure, of the view that there really isn’t a lot to criticise in a statement such as this. In fact, it is to be endorsed and applauded which is good. But it is the softest of beginnings and with the outlining of intentions and directions which is fitting at this early stage of this government and its agenda. It is their right to set the charter. There will be many watching. I will be watching, too, and expecting to see progress.
One aspect I wish to raise is the reference to a perceived lack of inspections of workplaces by inspectors. The key word there is ‘perceived’. That really does need to be scrutinised a little bit more. Also the ‘perceived unwillingness to issue improvement notices’. A perception is simply a perception. I would like to see that addressed a little further in the body of the statement, and I don’t see that issue really being addressed. I have an understanding, through what I have heard, that there is a shortage of inspectors and there is an inability of the agency to undertake the task that is outlined here, which is not directly addressed at all in the statement. I guess this is not the first and the last statement. As I said at the outset, it sets the parameters. But I do wish to draw attention to the fact that a perception is a perception and the capacity of that perception to be altered by adequate resourcing is really the challenge which is not addressed.
I understand that the NT Chamber of Commerce would be reasonably happy with what is outlined here. I ask that due attention is given to the relationship between employer, employee and the medical fraternity in that when a doctor is consulting with a patient - I understand in Western Australia, if that patient is a worker who is injured, it is the requirement of that medical practitioner to liaise directly with the employer. That is a very fitting protocol because it is a complete equation that the medical practitioner is there to assist that worker to return to work and to tighten that linkage would be very beneficial indeed.
With those few comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to receive this Work Health ministerial statement from Minister Stirling. Indeed, the reforms that are currently underway within Work Health have been long overdue in the Territory. We have had injured workers stuck in a system that was under resourced and moribund for years; some of my constituents to this day still are not receiving work health payments and are still in a litigious scenario. The reforms that are outlined within this ministerial statement certainly break the back of the existing problems that have caused concern to the staff within the Work Health sector of government, the workers, the unions, and industry.
I say this because, when I was door knocking, I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who worked for Work Health. We had an hour and a half discussion where he went through in detail and explained to me some of the problems that he saw existing within his workplace …
Mr Elferink: I hope that conversation was recorded there, Syd.
Ms LAWRIE: …it was very very alarming, I have to say.
Mr Elferink: I would hate to have been the person from Work Health.
Ms LAWRIE: I beg your pardon?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just ignore him.
Ms LAWRIE: The reality is that if you have lax work health provisions, and if you do not pay attention to reforms that move with work practices and reflect a shift in work practices, a shift in recognition of the importance of occupational health and safety, then you really are creating an environment where injuries are far more likely to occur.
In the report, the member for Blain mentions a reference to industry perceptions, that there is ‘a perceived lack of inspections of workplaces by inspectors; perceived unwillingness to issue improvement notices or to prosecute employers who appear to be continually in breach of the occupational health and safety regulations of the act; and a belief that workplace accident and injury rates in the Territory were unacceptably high’. I have to say that, from my contact with industry, that is a very true reflection of the view out there. I know of businesses which have actually sought out Work Health, have sought out a workplace audit of their premises, have had to wait a substantial time to receive work health inspections, then wait many, many months before they even received a report on the outcome of that inspection.
In that time, who is responsible if there is an injury to the worker? I know of tragedies that have occurred in the Territory. I am not going to go into them in detail. I respect the families who have been affected by the deaths. We cannot do too much to ensure that we have safe workplaces. People have the right to go work believing that they will come home in the evening to their families; just as employers have the right to expect that they can rely on the support from government to be given the information that they need to provide safe workplaces. I believe that employers have the best intentions in terms of providing safe workplaces. I believe that equipped with the information and understanding of occupational health and safety in all of its detail applicable to their specific workplace or industry, employers do then make progressive steps forward to ensure that they are providing safe workplaces.
I do not believe the myth that there are employers out there who are trying to harm their workers. I think that many people go into business relying on their particular skills. Perhaps they have come up through a trade and they see an opportunity to set themselves up in their own small business. They start off on their own and through sheer hard work and effort they succeed. They acquire staff. Those employers are not occupational health and safety experts. They really end up being in a very precarious situation where they are exposed to being hauled before the courts if there is an accident and severe injury to a worker, or, perish the thought, a fatality.
Yet that is the trap that NT employers have often found themselves in because there has not been the support on the ground that they have needed from government in the past. The previous government just did not want to know about it. In fact, whenever this team within Work Health worked very hard to get to the point where they were saying to government, ‘Look, we have done these reviews and this is where we need to head’, they were stymied.
I commend the fact that we have moved Work Health out of the Department of Business and Industry and into the Department of Employment, Education and Training because Work Health is about employment, education and training; it is about those linkages. I believe that this fundamental shift into sitting where it needs to go will go to minimising injury incidents. The statistics in the ministerial statement shows the transport industry has an injury incidence rate of 33.6 employees per thousand resulting in compensation for five or more days. We have seen an improvement in the construction industry - say, in the last five to six years since the CFMEU came to town - but, in 1997-98, the injury incidence rate for employees resulting in compensation for five or more days stood at 25.1 employees per thousand. Those statistics are above the national trend. It would be negligent for any government to ignore those sorts of statistics yet the previous government ignored those statistics year after year after year.
They seemed to be content to allow the bread-earning mother or father of the family to be injured at work. Sustaining an injury at work often means sustaining an injury that you carry for the rest of your life. It is well recognised, for example, within the nursing profession, that they run a high incidence of back injury. Back injury is no small matter; back injury can restrict your movement for the rest of your life, restricted movement such as being so crippled by pain that you end up being completely bed-bound. These are the realities of some of the workplace injuries that have been occurring in the Northern Territory.
In the mini-budget, in terms of addressing the resources, we did put in additional money into work health. Very clearly, as soon as we could, we sent a message out there to the people who work in work health to industry, to workers, that we are going to take the issue of work health very seriously. Previously, the Territory had, essentially, a toothless tiger. Industry wanted more, workers wanted more, families certainly were expecting and needing more, because the incidence of injury.
I commend the minister on ensuring that the new office will develop strong linkages with the employment, education and training arms of the department. These linkages, improving the quality and penetration of work health and safety training programs across all industries, are long overdue. They are essential. Without the occupational health and safety training programs, industry continues to be ill-informed of their rights and responsibilities, of simple measures that can be taken in the workplace to improve the safety of the workplace. It is as much as replacing the torn bit of carpet that could cause a worker to trip on and then trip headlong into a piece of machinery that could rip off an arm. One of my constituents has suffered severe back injury as a result of faulty transport equipment. This is still an unresolved issue because of the need to reform work health, which the minister has clearly stated is very much an action that he is undertaking.
I am pleased to see that Minister Stirling is reconvening the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council. How can it be that such an important advisory council has not met for almost two years? I cannot understand how the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council could not have met for almost two years. Where was the previous government? Why didn’t they ensure that crucial advisory bodies were, at the very least, meeting and feeding through to government clear advice; necessary advice; scrutinising whether or not the sector was progressing. Well, Labor has moved on this. The minister is reconvening the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council and I congratulate Minister Stirling for that.
Our approach is a collaborative approach. It is about identifying what curriculum development needs to occur and what occupational health and safety programs need to go out into industry. I have to say that the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies representing employers embrace the proactive implementation of occupational health and safety programs. Go through any sector, any industry you choose in society where they have had occupational health and safety curriculum developed, training programs implemented, you see a much higher retention rate of workers. People start to feel safe at their workplace. They start to feel that their employer cares about them, cares about their health and we find retention rates really reflect the need for occupational health and safety in workplaces. That is setting aside the whole issue of reducing the incidence of injury and indeed fatality.
I note that the minister has pointed out that the fatality rate in the Territory, whilst subject to statistical variation in small jurisdictions, across all industries for the year 1999 to 2000 was the highest in Australia at just over six workers per 100 000 employees. Go and tell the families of those six people killed at work that work health reforms were not important, that occupational health and safety knowledge and programs were not important. These families for the rest of their lives will carry deep grief and loss of having lost a member of their families. I speak through personal knowledge. I understand that there are people out there who have been hurt through the fact that these work health reforms have sat there through reviews that occurred within the department and were never actioned or implemented for more than a year by the previous government. I say they stand condemned for that. They absolutely should stand condemned.
We are going to be also developing specific targetted occupational health and safety education and awareness courses for employees in remote localities. My goodness, would they ever have seen that before? We are not going to be relying on good luck to see these young people through to adulthood in one good piece as the ministerial statement clearly outlines. There will be an extension of programs to schools that reflect the fact that an increasing number of school-aged children are participating in the VET programs in schools, or part-time and casual work. We are not only going to be tackling the adults out there in the workforce, we are also going to be paying due attention finally, to the children who are entering the work force as well, whether it be through part-time or casual work. And there are a great deal of those out there. I have 15 and 16 year olds coming to my office all the time looking for a reference because they need to go and get part-time or casual work to help their family pay the bills to keep the roof over their head. That is the reality out in some of our suburbs. The reality that has been ignored for years by the CLP.
I commend the minister for implementing the review recommendations. Let’s just run through these recommendations, as the minister said clearly in his report, that were ignored for more than a year. The recommendations relate to:
I will pick up on the fact that the member for Macdonnell is laughing, but I have to say to the member for Macdonnell, I have met people in this situation …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I was clearing my throat. I resent this sort of expectation that the member has that everything that I do is going to be an interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think there is a point of order. Please continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: The recommendations also seek an improvement to benefits payable to junior workers. Again, where is the controversy in that? Improved rehabilitation and return to work procedures - crucial in any work health package. Recognition of the practice of negotiated settlements; better dispute resolution procedures, improvements to the scheme monitoring processes; changes to compensation payable to claimants who are imprisoned such that claimants who are in prison outside of the NT are not eligible to receive weekly compensation benefits; and changes to compensation payable to claimants who move overseas such that those claimants will not be eligible for weekly benefit payments unless the rehabilitation process is complete.
All of these review recommendations are eminently sensible and have occurred in other jurisdictions. They are actually taken for granted in other jurisdictions. I have worked in Occupational Health and Safety in another jurisdiction. Again, in the Territory, where are we? We have been trapped in the Dark Ages by a previous government, ignorant of the responsibility of government to move forward in terms of work health legislation, in terms of work health departments, structures, and programs. It is a crucial area. Most of us go to work at least five days of the week, yet we need to be able to go in to a safe workplace. There are many people out there in industries where, by the nature of their work, they are at risk. If you work near heavy machinery, you are at risk. If you are up on a construction site and scaffolding is dangerous you have a much higher chance of dying.
These are very real situations. The member for Daly has a smirk on his face because well, he’s okay. He is in his comfortable office. These are the situations that workers in the Northern Territory confront every day.
Crucially, the second stage of what is going to be taken on, involves a public release and discussion of the Lord Report. Why would you have a report that was provided to the government in December 2001, provided to the member for Daly, and was sat on? Why would you do it?
Mr Baldwin: Which report? Which one?
Ms LAWRIE: Why wouldn’t you release for public discussion a report?
Mr Baldwin: You’re a bit lost there in your notes, I think.
Ms LAWRIE: Why did you sit on the Lord Report? I don’t understand it. But anyway, you go ahead…
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We are releasing it. We are quite happy to put the reports that you guys sat on for a long time out there because it would mean that there is this expectation that you were then going to go ahead and do some work. We know that you could not make any decisions, member for Daly. Plenty of people have told us that.
The terms of reference for the review and the subsequent report were to examine the role and process of medical practitioners in determining work related injuries, assess the extent to which medical and allied treatment practices provide a positive benefit for injury management, and examine costs, treatment, outcomes and interface between the medical practitioners, allied services and the workers compensation system. It is comprehensive and it is going to provide a sound basis for discussion of these crucial issues for the stakeholders.
These reforms outlined in the ministerial statement, as I said at the outset, are long overdue. It is just a shame that more workers had to be injured and, in some cases, fatalities occurred with the unacceptably highest rate in Australia before a change of government occurred and reforms started.
I wholeheartedly commend the minister for moving ahead in this crucial area.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and wish to provide the House with a status report on safety in the mining industry.
Honourable members may be aware that the Work Health Act does not apply to mine sites where health and safety fall within the jurisdiction of the new Mining Management Act. The act is, where appropriate, consistent with other NT legislation such as the Work Health Act, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act. It sets out the duty of care of those involved in the mining industry while taking into account the nature of mining operations. This duty of care parallels those set out in the Work Health Act.
Because of the many circumstances that could apply, the Mining Management Act sets out the varying obligations of the owner of the mining tenure, the operator of the mining operation, workers and contractors. Designers, manufacturers, importers or suppliers of equipment used on mining sites also have an obligation to ensure their equipment is safe when operated in the proper manner. These obligations are drafted similarly to the Work Health Act to ensure consistency with equipment both on and off mine sites. Persons who erect or install plant on a mine site also have an obligation that persons are not subjected to any hazard due to the way that the plant is installed or erected.
Mine site operators and the government are both responsible for safety and health on mine sites, a responsibility which this government takes very seriously to see that the citizens of the Northern Territory are protected. So what can the government do to facilitate the industry moving to safety and health best practice? Firstly, it must have appropriate legislation in place which sets the framework and conditions under which the mining industry can operate. I believe this has been achieved through the commencement of the new Mining Management Act on 1 January this year, following a number of rounds of broad consultation over a period of 2 years. No doubt some issues will arise through the implementation of the act, which may require some amendments, but I give my commitment that the government will move quickly to consult stakeholders and introduce any appropriate amendments to the Legislative Assembly.
Government must also be able to provide advice and assistance to the resource sector. The days of the policeman-like role are over. However, let’s not kid ourselves. Whilst the carrot approach works most of the time, there will inevitably be those who cut corners on areas such as health and safety and environmental protection. Then the big stick may be required.
On the national front, the resource ministers have recently endorsed a mine safety framework called Realising a Safe and Healthy Mining Industry, the Contribution of Government. Under the heading of ‘Aim and Principles’ the framework says this:
The Northern Territory government fully supports this approach and will be cooperating with other jurisdictions to ensure the recommendations of the framework are put in place. The new Mine Management Act reflects contemporary thinking and provides industry with the opportunity to show that it can meet the challenge of providing a safe workplace and an environmentally sensitive operation. The act provides the framework and the objectives around which industry can implement its own duty of care. Government’s view is that legislation must be flexible to meet the changes that arise due to, for example, new technologies or operational demands.
It is our intention to review the act after it has been in operation for 18 months, however, I am always interested in receiving ideas on how it can be improved and, as I said before, we will move quickly to address any major failings in the new act.
The Minerals Council of Australia has taken a lead role in safety for their industry, and I agree with their statements that all fatalities, injuries and diseases are preventable. In the Territory, our mining industry is one of the best performing in the country. The Territory’s lost time injury frequency rate has been consistently amongst the lowest in Australia in recent years and has generally trended downwards. The last published Minerals Council of Australia figures for 1999-2000 showed the national lost time injury frequency rate at 13, with the NT at nine, second only to West Australia with eight. I am concerned, however, that the Territory’s duration rate for a lost time injury has not fallen in line with the reduction of the lost time injury frequency rate. This means that the type of injuries workers are sustaining is still serious which requires them to have more time off work. This situation must be redressed, and I told the industry as much when I addressed the recent annual safety conference.
This year’s conference theme, Safety, Systems and Safety Behaviour, Their Relationship, shows that the industry is moving beyond doing what is required by legislation to tackling the issues relating to the behaviour of individuals in making work safe. The Northern Territory mining industry through its peak body, the Minerals Council, has embraced the need for change by undertaking to create a minerals and petroleum industry in the Northern Territory which is free of fatalities, injuries and diseases. This vision is achievable but it needs work and commitment from everybody involved in the industry and I certainly commend the industry on this initiative. The case for change is obvious when one considers the impact a death or serious disablement has on people’s lives, families and workmates. This pain and suffering is no longer acceptable when the industry is in a position to put a stop to it.
The Northern Territory’s Mineral Council has implemented a leadership, safety and health program which includes the following key features: safety is the prime focus in all activities and events; safety is at the top of all agendas, particularly at the executive level; the council organises an annual two-day safety conference, the only NT industry group to do so. It also organises an annual mine rescue competition that sees teams from all NT operating mines, plus one from Argyle in Western Australia, compete in a set of pre-planned exercises to improve skills, share knowledge and refine techniques in safety, rescue, medical and management areas. The council also has a dedicated health safety committee that itself has a strategic plan to improve management and performance in the industry, and to share this knowledge with other industry groups and businesses.
The Mineral Council works closely with my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in obtaining incident reports for both mining and petroleum, and this information is reviewed, shared and disseminated to industry. Also, representatives from DBIRD sit on the Health Safety Committee. I understand that just today, the Work Health Authority has accepted the Mineral Council’s invitation to provide a representative to that committee due to the council’s large number of supply members and contractors covered by the Work Health Act. Of course, the impending oil and gas-related construction and operation will fall under the purview of that act.
In closing, let me say that the Northern Territory government joins with the Northern Territory Resource Industry in wanting to see an industry that is injury free, and we will provide every support for this to happen.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this statement today. It is a very interesting statement with some very interesting points of view within it.
The member for Blain has raised a few points. I would like to raise a few more in relation to this, and to some of the comments that have been made tonight by other members, particularly in relation to the report on the Workers Compensation Working Group that looked at the operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme. It was a great report put together by all the representatives of that group. There is a dissenting report - something that you would know about, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - in this report as well. That comes from the NT Trades and Labour Council, which I am sure members on that side are familiar with. I do not purport to know a lot about them although I did bump into them once - not the NT Trades and Labour Council but their counterparts on a construction site down south, but I won’t go into that. I will leave that for another day.
Mr Kiely: Share it, share it with us.
Mr BALDWIN: No, no, I will leave it for another day. I won’t digress. It is a great story, though.
The dissenting report was done under the name of one of the members of this committee, Mr Mark Crossin, who was on the working group - who now, quite coincidentally, is the boss of Work Health. So, there’s a bit of a turn around.
A member: A good choice.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, a good choice somebody said - picking up on that interjection. Perhaps it was a choice. Hopefully, he was not chosen. Hopefully, he went through the normal merits of …
Mr Henderson: He did go through the normal processes and was the best applicant.
Mr BALDWIN: I am glad to hear that. I have a lot of respect for Mark; he has been in the game for a long time. He was part of the briefing that I had the other day on work health - particularly the HIH tax that is now in by way of this government. It is just an interesting coincidence I thought I would point out that he was on that, and he provided a dissenting report.
The minister talked about this report at some length. Members have made some mileage of the fact that I had this report for quite some time. That is true, I did; there is no doubt about that. I did have this report for quite some time whilst in government as the minister responsible. I will point out a couple more facts, and that is that I undertook to put this committee together and do this report because of concerns raised by business. I put that group together and they were a great group that provided a very comprehensive report with very comprehensive and wide-ranging recommendations. Some of the reasons I had that report for quite some time and I released it publicly - particularly for the member for Karama’s benefit - I released it publicly in June last year, was that whilst I had it I had to undertake some more actuarial advice on the way the scheme was operating at the time. That is not easy stuff to come by, it is quite comprehensive in terms of its makeup.
I had to get some fairly comprehensive legal advice on this report regarding if all these recommendations were implemented what that would mean in terms of legality and also obviously, very obviously had to look for - and this was a part that was not approached here in any major way - was some very expert medical advice and took quite a while to source the right person for that job. I have to thank the department for finally coming up with that name, Dr Trevor Lord, who had just completed a similar exercise in Western Australia, a very reputable doctor in terms of this kind of work. I am sure and as far as Dr Lord’s report goes - did the minister table it tonight? No, and he talks about discussion coming on very soon about that and the public release of it. I am sure we will see it fairly soon albeit that that report was going to come back to me around August/September. I assume that it took a little bit longer because the minister said he received it in December.
This is the report that the member for Karama mistook. In December 2001, the minister received Dr Trevor Lord’s report and I would assume from his past history that it is a very comprehensive report. When we identified the need for expert advice, it was my colleague, the member for Greatorex, who provided his expertise in terms of work in the medical field of work health and had done quite extensive, in fact nine or 10 years worth of work …
Dr Lim: Seven years at mines.
Mr BALDWIN: Seven years in the mining area of work health.
They were the reasons, and I am not trying to provide any excuses as to why it did take some time because it is a comprehensive report and the recommendations within that report are also very wide-ranging. Dr Lord has now obviously reported according to the minister. I would be very interested - and I do not know why that could not have been tabled tonight and released because it is part of this report that came down in June last year in to this House and publicly released. Perhaps he could explain why he has now sat on it for five months. I am sure it has been eagerly awaited by those who take an interest in the findings of the committee.
The findings of the committee are very interesting. As the minister has explained, the committee made recommendations on a number of things. The minister has chosen to pick up and I will have to go to your statement, pick up 26 of the 35 recommendations, 17 of which are expected to be introduced in the June 2002 sittings. I congratulate the minister for that. The 17 he has chosen are obviously very important. So, too, are the rest of the recommendations contained within this report. They are just as important as the 26 that the Labor government has chosen to take up.
So there are nine recommendations that are not being taken up. No mention of them being taken up at all. Perhaps the minister will say that we are waiting for the release of Dr Trevor Lord’s report and public discussion on that report before we move to that phase of implementing the other recommendations. Well, if that is the case we could have had that report out in December last year or, perhaps if he wanted to read it over his holidays, it could have at least been in January. I would like the minister to explain what happened to the rest of the recommendations that were put together by that working group which was made up of a great cross-section of the business community, the medical community, the legal community, the insurance community, and the union community which arrived at those recommendations.
I know for a fact that the business community through their associations are not at all happy that they are not getting the full deal as far as this report goes. This statement has been ready since February. It was supposed to have been handed down in the February sittings. The minister or his office apparently gave briefings to some of those business organisations which at that time then learnt that not all of the recommendations were going to be implemented, yet they were still going to get this 4% tax on jobs and they were not happy. They were getting a raw deal. They had put a lot of work into this. They wanted to see the full raft of those recommendations implemented. There were some delays, I assume, while the minister gave more consideration to his position regarding those 35 recommendations, and we have now, in the May sittings, the statement telling us what the direction is in regard to that report.
It is really a shame that the minister is not implementing all of those recommendations. There are some tough ones in there. There is no doubt about that. Some very, very tough ones that would meet some resistance in the community, but it was felt at least by the eminent people who were sitting on that working group that they needed to be implemented to ensure the efficiency of the work health scheme. I do not know why he is frightened of going along the lines as recommended in this report. Perhaps it is because of the dissenting report of the unions which made the point that they do not agree with some of the recommendations of the majority report. Perhaps that is the real problem here.
I know that the business community is not happy with the partial implementation after so much work that they have done on this. A number of associations have been in contact with our offices and they certainly…
Mr Stirling: I don’t know why they would bother ringing you. You did not do anything about it for 14 months.
Mr BALDWIN: I have explained that, and you can make your play on that. I have explained that.
Mr Stirling: A cheap shot. You get in here, you did nothing for 15 months.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection. I had this. There is no doubt about it. I had to do actuarial work. I had to get legal advice. I had to find the right person, an eminent specialist in this area as far as medical advice goes. Yep. It took a while. There is no doubt about it. But you have a report that you do not have to do anything with except throw it out to the community, and you have sat on it for five months.
Now, what is in that report, you might like to tell us, that you are so frightened of? So put it out there. I would have thought that, with this statement, you would have tabled it tonight. Where is it? Where is Dr Lord’s report? I reckon you have had it since before December, but I am going to take your word for it, because that is what you put in your statement, that you have had it since December. That is five months, have not seen anything. So come on, there is nothing you have to do about it, you just put it out there, because it makes up a part of this report.
In fact, in my press release in June last year, I noted I told this House and the media that:
You can go on all you like about having this report for 12 months, and having to do quite a bit of work through the department and through my office after having received it.
I commissioned this report, I went out there and commissioned it. I was not afraid to look at it. I put the group together. I gave them the terms of reference and I said: ‘Go forth and look and tell us if these rises in premiums have anything to do with the work health scheme, and if there are any changes we need to make as far as the work health scheme goes’. They did a great job, a fantastic job. They came back with 35 recommendations, and that report was to me as a minister. I took on board that report, I read through that report from back to front and I went out … I beg your pardon?
Dr Lim: He is grinning at the member for Sanderson making a noise with his computer.
Mr BALDWIN: I thought the Deputy Speaker might be indicating something to me.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Mr BALDWIN: So I took on board …
Dr Lim: No, she was gritting her teeth, because of the member for Sanderson.
Mr BALDWIN: I took on board what they said. I didn’t just go to Cabinet with this. Any minister on that side would be foolish to go to Cabinet with a raw report like that without compiling all of the rest of the information. I went and got the information as far as further actuarial advice. I went and got information as far as further legal advice, and I knew that we needed certain medical advice, at an expert level, and we found the right expert. That is why it took so long. I am happy that you are going to make a play of that. But keep it in mind that you have been sitting on a report for five months that needs no extra work. It makes up a part of this report. Now you are a lazy minister for not presenting that to the business community, and to the community at large, who are very interested in this.
I would like to see the other recommendations in this report canvassed in the businesses community as to whether or not they should be implemented. I think this minister is too limp-wristed to implement those other recommendations, but perhaps he has a different story, and I am sure he has. Perhaps it is something to do with Trevor Lord and his report. I hope that is what the minister says because if that is the case then that report should have been tabled in this House tonight. The business community is waiting for the completion of this. I hope that the minister gets on with his job and implements all of the 35 recommendations, as the business community has asked, and certainly as soon as possible, if it is at all possible, gets on and releases Trevor Lord’s report.
I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to Dr Trevor Lord, not that I have seen his report yet, but I am sure that it is a very thorough and very expert report. I look forward, like the rest of the business community, to seeing it in a physical sense.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Karama, Daly and Blain for their comments. There are just a couple of issues. I won’t dignify the cheap shots opposite with any detailed reply.
In relation to the perceptions that the member for Blain was talking about, I can assure him that if he wants to dive back into the records, there was no perception. When we had that shocking spate of quite serious injuries down at Woodcutters Mine a few years ago, there was no perception. I walked around construction sites with Joe Gallagher from the CFMEU some years ago and discovered the atrocious state that some of these construction sites were operating under. I pay credit here that that picture began to change quite quickly when the now Leader of the Opposition, in his early days as a minister, had charge of work health responsibilities. We did see the place get beefed up; we did see inspections occurring; and we did see, for the first time that I have been a member of this parliament, some recognition of the seriousness of occupational health and safety, and some willingness on behalf of the government to address it.
I would like to say that that continued but, unfortunately, it did not once control of the responsibility for the Work Health Authority passed from the member for Brennan. It is the member for Daly, of course, whom we well know - and he sledges me about this report - he sat on it for 14 months, and no one knew what was occurring at any time. So, it is a cheap shot as well for him to come in here and say: ‘Well, Crossin was the author of a minority report in respect of this particular review and now, irony of ironies, he is the head of Work Health’. The fact is there was an advertisement for the position; there was a selection exercise and Crossin won it on merit as, indeed, all of the people in the public service - whilst we have responsibility for the public service – that is how people win jobs, that’s how people get promoted. It is called the merit process and it goes to the best person applying for the job. So it ill behoves the member for Daly to come in with those kinds of remarks against a public servant in charge of the Work Health Authority now.
In relation to the member for Blain, who was talking about the role of medical practitioners and the worker, the employer, and the insurance company in the unfolding process of these cases. The Lord report, of course, goes very much to that. That is something that is being worked on at the moment, and we will have a response back in here later this year, in the same way that the 26 recommendations that we have adopted - some of those are legislative – will be back in the House in June, at which time the member for Blain, as the opposition spokesperson, and the member for Daly, can feel free to have another go.
In relation to the number of inspectors, the member for Blain says: ‘Oh, there are not so many’. Well, I can tell him that they are certainly out there doing their job unlike, at different times, when members opposite had control of the Work Health Authority. I can assure him that there is one builder and one construction site in town who well knows that the Work Health Authority is on the job, and that the inspectors are doing their job, because they were closed. They were closed until they got certain aspects of the construction site, including faulty electrical equipment repaired or replaced so that it did not represent a danger to workers.
There can be no more rough justice than to be killed on the job. It is the tragedy of all tragedies – you are there doing your work and you get knocked over. A car accident and the rest, these things do happen, but to be knocked over at work, particularly where there is an unsafe work environment that has contributed to it has to be one of the worst of the knocks that families can cop.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, with those few remarks I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 18 June 2002 at 10am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, much has been said lately about collaboration between industry, government and Aboriginal people. There has also been much talk about community development and building the capacity of local Aboriginal groups in order to generate economic and social reform on remote Aboriginal communities. In this vein I would like to draw attention to the Jabiluka Aboriginal Association’s Community Development Employment program or CDEP as it is commonly known, funded by ATSIC and in particular two of their co-ordinators, David Webb and his wife, Patricia. The Jabiluka Association is based in Jabiru in the heartland of Kakadu National Park. The association acts as a resource centre servicing the remote outstations scattered throughout the park. While others talk about collaboration they are actually doing it, day in and day out.
It was a very proud David Webb and members of the CDEP program at the Territory Tidy Town awards last year when Jabiluka Association took out an award for their CDEP program. Under David’s guidance the CDEP program not only provides services around Jabiru and outstations in Kakadu National Park, they also stabilise the work of the community of Gunbalunya. The Jabiluka Association has used the Kakadu region social impact study as their blue print. They have been successful at attracting Commonwealth funding in order to bring services into the park such as the Kakadu Health Service and aged care services. The organisation has tried to bring about improved living conditions such as raising power and water facilities to World Health Organisation standards.
Recently on a trip with the Minister for Health and Community Services to Jabiru, the minister and I had the privilege of being shown a number of houses the organisation is building under the IHANT program using the appropriate building standards, that in the past has been an area not properly regulated.
David Webb and his wife, Patricia, recently left for Queensland to work with Noel Pearson and the Cape York Peninsula communities. According to the executive officer of Jabiluka Association, Leah Marr, David’s contribution to the CDEP program has been outstanding. In the four years that he has been employed with the association he has implemented a number of training courses which, prior to his arrival, few had the opportunity to undertake. Today there are quite a number of local Aboriginal people with a variety of skills and qualifications enabling them to seize what employment opportunities come their way. With the firm belief that people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves and their families, he was able to instil a strong work ethic where prior to that there was none. All this may not have been possible if it were not for ERA which accommodated him, supplied him with a vehicle and paid his wages. This is what good, practical collaboration is all about. I believe negotiations are continuing between the association and ERA regarding funding arrangements for a replacement.
Patricia Webb, whilst at the association, was responsible for the homemaker program and ensuring compliance under the IHANT guidelines. The homemaker program used to be run by many organisations and communities, and I have seen in the past the success of these programs and the positive outcomes they had. Unfortunately this program does not get much focus in terms of funding. In my opinion, where you want to get positive outcomes for health and nutrition, then this program certainly has to be looked at in terms of its funding. Patricia worked with families to ensure the housing stock was properly maintained and in the process recouped over $100 000 annually in rent. Both were firm believers in the community development philosophy of not forcing people to do anything, not being paternalistic but allowing people to make decisions for themselves. Both will be sorely missed.
People like David and his wife Patricia are hard to find when looking for honest and hard working people, in particular for Aboriginal communities and they will certainly be hard to replace.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased the Attorney-General is in the House to hear this adjournment comment because it really is to he and his Chief Minister that I direct my comments. It was interesting to note the comments of both the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister in relation to the probity audit of the provision of office accommodation.
I know I heard the Chief Minister correctly during Question Time today. The Chief Minister spoke about how wonderful her government was in having a probity audit process in relation to the tendering for office accommodation. This, she said, was in stark contrast to the previous government where decisions were made ‘behind Cabinet doors’. Obviously, the Chief Minister has not read the three letters from the probity auditors that her colleague tabled in the House on Tuesday. The second letter dated 24 April 2002 says, and I quote:
In other words, the probity auditors were not even in place when Cabinet was making its decisions. But there is more. This letter, and a subsequent letter from the probity auditors dated May, both make clear that they had nothing to do with Cabinet decisions even when they were in place. Again, I quote from those letters – it is astounding:
Sorry, Chief Minister, you’ve got it wrong again. You did make decisions behind closed Cabinet doors, and those closed doors kept out the probity auditors.
So we turn to the Attorney-General’s comment when he tabled these letters from the probity auditors, and I quote his comments from the Hansard:
The Attorney-General continued:
Right. That’s it. This is the harbourer of integrity now speaking in the parliament.
Now, you have to wonder if he read the letters from the probity auditors. Let’s go back on the history of this open and transparent process. On 20 November last year, the Chief Minister announced that 9000 m of office space was going to tender. Let’s not forget that figure – 9000 m. On 29 November, an advertisement on the government tender page in the Northern Territory News requested expressions of interest from property developers for the supply of approximately 9000 m of new office space. The closing date was 12 December. There were 19 expressions of interest lodged. A month and a half later, on 29 January, the probity auditors are appointed and, as they note in the first of the letters tabled by Attorney-General, I quote:
So that is how you get a clean bill of health. Why didn’t we think of it? Why didn’t we ever think that the way you get a clean bill of health, certainly for the first stage of the exercise, is you don’t even have any probity auditors in place? Why didn’t we ever think of that Mr Attorney-General? But that’s not all, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. As I said the probity auditors were appointed on 29 January and were reporting in this first letter, dated 6 March, and their job, they thought, was substantially complete because the next step was the findings of the evaluation committee going to Cabinet, of course, and that is behind closed doors.
It is interesting to note that one of their jobs was to ensure the evaluation process complied with the expressed conditions set out in the expressions of interest documents. You will recall that this was the document that they were unable to review.
The next step in this saga is not quite clear, because somewhere along the line, the 9000 m in the expressions of interest documents announcements shrinks, and somewhere along the line the probity auditors finished their job. That is until Cabinet made a few decisions like reducing the number of applicants from 19 to six - a minor technicality.
The auditors are reappointed on 19 March when the process begins of interviewing the six shortlisted respondents. Nothing to do with the 13 that got the boot, the probity auditors were not even involved in that at all, they had lost their job, you shortlisted back to six, then you reappoint them again. It is all there. This is the stuff that you tabled, this is the clean bill of health, this is how you do it.
Of course, during all of this they cannot go anywhere near any Cabinet decision. Somewhere between 19 March and 8 April they again ceased being the probity auditors, because they state in the third letter that, surprise, surprise - the member for Nelson has come in. He is interested in this because anyone with an ounce of integrity would be interested in this.
The way you do it, fellas and ladies, somewhere between the 19 March and 8 April, they again ceased being the probity auditors, because they state in the third letter that, following more Cabinet decisions they are reappointed on 8 April and sign off on 7 May when there are still two shortlisted respondents. Then on 21 May, that is last Tuesday, the government announces with much fanfare that one respondent has been awarded 4300 m and that’s it. There is no more for anyone else.
Dr Toyne: We have $90m worth of development ...
Mr BURKE: Oh, all this development! When we see a bit of dirt moved then we will start really applauding it, let’s see the dirt move for them. I am just getting through the process at this stage, your applauding the process.
According to this Attorney-General, this is how you get a clean bill of health from the probity auditors. This is the new regime in the Northern Territory. This is how, fellas and ladies, you can get a clean bill of health from the probity auditors, and this is the process. You only employ them during certain phases. You do not appoint them to oversee the documents, nor the initial tendering process, and you lock them out of any crucial decision making processes.
That is what this government calls fully open, transparent and a great tendering process. If you are not kidding yourselves, then your certainly kidding Territorians, and particularly Territorian business and developers. Neither the probity auditors in their three letters tabled by the Attorney-General, nor the Attorney-General himself, have addressed the crucial question of when and why the available 9000 m shrank to 4300 m. It obviously happened behind Cabinet closed doors and away from the eyes of the probity auditors. And that is a fact.
There are a few other crucial questions still unanswered. For example, when were the respondents told? Were all 19 told or was it decided after the shortlist of six was produced? Were the six told or was it decided after the shortlist was reduced to two? Were they ever told, or were they ever given the opportunity to recast their expressions of interest accordingly?
We have the Attorney-General’s word that this is a fully open, transparent tendering process, so I am sure he will answer all of these questions. We are told …
Dr Burns: A bit like Mark Textor, is it? Full and open?
Mr BURKE: Oh, Dr Who has arrived! What have you been doing? Drinking more zoopy juice? We are told that ‘us fellas and ladies’ - that’s us over here …
Dr Burns: You mean in opposition.
Mr BURKE: Yes. …this is the way to do it by the new government. You let everyone have a fair and even playing field. The trouble is, the field shrank by more than half while the game was still being played, and the umpire kept being told to leave the field, only to be replaced by a table of seven who made their decisions behind closed doors. That is the way you reckon you do it and, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you or the Attorney-General won’t be offended when I say: ‘No it ain’t; no it ain’t’.
A member: No silver circle on this side. No silver circle on this side.
Mr BURKE: Oh, Sluggo has arrived too! Good on you, Sluggo. Sluggo’s in; they are all in.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, could you direct your remarks to the Chair, please.
Mr BURKE: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I certainly will. It is a more attractive view from this direction.
On another point, we had the Chief Minister today during Question Time, take a dorothy dixer question on the wonderful reforms her government has made for the parliamentary process.
Mr Kiely: That was from the heart.
Mr BURKE: From the heart! One of the crucial ones she said was to put legislation forward into its rightful place on the Notice Paper. But, when we do get into debate - this happens too often on legislation - we get a lecture about the opposition getting briefings and then coming in here and having the audacity to state a position that was not raised at the briefings. This is a scandalous state of affairs that you have in this parliament, that you would have the audacity as opposition to come into this Chamber and raise an issue or put a position that you have not stated at the briefing. It really is an amazing situation that we now have in this parliamentary Chamber. It is similar to the lectures we get in Question Time. Often the Attorney-General says: ‘Why are you asking this question when you haven’t even sought a briefing? You should have got an answer from a briefing’ is the general …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr BURKE: If we were to follow the advice of the government, this parliament would become totally redundant apart from formally rubber stamping government decisions. We could sit for one day every few months and pass all the legislation and totally abolish Question Time, which I am sure the Attorney-General would like and prefer. However …
Mr Kiely: Who wrote this for you?
Mr BURKE: Maybe that is the way you deal with your constituency, but this is the parliament of the Northern Territory. You have had too much to drink. Go away.
This is not the way we intend to work, because we do have respect for this institution. We will continue to come in here and question the government.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr BURKE: It would help, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if you were not gleefully laughing along with your parliamentary colleagues. You do have a position in this Chair, and in this Chamber, that I intend to respect, and I ask you to respect my comments.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I was in fact laughing at your witticisms as well.
Mr BURKE: Thank you.
Dr Burns: Yes, we all are. Good to see you happy.
Mr BURKE: We will continue to come in here and question the government and we will continue to come in here and debate the legislation. You are about ready to take off again, Dr Who, are you?
The whole point of briefings is that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is in a position to adequately debate the legislation. Briefings are not meant to replace debate in this Chamber, nor serve as an alternative to Question Time. Briefings are a time honoured tradition to ensure the opposition has sufficient information and understanding in order to continue to debate in this House. They are not meant to take place of debate in this House, and it is becoming very tiresome to be lectured by members of the government on how we should circumvent the operations of this Chamber.
We do thank the government for making briefings readily available. We will continue to take the opportunity to be informed, but we will not abrogate our responsibility, which is to represent the views and interests of our constituents in this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I might be a little boring after that. I would like to speak on a number of issues in my electorate and surrounding areas.
Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Tourism for his assistance in getting the Litchfield Tourism Task Force up and running. It certainly is appreciated that he has taken on board some of the matters that I raised about local tourism. It is an area that could be applied to other parts of the Territory. I speak especially of the Elliott district where local tourism could be expanded, especially with Lake Woods - unfortunately I am not sure of the Aboriginal name for it, but there are places like that which I think could be developed.
I speak more specifically of my own area. The task force has had two meetings since the minister announced its existence. The last meeting was a tour of the particular sites that I mentioned were worthy of tourism or had tourism potential. They were McMinns Lagoon, Girraween Lagoon and Benjamin Lagoon. The task force saw the potential of that area. They also had Denise Goodfellow, one of the local bird experts, who advised us on what was flying past where, and what was sitting in the water, and what was probably dropping things on us. Denise knew all the names of the birds that were there and the people who went on the tour obviously realised the potential of these lagoons. I know there have been some bad words about Kakadu and we are not trying to put people off going to Kakadu, but for those people who wandered today in our local area, you can find lots of things just in the Litchfield area.
Also we visited the World War II sites. Again, people did not realise the potential of those sites. We had a dossier made up with the help of the Parliamentary Library which we were able to distribute to the people on the tour. They did not realise how close or how real some of the sites still are. One site in particular, right next to Bees Creek Primary School, still has the wires that held up the camouflage for the fighter planes that used to park in the bush there. So I think they began to realise that there is plenty of potential for tourism with our heritage.
Where does it goes from here? At the moment it has been given to me to put together a series of short descriptions of all these sites and to e-mail those to our tour operators. At the moment we are right into the tourist season, or at the beginning of it, so it will be too late to do much else in a more substantial way than at least notify our tour operators that these places are there and if they wish to then they can visit them.
The second matter I would like to raise is the opening of Humpty Doo Skateboard Park. I was pleased that the Chief Minister did make an effort to come down. I am glad she did because she recognises that youth in the rural area do have needs just as much as people in the urban area. I was very grateful that she did come. I reckon Humpty Doo Skateboard Park is probably one of the best. It has taken two years to design and build. It was constructed using funds from the Northern Territory government and from the Litchfield Shire Council. The Humpty Doo Village Green has been able to put its own funds into that project. I make special mention of Shirley Preston and her Skateboard Committee who were the ones who got this whole thing up and running. I also thank the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Kon Vatskalis, for allowing a free bus to travel - we don’t get many of them running in the opposite direction, except on V8 days - but we had a bus service which went from Casuarina to Palmerston to Humpty Doo. I gather it was full of kids, it was full of skateboards and it was full of BMX bikes. I think they had a trailer on the back as well.
It was a really great day. We had a band. Much as it wasn’t quite my kind of music, I think they call it head banging music. I would call it just head banging. But it was some sort of music that some of them certainly appreciated. There was face painting and there were barbecues, all that sort of thing.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That’s the sort of music, thank you, member for Macdonnell. It is really great stuff.
They enjoyed it, and that is the important thing. They had a good day. We have now an asset in the Litchfield Shire, in Humpty Doo, which kids now can use. I am grateful to all those people who got involved and did something. The more things we can do for kids, the more things we can set up for them to keep them on the straight and narrow, the better.
I would also like to mention our Anzac Day cricket match. It is in its second year, and it is set up to raise money for Legacy. It is a day we play cricket on a World War II cricket pitch, just south of the Strauss airstrip. We call it the Strauss Cricket Ground, the SCG, and it is a great place. We played the Army last year, and we played the Army this year. Last year, the Litchfield President’s XI, as the local team is called, won. This year the Army from Robertson Barracks won. I am sure that Brigadier Roche, who is in his last year in the Northern Territory, was very happy to win it. I will give you the scores: 205 for the Litchfield President’s XI and 234 for the Army. I must admit I played for the Army this time. It was a top day.
We raised $1053 for Legacy, and we did that through the help of many people. We had a couple of notable people. We had my friend, Reg Prasad, who acted as Gupta. He was doing the match fixing and match fixing does raise a lot money. Reg is a genuine Indian bookkeeper, and Reg went down there with his pith helmet. We had the television, we had the red and green torches. Besides match fixing, he also gave third umpire decisions from the square leg area especially on things like LBWs. You could actually override that by providing him with a certain amount of money. So he raised quite a bit of money on the day and we were very pleased that he came down.
We also had Mick Murdoch at the last minute, which was great. He came down and commentated. I didn’t know Mick Murdoch was so small, but I do now, he is only a little fellow. I think they described him on the ABC the other day. But he was a great commentator and he put a bit of life into the place.
I also wish to thank Geoff Benger, the same one who is just having his nice Marrara ground dug up. He maintains this little cricket ground just off the Cox Peninsula Road. Signtec provided the chooks, and the chooks this year were special chooks because they had pluses and minuses on their backs. If you hit one, you could have got +10, but that was surrounded by two birds very close together who were -10, so you took the risk. And they certainly added to the score.
We had Max Cannon, St John Ambulance, and Rotary Club which comes down each year now. They get the bar and the barbecue going and raise quite a bit of money. I also should thank Geoff Akers from the Southern Districts Club, who put down the matting and provided all the cricket equipment. I would also like to especially thank the Army. They have made it now an annual event, and we hope to advertise it more. I should thank Brigadier Damien Roche for his work in making sure the Army arrived.
We had a number of advertisers. We had Marjorie Bishop from Birds of Paradise, Coolalinga; Kerry Akers from Creative Gifts at Coolalinga; Mitre 10 Howard Springs; Coates Hire; Stavris Coolalinga; Top End Hire; Humpty Doo Plumbing; Shed Solutions; Howard Springs Bakehouse; the Craft Basket, Reidy’s Lures and Fin Bins. Those people I just mentioned were allowed to put up an advertising sign around the oval, and they paid $50 to Legacy for that, so it was easy to make money. They all thought that Legacy was a great organisation to donate to, especially on Anzac Day, so they also took part. Quite a few of those people came down.
We had our first corporate box as well which was one of those little shade houses with a bit of carpet. They had champagne coolers, nice chairs, and the cheese and the platters. We are hoping to actually make a competition next year for the best corporate box. We would expect to see a few overhead fans, something a little bit more upmarket. They were paying for that, of course and it all goes to Legacy.
Hopefully, next year we are back again and we invite anybody in the Legislative Assembly who wants to see a genuine World War II cricket pitch only been used, we believe, this is the second or third time in 60 years. We think that that was the last time it was used. I must admit, I hope to get the minister for heritage to come down and see why we don’t want a gas pipeline through it and we don’t want a duplication of the Stuart Highway through it. It is worth keeping.
Just quickly, a couple of other items. The Litchfield Soccer Club, which is starting off in its first year, has really taken off. I do not know how many members we have but there are lots of members down there. They all now turn up to the second oval on Freds Pass. It is a beautiful oval. It is as big as Marrara, in fact it is one metre longer. They are playing there regularly on a Sunday. I know a few people in Darwin are having trouble realising that there are people in the rural area. If you want to play soccer at 8 o’clock on Sunday, you have to travel half an hour out to the rural area. Some were complaining, but we did tell them that if we have to play in Bagot Park, we have to do exactly the same. It is funny how people get the idea that you have to take a cut lunch to come out to Freds Pass, but rural people do that all the time into Darwin and we never worry about it at all.
I would especially like to thank Paul Scott. He just lives and breathes and dies - hopefully not now – soccer. He has this soccer club up and going. I am pleased to be patron of the soccer club. It is another one of those sports that is encouraging kids to get into a healthy lifestyle. I am pleased that he has done all this hard work. I should mention that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is also an ex-coach, I gather, of Mindil, which is a pretty horrific soccer team that he actually coached. I believe all those children that play in Mindil have got Greek genes in them because they just look like they are born and bred to play ...
Mr Elferink: They are wearing shorts, not jeans, aren’t they?
Mr WOOD: That’s right. They look like they have been born and bred to play soccer. They did beat our Under 14 team 19 to 1 in the first round, but we have got that down to 9 to 1. I will just tell Kon, if he doesn’t mind me using his name, watch out, we are learning, and we are learning fast. Litchfield soccer will certainly be a match for any other team soon.
I would like to thank especially Tony Hillier from Earthbuilders. The reason I would like to thank him is that we have a famous person in the Litchfield Shire called Ted Watling. He was called Mr Magic. He was crook. Ted died just recently - and I probably put that too bluntly …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Nelson has the floor. If you could have conversations outside the Chamber that would be useful.
Mr WOOD: Ted died about six months ago and many people have missed him. Not only did he do a lot of work for charity, he was involved with the local fire brigade. Our Humpty Doo fire brigade raised quite a bit of money. Ted was a member of the Volunteer Fire Brigade until I think he was getting a bit too old for it. But instead of just packing up and saying: ‘Well, that is the end of that’, he would sit nearly every Saturday morning at Humpty Doo shops raising money through the 100 club. He was a terrific bloke, he did a lot of work for the kids. They called him Mr Magic. He would do magic tricks at school and he is missed greatly in the Humpty Doo area. His widow, Ricky, lives in a house on Edwin Road in Humpty Doo. I noticed recently during the wet season their driveway was about 50 metres of water. I mentioned it to a friend of mine, Tony Hillier, who has a bobcat hire business and he does driveways, and he kindly donated his services and completely re-gravelled that driveway for her free of charge. I thought that was excellent thing to do and that I would mention it in parliament today.
The last thing I would like to mention is, and it is not so much a notice of motion as it was raised today, but I would like to let people know that I have had some people raise issues about the traineeship scheme, and the way it is presently operating in the Northern Territory. I do think there needs to be something which protects trainees, not so much from being, I suppose, terminated in their traineeship by an employer, but they need to be protected. At least they need to say when that person is being terminated, why they are being terminated. There needs to be some means of appeal by the trainee. I have mentioned it to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. He is also aware of these things. I would like to work with the government during the next few sittings to see whether some of the issues that people have raised can be addressed through the act.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight in respect of the Australian Street Circuit Grand Prix held in Tennant Creek on 4 and 5 May. Previously, I have adjourned in this House in reference to this event in Tennant Creek, however, tonight I would like to advise on the progress leading up to this year’s event.
I am pleased to advise that the 12th Tennant Creek Go-Kart Grand Prix turned out to be a resounding success. Some 85 karters travelled from all parts of Australia, including Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Darwin, Mt Isa, Alice Springs, Lismore and numerous other places. There were 14 go-karters from Tennant Creek, and 48 from the Territory in total. The hard work and dedication of the Tennant Creek Go-Kart committee cannot be underestimated, given that only 12 weeks was allowed to organise this major sporting event in my community.
Members may have heard of the difficulties in respect to securing public liability insurance for this event. Last year, the costs were around $1500; this year they turned out to be $25 000, which was a challenge for the community to get the event up. Obviously, the issue of public liability is an issue right across the community and, unless this matter is resolved fairly quickly, I fear that many other community-type events may be placed in jeopardy. I was pleased to hear in the House the other day of the Chief Minister’s commitment to work very hard in resolving this matter. I commend her for that.
It is important not to underestimate the importance of the Grand Prix in Tennant Creek, because it does provide a significant economic boost to our community. This year’s event would not have occurred without the generous support of many local businesses. I would like to read out the names of those people who gave of their time and sponsorships so generously. I refer to NorthLine Transport; Tennant Communication Contractors; Tattersalls; Territory Communications; Dexter Barnes Electrical; Imparja Television; Tennant Creek Town Council; Tennant Creek Foodbarn; BP Tennant Creek; T&J Contractors; Peter Kittle Motor Company; Outback Caravan Park; Al Bundy’s; Territory Road Markings; Tennant Creek Regional Tourist Association; Northern Territory Motor Sports Council; Kenwood; Tennant Creek Securities; Safari Motor Lodge; Ronnie Sutton and the workers from the Tennant Creek Town Council; and Tarmo Kouvamaki. I would like to comment in respect of Tarmo. On the morning in question, I got there about 8 am to meet with organisers in regard to opening the event and Tarmo had only just gone home. He actually worked all night on that track. So Tarmo, I congratulate you on all the hard work that you have put in.
Other very kind sponsors were the Goldfield Hotel; Air North; Eldorado Motor Inn; Headframe Bottle Shop; Tennant Creek Caravan Park; NT Police; Julalikari Council and the CDEP program; and particularly Henry Miller and Tony Braun; Peter Davenport; St John Ambulance; NT Fire Services; Gulf News; Tennant & District Times; Tennant Creek Newsagency; Civic Video; McKelvey Carpentry; Bridgestone Tyre Services; ANZ Bank; Tennant Creek Ford Brothers; and the Tennant Creek Pharmacy.
I would also like to mention the Tennant Creek Memorial Club which provided $30 000 in sponsorship. Obviously, if it was not for their significant contribution the event may not have gone ahead at all. Also, to the Northern Territory government and particularly the Chief Minister’s Office and NT Major Events - $35 000; and a substantial contribution from the Power and Water Authority.
I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Julie Bright and the Tennant Creek Memorial Club committee and also to Paul Cattermole from NT Major Events, Charlie Phillips and Denis Bree from the Chief Minister’s office, and Paul Shailes from the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in Tennant Creek who played a very important role.
I pay tribute to the organising committee which, as I mentioned previously, only had 12 weeks to put this event together and they worked very hard in achieving that. I refer to Michael Dougall who is the Chairperson, and also events coordinator, Hayley Dodd and I will come to Hayley in a minute. To Ronnie Sutton, Tarmo Kouvamaki, and committee members, Paul Sawyer and Richard Par from my office, who gave their time so generously after hours, Julie Bright, from the Tennant Creek Memorial Club, Bev Kozlowski, Nigel Skelton, Richard Dodd, Arthur Hill, Tony Civitarese, and Bob Torrilla.
Above all, I would like to pay tribute to a young person by the name of Hayley Dodd, who performed a key role in organising and coordinating this year’s event. Hayley is only 19 years of age and was basically roped in at the last moment, and organised a very good event. Hayley’s commitment, dedication and enthusiasm was an outstanding effort. So Hayley, on behalf of the community in Tennant Creek and the Tennant Creek Go-Kart committee, we thank you very much for all the hard work that you put in.
In conclusion, on Sunday night I had the pleasure of presenting the Chief Minister’s Cup on behalf of the Chief Minister, to the winner of the event, William Yarwood, who has now actually won this event for the last two years. During the course of those presentations, I spoke to many drivers who had travelled from all parts of Australia. They both commended the committee and the organisation of the event and were very effusive in their praise in the sense that it was described as one of the better events in Australia. In short, this event could not have happened without all those people that I have mentioned, so I really do pay tribute to them.
There is one other matter that I would also like to speak to tonight. On 23 May, the Tennant Creek Racing Club held a very successful race meeting at Hagan Park which is the local race course. Probably in excess of 300 people attended, locals, people from out of town, but also a lot of tourists, and it was very much a relaxing day and everyone enjoyed themselves. There were five races in the program and as well as entertainment being provided for children, and fashions on the field. Thirty four horses were entered for the races and they came from Darwin and Alice Springs. I would like to thank all the sponsors, major and minor alike; without their continued support the meeting would not have happened. Some of those sponsors were Carlton United Breweries, Lasseter’s Casino, Tennant Foodbarn - all these names, it just shows you how keen and committed people are in Tennant Creek, all these businesses who obviously have also sponsored the Grand Prix as well as the races - Dean Adams Contracting, Tennant Creek Hotel, Headframe Bottle Shop, Barkly Hardware and Gas, Imparja Television, Roche Mining, Tennant Creek Memorial Club again, Taps Tubs and Tile, Neataglass from Alice Springs, Ford Brothers, McKelvey Carpentry, Civic Video, Barkly Agencies, T&J Contractors, Safari Lodge Motel, El Dorado Motor Lodge, Goldfields Hotel, Mike Nash Electrical, the Bush Fires Council, The Cloak Room, the ANZ Bank, Bridgestone Tyres, Anne-Kir Stock and Stud, the Gulf and Barkly News, Julalikari Buramana, H&R Development from Borroloola, NikNax Gifts & Cane Ware, Total Sports ‘N’ Fitness, Barkly Plumbing Services, Tennant Creek Town Council, GK Painting and Contractors, TC Sand Supply, NT Fire Brigade, Al Bundy’s, Tennant Contracting, A Man of Letters, Central Barkly Haulage, Giants Reef Mining, Tennant Security Services, Air North, St John Ambulance, Little Rippers, Cherry Communications, Alice Waste Disposal, Mr Perry’s, Rocky’s, and Buds with Style.
Again, I would also like to pay a tribute to the members of the Tennant Creek Racing Club who worked so very hard to put this event on. It is worth noting that this is the first occasion that Liam McKelvey is the president of the racing club and he works very, very hard in securing sponsorship money. As I understand it, probably something in excess of about $20 000 was raised in just a matter of two months which was our part contribution to putting on the meeting. So to Liam, I congratulate you for all the hard work you put in. Also to John Johnson, Anna Williams, Glen Jones, Lorraine Werner, Mike Nash, Dick Hall, Gail Lowe and Greg Taggart.
I would also like to thank some of the officials who travelled up from Alice Springs. Ross Lennie, David Westover, Tom Sharp, Craig Sant who was the race caller, Trevor Waples, Mike Hurley and also a special thanks to all the jockeys, and trainers, as well as Gary Owen who is the bookie. I am sure he had a good day. I am absolutely certain he went home with a packet. So thanks, Gary, for coming up.
Also some of the organisations and government departments who played a very important role: The Tennant Creek High School, the Tennant Creek Swimming Club, St John Cadets who were at the gate and I think got something like $150-odd as part of the entrance fees; PAWA; the Department of Primary Industries and Resource Development; Telstra; and QTAB.
There were many other people, volunteers, who gave their time so generously and I would like to mention David Penna, Dave Rutherford, Daryl Hayward, Jenny Ellis, Monica Staunton, Cheryl White, Ronnie Staunton, Ronnie Sutton again, Jan Rutherford, Eric Blankenspoor, Lyndal Marshall, Selina Kliendienst, and Bill Daw. A special thanks for his hard work to the Master of Ceremonies, Paul Quinlan.
I would also like to pay a very special tribute to the Minister for Racing, Syd Stirling, who came down to the meeting. I can recall talking to Syd about this a few months ago and he said he would like to come down. It was very much appreciated by the community and I pay tribute to the minister for all the hard work that he has put in. I actually also attended the racing summit in Alice Springs a couple of weeks earlier. So, Syd, thank you very much. It is also worth noting that Syd contributed $1 000 toward the event. The Tennant Creek Racing Club, Syd, extends their very sincere appreciation.
Neville Connor, a real gentleman, came up from Alice Springs for the racing and took out the Tennant Creek Cup with his horse, Zillionaire, ridden by Ben Cornell. As I mentioned previously, there were five races held on that day and Neville won three of the five races. To Neville and Ben, very well done and we look forward to seeing you back next year. Dick Leech from Darwin came down, and Stuart Brownbill, the jockey, rode the other two winners. So between Neville and Dick, they took home all the loot.
Kevin Lamprecht and his wife have been involved in the racing industry for a long time and have lived in Tennant Creek. They have since moved down to Alice Springs where Kevin his now a full-time trainer. Kevin brought up seven horses and unfortunately he could only get a second out of it and that horse, General Beam, was owned by Liam McKelvey whom I mentioned earlier who had worked so hard to get the event up.
I was hoping the Clerk of the House might be here tonight because I was going to pass on a tip to Mr McNeill from Neville Connor in regards to the Palmerston Sprint which is your major spring race up here. Anyway, Nev said to pass it on to the Clerk of the House and he has advised the Clerk to back Bathers and Gunnel in the Palmerston Sprint if they get a start.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight as a result of Question Time today. I wish to pursue an issue that, unfortunately, I was not able to pursue with a supplementary question this morning in Question Time; however, I accept the ruling of the Chair. I am glad that I have been given the opportunity, because it has given me the ability to do a bit more homework on the question that I asked this morning.
However, I will start at the beginning of this tale. It was in relation to a paper I tabled this morning, which is Paper 381 on the tabled papers register in the Tabled Papers Office, which was the article from this morning’s The Australian, dealing with the condition of hungry children in the community of Docker River. I do not particularly want to dwell too much on the contents of that article. I am sure members would have taken the time to read it. However, there are a couple of quotes from the article that I think bear reading into Hansard for the edification of members who may have missed it. I quote the first paragraph - and this is in reference to Dr Wright, a doctor who spoke out to Paul Toohey, the journalist who wrote the article for The Australian:
And it goes on to refer to other people who also had spoken to Dr Wright about it. Dr Wright was quite moved in his comments because he was obviously passionate enough about it to speak out, and speak to the national media. I also noted in the article the following quote:
This was addressed to the minister:
And I was granted leave to table a particular notice. I then completed my question:
I was fascinated by the answer in relation to this question because the minister stood up and engaged in the old approach of ministers long gone that, if they are not sure, you shoot the messenger. Well, in this case I was the messenger. But, he immediately set about pillorying me and that is fine; that is the day-to-day stuff of politics, I am used to that. But, what I was starting to get surprised about is when she went into the answer in some more detail. She said, ‘I do not know that person’. My reply to that is: this person works for you, minister. It is quite beyond me as how you could not know this person in that sense, because this person is your employee. This person works for you, minister.
This is where it gets a little more interesting, and I continue and quote the minister from this morning:
Also, in relation to the impugnities that you have made upon the character of the Minister for Central Australia …
I add at this stage, I made no such impunity at all on the Minister for Central Australia. My question, indeed, related to the office. I continue the quote:
I actually had a conservation with him yesterday. I understand that the person mentioned in this article, who said
he was trying to contact the minister’s office has, in fact, not had any contact with the minister’s office. He has not
had any contact with my office either.
Well that’s good. I thought this is curious because, in the article in The Australian, the journalist seemed quite sure that Dr Wright had, indeed, contacted - oh, here we are, I go back to the quote I said earlier. It said that he had voiced his concern in a letter to the Minister for Central Australia, Peter Toyne, and the advisor rang asking why they should listen to it.
Well, that indicates to me, that there is, indeed, a letter in existence - a letter. I thought if there is a letter, perhaps we can trace it. In the intervening time, I had done some hunting around. I notice that the minister said: ‘I invite this doctor to contact me’. Well, seeing that the person works for you, surely you would know where to find him, minister. But, ‘I invite this doctor to contact me’. I did some ferreting around and Lo! and behold, I found it particularly easy to locate this doctor during the course of the day. During the course of the day, I had cause to speak with Dr Wright. I would now like the opportunity, and I seek leave to table several letters from Dr Wright.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The letters that I seek to table are two letters addressed to John Ah Kit, Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs in Darwin. But, much, much more important is a letter from Dr Matthew Wright to the Hon Peter Toyne, the Minister for Central Australia, dated 4 April 2002 - six weeks ago.
This is of great concern because, I think, ‘Mmm, hang on, I’ll go back and check the answer, and I went back and checked the answer. I am curious because, according to the health minister, she said: ‘I actually had a conversation with him yesterday …’, referring to the Minister for Central Australia, ‘… and I understand that the person mentioned in the article who said he was trying to get to the minister’s office has, in fact, not had any contact with the minister’s office’. Well, I am curious. I am curious …
Dr Burns: Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I know that the member for Johnston did have a childhood trauma when he merely came second in a Darth Vader impersonation contest. I would ask him on this occasion to keep his mouth shut, because I am very concerned that the letter that was sent through to the minister’s office was ignored by the Minister for Central Australia, or he knew about it and he lied to the minister for health.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it on this occasion, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, because the issue is much more important than the semantics of the argument.
He deceived the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell has withdrawn. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an interesting situation we come to because one of two things happened. Either the Minister for Central Australia, in his conversation with the minister for Health, deceived the minister for Health and misled her in relation to correspondence between himself and the doctor, or the minister for Health did not have that conversation with the Minister for Central Australia, and she came in here and misled this House. I am not sure which is true, but there is something very, very wrong.
I noticed that the minister for Health was indeed very quick to defend the Minister for Central Australia, accusing me of impugning the good character of the Minister for Central Australia. Well, I agree. I think the Minister for Central Australia does have a good character. So this leaves us with one conclusion only. That conclusion is that the minister for Health has come in here and said something which was plainly wrong. The Minister for Central Australia had had contact from the doctor six weeks prior to this article being written – six weeks prior to me asking the question in this House this morning. The minister for Health said that the Minister for Central Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: At the end of the day, the issue is quite straightforward. You are either in control of your department and your office, or you are not. If you are in control of your department and your office, and you come in here and say that something is blatantly wrong, then you are misleading this House. If, however, you are not in control of your department, you come in here and say that something is blatantly wrong, then you are incompetent. So which is it? Is the Health minister deceiving this House, or is she merely incompetent? In either instance she should resign. She should resign over this and she should resign for the continuous problems that she is having in her department.
This department cannot supply doctors to rural and remote people in Central Australia. It has cut funding to doctors in the community of Hermannsburg. It is now failing to provide a doctor for the people of Docker River. It is getting national press.
The other problem is that the programs that she is talking about introducing to rescue all of this are at least 15 months away by her own statements in this House the other day. So what is she going to do in the meantime? The fact is I do not think she is capable of doing anything, because she is either incompetent or she is dishonest. Because those communications have been made.
There is one other aspect of this which is of concern, and I start out by saying this may merely be coincidence, and I would accept it if the Health minister comes into this House and says that it is coincidence. However, as I understand it, and I do have this information third hand, I qualify this. But, as I understand it, the doctor who was chastened for speaking out and for caring, was chastened by a staff member of the minister’s office in Central Australia. The information I have received is that there is a relationship between that particular person and a director of the shop in question in the article in The Australian. I would like some answers from the minister for Health. She should come into this Chamber and explain, right now, exactly what she is doing about these issues. She has either been incompetent on this occasion, or she has deceived this House.
And members, as well as the people of Docker River, as well as the whole community of Central Australia, as well as the whole community of the Northern Territory deserve an explanation before we become a national laughing stock.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight because it is appropriate to advise the parliament of the excellent work performed by The Gap Youth Centre in Alice Springs which I am very proud to say rests in my electorate. I am sure this will be of interest to members. I spent some time at The Gap Youth Centre last month in an effort to learn more about this important service. It was a very interesting and useful experience.
By way of background, in 1986 the centre was registered as an Aboriginal Corporation. It is a not-for-profit organisation which is funded by grants from the federal government and, as I understand it, the main funding departments are the Departments of Sport and Recreation, and Family and Children’s Services. The centre also fundraises when it can. Expressed simply but eloquently in its mission statement, The Gap Youth Centre provides a safe environment for youth to pursue recreation, sporting, cultural and educational activities.
The centre aims to improve the quality of life for the youth who attend by instilling in them respect for themselves and others, assisting them to reach their potential and teaching them good citizenship skills. It has a number of facilities including a basketball court, pool table, computers, Kinda Gym equipment, amusement machines, dance room and other sporting equipment.
In addition to all of this, the centre offers a number of very interesting programs, and I would like to take some time to outline some of them for the benefit of members. The variety of services is quite amazing and they are all being provided from the centre in Gap Road. For instance, The Gap Youth Centre operates Deadly Mob mentoring which is a career mentoring program aimed at indigenous Year 10 students. It includes On Site which is one-on-one mentoring and a web site featuring an online mentor gallery.
In November last year, the Deputy Prime Minister attended the centre to announce a grant of $233 000 to establish the Deadly Mob Caf. Once operational, it will join an innovative range of early intervention programs on offer. The caf will provide public access to online services targetting indigenous people and their families. It will be a safe, and drug and alcohol free, environment. It will provide IT skills training for people who do not have access to information technology. It also runs Youth Online which provides computer access for youth to research, surf or just have fun on the internet. It also provides training in information with youth producing a weekly half-hour radio program for CAAMA radio.
It is designed to show Aboriginal youth in Central Australia and in particular in remote communities how they can be part of the wider world by accessing the internet and how they can take their ideas and culture to a wider audience by providing adequate facilities and trainers. The target group is 5 to 25 years of age and Aboriginal youth. On site training and supervision is also part of the program. The radio part of the project is operated, as I said, in conjunction with CAAMA radio. The project aims, amongst other things, to give youth higher self-esteem, improved access to and retention within formal education, improved literacy, numeracy and computer skills, and a greater understanding of how the internet works and its relevance to young Aboriginal people. In addition, an Education Department funded homework centre is available for students and I met with and talked to some of the students when I was there.
Another program offered is the Reconnect program. It is an early intervention program aimed at young indigenous people between 10 and 18 years of age who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless. With an approach towards support, Reconnect increases their opportunities in work, education, training and accommodation. It aims to assist young people and their families to identify and address factors relating to the young person leaving their home. Where it is not possible to remain at home, then other living arrangements are made. Reconnect also assists young indigenous people with any other issues relating to their well being and social interactions.
In practical terms, the program works with young people who are at risk of homelessness and their families. Families with young people at risk are of great concern to the staff and management at The Gap Youth Centre. The Gap Youth Centre services the Alice Springs town area as well as surrounding communities and outstations in the administration of its Reconnect program. The Centre is always on the move and looking to adopt and embrace new projects and new ways of improving the lives of young people in Alice Springs and, in particular, indigenous people.
Recently I was approached by a representative to seek my support for something called the Uncle’s Program. The project was started interstate and federal funding is being sought to implement the project in Alice Springs. It is about recognising that boys and young men figure highly in a number of social problems which negatively impact on the community. Many of these young boys and men lack direction and are not living fulfilling lives. It is a mentoring program similar to the more widely known Big Sister, Big Brother programs interstate. If successful, it will add to the range of services the Centre will provide to and for the youth of Alice Springs. I am very pleased to say that I wrote a letter of support in respect of a recent application for funding.
In closing, I would like to briefly mention the Director of the Gap Youth Centre, Joanne Miller. It has been under her direction that significant advances to services have been made and her skills are a real asset to the Gap Youth Centre. In 2001, Joanne was named the Northern Territory Telstra Business Woman of the Year. At the time of her award, she said that her win was for all women working in the not-for-profit area, because a good business was not always about making a profit, indeed that is true. She has won a host of other awards over the years and has numerous qualifications, but importantly, she is committed to the provision of quality services for young people and her commitment, drive and energy are to be commended. She clearly engenders enthusiasm and commitment with her staff, which I saw when I was there. I thank Joanne Miller and all of her staff for allowing me the opportunity and the privilege to spend some time at the Centre. I very much look forward to working with them during my term.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the Parliamentary Record three different issues.
Firstly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association members, particularly those in government, will have opportunity, I would expect, to be involved in CPA functions. I would encourage members on any side to avail themselves of an opportunity to be involved with the CPA. We can become preoccupied with our own patch and get involved in little battles that we might play here, but it really is very good to be involved in a wider school of Commonwealth parliamentary colleagues who do broaden our experience as parliamentarians and allow us to recognise that we do have a very deep and strong heritage which we can then bring in to our Chamber and then back out in to our electorates and provide the leadership that is necessary.
The aspect that I would like to speak about is one that is good news. There is a CPA Education Trust Fund. That trust fund is tapped, from time to time, by different Commonwealth parliaments to avail themselves of funds to assist them in training. The trustees of this fund have been grateful for the ongoing participation of the parliament of the Northern Territory since the fund’s inception. On several occasions, the Northern Territory has provided programs for training attachments for visiting Pacific parliamentary officers, as the size of the parliament and its relative proximity to some of these CPA branch members, has made it an ideal partner in these exercises.
Those who have not been involved in CPA events or have any experience in this regard, might not even know of the breadth and, in my experience, the richness of this organisation. But further to this, it is important to recognise that the Northern Territory has been recognised as a leader within the whole CPA which takes in all the Commonwealth parliaments of the earth. In terms of its innovation, the last Small Countries Conference that was held here last year pioneered a particular strategy of having groups work together which captured the attention of the executive based in London. As a result of that, the prominence and the respect of the Northern Territory office has been accentuated to the point that they have sought an officer from this parliament to attend to the request of the parliament of Niue to receive assistance in conducting a seminar for new members of parliament.
I advise honourable members that Jan Sporn has been nominated to fill that position. That brings honour to her but, more importantly, to this parliament and to good work that has gone on behind the scenes – which many members may not be aware of – of the regard the Northern Territory parliament has in the broader scheme of the CPA. So, congratulations to Jan, and I am sure she will do us proud in Niue.
Secondly, the Isolated Children’s Parents Association is an association of parents who have a common aspect of being charged with the responsibility – just by being parents – of looking after their children. But, they are in remote locations; they are primarily on pastoral outstations. The reality is, that often, if we are in an urban environment, we do not understand or even spare a thought for the challenges that are facing a mum or dad bringing up their kids, encountering early literacy and numeracy for someone who has no access to their peers or normal school environment, as we are accustomed.
Through my own experience I believe that those isolated parents who are raising their children right across our great country need specific support. The Northern Territory has a higher proportion of them than any of us probably appreciate.
I would like to raise one aspect of concern that the ICPA members have constantly articulated. If anyone has had any experience with people from a rural background, you know when they say they have a concern, it is a concern. They don’t beat about the bush, they don’t like to complain, but when they do state their case, it is a case. The case is that those who are running pastoral stations and happen to have children are, of course, responsible for the education of their children. Granted, they are supported by the Territory Education Department and supported by the federal government.
But there is one aspect of this support that I think is deficient: the recognition that a parent can be useful, of course, in providing the education of their child, but in providing that educational support, they are actually drawn away from the support that they can offer to their employment, and in support to the actual enterprise that they are involved in. It is that specific area that they are actually held captive in many respects. They do need to be recognised; that they cannot abandon their children. Many times, in the recognition of the needs of their child’s education, they are actually withdrawing their support from the enterprise in which they are involved.
I call upon the minister to pay particular and careful interest to the isolated parents who are calling upon this minister, and calling upon the federal minister also, to recognise that they do need support; and that is financial. They are not asking for a lot, but they are asking for recognition for the contribution that they actually do make. If they chose not to make it, I think we would be able to follow the implications of that withdrawal, and unpack the actual cost of supporting that child. They provide it, but they cannot spread themselves too widely. I ask that this parliament and the ministers referred to: please consider carefully the concerns of these parents in terms of the support that they offer to their children and to their other roles on their pastoral leases and so on.
The ICPA recently held a conference in Katherine which I was fortunate to be able to spend a short time at last Friday, just to meet them and to let them know that we in urban environments do recognise their existence and the work that they go through. They have a number of motions that they have discussed and once again, as the minister and federal agencies become aware of the motions that were discussed at that conference, I would ask you add just a little bit extra to it. When parents from remote locations decide to say something, that is simply it. They really do mean it, particularly in respect of financial support for the role that they play in educating their children.
The third issue I wish to raise is of quite a different nature. I recently received acknowledgement of a resignation from the President of the Palmserton RSL, Mr Ian Aiken. Ian Aiken is a long term Palmerston resident and a constituent. He is one of those characters who has contributed in many different way. He supports many of our seniors groups and other groups in catering, and he does it for the love of it. There is never a sense that he is doing it for any personal reward other than the reward of serving his community. He stepped forward to provide some leadership to the Palmerston RSL. I take the time, firstly, to acknowledge the leadership that he has provided in our community, but secondly, there is another aspect of this resignation that needs to be addressed.
He informs me, that he, today, which was a couple of days ago, resigned as the president, and I compliment him on his service. He refers to a no-win situation with the club. He has come to a point where he feels he cannot move any further forward. But he still wishes the club and the membership of that club all the best for the future. He offers his thanks and the thanks extends to the CLP government for the help that was provided to this club whilst he was the president. That help was genuine help. It was no strings attached. It was just a group of people who are in need of support, a no more worthy group than the RSL.
Their club was infested by white ants, and I think it was a couple of years ago there was a bit of a fire and the whole thing was seriously condemned. Though it had been on the books for many months that something had to be done, been acknowledged in fact for years, that something had to be done, the white ants and the fires made sure that something was done. And it had to be done very quickly. I had been to a couple of AGMs and I offered to respond to the needs that were expressed. I did not feel very comfortable by making such a statement unless I felt that I would give my all to ensure that they would have their needs met.
I was satisfied when we were able to put in place the very things that were being articulated by the membership of that branch - that being a new club house and a covered area outside. That RSL club is now equipped with the very things that they have always wanted. I placed it upon the AGM of that club a number of years ago when I was new to the job. I said: I assure you I will do the very best I can to deliver what I can deliver, but I ask the membership of this club deliver something that only they can deliver, and that was to build the membership of the club.
The argument at the time was how can they build the membership, they haven’t got the facilities. I said, let me work on the facilities, I will do what I can. It took some time. I sometimes was not sure whether we were going to pull it off, but I think the white ants helped, but we managed to pull it off. Now I turn to the membership of that club and say: Now you have what you have always wanted, and I can say with some satisfaction that what I said I would deliver, with the support of my colleagues who were in Cabinet at the time, we now have.
But the membership of that club is a concern. The membership has declined substantially and we have this sad resignation from Ian Aiken, and I acknowledge his hard work.
The point I come to is this: there was a time when things turned a little bit strange at that club. I was approached to be the patron and I had learnt that another approach or offer of patronage had been made and I thought, ‘I do not want to get involved in something like this. All I want to do is to deliver what this club has asked for and once I have acquitted that, then I would be happy to stand as patron. But I am not really wanting that office more than to be able to walk around with the satisfaction that I have done what I can do as the local member’. So I declined the offer of patron at that point. I understand that the now Chief Minister accepted patronage of the Palmerston RSL. I use this opportunity as the local member to inform the Chief Minister and to request the Chief Minister that she please become actively involved in the current situation at the Palmerston RSL for no other reason than this club is in need of some assistance.
I am coming from the point of view that the club now has the facilities which I think are quite adequate. A club is buildings in one respect, but a club is actually membership and it is the whole ethos of the membership. The problem is that we have the Northern Country Music Association which also want to make use of that facility and there is serious need of attention in terms of tying together the aspirations of those two groups in a facility that has been funded by the Northern Territory government. So I ask the Chief Minister, the patron of this club, to intervene in the affairs and the activities of this club.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in adjournment tonight to pay tribute to a very special lady. The lady’s name is one Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann. Miriam is a lady who comes from the Daly River area and is the principal of the school at Daly River. Tonight, there is a great tribute being paid to Miriam at the Northern Territory University graduation ceremony. Miriam has the honour of delivering the Occasional Address. It is no coincidence that Miriam is delivering the address tonight because tonight the Northern Territory University is conferring on Miriam a Doctorate of Philosophy. I congratulate Miriam-Rose for this achievement. It is an outstanding achievement. I also congratulate the Northern Territory University for recognising the work that Miriam has done.
The Doctorate of Philosophy is for the work she has done in the field of education which is very extensive and would take me longer than 15 minutes to talk about that. My association with Miriam gives me enough information to elaborate a little in the time that I have tonight and it is a great story. Miriam-Rose was known in her younger years as Rosie, and she was brought up predominantly by her uncle and her uncle’s wife. When you look at it, it is a very interesting story, that part of it. Two brothers married two sisters and Miriam’s father passed away when Miriam was very young. Her uncle, who she calls ‘father’, and her uncle’s wife, who is really her aunty, brought her up for many years.
Miriam had a great upbringing, not only in Daly River. Her uncle who was looking after her was a tracker with the police in Daly River and was transferred, as a promotion I believe, to not only Adelaide River, but to Mataranka and also to Pine Creek. Miriam, in her young days, went with her uncle and aunty to those places. She went to infant and primary school in those communities. I guess from that point Miriam had a broad outlook on life, and has had some amazing achievements in her lifetime up to this point where she has been conferred with a Doctorate. It is going to be very interesting to call her Dr Miriam-Rose Baumann from this point onwards.
Miriam has three degrees; two education degrees in various streams, and also a Masters Degree, and now an Honorary Doctorate, which is a fantastic achievement in anybody’s terms for a lady who is still in the prime of her life. I should not mention her age, because she does not like it to be mentioned, but certainly still a young woman in anybody’s terms. It is a great story, and she has the privilege tonight to tell that story in her Occasional Address when she addresses the graduation ceremony. I had the opportunity this afternoon to slip out to a special afternoon tea to honour Miriam which was being held by the Catholic Education Office at their premises, and heard the honour that she was getting later on at the university. I could only stay a short while as you would understand. Obviously not being able to be at the graduation ceremony tonight with my wife is a bit of a disappointment to me. I believe that the speech that she would have given, some hours ago now, would have been a great one and would have moved the vast audience that usually attends the graduation ceremony at the Northern Territory University.
Miriam is an outstanding person who has some great views on life. She is a traditional Aboriginal woman who has gone out into the contemporary world, If I can call it that, travelled widely, but always dedicated to the education of her people and the enhancement of the people of the Daly River region. She is responsible for the art work that we see, and I am not saying just alone, she is responsible, but certainly as a catalyst for the unique art work that we see at Daly River. In a week’s time we celebrate the Merrepen Arts Festival. I know the Chief Minister is going and if members want to go to a great festival, then Merrepen Arts is a great one to go to. It is in the first week of June. Once again, the DSO is playing on the Saturday night before the Merrepen Arts Festival and it will be a great weekend.
Miriam was very much a part of those early days of bringing art back to the community, the traditional art that is so inherent in people. She was also involved in some written works that look at the life of the people of Daly. I pay tribute to her tonight for this outstanding achievement. It is fantastic that her work, which she goes about in a very quiet way, has been recognised by our leading educational institution, the Northern Territory University. As I said, I congratulate them for recognising her work and choosing Miriam to honour her with a Doctorate of Philosophy and giving her the opportunity to stand in front of that crowd and deliver the Occasional Address which the Chief Minister is having the opportunity to do tomorrow night, so it is no small thing. Miriam will have her family and her friends there, many of whom turned up today at the afternoon tea to celebrate with her.
I would like to put on the record my congratulations for a job well done, for a lady who never asks for any recognition, but always seems to find it coming to her door. She is an extraordinary lady and tonight’s honour is one way that the Northern Territory community at large is showing their appreciation for the work that she has done in the educational field.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre
Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make an announcement regarding the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre. Members would be aware that the Cooperative Research Centre is a key initiative of the Alice in Ten Desert Knowledge Australia. It will provide the cutting edge desert research foundation to the desert knowledge effort.
I am delighted to announce today that in recognition of the CRCs importance my government has promised $150 000 over seven years to support its administration and operations. This is a significant commitment to a development that will become a key driver in the growth of Central Australia, building a future based on a thriving desert knowledge economy. This week, the bid for the CRC has been finalised and will be lodged with the federal government next week. The submission is seeking $20m from the federal government over seven years. It has attracted confirmed financial commitments from private sponsors and other state governments of another $7m, and participating agencies from across Australia have committed existing staff time worth a further $64m over that time period.
The CRC will have its headquarters in Alice Springs and a significant proportion of the total $91m resources will be spent there over seven years. In addition to my government’s commitment this will add up to a huge financial boost to Alice Springs and to the Territory. The CRC is based on a cooperative effort between academic and research institutions, community groups, the private sector and relevant levels of government. The Desert Knowledge CRC bid has won the support of a very wide range of organisations and institutions.
The core partners with a major commitment to the CRC are CSIRO, ATSIC, the CLC, Curtin University of Technology and the NTU, the Desert Peoples Centre and both the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments. The strong support of indigenous organisations is particularly notable. Its supporting partners with a smaller but more important involvement include 10 other universities, OPTUS, Accenture and the South Australian government. Chambers of Commerce, regional development organisations, town councils, small business organisations and land councils from desert regions all around Australia are throwing their support behind the CRC.
The basic role of the CRC will be to produce research and results which improve the living conditions of the people living in the desert regions as well as developing new opportunities for employment. It will look for ways to better manage and take advantage of our remarkable natural environments, helping the industries that depend on these resources. For example, in a small way, it will help to develop and commercialise new bush products. It will address the high cost of building and maintaining infrastructure in remote areas thereby making it more attractive to people who live there and manage those lands for all of us. For example, it would look at integrated telecommunications options for maintaining power, water and waste services on small communities, and it will contribute to improving the human capacity of our desert people to take up the new opportunities emerging from that research.
Of course there is research already being done around the country that is relevant to desert communities in all these areas. However, it is patchy and disjointed. Through the CRC we will bring a new focus and integration to this work and reach the critical mass needed to develop new export opportunities for Australian desert knowledge.
The Desert Knowledge CRC will tackle the science of living in extreme conditions, it will implement solutions to the forgotten remote regions and it will contribute practically to reconciliation. The CRC will have a board of management chaired by Paul Wand, a previous director of Rio Tinto and well respected for his work with indigenous people. The remainder of the board will be appointed by the core partners in due course. The CRC’s CEO designate is Dr Mark Stafford-Smith a long time desert resident who has managed CSIRO’s laboratory in Alice Springs for the past six years. There are a series of excellent leaders who bring skills from across the desert regions to the bid.
The CRC is still only in its formative stages dependent now on federal government support. However, there are already a number of people who have worked hard to get it where it is now. Scientists from the CSIRO, public servants and members of the Alice Springs community, including indigenous members of the steering committee, have all been involved. I put on the record my appreciation and support for what they are trying to achieve.
The CRC bid exercise has significantly strengthened the Desert Knowledge Australia Network. I look forward to meeting with members of that network at the August Desert Knowledge Summit that will be such a critical part of the Year of the Outback, Outback Central 2002. It is indeed a very exciting year for desert knowledge Australia.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report on the Desert Knowledge CRC and her sharing that information with us. It is an initiative that was developed, supported and fostered by the former CLP government. We had the vision that Central Australia would have much to contribute to desert and arid zone development and hence the development of the Desert Knowledge Centre.
However, I do not welcome the Chief Minister’s rather mean-spirited contribution of $150 000 over a seven year period. That barely divides up to $21 000 each year or the equivalent of an AO1 or AO2 support person. That is not a particularly large contribution from the Northern Territory government when in fact she is looking at a $20m contribution from the federal government over the next seven years. If the Northern Territory government was really serious about this a more significant contribution should be made which would show Central Australia that this Labor government is committed to Central Australia. This has been very poorly demonstrated so far. The Labor government in this short nine months has shown very little support for Central Australia. The minister for Central Australia is hardly there and the CLP members have been the ones who have been strongest at representing Central Australia.
As the shadow minister for Central Australia, I look forward to being intimately involved with the Desert Knowledge CRC. I will keep a close watch on what this government will contribute to the wellbeing of Central Australia and what it can produce.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very patchy contribution. I know it was only a short time, but I do believe that the member for Greatorex could have done a lot better.
The contribution from the Territory, $150 000 each year for seven years, is an excellent contribution to the CRC. We have worked very hard to get the partnerships. When I indicated in my report how extensive those partnerships are for this CRC, it shows the extent of the work that has been done and the commitments that have been made. We are confident that the federal government will look very favourably at this CRC bid. It is a critical part of the Desert Knowledge project. I acknowledge that the Desert Knowledge project and the work that has been done was initiated by the previous government, and our congratulations to you on that.
We have certainly picked it up and run with it. We have funded an executive position for it because while we actually recognise the hard work done by the community, we need to have a dedicated officer now to move Desert Knowledge forward, move Alice in Ten forward. The churlish remarks about the minister for Central Australia only reflect on those who said them.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I just raise a point of order in the context of the Chief Minister’s comments about the lack of accuracy in the member for Greatorex’s response. I simply make the point, as I have made on previous occasions, that it is difficult for the opposition to provide a reasonable response to these reports given the fact that the first knowledge we have of them is when the minister stands and reads from a prepared script. It would seem to me that if the Chief Minister is concerned about the opposition’s contribution the Standing Orders Committee might consider ministerial statements and ministerial reports being distributed in a timely fashion to allow the opposition to respond adequately.
Madam SPEAKER: Your comments are noted, but it is not a point of order.
Update on Alcohol Restrictions Trial
– Alice Springs
– Alice Springs
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I want to give a quick snapshot of the experiences so far with the trial of the restrictions and complementary measures in Alice Springs. I want to remind members that the restrictions are not just restrictions. This is a trial of a raft of complementary measures as well as the restrictions themselves. The complementary measures, just to remind members, include:
- extension of night patrols to a day patrol;
extension of the sobering up shelter to seven days a week;
intervention with chronic drinkers, roughly 150 we estimate;
intervention over a longer period;
brief, targeted interventions of drinkers by health workers to try to pull them out of
critical situations; and
the evaluation of the trial itself.
That is the package that we are now trialling.
I am concerned that people are jumping the gun on drawing conclusions about the effects of the trial when it is in fact far too early to say what will finally transpire. At this stage I would like to compliment the member for Greatorex for what he said in his newsletter: let us give this a fair go; it is too early to say yet, but we will get back to you as we see a clearer picture. That is the attitude I would like to see around the town, particularly by our MLAs, because we have a very important role in community leadership in this critical episode in the town.
The first statistics on consumption rates will come after three months. So we will know about those at the end of June and at that stage we will have at least an early picture of what strategies are being adopted by both retailers and drinkers regarding their supplies of alcohol. At this stage there are some early issues that have become apparent without - again qualified by the fact that we are very early in the piece and there will be a lot more changes as things go on.
Obviously there are products for substitution. It was pretty clear that the entire drinking population in the town were not going to change to water, so there is a very mixed picture depending on which town camp or drinking spot you could go to in terms of the packaging that is on the ground. The north camps such as Warlpiri Camp or Mt Nancy, Palmer Camp, Hoppy Camp, they have swung almost entirely onto VB. That is due to another factor which I will mention very quickly in this report. Elsewhere in town, Stanley Tawny Port is pretty prominent amongst the packaging and, again, it links back to what retailers are doing.
There are certainly reports of a possible increase in aggressive behaviour. One factor was that there were 3000 to 5000 additional people in town for the Lightning Football Carnival which would have, in any event, caused a degree of increase in antisocial behaviour. Fortified wine, high alcohol content wine, will cause aggressive behaviour and that may well be what we find as we get further into the trial. There are also reports of amphetamine use in the riverbed that would also account for some of the increased aggression if, indeed, that is being experienced. The sobering up shelter reports that there is not an increase in aggression, or at least only a minimal increase if it is there. The police, on the other hand, are saying there has been a significant increase. So, we still have to get a more rigorous evaluation to find out.
Retailers. At this point I would like to name one goodie and one baddie, just to get some idea of the tactics being applied. North Side and East Side Foodlands, Michael Pawelski, I want to give them a real rap today, because they have not only refused to aggressively market the fortified wines as a replacement to the cartons of Fruity Gordo that had been removed by the Liquor Commissioner, but they are running out their stocks of fortified wine at the same time as selling other products. A lot of the reason why we are seeing a lot of VB in the northern town camps is because of Michael Pawelski’s store policy; that is where they shop. If we can get people from very high alcohol content wine onto VB, then we are going in the right direction.
Gap View Hotel is a baddie. There are two pallets, as we speak, of Tawny Port very prominently displayed right where people come to the takeaway, and it is quite clear that that is what they have chosen to take as a replacement product to the 5 litre casks of Fruity Gordo. They are taking their profit out of the intent of this trial, and I think they should show a bit more corporate citizenship than they are.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister chose to name outlets and mention their business practices. I think it is their choice and it is something that people should be allowed to do. We are in a private enterprise system and to say that one person should do something by government advice is very inappropriate and it is disgraceful that you support that. What the minister should be concentrating on is ensuring that there is adequate funding of complementary measures in Alice Springs.
I know the Night Patrol is suffering from quite limited funds so that they cannot operate every night of the week. They are not operating on Sunday nights and Monday nights at the moment. Furthermore, complementary measures included having day patrols. At the moment they are not doing that because they are underfunded. If the minister was serious about making sure that this trial works in Alice Springs, then adequate funding should be put in place. That is not in place, and that concerns me.
I am prepared to wait and see how the trial works. We have very talented people in the reference group who will ensure that a good analysis of the trial will be done. It is a pity that there is a bit of an element of strong arm tactics by some people who are pro-restriction. Their attitude within the community is not particularly good because it produces division, not only within the reference group, but within the community. Let’s wait for the trial, let’s see how it goes, let’s assess it objectively. Let’s not name parties who are supplying alcohol in one form or another. It is people’s choice the way they trade, and people’s choice to buy what they want to, and that is where the government should stop. Fund the complementary measures and ensure that the trial works properly.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, the member for Greatorex has read our motives completely wrongly if he thinks that we are going to be passively watching what is going on within this trial. We want this trial to work. We want to see the level of alcohol consumption reduced in Alice Springs and Central Australia; that is our aim. We will be in active discussion with all players in this. The equation we are working to is both supply and demand. We are not prepared to simply work on the demand side without looking at the supply side; that is why we have alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs.
We might have to focus this; we might have to prevail on individual retailers to try to get them to obey the spirit of what the town is trying to do, but we are not going to be passive in this. We are actively working towards a good outcome for the town. I invite all members, all the MLAs down there, to get in behind this and work actively through your networks to make it work.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence of students from the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at the Northern Territory University accompanied by Michelle Johnson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Northern Territory Business Round Table
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, the establishment of the Northern Territory Business Round Table was one of the main recommendations of the government’s Economic Development Summit, held last year. I take this opportunity to officially table the Co-Chairs’ report on the summit and once again place on the Parliamentary Record the government’s appreciation of the work of the Co-Chairs, Neville Walker and Bob Collins, and to all participants of the summit.
I am happy to advise members that the Northern Territory Business Round Table is now meeting on a regular monthly basis. The inaugural meeting was held on 19 February in Parliament House and, since then, a further two meetings have been held: one in Tennant Creek on 25 March to coincide with a community Cabinet meeting; the other in Darwin on 23 April. A further meeting is to be held in Palmerston on Thursday, 30 May. Meetings will continue monthly up to November 2002, and recommence in February 2003.
My goal is to chair the round table with my honourable colleague, the Chief Minister, hosting the events. There have been, and will continue to be, opportunities for ministerial colleagues to chair these important meetings. I report to members that the Business Round Table is proving useful for identifying the broad and diverse range of business development issues, as well as issues of common interest for business people.
There are 16 places on the round table. Five of the 16 places have been specifically reserved for key industry associations: the Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Association, Motor Traders, the Minerals Council and the Small Business Association. A further place has been reserved for union representation. The remaining places are for members of the general business community. The round table does not have fixed membership; rather, participants rotate from meeting to meeting.
I will now talk broadly about some of the issues that have been raised. The prohibitive cost of business insurance has been a topical discussion item on the agenda. The insurance market has hardened in recent times and there has been increasing concern regarding the provision of public liability insurance in Australia. Significant increases in premiums and, in some cases, the withdrawal of cover by insurers is having a considerable negative impact on a range of organisations. Data provided by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority shows that between 1998 and 2000 public liability insurance premiums rose by 14% and the cost of claims increased by 52.5%.
There was consensus at the first round table meeting in February that the government needed to go to the federal government’s proposed insurance summits with a clear preferred position. To assist with the formation of this position, the government hosted Northern Territory community forums in Darwin and Alice Springs. Participants at these forums contributed in a meaningful way to the formation of the government’s position on public liability insurance. Business confidence has been discussed. Indicators suggest that economic conditions are improving.
The onshore economy is expected to show some signs of pick-up over the remainder of the year, with the Northern Territory Treasury forecasting growth of 5% in 2001-02. The ABS reports that retail turnover increased by 13.2% in the March quarter, as did new motor vehicle sales increase by 19%. Nevertheless, we are committed to looking at suggestions and to do what is within our power to help. Certainly, current major project developments will boost activity; railway work is beginning to filter through to all regions of the Territory, providing economic activity and support for local business. All these factors point to a more positive environment for business and industry in the Northern Territory.
Government procurement is another issue that participants of the round table would like examined. The government purchase of goods and services does have a significant impact on the economy, and participants raised a number of issues including training of public servants who are purchasing officers for goods and services. The Chief Minister, as Treasurer, gave a commitment that the procurement review previously undertaken would be examined closely in light of the comments, with a view to maximising the effectiveness of the government’s procurement policies.
Regional needs have been raised and discussed, including the benefits of a sound and inclusive regional planning and broad-based regional autonomies.
In discussion at the round table in Tennant Creek key issues covered were crime problems affecting business in Tennant Creek, unlicensed second-hand car dealing, and rail issues. In response, the Northern Territory Police is working closely with the Tennant Creek community to implement an appropriate safety strategy. Consumer Affairs is conducting investigations with a view to mounting prosecutions where appropriate in relation to unlicensed car dealing, and ADrail has put together an information package to assist its subcontractors to clearly understand the documentation requirements for invoicing to ADrail to help them get their invoices paid as quickly as possible.
For the interest of members, further information about the round table can be found on the Internet at www.businessroundtable.nt.gov.au. On top of the information on the round table website, there is ongoing capacity for people to electronically register interest in participating in future round table meetings.
In closing, members can see the business round table does afford an effective means for the government to listen to the business community as it identifies issues that impact on business at the grassroots level. The issues are coming out and we will continue to work in partnership with industry and business in this area.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record the opposition’s support for any meaningful consultation with business. The business round table is one of those tools which government should be using to listen closely to the needs and wants of the private sector. The broad range of people on that round table is a good indication with one reservation, and perhaps I did not hear - perhaps the minister did not go through each and every organisation which has been represented. But there is not, it seems on face value, a representative from women in business. The Women’s Business Council was scrapped earlier this year, and there is certainly a need to listen to that important group.
The minister talked about listening carefully to business and listening to grassroots. I can imagine if the government is serious about listening to business, then they will be listening to the cry of no new taxes. There is talk of the HIH tax. Already business has to endure the motor vehicle registration tax. If this council does not raise that as a serious concern, I would be very surprised. Indeed, with people of the calibre of Neville Walker, one of the co-chairs, I am sure that that particular issue of new taxes and new burdens on business will be raised.
The business round table needs to, in my view, have some set and obtainable outcomes. It cannot be just paying lip-service to business people. We have already had the gabfest of the economic summit where one of the important priorities was the wharf precinct. The next thing we hear is the new Labor government postponing that development for 12 months. Things are tight in the business community. Initiatives or ideas …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Minister in reply.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow spokesperson for his in-principle support for this government initiative. Just picking up on a couple of his points: Women in Business, I can advise that 50% of the participants to date at the round table have been women business operators, business people across the Territory. We take very close care to ensure that we do ensure significant female representation at the round table.
In terms of no new taxes, I can honestly say that this issue has not come out as one of the main issues. I think the business community recognises the legacy of the extraordinary deficit position that we inherited from the previous government. No new taxes - certainly no business likes to pay taxes - and we certainly do not like to impose them, but they are a direct legacy of the fiscal position that we inherited from the previous government. All of the issues that are raised are up on the round table website. It has been mentioned, but it has not been amongst the top five issues that have been raised.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee - Budget Inquiry Report May 2002
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee - Budget Inquiry Report May 2002
Continued from 22 May 2002.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make my contribution to this debate this morning not in anger, and that would be justified, but with a lot of sadness. I must say that over the time since the budget manipulation was first demonstrated to me and in this parliament, I have gone through a lot of anger over this because in case anyone in this House has forgotten, this was an appalling thing to have been done. This was a morally wrong thing to have done. As the new Treasurer of the Northern Territory, to be told what had been perpetrated on Territorians by the previous government, I was extremely angry. I was in fact sickened because I think what happened and what we have seen demonstrated through the Public Accounts Committee report is sickening. It is sickening for our jurisdiction. When I read through the report and remembered how I felt at the time, I was sickened. I was sickened by what had been done and sickened by those who did it and I do not think we should forget. We should not forget because there is anger in this debate, but in terms of how I will address the issues today, I must say it is more in sadness.
I suppose the cynics would say that the report of the Public Accounts Committee which we had tabled in the House yesterday should be political manna from heaven for a new government. The critics, and we have already heard enough in this vein from members opposite, will claim this report is politically biased. The very fact that an inquiry of this nature was sought by this side of the House and the findings contained in this report is not something any member of this House or any Territorian can take delight in.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to apologise, are you?
Ms MARTIN: As representatives of Territorians, we occupy a privileged position of trust in our community. I pick up on the pathetic interjection from the member for Drysdale who should be apologising to every Territorian for his inadequacy and his unethical behaviour as a minister. Do not sit in here and ask for my apology. Where is yours?
As representatives of Territorians, we occupy a privileged position of trust in our community and I make that point very clearly to the member for Katherine, the member for Drysdale, and the member for Brennan. We occupy a privileged position of trust as perhaps the most visible members of our community on the national and, indeed, on the world stage. Our actions and behaviours as a government, and by that I mean all parliamentarians, demand a high standard of personal and professional integrity.
I am saddened by the circumstances that led to this inquiry and even more so by the legitimate findings and conclusions of this report. It is ironic to sit here on this side of the House after listening to almost a decade of criticism and more from the CLP over Labor’s credibility to manage the finances of the Territory. And did they go on! On and on, parliamentary session after parliamentary session. We were continually berated for the financial record of our interstate colleagues during the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Clearly, that sort of pride and arrogance does come before a fall. This report shows that the CLP has been found sadly wanting in their management of the Territory’s finances and that they deceived both this House and the people of the Territory by trying to hide that mismanagement in the last set of publicly available documents about the state of the Territory’s finances prior to an election.
Ultimately, of course, the CLP deceived themselves by arrogantly believing they could get away with this tampering of the budget data. The evidence presented to the committee makes it absolutely clear: the former Treasurer did tamper with last year’s budget data. I make that very clear. The evidence presented to the committee makes it absolutely clear that the former Treasurer did tamper with last year’s budget data.
The former Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, stated explicitly that without the former Treasurer’s intervention, the Treasury figures for Health, Education and Police would have been presented in the budget papers unchanged - direct link - intervention from the former Treasurer to change those budget papers. If there had not been that direct intervention those figures would have been unchanged.
What is also clear from the report is that this form of intervention was unprecedented and occurred relevantly late in the budget process. There was no clearly thought out rationale on the part of the former Treasurer. The advice given to departments occurred just 12 days out from the presentation of the budget papers. What the former Under Treasurer was asked to do was to provide an accounting rationale for what was clearly a political imperative to show growth in these three key agencies. The former Treasurer obviously knew that what he was doing was highly unethical, or else why would he need the Treasury to devise a rationale to justify his actions? So, what he was doing was highly unethical. He asked Treasury to devise a rationale to explain his highly unethical behaviour.
There are so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The report does not go to the issues of ethics that the current speaker is discussing, and to attribute it to Ken Clarke is the same misinformation as we heard yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, there is no point of order. You know the subject of this report.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I have spoken.
Ms MARTIN: It is a pity, Madam Speaker, that the members opposite did not think about their ethics at the time this was happening last May, rather than protest too loudly now, over a year later.
Mr Dunham: You don’t have any ethics.
Ms MARTIN: And don’t give me lectures about ethics when we have seen what you have done, and have heard the Public Accounts Committee Report.
Mr Dunham: Oh, I am happy to.
Ms MARTIN: There are just so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence.
Mr Burke: We know all about your ethics, when you told a lie about the lease.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark. You know what you said.
Mr BURKE: It was a truthful remark, but I will withdraw the fact that it was made in this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot say that. Just withdraw it unreservedly, without comment.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us make sure the interjections do not cause any more interruptions.
Ms MARTIN: There are just so many holes in the former Treasurer’s defence. He claims he wanted the agencies involved to reduce their expenditure to achieve the published estimated outcomes for the year. Yet he used none of the usual mechanisms available to him to ensure that this was the message that those agencies received. Quite the reverse. The agencies were told by Treasury that these changes were for presentational purposes only. They were not to change their behaviour, just a month out from the end of the financial year. They could carry on safely in the knowledge that the appropriation, their legal authority to spend money, was not being adjusted down to match the published estimated outcomes. The former Under Treasurer could not have made it clearer.
The former Under Treasurer made it very clear there were two numbers for these agencies. One for government and agency managers, and the other for public consumption and for this parliament. The rationale discussed between the former Treasurer and the Under Treasurer made no reference at all to cutting agency expenditures in the limited time available in the remainder of the financial year. It focussed on the supposed justification that there would be under-expenditure in these agencies compared to their legal appropriation.
Why, too, did the former Treasurer seek such a justification while in turn making no reference to the fact that such adjustments had been made anywhere in the budget papers, that some new accounting practice had been adopted? After all, he provided an explanation for other items that were explicitly identified in the budget papers, such as the Conditions of Service Trust. Further, if reductions in the budget bottom line were the aim of the Treasurer’s intervention, why didn’t he apply the rationale to all agencies? Why did he just choose Health, Education and Police? Why didn’t he apply this rationale right across the board? I think the member for Nelson identified that correctly last night. The former Treasurer was trying to cover his tracks before the committee, once his actions had become known.
Another reason lies in the other findings of this report. Not only were the agencies of Health, Education and Police adjusted downwards by a total of $16m, but there was the inclusion of a range of other items that all had the effect of reducing the budget bottom line, either in 2000-01 or 2001-02. The first and most significant of these was the treatment of the Conditions of Service Trust to a value of $150m. While the trust had always been included in calculations based on uniform presentation standards, it had, until the 2001-02 budget papers, been excluded from the budget sector or the public account. The publicly stated reason at the time for bringing the Conditions of Service Trust onto the public account was that it was necessary as part of the move to accrual reporting, the Working for Outcomes. This was stated in the former Treasurer’s budget speech on 29 May last year.
But what did the former Under Treasurer say in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee? I quote him:
- There is no doubt that the previous government introduced the bringing in of the $150m on budget as a
means of improving the budget result.
Again, we have the former Treasurer seeking to improve the perceptions of the budget by this House and the public. I say that word very carefully: ‘the perceptions of the budget’. He sought to hide the true state of the Territory’s financial position for political purposes in an election year.
The former Under Treasurer also revealed in evidence that the proposed sale of NT Fleet was also included, in haste late in the budget process, without any adequate examination by Treasury as to whether the proposal was still justified. Again, his conclusion was that it was included to make the budget bottom line look better. Again, ‘perceptions, look better’.
Subsequent investigations by Treasury provided to my government indicated that the supposed benefits of fleet outsourcing no longer applied due mainly to the changes in tax laws and reduction of interest rates. The former Under Treasurer knew that. He knew that the rationale had been done two to three years before that, and that tax changes had come into place. The arguments that applied previously no longer applied in May last year. Therefore, while the sale would have produced a once-off impact on the budget bottom line in 2001-02, if it had proceeded there would have been increasing operating costs over the longer term for government – ‘there would have been’. Interestingly, because Treasury did not have the time to analyse and update the proposal properly prior to the 2001-02 budget, there was no adjustment to the forward estimates to reflect these higher operating costs - yet another ongoing admission from the budget papers of May last year.
Another factor contributing to an improved bottom line was the deliberate under-estimation of growth in final consumption expenditure for the budget year 2001-02. Professor Percy Allan identified this as being in the order of a $40m under-estimation in 2001-02. This was clearly of concern to Treasury, with the former Under Treasurer advising the then Treasurer that action would need to be taken, but that advice was ignored, especially in the lead up to an election.
What the Territory has seen is a marked deterioration in the budget culture across a number of agencies. The government would publish unrealistically low estimates of expenditure in each year’s budget, but took no measures to ensure the actual outcome was close to the original budget estimate. There were ongoing increases throughout the year and, hence, the ongoing under-estimate of expenditure. Overall, these items combined to amount to almost $260m, more than 10% of the annual budget expenditure. Although these adjustments occurred across two financial years, their impact on net debt was the same as if they had occurred in a single year. All the adjustments had a downward bias on the estimated change in net debt.
The CLP likes to keep the focus on the relatively minor adjustments to Health, Education and Police, which were bad enough in themselves, but it is the big picture that is important. It is clear that the former Treasurer sought to systematically create the impression that the state of the Territory’s finances and the future projections were far rosier than they were in reality. He sought to arrogantly hide the truth from Territorians and from this parliament. Of course, the former Treasurer could not have achieved this deception without the cooperation of a number of people, first among these being his Cabinet colleagues. The report confirms that the member for Drysdale had knowledge of these adjustments. What is not so clear is whether the former member for Nelson understood the consequences. What is also not clear is whether the former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your interjections are beginning to annoy.
Ms MARTIN: What is also not clear is whether the former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister discussed his actions with the then Chief Minister, and whether the member for Brennan had any concerns with the unethical and highly irregular approach that was taken in terms of being able to show growth in three politically sensitive agencies, as well as the overall improvements to the budget bottom lines for 2000-01 and 2001-02.
Mr Burke: You make all these comments but you did not even call me.
Ms MARTIN: What is particularly disturbing, and I hope that when the member for Brennan, the now opposition leader gets to his feet, he does address that. I suspect, Madam Speaker, and it is a real tribute to his leadership, that he did not know.
What is particularly disturbing about the former Treasurer’s action is that he also attempted to compromise the integrity of a number of senior public servants, the CEOs and finance directors in agencies. Yet the culture had emerged over 27 years of CLP rule, and that culture was that the government could get away with whatever it wanted to get away with.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, a point of order. The allegation now is that the Chief Minister attempted to compromise the integrity of the public service. That has not been found in the committee. It reflects on public servants who are still serving officers, and I think it is well and truly out of bounds for this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, if you made that allegation, perhaps you should rephrase it.
Ms MARTIN: He attempted to compromise. He attempted to comprise by directing them for presentational purposes to underestimate.
Madam SPEAKER: I will accept that statement.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Is that not attempting to comprise? What language are we talking in here? There was no point in complaining …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. There is an allegation now from the member for Drysdale that the Chief Minister threatened the CEO of Health. I would like him to substantiate that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, did you say threaten …
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw ‘threaten,’ and I insert in its place, ‘attempted to threaten the CEO of Health.’
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. He has to substantiate that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I think you should withdraw that comment. It is an interjection that perhaps you cannot substantiate within the time.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, my interjection actually is in the report. The point I was trying to make …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I am speaking to the point of order. …is the allegations made by the Chief Minister are not in the report, and reflect likewise on CEOs.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not know the report as thoroughly as you. If the report says ‘attempted to threaten’ …
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to find it?
Madam SPEAKER: No, not at the moment. I am relying on your honesty in what you said.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order? I would really like to have a clear withdrawal, and a withdrawal without the kind of comment and qualifying we have seen from the member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the allegations that the Chief Minister may have attempted to influence CEO Paul Bartholomew.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, now the member for Karama calls my colleague, the member for Drysdale, a cretin. I think she is a cretin herself. Would she like to withdraw?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, did you make that interjection? Withdraw it.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: This is stupid, you know, when you carry on like this.
Ms MARTIN: If I can continue. This is not some theoretical debate, and I understand why passions are getting roused in here, because it was a morally wrong thing to have done. When you do morally wrong things, people do get het up about it. I understand some of the language that is happening.
To return to the position that CEOs and finance directors were put in, there was a culture that the CLP could get away with whatever they wanted, and if you were a CEO or a finance director, there was no point in complaining or raising concerns about the ethics of what was being undertaken. One CEO in Health, Paul Bartholomew, clearly did have concerns …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Drysdale, you have had your say.
Ms MARTIN: … and yet when he raised these concerns with his minister, the member for Drysdale, the opposition spokesperson on health, they were ignored.
Opposition members of the committee and the former Treasurer himself have criticised my use of the terms of ‘fraud’ and ‘corruption’ which I used in the censure debate in October last year.
The former Treasurer has crowed about the fact that the Public Accounts Committee inquiry has been able to find nothing that indicates he is guilty of a crime in the legal sense. I have been called upon to apologise for my comments during that censure debate. I will do no such thing. As I have said on numerous occasions, the Financial Management Act which governs the management of the Territory’s monies is silent on the issue as to how budgetary information is to be compiled. If there is no law covering such matters then of course the former Treasurer cannot be convicted of breaking any law. But that does not exonerate him and the former government for this travesty that they have committed. I was not using the terms ‘fraudulent’ and ‘corrupt’ in the strictly legal sense; they were used in the context of a breach of ethics and public trust that occurred.
However, if the former Treasurer had been operating under the new Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act at the time then he would be guilty of an offence. I have no doubt about that. He would be guilty of an offence.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister’s time has expired.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, given the lengthy interruptions to the Chief Minister’s contribution, I would ask that she be given a couple of minutes to complete her reply.
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: While the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act does prescribe how the budget documentation and financial reports are compiled, what really matters is the culture and integrity of the government as a whole. I want to assure Territorians that a Labor government will not indulge in the crass and unethical manipulations that we have seen under the CLP in recent years. Territorians deserve better than this and under Labor, they are seeing that delivered.
The committee has made a number of recommendations to prevent the events of last year being repeated. I am pleased to report that a number of these have already been implemented or are in train.
Recommendation No 1 was to improve budget documentation. As with a number of the recommendations, these have already been achieved by the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which, unlike the Financial Management Act, deals specifically with how budget information is to be presented and reported. Not only the budget itself, but the provision of mid-year financial reports updating the budget, and the information to be presented in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. A reconciliation between budget, budget revisions and actual outcomes are required under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The committee has called for estimated outcomes to be based on the allocation to each agency at the time the budget data is compiled. This has merit, and I give an undertaking to this parliament to consider this recommendation in future budget presentations. However, what is most important is that the budget and other financial reports have a full explanation of how data was compiled, including any deviation from accepted accounting principles. That is a clear requirement of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
In recommendation No 2, the committee recommends that the practice of ongoing and substantial supplementation to budgets through the year that became standard practice under the CLP be addressed. The Martin government has already addressed this issue in the form of a mini-budget. What the mini-budget did was to provide realistic budgets to agencies which they are expected to adhere to. While some supplementation may always be necessary to deal with unforeseen events, it is the approach of my government that core activities should be properly funded within the budget process - and you saw that happen very clearly within our mini-budget last November.
The third recommendation was to establish an Estimates Committee. I will not go into that issue now as it is the subject of a motion before the House later today.
The fourth recommendation was to do with agency record keeping. This is not something I wish to enforce on agencies through prescriptive laws. Instead, this is a commonsense recommendation which I am sure all NT government agencies will take note of.
The fifth recommendation is adequate evaluation. While I do not want to go into detail of Cabinet documents, I can confirm that the quality of Cabinet documentation is something we all keep a very close eye on. Agency submissions are not considered by Cabinet unless Cabinet is satisfied the information is a sufficiently comprehensive and reliable source on which to base decisions.
Recommendation No 6 concerns the estimates of land sales and this recommendation is noted. Under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act the basis for the land sale estimates will need to be explained.
Recommendation No 7 concerns the review of the conflict of interest in the committee. The CLP’s lack of integrity is well illustrated by their behaviour with regards to the Public Accounts Committee. It seems scarcely credible to me that we could have a situation where a member of the committee, the member for Drysdale, appears as a witness and then is able to deliberate on his own evidence. Given last year’s May budget is the collective responsibility of the Cabinet of the day, it is even questionable that the former Cabinet minister and the member for Greatorex remained on the committee for its deliberations. However, it is entirely consistent with the arrogance of the CLP and its attitudes to ethical behaviour and probity.
Madam Speaker, what the findings of this inquiry show is that it is untenable for the member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale to continue to maintain their roles as shadow spokespersons for their previous ministerial portfolios. One instigated and the other acquiesced in the perpetration of budget manipulation for political ends to the detriment of the people of the Northern Territory and the members of this House. It is a question of the quality of leadership of the current opposition leader for him to now act and relegate the former Treasurer and health minister to his back bench. At the very least, they must be removed from their current shadow portfolios. To fail to act will send a strong signal to all Territorians that the CLP is unchanged and unrepentant, and that it continues to treat the people of the Territory, Madam Speaker, and this parliament, with contempt.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader) Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister said in her comments that a Labor government will not engage in manipulation of the facts. I would submit to this House that this whole episode and the results of this Public Accounts Committee report has been a manipulation of the facts. I intend to go to the facts only in my response, not the rhetoric. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, there has been a tenuous atmosphere in this House in the past. There is now a poisonous atmosphere in this House in terms of the relationships with both sides.
The Labor Party says that the CLP had an attitude of ‘win at all costs.’ What we see is a Labor Party that has an attitude of ‘destroy at all costs’, and destroy a person’s character, with rhetoric. It is an unfortunate situation and it is very sad, and I wonder how we can ever repair the damage that has been done. This has been an extraordinary exercise in political muckraking, coupled with a lynch mentality - let’s string them up and we’ll find out later whether they did anything wrong or not. The trouble is, they have found out that the only thing that smells around here is the government’s abuse of due process and what is the crushed body of justice and fairness.
I find it curious, and I ask the media to ponder on this. Why it was decided, presumably by the Chairman, that some submissions should be included in the body of the Public Accounts Committee report, and others have been tabled, just in passing, so that you have to chase them up through the Tabled Papers office, and it is quite a difficult exercise. You have the report and the appendices, but the real substance is in the Tabled Papers office, which you have to go down, find and then photocopy, and then read to try and get an indication of what is not in this report, but is very relevant. And do you know what? There is not, in this report, Madam Speaker, the official Treasury submission to the PAC report. The official Treasury submission to the PAC is not even included in the PAC report.
I would have thought any fair minded person would say that this would have been a very important part of this inquiry. Certainly, the majority report is made much via the selective quoting of the oral evidence of the former Treasurer and former Under Treasurer, yet they have not even seen fit to include the official submission from Treasury which answers specific questions the PAC put to the department. Why was that? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious. This submission does not fit nicely into the findings that the majority have arrived at, but more of that in a moment.
There are two basic flaws that permeate this report and the thinking of the majority of the committee members. The first is, what is an estimate and who should do the estimating? And the second is, the role of the elected government in formulating the budget. The core of this whole issue is whether an estimate of how much a department would actually spend should be made by the relevant agency or the Treasurer on the advice of Treasury. Anyone who has been involved with the budgeting process would know that every department and every agency would estimate that it is going to spend its full allocation, which would generally be wrong. That is why the estimate is made by the central agency. The Treasury made it clear in their submission to the PAC that agencies traditionally under-spend and then seek carry-overs. Treasury included a table in their submission that showed the under-expenditure by Health, Education and Police over the past five years.
Health’s figures are $13m in 1996-97; $6.3m in 1997-98; $7.3m in 1998-99; $8.4m in 1999-2000; and $3m in 2000-01 - which works out to an average under-expenditure of $7.6m per year. Education’s figures were $3.5m, $4.5m, $5.7m, $1.4m and $2.3m for those periods - an average under-spend of $3.5m a year. Police under-expenditure across the same years was $738 000, $1.6m, $2m, $1.9m and $1.2m - an average under-spend of $1.5m per year.
Let’s put that average under-expenditure up against the adjustments made to those three departments in the estimates in the 2001-02 budget papers. Health’s average under-spend on the estimates for the previous five years was $7.6m; the adjustment was $8m. Education’s average was $3.5m and the adjustment was $6m. Police average under-expenditure was $1.5m and the adjustment was $2m.
What did the departments actually spend? The adjustment to Police estimated they would spend $126.3m; they actually spent $126.6m - not a bad effort at estimating, in my opinion. The estimate for Education was $345.3m; it spent $350.5m but, as the PAC noted, it got an extra $5.3m in June. If you take off that extra last minute funding, Education spent $345.2m, almost exactly reflecting the estimate. At Health, the estimate was adjusted to $436m. Excluding an extra $3.5m added in June, the department spent $444m - exactly to its allocation, and the first time anyone could remember the department doing that. So, the estimate and the actual expenditure was out by $8m. But, as Treasury again pointed out in its official submission to the committee, even after those adjustments departments and agencies under-spent by $26m.
We have had an inquiry, and lengthy and vitriolic debate in this parliament about an estimate that under-estimated expenditure by $8m. Yet, no one seems concerned that, across the whole of government, the estimates predicted another $26m would be spent and it was not. Now, perhaps we should have an inquiry on that.
Estimating the year’s expenditure some months out is an inexact science. I would submit on the figures I have quoted, I believe my colleague, the previous Treasurer, did a pretty good job on the advice of his Treasury officials. In this House on Tuesday, we had examples of two present government ministers both claiming that their departments were estimating they would come in on budget. Yet, the figures released under the signature of the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in her quarterly financial report shows they have had to reduce their average quarterly expenditure by about $11m each to meet their minister’s expectations. The ministers are standing by their departments - Health and Employment, Education and Training - who are estimating that they will spend $11m less this quarter than they have in the previous three quarters. That is their estimate, which logically, is $11m out. Perhaps we should have an inquiry on that.
It is also worth noting that in his answer on Tuesday, the Deputy Chief Minister praised to the hilt - and deservedly so - his CEO, Mr Peter Plummer. The Deputy Chief Minister said Mr Plummer was, and I quote: ‘One of the best CEOs we have had in the entire public service and does a great job’. I agree. I have worked with Peter Plummer as CEO of Health, and I know how good he is. I concur with the Deputy Chief Minister, which is another reason why I cannot understand why the government is so determined to suppress the document from the Education Department to the PAC. Why is that document not there? Mr Plummer, one of the best CEOs they have, as I understand gave a submission to the PAC, yet it has been excluded from the report.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s attitude is also in stark contrast to the findings of his colleagues on the PAC, that replies from Mr Plummer and his colleagues ‘lacked clarity’, page 11 paragraph 2; or that Education’s practices indicate ‘poor budgetary processes and management’, page 11, paragraph 6. The PAC have even put part of the blame for the black hole on Education’s efforts to manage its budget. That is at paragraph 7, page 11.
Now, if I know Peter Plummer, I reckon Peter Plummer would be pretty upset by those sort of findings that are in the PAC report, and I ask the question again: Why is Education’s submission not in the body of this report?
But let’s return to the Health adjustment which has been the cause of most of the ruckus. The Treasury was asked by the committee to comment on the Health CEO’s description of this realignment as ‘artificial and deceptive’. Now this is Treasury reporting on that specific question. Treasury’s response was, and I quote in full:
- The description provided by Territory Health Services seeks to place one interpretation on the events and this
differs to the interpretation of the other agencies. In doing so, the rationale for the adjustment was not explained
to the new minister and selective advice from Treasury was provided to the new government. The official Treasury
advice was not provided. The bottom line is that there was a logic in reducing Health estimated actual
expenditure in 2000-01, particularly given the history of carry overs for Health.
That is the official Treasury advice. That is the advice which is not in the PAC report. That is what you have to go over to the back room and scurry for and photocopy to get the real answer as to what happened with the budgetary situation in Health.
I believe that pretty well sums up the truth of the situation. Unfortunately, the majority of the committee have chosen to go with the interpretation of events put by the CEO of Health, and not the interpretation of other agencies, including Treasury. To do otherwise would have meant the committee had to return to this House, to the Chief Minister, and say, ‘Whoops, I think we have hung the wrong people’, and thank God we do not have lynching in the Northern Territory because there would be a few carcasses swinging from the trees at this stage and we would not be able to get them down and breathe some life back into them.
There is one other area of Treasury’s submission I would like to quote and it goes to the points raised by the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson is a man of integrity and I know the member for Nelson dwells long and hard on his comments. But he was quoted on the news last night, listened to and I reckon, more than anyone, believes that is the reason why something wrong could have been done. He said he believed that the downward pressure that the former Treasurer said he was trying to put on the Department of Health was something the former Treasurer dreamed up after the inquiry and this issue was raised. I reckon that is a pretty damning statement of the former Treasurer from the member for Nelson. He suggested, I believe, that he had problems with the former Treasurer’s comments that part of his actions in adjusting the estimates for Health was to put pressure on the department to reduce spending. The member for Nelson has said that he believes this is an argument developed by my colleague after these charges were laid. Now, could I direct him to the comments, again, in the Treasury’s official submission on page 2, which says this:
- The high level discussion [this is between Treasury and the Treasurer] involved concern about the quality of
Health’s budget management and its reluctance to be as open and frank as the previous management. The
position as stated by Health at Budget Cabinet was not considered to be reliable because the underlying
growth position was not explained, and we suspected there was significant negative growth in hospital and
renal services that should have been producing savings in 2000-01. There had been quite large increases
for growth in hospitals and renal services over the last few years.
A direct quote from the Treasury response to the submission.
I would suggest that these discussions go to the very point that the former Treasurer has put. These discussions took place before the budget was delivered and show a clear intention to send a signal to Health that the Treasury, and Treasurer, did not trust Health’s figures and expected them to come in under the allocation.
There are two other aspects of the naivety of the majority report I want to mention in relation to estimates before moving on. The first is that the estimate is just that: an estimate of how much a department will spend. It has no effect on the actual allocation, but rather is an estimate that, irrespective of what the department has been budgeted to expend, it is believed it will spend this estimated amount. The second point is something that the majority of report seems to be unable to come to terms with. We are talking about an estimate, a forecast, a prediction. The fact that some unknown factors may or may not influence expenditure in the period between the estimate being made and the end of the financial year is the very reason it is called an estimate. It is not cast in stone; it is not absolute fact.
I want to touch briefly on the role of ministers, Cabinet and particularly Treasurers in the preparation of the budget and its presentation to parliament. In our system of democracy, the people elect their representatives to make decisions, to implement policies for the common good, to allocate tax payers’ money to the benefit of the tax payers and the community. In the perfect world of a bureaucrat, it is about figures, not people. If you need more money, introduce new taxes. If you want to spend less money, cut services. That is why our system gives the final responsibility to the elected representatives and not economic and fiscal experts. The former make the decisions; the latter advise. To do otherwise is to abrogate one of the prime responsibilities of being the elected government.
My colleague, the member for Katherine, accepted that responsibility and made the decisions using the expert advice available to him. If you are going to change that system, then why don’t we return to the old days of having the bureaucrats as official members of the Assembly and abolish the ministers? At least then we would be able to question the people who you say should be making all the decisions. I do not believe we should do that. I believe it is up to the line ministers to interrogate their departments on how to implement the policy of government and the cost of such implementation and bring that to Cabinet. It is then up to Cabinet to make decisions on what will be done and how much will be spent, and it is up to the Treasurer to put it all together.
You are the government now, I say to the Labor Party, and you can hand off all of that responsibility to your departments but democracy in the Territory will be poorer for your decision.
As this report notes in its first paragraph of its first chapter on page 1, the genesis for this Public Accounts Committee inquiry was the tabling in this parliament of a memorandum from the CEO of Territory Health Services to the Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services dated 27 September 2001. In tabling that memorandum the minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
- When I first became Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services 59 days ago, I spent some time
considering the budgets and the general financial situation in my portfolio. I soon discovered that there
were large discrepancies in the figures in the former government’s budget. I asked my Chief Executive Officer
to provide me with a response as to why there was such a large discrepancy in the figures of the former
government’s budget, which he did, and in the form of a memorandum.
So she asked him to report back to her on these discrepancies. The minister said she asked her CEO to explain the large discrepancy in the figures in the former government’s budget. The CEO begins his answers with the words in the memo:
- Attached as requested is an explanation of THS’ budget situation in 2001-02.
Now, there have been many words said so far in this debate about misleading words, untruths, manipulation, etcetera, but reading through this report I came across the evidence of Minister Aagaard to the Public Accounts Committee. On at least nine occasions when she was allowed to answer questions in her sworn evidence to the PAC, she said she had no knowledge of what her CEO was going to tell her, that it was a complete shock, that all she had ever discussed with him was the underfunding of Health. What she said in this parliament on 25 October, that she was concerned about what she perceived to be the discrepancies in the budget figures, fits perfectly with the way her CEO answered in his memorandum of 27 September. The totally different story she told the PAC absolutely beggars belief. I quote:
- I was not aware of what he was going to advise me on …
was the mantra she kept repeating to the PAC, and you can find that on page 433 of the transcripts in paragraph 10. But in this Chamber, she made it quite clear she asked him to explain the large discrepancy in the figures and he gave her an answer. Perhaps we should have an inquiry into that discrepancy, an inquiry into the discrepancy between what she told the full Assembly and what she told the committee.
Before concluding, there are two final points I would like to make. The first is, I admit, self-serving. The committee’s report makes it quite clear there is a direct relationship between the censure motion on 25 October and the reference to the PAC on the same date. The committee is so certain of the connection that it quotes in full the censure motion on page 1 of its report and includes, at appendix 11, the Hansard record of the censure debate. As you know, I was named and censured in that motion, and while I know I reflected the decision of this House, I would point out that I was not called to give evidence at the inquiry. No evidence was given against me at the inquiry, and no finding or comment was made about me in the inquiry’s report. After we have endured the spectacle of an inquiry of the PAC to justify that censure, could I be as nave to suggest that as I appear to have emerged untainted, the Chief Minister might at least acknowledge that.
The final point is the most serious of all. Throughout this whole affair, what has been left hanging out there is not just the claim that my colleague, the member for Katherine, got his estimates wrong in relation to one department, nor the allegation that he did it for political purposes. Rather, it has been that somehow or other he has perpetrated a fraud, he has committed an illegal act. He has done something with at least $8m of the public’s money, he has deprived Territorians of much needed health, education and police services, and not one of these statements is true. Not one of those allegations can ever have, or has ever had, any basis in fact. Not one of these insidious implications has been supported by one shred of evidence in fact before the PAC, and not one of those charges has been proved by this report.
This has been a deliberate campaign by the government to impugn the reputation of my colleague and the previous CLP government. On the strength of the report of the committee, dominated by government members, it has failed. It has failed on the findings this committee has presented to the House, and it has failed totally on the evidence presented to that committee. It has been a fraudulent campaign, seethed in hatred and fostered by vissitudes, envy and ignorance.
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I was very disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening remarks, describe relationships between both sides of the House as poisonous. I ask him, Madam Speaker, where is he when you have so graciously hosted a couple of dinners in recent weeks at sittings, where members of both sides have enjoyed your hospitality and that of the guests that you have seen fit to invite into your office? If he bothered, if he was able to come down perhaps to the level of the rest of us and enjoy your hospitality, he would find that relationships are indeed quite cordial.
Where is he when I go on occasions with the member for Katherine for a quiet little beer in the cold Stirling bar out the back? Quite cordial - we sit down and have a quietie - where is he? There is nothing poisonous from this side of the House, and I suggest any poison outside the House is in his own poisoned mind. I would suggest he comes down and takes the opportunity to come to one of your dinners, which I am sure you will continue to hold.
I commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for this report. I think he has done a tremendous job for a recently elected member of this Chamber. I did not appear before the committee, but I did not find very pleasant reading in this report at all. When you see headlines such as ‘A Budget Manipulator,’ you would expect that there might be some contrition. Now I do not expect them to come in here and fall over and apologise, but some contrition from the ministers who were responsible for what they did. The news report was that the former Treasurer felt that the report vindicated him because it had not established a case of fraud against him. That response really is appalling, and I think the member for Nelson got it right, in part, when he said it is now up to the electorate, really, to judge the former Treasurer. I am surprised - not really - a little surprised, that we heard no contrition and no apology, or anywhere near the word ‘sorry’, from the member for Drysdale. He made a contribution in this Chamber yesterday but we did not hear anything of a contrition, a conciliatory nature, because the findings of this report clearly damn both himself and the former Treasurer.
Of course, up until quite recently, and maybe even still the case, the member for Drysdale fancies himself as the next leader. He fancies himself as the next Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that these findings in this report simply mean that that cannot happen - that simply could not happen. It is worth looking into the future because you have to ask yourself: where does the opposition go beyond the member for Brennan, because two of its three most senior frontbenchers have been found to manipulate budget figures. That generational change has to come, and the would-be leader, the member for Drysdale, seems to me to have sunk his chances.
I want to go to page 218 of the report itself. This is where Mr Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, is appearing before the committee and I will pick up from there where the Chairman says:
Thank you Mr Clarke for your written submission to this particular hearing. If I could start off with your written
submission, in the due detail of 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.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, and then subsequent to 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 that 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.
No further questions, your honour. ‘Yes, they would have’.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Hang on! The member for Greatorex tries to get in lend a hand here, because he thinks this isn’t going too well. He gets in and says: ‘Can I just follow on the question you just asked?’. Of course the Chairman says: ‘Okay, thanks Mr Clarke.’ He knows; he’s got the gen: the figures would have been unchanged except for the Treasurer. And the Chairman knows he is sitting on it. He has the answer that everybody was looking for: ‘Okay, thanks Mr Clarke. I’ve got a couple of questions following on from this ...’ But he is cut off, because the member for Greatorex, he is bright enough to see there is a real problem here, but he is not bright enough to shut his mouth. This is the problem.
- Can I just follow on the question you just asked? Would a Treasurer always intervene on Treasury’s figures on
any budget in the sense that he gives directions to Treasury?
Mr CLARKE: Oh no, no.
‘Oh, no, no’ ‘Oh, I wish I’d shut my mouth’, but it’s too late – it’s too late, sunshine! You have stepped into the mire because the Chairman - and I could imagine the size of the grin on the Chairman’s face when he was cut off by the member for Greatorex:
- Can I just follow on the question you just asked. Would a Treasurer always intervene on Treasury’s figures on
any budget in the sense that he gives direction to Treasury?
Mr CLARKE: Oh, no, no. This was a particular concern for him and this is what he said to me: ‘It was a particular
concern’. I interpreted it as being because it was the election year … [‘I interpreted it as being because it was an
election year’] …although he didn’t actually say that, and we had the same issue in it for a number of years.
It is just delightful that the member for Greatorex …
Mr Dunham: Keep going and get to the bit where he said it was more accurate.
Mr STIRLING: Keep going? Yes, you had your opportunity yesterday, sunshine. You could have picked that up. In that sense, it is all gone, wrapped up. I thank the member for Greatorex for just elaborating that little more, although I am sure the Chairman probably had a similar question ready to pop to Mr Clarke.
The recommendations in the report do give us a chance, as I have said, to look to the future, and the issues of the Estimates Committee appears as recommendation three. For as long as I have been in this Assembly, in my 12th year, I do not know how many budgets, 10 or 11 it has to be, we have argued consistently for some form of estimates process to scrutinise the budget. The CLP always said, ‘Trust us’. For 26 years they said to Territorians, ‘Trust us, we know what we are doing, we don’t need an Estimates Committee’. We can see, of course, what that produced - a budget that was manipulated and two former frontbenchers who today still cannot see what they did was wrong.
Of course, for the 26 years of denial, no sooner in opposition than they bounce in here with a proposal. What for? An Estimates Committee. I never believed it until I found the opposition benches …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe he is reflecting on a bill that is before the House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, we have tolerated your interjections but we did listen to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. I request that you also refrain from your constant interjections. And please only raise points of order that are valid.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, we believe an Estimates Committee will get it right, will enhance budget scrutiny and will bring us into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand. I believe the members of the committee deserve our thanks for that.
The Chair of this committee was undoubtedly put under a great deal of pressure by the CLP members in the media and they made many false accusations about him during the course of this hearing. But to his absolute credit, he stuck to his task and he produced a good report. The other members too, the member for Barkly, the member for Sanderson, the member for Nelson, deserve our thanks for their effort and their time in the process.
I will just touch on the dissenting report, which lacks any credibility at all. Again, I have served on a number of committees in my 11 years in here. I have never seen such an unprofessional piece of material as produced here. If we go to the headings:
- the PAC is in contempt of parliament.
the PAC is biased.
the PAC’s processes are flawed …
…the government should apologise to Mr Burke …
the PAC has obtained evidence … that the Chief Minister either deliberately or ignorantly has misled
parliament. She should make a personal explanation …
the Chairman, Dr Burns, is incompetent.
the PAC is unable to determine if the current Chief Minister exerted undue pressure on Paul Bartholomew
in order to politicise this matter.
I will pick up a couple of these. In relation to the incompetence of the Chairman, I refer to the Northern Territory News, John Loizou:
- Truth, as every mother will tell you, will out. And at this week’s hearing of the parliamentary Public Accounts
Committee in Darwin, a most unlikely quartet proved this to be true. The three ALP and one Independent members
of the six member committee showed in a single day that the age of an effective back bench MLA in a
representative democracy is not dead.
And the truth they exposed was that the figures used by former CLP Treasurer, Mike Reed, in his last election
year budget were manipulated. The quartet was a most unlikely grouping - four novice MLAs who at first
seemed at best ditherers, and at worst, inept.
But despite their inability to either lead or cross-examine witnesses, they made their committee effective in
showing how ministers and public servants work. And in passing, they might also have taught three churlish,
former CLP ministers - Dr Richard Lim, Steve Dunham and Chris Lugg - that it was they who lost the last
Territory election.
And I think this says it all:
- But if ignorance proved bliss and the patience and good manners of committee Chairman, Labor MLA,
Dr Chris Burns, eventually won out, it was the ‘Yes, Minister’ performance of Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke …
You do not often read or hear those sorts of things said about politicians. They write him off as incompetent and here we have a description attesting to his patience and good manners. And so well mannered and patient is he that he deferred when he had the next question on his lips to the Under-Treasurer; he deferred to the member for Greatorex. That is how patient and well mannered he is. So in addition to that he has the smarts, he has the political smarts too, because he read that the member for Greatorex was going to do it for him.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … and would a Treasurer always intervene …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, no, no! said Mr Clarke.
Here is an interesting one. ‘The PAC is unable to determine if the current Chief Minister exerted undue pressure on Paul Bartholomew in order to politicise this matter’. There is no evidence, they were unable to determine this. But we have to get the allegation in there, Madam Speaker, so they put it in. They are probably unable to determine a whole lot of things. If it does not get into the report, it is all other than by way of this shoddy minority report: ‘the contempt of parliament; biased; the processes are flawed; should apologise to Mr Burke; the Chief Minister has deliberately or ignorantly misled parliament’. It really defies explanation or analysis. I just don’t know. ‘The Chairman, Dr Burns, is incompetent; it “was chaired by a person who lacked the competence, impartiality and technical acumen to provide a report at a level which should satisfy parliament”’. It leaves your report for dead, I have to say. It leaves your report for dead.
For example, what does this mean:
Indeed, found, several of the Chief Minister’s allegations made to several of the parliament during the …
Where do you get off here? Did anyone proof read this before you put it in? This minority report is really just a dreadful nonsense.
If we want to talk about credibility, why don’t we go to the issue of the member for Drysdale sitting on this committee in the first place? You would not get a more clear conflict of interest than sitting on a committee that is going to be questioning him about his previous performance as a minister.
Territorians do not believe that it is acceptable to manipulate a budget in the fashion that it was. They do not believe it was a crime, but they certainly believe that it was unacceptable. We do believe that the future does look better and the Estimates Committee, which will happen under this government, will take us a step closer to increased scrutiny of the budget and the process. I urge the CLP opposition to take an opportunity to examine themselves and ask whether they want to continue into the future with two front benchers who have so readily demeaned the offices that they held. You ask yourself about the young and restless on the other side, how long will they allow this to occur, to go on into the future? They have to ask themselves would they adopt that same carriage or are they prepared to make a stand in the interests of their own party?
In relation to Education, I am advised that the Education CEO was advised by the Under Treasurer of the proposed reduction in the estimated actuals expenditure for presentational purposes. The CEO made it clear to the Education minister, Chris Lugg, and the Under Treasurer and other Treasury staff were also advised that Education did not agree with the proposed Treasury figures for the estimated actual expenditure. In their view, the representation of the figures was a decision to be made by the Treasurer and the Under Treasurer in the knowledge that Education advised that they did not agree with them. The Education senior team’s concern was to be sure that the estimated reduced reported actual expenditure did not affect the final allocation for Education and they were assured by the Under Treasurer that the allocation would not be affected. And that would have been their overriding concern, to know that the level of funding they had was still in place. I have absolute confidence in the senior team in Education in relation to this matter.
I thank the member for Greatorex for his foresight in jumping in ahead of the chairman of the committee to ask that question of the Under Treasurer. I think that is game, set, match. Thank you, ball boys. Thank you, umpires. Would the Treasurer involve himself in these as a matter of course? ‘Oh, no, no’, said Mr Clarke, and that says it all.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I come to speak after the contribution of the Deputy Chief Minister, because the thread that ran through his contribution to this debate clearly demonstrates the purposeful meaning behind this process. We all have known it, but his continued reference to the desire of the now government to cleanse the opposition bench of experienced members of parliament and former ministers is evident in his contribution, and that was indeed the genesis of the Public Accounts Committee.
I was a member of this parliament when the Public Accounts Committee was first established. I recall an occasion when a number of members from this parliament visited the New South Wales parliament to have a meeting with the then chairman of their Public Accounts Committee, to have a look at the PAC process and to get some understanding of just what it was all about. It was on that occasion in particular that I became aware of the importance of a Public Accounts Committee, the value of a Public Accounts Committee, and the need for it. It was subsequent to that when we reported back that the government agreed to establish a Public Accounts Committee in this parliament.
It is a very important process. I am saddened by the fact that the process that has been used in this case, and the means by which it has been used, as demonstrated by the Deputy Chief Minister with that thread through his contribution to this debate, has been used politically. I hope that some time in the future some student of politics may use this report, and the processes of this particular investigation, as a study of the effectiveness of Public Accounts Committees. Because, when that occurs, when that student does that job and reports back, it will be found that much was lacking in this process.
I will give a couple of examples. The fact that the principal agency in relation to this particular matter, the Northern Territory Treasury, did not have their submission included in the final report. It is in a box …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is untrue. If the honourable member for Katherine cares to look at the appendix at the back of the report, he will see quite a number of submissions from Treasury.
Madam SPEAKER: Listed, but not included in the report; I think that is the problem for the member.
Mr REED: Is it in the report? Can we flick through here and find it?
Madam SPEAKER: It is listed, but it is not included in the appendix, that is what has been claimed.
Mr REED: Is it readily available for members of the public, for the media, and any other interested person, in the context of this very serious issue, to be able to refer to, in the context of the very issues that are entered into in the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee?
The fact that it was deemed necessary to have some reports which have comments of some interest and support to the government’s case, are readily available, in the appendices, are not stashed away somewhere in a box, does lead one to ask, why? What is there to hide in relation to this?
That is a cogent example as to why this report has been presented in the way that it has. Yesterday we saw a very alarming example of the concealing of evidence, indeed, of the fact that an agency central to these investigations put forward a report and a submission and advice to the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the core issues pertaining to this investigation, and that was not included at all. I don’t know to what extent it was considered by the PAC. One of the members of the PAC attempted yesterday to table it. Well, there was uproar in terms of that and, from what I could see of it from here, it looked to be a fairly heavy document in terms of the number of pages it comprised. One can only be led to believe that it contained information of detriment to the government’s case.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The document that he is referring to was not tabled because it was in breach of standing orders; for no other reason than that.
Madam SPEAKER: We understand that it was not allowed.
Mr REED: Thank you. I thank the honourable member for making my point and for strengthening my case, because members of the PAC had seen it. Government members of the PAC clearly decided that it not be considered or incorporated in the report. When an attempt by a member of the PAC to make issues clearer, to make more information available to the public so that they could better understand the full scope of the report, that effort was denied. One can only be left to ask, why the deceit in terms of the retention of information? We will never know that until, of course, perhaps some student in the future takes on the job of looking at what this PAC did.
In this country we have a concept called natural justice and proving things beyond reasonable doubt. That, in relation to a Public Accounts Committee, is a very cogent point. In fact, that is central to the task which they are allotted by this parliament. They are not allotted the task by the government. The Public Accounts Committee answers to this parliament and, in turn, to the people of the Northern Territory. So, it is very important that justice and fairness is adhered to. From the point of view of government members and, indeed, the member for Nelson, I think it is important to reflect on the fact that they have had only nine months or so experience in parliament. I can understand how they would have found some difficulty in understanding the processes of government; understanding the process of the interaction between agencies like Treasury and the Chief Minister’s Department, and the public service generally; understanding the Cabinet process and, in short just having an appropriate level of experience, knowledge and professionalism in terms of parliamentary practice, to be able to pursue the task at hand.
I am not offended but I am disappointed that the member for Nelson was apparently able to be led by the government in relation to these matters. If we look at the genesis of this investigation it was started here in this House, and it was a censure motion by the government against the former Chief Minister and myself as former Treasurer. That is where it all started. Patently obvious. It is right up front in the appendices to the report and the Chief Minister’s contribution to that censure motion is included in full in the report.
If we go to that and consider what the allegations were: the allegations were those of gross fraud; those of fraud; and those of the Treasurer corrupted the budget. Now, by virtue of that presentation and direction that the Chief Minister undertook at that time, in terms of the subsequent PAC committee, they were the allegations; that is what had to be substantiated. It very obviously became apparent to the government members of the Public Accounts Committee during the course of their deliberations, that that could not be proved. I denied that it could be proved in my contribution to the censure debate on the day. So, from the government’s point of view we have to look at, ‘Oh dear, where do we go from here? This has the risk of falling in a huge hole and we will be left with a touch of egg on our faces’.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: It ill behoves the Deputy Chief Minister to interject regarding comments by the former Under Treasurer when the Chairman and the government members on the Public Accounts Committee have stashed away in a box somewhere the formal Treasury submission to this investigation.
It quickly became apparent to the government members that they would be unable to prove their case. They then started to look at what they might be able to salvage out of this process. What they have done is - even having some recognition of the Public Accounts Committee process, natural justice, fairness and having to prove things beyond some reasonable doubt - they had to make the statement that no evidence could be found that I acted unlawfully or illegally. Having had the recognition or the realisation that they would have to make that statement, they then started looking for a fall back. This is where I was disappointed with the member for Nelson, because he should have twigged at this. In looking for a fall back situation, the initial allegations, the genesis of this investigation, the allegations of fraud, gross fraud and corruptness, were clearly not going to be proven. The fact that of 35 government agencies interviewed in the process of the investigation, only one, only one agency, substantiated the government’s case. So one has to ask how, Madam Speaker, is it that the other 34 agencies could be ignored? How could their position be ignored in favour of the position put forward by a single agency?
We heard from the former Chief Minister, and I think the member for Drysdale, the circumstances of the minute that was central to that point, that is the Department of Health’s involvement in this process, and the fact that the minister of the day, the member for Nightcliff, on the one hand said that she had no former knowledge of ….
Dr Burns: Are you going to substantiate what you said to Fred McCue? I challenge you to do that. Are you going to do it?
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to hear what the former Treasurer is saying and would ask in all seriousness of this debate that he be heard in silence.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you have been fairly well behaved in controlling your interjections. I trust both sides of the House to give the courtesy to members on both sides, as occurred now, including the member for Drysdale. It is a reminder to him as well. Member for Johnston, please refrain. Let’s hear the member for Katherine in silence for the rest of his time.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, we have those circumstances, which for unexplained reasons, that again hopefully in the future a student of politics will unveil them, as to how those circumstances came about. And how a single agency’s evidence could be weighted much more favourably in terms of what the government wanted as an outcome, and how the evidence of 34 other agencies could be ignored, in the context of the weight of the argument. I am talking here about natural justice and beyond reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding that we are bearing in mind all of the time in this matter that they had to admit that there was nothing illegal done.
We have that selective advice that was provided by the Department of Health. We also have the very curious circumstance where a person who is now alleged to be central to this whole deal by the government, the former Chief Minister, was not called at all. One has to ask why his participation in these alleged events was better dealt with by omission? Why was the member for Brennan’s involvement in these alleged processes better dealt with by omission? I ask the Public Accounts Committee members and the government and indeed the Independent member, why was his involvement dealt with by omission?
Mr Henderson: He was the head of government. It was implicit that he was involved.
Mr REED: Oh, it is implicit, we hear by interjection. I thank the honourable minister for his interjection that implicitly and by omission, assumptions can be made - a wonderful case the government is building here for natural justice, and for a thorough and fair process of a parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. There are just some examples of how this process has been manipulated.
We hear from the Chief Minister that I was a budget manipulator - in fact, it might have been the Deputy Chief Minister - and that I should be showing some contrition. How could one show some contrition when the genesis of this process started out as I have described, and when they were half way through the process, the committee by majority found that they were not going to be able to reach their destination, which of course they had mapped out right from the very outset. A confirmation of that is that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - and I daresay that this is unequalled by a Public Accounts Committee Chairman in any parliament in Australia - was forced to stop making public comments whilst he was receiving evidence and partaking in the Public Accounts Committee process. He was forced to stop making public comments which were both derogatory of me - that is the one who was being targetted in this process - and of course was supporting a bipartisan point of view. Quite an extraordinary case that a chairman of a parliamentary committee could allow himself to be brought into such a circumstance and into such question.
I want to talk briefly on the member for Nelson’s suggestion that my reasons for what happened were contrived afterwards. I find that remark offensive. The former Chief Minister in his presentation in this debate clearly demonstrated a process that was followed and the circumstances that exist in relation to the formulation of the budget and the machinations that go on in terms of Treasurers are always trying to put downward pressure on departments for expenditure. Of course that was referred to in Treasury’s formal submission which is stashed away in a box somewhere. It is stashed away in a box somewhere because the government members of this committee do not want that information readily available.
I want to make it clear I am not criticising the member for Nelson, nor indeed any members of the committee, because some of them do lack parliamentary experience and knowledge of the operation of government. They will learn that over time. I daresay there will be some of them, and I confidently predict that the member for Nelson will be one of them, who will reflect on the process of this Public Accounts Committee and perhaps even come to believe in the future that it could have been done better, it would have been able to have been done more fairly and there would have been the ability for natural justice to be applied in the real sense. When you get to a position where a committee has to admit that nothing was done illegally, it is grossly unfair and grossly in breach of natural justice to then move to say, ‘Okay, well, we still want to get this lot from a political point of view with the Public Accounts Committee members from the government, so let’s look at something else we can brand them with. So, we’ll come up with some words like morally wrong, and manipulation, and tampering, and all sorts of other words that we might be able to use to besmirch the former Treasurer’.
I have been in politics for 15 years and I am used to all this. I acted with integrity and the best meaning for outcomes for Territorians. Indeed, I again call on the Chief Minister to make an apology in relation to the unfounded allegations that she made against me. We won’t get it because she is not of that ilk; she does not have that sort of integrity. But any process that has been based on omissions, which has adopted a fall-back position because they could not prove what their final destination was and the point that they want to make, is faulty. I find that a sadness, but I hope the parliament learns from it.
I hope that the overall evidence provided in this process is reviewed in the future and that we come across a much fairer outcome in terms of natural justice and the future conduct of the Public Accounts Committee.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee - Budget Inquiry Report May 2002
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee - Budget Inquiry Report May 2002
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support the majority PAC Report, and to commend the Chairman of the committee for his report. I concur with the comments made by the Deputy Chief Minister regarding the Chairman, his dedication and his patience with the committee, and on the excellent report that he has produced.
I want to emphasise from the start that this inquiry was established to investigate the allegations, as they were revealed to me in a memo from my CEO, Mr Paul Bartholomew, that there had been an artificial reduction to my department’s 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget could be falsely presented as a 2.5% increase. At no time did I know that this had happened until I received the memo. There were allegations made this morning that somehow I knew about this in advance. That is completely untrue. What I did know was that there was significant underfunding in the health budget, and the figures were changing from $14m to $20m, and it kept going up. I did ask my CEO, as I stated to the Public Accounts Committee, to provide me with a written statement, and that is what he provided me with.
It is important to remind ourselves that this was a classic example of political interference, in terms of the CLP and budget reporting in an election year. The sleight of hand was designed to gloss over the fact that the budget was in deficit. It was designed, for presentation purposes, to show largesse where there was none.
This inquiry was necessary to establish the accuracy of the budget data published in the 2001-02 budget papers, with respect to both the estimated outcome for 2000-01 and the budget for 2001-02. It was necessary because Territorians deserve to know the truth. The results of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry vindicate our actions in responding to the memo.
Turning to the findings of the PAC, it seems clear that the former Treasurer was the instigator of the actions that led to the need for the Public Accounts Committee hearings. He was the one who told the former Under Treasurer to reduce the estimates in order to show growth in Health, Education and Police. As the committee’s report clearly states, the former Under Treasurer was clear that the estimates would have been published unchanged, and without reduction, but for interference in the process by the member for Katherine. Whilst the actions of the former Treasurer were not illegal, they certainly raise questions of impropriety, of unethical dealings, and of deception. This concept of deception is a recurrent theme in this whole sorry episode.
The inquiry found that the member for Drysdale, as the then minister, by not challenging the deception which had been brought to his attention by his CEO, Mr Bartholomew, was complicit. In other words, in allowing this manipulation to continue, he was a knowing party to it. It was the member for Drysdale who allowed the artificially reduced and false estimate to be published and presented to the parliament and, thus, to the people of the Northern Territory. The member has denied this and, no doubt, will continue to deny it. Instead, he has attempted to run a personal smear campaign against me. All members of this House will be aware of the concentrated attack on me in the run-up to the presentation of this report. I see this as nothing more than a diversionary tactic. I have actually received hundreds of e-mails and letters and telephone calls of support. I would have to say that they have not been particularly complimentary in relation to the member for Drysdale.
The opposition members have been in denial from the outset. Take their minority report. It is really just a continuation of these tactics. The member for Drysdale has criticised members on this side of the House for what he calls ‘running interference’. Certainly, when it comes to muddying the waters, he is the expert. Throughout the inquiry, the opposition members of the committee made a series of attempts to direct attention away from the terms of reference and to the mini-budget. Why? Because they knew that this inquiry would expose the deliberate manipulation perpetrated by the member for Katherine, assisted by the member for Drysdale, whose primary concern was that the manipulation of the budget figures would be shown for what it is: a tawdry attempt to maximise advantage in an election year.
This just cannot be dismissed as the opinion of a biased government. The Independent member of the committee, the member for Nelson, cannot be accused of having a political axe to grind. He says of his involvement in the committee that he felt beholden to make a judgment to the best of his ability and, in general, he supports the findings of the report. In his statement to the House yesterday, the member for Nelson confirmed that opposition members took every opportunity to divert the focus away from their budget fudge on to the distraction of the mini-budget. He also found that the former Treasurer, and I quote:
- …did deliberately, improperly manipulate the budget figure for the Departments of Health, Education and
Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
He goes on to say:
- The evidence given by Treasury and the affected departments does not support the former Treasurer’s evidence
that these changes were done to signal to departments to tighten their belts. In fact, I believe that Mr Reed’s
evidence was deliberately evasive and contradictory.
Evasive and contradictory. I can only completely agree with the honourable member.
In a similar vein, the Independent member for Nelson concludes that, while the member for Drysdale did not instigate the idea of manipulating the budget, he still went along with the scheme. Let me quote again:
- Mr Dunham failed to let the public know the true figures although, in budget terms, he gave the correct one.
The importance of this inquiry cannot be overstated. This government moved quickly to introduce the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, passed in the November sittings last year. The recommendations contained in this Public Accounts Committee report, if adopted, will assist the government’s aim of restoring credibility to the budget process and give Territorians trust in their representatives to manage public funds in an open and accountable way.
I make particular reference to the fact that the recommendations refer to the conflict of interest of members on a committee when they are also a witness. This is a significant recommendation and one I hope will be taken up. From the public’s point of view someone who is a witness and is also on a committee and, therefore, is judge and jury for themselves quite clearly has a significant conflict of interest. This is an area where we really need to clean up the act.
Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the majority report and once again commend the Chairman of the committee for providing such an excellent report.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, given that we were looking to finish this before lunch, I will be reasonably brief. I just want to pick up on the parts of this report dealing with land sales. There has been a lot of debate in this House and a lot of talk of apologies. Perhaps the Chief Minister would like to offer an apology to those people in the Department of Lands and the then CEO of Lands, John Pinney, and if she likes, even to me for including me …
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I know you wouldn’t, but perhaps the Chief Minister would like to, and I am referring of course to the censure debate that was brought on this House which is contained …
Mr Kiely: Why don’t you talk about your mates?
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr BALDWIN: The censure debate is contained, I see, within this report. On that day, the Chief Minister, without having any information it seems at that time, because the sequence of events seemed that the censure motion came on first and then, or perhaps around about that time, the chairman wrote to all agencies. They received their replies, I know they were received because it is in here, the reply from Mr Pinney on 12 November so that is some weeks after the censure debate, and Mr Pinney gave evidence in December.
So without having any prior knowledge of what the situation was with the Department of Lands in terms of their allocation of land sales in their budget and their forward estimates, which turns out as we know to be a notional figure - the chairman has written it up in his recommendations talking about notional figures - the Chief Minister comes in here and castigates the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment in the censure, and says, and I am quoting here:
- …best estimates at the time or whether the published differed materially from the internal figures. We know it
was the case with Health expenditure. We know it was the case with Lands, Planning and Environment receipts
from land sales.
- We know it was the case.
A member Including you, wasn’t it?
Mr BALDWIN: I am getting to that. …and in Mr Pinney’s case and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment’s case to explain these differences. I thought Mr Pinney’s letter to the chairman, Dr Chris Burns, was very succinct and very relevant. And at the same time, I might add, I received a letter asking me to appear before the committee which I was happy to do but not with the short notice that I was given, but happy to arrange for a time. The PAC then, according to the transcripts - and I have read the transcripts - got a fulsome explanation as to why this forward estimate appeared as it did, the history of it and why it has always been like that. Certainly the Pinney evidence substantiated all of that. Mr Chambers appeared with Mr Pinney. Even the recommendation that has come down now in the majority report dealing with land sales still does not talk about the notional figure being a problem. It just says vigilance should be exercised when including notional figures within the budget to ensure that the basis of the trend has not changed and the best estimate for the year is provided. So, I do not believe that there will be much change in the way that is presented. There might be some evidence of why you arrived at that figure, but at the end of the day it will still be an estimate. That is what budgets are: they are estimates and they will use a notional figure that can be arrived at in different ways.
Mr Pinney’s letter had attached to it the estimates over quite a number of years in previous budgets. If you look through - even if you went from 1998-99 onwards, there was a notional figure in the budget, an estimate, of $9m and the actual received was $11m. Would you go out investigating that? The notional figure was wrong, but that is what an estimate is. $9m and they actually got in $11m.
The next year they had in their budget, and quite rightly if you look at it, a budget estimate of $11m and they actually raised just over $11m, so excellent work there. The following year they put in a budget estimate of $10.25m based on the fact that they actually got $11-odd million the year before, and the actual was down to $4.352m. So they continued on.
The point is that they will always be notional figures. I think the Chief Minister really jumped the gun in terms of her censure motion and using the words she did in relation to the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. If she had any understanding of how these things worked, she would not have even gone near this and I am sure the chairman would agree with me.
The Pinney evidence was obviously agreed to by the committee to the point where I was no longer required to give evidence, which is a shame. But at the end of the day not only did they get all of this evidence, they had the Pinney letter on 12 November and, on 27 November, the mini-budget came down. Lo! and behold. Which figure did they use? The same figure, $9m: notional figure, best estimate. Just to go chasing this shows what a joke the whole thing was. The Chief Minister, because she jumped the gun without first getting the facts, should apologise not only to Mr John Pinney, who is now the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, but also to the departmental officials and to Treasury officials who obviously vindicated why they had that figure in there. If she is forthcoming, I do not mind receiving an apology as well. That would be a great thing.
I wanted to put that on the record, Madam Speaker. It was a witch hunt from the start. This shows how far and wide they were ranging. Obviously they were disappointed when they did not find anything wrong with land sales. The PAC’s recommendation is really a farce because we know that whatever figure goes in there, because you do not know from one day to the next what piece of land you might sell for strategic development in the Northern Territory, that it will always be a notional figure.
Madam Speaker, really it is a bit like the Treasury document that never got listed or included in this fulsome report here. You know, it is all right to make assumptions, but you should include all of the facts when you are making those assumptions. In terms of this recommendation, it really should not even be in there. It is just a waste of space to vindicate why you actually went looking for this part on your witch hunt, and I will leave it at that. A witch hunt from the start; a witch hunt at the finish.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, as members are aware, this report and the appendices and the transcripts are quite large. Many issues have been raised by honourable members, and I thank them for their contributions. There are some threads or commonalties in the contributions made by various speakers, and I am going to try and bring them together, the major ones at least. I have quite a list of issues that have been raised during debate, and I hope I will be able to address them all.
The member for Drysdale followed me, and he made a very generalised statement that the PAC refused to do its job. Well, I refute that. We heard what the member for Nelson had to say about the PAC, and if I could just quote him, the Independent member: ‘The PAC did adhere to its terms of reference’. We did adhere to our terms of reference. We did do our job to the best of our ability. It is true that four of us were new to the process, and we had a lot to learn, and in particular as chairman, I had a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. I acknowledge that. All in all, I am very satisfied with the job that we did. We did it in a very fair way, and we have tried to present the evidence that was given us, both sides of the evidence, throughout the report, and I think we have reasonably drawn our conclusions from that evidence. I refute what the member for Drysdale said.
There seems to have been a theme through what the opposition members have said during the debate, drawing into question the credibility of Mr Bartholomew, the CEO of what was Territory Health Services, and now CEO of Health and Community Services. There have been things said, ‘Oh, Mr Bartholomew stands alone’, that basically what Mr Bartholomew said was not at all backed up by other witnesses. Well, that may well be the case to an extent. But I would like to read what the committee said on some of these issues. I did not have time during my speech the other day; there were a lot of issues to cover. This is an important issue. I am reading from page 66:
Amongst the agencies affected by the reduction in estimates [which of course is Police, Education and Health]
Mr Bartholomew was the only CEO who believed there was reason for concerns and acted upon his concerns in
regard to what he perceived to be inconsistencies or deliberate deceptions in the data being presented in the
budget papers to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
The parliament and the people of the Northern Territory owe Mr Bartholomew an incredible debt, because I think he is a man of integrity and truth. He stood up and it was painful for him at the time, I would say, and it has been even more painful for him since. But he stood up and told the truth, and for that he showed a lot of integrity.
It says here: ‘
Other CEOs appeared to be reassured when they learnt that the published budget figures did not affect their
capacity to spend to their approved allocation.
A disturbing theme common to all agencies appearing before the Committee was the parochial view of a number
of CEOs that their primary focus was on their own agency’s allocation/expenditure, with little association to the
figures being presented to parliament during the budget process.
I seem to have lost the particular quote there - here we go, almost lost it. I apologise, I don’t have it. Here it is. This is on page 14:
- When asked by the committee whether there was concern that the figures tabled in parliament were different from
the figures the agency was working towards, Commissioner Bates replied: ‘One can be concerned, but at the end
of the day we’ve been through this situation, haven’t we, and explained? So being concerned is one thing. How
far else should I, as a CEO, be taking it? You’re asking me to say something that is a matter for Treasury’.
I am not trying to be too critical here, but I believe this really puts in stark contrast the attitude of Mr Bartholomew, who was concerned and did something about it, with the attitude of other CEOs who were concerned, but said, ‘Well, where can I take it?’ It is not so much a reflection on the other CEOs but the prevailing environment in which they were working that they did not feel they could take those concerns elsewhere. There is a lot of be said for Mr Bartholomew’s credibility.
The member for Drydsale raised the issue of some correspondence from the Education Department specifically related to the $6m that was allocated in March 2001 by the Burke Cabinet to the Education Department for personnel costs. He seemed to be weaving a story - and other members opposite - that somehow this was some great conspiracy to hide things; at the end of the day, basically, that this was central to the findings of this particular report. Well, I definitely refute that. And I know that the member for …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has referred to some of the detail in it, and he has also referred to whether it is central or not to the report. There has been nothing divulged about this correspondence, and that is entirely my point; that in tabling it we can make our own judgment. In addressing this matter, I think he should do so in a generic way.
Madam SPEAKER: If you are quoting information that was dealt with in a deliberative session, you should not. We had this point raised yesterday, we clarified …
Dr BURNS: No, I am not, Madam Speaker. I make the point that …
Madam SPEAKER: You are making a general comment …
Dr BURNS: … I am going no further than the discussion that a member opposite had on this particular issue. I will stand by what I have said in Hansard about that.
Madam SPEAKER: And where was this conversation?
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: Where were these comments made? In the House?
Dr BURNS: The honourable member opposite made comments during his debate about this particular matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Fine, fine.
Dr BURNS: I would like to quote from the draft Hansard yesterday. The quote comes from the member for Nelson on this issue, and he is addressing the minority report, section 7:
- The allegation is that the PAC’s work in the critical area of [inaudible] is finished.
- This section is true, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a big issue. I believe the evidence, or the article that is
referred to in section 7 about some information from Employment, Education and Training, was a document
that was trying to be passed today; and although I supported the opposition in making that document available,
I would have used that moment to tell people that, because of its complexity - and they would have been able to
see that - we have not had time to properly analyse that document.
- I don’t believe it makes any difference to the report, and its inclusion is intended to make a big fat and impressive
minority report.
The member for Greatorex mentioned - and it probably also reflects on Mr Bartholomew - he was trying to say that the extra $34m that was allocated to Health during the mini-budget was some sort of, I guess, indicator of mismanagement or financial incompetence on the part of Mr Bartholomew, and that the Health costs were just sort of escalating out of control without any basis or reference to anything. But I would refer the member to the mini-budget. There were claims that many of the figures that were arrived at within the mini-budget were done with little reference to agencies and that they were mainly the work of Treasury. The Minister for Health and Community Services, in evidence, also said that the figures were actually arrived at between the department and Treasury.
As the Chief Minister also said in her speech, or she might have said during Question Time, what this government is trying to do is secure adequate base funding for those departments like Health and Education which have been chronically underfunded for some time. That is not something that we resile from.
The member for Greatorex was quite correct when he referred to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services coming in - well, their underexpenditure, off the top of my head, was somewhere around $1.6m, not that far off the $2m of the estimates that were reduced. That is quite true. But what the member for Greatorex failed to expand on was that underexpenditure really came about from the fact that they had committed expenditure to some police protection hardware, totalling approximately $2m, or just under $2m. That hardware was coming from overseas and was not delivered. Now, the thing about it was that they did have to pay for it early in the 2001-02 year and, of course, the Commissioner of Police, Mr Bates, had to seek supplementation early in the new year for that $2m.
Here we go, the reference is here. I am reading from page 15 of the report:
- Evidence was given … that the agency successfully applied for supplementation from the Burke Cabinet early in the
2001-02 year to cover the funds that were not carried over from 2000-01.
Once again, there was not a carry over, but the $2m was still there. Let’s not be under any sort of misapprehension about that.
The member for Greatorex made much of interference being run against questions by members opposite to the Health minister. Yes, I admit that I did intervene on quite a number of occasions. But what I did not appreciate was the way that they were running a vendetta and really being very free with the truth and trying to confabulate - that is a word I have used here before - their questions. Trick questions, trying to startle the Health minister, ridiculous questions.
Here is a ridiculous question. One of the ridiculous questions was about the transmittal letter that comes at the front of the annual report of the Health department. A transmittal letter sets out the obligations of the department under the Financial Management Act, reporting on its accounts and its programs. The members opposite knew quite well that the CEO signing off on that had nothing to do at all with the budget estimates, but still they were trying to run this story, well, if there wasn’t anything wrong, if the CEO signed off on the transmittal letter that puts paid to any suggestion about fiddling the budget estimates. They knew that to be quite wrong and on issues like that, of course I interfered, because they were just trying to mislead the witness and I thought it was a pitiful performance.
There has been a lot of talk about pressure on the agencies from Mr Reed. He wanted to pressure on them and the question was asked during the hearings, ‘Well, why didn’t you communicate with them? Why didn’t you write to them and ask them to reduce their expenditure?’ I guess the wider question is, ‘Why didn’t you actually reduce their allocation instead of just reducing their estimates?’
I would just like to quote a bit of an exchange here. I think the Deputy Chief Minister might like this one. This is Mr Kiely to Mr Reed, page 389:
- Mr KIELY: Can you use – can you direct the Under Treasurer to issue a Treasurer’s Direction to an agency which
may be over expending to cap its expenditure saying: ‘We do not wish you to exceed a certain limit.’?
Mr REED: I don’t recall ever doing it.
Mr KIELY: I’m not saying you did do it. I say: can you do it?
Mr REED: To be honest with you, it’s not an avenue of action that I ever sought to pursue. I think it would happen
probably as a normal course of events. You’re saying a direction to an agency not to overspend?
Mr KIELY: I’m saying - well, how about Planning for Growth? How was that done?
Mr REED: No, no, no! [This is the second no, no, no.] I want to answer the question you asked earlier.
The member for Greatorex also talked about a memo sent out to - well, it came up in evidence because the member for Drysdale talked about a memo. First of all, he began talking about a memo that had gone out to really harvest savings. When we got down to it, it was a memo from Ms Joanne Schilling that was sent out on one day and withdrawn the next. When it came down to it, even though that particular memo had been widely - you know, I guess there are a few leaks around - e-mails had been sent beyond one unit within Territory Health. We actually found out it was within one unit of Territory Health, that is where the delegations were withdrawn, and in no way could it reach savings anywhere near $8m in six weeks. Now, there were other issues, other memos, other correspondence behind that, that we have heard in deliberative sessions. I am not going to raise them here, but I was …
Mr Dunham: Oh, but I think you should.
Dr BURNS: I won’t say any more. It was just sickening to read some of the stuff that went on there in terms of the thuggery that used to go on behind the scenes under the previous government.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The allegation is that in closed session, in deliberative session, there was correspondence that demonstrated the thuggery that used to go on. Now, that is the allegation. So he is hiding behind the fact that he cannot present this evidence and he is alleging that it does certain things. I think that is well and truly out of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No. We are debating a fairly controversial report. Both sides have used fairly strong allegations.
Mr DUNHAM: That is true, Madam Speaker, but the portion that he is debating now is not a part of the report. It is part of closed session.
Madam SPEAKER: I am ruling that there is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, there was, from this side anyway, and from the member for Nelson, some discussion about the presence of the member for Drysdale on the committee. The member for Sanderson actually fleshed out the precedent that had been given to the committee by the member for Drysdale, a precedent that was very, very indirect. It was a precedent, if I recall, where someone on a Commonwealth parliamentary committee was inquiring into a matter where there would be a witness that he was involved in litigation with. Something quite different from what we saw from the member for Drysdale actually sitting on a committee that was inquiring into a matter that he was intimately involved with.
I would just like to quote from - the member for Nelson hit it on the head. He talks about Mr Dunham’s involvement on the committee. He says:
- I don’t believe in the public’s eyes it was seen as the right thing.
Mr Dunham: More Nazis.
Dr BURNS: No, I did not say that.
Mr Dunham: You did. It was reported in today’s paper.
Dr BURNS: The quote that I have today could be from someone that you might admire and respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, direct your remarks to me.
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am talking about Blaise Pascal, the French scientist, philosopher and Catholic theologian. He lived between 1623 and 1662. I am sure the member for Drysdale has heard of Blaise Pascal, a remarkable man. This is a quote from Pascal:
- It is not permitted for the most equitable of men to be a judge in their own case.
Dr BURNS: I am running out of time here. I have canvassed quite a lot of issues. I appreciated the contribution from the member Barkly. He encapsulated a lot from the perspective of the voting public of the Northern Territory. I am quoting from Hansard page 26, the member for Barkly said:
- I suspect that decent people in the Northern Territory will feel let down and bitterly disappointed, betrayed by
the Country Liberal Party who conspired to hoodwink them. Well those days are over. The people of the Territory
have caught the Country Liberal Party out proper.
They are words of wisdom from the member for Barkly and I appreciate them.
I will have to be honest, Madam Speaker, here, I think I am always honest, but I did appreciate the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, his contribution was the best from the other side. He did raise some very substantial issues and I think that he argued very well. I would like to dignify his speech and the points that he raised by seriously addressing them. One of the issues that he raised was about the magnitude …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, could I move an extension of time to allow the honourable member to conclude his remarks.
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. We will have to move on.
____________________
Suspension Of Standing Orders
Allow Member to Complete Remarks
Suspension Of Standing Orders
Allow Member to Complete Remarks
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move to suspend so much of standing orders as is necessary to allow the member for Johnston to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, you have 10 minutes.
____________________
Dr BURNS (Johnston): The Leader of the Opposition raised a very important issue, and that was in relation to the magnitude of the carry overs that had been calculated in the Treasury submission. Before I go into that particular question about the magnitude of the carry overs, there has been a lot made of the fact that the Treasury submission is not an appendix within the report. I confess it was an oversight. There was no intention to hide anything from anyone. On the day that Treasury appeared, that document was tabled and it was distributed widely to the press.
It is still freely available to the public, and if people want copies all they have to do is ring me up and I will certainly send them a copy, because a lot of what the Under Treasurer had to say was the fact that it really put the nails in the coffin for the member for Katherine. In that submission he tells how the member for Katherine directed him to change the budget estimates, and how it was done for political motivation. There is a lot more in there.
But the Leader of the Opposition touched on a very important issue about the magnitude of the carry overs. I turn to that particular submission, on page 6. It looks at the total carry over, and in 1999-2000, the carry over for Health was approximately $8.4m. For Education, according to this table, it was $1.3m, and Police was $1.9m. You could argue that at least the reduction in estimates for both Health and for Police might be well justified. However, on the day when we received this, I asked the former Under Treasurer a bit about this. I do not pretend to be an economist or a Treasury person, but I could see, just by the very composition of that table, that there was something wrong with it. As I inquired more, as I inquired with our financial advisor, Mrs Jane Large, I found out that these figures here actually contain the August budgetary refinement process. It was not a carry over, in fact, from one year to another. It was basically from June to July. We are talking about something in August. So, I had further discussions with our advisor, Mrs Jane Large, and it is actually mentioned in our report. Where are we? The magnitude of the carry overs, page 60:
- Other evidence placed before the committee clearly shows that the magnitude of the reductions was far greater
than what could be expected from the previous under-expenditures - particularly for Health and Education.
My recollection is that the underexpenditures were probably somewhere in the order of - yes, Police, about $1.6m; for Education somewhere around $5m, certainly not $6m; and for Health somewhere around $4m. That is why Mr Clarke was getting quite panic stricken, particularly with Health, when the former Treasurer wanted to wind it back by $8m. He knew it was not justified. I appreciate the comments made by the Opposition Leader but, basically, the committee did hear evidence that the magnitude of the reductions was nowhere near justified. So, that is an aspect.
I certainly did not agree with the Opposition Leader when he said that the whole report is a manipulation of facts. The very fact that the member for Nelson has come on board with the majority report - there was only one issue in the whole report which related to the former Education minister, and former member for Nelson. That was the only issue he dissented about. He was on board, or is on board, 100% with these facts. It is wrong for the opposition to be attacking the member for Nelson in the way that they have. I believe he is a man of integrity. He is someone of common sense, and he is someone who believes in the truth. The very fact that he has accorded with nearly 99% of our report; where does it leave the opposition? Nowhere healthy, that is what I would say.
I would like to leave the former Treasurer near to last and comment on the contribution by the Health minister. I felt that, here again today, she gave an honest account of herself and a very direct account of herself. She stands with her integrity intact.
The Chief Minister told the House that she was sickened and saddened by what had happened. It is very sad that it has happened, and it is even sadder that the member for Drysdale and the former Treasurer have not either apologised, or said they are sorry or acknowledged that they did the wrong thing. That would be a start to repairing the damage.
The Chief Minister also gave this government’s undertaking for open and transparent processes in government. We have heard about an estimates committee, and I welcome that. She reflected on leadership. The challenge now for the Opposition Leader, is what he is going to do with these two characters. If he is going to leave them in their current positions, I don’t think it sends out a very good message to the electorate. I will reflect again on what the member for Barkly said, ‘I think he has to act; maybe he has to put them in different portfolios. He is going to have to look at a line of succession for the member for Katherine because I get the feeling, from his speech today, that he has probably had near to enough, and that he may move on’.
Mr Dunham: This is part of the report. We have given you an extension to talk about the report, and you talk about whether Mike Reed’s going to retire. It has gone stale. Stick to the bloody message, mate!
Dr BURNS: Well, okay. The Chief Minister talked about the $260m because it is important. She talked about the big picture, because it is important to realise we are not talking about $6m in reduced estimates. We are talking about $260m of disputed elements of the former Treasurer’s budget. We are talking about burgeoning debt that has been piling on year after year in the Northern Territory, and consecutive blow-outs in budgets. I am proud to be part of a government that is really trying to address those issues; really trying to bring in some discipline in terms of budget. We have our sights set on having a small surplus by the fourth year of our term. I am proud of that commitment.
The former Treasurer said that the report needs critical study. I will back this report on critical study in the future or a contemporary report. I am very proud of it. It is extensive, solid, and it addresses the issues, not like the dissenting report put in by the members opposite.
The former Treasurer mentioned the Treasury submission being absent. It is accessible to the public, but as I said it was an oversight. He also talked about our inexperience on this side and the member for Nelson also - well, that is true. We are inexperienced, but I have certainly come through a learning experience, and not all of it pleasant, through my chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee particularly in relation to this inquiry. I concede that I have a lot more to learn and I am eager to learn.
It is sad in terms of the former Treasurer because in evidence to us we invited him to tell us about his achievements during the years that he has been in politics. It would be churlish of anyone to deny that he has made a great contribution to the Territory. He has been a very experienced minister, and there are many things that he pointed to that day that he can justly be proud of. I am never going to take away from that. But in this particular episode he needs to admit that he did do the wrong thing and that would be fitting.
I have another quote here. It is about that. It is about an admission. This was made by Senator William Proxmire in about 1989, and I am not drawing any comparisons here but what he had done was take campaign donations and intervened on the people that he had given the campaign donations for and advocated for them. He just said, ‘Well, there was nothing illegal about it; it was just wrong’, and even if the former Treasurer made a comment like that – ‘there is nothing illegal about it; it was just wrong’ - well, it was wrong. It is incorrect for members opposite to come here and say there was no wrongdoing. There was wrongdoing. Wrong was done to the people and the parliament of the Northern Territory in that artificially reduced estimates came forward to the parliament for political purposes to show non-existent growth in an election year.
That was the wrongdoing. The wrongdoing also was that there was no attempt to draw any description of what had happened within the budget papers. I would suggest to those members opposite who are not part of the old guard to just think about this, and think about succession. Think about reinvigorating and refreshing your party and moving on from this.
In conclusion, I did not get a chance yesterday, but I would like to thank the committee members. We did have our differences and probably still will, but I felt all members of the committee did work hard. We worked very long hours in our deliberations, there is no doubt about that. I would also like to thank Terry Hanley, the secretary of our committee who worked very hard and worked weekends and nights, and Ms Ros Vogeli, and I probably presented Ros with a few nightmares because I am a bit of a pedant when it comes to the presentation of reports and what should be in there and the way it is formatted. But Ros accommodated what I wanted.
I would like to thank also the Hansard staff. They do a fantastic job. I am just amazed at the accuracy of the Hansard staff; the first time around they get it 98% or 99% right. They are working in the middle of the night and they are trying to pick up all sorts of cross-talk. It is very hard for them but they are very, very good.
I would also like to thank the Clerk who helped the committee through a few tough times and gave us advice, and I thank him for his advice. Finally, I would like to thank Mrs Jane Large who, as most people might know, has been a Treasury Department person for many, many years, who took on this job and gave fearless and frank and independent advice to the committee. I really appreciate her efforts and her giving us a first draft of the report.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
STATUTE LAW REVISION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
(Serial 64)
(Serial 64)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory acts, regulations, rules and legislative instruments consequential to reforms to the Commonwealth, state and territory acts dealing with the financial sector.
In 1998 and 1999, the Commonwealth, state and territory Financial Sector Reform Acts changed the structure of regulation concerning the financial sector. These amendments have, amongst other things, resulted in the creation of a class of financial institutions known as ‘authorised deposit taking institutions’ or ADIs. ADIs include banks, building societies, credit societies and other financial institutions. The Northern Territory acts and regulations contain numerous references to banks, building societies and credit unions. This bill provides for the replacement of these references by references expressed in current terminology.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 (Serial 56); the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57); and the Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 58), passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 63)
(Serial 63)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to remove administrative processes in the Mining Act which are no longer relevant, and to streamline, where possible, those processes which are placing an unnecessary administrative burden on both industry and government.
The Mining Act came into operation on 1 July 1982. The act has undergone significant amendment since that time, particularly so in recent years as a result of the impact of native title legislation. Implementation of advances in information technology, the introduction of the exploration initiatives and geoscientific programs are all successfully contributing to the continuing growth of mineral exploration activity in the Territory and the way that exploration and mining companies do their business. These advances, along with changing business rules, have led to an increased administrative load on both the industry and government. These have all had a considerable impact on how information is disseminated to industry and the public.
Many of these proposed amendments to the Mining Act are in response to advances in technology and changes in modern business and mining practices. These amendments have been prepared in close consultation with industry representatives and other stakeholders including the Northern Territory Minerals Council and the Extractive Industry Association of the Northern Territory. Additionally, the four land councils in the Territory have been kept abreast of these proposed changes through correspondence and circulation of an information paper and copies of the draft bill. I extend my thanks to all these organisations for the valuable contribution they have made and the support provided for these changes.
While the basic philosophy and operational thrust of the act will not be changed, the proposed series of amendments in the bill are necessary to maintain the continued smooth operation of the act.
Reflecting the use of new technology, a number of amendments are being proposed to alter the way titles information is notified to industry and the public. The current practice is to publish in the Government Gazette all grants, reductions and terminations of exploration and mining titles. However, it is increasingly apparent that industry and other interested parties no longer find this a convenient method as they now have access to the department’s titles information system website where this type of information has been posted for two years since May 2000. In many instances, the use of the website has already replaced the previous system of mailing out of various types of information by the department. Greater emphasis is now being placed on the use of the website and in the future this will result in significant resources and cost savings to government. Generally, the mining industry finds the use of this new medium far more accessible and convenient to use.
Another amendment proposed is the introduction of group reporting by companies that hold two or three or more licences in the same vicinity. This change will make reporting easier for both companies and the government. Currently, the Darwin City area and the large areas of Outer Darwin are covered by reservation from occupations. These reservation from occupations are, in some cases, of historic origins while in others they tend to provide for the better management of mining and extracted tenure. Authorisations are issued to allow for mining and extractive operations in these areas, but these authorisations cannot be transferred, renewed or devolved. This increases the administrative burden on both the extractive industry and government. An authorisation is a major asset of an extractive operator’s business, and like other similar assets, will now be capable of transfer, renewal and devolution following these amendments.
There are a number of mineral leases and mineral claims which have been adjourned sine die, which means, I am advised, until a date to be fixed in the Warden’s Court and, in some instances, have remained unresolved from up to 15 to 20 years. This has meant that the Territory government has been unable to determine such applications whilst they remained adjourned. The amendment proposes that in the future the minister will be able to direct the applicants to relist such applications in the Warden’s Court for determination. In the event of the applicant failing to relist as directed, the minister will be able to refuse the grant of the title. Where the matter is relisted in accordance with the new rules, the Warden must complete the hearing and make a determination, and is unable to adjourn the relisted matter sine die.
These new rules will apply to the operations of the Warden’s Court whether the application was previously adjourned by the warden sine die prior to these amendments commencing. The proposed amendments will clear up the current doubts surrounding these processes and speed up the matters before the Warden’s Court to avoid in the future the current inordinate delays being experienced.
Included in the bill are minor amendments intendant to clarify the act. Also included is the correction of a drafting anomaly where the same section has being inadvertently replicated in the act as a result of previous amendments.
With this bill, the Territory government is showing its commitment to further reducing the administrative burden on the Territory’s resource industry wherever possible. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
OIL REFINERY AGREEMENT RATIFICATION ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Oil Refinery Agreement Ratification Act. The focus of the act is now largely historical in nature and ratifies an agreement between the Northern Territory and the Mereenie Joint Venture partners about possible construction of a major oil refinery in Central Australia to process local crude oil. A small oil refinery has been operating for well over a decade in Alice Springs, but the much larger scale refinery, as contemplated by the agreement, has always been viewed as impractical or uneconomic.
You would be aware that in accordance with National Competition Policy all governments are committed to conducting competition reviews of legislation and identifying provisions with potentially anti-competitive restrictions. Where necessary, legislation must be amended or repealed to remove the restrictive provisions, unless retention of the restrictive provisions can be justified as being in the public interest and the objectives of the legislation cannot be met without such restrictions.
A competition policy legislative review was conducted of the Oil Refinery Ratification Agreement Act and found that its provisions are restrictive and anti-competitive. The review recommended repeal of the act and the report was endorsed by the former government. Continued retention of this restricted legislation is considered incompatible with competition principles, and difficult to justify in terms of competition policy.
It is also generally acknowledged that the act has outlived its usefulness, especially given the very limited known onshore petroleum reserves of Central Australia. The government is satisfied that this legislation is no longer necessary and, indeed, inappropriate as reflected in the recommendation of the competition review of the act, and should be immediately repealed. Discussions will be conducted with the Mereenie joint venture partners over the future of the agreement that this act ratifies. The intention is to cancel the agreements in the near future following discussions with the Mereenie joint partners; their initial response is one of support for the government’s intention.
With this repeal bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to the principles of competition policy, and the reform of the statute book to avoid retaining unnecessary or inappropriate legislative restrictions on Territory business wherever possible. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Work Health Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 55) passing through all stages at this sitting.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Appointment of an Estimates Committee
Appointment of an Estimates Committee
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation Bill 2000-03.
Madam Speaker, this does go back quite some time as we have heard in debate earlier in these sittings. In fact, every appropriation debate that I have taken part in, in this Assembly, where members of the opposition when we were in Committee of the Whole, consistently argued for an estimates committee approach to deliberation of the budget. I can recall one morning in particular where I sensed it was going to be a late night. We had education on the agenda and the shadow minister for education in those days was Neil Bell, the member for Macdonnell. The Minister for Education was the member for Port Darwin, Shane Stone. I ducked across to the Hotel Darwin to book in at about 8.50 pm, thinking it would be handy to locate close to the Assembly because of the lateness of the night. I dropped my bags into the room and took the key, and at 7.25 the next morning I went back to the Hotel Darwin, picked up my bag, paid my bill, thanked them for the room, and came back here and had a shower.
That is only part of the reason why we need an estimates committee process. I know the then government of the day used to say, ‘Well, you have an estimates committee process and it is called the Committee of the Whole’. That gave every member an opportunity to interrogate aspects of the budget of interest to them, whether it was as shadow minister responsibility or whether it was in relation to their electorate. The advantage is that if you take up the estimates committee approach we can bring others into the equation. It will benefit the opposition and benefit of Territorians as a whole. You won’t just have the minister but you will have the expertise from within the department, be it the CEO of the department who will have, and should have, much more exact detail as to the line items in the budget and exactly how much will be expended on particular items than even the minister. That is an opportunity the opposition should be welcoming.
But I am pleased to be able to stand and table this motion today because we …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I raise the point of order as a point of clarification, just to know where we are going with this particular motion. My understanding was that this motion was not going to be debated because it moves to the composition/duties of the actual estimates committee; the way that ministers would be called; who they would be accompanied by; the way that members could speak in the Chamber. I understood that we were going to have some time to consider the substance of how the estimates committee would actually operate prior to that. I imagine a reference to the PAC would be that they consider these terms of reference. But prior to that we would debate the mechanism that the PAC would actually conduct an inquiry as to how an estimates committee would operate.
So I am just confused as to why we are debating this first motion, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, perhaps I clarify the confusion and hopefully make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to put on the record our remarks, our views as to this. It won’t be debated at these sittings. We will bring it back. In the meantime, and I will deal with this further in my contribution, we would be asking the Public Accounts Committee to have a look at processes. One that has certainly struck our notice is Tasmania. It is a parliament of 25 members, seven ministers, who will utilise their estimates committee process in June of this year. We think it is a valuable opportunity …
Madam SPEAKER: What you are saying is that you are giving your remarks to your motion; it will then be adjourned and brought back in June.
Mr STIRLING: I would ask for an adjournment motion from the other side, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it the same for the next motion?
Mr STIRLING: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You want to adjourn both?
Mr BURKE: We can debate out the second.
Madam SPEAKER: You want to pass the second one but not this one? We will adjourn this one. Okay. So we are all clear on that.
Mr STIRLING: I apologise for any confusion but we do think there is a way through this.
Accountability is a word often championed by oppositions and certainly by ourselves in the past, but this government is serious about accountability and we see the estimates committee as another vehicle in favour of it. In the last 25 years, all Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand parliaments, except for the Northern Territory, have introduced a system for consideration of annual estimates of proposed expenditure by an estimates committee. It is a process proposed to complement the consideration of the annual Appropriation Bill in Committee of the Whole. The key purpose for the referral of budget estimates to committees has been to provide members with a basis for more informed debate. In some instances the consideration of budget estimates by committees has proved so effective in some parliaments the procedure has effectively replaced the Committee of the Whole stage of the budget process.
In support of the implementation of the estimates committee we argue that the committee provide individual members with an unparalleled opportunity to gather information on the operations of government. While members may seek information from the government at Question Time in the Chamber, they can only ask questions of the ministers concerned. Members are not able to question relevant officials directly and as extensively as they would have the opportunity in an estimates committee process. It is further argued that an estimates committee can play a significant role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the performance of the executive branch of government, making ministers and public servants further accountable to parliament for the use of the public resources for which they are held responsible.
I further argue that accountability is much about explanation, as it is about the bald information within the budget papers. The provision of facts and figures is a necessary but not entirely sufficient condition of accountability. What is needed to complete that picture is for relevant officials to explain not just the details of the what and the how of the agency and how they are administered, but also the why. The operation of estimates committees in other parliaments in recent years has been claimed to have achieved a great deal in opening the books of government, contributed to the improvement of the management of the public sector, and markedly increased the accountability of the executive to parliament.
As I said, for many years we did call for an estimates committee, never actioned by the Country Liberal Party, but in somewhat audacious fashion I would think, Madam Speaker, it is the member for Drysdale who sits with a grin on his face, who bounces in here with a proposal to parliament that we should have an estimates committee. I welcome the interest of members opposite and their support for the process, because I would hope that as a member of the committee he does take the opportunity to travel to have a look at an estimates committee in a parliament of very comparable size and nature to our own.
We are taking the first step to implementing what was long called for by our side and was an election commitment. In the Labor Position Paper dated June 2000, the following relevant changes to parliamentary committee structures were identified as follows:
Labor will introduce a new system of statutory committees, one of which would be an estimates committee.
The current appropriation debate session of parliament would be replaced by this estimates committee
process. A move called for by Labor and independent commentators for many years.
And it is a committee process followed in every other state and territory and by the Commonwealth.
It will allow for a more meaningful, thorough and orderly process of budget accountability. The estimates committee will have responsibility to scrutinise the budgetary process and ensure that outcomes sought have actually been achieved. An estimates committee would seek greater accountability for government expenditure of taxes and charges imposed. In developing a model for implementation in our own Assembly, an examination has been conducted of the operations of similar committees in other Australian and New Zealand parliaments. The model which operates in parliaments throughout Australia and New Zealand, with the exception of Victoria, is by way of effectively replacing the Committee of the Whole stage of the annual Appropriation Bill with an estimates committee, a select committee or committees, or referring the estimates to existing legislative and general purpose standing committees.
This model involves common factors such as operations pursuant to standing or sessional orders; scheduling of appearances by ministers by portfolio units; membership including government, opposition and independent members; public hearings; participation by other members in proceedings; the provision for questions and answers to be provided in advance of committee hearings; capacity for questions to be taken on notice and answered at a later time; capacity for dissent or minority statements or reports; the capacity for public officials to be present for questioning and to support the minister in answering questions of administrative detail; the publication of Hansard transcripts of proceedings; and a report back facility to the main legislative body.
The reporting process involves further debate either in the committee or in dealing with the remaining stages of the annual Appropriation Bill. In developing the model tabled today, it is considered that the operations of the estimates committee in the Queensland parliament and the Tasmanian House of Assembly have much to commend them as models in the development of an appropriate procedural and administrative framework for implementation by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Its consideration is largely based on the operation of the unicameral Queensland parliament system and the extensive and detailed procedural rules and supporting documentation. The scale of operation at the Tasmanian House of Assembly with 25 members and seven ministers provides a scale that most approximates that of the Northern Territory Assembly. A draft sessional order to implement procedures, which is largely based on the Queensland and Tasmanian models, is before the parliament.
The key issues, to which I draw the attention of honourable members are: access by television cameras to the proceedings; involvement of senior public servants; proceedings to take place in a committee room; like the existing arrangements, a system of advanced written questions; and the capacity for shadow ministers and local MLAs to participate in the committee to ensure that the same access to getting your electorate or shadow ministry responsibility questions up there exists, as it did in utilising the Chamber as a Committee of the Whole.
We propose to leave debate on this motion for the June sittings. We think this will give members a chance to consider the matter, and to undertake necessary familiarisation between now and then. I exclude the member for Drysdale, Madam Speaker, because he has obviously done his homework on this matter because he has his own business before the Chamber on this. The process we embark upon is a new process. I am confident the framework that we have come up with is a good one, but there are certainly many details to be worked through and there may be need to fine tune certain matters. We think it is another piece in the jigsaw of greater accountability than we saw under the Country Liberal Party in 26 years. The Public Accounts Committee report is further proof positive, we think, of the costs Territorians paid for that lack of accountability throughout that time.
Today really represents another step forward to changing this parliament for the better. It is a model we think is right; we believe is right. But we are not so arrogant to think it is absolutely perfect, and common sense would dictate, Madam Speaker, that we should give the model a bit of a trial run first, and then seriously review it. It is premature to lock it into legislation in the first step before the parliament has had time to give it a go in practice. It may be fine. If so, good, let’s lock it up in legislation. But we do not want to take that step until the parliament has been through it and we are sure that the Public Accounts Committee could then have another look at any deficiencies that it may have. To that end, the motion includes provision for a report to parliament following this year’s process.
I commend the motion to members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Yes, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we were going to adjourn this debate.
Mr REED: Yes, I am aware of that, Madam Speaker, but I find it necessary to make a few remarks and then perhaps seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date. There are just a few matters I would like to clarify before we go on. I understand what we will be doing now is item 7 on the Notice Paper. In relation to this particular issue, this …
Dr Toyne: It comes after 6.
Mr REED: Yes, well, we can put up with the smartiness of the Attorney-General if you want, or you can assist the debate.
I ask the minister to clarify a couple of points. One is that we now have what he has referred to as ‘a model’. He previously explained to the Leader of the Opposition that we have this model and, together with this model, the PAC will investigate processes around the country. Extrapolating from that, I assume that having investigated this model and the other practices around the country, the PAC would come back and establish a committee process for the forthcoming budget. But, in his closing remarks, the minister then indicated that we would use this model for the forthcoming budget, and the deliberations of the PAC would follow later. I wonder if he could just give me some indication across the floor as to what the ...
Mr Stirling: Well, perhaps if we deal with 7. If you want to seek …
Mr REED: I will have some further remarks on this. This is my problem, Madam Speaker. You can see the difficulty. Is this going to be applied for the forthcoming budget? Or is the review being undertaken by the PAC including looking at interstate practices to be applied?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I will allow you to answer that.
Mr STIRLING: He is encouraging me to break standing orders here, Madam Speaker, but in the interests of clarification, yes, we would expect the Public Accounts Committee to have a look at the process in operation, at least in Tasmania. I am aware that is a similar sized parliament; has an estimates committee process; will work in practice, so they would see it in practice, and be suitably informed by that process, and have this model to work on. With what they see in Tasmania, and the model that we have developed and put on the Table, between those two exercises, they would have something for parliament that we would then operate for the 2002-03 budget.
What I was saying by way of locking it into legislation is that we want to use, whatever the finality of that model is, at the appropriation debate later this year, but not lock it into legislation until there is a further review by the Public Accounts Committee, following the parliament having gone through that exercise. We will shake out the deficiencies, shortcomings, strengths and weaknesses in the system, and we may get a better model. We are just saying, we think it is right, we do not want to lock something into legislation before we have tried it and been through it, because we want the best model that will work for us.
Madam SPEAKER: So the model tabled is not the end result?
Mr REED: I thank you for your forbearance, Madam Speaker, and also the comments by the minister. I move that the debate be adjourned, but in so doing seek to continue my remarks at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee - Reference - Estimates Committee Process Consideration for 2002-03 Budget
Public Accounts Committee - Reference - Estimates Committee Process Consideration for 2002-03 Budget
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am glad we sorted this out. It would perhaps have been politic of me to speak with the member for Katherine and the Leader of the Opposition before these motions so that we had a clear understanding exactly of what we were proposing. Item 7 on the Notice Paper is for the purposes of the preparation for the conduct of this estimates committee process that we are talking about for the 2002-03 budget. And that is that the Public Accounts Committee consult with other state or Commonwealth parliamentary committees.
We certainly have a view, and I have said already that Tasmania would seem to be the optimum place, both in terms of size - 25 members, seven ministers, in that format alone it mirrors our own Assembly. The PAC will have the opportunity to see the operation in process, ask questions, get detail, and get further information. And to see it in practice so that they can form views as to how the process itself enhances accountability, as opposed to dealing with the Appropriation Bill in the Committee of the Whole as we have done in the past. That simply is all that this motion is doing. It is to set that in process. I am thankful that we have been able to clarify those issues.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that information. We support this action but I wonder if, in his response, the minister could indicate why there has been no time frame applied to this. It is a bit unusual for the Public Accounts Committee to be asked to do something and not set a time frame, bearing in mind that the intent of this is to have a structure in place for the forthcoming budget discussions. That being the case, I think it would be unfair on the Public Accounts Committee, on behalf of this House, not to advise them what our expectations are in regard to a report back as to the ability then for this House to consider those deliberations; and to ensure that the process is, in fact, as promised by the government, in place and able to be applied for the appropriation debate following the introduction of the next budget. I would appreciate some comments in that regard.
The other very important fact is that there is no mention in this motion - and the minister has not alluded to this in his contribution to this debate - as to the resources that are available to the Public Accounts Committee, and whether you, Madam Speaker, might have sufficient resources within the Legislative Assembly for the Public Accounts Committee. I assume that they will be travelling to the various parliaments. There are a number of them. There would be an officer, or more officers, who would be required to travel with the members of the committee. The expenses could be considerable in terms of travelling interstate. They are not going to be matters that will be able to be undertaken in a short time.
For example, in the previous matter that we discussed, the minister referred to the possibility of the Public Accounts Committee sitting in, as it were, on the budget deliberations in Tasmania, just to see how that process works. That being the case, I would not have thought a day of sitting in is going to do much good. They will probably want to be there for a few days. They will certainly want to inquire - if they are going to be able to report back to us thoroughly - as to how members on both sides of the Houses in Tasmania and, indeed, Independent members and members of the cross benches in the parliament - are served by the process that is applied in the Tasmanian parliament.
That is one insight as to the types of activities that the committee is going to be involved in. That will be expensive time wise, travel wise, and with other logistical needs that will arise. I would like some assurance from the minister that the government will ensure that the Public Accounts Committee is adequately resourced and funded to be able to undertake these investigations. Given that the government has decided to go down this path - and I am not arguing with that - the investigations have to be done properly.
For the second time today, I think back to when the Public Accounts Committee was established. Those trips interstate took some time. Because there was no committee at the time, of course, it was the expense of the Assembly. Those investigations had to be thorough, and the same should apply in this case because it is a big step and a new area that this parliament will be moving into. If we are going to do it, it should be done properly.
I agree that the Public Accounts Committee is the appropriate representative group of this parliament to undertake those investigations and report back to us, but they won’t be able to do it without adequate resources. It is appropriate that a time frame be put in place in fairness to the committee, and in fairness to all members of this House, so that we can be assured that the report will come back to us in time for consideration, introduction and application, in the discussions and deliberations over the next appropriation bill.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for his comments. He would be the only member in this Chamber who would remember as far back as the Public Accounts Committee not even being in existence, so I won’t challenge him on his memory. I certainly was not here, but he has been here a long time.
In relation to time frame, I think the time frame fits itself in the sense that Tasmanian estimates process is early June. We sit later in June so it follows that if some members of the committee are able to get to Tasmania they will have time to deliberate and get some form of recommendations and report back to our June sittings. That is certainly our intention. How many go, who goes with them …
Mr Reed: So report back in the June sittings?
Mr STIRLING: Yes.
Mr Reed: Well, could we not put that in here?
Mr STIRLING: Look, I am happy to put a form of words in there, but this is just sort of self-explanatory. If they visit Tasmania in early June, they have time to get something back to us by the June sittings and then we would deliberate from there.
I would expect a parliamentary officer, perhaps the Clerk - I am not being prescriptive here, and I am not being prescriptive in any sense of who goes – would accompany some members of the committee. I agree with you, a day is probably not enough. They would want to spend two days working through the process with different ministers, so you can see …
Mr Reed: In fairness to the Clerk and others could we not say that we want it back here in the June sittings.
Mr STIRLING: We certainly can. I am not arguing. If you are able, if someone was to give me a form of words saying exactly that, and we put that into the motion, I would be happy to accept that.
Mr REED: If we could just add after committees ‘and report back to the Legislative Assembly before the end of the June 2002 sittings’.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure that we could make that amendment. With the agreement of both sides we could add those words.
Mr STIRLING: I accept that. The Clerk has the words already there.
The question of resources is a valid question, and government will ensure that adequate resources are provided to the Public Accounts Committee such as to allow them to get down and undertake this background and research work including whatever parliamentary officers are required to go with them.
Mr REED: I am sorry to keep - but the way this has evolved, Madam Speaker, could I just ask, given that it appeared earlier that the whole of the committee was going, given that the whole of the committee may not be going, could we get an assurance that it would be a government member and an opposition member and perhaps an independent? At least three members.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. These are details to be worked through. As I said, I am not being prescriptive or laying down, but certainly there would be equal representation, if it was not the whole committee to go, and accompanied by, I would think perhaps the Clerk, but whatever parliamentary official was deemed appropriate. Resourcing will certainly be adequately provided such as they can get there and do the work and report back to us in June.
I thank the member for Katherine for his interest and raising these points because he, like the member for Drysdale, showed no interest in the Public Accounts process for the almost 12 years that I was in this Chamber. I welcome the support of the opposition to this process. I welcome their participating in the work of the Public Accounts Committee, because I think with goodwill on both sides we can get a process that will work to the betterment of the processes of parliament. The end objective is to better inform Territorians overall as to where their hard earned is going in terms of government expenditure. Because that, at the end of the day, is what is driving us along this course. I thank the member for Katherine and the opposition for their support.
Madam SPEAKER: Basically we are saying that the Public Accounts Committee will report back by June. There will be additional funding. We will add the following words to the motion: ‘and report back to the Legislative Assembly before the end of June 2002 sittings’. That is with the agreement of both sides. Who goes will really be up to the Public Accounts Committee to decide.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED) BILL
(Serial 56)
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 57)
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 56)
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 57)
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 58)
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, despite some of the snide comments made by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, which was unusual for him because he does not usually do it, nor does it suit him, it is clear that the government has listened to the opposition in terms of the bill we introduced on General Business day in February. We are extremely pleased that the government has essentially picked up on our bill and we thank the government for that.
I have had two briefings. The second one was fairly detailed and helpful. I am a little disappointed that, as I understood it, I received an assurance that some advisors would get back to me with additional information or responses. That has not occurred. Nothing swings on those responses but I make the comment anyway.
I remain concerned, or at least have a number of misgivings, about a number of matters contained in the bills and it is appropriate for the sake of the record that I outline them now. Before doing so in some detail, I refer to the second reading speech. That second reading speech has just about everything in it except what it should have, and that is a thorough and detailed explanation of the sections of the bill. In many respects the second reading speech is simply unhelpful. It contains a number of motherhood statements, various expressions of policy which do not, in my view or on any considered view, amount to a thorough and well written second reading speech. I respectfully encourage the Attorney-General, in the future, to present this House with a useful and detailed second reading speech that will go through and address section by section parts of the bills that the government brings before this House.
That being said, in terms of the content of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill, the first concern I have is in relation to the expression used throughout of ‘the court … considers just’. In particular that expression is contained in sections 43I and 43O of the bill. That is not an expression, in my view, that is ordinarily found in legislation. At the briefing, I indicated that the word ‘appropriate’ would be better than the word ‘just’. Having expressed that view, and government having obviously not seen fit to amend the bill, I am unable to press the matter any further. However, I do wish to make it clear that the expression is unusual and may be open to various interpretations. I can well imagine the judges of the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory having different interpretations of the word ‘just’, and there is no guidance whatsoever in the bill. I would expect some confusion to follow accordingly.
Secondly, there is no definition in the bill of ‘Aboriginal community’ in sections 43ZL and 43ZN(2)(b) of the bill, and there needs to be. When a court requests or receives a report on the views of the victim or next of kin, the bill presently provides that such a report merely set out the views of members of the Aboriginal community, and a number of questions should properly or could properly be asked, such as: who in the community?; what is community?; and what happens when some members of the community have views that are different from other members of the same community? No doubt there are other questions that can and will be asked in court rooms in due course. I do not think that is satisfactory.
Similarly, in the case of section 43ZN(2)(b) where a person seeks to vary or revoke a supervision order, the court must be satisfied that if a person comes from an Aboriginal community, then reasonable notice must have been given to the Aboriginal community. Again, it is not defined and it should be. Does the expression ‘Aboriginal community’ mean everyone in the community? Does it mean only those who say anything and express their view? And, if so, to whom and who decides who is and who is not part of the Aboriginal community? There is potential for great confusion in this area and, frankly, I am somewhat surprised that the government is content to let this bill pass without tightening up these clauses.
Thirdly, I am concerned about section 43ZP(1); in particular, the counselling services that are to be provided to a victim or next of kin of a supervised person. Who or what organisation will perform the counselling is far from clear. I am less than enthusiastic about agreeing to legislation that prescribes a particular course of action for a minister of the Crown, namely that he or she must ensure that counselling services are available when, in fact, there is no idea about who or what agency will perform those services and how it will be done.
Fourthly, I am concerned about the transitional provisions. Although I am advised that only three offenders will be affected by this change it is possible that the likes of Anthony Scotty will be released into the community sooner than the community might ordinarily expect. No doubt when, or if, this is imminent the Attorney-General will be forced to consider his position, which may involve perhaps even introducing different legislation designed at protecting members of the community.
Fifthly, there are parts of this legislation that, in my view, are simply very poorly drafted. In some parts, policy is mixed with the legislation, which I believe is contrary to good, sound legal drafting. More importantly, I have misgivings that arise from the possibility of confusion unnecessarily being caused when it is the job of legislators to do all that they can to avoid confusion and uncertainty.
I have raised these concerns in my most recent and most detailed briefing, and while some of those concerns have to some extent been addressed, the answers provided nevertheless create a level of unease within me.
Notwithstanding the misgivings I have, I will support this bill. Indeed, why on earth wouldn’t I, given that I have set out to achieve what I wanted to when I introduced my bill in February, aimed specifically at amending the defects of section 357 of the Criminal Code. The bill presently before us goes further, but I have no objection to that. I remain very pleased that section 357 of the Code will be remedied. Let me remind members of what I said when I introduced the bill:
- This bill is introduced with the intention to overcome difficulties that are created in section 357 of the
Criminal Code. The bill is an attempt, and I do not really put it any higher than that, to grapple with the
issues that are of critical importance to us all, and it is my hope that debate and further discussion will
ensue so that ultimately a bipartisan approach can be adopted to this vexing area.
- The introduction of this bill is an attempt to generate healthy, bipartisan discussion with a view to changing
at least one part of the relevant legislation for the benefit of those for whom we govern.
- As I said at the outset, this bill is intended to promote discussion with a view to achieving an outcome that
should have bipartisan support. As the number of violent offenders seems to be increasing, the stakes are high.
For my part, I do not want the death of an innocent person on my conscience, and for that reason I implore the
government to seriously look at this bill.
It did, and despite my misgivings, I support the bill.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. As the minister for Justice and Attorney-General has advised us, this amendment will provide progressive and long overdue reform. The minister has already alerted members that the present system has its genesis back in the 1800s under the Criminal Lunatics Act of the United Kingdom. However, the related issue of fitness to plead for the crime which we are employing actually dates back to medieval and Tudor times.
Judges at that time were unable to proceed with a trial for treason or felony unless the accused entered a plea. If the accused either refused to do so or was unable to do so, the offender could not be tried and convicted. A mechanism for dealing with these individuals developed whereby the accused was given three warnings and, if he or she did not enter a plea after the final warning, he or she was held in a cell and starved until a plea to the charge was entered, or the person died. This process was replaced in 1406 with the procedure whereby the prisoner was both starved and crushed under increasing weights until a plea was entered or the prisoner died. I think we have moved on since then.
Before the court could subject an accused person to this treatment, it needed to make a decision as to whether the accused was mute because of malice, or mute by visitation of God. If the court made the latter finding, the defendant was spared and a plea of not guilty was entered on the assumption that it was a plea the accused would enter into if he or she was able. A distinction, therefore, developed between three types of individuals, namely, the insane, the deaf mute, and a person who simply refused to plea for more calculated reasons.
In 1995, the Victorian Parliamentary Community Development Committee produced an extensive report recommending reforms to a system under which people found either not guilty, or unable to plead by reason of mental impairment, have been detained indefinitely - often for considerably longer than if they had been convicted. This report considered a model mental impairment bill drafted by the Commonwealth Criminal Code Officers Committee, and a report which generated the drafting and introduction of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the model legislation on which our amendment is based. When balancing the rights of people whose disabilities mean they lack usual legal capacity with the community’s expectations of security and safety, too often the tilt is towards inaccurate prejudices held by the community about links between mental impairment and dangerousness or the propensity to offend. Our act will restore this balance.
A significant change is to take decision making power out of the hands of the government and place it with the courts. Currently, the only option open to a judge in situations where a person is found not guilty by reason of mental impairment, is to detain the person indefinitely until the Administrator, acting on the advice of government, decides on release. Under the new act, a judge will rightly have the discretion to impose a range of orders, from unconditional release to supervision orders, where people may, or may not be held, in custody. People will also be able to apply for court release, rather than possibly languishing in prison until a political decision is made. Under this new law, people with severe psychological conditions will no longer run the risk of effectively being political prisoners, kept under the Administrator’s pleasure, because governments, with an eye to the ballot box, have ignored expert advice to release them. For those under the Administrator’s pleasure orders, it means the same courts that initially judged them to be mentally impaired will decide their future.
We are talking about people who are mentally ill. With modern treatments, people are no longer mentally ill for life. Many conditions previously considered incurable respond to treatment. When these people are no longer a danger there is no reason why they should remain in custody. This act contains transitional provisions which provide that the existing Administrator’s pleasure detainees are deemed to be subject to a custodial supervision order, and within six months of the commencement of the legislation, must be brought before the court for a major review. I feel that it is important for members to understand the matters that the court is to take into account when it is reviewing an Administrator’s pleasure detainee. These are:
- whether the supervised person concerned is likely to, or would if released be likely to, endanger himself
or herself or another person, because of his or her impairment, condition or disability;
the need to protect people from danger - I think this one needs emphasising to the Chamber;
in the community;
supervision order; and
The court must not make an order releasing the person from custody, or significantly reducing the supervision to which the person is subject, unless the court has obtained and considered two reports, each being prepared by a person who is a psychiatrist or other expert. The court must also be satisfied that the following persons were given reasonable notice of the intention to vary a detainee status: that is the victim of the offence concerned; if the victim concerned is diseased, the victim’s next of kin; the next of kin of the supervised person concerned; and, as the previous speaker mentioned, if the supervised person concerned is a member of an Aboriginal community, the Aboriginal community.
There are only a few detainees who will be affected by this requirement for a review. However, in Victoria where they have a significantly larger psychiatric population, the clinical director of the Thomas Edwin Hospital, which has a mix of maximum and minimum security units, Professor Paul Mullins observed:
- People don’t get out because their sentence is over. They get out when they are able to cope and don’t present a
risk to the public.
I am in full accord with the comments made by the member for Araluen in a press release dated 14 May 2002. As she said, most other jurisdictions have legislation to deal with the offenders who are unfit to plead and it is important the Territory takes steps to deal with such offenders, but it is very much in the interest of all Territorians. I did note her comments in regard to the Attorney-General when he delivered his second reading speech. I find it somewhat disingenuous however, that when she makes a claim in her press release, that while the Martin government brought in various legislative reforms after it came to power, the issue of serious offenders being released into the community was not apparently high in its agenda until she raised it in late February. Well, if she is concerned about the apparent priority we have for the introduction to this legislation, she must be absolutely traumatised by the sitting on its hands attitude of the previous Attorney-General and Minister for Corrections.
Other jurisdictions throughout Australia have progressively implemented these changes since 1995. The member for Araluen has known for many years that change is needed and yet it has taken a Labor government to bring on this change. Not her own party, not one of the old guard, were prepared to put in this change. You have to ask why.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department on developing the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. Legislative reform of this nature in the Territory is certainly long overdue. The amendments proposed in this bill are progressive, consistent with reforms introduced in other jurisdictions and around the world, and will lead to improved circumstances for offenders who have a mental impairment.
These people are among the most stigmatised and marginalised in our community. Individuals who have a mental impairment are by no means a homogenous group. The definition of mental impairment can encompass a range of presentations and circumstances including intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, dementia, involuntary intoxication, and mental illness. Given the different ways in which people are likely to present, it stands to reason that individuals subject to this legislation will have different treatment, supervision and care needs, and will therefore require different types and levels of treatment and care and support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the circumstances surrounding the pathway of these individuals into the criminal justice system are often extremely complex. They require expert advice to fully comprehend the issues and a carefully considered and compassionate response. This bill provides the legislative framework for such a response. One of the most important elements of the proposed reforms is that they will provide protection for people with mental impairment and a range of options for supervision within custodial and community settings which have until now been unavailable.
The proposed amendments balance the rights of the individual to humane treatment and care with the legitimate needs of the community to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk from dangerous or seriously disruptive behaviour. They will also ease the burden and anxiety of the families of these individuals who also experience the stigmatising effects of their loved ones’ behaviour. The existing provisions which the proposed reforms seek to replace are quite clearly archaic remnants of a bygone era which fail to provide an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual to receive appropriate treatment and care, and the protection of the community from the dangerous behaviour of others.
Indeed, under the current arrangements, repeat offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to others in the community and who do not come under the provisions of mental health legislation cannot be detained in a custodial situation because of defects in the fitness to stand trial provisions. At the same time, individuals found not guilty on the grounds of insanity may be held indefinitely when such detention may be unnecessary and inappropriate.
It is widely recognised that individuals within the criminal justice system have a higher prevalence of mental illness and mental disorder than the general population. Factors in the environment that are known to be detrimental to the emotional and social wellbeing of people who have a mental impairment -including isolation, uncertainty and inconsistency in management - need to be minimised wherever possible.
The right of all people to respect for individual human worth, dignity and privacy should not be waived by any circumstance regardless of an individual’s history of offending or their mentally impaired or prisoner status. All persons assessing mental health or disability services either within the health or corrective services systems are entitled to the protection of their civil and human rights and freedom from abuse. The proposed reforms seek to ensure treatment and care are provided in an appropriate environment compatible with the legitimate needs of the community to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk from dangerous or seriously disruptive behaviour and the protection of the individual patient from unacceptable risks of serious damage to self or serious deterioration.
This bill quite appropriately seeks to ensure that decisions to detain, release or transfer mentally impaired individuals found not guilty by reason of mental impairment or unfit for trial be made by courts and not by a political process. The reforms will deliver a legislative framework which recognises the special needs of offenders who have a mental impairment and ensures these offenders are given the same standard of protection that the justice system offers everyone else. They also provide access to a formal legal process to determine an appropriate outcome while reserving a degree of flexibility that will permit those responsible for the health of the person to provide appropriate treatment, care and support.
Recognition is given to the critical information health professionals can contribute as the proposed reforms require the court to seek and consider expert evidence on the condition of the person. It is pleasing to see that the bill has also recognised the need for the courts to engage appropriate professionals who have expert knowledge and experience in the condition giving rise to the mental impairment and guards against simply engaging the most accessible professional available at the time. Given the spectrum of complex presentations likely to come before the courts, it is vital a range of professionals including psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists and speech pathologists be available to provide the quality advice required to assist the courts in making well informed decisions.
There are quite clearly difficulties inherent in providing health and disability services within a correctional facility given the major focus of correctional facilities being secure containment and the focus of health and disability services being assessment, treatment and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the provision of services for individuals subject to this legislation who have a mental impairment is the joint responsibility of health and justice and will be addressed in partnership. It is acknowledged that neither agency has all the expertise or facilities required to develop a service that meets the complex needs of these individuals which includes appropriate custodial facilities, appropriate non-custodial options, attention to security considerations, expert advice to the courts, behaviour management, and assessment and treatment services.
Quite clearly, a cooperative case management approach between my department and the Department of Justice to supervision will have great benefits for these individuals, their families and the community. Clearly, it is not appropriate for health professionals to undertake custodial duties. Health professionals and Community Services staff generally lack custodial training and expertise and only in very specific circumstances do they have a mandate to enforce services on unwilling clients. To assume a custodial approach would also confuse the role of the health professional.
The Department of Justice has expertise in providing security, custodial and risk management while my department has expertise in mental health and disability issues and interventions to respond to them effectively. It is essential our departments work together to develop the most appropriate management strategies for individuals affected by this legislation. The involvement of my department is premised upon each individual’s need for, and likely benefit from, treatment in the case of a treatable illness or an achievable management plan for a permanent condition such as acquired brain injury or intellectual disability. In the latter examples, my department would generally become involved where the person is capable of being taught pro-social skills, where these skills are likely to reduce re-offending and where it has the relevant expertise in terms of the person’s disability to provide effective support and training.
I am pleased to see included in the legislation a range of dispositional options available to the court, including supervision option orders within a community, which will facilitate appropriate treatment, care and support. My department will be contributing to planning and reviewing the care and treatment of people who are placed under supervision orders. Individuals subject to the proposed reforms will have access to treatment and rehabilitation on the basis of relative need and available resources. These services need to be delivered in a setting commensurate with individual needs and legal circumstances, and in a manner that is consistent with the best available evidence. These individuals should also have the opportunity to participate as fully as possible in making decisions about their treatment and rehabilitation.
We should not, as a society, be penalising people for behaviour for which they are not criminally responsible. As is clearly stated in the bill, detention in a prison should be an option of last resort, and people with a mental impairment should only be placed in the mainstream prison population when no other appropriate option is available. The relationship between the treatment and rehabilitation culture of health services and the custodial culture of correctional agencies can be problematic. Similarly, the police, court, corrections and health have a different focus and set of expectations that can at times be difficult to reconcile. Prisoners and detainees have the same right to access equity and quality of health care as the general population.
Correctional facilities will need to provide suitable health facilities with appropriate equipment and trained staff, or arrange for such services to be made available to a standard comparable to regional and community standards. Ideally, custodial practices should be tailored to promote positive emotional, psychological, physical and social wellbeing, and to minimise negative impacts on individuals with a mental impairment who are in custody. Where a person is placed under a custodial supervision order pursuant to these provisions, they must be provided with an environment conducive to their needs within the constraints of needing to maintain a secure and safe environment. The focus of such orders should also be to maximise, wherever possible, the capacity of the individual to be safely re-integrated into the community. The diverse range of people who may be subject to this legislation also need access to quality general medical services, and to be involved to the full extent of their capabilities and without discrimination in educational, occupational and rehabilitation activities.
Finally, issues of a practical and administrative nature will inevitably confront the successful implementation of any legislative reform. These issues will require careful consideration when planning and putting the new arrangements in place. The reforms will have resource implications for my department, given the range of assessments and that regular progress reports on individuals subject to these provisions will be required by the court. The range of provisions and conditions which can be included in the supervision order, such as medication, treatment, supported accommodation and ongoing care are key areas of response for my department.
Arrangements are being put in place to ensure the departments of Health and Community Services and Justice work closely together to plan and develop the protocols, services and facilities that will be essential to the effective functioning of this legislation. A working group comprising officers from the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Justice will also be established to develop options for Cabinet’s consideration for the location and management of an appropriate place for detainees within existing custodial facilities.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I encourage all members to support this Bill.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this bill and commend the minister for introducing it. I do not have the technical background of the member for Araluen on the points she raised, but after the briefing I felt comfortable with the spirit and the intent of the bill.
I welcome these amendments on behalf of the people of Central Australia who have had to bear the consequences in the past decade of at least one man who has been deemed unfit to stand trial. He was discharged by the court and went on to commit further crimes of random violence. I am hoping, minister, that these amendments to some extent will ensure that people in the community are protected from those unprovoked, violent acts committed by people who, for reasons of physical or mental impairment, are not able to stand trial in the ordinary way.
If I can just take the case of Roland Ebatarinja, and how circumstances would have been different if these amendments had been in place a year ago. Roland, as we all know, is a deaf mute and in the past has been ruled unfit to stand trial because of his inability to understand the English language or the legal proceedings. Although that may be true, it does not mean that Roland is not intelligent or that he does not know that he is doing something wrong. It is just that we appear to have no way of knowing whether Roland understands what he is doing or what we are saying to him. According to a recent court report the Supreme Court judge, Justice Dean Mildren, also found it hard to believe that Roland cannot be made to understand that he cannot carry a knife when he can actually learn complex computer games. But what is clear, regardless of Roland’s intelligence or what he knows or what he doesn’t know, is that he poses a significant threat to his family and the community.
Earlier this year, and I am not sure if the minister was in his office at the time, but on the street corner from my office, Roland was witnessed stabbing three people quite cold-bloodedly. One of the victims was seriously wounded. This, of course, occurred less than two years after he was discharged from court on a murder charge because, at that time, he was also declared unfit to stand trial.
Under this new regime, if he had been found guilty at a special hearing, he would have been sent to gaol for at least 15 years, and would not have been on the street outside my office in February of this year. He was arrested for those stabbings and was remanded in custody but, when he appeared in court in March, he was discharged from court again ruled unfit to stand trial. I have to admit the reaction of community was grave concern because here was this man back on the streets. They seemed to think that somehow or other the system had let them down, to allow this man to roam free. It was certainly true that he did cause some concern in one of the camps where he was staying. The minister may even have visited that camp; I am not quite sure if it was him or one of his advisors. At present, Roland is under a voluntary supervision order but that is something he can walk away from at any time and commit yet another violent crime for which he would not face the court.
What would happen to Roland under the new transition provisions of the bill? Would he be reindicted for these offences? I would ask the minister to clarify if that is so under the transition orders. Firstly, he would be arrested and remanded in custody until he appeared again in court. The prosecution and defence would agree that he is unfit to stand trial; this could be done by agreement. If they did not agree, then the matter to stand trial would have to be referred and would be determined by a jury. The first step is to get agreement between the prosecutor and the defence that he was unfit and, if that was not able to happen, then that would be decided by a jury.
I am asking the minister: could you confirm that he could be remanded again until a special hearing took place where he would be tried for the offences and the jury could deliver a qualified verdict of guilty, and the judge could declare him liable to supervision orders? That is the way I read the bill but, not having that background, I would like to have that clarified. From there, the judge would call for reports on Roland’s condition and for alternatives for his care, and could order custodial supervision for the term of his sentence.
That is what we really need to make clear to the public; that this could happen; that he could then be put into custodial supervision. A report on Roland’s condition while in gaol, I take it, would be prepared every 12 months so there would be some sort of review. Between three and six months before the sentence was up the court would convene to determine if he still posed a treat to the community. Could the minister confirm that, if the answer is yes - if he was still deemed to pose a threat to the community - he would remain in custody? It is my understanding these reviews would occur but, if he was deemed unfit at the end of that time, he would remain in custody.
These changes mean the community at large would get some relief from the likes of Roland being on the street, while ensuring that such a person serves time for the violent crimes that he has committed. These amendments also mean that someone like Anthony Scotty, whom the member for Araluen mentioned, who had a mental illness and brain damage, was a repeat offender and eventually murdered Rosemary McIntyre in her home, would hopefully be under a supervised detention order early in the piece. When Anthony Scotty was found not guilty of Rosemary’s murder because of insanity, the jury accepted the evidence of an expert witness, psychiatrist Dr Rodney Milton. He said later that Scotty’s medical history was extraordinary and lengthy, that reading through it was like an orchestra without a conductor, and there was no coordination at all. The coroner consequently found the Department of Correctional Services had clearly failed to supervise Scotty whilst he was at large in the community.
I ask the minister to clarify that these amendments will increase coordination and cooperation in case management across government services. Or that people on non-custodial orders will be better supervised and will at least give the courts wider options when these people come before them. We do not want a repeat of what happened there with the lack of supervision, because certainly, that was one of the most tragic cases, I think, that Alice Springs has witnessed.
Anthony Scotty was a brain damaged petrol sniffer who acted violently without provocation. We did hear earlier, I think, that there are only three such cases at the moment in the Territory, but we have to be practical about this. We are going to see a growing number of these people in Central Australia as a result of the petrol sniffing that is occurring in our communities. Unless something is done to address the problem of petrol sniffing, the courts will have these cases come before them over and over again. We are just on the edge of what is going to happen, the edge of what we will see as a multiple case coming before the court. We really do need to have legislation that will protect the community against such random acts of violence.
Minister, can you confirm that under these amendments the police will have the power to arrest anyone who is on a non-custodial supervision order if they suspect that person is about to pose a threat to himself or the community? Can you reassure me that they may be on a non-custodial supervision order but, if there is any chance at all that they are about to pose a threat, the police will have the power to arrest them? I know that a hearing can change the terms of an order, and that it can be called on urgently. It is really important that there can be some urgent action, if this is the case, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned that the supervised person is not complying with orders. That urgency is something that is needed to make sure people act quickly when there is a problem. Minister, could you also clarify for me that such urgency is there for the police to act?
The rights of a person under a supervisory order are protected by regular reviews. I also welcome the provision that allows for an Aboriginal person’s community to be consulted before any orders are made that might directly affect them. It is difficult, as far as I can see, to define in the act who that would be. In the case of Roland it was certainly his family who have been involved in that consultation, and his grandmother, and he is under her supervision. But we need to have that direct consultation with the family and the people of the community who are most concerned with this case. I welcome that because I believe the families also will be able to put forward their point of view, the concerns that they have, and whether they are actually able and capable of maintaining that supervision.
I support these changes and the effort made here to reassure the community that it is entitled to some further protection from those people who are not responsible for their actions, or who are unable to stand trial in the normal way. I just want the minister in his final summing up to give us those reassurances that what we believe this bill is about, the spirit of this bill, is there; that there are no technical loop holes as sometimes occurs in the writing of legislation; and when this is introduced we can see Roland back in court, and that any future cases will be urgently dealt with, and with the right protection for the community.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise also to say: Good bill, minister. I am glad to see that the member for Araluen brought these issues to the attention of the government and that as a joint thrust on both sides of this House, a good bill has resulted. I congratulate the member for Araluen as well as the Attorney-General for acting on this, and acting on it quickly.
I am fairly close to this because in the past I have had cause on a couple of occasions to deal with Mr Scotty, who now languishes in custody; as well as Mr Ebatarinja when he was still a juvenile before he became a serious villain, if memory serves me correctly. I have no access to my former records in relation to all of this, but I do recall dealing with young Roland. I certainly recall Anthony Scotty because I was present at an arrest of Mr Scotty, when I was off duty, and a subsequent arrest when he was arrested finally for the murder of Rosemary McIntyre, a crime which is etched into my memory and will remain so for the rest of my life.
Normally when a police officer deals with these sorts of things, they tend to be pretty hard about it, but the reason I remember this one so vividly is because of the trauma that even the CIB felt at the time. I have never seen a CIB officer so distraught and distracted by the job that they were doing. I have to say even at this stage as I remember it and talk about it, I have to catch my throat a little bit.
Having said that, Mr Scotty went through a process were he was found insane. However, that did not do anything for the problem that we had with the latter person, Mr Ebatarinja, a matter I believe ended up in the High Court in Ebatarinja v Deland. The High Court ruled, of course, that the question at the committal stage that the magistrate had to ask of the defendant, soon to become the accused, could make no sense to a person not fit to stand trial and therefore that was part of the problem in terms of committing that person to stand trial. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister can fill in the holes for me because it has been a long time since I have read it.
There is one issue that I noticed was absent from the second reading speech and absent from the bill itself. I have already put the minister on notice and I am going to raise the issue simply to get it on the record more than anything else. It does not stand as a criticism. When this issue has arisen in other jurisdictions, the issue has been dealt with properly and I would anticipate it would be no different in this instance. But I think it is worth putting on the record - the issue is the one that I raised during a briefing the other day. I had a concern that where a defence, or for that matter the prosecution, may raise the issue of fitness to plead, it should be done in good faith. Now, I know that the case law is quite strong, but I think this is a an opportunity for the Attorney-General to place on the record that that is his expectation.
Otherwise, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great bill. It fixes up a problem. It has been done in other jurisdictions. I cannot see any injustices flowing from it whatsoever. It certainly fixes up a big hole. This parliament should be proud that we are passing it here today.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002. I have had recent first hand experience of the inadequacy and uncertainty of our existing laws when it comes to mentally impaired persons in the criminal justice system.
A violent offence was committed; the alleged offender is severely brain damaged from years of petrol sniffing. It was proposed that he stay with family members at a remote community distant from where the offence was committed. That community is in my electorate and the proposed care-taking arrangement came as a surprise to the alleged offender’s family and to the community generally. Assistance from the courts or from relevant mental health authorities within the Department of Health and Community Services could not be provided because the young man in question was not considered to be suffering from a mental illness.
I travelled to the community and assisted the council and various families and individuals involved in mediating a mutually acceptable care and supervision arrangement, which would protect the community and also cater for the needs of the young man. I am pleased to see that the definition of mental impairment that will be inserted in the Criminal Code will cover not just a narrow concept of mental illness, but also intellectual disability, brain damage and severe personality disorder.
The changes to the Code, and the clarification and enhancement of the role of the court that the changes will bring about, will hopefully turn a spotlight on to the disgracefully neglected problem of the poor diagnosis and chronic undertreatment of mental impairment in remote Aboriginal communities. I preface my comments in this regard by acknowledging and emphasising that the incidence of criminal behaviour amongst mentally impaired individuals is no greater than amongst the rest of the community. It is just that when a mentally impaired person becomes enmeshed in the criminal justice system, both the alleged offender and the system have historically found it difficult to cope.
What the new amendments do is firmly spell out the area of operation of the courts, which includes bringing closure and resolution to a criminal charge, and making a determination as to what should happen to the alleged offender, even when he or she is unable to understand or effectively participate in the trial or hearing process. Correspondingly, the role of both the defence lawyers and mental health and allied professionals are also clarified. I am hopeful that, as a result of the new changes, mentally impaired individuals charged with offences less serious than murder or manslaughter will be advised, or assisted now, to raise fitness to stand trial issues, or plead not guilty, rather than concealing or underplaying their mental impairment for fear that to do otherwise might result in an indeterminate period of detention at the Administrator’s pleasure.
A substantial increase in fitness to stand trial applications and mental impairment-based not guilty pleas should result in a focussing of mental health resources on areas of unmet need. I am particularly referring to the many untreated or inadequately treated mentally impaired individuals in remote Aboriginal communities throughout the Territory, whose behaviour pattern puts them on a collision course with the criminal justice system. The Department of Health and Community Services - and where there is one operating in the relevant area, Aboriginal Health Boards and the medical services - should consider ways of increasing the number and qualifications of mental health professionals on the ground. Where these professionals come from outside the area they are working in, considerable effort will have to be put into cross cultural and language training before such professionals will start being effective.
At the end of the day, my hope is that if another mentally impaired young man is sent to a community in my electorate, at least by way of a precautionary exile arrangement, the courts, with the assistance of suitably qualified mental health professionals, will work closely and cooperatively with the community and its health centre staff, who most of the time are left out of this equation, to deliver safety and protection for the community, for staff, and appropriate treatment and care for the individual.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the other members for their comments. I am certainly not an expert on such a complex and important bill. I would be interested to hear more debate when it gets into the committee stages. I suppose one of the most important things that you should judge this bill on is the balance between justice and the safety of the community. From what I have read and from what I have heard, it certainly goes a long way towards that. I thank members for their comments as it has helped me understand the bill a bit better. I thank the minister for some briefings that have occurred. As I said, I will be interested in further debate about this bill.
My comments are basically on some technical matters. There was a section under 43J(1) where it said: ‘include the words “or after each matter”’. 43J(1) just has a list of requirements. It does not tell you whether you have to take into consideration one or more. I wonder whether those should all be linked with an ‘or’. My good friend, the member for Goyder, might call it a ‘disjunctive or’, I am not sure, but it is an ‘or’.
Under 43ZD, I ask the question: is a lawyer included in the definition under 1(d):
- any other person who has an interest that the court recognises as proper for the purposes of making
the application.
With those comments, I support the bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all members who made a contribution today. It is an important bill and it is a bill that, all being well in our committee stages and our third reading, will become law on 15 June. I can tell you that because it is in the bill itself; that is the commencement date. At that point in time, the justice system has a whole new range of measures by which to deal with these very unresolved areas of the law.
Before I go into giving a response to the issues raised by each of the members, I would like to deal with the matter of who owns this bill. I know it is of importance to the member for Araluen who has a genuine commitment to this area of reform. I could say I own the bill but if I said that I would be wrong. It would be dishonest and it would be a bit egotistical. I do not own the bill. I could say the member for Araluen owns it, but I don’t think that is true either because many people have worked on this, and many people are very concerned about this area. We have seen that today in the debate. There are many people, members of this House, who have been personally touched by the issues that this area of deficiency in our law has raised. I would certainly say that my department has a part-ownership of it because they put in a huge amount of work in developing this legislation. I would like to pay tribute to Sue Oliver and the department for their work, as well.
I would like think that all members of this House own this legislation, as they should own every piece of legislation that comes before us. And through that, the people of the Northern Territory who put us in here for slavery duty for the next four years. So, I think there is a very broad sphere of ownership, and I would like that be just taken as read on all bills that come through this House.
Let’s deal with some of the specifics that members have raised about the legislation before us. The member for Araluen was concerned about the use of ‘just’ or ‘appropriate’. Well, I think that wherever the word ‘just’ is used, there are also guidelines and principles that have been put in front of the court to guide their decision in that particular area of the bill. I personally think the use of the alternative word ‘appropriate’ would be difficult to accept because you could, say, have a body of law in Nazi Germany where there would have been very appropriate decisions being made by courts all the time, but they may not be very just. So I think that ‘just’ at least has a relationship to the intention of the justice system. Either of those terms have a subjective element to them, and we are depending very much on the technical structure of the bill to guide, in many ways and in a more detailed way, the thinking of the court as to what would be a ‘just’ or ‘appropriate’ outcome in terms of that area of the bill.
Regarding the use of the term ‘Aboriginal communities’, this term is very widely used in our legislation. The ‘Aboriginal community’ or ‘community to which the Aborigine belongs’, I can point to the Administration and Probate Act, the Crimes (Victim Assistance) Act, the Commercial and Private Agency Licensing Act, the Family Provisions Act, the Local Court (Adoption of Children) Act and the Status of Children Act as legislation that exists at the moment where that term, or some version of that term, is used. I have worked, as indeed many members of this House have worked, for long periods of time in contact and interaction with Aboriginal communities. There are many practical situations where someone has to make a judgement about who are the kin of a particular individual, which is the defined community and the community of interest that is affected by a particular decision, and then do our very best to get the appropriate people together and reach a properly consulted decision.
There are organisations like the land councils and legal aid services that deal with that practicality day by day and have for many years. To try to be more prescriptive within the actual drafted form of the legislation would be extremely difficult. I do not think that you could possibly build into the structure of this bill all the different contexts in which the word or the concept of Aboriginal community would be potentially applied. It is justified to refer to the practical experiences and the pretty extensive infrastructure we have in the Northern Territory in terms of underwriting that type of consultation. We are probably one of the most experienced in that exercise because of the long operation here of land rights and the body of knowledge that has been built up by anthropology and so on within the land councils and within the other indigenous organisations, and within our own public service in the Northern Territory government. We are comfortable with that term being used in the bill and will see how the practicalities stand up as we go.
I will deal with the member for Nelson’s issues next simply because the bit of paper that the answers are on is next in the pile. There is no relative importance being placed. Question one that you raised was section 43J, the potential use of ‘or’ to link the various options that are being put in front of the court. It is standard drafting to just simply list the items which could be either/or, or some combination of the listing. It might be that the court will use more than one of those possibilities in forming its decision. To put ‘or’ as a sort of mutual exclusive rider on each of those options would in effect force the court to select one only of those options. The intent of the bill is in standard drafting form which is to allow the court to select one or more of those options in forming its decisions. That is why it is put that way.
Mr Wood: They could not write ‘and/or’?
Dr TOYNE: And/or? I can only say that on advice received, which we sought after you raised those points - I will read this out in more detail so you will get a better idea of what the advice was:
The use or non-use of ‘and’ - this is standard drafting tool; an interpretation mechanism and indicates to the
reader that each item stands alone as an alternative, ie. a person is unfit to stand trial if one of these items apply.
For a similar provision see 43F(1) which indicates that the defence of mental impairment maybe raised by (a) the
defence; (b) by prosecution; or (c) by the courts.
So it is one of those possibilities. Whereas in other sections of the bill contrast, for example, section 43M where the question of the accused person’s fitness to stand trial arises at the commital proceedings. The possibilities are (a) accused not discharged; or (b) committal is completed; and (c) the question is reserved for consideration at the trial, and in the case that all of these items or elements should occur. So it is saying that all three have to be occurring.
The second question raised was the interested person within the meaning of section 43ZD(1)(d). Does it include the lawyer? Yes, the circumstances where the lawyer has been appointed as a litigation guardian or is acting on instructions from the next of kin, remembering that lawyers only act on instructions. So interested persons might also include the director of the facility where the person is accommodated, a psychiatrist or treating practitioner. However, it is more likely that these people would act through the Director of Public Prosecutions. When you read the Hansard, you might get the detail of that.
I will go back to another issue raised by the member for Araluen and that is Anthony Scotty. The review would be held within six months of this legislation becoming active. That review would assess the state of his mind and to what degree that constitutes a continuing threat to the community. But equally, the charges against him could be resolved through the other half of the hearing process and that, in turn, would set a limiting period on his custodial supervision. So he would be in with a limiting period set. Now, if it is on a charge of a slaying, that could be as much as 15 years, so there would be quite a secure arrangement put in place where it has been legitimised by the charges against him having been properly heard under these qualified arrangements. There would then be a further review of his condition within three months of the end of that limiting period. So that basically puts him in a more regularised framework of being dealt with in custody.
The points raised by the member for Macdonnell, the good faith argument. The member raised two cases concerning good faith. One was R v Zang NSW CCA 344 (2000). I am learning the law all the time here; it is fantastic. And the other one was R v Tier NSW CCA 53 (2001). Both are decisions of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The New South Wales act has a provision that the court must not conduct an inquiry into a person’s fitness unless it appears to the court that the question has been raised in good faith. The court in both cases concluded that if there is a real or substantial issue as to the unfitness of an accused to stand trial, then justice requires that it be determined. They said that it is impossible to imagine in such circumstances that the question was not raised in good faith.
The NT bill provides that the court must order an investigation into fitness if the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds on which to question the accused person’s fitness to be tried. That’s section 43N(2)(b). If the matter of fitness were raised by the defence and the basis for the concern was not obvious, or the validity of the concern was dubious, it would be appropriate for the judge to seek an elaboration of the matters giving rise to the concern before ordering an investigation.
Within our bill, proposed section 43O recognises that an elaboration might sometimes be required and allows the judge to make orders for the production of any reports that the defence or prosecution may have, or for an examination of the accused person on the giving of a report to the court. If the court believes, after receiving these reports, that there are reasonable grounds on which to question a person’s fitness then they must order an investigation into the person’s fitness. If there are reasonable grounds, then good faith would have to be presumed. The addition of a good faith requirement is therefore considered unnecessary. If the judge did not believe that there were reasonable grounds on which to question the person’s fitness, then the judge would not order an investigation.
In addition, legal practitioners are officers of the court. To suggest that a legal practitioner would raise a matter in bad faith raises questions of a breach of their duty as officers of the court and of professional misconduct. That is why we are not persuaded by any argument to put that provision in the act.
Moving to the member for Macdonnell’s other matter, which was the question of the trial of Ebatarinja v Deland, the High Court said that because the provisions of the Justices Act embody the requirement that a charge should be read to the accused and be heard by them, then the Justices Act actually precluded the type of process that we are contemplating in this legislation. So there is a section that has been placed in the current bill, which is 43M, which specifically says that the hearing can proceed despite the fact that that the provision under the Justices Act has not been complied with. Clearly, with Roland being a deaf mute, he would by definition not be able to hear the charge being read. We have actually circumvented that provision in the Justices Act by that section of the bill.
Turning to the concerns of the member for Braitling. Will we be able to stage a retrial - or a trial in this case because he has not been tried - of Roland Ebatarinja? Yes, clearly this legislation will allow that to happen. The person who has to make that decision is the Director of Public Prosecutions who, as this parliament would know, would be very conversant with this. It is an independent statutory office and it will be the Director of Public Prosecutions who will call on a rehearing. And, yes, once indicted, Roland can be taken into compulsory custody. I will report to members that, in fact, Roland’s voluntary supervision is proceeding very well from our reports, and he is actually learning sign language for the first time under the supervision he is under at the moment.
I do not think he is going to stage a break-out in the next few weeks. If the DPP decides to now re-indict Roland for the offences that he was alleged to have committed, then he can be put into a remand situation, or into some other custodial situation at the discretion of the courts. They may decide that the current arrangements may be sufficient until the hearing is heard, or they may decide that that is not secure enough. It is up the court to make that decision.
The member for Braitling also questioned what happens if a person who had been put into non-custodial supervision subsequently turns or develops a condition that may start to pose a danger to people around them or risk to themselves. Section 43ZF, the emergency power of apprehension, takes care of that possibility in that that will allow the police to apprehend that person and bring them into a custodial situation if the police are reasonably satisfied that that is the situation.
The other matter raised by the member for Braitling was the question of agency cooperation. I think the minister for Health and Community Services alluded to the fact that we do need to have a very close working relationship between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, and it is absolutely inherent in the future care of Roland Ebatarinja and the other individuals who will very likely come under the sway of this new legislation. We have convened a working group, as the minister said, to address the implementation of these amendments. We understand that there are resource implications to the enactment of this law and we will work it out between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Community Services so that there are suitable conditions to put each of these people in.
The bill itself has a provision at a certain point where, if there is a custodial arrangement being required from the court, the CEO for Health has to indicate whether they have a suitable facility and program available. It is only if that is answered in the negative, then gaol becomes the next most suitable. But over time we should be able to develop some arrangements between the Justice Department, Correctional Services and the Department of Health where we can maybe embody both security of custody and treatment of the individuals in the one arrangement. That is certainly what we will be aiming at. We will have a look at the different models for doing that and what resources are required. With that, I will conclude my remarks in the second reading speech. I would suggest, seeing there are committee stage amendments, we will need to go to committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill (Serial 56):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.1 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.2 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.3 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.4 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.5 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 16.6 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill (Serial 58):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 55)
(Serial 55)
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments by referring to advice that has been offered by the honourable minister with regards to how the opposition should conduct themselves in a censure motion. The advice was respectfully received. It is now the turn of the opposition to provide some advice on how we should respond to this amendment bill.
Members opposite would be well aware of our decision to oppose passage of this amendment bill and we do so with the clear support of Territory businesses. The imposition of a levy on business has never been palatable, I am sure, to any member of this Chamber, and I stand on the record and can justify my comments that it has never been palatable to CLP members and never more so than at times such as this.
It is worth noting the following comments and I ask honourable members to consider them carefully:
In my discussions with employer groups in the Northern Territory, a real sense of dismay has come through.
Business has been hit hard year on year by compounding hikes in workers compensation premiums in the last
four years and for them now to be hit with an additional levy, they feel totally besieged. Many businesses have
seen premiums rise 200% to 300 % over the last four years and a levy on this would be hard to swallow for most.
Compelling words. Words, however, that were uttered by the member for Wanguri when he spoke in the second reading speech when the then CLP government placed the initial need for this legislation on the Table. I believe we can substantiate that the landscape has changed to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to place this burden on Territory businesses.
In terms of talking to people and consulting and making sure that the role that we play in here is one of genuine representation, the opposition has taken it upon themselves to apprise members of the business community of the current situation regarding this levy and the scope of the changed landscape with regards to the necessity to place such a burden on business at this critical time. To that end, in apprising the business community of such information, we were surprised, no less impressed, with the prompt response of business to the tune of close to 600 responses in less than 36 hours. Each one of those businesses represents real people and real families who have taken the time to consider what this levy does represent to them as they endeavour to live out their dreams or to eke out a living in these difficult times.
Any member, no matter what side of the House they sit on, knows that it is difficult at this present time. We would all stand in total agreement, particularly when the words that were read out to you previously are the words of the member for Wanguri when this was first entered into this Chamber.
I would like to remind honourable members that we are not debating a bill as much as we are making decisions on behalf of real people. I made a phone call to a constituent today who is an owner/operator of a coffee and doughnut franchise in a major shopping centre. He has been to me on a number of occasions, and the thought crossed my mind that I should just give him a call because I wanted to make sure that the human element is represented in this so that we can respond appropriately. We are not discussing ideas and bills as much as we are discussing the future of individual operators who are endeavouring to move forward and they need to be fairly placed in this debate.
This gentlemen, apart from rising operating costs which are always besetting business - wages, lease payments, and franchise leases - has had to himself in the past year absorb a 400% increase in workers compensation premiums. I know he is desperately struggling with that increase. We are not just talking about numbers and incremental increases which can be justified and passed off here in a Chamber. We are actually talking about the morale of that businessman, how he actually feels and 4% on top of that increase is not just 4%; it is a weight, an additional burden. He has difficulty already getting up in the morning and he cannot even see himself in a position where he can actual get ahead. It is actually sapping his morale and he was horrified to hear that this was even being considered in this Chamber.
I presume every member here has real experience with the struggle of those in business. We understand what they actually feel. Of course we all know. We meet them, we hear them and many of us have had close experience to the actual weight of responsibility of having to pay the wages of those in our employ. In the case of the gentleman I have just referred to, he has to make his way forward in spite of all the wage increases, the increase in compensation premiums and so on. It translates down to something simple as how many more doughnuts he has to actually sell and how many more cups of coffee he has to actually serve. That is the sort of weight, and that is the actual translation of any additional impost. And you can see why it becomes sapping; when we translate that down to what they actually have to do to make up that difference.
This is an issue that particularly galls me. Insult is added to injury when this highest taxing government can do so from a clearly articulated commitment to pass on no new taxes to Territorians. The electorate will decide on this breach of confidence. Members opposite would be well advised to bear the actual implication of adding an additional cost to small business operators such as the close to 600 businesses represented by the faxed responses that the opposition office has received. Each one of those businesses represents real people and real families.
Government parades incremental reversals of negative economic indicators as improvements, or as evidence that the economy has turned the corner. This may make members of this nave government and its 5th floor supporters feel good, but it falls seriously flat in the business sector. Local members, no matter what side of the Chamber we occupy, will agree that these are indeed genuinely difficult times for the majority of Territory businesses. We are all witness to closed businesses in the Darwin CBD and other centres, of building companies folding and leaving town. We can extrapolate the pressures that are behind each one of those profound changes that we see, such as the dislocation to families and so on.
If government members seek to remain aloof from economic hardships faced by businesses, then please do some real and practical research. For example, ask those in the removalist industry how many loads depart the Territory, as opposed to arrive in the Territory. Further, I challenge the minister to contact the National Tattersalls office and receive an update on just how the Territory is faring. I understand figures from the NT have for the very first time in at least a decade dropped below Tasmania. These are difficult times. The issue is not blame here, but it is a reflection of how serious the current situation is, the context that we are dealing with here in considering the imposition of an additional burden on business.
The last thing business needs is another tax. I believe that I can fairly demonstrate to members opposite that they have really little or no option than to support the opposition’s schedule of amendments. This new government has an opportunity to draw back, I believe, from a potentially greater problem than perhaps they are prepared to accept at this point. The electorate is fast becoming cynical of manoeuvring and manipulation. Are individual members content to blindly participate in an exercise that will result in another broken promise. Once is bad enough, but now there is the intention to do so again. Once again, I refer to the words that were uttered by members opposite when they were in opposition. They would be making the same speech I am now making. I urge honourable members opposite, please, to attend to the details of this argument.
The reality is the MVR levy was a new tax - it has been talked about before - on every family and every business. A new tax imposed after an extensive and deliberate public campaign to create a mythical black hole. Territorians will note that the black hole rhetoric has slipped from the Martin government’s vocabulary, and why is this? Firstly, I believe they are smart enough to gauge the rising level of cynicism and have chosen to retract that element from their public vocabulary. Secondly, because there is no such thing as a black hole.
The collapse of HIH in February 2001 was an event of unprecedented national proportions sending financial shock waves that are still reverberating around this country. This collapse left the Workers Compensation Scheme in the NT with a significant liability; members will understand this. At the time that this bill was initially placed before the House it was understood to be in the order of $57m. A number of state governments were affected, and had to act quickly to protect the already overheated insurance industry. The then CLP government reacted as other similarly affected jurisdictions did to provide some reassurance and security to the dangerously exposed nominal insurer.
Failure to do so at that time - failure to put that on the books at that time - would have resulted, potentially, in an increase in premiums up to 30% or more. Amendments to the Work Health Act were presented and passed in May of last year for the primary reason of providing security to the nominal insurer. This is precisely the fact that representatives of the Martin government will attempt to distort and callously misrepresent for their own gain. I suspect they will endeavour to parade this amendment as something that ‘we were actually intending to do; that we were fully bent on imposing an additional weight on industry’. I caution members to attend closely to the arguments as they are presented here, because that is certainly not the case and can be demonstrated as such.
To that effect, I quote from the then Minister Baldwin’s second reading speech where he said:
- I acknowledge that an employer levy would not be welcomed by Territory employers. However, if decided
upon, the government is committed to ensuring employers’ interests are protected.
At that time, with the calculated $57m liability, we were still looking for ways not to impose it, but we had to do so in order to provide the mechanism to cover the nominal insurer. At the time, business leaders were consulted and they were prepared for this outcome. To their credit, they accepted the seriousness of the circumstances and were prepared to wear this levy, if necessary. At the time, this was clearly acknowledged by government and by the opposition. It was understood that it was a significant impost of Territory businesses. Government bought time as the member for Wanguri in his second reading speech urged government to do: ‘We needed to buy some time, we don’t want to do this to business’.
Other options during this time were considered, and they included borrowings by the nominal insurer, reinsurance of the liability, and further government involvement in covering the liability. Time was needed as no one was certain of the full extent of the liability affecting the Territory once all known claims had been assessed and calculated. This investigation was underway following the legislative amendments passed in May 2001 and the CLP government gave business the assurance that, if it did decide a levy was to be imposed, it would not be done before January 2002. And then there was an election - it is important to bear that in mind.
What has Labor done since coming to office? I am not into all that smart business here. It is actually a record of what has happened; it is not a criticism at all. The argument is not falling in those quarters. They committed to credit an additional $6m on top of the former government’s $3m. This $9m was to allow the nominal insurer to meet costs until June 2002. Bear in mind the new government also acknowledged they needed to buy some time and this I believe should now be used to their advantage. It is worth bearing in mind, incidentally, that the Labor government managed to quietly find $6m to buy this time with the nominal insurer when the black hole rhetoric was at fever pitch.
Since New Year, Labor has announced its commitment to impose a 4% levy on Territory business to cover the HIH liability. The minister introduced legislation in the NT parliament just last week. It outlined amendments to tidy up details of the means to efficiently collect this tax on business. In preparing for this legislation, we were provided with an excellent briefing for which, minister, I am immensely grateful. I thank you, sir, and I ask that you pass on our appreciation to your officers. Accompanying me at this briefing was my colleague, the member for Daly, and the member for Nelson. What we learnt at that briefing has equipped me with the knowledge that enables me to confidently face this Chamber and to call, without reserve, for the repeal of this bill.
Government simply should not pass this levy onto business. The landscape as I have said before has changed significantly. We learnt that claims were at one time between 400 and 500. Today they are less than 120. If you are following this, we are talking about when this first hit the scene and what sort of measures had to be put in place for reacting to a new situation facing parliaments all around our country. It was $57m; 400 to 500 claims. Now there are less than 120. That is a significant change. The liability was once predicted to be close to $60m. Now it was found to be $28m.
Mr Stirling: Forget the $9m. What about the $9m we put in. Don’t you count that?
Mr MILLS: It has been mentioned.
Mr Stirling: Well, it goes on top.
Mr MILLS: A 4% levy on top of the original premium would be now imposed on all employers including self-insurers such as the Catholic Church, Woolworths and the NT Public Service, acknowledging that the Territory government would be paying up to half by the fact that the Territory government becomes a self-employer. This levy would need to be put in place for up to 13 years or perhaps more, reporting to the Chamber of what we learnt from the briefing.
I understand that the need for the length of this time is to allow the loans that would be made in the transference of the liability to be repaid. Any shortfall between collected tax revenue and outgoing liability imposts would be made up by government by way of a loan and would be repaid prior to the levy on employers ceasing. This is an important point.
But in light of this, government has a problem. How can it now justify this impost on business? With a $3000m annual budget, $28m is not an insurmountable obstacle to overcome particularly given that government has now a reasonable time to pay and when one balances this with the fact that the NT is now in receipt of what I understood at the time to be $150m additional windfall. That was after the new administration set its operating budget. Now it makes it even more reasonable to demand a solution that does not involve a levy on business.
This Chamber must now seriously consider the following. We faced a significantly reduced liability balanced alongside of a significantly increased revenue. In light of the daily struggle of Territory businesses which are the true engine of our economy, why place an additional weight when there really is reason not to do so?
Interestingly, when the ACT parliament considered their response to their exposure to the HIH liability, they were faced with precisely this scenario. The liability was less than they expected, in their case $30m. Ours is $28m. Then they turned and found that they actually had additional revenue - precisely the situation that faces this government. I phoned the minister responsible at the time and asked, ‘Tell me, what did you do?’ He said, ‘Clearly, in that scenario, we had no option. The solution was obvious’. Government, in the case of the ACT, did the right thing and absorbed and did not pass it on to business.
Armed with this information we thought it appropriate to ensure that business is now informed of this changed landscape. I stand secure in the knowledge that we have the support of Territory businesses because we have communicated with them. Over 500 responses in 24 hours was the initial response. That is a fair indication of the level of feeling in the business sector. 90% of businesses support our call for the repeal of this bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, let’s be under no misapprehension. This is a new tax. The use of the word levy and the other weak justifications we have heard bandied about really cannot hide what it is. It is a tax. It is a new tax on business. Indeed, nothing more clearly demonstrates the enormous gulf between Territory Labor and the CLP more than the introduction - and in the current environment and, quite frankly, where there are other options – of this new tax.
Before I talk about the effect which we believe this new tax will have on the business community and the families who own and operate those businesses, it is important to really understand the level of expertise which Labor brings to this Chamber and which Labor has brought to the government of the Northern Territory. There is effectively no private enterprise experience on Labor’s side of politics and no amount of academic or feel good round tables will assist the Labor government to have a genuine understanding of the effect that this business tax is going to have in the Northern Territory. Whilst it might be said that taxes and death are inevitable, at least we can have some impact on the level of tax as it affects families and businesses in the Northern Territory.
The first thing that a government should do - and my colleague, the member for Blain, has gone through a number of these points and I will just quickly go over some of them and amplify one or two - before you introduce a new tax is to have a look at the environment in which business is operating before the new tax is brought to bear upon them. I am not going to talk about the pledge, the broken and clear election promises which Labor gave prior to the election, the pledges they gave to business, that is really a matter for the Labor representatives and their consciences.
But if you look at the environment in which business currently operates - and the member for Blain, as I said, touched upon some of these - work health premiums have already gone through the roof and in some cases they have doubled or tripled. Public liability continues to be an issue with which Territory business is grappling. They are genuinely tight economic times, things have got a little better, and some people suggest that it is certainly seasonal. In the dry season you would expect things to improve. But Territory business also knows that in 18 weeks or so the wet season will once again be upon us and there will be an economic downturn of sorts. There are a lot of businesses, albeit surviving, which are really on the edge. They are tinkering on the edge of possible disaster and this dry season is a very important time for them. It is probably an analogy, you have a patient who has been losing blood and they have been stabilised. They are on the operating table and what do we have here, Dr Labor coming along and saying we need more blood in the blood bank so eyes turn to the body of business.
It is no wonder that Territory business is firmly of the view that it simply costs more to do business under a Labor government and that is evidenced by the enormous response, and really it is overwhelming, that we have received from Territory business, once they were apprised that this new tax was about to come down upon them.
The Labor government, in my view, is very poorly positioned to offer anything genuinely constructive to do with the economic fabric of the Northern Territory. And tragically, something which clearly the Labor government have lost sight of, is that the economic fabric of our society really completely underpins any sort of social welfare, or real reforms which you intend to make. The modern view, and certainly the view which seems to be coming from Europe and America, is that there has been a complete failure of many of the government welfare-type institutions. More and more, the responsibility for ensuring a healthy and stable environment, economy and family unit falls upon keeping people employed in private enterprise, in the private sector. If people have jobs, they have money in the hip pocket, they have a car, they spend their money and it instils the right sort of principles into society and things move along, and the requirement for non-government welfare institutions is decreased.
You just have to look at the way that the Labor government have dealt with this very important issue. It is not a crocodile story and it is not going to grab the front page of the paper. It is not one of the numerous lame press releases which the government constantly trot out in relation to some sort of social agenda. It is not legislation for the sake of legislation. This is a piece of legislation which will have a genuine effect, yet we have not heard a great deal about it. It is a new tax. In terms of acts of parliament which have been considered since 18 August last year, this is probably one of two acts which will have a real and significant effect on the economic fabric of the Northern Territory, and ultimately, the social fabric. The effect is, of course, a damaging one.
There is no doubt that this type of act, and the effect that it will have, rouses the passions of somebody like the honourable member for Blain. We did not see the proposition of this new tax trotted out as a priority issue in the economic development summit. I did not see it. I have only read the summary of action areas. We did not, and we have not heard any ministerial statements of substance in relation to this new tax. We have not heard the many dorothy dix questions from the plethora of dorothies that we have to endure every Question Time with their standard question and answer time. We have heard two questions, quite surprisingly, playing hypothetical and ‘what ifs’ about Senator Nigel Scullion. But, do you think …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not see the relevance of Senator Nigel Scullion to the discussion on the HIH levy.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am merely drawing a comparison in terms of the publicity which this tax deserves, but has not received. We have looked at other issues, and it just goes to show the priority with which the Labor government view this new tax.
We have had the two probing hypothetical ‘what if’ questions, dorothy dix questions, in relation to Scullion. We have heard, really, nothing of substance about …
Madam SPEAKER: The Senator for the Northern Territory.
Mr MALEY: Senator Nigel Scullion. … really, nothing of substance in relation to this new and quite damaging tax. The government seemed to carefully steer the press away from this issue of a new tax, and the word ‘levy’ comes in. Indeed, there was in interjection earlier this morning and the member for Fannie Bay made the powerful retort about ‘It is not a tax, it is a levy’. I am not sure whether there was some confusion between the motor vehicle registration levy or referring to this levy; but this is a tax. This is similar to the tax which people pay now when they register their motor vehicles. It is a new tax and a burden which we are going to have to endure.
I say that enough is enough. The people of the Northern Territory trusted this new government on 18 August last year, and that trust has been betrayed. If the members of this Chamber genuinely have a scintilla of concern about the business sector - and it is easy to say, ‘Oh, business can pay; business this, business that’, but business is really made up of people and families. Behind every business there are many hardworking Territorians who will have to pay this tax and who, quite understandably, are very upset.
I am calling upon members of this Chamber to support the amendments which the member for Blain will be introducing in the committee stage, to avoid the damaging effect which this new tax will have on the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to support the Deputy Chief Minister in the decisive, albeit difficult and unenviable, but fair action he has undertaken today to respond to the collapse of HIH Insurance last year.
Indeed, the legislation we are debating tonight was not introduced by the CLP. The member for Blain has admitted publicly yesterday, on ABC radio, that the CLP had proposed to introduce this levy to cover workers compensation liability as a result of the HIH collapse. I refer you to the transcript of ABC Drive program yesterday.
- Reporter: But the CLP was proposing to bring in a levy, wasn’t it, at the time that we had the HIH collapse?
It was very much on the cards of the CLP?
- Mills: That’s correct, Julia, and I don’t back away from that for one moment.
This evening we heard the member for Blain clarifying that: ‘Indeed, the CLP were considering introducing it by January 2002’. Well, thank God we did have a change of government. We have saved business an impact of this levy for some months. The reality is that we do not come from the Harry Potter school of accountants. We just don’t wave our magic wand in the air and fudge the figures, and conjure up and move in and out of budgets something like $30m. That is the reality; we are dealing with a figure here, a liability facing Territorians, to the tune of around $30m. It might go up; it could be $37m by the time we have seen this settled. It could go down. But what we are dealing with is around about $30m. That is not an insignificant amount of money for government to find. The member for Blain says, ‘Just use the “windfall that the government received in terms of Commonwealth grants”’. I suggest the member for Blain goes away and reads about Commonwealth grants. Commonwealth grants are assessed on need. They are there to cover need.
Mr Baldwin: What about the GST component?
Ms LAWRIE: Quite clearly – no, the GST component is - the change is, we are getting the GST money instead of what we used to receive in the Commonwealth grants. Quite clearly what the member for Blain would rather us do as a government is remove health services, remove education, remove law and order that is required because of the collapse of an insurance company.
This is just an outrageous proposition from the member for Blain and I say, go away and have a look at Commonwealth grants and have a look at where that money is being addressed, where that need exists, and where the money will address meeting the need. I know this is a new concept for the CLP because for 26 years the CLP has ignored it - completely ignored the need out there in the community. I am proud to be a part of government that does not misuse and misappropriate Commonwealth funds. I know it is a novel concept in the Territory but I am proud to be a part of that new political regime in that respect.
Again, the CLP has made much of the survey conducted with business in recent days. What a curious time frame given that the HIH levy has been anticipated by industry for many months now, been a part of consultations with industry, yet curiously, it has only been in the last few days that the CLP has bothered to contact business with a survey. My goodness! This certainly smacks of a political stunt with a survey having loaded questions. Loaded questions. I refer to a question put to the member for Blain yesterday by the ABC interviewer on the Drive program:
Question: Isn’t it pretty inevitable that if people were asked did they want to pay an extra levy or not, they were
going to say ‘no’?
It was so transparent that it was a political stunt that the interviewer put this question clearly to the member for Blain yesterday. It is disappointing that you take a serious issue of a 4% levy and turn it into some kind of political football. I agree with the member for Blain that businesses out there are hurting. That is not news to anyone in this Chamber. They have been hurting for a long time. There are a lot of business people, because they were hurting, because they have been ignored by the CLP for some time, turned around for the first time in their lives and voted for Labor. And the working relationship that they have with our ministers, the working relationship they have with our Chief Minister, the feedback we are getting is, they know they made the right decision.
You can load your questions. You can put out a spurious survey through the fax machine, or however you chose to do it just a few days ago, but that is not quality surveying at all. I will remind you that the Chamber of Commerce has been quite outspoken on the subject of this levy.
Dr Burns: Should have got Mark Textor to do it.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, even he would have been shamefaced about writing those questions.
Moving away from this CLP obfuscation and confabulation, I will deal with the facts. Government is now enacting a 4% levy on employers workers compensation premiums, generously, and I repeat generously, including government in its application of the levy. This will commence on 1 July this year. The levy is a direct consequence arising from the collapse of HIH insurance and it will meet the nominal insurer’s liability. We are imposing this levy by using legislation put in place by the CLP.
Dr Burns: Could you repeat that, please?
Ms LAWRIE: The Labor government is imposing this levy using legislation put in place by the CLP. The levy will pay for the liability estimated to be around $40m. The CLP bandies around the figure of $28m. They are choosing to ignore the fact that it was a Labor government that has put $9m to ameliorate the impact on business. What the CLP was doing, the path they were headed down was that they would give a $3m loan to business that they were going to expect business to pay back. Being a business person and given the choice of those two options, I know which one I would go for. I would go for the Labor option. It is honest, it is clear, it is fair, and it is not misleading business about the actual impost on them.
Really this is about getting down to honesty and business knew this levy was coming. They knew it was coming. They have expected it for a long time. What we have done is ameliorate the impact on business by putting in a $9m grant and also including government in the catchment of the levy. Without the contributions made by the Labor government the levy would have been 8%. So, as a result of the contribution of the Labor government, we have halved what the levy would have been. It would have been 8%. The efforts we have made with both the grant money and including government in the catchment of the levy, has halved the impost to business. Because of the Labor government’s $9m contribution - not a $3m loan, here, you see it, there, we will take it back again, thank you very much. Harry Potter school of accounting again.
Mr Henderson: With interest.
Ms LAWRIE: With interest. Businesses will be sweating over that one. Thank God we voted Labor. With our $9m contribution and $800 000 contribution the most business will deal with is half of the impost. We have reduced it by half on business. That is a reality.
The government had to develop a rescue package. We are not alone. Every jurisdiction in Australia has had to grapple with this. It is too cute by half that the CLP continue to ignore what has occurred in Western Australia, one jurisdiction as an example where a levy has been imposed. But we had to move on a rescue package to protect employers and employees of the more than …
Mr Baldwin: Rescuing them by taxing them?
Ms LAWRIE: Well, you would have taxed them more! Thank God we are here to protect employers and employees, 1250 Territory employers, who took out workers compensation cover with HIH before its collapse. The government will shoulder close to half the financial burden. We are committing an estimated $800 000 per year to the nominal insurer which administers the HIH claims on top of the $9m we contributed. Under the rescue package, employers will pay an average - and this is information that the CLP chooses to ignore; did not put in the survey - under the rescue package employers will pay will pay an average of just under $1 per week per full time employee. This is the burden. This is the incredible weight that is going to send the doughnut man crashing down into his doughnut machine, an incredible weight.
I listened to the member for Blain talk about the fact that according to his research there has been a 400% blowout in compensation premiums, a 400% increase. Then I hear the member for Goyder, his colleague, a few moments later talk about workers compensation premiums in some cases having doubled or tripled. One member says they have quadrupled, the other says perhaps they have doubled or tripled. Get it together, guys. Your figures are incredibly rubbery but that is what we are used to from the CLP. We are used to rubbery figures.
Madam Speaker: Order! Member for Karama, can you direct your remarks to me not across the to the floor.
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: Absolutely. Very provocative, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Very provocative, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: The practice of rubbery figures is one we have become very used to with the CLP and we have witnessed it again today in the Chamber, unfortunately. You would think that they would start to learn that the Territory populace is getting sick and tired of their obfuscations, confabulations and prevarications.
The $1 per week figure is based on the average worker’s compensation premium of 2.913% of wage costs and the NT average weekly full time wage of $827.80. We are quite happy to do a break down on the figures to show where we are getting that average $1 per week figure. Depending on how many people they employ, around 84%, that is the majority, around 84% of Territory employers will pay a levy of between zero and $4 per week. Western Australia and Tasmania, which have similar workers compensation systems to the NT, have already set levies of 5% and 4% respectively. But let’s just ignore that. Let’s just ignore what is happening in other jurisdictions because, of course, the Territory is so incredibly unique we can do everything in a vacuum here. Already we have seen levies set of 5% and 4% respectively in Western Australia and Tasmania. Proportionately, the Northern Territory had the most businesses covered by HIH, that is a fact.
The collapse of HIH has been an unfortunate fact of life that all governments have had to deal with. In response to the HIH collapse, the previous government, the CLP, made a repayable loan to the nominal insurer. If this had remained the extent of the government’s contribution, employers would be facing a 10% levy oncost.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I would ask the Deputy Chief Minister to withdraw the word that he used.
A member: Not that word again Syd?
Mr Stirling: If you ask Madam Speaker to ask me to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask the Deputy Chief Minister to withdraw the word he used.
Madam SPEAKER: If the word used was unparliamentary, you should withdraw.
Mr Stirling: I withdraw unreservedly.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have less noise from the opposition so that the member for Karama can continue her speech.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The funds raised by the HIH levy and collected by insurance companies will be exclusively paid to a nominal insurer to address the HIH liability. That is, we are not filling up the government coffers. This is not what this is about. This is about meeting an existing liability. Get it right, guys. The government will pay its contributions directly to the nominal insurer. We are being fair. This levy will exhaust itself. It is expected that it will take about 10 years to exhaust this liability.
Mr Baldwin: 11 to 13 years.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that interjection by the member for Daly. Eleven to 13 years is a time frame that was placed when the original liability expectations were higher. So, if you take into account that liability expectations have dropped, as the member for Blain pointed out, we are now down to about 120 claims, then you reduce the time frame down to about 10 years. I am saying ‘about’ because, as we all know, the time frame will shift according to the extent of liability. They are inextricably linked, and why are they inextricably linked? Why?
Mr Baldwin: You are getting a little bit hazy here.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not hazy about it at all, not at all. As soon as the liability has been exhausted, the levy will be lifted. This is a fair piece of legislation being enacted today. It is not something we choose to do in circumstances where we had any options. Our government understands that the business people of the Northern Territory have been suffering under the burden of incompetence by the CLP for decades now. Our economic summit, all of the actions our government has taken since being in government, are showing that we are about working with business, listening to business, responding to business needs, be they small businesses, medium business, large business. We are not just there for the upper end of town and the big businesses. We are working with every level of business. We have business support schemes in place. There is a holistic approach by this government towards supporting business.
In keeping with that approach we are applying the levy as low as we possibly could. By bringing a government into application of the levy - we did not have to, but we chose to - in real terms means that businesses have been saved about half of the impost that they would otherwise have had. Whilst it is a hard decision for government to take, to introduce a levy in a climate where we are finally seeing growth coming back into the business sector of the Territory - after sound financial action taken by this government - we are finally seeing a real turnaround.
I heard the member for Goyder talking about how everyone needs a job, and with jobs everyone is okay. I have to say that in 27 years of CLP government there was never a jobs plan.
Mr Henderson: Not one.
Ms LAWRIE: Not one jobs plan. If it is so important, if it means so much, why did they never have a jobs plan? Well, the Labor government does have a jobs plan. Since Labor took government in the Northern Territory we have seen a drop in the unemployment rate.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: In fact, Territory employment has risen by - and you might want to listen to this because this is fact - Territory employment has risen by 3600 jobs in the past six months. This is what you get when you have government with a plan. This is what you get when you have a government that knows what it is doing; you have a job plan, you see unemployment drop.
Mr Baldwin: So then you tax them.
Ms LAWRIE: The emotive and simplistic interjections by the member for Daly show just what a relief Territorians feel about the fact that they are in opposition and we are in government. He was known as the minister who could never make a decision, and we are starting to see his simplistic and emotive interjections bear out what everyone referred to him as. How sad, never mind, you might want to retire with your mate, the member for Katherine.
Dr Burns: No, he will take his seat, I reckon.
Ms LAWRIE: That’s right, I forgot. That’s right, he is going for an easy …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: So just to recap; the government is imposing the levy at the lowest possible bar. The lowest possible impost on business is what we are about here today. We are not going to ignore a liability, and we are not going to bury our heads in the sand. We are not going to be the Harry Potter accountants that the CLP choose to be. We will take …
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, enough.
Ms LAWRIE: We will take responsible, decisive, but fair action to ameliorate and finally extinguish the liability as a result of the HIH collapse.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for the two briefings we had, which were both informative. I certainly have a greater understanding of what the government is trying to do. But there are some issues that I would like to raise. As a starter, I do believe that the discussion about this bill highlights the fact that putting through bills under urgency can sometimes be a problem when you are trying to look at arguments from both sides as I try to do and get in touch with people who will be affected. Be that as it may, we are here to discuss the bill and I would like to raise some issues.
We all know that the local economy is not in a great state and, whilst I am not blaming the government for matters outside its influence, it does not get away from the fact that some businesses are doing it tough. Some businesses have been directly affected by a reduction in government spending. An example of that is that the amount of maintenance on the Stuart Highway in my electorate certainly has decreased. I know the slashing contractors certainly have not had as much work this year as they have in previous years. But we all hope that when the rail and the gas and the new air wing development at the Palmerston barracks comes to Darwin, things will certainly pick up. But, this has not happened yet.
Business has been hit with increases in others areas such as public liability and property insurance. I have a statement here from a local manufacturer who employs 15 people. Last year, the insurance bill to cover all staff, including workers compensation, was $18 000. For this year, it is $54 000 and does not include the GST or the proposed 4% HIH levy. Businesses are being hit hard and I do not believe this is the time to hit them with this levy. I have heard the arguments that the levy is small. I spoke to another business, in fact it was a business I used to work for, and I think their levy would be $160 which fits in with the figures she gave. But the problem is that they are being hit with so much and that we have an economy which is in a downturn even though there are signs that it will turn around, it is the signal you send, not necessarily the amount, it is the signal you are sending to business: have another tax. And that is what is worrying.
I should note that one of the extra charges that we have discussed here before is the budget development levy. On 27 November the Treasurer said the levy will not apply to goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, gross vehicle mass and heavy vehicles with greater than 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. On page 8 of the mini-budget Paper No 1, it stated that the reason for these exemptions was to minimise the impact on business. As well, there were increases in vehicle inspection fees. Many businesses have utes, cars and light courier vans and many have been affected by this levy. They have been impacted by these levies, even though others in business with heavier vehicles were exempt. I know why the government introduced the levy and governments have the right to raise revenue but regardless, this levy has affected business, especially small business.
In the Treasurer’s second reading on the Motor Vehicle Amendment Bill which included temporary budget improvement levy, the Treasurer said, and I quote:
The reason for the broadly applied increase in motor vehicle registration fees, is that existing taxes fall
predominantly on business. An increase to another tax source would aggravate the effects of already high
business taxes, weaken the Territory’s economic base, retard recovery and thus impact on jobs. The
government is not prepared to risk further pressures on jobs.
In actual fact, because that levy was discriminatory, it did affect businesses. I know of one case of a gentleman, a friend of mine, who has five Holden utes which he uses to run a lawn mowing service. Straight away, he collected a $450 bill this year. His truck is exempt, so it was a discriminatory bill.
I must admit, looking through the records of both parties, I find it very interesting about this whole debate. It is good going back through Hansard and you find one party said one thing one time and another party says another thing another time. But the facts are, we are here today and I thought it may be interesting to go back and read some of the comments that people have made. The CLP member for Daly would remember in the second reading speech on changes to the Work Health Act in June last year, that he said it would consider a levy on businesses to help pay the HIH disaster. I would just like to quote from that particular statement. I just have a couple of quotes from there:
The collapse [that is the HIH collapse] has left an unfunded liability in the order of $50m on the Territory
Workers Compensation Scheme. However, it will be some time before the precise liability can be determined.
Further on it says:
To ensure the viability of the compensation scheme, this amendment is being put forward to provide an alternative
and fairer means of covering the unfunded liability. This amendment will allow a levy on employers to be made
which could be collected by the insurers and then paid into the nominal insurer fund. This scheme of arrangements
would be similar to that operating in the ACT and Western Australia, as well as Tasmania which has a very similar
nominal insurer scheme to that of the Territory, has announced its intention to introduce a levy on employers to
meet the HIH liability.
Another quote is:
- An employer levy is not a measure that the Territory government wishes to introduce but it would be irresponsible
for us to make these legislative amendments to ensure the funding option is open to us. We need to preserve the
viability of the workers compensation scheme and protect the interests of Territory employers.
The bill would operate in the following way: the bill would amend the act to provide an alternative funding
mechanism for the nominal insurer through a levy on employers. It would enable flexibility in the amount and
timing of such a levy as well as providing an option for the levy to be either premium or wages based.
On the other hand, Labor promised it would cut taxes, and I quote from a Labor party election flyer:
- Labor has a plan to reduce taxes and costs for Territory business while helping to stimulate major projects,
new investment and jobs. A Labor government will [this is underlined] cut the HIH insurance workers
compensation levy for 2000-02 imposed by the CLP so that the Territory government and not individual
business pay for the HIH disaster.
On the web site there is the speech by the Treasurer to - I think it was the Labor business policy launch - where cutting the HIH workers compensation levy on business and absorb the cost of HIH disaster for 2001 was mentioned. Further on, the Treasurer said this:
- Business people throughout the Territory have told me that they are gravely concerned at the government
hitting individual business with a tax for the HIH disaster. The last thing business needs right now is this
extra tax on the cost of employing someone in the Territory.
Before I finish I will quote a couple of e-mails I received. One is from the Chamber of Commerce. We just asked for their comments on the proposed levy, and I will read this into the Hansard:
- Our comments in a nutshell are:
we have always been uncomfortable with a levy on business to cover for the losses incurred by the
collapse of the HIH. The NT government is the organisation that grants approval for an insurance
company to operate in the NT. We do not feel that it is a business responsibility to pick up the costs
for another business’ failure;
and employee;
legislation and the requirement for the nominal insurer to have to go back to government to have
any extension. If not, we will see monies being collected in 50 years time with no accountability
to the business community. Trying to get legislation repealed by any government is hard work;
we also wanted full and transparent reporting by the nominal insurer to the government annually,
and reporting by the government to the public in the annual reports;
administration arrangements needed tidying up to ensure that the insurance companies had no cause
to implement an administration fee on the collection of the levy.
The other e-mail I received was from the Palmerston Business Association which just said that no formal adopted position, but it was discussed at a meeting that discussed the increasing costs of doing business. The Palmerston Business Association acknowledges that the HIH collapse is not the fault of the Northern Territory Labor government, but at a time when many local businesses are doing it tough, it is another impost - among several other recent increases in charges and levies.
In light of the fact that many businesses are struggling; that many businesses have had to pay higher charges for public liability, property insurance, workers compensation, the budget development levy, increases now in local government rates and now an HIH levy; that the Labor Party said that the Territory government and not individual businesses would pay for the HIH disaster; that the government had said it will fulfil its promises; that the levy has reduced from about $50m to about $30m; that the government has received extra funding from the Commonwealth of $137m; and bearing in mind that the levy does not have to be paid just in one year - it can be paid as required; that the government should be assisting and encouraging business, not sending signals which say ‘not another tax’, I believe that the government should rethink this bill and consider funding the levy itself.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the question that is before this House comes down simply to this. The question is: has the Territory ever had a higher taxing government? No, it has never had a higher taxing government. Since this government came to power there has never been as many taxes and charges as there are now. This government came to power with promises ringing in the ears of Territorians saying, ‘We will lower your taxes’.
The member for Nelson read some of that stuff out, and it is a great thing to see that the research officer, as well as the member for Nelson, are working so hard. Has the Northern Territory government ever taxed as much as this government does? No, they have not. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation that they are bringing before us because they are bringing forward more and more taxes and they are charging Territorians more and more. They trot out the tired, old black holes and those sorts of things, but the truth of the matter is, has the Territory government ever had as much income as this Territory government has now? No, it has not. The income levels of this government have gone up. The expenditure of the government is going down. Where is the money going? They are stockpiling …
A member: Paying your debt.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, here we go again. Paying for the debt. They have had a wonderful time raising taxes on Territorians and now, in the process, they are rewriting the English language: this is not a tax, this is a levy. This is just a levy, guys, we are not taxing you. We heard, by interjection, the Chief Minister this morning saying, we have not introduced any more taxes. Well, there is good case law in this country, I can tell you that right now, where the courts, especially the High Court, in terms of excise duties, has turned their attentions to these particular issues as to what is a tax and what is not. I must say I am paraphrasing the High Court of Australia, but at the end of the day, in a nutshell, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Yet we hear from the members opposite, that they are not introducing a new tax. What is a tax? Call it what you like, call it a rose. But a rose is a rose, by that or any other name, and what they are introducing is a tax.
That is what they have to understand; it is not a levy. And in any instance, does it really make any difference what it does, it is still an impost. I am dismayed that they can, in one breath talk about honesty, and in the next breath, talk about not saying it is a tax, it is a levy. Well, it is an impost, it is a tax.
In terms of rewriting the English language, I am fascinated to hear the concept of a ‘generous tax’. I would really love to hear from the minister what he thinks a generous tax is, because generosity usually implies some sort of friendly process. But in this case, with friends like that, who really needs enemies! And a generous tax, because government is being taxed. Am I to presume that the member for Karama is under the impression that government employees, when they go to work, are not paying income tax? Or that government does not pay its GST? It is a bizarre and flippant argument to try to mask what this is. This is a tax. And what we are trying to do by using terms like a ‘generous tax’, is that we are just trying to mask it. Oh no, it is not so much, it is only 4%, it is only those little bits. At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, whether the member for Karama likes it or not, whether or not the government likes it, they are imposing a tax.
The playing field has changed. They keep saying the CLP was going to do this, the CLP was going to do that. Well, the truth of the matter is the Deputy Leader of the government is saying, ‘Oh look, the environment is the same as it was’. Well it is not. They have a lot more income than they used to have, and the government could afford to absorb this. By arguing that the playing field is the same, or that we should not change the approach of taxing Territory business because we were going to do it a few months ago, what you are basically saying is that nothing should ever change, and that we should still be using chamber pots and buggy whips. That is the equivalent of the argument. What they are actually doing is muddying the waters. And why are they muddying the waters? Because they are introducing a new tax. That is really where they are going with this.
I love this little gem, this is great: ‘It’s only going to be there for 13 years’. In some jurisdictions you get less for manslaughter. Anyway, it is only going to be there for 13 years. I am wondering if the member for Karama has ever paid attention to the history of payroll tax which was not going to survive World War II. Do we still have payroll tax? Yes, we do. And had the CLP government been lowering payroll tax? Absolutely!
Mr Stirling: Read the sunset clause, John. Read the sunset clause in the bill, instead of misleading yourself and everyone else.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister. This is the point, it is a bill; it is a piece of legislation. It can be changed in 13 years time to accommodate a government, which by that stage, have learned to factor this stuff into the budget and like all governments absolutely addicted to income, let’s see them not repeal this. I would love to come back here in 13 years time, and hear them say, ‘Oh, it’s going to go away. We don’t care about this little old revenue stream’. If that was true, payroll tax would have finished in 1945. I am fascinated by this. This government is wonderful. It said, ‘Oh, gee whiz, we are going to help the economic development of the Northern Territory’.
How often did we hear this government complain about self-promotion when this side of the House was still in government - about things like glossy brochures? Well, guess what? Surprise, surprise! They have come forward with a glossy brochure. Let’s open up the glossy brochure, and who should be on the inside cover? Shock, horror, it’s Clare! Yeah! It’s Clare, and she is coming to do all of the good things. Clare will come down to do for Territorians like a little fairy godmother from the heavens. Well, the little fairy godmother has to pay her way. How does the fairy godmother pay her way? She raises tax! This is an enormously good glossy brochure. They must have been agonising for ages as to whether or not they were going to use black and white or colour, so they opted for both.
I do not particularly begrudge the former government, or even this one, for having glossy brochures. But I have heard so often calls from the members opposite saying, ‘Oh, you have a glossy brochure’, when the former CLP government existed. ‘Oh, you have too many glossy brochures’. The hypocrisy is monumental. There should be a plaque somewhere in this Chamber as a monument to the hypocrisy of the new government. Remember the days when they said, ‘Oh, unemployment, you cannot trust those unemployment figures in the Northern Territory because you have not factored in the effect of the CDEP’. And what do we hear now …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, we are debating the legislation on the Work Health Amendment Bill. I do not know what on earth glossy brochures and unemployment figures have to do with this particular piece of legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: I presume it is to do with the economics of the whole Northern Territory. I will allow that leeway.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will say that I am responding to comments made by the member for Karama who introduced the Economic Development Summit, and unemployment statistics which were raised by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. Actually, no, they were raised by the member for Karama.
The truth of the matter is that the new government is struggling with the same problems that the former government struggled with. But they have more money in the bank than they ever had; they have more income than they ever had; they have lowered the amount of money that they spend by cuts to the public service and other areas; and at the end of the day, they have more income through the proceeds of GST. So, what they are doing is simply this: they are taxing Territorians to pay for the outrageous promises they made before an election they never expected to win.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, can I say at the outset all the rhetoric from members opposite and following on from the member for Macdonnell talking about Labor’s new tax, well, this is a levy to pay for a liability. It is not going into consolidated revenue. It is going to pay for the liability incurred when HIH collapsed in Australia and left injured workers. People whom these members on the other side of the House discovered for the first time in 26 years yesterday when we had nine questions in a row about our wonderful fire officers. First time in 26 years I have heard these people have concerns for workers. Well, this is exactly what this liability is to pay for - injured workers and the injuries that they are continuing to carry as a result of accidents in the workplace. This is what this levy is going to pay. It is not going into consolidated revenue. So, if those members opposite want to discover workers all of a sudden as a wonderful new constituency that they can potentially harvest, then at least be consistent. At least be consistent in your concern for working people, for working Territorians and not have such double sided positions on issues.
What this is about, and it is very cute, what the opposition is about - and I do not blame them for it - but this is the politics. This is the politics from the CLP about trying to reclaim that business community which it so accountably lost a significant part of during the last Territory election. This is the first opportunity that they have had to say, ‘Look, we know we may have been a bit reckless in the past, business community, and we may have gone off on tangents and forgot about the small business sector in the process. We might have got close to our mates a bit too much but, gee, we are behind you this time. We are going to show our bona fides by walking into parliament this week and repeal this evil HIH levy that the Labor party is seeking to impose on you and really draw a line of distinction about we are the party for business’.
This is what this is all about. This is absolutely what it is all about. It is not about responsibility. It is not about fiscal responsibility. It is not about honouring a liability to injured working people. It is all about the politics of the business community. I do not blame them for doing that but at least come in here and have the courage to say so.
We heard the member for Blain talk about these 500. I have been inundated overnight in 24 hours after this garbage, Madam Speaker, which I seek to table if it has not been tabled in the parliament, about the so-called questionnaire, the very misleading questionnaire which was circulated overnight. I table that. I will just go through this and talk about how misleading this questionnaire is. If you are going to put terminology in this way, of course people are going to come back and say, ‘Yes, I support this action’.
I will go to the second dot point: ‘The tax will pay for the $28m liability and work health cover left by the HIH collapse’. Well, that is wrong. For a start the liability is to the tune of $40m, not $28m. It then says the CLP considered a levy when it was feared the liability could be $50m. They did not consider it. They introduced the legislation into the parliament. They passed the legislation.
Then we go down into the changes. What are the changes? ‘The liability is less than half the original estimate’. Wrong. An absolute furphy. That is wrong. ‘The Labor government is to receive an extra $150m windfall every year in revenue from the federal government’. That is absolutely and patently wrong. There was a one year allocation of an additional $70m. The Treasurer and Chief Minister went through this this morning. An extra $60m for a CPI and population increase so we can continue to provide the level of services that Territorians expect us to provide for health, and education, and law enforcement issues, and what have you. It is not a windfall. If members opposite are so nave to believe that the smirking Commonwealth Treasurer, Peter Costello, has just run up the Track and said ‘Oh Clare, lovely to see you. Here is an extra $150m a year, every year, spend it on what you want’. Well, no wonder we are in such a financial mess, Madam Speaker. So that was particularly wrong.
Then it claims Labor can afford the extra $4m a year it wants to take from business. Well, that is wrong. It is actually $2.6m a year because we are putting in $800 000 per year which your legislation failed to pick up. The CLP legislation introduced into this House did not contain a requirement for government to contribute as an employer. So we are kicking in $800 000 every year on top of the $9m which we have already put into this liability.
Then it says: do you support his action? Well, of course they do. Of course they do. If you put this type of garbage out, of course people are going to come back and say yes. But the member for Blain did not mention – okay, they may have got 500. Who knows? They would be lucky to get 50, I suppose. The member for Blain said, ‘We got 500 ticks for yes’. He did not mention the 63 who said no. Before this debate I rang my department - and we all acknowledge the good work of the people in the previous Department of Industries and Business - and said, ‘How much contact have we received from the business community about this levy? What is the level of angst out there?’ I have been doorknocking every weekend recently and I will grant that a number of people have raised the $90 motor vehicle levy. I accept that that is a bit of political pain that we are suffering at the moment, but we are trying to be a responsible government. The word coming back from the department is that they have not had one phone call. Nobody has actually mentioned it. Not one. So I went to my Chief of Staff in the office. You would have thought as minister for industries and business if people were so worked up about this - and I do accept and acknowledge right from the front that we did not want to put this levy on. We do not want to raise any additional revenue from the business community, but we had to be responsible fiscally. I talked to my Chief of Staff and said, ‘How many phone calls and letters have we received on this particular issue?’, and the answer came back: ‘Not one’.
I then went back and said: ‘Well, we have had four business round table meetings. How many times has this been raised?’ Before this garbage that went out yesterday totally misleading the business community, it had been raised three times across the Northern Territory and it was in regard to the process, how it would be recovered, what’s it all about, but certainly not this is going to cripple us and force us out of business.
Obviously, the whole issue of insurance generally and liability issues are very much of a concern to the business community. What this is all about is an opportunity for the opposition, and we are all in the game of politics, to send a bit of rubbish out to the business community, to scare people about this insidious Labor tax that we are imposing on hard working business and seek to gain a bit of cheap political kudos, and rebuild their credibility with the business community. This is what it is all about. But this is just such blatant hypocrisy. Absolute blatant and self-indulgent hypocrisy from those members opposite.
Let’s actually look at what was inherited. The shadow minister for business will be getting up next in this debate and I issue him a challenge ...
Mr Baldwin: He’s been up.
Mr HENDERSON: You’ve been up? What a pity.
When we came to government we inherited a budget position that was unsustainable. This came from none other than the Under Treasurer who worked for the previous CLP administration. We did not put words into his mouth. They were his words: it was an unsustainable budget. We inherited a structurally unsustainable budget. These people, if they had continued on down the path that they were going without making significant changes to either expenditure or revenue, we were going out the door backwards like Argentina. That was the position that we inherited, that we proved through the Public Accounts Committee debate here today that they hoped they would managed to squeak back in and the fraud that was imposed on Territorians would not be discovered.
So here we were with an unsustainable budget. If we go to the findings of Professor Percy Allan, we see that the annual deficit had averaged over $70m over the previous four financial years, peaking at $114m in 2000-01, and our fiscal position as government had deteriorated to the point that between 1998-90 and 2000-01, total expenditure rose by $202m across government, 10.5%, yet total revenue went only up by $103m, 5.4%. These were the infamous crocodile jaws where we were spending our way to the stars, not recovering through revenue at the same time, and going out the door backwards like Argentina. We had some very important and very responsible decisions to make as government to put a halt to this appalling legacy that we inherited from the Country Liberal Party.
And, I suppose, as government, we will be accountable for our decisions. But how do you do that? Well, it is very simple. You do not have to be Einstein. You either have to cut expenditure or raise revenue, or do both. Since we have been in this parliament, members opposite have railed against, they have said it is terrible that we have cut budgets to the public service, that we have actually had to curtail public service expenditure, and we have had to put cuts into public service expenditure. They stood on the other side and said, ‘This is absolutely terrible, you can’t do that, you can’t cut the public service budget’. We then heard, ‘Well, what else could you do?’ Well, maybe we could lay off some public servants. We made a commitment in the election that there would be no forced redundancies, and there have been no forced redundancies. People have left the public service voluntarily, and yes, many of those positions have not been refilled. But that also was an appalling thing to do. You cannot sack anybody and you have to replace every single public servant who leaves the public service so there are no savings there. On the other side, we cannot raise any revenue. That is inappropriate as well. We cannot possibly raise any taxes.
So here we are. If the official position of the opposition - and Territorians are still thanking goodness that they were not re-elected - is that we would continue to see those crocodile jaws grow, because they were not going to cut expenditure, they were not going to lay off public servants and they were not going to raise any more revenue. So, we would have still seen those crocodile jaws growing and growing, and growing to the point that we would have gone out of the door backwards like Argentina.
This is the position that we inherited, and those members opposite are firmly on the record that they would have done absolutely nothing in regards to the fiscal legacy that was left at the end of their last term of government.
We talk about this wonderful new constituency that members opposite have discovered all of a sudden since they have been in opposition. We have had questions about working mothers, we have had feigned concern about Aboriginal health, we have had questions about nurses, and we have had concern for hard working unionists. This amazing constituency that the CLP has inherited since it has come to opposition. And now we have this feigned concern for the business community. They have had nine months to say how they would have redressed the budget legacy that we have inherited. They would not have cut the budget to public service, they would not have sacked a single public servant, they would not have raised any taxes. Well, I would like to know what they would have done, Madam Speaker, because it is outside the record.
Now we have this feigned concern for the business community. The member for Daly - as the member for Karama quite rightly said - had a reputation in the business community of never being able to make a decision. The member for Daly sat on the review for the Work Health Act for about 18 months. There was this big concern about these escalating work health premiums. He was so concerned about it he did not have the guts to implement the recommendations. I will pick up the minister on this point. The previous minister for inactivity sat on this report and it gathered so much dust on the top of the desk you could not see the title of it. The previous government was too gutless to tackle the issues in it. The business community was breaking his door down saying we have to do something about it and, no, it was all too hard. We have so much concern for the business community we are going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs and do nothing.
Then we had the charade when HIH collapsed and there was the initial requirement to fund the nominal insurer. I well recall talking to people in the business community about this. I remember the member for Katherine, white knight in shining armour, going on the radio and saying how great the government is. ‘We are going to kick in …’, was the term, ‘We are going to kick in $3m to the nominal insurer to carry us over …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like for the minister to verify where this ‘kick in’ came from.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Stirling: There is no point of order. It was on ABC radio.
Mr Henderson: Yes, it was ABC radio.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, he is quoting another person in this House and saying that that was the real …
Madam SPEAKER: Many people on both sides have made suggestions on what has been said.
Mr Baldwin: No, but you can’t mislead …
Mr HENDERSON: Well, I am not misleading the House. The ABC transcripts are there. I remember it very well. ‘We were going to kick in $3m to the nominal insurer to buy us a bit of time’. I remember asking the questions at the time: ‘Well, what does this mean? Does this mean the money has been appropriated to the nominal insurer, or what does it mean?’ It was like pulling out hen’s teeth. We finally found out that there was no grant to the nominal insurer. This was a loan. I remember talking to the business community when this came out, and I wish I still had the TCA newsletter that went out when they found out about it.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: You said it was a grant. It was kicked in. Go back through all those transcripts. Never once - never once - did either the previous Minister for Business and Industry or the Treasurer say, ‘We have loaned this money to the nominal insurer, and we will be recovering it by way of a levy, with interest, from the business community’. That is the truth. It was never communicated to the business community. I know. And a very famous newsletter from the TCA went out, and they were pretty aggro about it.
We look at the crocodile tears that members opposite are crying when their track record is so particularly bad on this particular issue. There was no commitment, from day one, to grant any public money to the collapse of HIH, and to fund this ongoing liability. It was going to be a loan to be recovered with interest. Legislation was introduced into the parliament to set up a levy and, absent from that legislation, totally missing from the legislation, was a requirement for government to contribute. So, the entire liability under the CLP, until today - until today - was going to be recovered entirely from the business community.
Compare and contrast that to the position of this government, not only trying to be fiscally responsible and repair the battered and shattered finances of the Northern Territory coffers, but we have contributed. We have lifted $9m worth of CLP levy off the backs of Northern Territory business, and we are now going to be contributing an additional $800 000 a year more than the previous CLP government would have been contributing. Our credentials stand pretty proud compared to this shabby political exercise that we are going to be engaging in here this evening.
I pick up on comments from the Chamber of Commerce and, yes, as business minister, I am in regular contact with the chamber or the peak industry organisations. Through my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, we have been in contact with them; we have put the sunset clause into the legislation; and yes, the position of the business community is - and I agree with them – that this is a community responsible, it is not a business responsibility. I think we have met the community responsibility by the fact that the community, by way of government grants and government contribution to this levy, is going to be about half of the total; that is going to come from the community. So, we have achieved that effect of making this a community responsibility.
Given that the additional funding we have received from the Commonwealth is to pay for service delivery as a result of increased CPI cost as a result of population growth, I would like those members opposite given their public position is not to cut services, not to cut public expenditure, not to dismiss or sack any public servants, and replace every single one of them who leaves, and not to raise any taxes, I would like those members opposite to explain to the people of the Northern Territory how they were going to meet this liability. Apart from the Harry Potter School of Budget Management that left us in an absolute fiscal nightmare that we inherited, I would like them to explain because they cannot do that. Even as an opposition they have to learn to be a smart opposition about it.
It gets even worse when we look at the so-called repeal bill before us tonight. The first part of the repeal is to delete clause 2. Well, clause 2 deems the Northern Territory government as an employer. It is actually the facility by which we take $800 000 a year worth of liability off the backs of business in the Northern Territory and kick in. So they are wanting to delete the very vehicle by which we are going to contribute to the nominal insurer. And that is entirely consistent - at least you are consistent here with the original legislation that you introduced in to the parliament which did not have that clause in there. So at least they are being consistent at this point. They do not believe the Northern Territory government should contribute to this liability fund and the entire liability should fall on the back of business.
Clause 3 deletes the sunset clause. We have had the theatrics of the member for Macdonnell talking about payroll tax going back to 1945. Clause 3 is the clause that puts the sunset clause in. Now you want to take it out. So what is the point of introducing legislation - if they were to be serious it would be to delete the whole bill. But no, we are actually going to be deleting the clauses that give effect to government being a deemed contributor and to putting in the sunset clause.
Madam Speaker, we are engaged in nothing else tonight apart from cheap, political opportunism. That is all it is. This ridiculous flyer that went out scaring the business community was so full of holes that it would have sunk without trace with any cursory reading. We have heard that. I will stand here and acknowledge that to put this levy on was a very hard decision for Cabinet to make. But we have to be responsible, we have to be able to deliver services to Territorians and we have to be creating the fiscal climate that is going to attract investment here in the Northern Territory. No major industry body, no significant investor, is going to come and invest in the Northern Territory whilst those crocodile jaws between expenditure and income continue to grow. They will look at it and say this is an unsustainable government position; the only possible way out of this is either a slash and burn exercise that will cruel the economy, or by increasing taxes and charges.
We believe that in the long term we are being responsible. We accept that we will be judged by the public when our time comes. What we are engaged in here tonight is absolute blatant hypocrisy by members opposite, a totally head in the sand approach in terms of the fiscal position that government finds itself in. We are not going to cut services. We are not going to cut the public sector budget. We are not going to sack any public servants. We are going to replace every public servant who leaves, and we are not going to raise any taxes. Yet somehow we are going to cover a $40m liability. It is a totally illogical position. This is nothing but cheap political grandstanding. We know what they are on about. Territorians will know what they are on about.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I have never heard such a load of crock in all my life from this business minister. Let’s go to a couple of things straight away. Let’s go to the bit about the $3m loan that the CLP government gave to the nominal insurer. Yes, it was a loan. Let’s have a look at the second reading speech from the introduction of the amendments last year. This is Mr Henderson talking, and I am not going to go through the whole lot of the waffle he went on with at that time, but let’s just look at this one paragraph, and I am quoting:
The government has committed to loan monies to the nominal insurer…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the honourable member quote from his contribution to the debate, and point out where he said it was a loan to the nominal insurer?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Good try.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s right. And that is why I am saying it is a load of crock from this fellow on the other side.
- The government has committed to loan monies …
I can distinctly remember a briefing I attended with this minister and with good officers from the department at the time, and the question was asked, ‘Is this a loan?’ ‘Yes, it is a loan’.
We made no secret of the fact at the time. We made secret at the time that this was not a loan. In fact, the business community knew that this was a loan. Let’s just look at loans for a minute. Now, you explain this to me: what is going to happen here under this levy is that you are going to raise an amount of money during the year from the levy and it is going to be in the order this next financial year of $2m, let’s say. I am quoting from the briefing. They are going to raise $2m in the first year, roughly, from this levy. The outgoing cost, the liability for workers who have already been injured, and that is the key here, is going to be in the order of $7m. Now, do the sums. Is there a shortfall? $7m going out, $2m coming in. What is the shortfall? $5m. Where is it going to come from? It is going to come from a loan from the government.
Have you told the business community that? That is why it is going to take so long to pay off. Thirteen years it is going to take to pay off this tax. That is if they ever lift it because there is no definite sunset clause in this tax. Thirteen years. Do you know why? Because it is going to paid off before that period of 13 years and then the business community has to pay the loan back to the government. So don’t talk to me about loans. You are the deceptive one and the business community knows that. You are loaning the nominal insurer the shortfall.
Mr Stirling: We have already given them $9m!
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I am going to come to the $9m they have given in a minute. It is a great story; the $9m that they can afford, and I will come back to that. Don’t talk about loans to me. Turn around and ask your good officers.
Mr Stirling interjecting
Mr BALDWIN: I can shout louder than you can, without getting upset. I can keep smiling while I shout.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Before we continue, we do not have to shout so loud. We can all hear. Leader of Government Business, you are going to have your reply in a moment.
Mr Stirling: I’ll be quiet, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Good!
Mr Ah Kit: This is a bid for the new leadership. I know what this is about, member for Daly.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, did you just hear me?
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, did you just hear what I said? You have walked in and taken no notice. I have asked people not to shout across the floor. I know it is very provocative and it is inviting, but let’s hear the member for Daly. Sorry to stop your flow.
Mr BALDWIN: So to talk about loans in here is a load of crock. It is a new spin on the whole thing. The former shadow minister knew all about it in briefings. We made no secret of it. If it was a secret, why would I tell him? The fact is, and you can ask your officers this, Minister for Education, Employment and Training: ‘Are you going to be loaning the nominal insurer to make up the shortfall until you get paid back?’ Yes, you are. There is no doubt about that.
The minister for business also talked about a $40m liability. Yes, that is quite true and that is a gross amount. That is after you add the $9m that has already been paid. But the fact is the net amount that is outstanding according to the briefing of last week is something in the order of $28.5m. It is not $40m. And I want to make a point of that. According to the briefing and my briefing notes of last week it is in the order of $28.5m down from, one year ago, an estimate of greater than $50m. So, that is wrong. That minister is quoting the wrong figure. The net figure as of the last estimate is in the order of $28.5m.
About the phone calls to his department, and they are a great bunch of people down there, I pay tribute to them, they said they have not had any phone calls. I can understand that. That is quite reasonable. The fact that he rang his staff and they have not had any phone calls, that is quite reasonable. But when you go out in the business community this is on everybody’s lips. It is on everybody’s lips as another impost. My colleague, the member for Blain, as well as the member for Nelson, has demonstrated that in terms of the businesses they have been talking to. It is demonstrated, regardless of what the information is in terms of the flier. And you can all have a go at that. That’s fine. I know the minister responsible for this taxing legislation will have a go at that. That’s fine. The end result is over 2500 businesses were sent this and nearly 600, I believe, tonight, sent a reply. I will admit some of them said no. It is in the order of 10%. Some of them said no. They are happy with it. Ten percent are happy with it; 90% are not happy at all. You can play around with the figures, you can do whatever you like. But the fact is that they are going to get hit with another impost on their business at this time.
This is the point that the member for Nelson has been trying to make and probably struggling with in terms of this legislation and trying to get up to speed through the …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, God. Patronising.
Mr BALDWIN: You might call it patronising. I am just trying to articulate what I believe he feels.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I don’t think the minister for health should get into this one, really.
Madam Speaker, that is what it’s all about. The minister for business said we have on there something about ‘Labor can afford the $4m a year it wants to take from business’. And did I really hear him correctly that it wouldn’t be $4m? It would be $2.6m? Well, if it is $2.6m it just strengthens the whole idea that this is affordable by government.
Let’s go back to the beginning, and let me say a couple of things. I say on the record that, throughout this whole debate, the advice by all of those parties concerned, and I am talking here particularly of the departmental officers, and the advice coming from the nominal insurer, the insurance companies and the business community, that the advice has been very sound. It has been very sound since the day of the HIH collapse. To this day, this night, the advice has been very sound. It does not matter which way you spin the advice, it has been good advice.
We had the collapse in February last year; $50m to $60m worth of liability for injured workers. This is not something that you can shy away from. These are claims of people who have been injured.
Mr Stirling: I am glad you acknowledge that.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Speaker, the minister is quite nave if he does not think we know what we are talking about as far as injured workers go. Perhaps some members on the other side have just discovered that there are costs concerned with people who have been injured. But we knew that all of the time. $50m to $60m last February.
The advice at the time was the best advice available through the Department of Industries and Business, through Treasury; from the nominal insurer, from the insurance companies, that something had to be done. What we had to do, first and foremost, was make a decision. Did we want the insurance companies, through the nominal insurer, through their insurance companies, to pick up this liability? Because that is what the act said would have to happen. If that happened, the hike in premiums last year would have been an additional estimated 35%. So we said, ‘Well, that’s no good. We are not going to allow that impost on business’. So what do we have to do? The advice at the time was: ‘You have to move amendments to the legislation in line with other states. That shows you are going to pick up this liability from the community and, in this case, the business community’. I do not shy away from that. Yes, we were proposing a levy on businesses; there is no doubt about that. We had not decided that we would definitely impose it, but to show and to give assurance to the nominal insurer that they would not have to pick it up through their member insurance company premiums, we changed the legislation. You can ask your officers if this is the right advice.
We also said at the time - and it is in the second reading speech - that we would look for every other opportunity to reduce this impost and this liability. That would include whether the nominal insurer could reinsure; whether the nominal insurer could borrow; and all sorts of things. The other thing that we had to get a handle on at that time - and I am still talking back in May last year - is how big this beast was. We knew it was in the order of $50m to $60m; we knew there were 500-odd claims outstanding. So we had to get very factual advice on all of that. That is what we undertook to do. To prove that, we said to the business community, ‘If the levy was decided on …’, paragraph 4, page 5, second reading speech, ‘… if we decided upon a levy it would not be before January 2002’. If we decided.
So we went off to do that work. I can tell you that the officers in my department, the officers in Treasury, the nominal insurer, were looking at every avenue. In the meantime, we made a loan to the nominal insurer to ensure that the current outgoing costs were met. That was of utmost priority; the workers who had been injured had their payments kept up and they were not left stranded. So, the government did loan, and I have talked about the loan.
Then there was an election and things changed. I do not have a problem with that. We were in this period of investigating; there was an election. Of course, the other thing we said we would do at that time is include the public service; and that would take some of the strain off if we had to levy the employers. So, the election came along and there was a mini-budget. One of the things in the mini-budget to come good on the promise that Labor had made, is that they said they would contribute $6m to the liability and that they would convert the $3m that was loaned to the nominal insurer to a grant. So a total of $9m, that’s great. So, there is $9m that supposedly takes care of this financial year that we are currently in. I thought for a while there that perhaps it was not enough; $9m to reach the end of the financial year - and you could argue about that all night but I am not going to because the liability has since changed. So, we have $9m and $9m in a climate that this mob on the other side say was given in a mini-budget, in an environment of a supposed black hole. $9m they can afford in this current financial year when, oh, woe betide, you have left us with no money and all this sort of stuff, and they can afford $9m. Well, what has happened? Since the new year and since having the latest briefings - and I very much appreciate the briefings; the advice has been very sound all the way through this - the current outstanding liability for insured workers’ claims costs is in the order of 120 claims down from an estimated 500 claims.
That is fantastic because that means the nominal insurer, and the NRMA which took on some of that liability work, have really got in there actively to bring to a close many of those claims. So, according to the brief we are down to less than 120 claims and the liability is reduced to $28.5m. It is a considerable drop in a year, it is a considerable change to the landscape.
The other thing we have heard today in the House was this extra money of $137m. There is no denying it, it is extra money on the base every year, $137m. We have heard many claims by government ministers, and I am sure I am going to hear it again from the minister for employment about responsible government and all of that. The fact is that some of the $130m-odd is discretionary money. It does not have to be tagged to anything. It can be used for anything the government chooses, anything it decides the money can be used for. I will just remind you in the time of supposed black hole, $9m they can afford, now they are saying cannot afford anything, not with the extra money, not given we have this extra money or the $26m that is coming in over the next four years. This is a matter of choice, that is all it comes down to.
There are basically two questions. Can the government afford to pay the liability? Well, they have already proven for one year they can afford to pay it. They have already proven that. There is no doubt about that. They have already said it is going to be $9m; we are going to put it in. Beauty. There it is, but next year we cannot afford it. We know we have more money over there but we can’t afford it, so, we have to tax the business. So, that is one question. Can the government afford the liability, yes or no? The answer is yes.
The other question is: does government want to raise this from the business community? And it is a choice. This is about politics. You have to get political about this. There is nothing else for it but politics. It is not about affordability. They can afford it. The minister will say, ‘Oh yeah, well we are going to take away this hospital or that clinic and you mob did this’. They have already afforded $9m. So it was affordable one year. Isn’t it affordable for the next couple of years? Let’s spin this number around a little bit. $28.5m. Let’s use $30m because it is really easy to divide, isn’t it? $30m! Okay, let’s use that figure. Now, you spin it. Which way do you want it? Do you want to pay it off over ten years? How much is that a year?
Ms Carter: Three.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh! $3m a year. Is that affordable? I am glad you picked it up because they were a bit slow on that side. $3m, thank you very much. Is that affordable? Well, it is one third of what you can afford in this financial year. I would say it is affordable. I would say it is very affordable, and over 10 years, not 13 years, like they are going to tax the business community, to pay back the loan they are going to give them to make up the shortfall. Yep, very affordable. $3m.
Okay. Spin it another way. Pick a number. How many years do you want to pay this off over? Five? Let’s try five? How much is that a year? $6m a year. Okay. Is that less than the $9m that you have already paid in this financial year? Yes, it is. One third less. So, is it affordable? Of course it is affordable. That is the first question. It is affordable by government.
Now, the second question: does the government want a new tax on business? Well, that is just a plain and simple choice by government. What have they done here today? What are they doing here today? They are making the choice that yes, they do want a new tax on business. That is what they are putting in here, a new tax on business when it is not necessary. It is not necessary to tax business for this. The ACT, my colleague said he has rung his colleagues in the ACT and that they have contributed.
Mr Kiely: They are another pack of losers, aren’t they?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, but before, when they were in government, do you know what they decided to do? Contribute $30m to their liability. I am not sure, and this came from your briefing too, minister, and perhaps you should have been there, $30m they paid, they contributed. Does that take up the full amount of their liability?
Mr Stirling: How do you know they are not getting it back? They haven’t put their levy in yet.
Mr BALDWIN: They do not need a levy. They have contributed $30m. They can afford it. This government can afford it as well. $30m would wipe out this liability and pay those injured workers from the community taxes, that is, consolidated revenue. That is a choice that this government can make. I have been very frank and very honest. Yes, we were considering a levy. Yes, we might have had to impose it if things had not changed; if it was $60m and if the extra GST receipts had not come in to the coffers.
Dr Burns: And if you had have sold NT Fleet.
Mr Kiely: And if you had not fudged the estimates. Remember the black hole.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, they obviously do not like to hear this because this is what the business community is really saying. They know this is affordable by government. They pleaded with me at the time: ‘Don’t tax us; you pay it’. That is what the Chamber of Commerce is saying in its e-mail to the member for Nelson. That is what they are saying. They are saying:
- We’ve always been uncomfortable with a levy on business to cover the losses incurred by the collapse of HIH.
The NT government is the organisation that grants approval for an insurance company to operate in the NT.
We do not feel that it is a business responsibility to pick up the cost for another business’ failure.
They are all saying that. Another organisation that is saying the same thing is the Australian Mines and Metals Association. It has always been opposed to it, and still is, and certainly knows that the government can afford to pay this amount of money, whether it is $3m a year or whether it is $10m a year for three years. It does not matter. You can spin them any way you like.
We will be fighting for these amendments. I will just go to those amendments very quickly because the minister for business made a few comments on the amendment schedule before the House, which was circulated in good time. We went to the parliamentary drafter and asked, ‘What is the best way to draft this if you want to get rid of the capacity of government in this bill to levy businesses?’ They said you have to do it this way, exactly as it is being presented here tonight. We went back to them after they wrote it up and said, ‘That does not sound right’. And the minister had a fun and games with it. However, when you look at it, it is actually the right way to do it. Because you have to get rid of those parts that we are inviting defeat on, and introduce and insert a new part that is repealing the main section of the bill, section 164B. The parliamentary drafter was very particular on that, saying that is the right way.
So make as much of it as you like. You are not hurting my ego; you will be hurting the professionalism of the parliamentary drafters. I commend them for doing such great work in the last few days on this so that we could get it distributed in time for everybody to have a look at it and so that we cannot be castigated for bringing in a late amendment. We are not about that. We have been very open about this, and we will be arguing for those clauses to get up in the committee stages of this bill.
The bottom line, though, is that this is a political choice. It is all about whether this mob are gutsy enough to support business and take on this cost themselves.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, someone a long time ago, much more clever than I, said that the first casualty of war is truth. We have certainly seen truth take a march here tonight along with credibility. The credibility of the opposition is exemplified by the member for Daly and the member for Blain because it was the member for Blain who came in here tonight and said, ‘Oh, the House would be aware, members would all be aware of the Country Liberal Party’s opposition to any employment levy’. Well, I ask him, how so? He and a couple of his colleagues availed themselves of a briefing with Work Health earlier this week, and I took time to walk across and ask the member for Daly, and then the member for Blain, did they have any problems with the bill, any questions, any other indication or query; please come back to us and we will endeavour to get another briefing together for you. Not a word, Madam Speaker, that this was such an issue that not only were they going to oppose it but they were actually seeking to defeat it.
The other thing the member for Blain says was it was never palatable with the Country Liberal Party. Well, you have to ask yourself how section 164B, Contributions by Employers, finished up in the Work Health Act last year:
(1) The minister may determine that all employers are required to make contributions
to the Fund.
(2) If the minister makes a determination under subsection (1), each employer must
contribute to the Fund an amount that is equal …
This is totally unpalatable for the CLP. Totally unpalatable for the member for Blain, Madam Speaker. Their own legislation, passed last year in order to put an impost on employers. And, of course, they tell us now that they were taking that view in light of the then believed figure for the levy was somewhere between $40m and $50m. We have heard repeatedly from speakers opposite tonight that the figure is $28.5m. Well, they must be good mind readers, because no one can determine with any precision what that amount will be as it flows over time.
He talked about the number of claims dropping off. Well you would expect that. They cleared up a lot of the claims early on. The silly, fiddly little claims that get cleared up and washed through the system. I bet if you have a look at those 120-odd claims that are left, they are not the little ones, they are serious. They are serious injuries to workers that are going to cost a lot of dough. They are going to cost a lot of dough in medical and rehabilitation and getting these people right, if they ever can. And when they say $28.5m as they consistently did, it is a best guess lowest possible estimate. Lowest possible best picture. It is somewhere between $28.5m and $40m. Now even if it comes in on best picture at $28.5m, plus $9m that this government put into the nominal insurer as a grant, not a loan, you are up to $37.5m now. We get a few claims reopened along the way, which could conceivably happen - they think the person is right, they go back to work, they fall over again. The injury was not resolved; they come back in and you are over the $40m again. Of course, you are looking at the original prediction that I got when I inherited this from my colleague, the member for Wanguri, which was the liability somewhere between $40m and $50m. They come in here and seek to mislead Territorians and this parliament by saying it is $28.5m. It is $28.5m absolute best picture and the most positive aspect you could put on it - between $28.5m and $40m, and you conveniently forget the $9m that this government put in.
We have heard an awful lot tonight. I always enjoy listening to the member for Wanguri because he is genuine; he speaks from the heart on these matters, he understands these issues. And he, of course, alerted the people opposite. Not one of them wanted to mention the real purpose of all this which is to insure those businesses and those employees who are unfortunate enough to be injured at a time when their employer was insured by HIH. That is the bottom line on this: it is looking after those people and making sure that their entitlements to medical treatment and rehabilitation are secure. It was the member for Wanguri who brought that back on track when no one on the other side - because they would not be interested in workers, least of all injured workers. What they cannot get away from - and this is where their credibility really suffers - they put this legislation into place. Last year they passed section 164B of the Work Health Act, ‘Contributions by employers’. But they tell us now, ‘But we were never going to do it’. Oh, get real! Why did you take the effort to write legislation? Why did you have parliamentary drafters draw this up, bring it into this House, use the time of this parliament to pass this legislation, and then say, ‘But we were never going to use it’? Well, I simply do not believe you. I am sorry, I think there is a huge credibility gap there.
No contribution from our predecessors. A kick-in. Kicked in $3m to the nominal insurer: ‘And it’s a loan guys, you have to pay it back, and it will be with interest’. We converted the $3m that was already in the nominal insurer – we plonked $6m on top of it - and said: ‘It is a grant, guys. It is not repayable. It does not attract interest’. It is $9m off the backs of business against this liability.
They, of course, from that side of the House when they were in government, were not going to do anything. They put in $3m as a loan. They then passed the legislation necessary to put a levy on - although they say now, ‘Of course we were never going to do that’. That levy would have been in the order of 8% to 10%, and that would have been driving business out of town and to the wall.
It is just too cute that you can say, on the one hand when you are in government and by your actions demonstrate you are not going to do a damn thing for the business world: ‘They can wear this’. And yet, from the sanctuary of opposition, no accountability from opposition so, ‘Well, it is all government. It has to be all government - how dare you put any impost on business?’ Too cute by half.
When you get to it, if you look at the average premium based on average weekly wage, which is $43 000 in the Northern Territory, the average effect is $1 per week per employee. Sure, that is $52 per employee per year. You can quickly multiply that for the smaller businesses. How many people they have employed, that is the ask. At the same time, of course, this government is contributing over $800 000 a year by placing us into the scheme as an insurer. We do not have to do that, as the member for Karama pointed out, but we are doing that as a further contribution to the nominal insurer to further break and reduce the impost on business.
We heard of jurisdictions similarly affected by HIH. No one mentioned Western Australia. What is their levy, I ask myself - 5%. A 5% levy in Western Australia. Tasmania – what is their levy? - 4%. The ACT is interesting because this misinformation here again today and I tell you what, anytime these guys go to another briefing, Madam Speaker, I will be there. I will be there. Because they come back with misinformation from these briefings and if I go …
Mr Baldwin: How do you know? You weren’t there.
Mr STIRLING: Well, I have the information from the same person you were getting it from but it has been delivered in a slightly different form in here tonight. If we look at the ACT’s situation, the member for Blain says $30m. Try $54m. $30m put in by government but it can be repaid to government by a levy which by all indications will be imposed soon by the ACT government. This levy will be needed to recover the $24m in addition to the $30m because it is $54m not $30m that you are talking about. And, of course, could potentially repay the $30m that they have already put in. So, you can’t play these games even in opposition where you do not have to have any accountability. You cannot come in and make these things up because you get half the story at the briefing and you come in and say, ‘Well, the ACT has covered the whole $30m’. Well, there ain’t $30m. It is $54m. There is $30m in there. They are working on what the levy will be and I bet they are exercising their minds somewhat furiously as I speak as to what the size of the levy they impose will be, and whether they go for the entire $54m and try to haul the $30m back that they have already had to put in, or whether they just levy it against the $24m in addition to the $30m that is already in there.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, Western Australia is 5%, Tasmania is 4%, and the ACT is still deliberating.
The member for Wanguri really said it all. I commend him again on his speech because he is very good. He has a great understanding of the business world and business community. They certainly regard him as a friend out there and he speaks their language and is getting on very well. He pointed to amendment schedule number 15 of the Work Health Amendment Bill proposed by the opposition tonight. If you go to clause 2 which invites defeat, that is the very clause that puts government in there as an insurer, makes the government put in $800 000 to $900 000 a year and further takes the impost off business.
Take out clause 3. This is …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: It is very late and it is the last day. The wicket is starting to crumble, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate getting through this last session.
Clause 3 takes out the sunset clause that does not exist. There is no sunset clause in here, we have been told repeatedly by members opposite. I refer members to page 2 where it says, ‘the minister by notice in the gazette…’. This is at (5) half way down the page. You should read it because you don’t think it is in there. ‘The minister by notice in the gazette under (b) if a determination requires contributions for the purpose of discharging a particular liability must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
What don’t you understand about revoke? What don’t you understand about ‘when that liability is discharged’? It is a sunset clause. When the liability is discharged the minister must revoke the determination. It is called a sunset clause. Maybe you have not seen one in that fashion before. I would not have the temerity to question our drafters. They do a fantastic job, Madam Speaker, and if they regard that as being suitable to ensure that government removes the levy at the time when that liability is discharged, it is good enough for me. And it is a pity it is not good enough for members opposite. But that does not suit their cause.
I was glad that the member for Wanguri went through the trashy sheet that went out to employers because it is misleading. It is dishonest and it is a fabrication of what actually is going on. I can inform the opposition that their amendments will get short shrift from this government because what we have seen tonight from the opposition benches is a lack of truth in the debate and a credibility that is just shot all over the place. Because from the government benches, business …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is talking about a lack of truth which implies that we are telling lies. I would ask him to rephrase that.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we will allow lack of truth.
Mr BALDWIN: That is all right to use, is it? Madam Speaker, can I just clarify, ‘lack of truth’ is all right to use?
Madam SPEAKER: Lack of truth is not lying, is it?
Mr BALDWIN: So it is okay to use it? Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: What we have seen in relation to creditability of the opposition this evening is a stance taken from the point of view of the government last year. Yes, business has to accept - tragically, unfortunately -but business is going to have to accept the impost to get through this HIH thing. ‘It is not our fault; it is not us’, said the CLP government, ‘It is not our fault. It is very sad’. They might be mates to the Liberal Party. They contributed millions of dollars to Liberal Party campaign funds over the years, but it is not their fault that HIH went broke. ‘It is not the business world, but unfortunately we are going to have to put a levy on them, we are going to have to put an impost on them. We will put $3m in. We will kick in $3m to the nominal insurer, but it will be a loan and we will make sure that we get that back with interest’.
They come in here tonight, having given no indication of a view until the Leader of the Opposition pops up the other day and says, ‘You have all this money; you can pay it’. No credibility whatsoever. They have gone from ‘business pay all’ to ‘government pay all’. What has happened in between? There has been a transfer of power. They have gone from government to opposition and that about says it all.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I approach this matter in good faith. I attended the briefings and what I learnt at the briefings has determined the position that I have taken. I have availed myself of previous debates. Granted, it can be treated with understandable scepticism on the other side, but my position in this has been to endeavour to demonstrate that it is possible for this levy to be withdrawn from business. There have been endeavours on the other side to construct a logic that sustains their intent to levy. There has been reference to dishonesty and opportunism. It can be read as such. But I can tell you what has fuelled my fire is the response that we got from business, not so much in the faxes we received but in the phone calls, and particularly in the ongoing relationship with the way business is at the moment with regards to the substantial increases in insurance premiums.
I believe that this government could be persuaded to consider other options. We can throw up words but I endeavoured to bring in to this that we are actually talking about people. Maybe there is some way that we can have some room to move. What may be called on this side a windfall - it won’t be acknowledged on that side as a windfall - nonetheless it is $150m or thereabouts. Anyone would know that if an amount came into a household budget and it was tied to a specific item it would certainly give you room to move.
Regarding the comments made by the member for Wanguri, our position has been that we do not want this vehicle. We are not looking under the hood, under the bonnet, to tinker with bits and pieces of it. We simply stand for representing business to say, don’t do it. Do not do it to business. By asking members opposite to defeat this, you are saying yes to business, you are withdrawing an impost on business, and I would suggest to you that business would respond for you and perform for you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have some regard for the member for Blain. At heart he is a decent fellow, and I do not doubt his honesty as an individual. But when he says they received 500 responses in response to the misinformation, this does him no credit. This gives him no credit. Where does it say in here, for example, that the government of the Northern Territory is placing itself into the scheme as a self-insurer contributing to it? Where does it say that? It does not at all. The effect of your amendment here is to take the government out as a self-insurer, to stop the government of the Northern Territory contributing to the nominal insurer, to stop the nominal insurer receiving $800 000 to $900 000 a year. And who would have to pick that up? It would be business. That is the dishonesty of their approach when they came in here tonight.
Why on earth circulate an amendment bill to take the government out as a self-insurer, so it contributes to the liability; to take out the sunset clause, which ensures the minister must revoke the determination as soon as the liability is discharged; when what you really wanted to do was defeat it. You could have done that by repealing your own amendment which you put through as section 164B of the Work Health Act. If that is repealed, game, set, match, the job is all over. You did not have to go this way. I do not understand why you would seek to do this. I am disappointed that you stand behind a document such as this. It says somewhere here that the tax will pay for the $28m liability. In the member for Daly’s words, three or four times he said it, it was $28.5m. What he did not go on to say was that is absolutely the best rosy picture, the best optimistic picture you can get. It is between $28.5m and $40m. And if it is best picture, and God hope that it is, best picture $28.5m, it is still $37.5m overall because they conveniently forget the fact that this government placed $9m into the nominal insurer in an effort to reduce the impost that would find its way back to business by way of increased premiums.
It really does the member for Blain no credit. I think at heart he is an honest and decent bloke, but he comes in here and hides behind the shabby misinformation that goes out in documentation like this. If you tell them big enough, Mr Chairman, you will get the phone calls. If you are going to tell a story, tell the truth and put it out there.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, just picking up on that, it is a shame and I know – well, I don’t think the minister is stupid - but it is a shame he did not come to that briefing because the question that was asked in that briefing was, ‘What is the best latest estimate of the liability?’ And the answer was, ‘$28.5m’. I was there; the minister was not. So $28.5m is the current best estimate on that liability. That is what was said in the briefing. So, $40m, that is his words, not the briefing. As I said right at the beginning, the information and the advice through all of this has been very, very sound. I am just going on that sound advice.
As to the clause we are debating here, inviting defeat of the government to include the public service in this. Of course it sounds a funny way of doing it; taking the government out of it. But the fact is that when you follow all of this and repeal the provision to be able to levy employers – and obviously what we are debating and arguing here is that the government will pick up this liability - of course you do not need the public service to be included because they were already being paid from the government’s coffers. This is the way the drafter said is the best way to do it. Of course you have to take the sunset clause out because employers won’t be paying a tax; they won’t have to have a sunset clause in there because it is going to be picked up …
Mr Henderson: You said there wasn’t a sunset clause.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, it’s not, and I will argue that on behalf of some of the associations that have written in. Something you promised to put in there. Why didn’t they put in sunset clause similar to the rego tax - a definite period - if they are so concerned about that?
The fact is that this is the logical way to do it, according to the parliamentary drafter if you are going to repeal section 164B of the act; and we are following that. Of course, you won’t need any get-out clause. You won’t need to have the public service included if the government was gutsy enough to pick up this tax on behalf of business. It is a simple political choice, as I said before, and it is an affordable choice for this government.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, this is where I have a real difficulty with the member for Daly and the opposition on their stance because he says $28.5m was the information he was given. But he conveniently forgets the $9m that has already been paid.
Their information, and they said it earlier in the debate, was, ‘We were advised that the outstanding liability was between $40m and $50m’. Now, at $40m you put a levy on. Even passed the legislation, even amend the act to put a levy on it, because it was between possibly $40m and $50m.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr STIRLING: Well, suddenly, at $37.5m, even on your own figures, a minimum of $37.5m, plus the possibility of some claims being revisited, it would not be hard to imagine that they could get very close to $40m. But, at $39 999 000.99, no levy. No levy; the government has to pay it all. But, at $40m, zero, zero, zero, zero of one cent – ‘Ah! Levy. Have to have a levy’. Well, it does not work like that. Practical politics does not work like that. You are at saying $37.5m, no levy; at best picture, $40m – ‘Oh, probably big levy; no government in there - 8%’. Well, we have chosen a different way. We say that the potential is there for it still to be in the order of $40m; it is certainly $37.5m. Whether it is to be $37.5m or $40m, we have decided that the best way to clean this up is to put the government in there contributing and have that levy at 4% until this liability is cleared.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I am beginning to think that perhaps the minister is stupid. The fact is that the $9m I accounted for in my second reading, when I said the current best estimate, or of the briefing last week, was $28.5m. I acknowledge that there was $9m put into the liability. That is the gross amount if you want to look at the totallity of the figures. There is no doubt about that; I acknowledge that. But, the fact is - and I made this point very clearly, I thought - this government paid $9m in this financial year, in the climate of a supposed black hole, which they could then afford $9m and they are saying now they cannot afford that amount of money, or less, in the ensuing years, and spin the numbers. I have done the exercise for him. Perhaps the Treasurer should have been in here. I mean $28.5m, let’s call it $30m over 10 years. I mean they are simple sums. $3m a year. Affordable. I do not mind how the minister wants to spin it, but out there, they know it is affordable, and that is why we have introduced these clauses. The public service does not have to be included.
The clause that they are calling a sunset clause does not have to be included. Section 164B does not have to be in there because this government can afford it. And that is the truth of the matter, and all it takes is a gutsy little political decision. That’s all.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, we have the honourable minister holding up a fax and making allegations that we are in the business of misrepresentation. We went to a briefing and came away with information that changed the way we thought about this issue all together. In the interests of someone who would represent an open, honest and transparent government, acting to ensure that those who are being affected by the decision that is made here, it is in our best interests to make sure that those being affected understand exactly what has happened. Exactly the nature, the size, the scope of this liability as communicated. That is the purpose for the communication. Simply to involve and to include and to apprise the community that is directly affected by the decision that is being intent on being made by members opposite. They need to know what the facts are.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in listening to the member for Blain’s words, he used ‘exactly’ what the issues were, and ‘accurately’. This is the communication. This is the perpetration, the misinformation that was sent out to the business community. It is hardly exact, and it is hardly accurate. It is totally misleading. We have had this before. There is no mention in this ‘exact’ and ‘accurate’ document that this government has contributed $9m to date to the nominal insurer.
This ‘exact’ and ‘precise’ information is not contained in this piece of rubbish that has gone out to the business community. Neither is the fact that the government, as an employer, will also be contributing 4% into the liability. This is not an ‘exact’ and ‘accurate’ dissertation of the legislation that we are debating here tonight. It is misleading and totally inaccurate.
Moving to the third dot point under ‘The Facts’. That the CLP ‘considered a levy’. It did more than consider the levy. It was the government of the day which introduced the vehicle to impose a levy on the business community, and not to impose and not to allow for the government to contribute to it. So hardly facts, hardly exact. A total shambles.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, I just want to make a remark about the concern expressed by ministers in relation to the leaflet that has been circulated to the business community and explain to members opposite, especially the minister for business, whom I thought would have understood these things, just a couple of points. First of all, the business community is not as silly as the minister implies. That is to say business is quite aware of what the circumstances are. If the government had done the job that it purports to have done, that is if they had fairly and thoroughly advised the business community about the circumstances pertaining to this new tax, then there is no need in any event - the argument to have included on that leaflet that fact that there was a government contribution is void.
It is the government that should be selling this tax. It is their tax. It is their responsibility to explain what they might be contributing in any way towards this tax. If they had done their job, I put it to you and other members, the business community would be very much aware of it. And I would expect that the government would have done their job because they told us they have done their job. If they have been duplicitous and have not explained fully to business…
Dr Toyne interjecting
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chairman. I would ask the Attorney-General to withdraw.
Dr TOYNE: I happily withdraw, Mr Chairman. It was just to see if they were awake or not.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I must have missed something, I was concentrating on the member’s dialogue. Member for Katherine.
Mr REED: So, if they have been duplicitous and have not informed the business community, when they have told this House they have, then the government has a problem. It ill behoves them…
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The member is on his feet. Order, please!
Mr REED: I know they do not like to hear it, but they are going to hear it. It ill behoves them to try to cast the blame on either the business community or the opposition. The opposition is doing its job in testing this legislation. The opposition is doing its job in supporting a position that the business community want supported. If the members opposite are concerned about that then they are going to be very frustrated the more time they spend in the House. Some of them have only been here for nine months and if this is their attitude, in terms of this parliament which represents the people across the Northern Territory and we as an opposition and members of this House rightly expressing those representations, then these people have a problem. They have a very serious problem.
If the minister for business was offended by some 2000 leaflets that were sent out and the enormous response of some 25%, if he has a problem with the business community being provided an opportunity to express their view on a very serious impost in relation to their businesses, well let him have a problem. Let him explain that when he is next talking to the business community and industry groups that he is offended that they should be afforded an opportunity to express their point of view in relation to legislation that this government is going to pass through this House, and not having an opportunity for the business to express a point of view on it.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I seek clarification from the minister on the sunset clause. It is an issue of concern. A sunset clause that is discrete and specific. We have the Sydney Harbour Bridge which was built by a toll. The bridge is well and truly built and the people are still paying that toll. I sense that we have that kind of open door at the end of this one. Please ensure that it is going to be closed. How can that be quantified?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, we had questions from the other side earlier in the week about where is the sunset clause. You have left out the sunset clause that you said was going to be in there. You said it was going to be in there as a direct result of representation from the Chamber of Commerce, because the Chamber of Commerce said, quite clearly and quite properly, ‘If you are going to have a levy like this, we want to see transparency in it. We want to see that when the liability is finally discharged, that levy goes’. That is healthy cynicism and no problem at all. So we responded. The response was to bring this amendment bill in with a clear sunset clause. I do not understand why this is not a sunset clause when it says, ‘the minister by notice in the gazette, if a determination requires contributions for the purpose of discharging a particular liability, must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
The member for Blain has another opportunity, as we all do in committee, to explain the difficulties the opposition has with this. I see the member for Katherine may be ready to speak. I am hoping to hear what the problem with this is. I am not great at legislation but I can understand this. It says to me that once the liability is discharged, the minister must, by notice in the gazette, revoke it.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, there are real concerns in relation to the sunset clause. You demonstrated with the $90 tax on registration of vehicles that it would expire at a particular date. That is, the sun goes down in relation to a particular piece of legislation on a stated date. That does not occur in relation to clause 5. If you are sincere about a sunset clause, for example, bearing in mind that you have already stated that this liability will be in place for 11 to 13 years, if you are committed to the advice that you provided this House and, indeed, the business community, you might want to consider adding after the word ‘discharged’, replacing the full stop with a comma, and inserting the words, for example, ‘or no later than 13 years after introduction’. That surely would give some people a level of assurance.
There is a bigger problem though, I would have thought, in terms of the business community, with 5(a) where you are saying, ‘ … may vary or revoke a determination under this section’. If you are going to vary a determination, that leaves it open to the government, without returning to this House for debate, and without consulting the business community. Vary includes increase. Vary can go up or vary can go down in terms of the impost of this new tax.
A member: It could go down.
Mr REED: Well, not necessarily so. The cheque is in the mail says the minister, and we are expecting the business community to believe that vary means reduce. I would also suggest to the minister that in terms of 5(a), rather than ‘may vary or revoke’, he may wish to insert in there ‘may reduce the levy or vary the determination under this section’, or something to that effect. Because if you are expecting to convince the business community that their interests are indeed at heart, and I am not one bit convinced that you are interested in that regard, you will at least put some form of definite qualification in this.
Sadly, that may be necessary, because I have a distinct feeling that you are not going to support the opposition’s amendments not to have a new tax at all, and for government to remove this impost on the business community and take it on yourselves.
We have been advised, and one can only go on the advice. We are regularly told by the government, if you want information, go and have a briefing. Indeed, I think you have been told that yourself, Mr Chairman. Well, if we go and have a briefing and we are told, and it is not just the opposition, not just the individuals who go and get the briefing, who are told this information. We are told that information, and we then take that in confidence to go and explain that to the community and the business community. We have been advised by the government that the liability is $28.5m. It is just unconscionable, if indeed that was not the right amount that the member for Daly was advised in a briefing …
Mr Baldwin: And Nelson.
Mr REED: It is just unbelievable that that might be the case. Well, the member for Nelson yourself, you were involved. So, if we are to have the ability to place any value on the information that is provided in these briefings, that we are expected to pass on to the broader community, then the information has to be correct. Because we have been told $28.5m, we must expect that that is the total liability. That being the case, it is appropriate that the government does take the tough decision and not proceed with this tax. But in the event that it does, the very least it could do is to be just a tad honest, accountable …
Mr Burke: Transparent.
Mr REED: … and transparent to the business community with the legislation in regard …
Ms Lawrie: Mmm!
Mr REED: I hear ‘Mmm’ from the members opposite and I thank you for that interjection, because it draws me to a point that I was going to make. I have been in this House, as I said before, for 15 years …
Ms Martin: The longest of all!
Mr REED: The longest of all of us - and while you are here every day seems longer. But I enjoy it.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr REED: The member for Karama must go down in the annals of that 15 years of history by her statement that: ‘This is a generous, repeat, generous tax’. That is something that is going to be conveyed to the business community - government member says: ‘We introduce a generous tax’. I can only liken that to a nice assault, perhaps a pleasant murder. That is the level at which this government approaches the business community. That is the sincerity, that is the transparency, that is the honesty that they are injecting in their approach to the business community.
I have to say that there are two very definite opportunities for the government to redeem themselves. One is to reject their initial intention to introduce and apply this new tax, and to adopt the amendments that have been put forward by the good member; and the other, of course, if they find that distasteful, is at least to ensure that there is no ability to increase the tax but only reduce it - not vary it - and indeed, to stick by their words. If $28.5m is indeed the maximum liability as you were told in a briefing, and that that liability …
Mr Stirling: No, not true; you are misleading them. The minimum.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr REED: … and, indeed, if this liability is to last for 11 to 13 years, we can only expect that the 13 years is the maximum, and that the 11 years is the minimum. Okay, well, we will take the maximum, at least in the understanding that that will inject a sunset clause and that within 13 years of the application of this legislation, with assent of this legislation and its application, then the business community will have the sound knowledge that it will, in fact, be repealed and that there will be a sunset clause that will have some meaning to them, and they will know when the tax is going to be withdrawn.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I thank the member for Katherine for his remarks, particularly clearing up this question around a sunset clause and the need, as he sees it, for some sort of date in there. I pick up, though, a critical thing he said because he has taken this misinformation about the level of liability another step further than even the members for Daly and Blain. They both said in here that is was $28.5m. The member for Katherine says now that, at its worst, it is $28.5m. Let me make it very clear what was said at that briefing.
Mr Baldwin: You were not there. I will show you my notes.
Mr STIRLING: I have it on good authority from one who was. Because the public servant said after that it was $28.5m at best but could be as high as $40m. Well, I have not heard that. The public servant said it at the briefing. As good as, best picture $28.5m but could be as high as $40m. And we had the member for Katherine come in on the back of this, whom I assume was not at the briefing saying, ‘at its worst’. Well, we are turning the whole picture completely around so we will probably see another one of these which did not even acknowledge $28.5m. It acknowledges $28m. So we will probably see another one of these go out now saying, ‘Oh, at worst’. Well, it ain’t at worst. It is absolute best picture $28.5m. At worst $40m. And the public servant said that at the briefing.
And if you want to be selective about what you choose to bring back from briefings, I will make sure I sit on every one that you go to. I will make sure I sit right on your backside at every briefing so I know and you won’t get away with misquoting or misleading information from what is given to you at a briefing in future. It goes for the member for Blain because he shared in this little charade here tonight. The member for Katherine, well, he will always put his own spin on it because he comes in late and says at the worst picture $28m, he calls it; of course it is $28.5m.
Mr Chairman, in relation to this question of the sunset clause, the member for Katherine himself says, ‘Well, you do not know how long it is going to be because it is an unfolding picture’. That is what we are arguing about here. You don’t know, I don’t know what the full extent of the liability is and of course that will determine the length of time for which the levy is in place. But really, for the life of me, I have listened to you, trying to understand what your concerns were and whether there was a way through to meet those concerns. But I cannot see how this can be – ‘must revoke the determination when that liability is discharged’.
Now, you talk about transparency. The nominal insurer will report every year in the Work Health annual report revenue in, the liabilities out and the known state of the question year by year. That is pretty public. That is a pretty public document and we can all see for ourselves year by year, revenue in, outstanding liabilities, getting close, and there can be no hiding this. Once the liability is discharged, the minister must revoke the determination by notice in the gazette. I have heard you out. I understand what you are saying and I see no need to change that with the transparency that we get through the publication of the Work Health annual report.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman, the honourable minister conveniently overlooked the other point that I raised and that was in relation to point 5(a), that is ‘may vary’ which I indicated could be up or could be down. My suggestion was that the word ‘reduce’ be applied at least in relation to the level of tax and levy that is applied to the business community.
That is a very reasonable request on behalf of business. If the liability is known, we know the period of the liability, we know that it is going to be no more than 13 years as we have been assured earlier on. In terms of just a little bit of confidence that the business community might be able to take out of this, apart from the government getting their hands in the business community’s coffers again and their pockets, and reducing the prospects of employing more Territorians, can we at least on their behalf take into account their legitimate concerns in relation to the potential for the government to vary the rate without coming back to this House, without consulting business, doing it simply by regulation, given that the legislation will be passed here tonight.
I plead on behalf of the business community that if the government has any ounce of respect, or intends to retain any after this exercise, that they might consider the word ‘reduce’ in relation to the amount of the taxation.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 3 stand as printed.
Mr REED: Mr Chairman …
Mr CHAIRMAN: There was no one standing.
Mr REED: Well, I will just take the opportunity to put on the record that that plea on behalf of the business community has been ignored by the government. It did not even attract the respect of a response. We will be making this debate broadly known to the business community as is our responsibility. It is only fair that in the first instance we gave the government the opportunity to squarely place a limit. Their failure to do so, and they are ignoring this particular point…
Ms Martin: Do you think you have credibility with the business community, do you, Mike?
Mr REED: The Chief Minister will get no points interjecting because there will be only one interpretation placed on this by the business community and that is that there is a real prospect of this government increasing the rate. For if they did not intend to do so, they would have no hesitation in placing the word ‘reduce’ in relation to placing limits on the amount of the taxation that they are going to levy. The very fact that they are not prepared to do that will create concern across the business community and rightly so.
If this government wants to be open, honest and transparent, then they have a chance to do that. But the fact that the minister does not even get to his feet to respond on behalf of the business community demonstrates an extreme paucity of knowledge, concern and interest in the business community and the impost that this tax is going to have upon them.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the member for Katherine completely ignores the fact of the transparency in this process, as I said before, because we can all get to see the Work Health annual report year by year, see the revenues going in, see what the outstanding liabilities are. It would be quite clearly known to all at such time as the liability was fully discharged and the minister has no choice but to revoke the determination. A great deal of thought has gone into this in terms of the fairness, and the level of the levy. No doubt ACT is going through this at the moment. Western Australia did. Tasmania did. But we have structured it in such a way that I could, and can, rule out, and I would rule out unequivocally that there would be any increase.
The transparency is there. He knows that. He can get hold of the Work Health annual report later this year when it comes out, and the picture will be clearer over time, particularly in relation to the total amount of the liability outstanding, as will the revenues into it. I do not see any need to change it.
Mr REED: I am sorry to labour the point, Mr Chairman, but I really must. I can see why the minister is so uncomfortable in responding and why in responding he is focussed on 5(b) which is really the sunset clause and just in very brief passing towards the end of his last remarks, made some comment in relation to the actual size of the levy. So, the business community cannot draw any confidence. Indeed, in his last remark, which was very oblique - to be kind to it rather than not hitting the target at all - in relation to a possible variation to the levy upwards, all he has done is increase the potential for anxiety in the business community. He has given them no assurance at all that the variation does not mean increase. It is a very simple process for him to undertake now to substitute the word ‘reduce’. It seems that the business community’s interest is going to be abandoned and they will have to live with that anxiety for some 13 years that this tax is going to be in place.
They will learn, as they are learning very quickly, that open, honest, transparent government is pretty opaque. I will leave it at that because it does not need to be stated any more firmly than that. We will be able to demonstrate that as an opposition we very strongly pursued their interests which were ignored by this government and indeed very flatly rejected.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, my question is to the member for Nhulunbuy and seeks clarification. Almost everyone has referred to the fact that business is most certainly caught by this new amendment and the new legislation, but if section 3 of the principal act defines the term ‘employer’ and you are a charity with a PAYG employee, are charities also caught by subparagraph 4?
Mr STIRLING: The simple advice is if you are paying workers compensation premiums now, you pay the levy; if you are not, you don’t.
Mr MALEY: I take that that charities are caught by this. Can I pose a similar question with a non-profitable sporting organisation in the northern suburbs? Can you tell Territorians whether they are also caught by the broad definition of employer contained in section 3?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, they know if they are paying workers compensation premiums on behalf of their employees, or they have employees and they are paying workers compensation premiums, or they do not. I have nothing to answer here. It is simply if they pay workers compensation, the levy will apply.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Proposed new clause:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman. in light of the intent of those opposite to continue, I move that a proposed new clause be inserted: New clause 3, Repeal. Section 164B of the Work Health Act is repealed for the reasons that have been outlined for quite some time now. The argument has been mounted to and fro, and it is quite evident that those on the opposite side are intent on pushing past every sound reason that is offered to seek their consideration of the issue at hand, and that is the heavy burden on business at the moment.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I won’t dwell on this - it has been pretty well exhausted through second reading debate - except to say that I simply cannot accept what was put to me by the member for Daly earlier. They passed this amendment 164B in the knowledge that it was to create and facilitate a way to impose a levy on businesses. I cannot accept that the member for Daly can stand here tonight and say, ‘Yes, we did pass that amendment, but we were never going to use it. We were never going to put a levy on business’. I cannot accept the logic that you would spend the time, obviously a Cabinet decision, to have this bill drafted, to send it to parliamentary drafters, to have it come back through Cabinet, ticked off again, to bring it into this parliament and pass it and then say we were never going to use it. Well, I just do not accept that. It really is the cheapest of politics and political opportunism to pass legislation when you are in government but then from the luxury of opposition, where there is no accountability, disclaim your own legislation. When it was $40m to $50m you put this in. You put in a levy and now it is $37.5m you say the government should put in, $37.5m, you conveniently forget the $9m that we put in there as a grant …
Mr Burke: Which you will get back
Mr STIRLING: You grubby little people. You put $3m as a loan and wanted interest! Can you get cheaper than that? I am not taken with this at all. This really does underline the deceit and the hypocrisy and the political opportunism at its cheapest base level that you will ever see, underlined in repealing their own legislation.
Mr BALDWIN: It would be nice if some of the others contributed to this committee stage. That is what you do in committee stages, you jump together. So, feel free.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: The minister obviously was not listening to the debate earlier on. Yes, we did introduce the levy; I have been through all of that. Yes, it was an option; that is in the second reading speech.
Mr Stirling: But we weren’t going to use.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, it was an option; we have been totally honest. On advice, on good advice. The good advice is still there. We have been through all of that. Yes, we did loan $3m to the nominal insurer. Yes, that’s right, the shadow minister for business was fully aware of that at the time; it is in his second reading speech, wasn’t it …
Mr Henderson: So, I told them; they didn’t know it.
Mr BALDWIN: ‘The government has committed to loan monies’, that is Mr Henderson in the second reading speech. Everyone was fully aware. This has been a totally open situation from the time that HIH collapsed. We did loan; there is no doubt about that. This mob did put in $9m in this financial year. They are going to ‘loan’ the nominal insurer in the ensuing years because the new tax on business will not bring in enough revenue to pay the outgoing costs of those injured workers. So, they are going to loan, and they cannot get away from that fact. To say that this is deceitful and conniving, and all the words that the minister used, it is simply the choice - I keep coming back to that. It is simply whether government can afford it - yes or no.
We have shown that it is affordable. It is simply a choice of whether or not this Labor government, like the other Labor governments in the other states, want to tax business rather than pay for this themselves. It is affordable. For the minister to stand up here and try to spin these numbers - he can spin them anyway he likes, but the business community understand this wholly and solely.
They have talked about average costs to businesses, and they are right. The average cost is determined to be around about $1 per worker per week for the time of this liability. But, let’s take an individual business that has more than the average employment wage bill. What is it going to cost them? You have given, Mr Chairman, a demonstration of the businesses you have talked to. Those figures can be done if the wage bill was 10%, that the premium on the wage bill comes in around $10 000. We have heard figures – ‘rubbery’ they were called by the member for Karama who does not understand that they can go up by 400% depending on individual businesses. They can go up by 10% or 200%, and they have. So, individually, this is a big impost on a lot of businesses. It could be the straw to break the camel’s back. And this government is going to be the one to break them with their new tax on business.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that the proposed new clause be inserted in the bill.
The committee 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
Amendment negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave is granted?
Mr Baldwin: The noes have it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, leave is not granted. You have to move a suspension of standing orders.
Mr STIRLING: I have just done it.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You made the decision that leave was not granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am just asking for - you have to seek leave. Oh, you received that this morning.
Mr STIRLING: I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill be read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to give notice of a motion.
Leave denied.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! How could we possibly have a situation in this House where, when there is nothing before the Chair, a member cannot rise to give notice of a motion? What sort of debacle have we descended to in this parliament?
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The member is giving notice of a motion. Now, what sort of debacle have we descended to in this House, in this open, honest, transparent, inclusive government where a member cannot get to their feet when there is nothing before the Chair and give notice of a motion?
Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. A member at any time when there is no question before the Chair may stand. The member is only giving notice of motion. Would you accept it?
Mr STIRLING : Madam Speaker, I just do not know where these guys’ memories have gone. Never in my 11 years, never, never were we given at any time leave to present a motion just because it suited us or because it suits them to get more misinformation out to the business world because that is what this will be about in the same way as that rubbish was peddled there and used by the member for Wanguri earlier. Never, Madam Speaker.
And if you can prove to me one occasion that you ever did that you ever did allow leave for the opposition to bob up and put something on the books, well I’ll go he. The fact is, Madam Speaker, he has had all day and half the night now, as I stand here speaking, to signal an intention through the Whip, or to me as Leader of Government Business and say, ‘Look, we want to give notice of this motion.’ Well, you can go he.
Mr REED: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, whether the member sought leave earlier or seeks it now is, as you have said - a member has a right at any time when there is no business before the House to seek such leave. In relation to…
Ms Martin: And we have a right to say no.
Mr REED: Oh, as an inclusive government, you certainly have. It rather demolishes your inclusiveness. It would have taken the same amount of time, and I dare say the member would have finished already, and I remind the Leader of Government Business that in the next sittings there will be a General Business day. It is quite appropriate that a member of the opposition seeks an opportunity to put on the Notice Paper a motion for that day. The Chief Minister is the head of the government, she is not the head of this parliament, Madam Speaker, you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, you must realise, and I reiterate, that any member of this House can stand when there is no question before the Chair and give notice of motion. This motion cannot be discussed or debated until the June sittings. All the member is asking to do is to give notice. It would have been common courtesy for the Whips to have known, which would have perhaps not have raised a situation as has occurred. But, at the moment, leave is not granted, but the Leader of Government Business must be aware that there is a General Business day coming up in the June sittings and, as he flagged earlier to me, members could give notice today or on the first day of sittings.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. First of all there is provision for notices during the day. The member for Blain could have bobbed up earlier in the day when notices were called by yourself from the Chair. I accept that when no question is before the Chair, he can. But I do thank you for pointing out the common courtesy that the member for Blain should have extended to either the Whip or myself.
Mr Burke: It’s a courtesy.
Mr STIRLING: Well, simply it would not have happened. It would not have happened under you guys when you were in government. We were never given leave at any time of the day. Madam Speaker, there was a provision for notices, and we always gave notice on the day before, generally, the General Business day. But if he is giving notice of something that they want to put forward on the General Business day, by all means. But I would expect, in future, some cooperation. We let the opposition know generally what is occurring and we would expect no less in return.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I simply want to balance the comments that are being made and that is that we have standing orders in this House. Clearly, on many occasions notice can be given. But there will be occasions when a motion may not be necessary, depending on how the business of the House is being conducted. But it has to be conducted with a certain outcome.
Obviously the motion might need to be proposed. That is simply what is happening in this case. To suggest somehow that that is some break in convention, that somehow it contravenes long standing processes is simply wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the member for Blain to clarify. Is this a motion that you intend to debate on General Business day?
Mr MILLS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, under those circumstances I will put the question again. Is leave granted? I heard a ‘no’. So leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING: No, there are no ‘no’s.’
Madam SPEAKER: I thought I heard no. Okay. Leave is granted.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move - That this Assembly, acknowledging the hurt being felt in the community particularly by employers in relation to escalating workers compensation costs, and in full awareness that further imposts on business will see jobs lost, urges the Labor Government to:
(1) make provision in the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 for sufficient funds to meet the forecast costs
for 2002-03 of the workers compensation liabilities arising from the collapse of HIH; and
(2) put in place a system whereby the funding of this liability in future years can be met without
recourse to further imposts on employers.
TABLED PAPER
Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education - Financial Statements for 2000
Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education - Financial Statements for 2000
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, on 25 October 2001, I tabled the Batchelor Institute Indigenous Tertiary Education’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year 2000.
I am now advised by Veronica Arbon, Director of Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education that the copy of the annual report forwarded to me for tabling did not include notes (1) (2) and (28) of the financial statements. Ms Arbon advises that these notes were inadvertently omitted from the financial statements published in the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Annual Report and Financial Statements.
In order to have a full and accurate report, I now table a complete version of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Financial Statements for the year 2000. Attached also is a copy of the letter from Ms Arbon advising of this omission.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Occupational Health and Safety
Occupational Health and Safety
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to advise the House on the directions and policies that this government will be implementing in relation to occupational health and safety in Territory workplaces, workers compensation, and the operations of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety.
In November 2001, the government, as part of the drive to restructure and rejuvenate the Northern Territory Public Service, transferred the functions and responsibilities of the old Work Health Authority from the Department of Industries and Business into the new amalgamated Department of Employment, Education and Training. The decision was not taken lightly. For many years, we had complaints from industry players: employers, unions, insurers, lawyers, individual workers, and even other government agencies, that the Work Health Authority was not performing to reasonable expectations. These concerns included:
- a perceived lack of inspections of workplaces by inspectors;
a perceived unwillingness to issue improvement notices or to prosecute employers who
appear to be continuing in breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations of
the act; and
a belief that workplace accident and injury rates in the Territory were unacceptably high.
These concerns, in turn, fed a general impression in some sectors of the working community that the Work Health Authority was a toothless tiger when it came to occupational health and safety and, worse, that poor and sloppy work practices in Territory industries were okay and not a major concern for government.
Occupational health and safety in our Territory workplaces is a major concern to this government. Measured against other states and territories, our overall accident and injury rates are okay, but they are not reducing at the same trend rate as the Australian average. In some industries, they are the worst or second worst in the country. These figures are drawn from Commonwealth government’s third report on Comparative Performance Monitoring to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council of 2001.
The industries with significant need for improvement include:
- the transport and storage, with an injury incident rate of 33.6 employees per thousand resulting in
compensation for five or more days; and
the agriculture, forestry and fishing, with an injury incident rate of 35.5 employees per thousand
resulting in compensation for five or more days.
Unfortunately, while subject to the statistical variation of small jurisdictions, our fatality rate across all industries for the year 1999-2000 was the highest in Australia at just over six workers per 100 000 employees.
The relocation of the new Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety within DEET is a first, but important, step in refocussing the attention of the office towards the people who matter most in the work health arena - the workers themselves. We expect the new office to develop strong linkages with the employment, education and training arms of the department; linkages which will improve the quality and penetration of OH&S training programs across all industries, and particularly across those industries where the need to improve occupational health and safety has been identified.
I want to stress that the government recognises that simply reforming our own agency structures and procedures will not be enough to secure significant improvements in our work health environment. We do need the cooperation and support of the industries concerned, and of the employees within those industries. In order to achieve this aim, regular consultation will occur between representatives of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety, the Northern Territory Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Association and the Trades and Labour Council and affiliated unions, on occupational health and safety related concerns. These regular consultations will assist in providing the office with more timely and direct industry liaison and feedback, as well as to assist in establishing occupational health and safety priority activities to secure improve industry occupational health and safety performance and outcomes.
I also intend to reconvene the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council, provision for which exists under the current Work Health Act, but which has not met for almost two years. Such bodies are essential to the development of sound government policies, especially in those areas where the interaction of government and private sector practice and procedure must fit together if common objectives such as the health and safety of Territory workers is to be achieved. Already, several joint projects have been facilitated by the office in relation to gas installations at markets, tree lopping practices in the gardening industry, and in prevention of falls in workplaces. These joint projects are also part of the more proactive role for the whole department in securing OH&S outcomes across identified industries. Targeted OH&S education programs are already provided in Darwin and regional centres, and we will consider further proposals to expand this function and service through collaborative projects with the Curriculum Services Branch of DEET, to offer expanded contemporary occupational health and safety program choices to all Year 10 to Year 12 students in Northern Territory secondary schools. We will also seek to develop specifically targeted occupational health and safety education awareness courses for employees in remote localities.
The extension of such programs to schools reflects the fact that an increasing number of our school aged children are participating in VET in school programs and in part-time and casual work in a range of service industries. These children need to be aware of at least the basic rights and rules of occupational health and safety in the workplace, preferably before they take up employment or commence a workplace training program. We cannot rely on good luck to see them mature to adulthood in one piece.
One further area requiring improvement which must be mentioned is data management. Data relating to injuries, OH&S complaints, investigations, the performance of various employers across industry is currently stored and retrieved from an information system which was established for the Work Health Authority more than a decade ago. The system has been developed in an ad hoc manner and now has up to 10 Access databases which are not compatible with the main record system. Getting the data system up to speed is clearly crucial to the provision of quality policy advice to government and to meeting our agreed national reporting obligations.
So far I have outlined some of the operational and functional changes which this government has introduced or will introduce to the regulation and management of occupational health and safety in Territory workplaces.
I now turn to the government’s policy approach. The government has identified three stages of policy development implementation. The first stage involves the implementation of recommendations from the review of the compensation scheme; a review, the results and recommendations of which the previous government sat on for 14 months without doing anything. This government, by contrast has approved 26 of the 35 recommendations, 17 of which are expected to be introduced in the June 2002 sittings. These recommendations relate to:
- the ability to deem injured workers to have an earning capacity;
an increase in work related death benefit;
an improvement to benefits payable to junior workers;
improved rehabilitation and return to work procedures;
recognition of the practice of negotiated settlements;
better dispute resolution procedures;
improvements to the scheme monitoring processes;
changes to compensation payable to claimants who are imprisoned such that claimants who are
imprisoned outside of the Northern Territory are not eligible to receive weekly compensation
benefits as is the case for those in prison in the Territory; and
changes to compensation payable to claimants who move overseas, such as those claimants will
not be eligible for weekly benefit payments unless the rehabilitation process is complete.
These changes are aimed at improving the overall efficiency of the scheme and will go some way to alleviating some of the problems that workers, employers and insurers have encountered in recent years.
The second stage involves the public release and discussion of the Lord Report, which was commissioned by then Minister for Industries and Business, the Honourable Tim Baldwin, in June 2001 and which was provided to the government December 2001 by Dr Trevor Lord. Terms of reference for that review on the subsequent report were to:
- (1) examine the role and process of medical practitioners in determining work relatedness to injury;
(2) assess the extent to which medical and allied treatment practices provide a positive benefit for injury
management; and
(3) examine costs, treatment, outcomes and interface between the medical practitioner, allied services and
the workers compensation system.
I must say that Dr Lord’s report is comprehensive and will provide a sound basis for discussion of these difficult issues for all stakeholders. That consultation will also include discussion of the mediation system as it currently operates in the Territory and consideration of the cost and timeliness of the mediation and litigation processes as they currently affect parties to work health claims. Subject to the consultation process, legislation in relation to these issues is envisaged by the end of the year.
Stage 3 will involve a review of the occupational health and safety provisions of the Work Health Act. In particular:
- their current effectiveness in dealing with the prevention of accidents and injuries in the workplace;
their consistency with national standards; and
the degree to which they encourage workplace awareness of health and safety issues.
The exact terms of reference for this review will be released in the next couple of months.
I wish to emphasise that stage 3 is in many ways as important if not more important than stage 1 and stage 2 which deal with processes after the event, after the accident, and the injury has occurred. Stage 3 will deal with the situation in workplaces before any injury occurs. Awareness, education, training and, most importantly, prevention strategies and practices are the key to fewer injuries. They are the key too, to reducing the number of claims and thereby reducing the pressure on premiums which should mean a reduction in cost to employers.
There is another reason why this government is committed to an overhaul of these elements of the work health system. It is, because we are, as a responsible government, looking to the future. In the future we can see not only the railway around the corner, but also gas and the increasing industrialisation of the Territory landscape as new industries and industries to service those new industries grow with many types of new jobs and work practices growing as a result.
We do not resile from this future nor do we say as the former government so often said, ‘Well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it’. We intend to prepare for that future, and it is in the interests of all Territory workers and their families and children that we do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement with just a few words. Generally, I see that the nub of this is contained on page 5 where the minister states that it is not simply reforming the agency structures and procedures. That is not enough to do it. But it is to seek the cooperation and support of the industries concerned and the employees within those industries. That to me is the nub and within that lies the challenge.
I support the intention to engage in regular consultations between representatives of the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety, the NT Business Council, the NT Chamber of Commerce, the Territory Construction Agency, and the NT Trades and Labour Council and its affiliated unions, and so on. That has to be the way to go forward. That there is really the challenge, as I said before.
Those who would apprise themselves of this statement would be, I am sure, of the view that there really isn’t a lot to criticise in a statement such as this. In fact, it is to be endorsed and applauded which is good. But it is the softest of beginnings and with the outlining of intentions and directions which is fitting at this early stage of this government and its agenda. It is their right to set the charter. There will be many watching. I will be watching, too, and expecting to see progress.
One aspect I wish to raise is the reference to a perceived lack of inspections of workplaces by inspectors. The key word there is ‘perceived’. That really does need to be scrutinised a little bit more. Also the ‘perceived unwillingness to issue improvement notices’. A perception is simply a perception. I would like to see that addressed a little further in the body of the statement, and I don’t see that issue really being addressed. I have an understanding, through what I have heard, that there is a shortage of inspectors and there is an inability of the agency to undertake the task that is outlined here, which is not directly addressed at all in the statement. I guess this is not the first and the last statement. As I said at the outset, it sets the parameters. But I do wish to draw attention to the fact that a perception is a perception and the capacity of that perception to be altered by adequate resourcing is really the challenge which is not addressed.
I understand that the NT Chamber of Commerce would be reasonably happy with what is outlined here. I ask that due attention is given to the relationship between employer, employee and the medical fraternity in that when a doctor is consulting with a patient - I understand in Western Australia, if that patient is a worker who is injured, it is the requirement of that medical practitioner to liaise directly with the employer. That is a very fitting protocol because it is a complete equation that the medical practitioner is there to assist that worker to return to work and to tighten that linkage would be very beneficial indeed.
With those few comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to receive this Work Health ministerial statement from Minister Stirling. Indeed, the reforms that are currently underway within Work Health have been long overdue in the Territory. We have had injured workers stuck in a system that was under resourced and moribund for years; some of my constituents to this day still are not receiving work health payments and are still in a litigious scenario. The reforms that are outlined within this ministerial statement certainly break the back of the existing problems that have caused concern to the staff within the Work Health sector of government, the workers, the unions, and industry.
I say this because, when I was door knocking, I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who worked for Work Health. We had an hour and a half discussion where he went through in detail and explained to me some of the problems that he saw existing within his workplace …
Mr Elferink: I hope that conversation was recorded there, Syd.
Ms LAWRIE: …it was very very alarming, I have to say.
Mr Elferink: I would hate to have been the person from Work Health.
Ms LAWRIE: I beg your pardon?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just ignore him.
Ms LAWRIE: The reality is that if you have lax work health provisions, and if you do not pay attention to reforms that move with work practices and reflect a shift in work practices, a shift in recognition of the importance of occupational health and safety, then you really are creating an environment where injuries are far more likely to occur.
In the report, the member for Blain mentions a reference to industry perceptions, that there is ‘a perceived lack of inspections of workplaces by inspectors; perceived unwillingness to issue improvement notices or to prosecute employers who appear to be continually in breach of the occupational health and safety regulations of the act; and a belief that workplace accident and injury rates in the Territory were unacceptably high’. I have to say that, from my contact with industry, that is a very true reflection of the view out there. I know of businesses which have actually sought out Work Health, have sought out a workplace audit of their premises, have had to wait a substantial time to receive work health inspections, then wait many, many months before they even received a report on the outcome of that inspection.
In that time, who is responsible if there is an injury to the worker? I know of tragedies that have occurred in the Territory. I am not going to go into them in detail. I respect the families who have been affected by the deaths. We cannot do too much to ensure that we have safe workplaces. People have the right to go work believing that they will come home in the evening to their families; just as employers have the right to expect that they can rely on the support from government to be given the information that they need to provide safe workplaces. I believe that employers have the best intentions in terms of providing safe workplaces. I believe that equipped with the information and understanding of occupational health and safety in all of its detail applicable to their specific workplace or industry, employers do then make progressive steps forward to ensure that they are providing safe workplaces.
I do not believe the myth that there are employers out there who are trying to harm their workers. I think that many people go into business relying on their particular skills. Perhaps they have come up through a trade and they see an opportunity to set themselves up in their own small business. They start off on their own and through sheer hard work and effort they succeed. They acquire staff. Those employers are not occupational health and safety experts. They really end up being in a very precarious situation where they are exposed to being hauled before the courts if there is an accident and severe injury to a worker, or, perish the thought, a fatality.
Yet that is the trap that NT employers have often found themselves in because there has not been the support on the ground that they have needed from government in the past. The previous government just did not want to know about it. In fact, whenever this team within Work Health worked very hard to get to the point where they were saying to government, ‘Look, we have done these reviews and this is where we need to head’, they were stymied.
I commend the fact that we have moved Work Health out of the Department of Business and Industry and into the Department of Employment, Education and Training because Work Health is about employment, education and training; it is about those linkages. I believe that this fundamental shift into sitting where it needs to go will go to minimising injury incidents. The statistics in the ministerial statement shows the transport industry has an injury incidence rate of 33.6 employees per thousand resulting in compensation for five or more days. We have seen an improvement in the construction industry - say, in the last five to six years since the CFMEU came to town - but, in 1997-98, the injury incidence rate for employees resulting in compensation for five or more days stood at 25.1 employees per thousand. Those statistics are above the national trend. It would be negligent for any government to ignore those sorts of statistics yet the previous government ignored those statistics year after year after year.
They seemed to be content to allow the bread-earning mother or father of the family to be injured at work. Sustaining an injury at work often means sustaining an injury that you carry for the rest of your life. It is well recognised, for example, within the nursing profession, that they run a high incidence of back injury. Back injury is no small matter; back injury can restrict your movement for the rest of your life, restricted movement such as being so crippled by pain that you end up being completely bed-bound. These are the realities of some of the workplace injuries that have been occurring in the Northern Territory.
In the mini-budget, in terms of addressing the resources, we did put in additional money into work health. Very clearly, as soon as we could, we sent a message out there to the people who work in work health to industry, to workers, that we are going to take the issue of work health very seriously. Previously, the Territory had, essentially, a toothless tiger. Industry wanted more, workers wanted more, families certainly were expecting and needing more, because the incidence of injury.
I commend the minister on ensuring that the new office will develop strong linkages with the employment, education and training arms of the department. These linkages, improving the quality and penetration of work health and safety training programs across all industries, are long overdue. They are essential. Without the occupational health and safety training programs, industry continues to be ill-informed of their rights and responsibilities, of simple measures that can be taken in the workplace to improve the safety of the workplace. It is as much as replacing the torn bit of carpet that could cause a worker to trip on and then trip headlong into a piece of machinery that could rip off an arm. One of my constituents has suffered severe back injury as a result of faulty transport equipment. This is still an unresolved issue because of the need to reform work health, which the minister has clearly stated is very much an action that he is undertaking.
I am pleased to see that Minister Stirling is reconvening the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council. How can it be that such an important advisory council has not met for almost two years? I cannot understand how the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council could not have met for almost two years. Where was the previous government? Why didn’t they ensure that crucial advisory bodies were, at the very least, meeting and feeding through to government clear advice; necessary advice; scrutinising whether or not the sector was progressing. Well, Labor has moved on this. The minister is reconvening the Work Health Ministerial Advisory Council and I congratulate Minister Stirling for that.
Our approach is a collaborative approach. It is about identifying what curriculum development needs to occur and what occupational health and safety programs need to go out into industry. I have to say that the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies representing employers embrace the proactive implementation of occupational health and safety programs. Go through any sector, any industry you choose in society where they have had occupational health and safety curriculum developed, training programs implemented, you see a much higher retention rate of workers. People start to feel safe at their workplace. They start to feel that their employer cares about them, cares about their health and we find retention rates really reflect the need for occupational health and safety in workplaces. That is setting aside the whole issue of reducing the incidence of injury and indeed fatality.
I note that the minister has pointed out that the fatality rate in the Territory, whilst subject to statistical variation in small jurisdictions, across all industries for the year 1999 to 2000 was the highest in Australia at just over six workers per 100 000 employees. Go and tell the families of those six people killed at work that work health reforms were not important, that occupational health and safety knowledge and programs were not important. These families for the rest of their lives will carry deep grief and loss of having lost a member of their families. I speak through personal knowledge. I understand that there are people out there who have been hurt through the fact that these work health reforms have sat there through reviews that occurred within the department and were never actioned or implemented for more than a year by the previous government. I say they stand condemned for that. They absolutely should stand condemned.
We are going to be also developing specific targetted occupational health and safety education and awareness courses for employees in remote localities. My goodness, would they ever have seen that before? We are not going to be relying on good luck to see these young people through to adulthood in one good piece as the ministerial statement clearly outlines. There will be an extension of programs to schools that reflect the fact that an increasing number of school-aged children are participating in the VET programs in schools, or part-time and casual work. We are not only going to be tackling the adults out there in the workforce, we are also going to be paying due attention finally, to the children who are entering the work force as well, whether it be through part-time or casual work. And there are a great deal of those out there. I have 15 and 16 year olds coming to my office all the time looking for a reference because they need to go and get part-time or casual work to help their family pay the bills to keep the roof over their head. That is the reality out in some of our suburbs. The reality that has been ignored for years by the CLP.
I commend the minister for implementing the review recommendations. Let’s just run through these recommendations, as the minister said clearly in his report, that were ignored for more than a year. The recommendations relate to:
- the ability to deem injured workers to have an earning capacity. It makes sense; it exists in other
jurisdictions. It was ignored;
an increase in work related death benefit. Again, families who loose their bread winner do not receive
a death benefit commensurate with the increase in the cost of living these days. No one wants to profit
from someone’s death. But at least let it be a situation where families who have to suffer the loss of a loved one, do not suffer the double jeopardy of financial disaster which often leads them to being evicted, either the
mortgage being foreclosed upon or indeed becoming homeless.
I will pick up on the fact that the member for Macdonnell is laughing, but I have to say to the member for Macdonnell, I have met people in this situation …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I was clearing my throat. I resent this sort of expectation that the member has that everything that I do is going to be an interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think there is a point of order. Please continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: The recommendations also seek an improvement to benefits payable to junior workers. Again, where is the controversy in that? Improved rehabilitation and return to work procedures - crucial in any work health package. Recognition of the practice of negotiated settlements; better dispute resolution procedures, improvements to the scheme monitoring processes; changes to compensation payable to claimants who are imprisoned such that claimants who are in prison outside of the NT are not eligible to receive weekly compensation benefits; and changes to compensation payable to claimants who move overseas such that those claimants will not be eligible for weekly benefit payments unless the rehabilitation process is complete.
All of these review recommendations are eminently sensible and have occurred in other jurisdictions. They are actually taken for granted in other jurisdictions. I have worked in Occupational Health and Safety in another jurisdiction. Again, in the Territory, where are we? We have been trapped in the Dark Ages by a previous government, ignorant of the responsibility of government to move forward in terms of work health legislation, in terms of work health departments, structures, and programs. It is a crucial area. Most of us go to work at least five days of the week, yet we need to be able to go in to a safe workplace. There are many people out there in industries where, by the nature of their work, they are at risk. If you work near heavy machinery, you are at risk. If you are up on a construction site and scaffolding is dangerous you have a much higher chance of dying.
These are very real situations. The member for Daly has a smirk on his face because well, he’s okay. He is in his comfortable office. These are the situations that workers in the Northern Territory confront every day.
Crucially, the second stage of what is going to be taken on, involves a public release and discussion of the Lord Report. Why would you have a report that was provided to the government in December 2001, provided to the member for Daly, and was sat on? Why would you do it?
Mr Baldwin: Which report? Which one?
Ms LAWRIE: Why wouldn’t you release for public discussion a report?
Mr Baldwin: You’re a bit lost there in your notes, I think.
Ms LAWRIE: Why did you sit on the Lord Report? I don’t understand it. But anyway, you go ahead…
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We are releasing it. We are quite happy to put the reports that you guys sat on for a long time out there because it would mean that there is this expectation that you were then going to go ahead and do some work. We know that you could not make any decisions, member for Daly. Plenty of people have told us that.
The terms of reference for the review and the subsequent report were to examine the role and process of medical practitioners in determining work related injuries, assess the extent to which medical and allied treatment practices provide a positive benefit for injury management, and examine costs, treatment, outcomes and interface between the medical practitioners, allied services and the workers compensation system. It is comprehensive and it is going to provide a sound basis for discussion of these crucial issues for the stakeholders.
These reforms outlined in the ministerial statement, as I said at the outset, are long overdue. It is just a shame that more workers had to be injured and, in some cases, fatalities occurred with the unacceptably highest rate in Australia before a change of government occurred and reforms started.
I wholeheartedly commend the minister for moving ahead in this crucial area.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and wish to provide the House with a status report on safety in the mining industry.
Honourable members may be aware that the Work Health Act does not apply to mine sites where health and safety fall within the jurisdiction of the new Mining Management Act. The act is, where appropriate, consistent with other NT legislation such as the Work Health Act, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act. It sets out the duty of care of those involved in the mining industry while taking into account the nature of mining operations. This duty of care parallels those set out in the Work Health Act.
Because of the many circumstances that could apply, the Mining Management Act sets out the varying obligations of the owner of the mining tenure, the operator of the mining operation, workers and contractors. Designers, manufacturers, importers or suppliers of equipment used on mining sites also have an obligation to ensure their equipment is safe when operated in the proper manner. These obligations are drafted similarly to the Work Health Act to ensure consistency with equipment both on and off mine sites. Persons who erect or install plant on a mine site also have an obligation that persons are not subjected to any hazard due to the way that the plant is installed or erected.
Mine site operators and the government are both responsible for safety and health on mine sites, a responsibility which this government takes very seriously to see that the citizens of the Northern Territory are protected. So what can the government do to facilitate the industry moving to safety and health best practice? Firstly, it must have appropriate legislation in place which sets the framework and conditions under which the mining industry can operate. I believe this has been achieved through the commencement of the new Mining Management Act on 1 January this year, following a number of rounds of broad consultation over a period of 2 years. No doubt some issues will arise through the implementation of the act, which may require some amendments, but I give my commitment that the government will move quickly to consult stakeholders and introduce any appropriate amendments to the Legislative Assembly.
Government must also be able to provide advice and assistance to the resource sector. The days of the policeman-like role are over. However, let’s not kid ourselves. Whilst the carrot approach works most of the time, there will inevitably be those who cut corners on areas such as health and safety and environmental protection. Then the big stick may be required.
On the national front, the resource ministers have recently endorsed a mine safety framework called Realising a Safe and Healthy Mining Industry, the Contribution of Government. Under the heading of ‘Aim and Principles’ the framework says this:
- The primary purpose of government action in occupational health and safety is to support a safe and healthy
mining industry. To do this, government’s contribution should be nationally consistent, both within the mining
industry and with other industries; encourage action by stakeholders at an enterprise level; be based on and foster
a best practice approach and a continuous improvement focus that does not inhibit innovation; and recognise that responsibility for health and safety at mine sites rests with employers and employees whilst ensuring that senior
management holds the accountability for leadership.
The Northern Territory government fully supports this approach and will be cooperating with other jurisdictions to ensure the recommendations of the framework are put in place. The new Mine Management Act reflects contemporary thinking and provides industry with the opportunity to show that it can meet the challenge of providing a safe workplace and an environmentally sensitive operation. The act provides the framework and the objectives around which industry can implement its own duty of care. Government’s view is that legislation must be flexible to meet the changes that arise due to, for example, new technologies or operational demands.
It is our intention to review the act after it has been in operation for 18 months, however, I am always interested in receiving ideas on how it can be improved and, as I said before, we will move quickly to address any major failings in the new act.
The Minerals Council of Australia has taken a lead role in safety for their industry, and I agree with their statements that all fatalities, injuries and diseases are preventable. In the Territory, our mining industry is one of the best performing in the country. The Territory’s lost time injury frequency rate has been consistently amongst the lowest in Australia in recent years and has generally trended downwards. The last published Minerals Council of Australia figures for 1999-2000 showed the national lost time injury frequency rate at 13, with the NT at nine, second only to West Australia with eight. I am concerned, however, that the Territory’s duration rate for a lost time injury has not fallen in line with the reduction of the lost time injury frequency rate. This means that the type of injuries workers are sustaining is still serious which requires them to have more time off work. This situation must be redressed, and I told the industry as much when I addressed the recent annual safety conference.
This year’s conference theme, Safety, Systems and Safety Behaviour, Their Relationship, shows that the industry is moving beyond doing what is required by legislation to tackling the issues relating to the behaviour of individuals in making work safe. The Northern Territory mining industry through its peak body, the Minerals Council, has embraced the need for change by undertaking to create a minerals and petroleum industry in the Northern Territory which is free of fatalities, injuries and diseases. This vision is achievable but it needs work and commitment from everybody involved in the industry and I certainly commend the industry on this initiative. The case for change is obvious when one considers the impact a death or serious disablement has on people’s lives, families and workmates. This pain and suffering is no longer acceptable when the industry is in a position to put a stop to it.
The Northern Territory’s Mineral Council has implemented a leadership, safety and health program which includes the following key features: safety is the prime focus in all activities and events; safety is at the top of all agendas, particularly at the executive level; the council organises an annual two-day safety conference, the only NT industry group to do so. It also organises an annual mine rescue competition that sees teams from all NT operating mines, plus one from Argyle in Western Australia, compete in a set of pre-planned exercises to improve skills, share knowledge and refine techniques in safety, rescue, medical and management areas. The council also has a dedicated health safety committee that itself has a strategic plan to improve management and performance in the industry, and to share this knowledge with other industry groups and businesses.
The Mineral Council works closely with my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in obtaining incident reports for both mining and petroleum, and this information is reviewed, shared and disseminated to industry. Also, representatives from DBIRD sit on the Health Safety Committee. I understand that just today, the Work Health Authority has accepted the Mineral Council’s invitation to provide a representative to that committee due to the council’s large number of supply members and contractors covered by the Work Health Act. Of course, the impending oil and gas-related construction and operation will fall under the purview of that act.
In closing, let me say that the Northern Territory government joins with the Northern Territory Resource Industry in wanting to see an industry that is injury free, and we will provide every support for this to happen.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this statement today. It is a very interesting statement with some very interesting points of view within it.
The member for Blain has raised a few points. I would like to raise a few more in relation to this, and to some of the comments that have been made tonight by other members, particularly in relation to the report on the Workers Compensation Working Group that looked at the operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme. It was a great report put together by all the representatives of that group. There is a dissenting report - something that you would know about, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - in this report as well. That comes from the NT Trades and Labour Council, which I am sure members on that side are familiar with. I do not purport to know a lot about them although I did bump into them once - not the NT Trades and Labour Council but their counterparts on a construction site down south, but I won’t go into that. I will leave that for another day.
Mr Kiely: Share it, share it with us.
Mr BALDWIN: No, no, I will leave it for another day. I won’t digress. It is a great story, though.
The dissenting report was done under the name of one of the members of this committee, Mr Mark Crossin, who was on the working group - who now, quite coincidentally, is the boss of Work Health. So, there’s a bit of a turn around.
A member: A good choice.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, a good choice somebody said - picking up on that interjection. Perhaps it was a choice. Hopefully, he was not chosen. Hopefully, he went through the normal merits of …
Mr Henderson: He did go through the normal processes and was the best applicant.
Mr BALDWIN: I am glad to hear that. I have a lot of respect for Mark; he has been in the game for a long time. He was part of the briefing that I had the other day on work health - particularly the HIH tax that is now in by way of this government. It is just an interesting coincidence I thought I would point out that he was on that, and he provided a dissenting report.
The minister talked about this report at some length. Members have made some mileage of the fact that I had this report for quite some time. That is true, I did; there is no doubt about that. I did have this report for quite some time whilst in government as the minister responsible. I will point out a couple more facts, and that is that I undertook to put this committee together and do this report because of concerns raised by business. I put that group together and they were a great group that provided a very comprehensive report with very comprehensive and wide-ranging recommendations. Some of the reasons I had that report for quite some time and I released it publicly - particularly for the member for Karama’s benefit - I released it publicly in June last year, was that whilst I had it I had to undertake some more actuarial advice on the way the scheme was operating at the time. That is not easy stuff to come by, it is quite comprehensive in terms of its makeup.
I had to get some fairly comprehensive legal advice on this report regarding if all these recommendations were implemented what that would mean in terms of legality and also obviously, very obviously had to look for - and this was a part that was not approached here in any major way - was some very expert medical advice and took quite a while to source the right person for that job. I have to thank the department for finally coming up with that name, Dr Trevor Lord, who had just completed a similar exercise in Western Australia, a very reputable doctor in terms of this kind of work. I am sure and as far as Dr Lord’s report goes - did the minister table it tonight? No, and he talks about discussion coming on very soon about that and the public release of it. I am sure we will see it fairly soon albeit that that report was going to come back to me around August/September. I assume that it took a little bit longer because the minister said he received it in December.
This is the report that the member for Karama mistook. In December 2001, the minister received Dr Trevor Lord’s report and I would assume from his past history that it is a very comprehensive report. When we identified the need for expert advice, it was my colleague, the member for Greatorex, who provided his expertise in terms of work in the medical field of work health and had done quite extensive, in fact nine or 10 years worth of work …
Dr Lim: Seven years at mines.
Mr BALDWIN: Seven years in the mining area of work health.
They were the reasons, and I am not trying to provide any excuses as to why it did take some time because it is a comprehensive report and the recommendations within that report are also very wide-ranging. Dr Lord has now obviously reported according to the minister. I would be very interested - and I do not know why that could not have been tabled tonight and released because it is part of this report that came down in June last year in to this House and publicly released. Perhaps he could explain why he has now sat on it for five months. I am sure it has been eagerly awaited by those who take an interest in the findings of the committee.
The findings of the committee are very interesting. As the minister has explained, the committee made recommendations on a number of things. The minister has chosen to pick up and I will have to go to your statement, pick up 26 of the 35 recommendations, 17 of which are expected to be introduced in the June 2002 sittings. I congratulate the minister for that. The 17 he has chosen are obviously very important. So, too, are the rest of the recommendations contained within this report. They are just as important as the 26 that the Labor government has chosen to take up.
So there are nine recommendations that are not being taken up. No mention of them being taken up at all. Perhaps the minister will say that we are waiting for the release of Dr Trevor Lord’s report and public discussion on that report before we move to that phase of implementing the other recommendations. Well, if that is the case we could have had that report out in December last year or, perhaps if he wanted to read it over his holidays, it could have at least been in January. I would like the minister to explain what happened to the rest of the recommendations that were put together by that working group which was made up of a great cross-section of the business community, the medical community, the legal community, the insurance community, and the union community which arrived at those recommendations.
I know for a fact that the business community through their associations are not at all happy that they are not getting the full deal as far as this report goes. This statement has been ready since February. It was supposed to have been handed down in the February sittings. The minister or his office apparently gave briefings to some of those business organisations which at that time then learnt that not all of the recommendations were going to be implemented, yet they were still going to get this 4% tax on jobs and they were not happy. They were getting a raw deal. They had put a lot of work into this. They wanted to see the full raft of those recommendations implemented. There were some delays, I assume, while the minister gave more consideration to his position regarding those 35 recommendations, and we have now, in the May sittings, the statement telling us what the direction is in regard to that report.
It is really a shame that the minister is not implementing all of those recommendations. There are some tough ones in there. There is no doubt about that. Some very, very tough ones that would meet some resistance in the community, but it was felt at least by the eminent people who were sitting on that working group that they needed to be implemented to ensure the efficiency of the work health scheme. I do not know why he is frightened of going along the lines as recommended in this report. Perhaps it is because of the dissenting report of the unions which made the point that they do not agree with some of the recommendations of the majority report. Perhaps that is the real problem here.
I know that the business community is not happy with the partial implementation after so much work that they have done on this. A number of associations have been in contact with our offices and they certainly…
Mr Stirling: I don’t know why they would bother ringing you. You did not do anything about it for 14 months.
Mr BALDWIN: I have explained that, and you can make your play on that. I have explained that.
Mr Stirling: A cheap shot. You get in here, you did nothing for 15 months.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection. I had this. There is no doubt about it. I had to do actuarial work. I had to get legal advice. I had to find the right person, an eminent specialist in this area as far as medical advice goes. Yep. It took a while. There is no doubt about it. But you have a report that you do not have to do anything with except throw it out to the community, and you have sat on it for five months.
Now, what is in that report, you might like to tell us, that you are so frightened of? So put it out there. I would have thought that, with this statement, you would have tabled it tonight. Where is it? Where is Dr Lord’s report? I reckon you have had it since before December, but I am going to take your word for it, because that is what you put in your statement, that you have had it since December. That is five months, have not seen anything. So come on, there is nothing you have to do about it, you just put it out there, because it makes up a part of this report.
In fact, in my press release in June last year, I noted I told this House and the media that:
- Dr Trevor Lord has been commissioned to study the feasibility of improving the medical and intervention aspect
once a claim has entered the system. Dr Lord, who has extensive experience in this field, will commence his review
this month and his report is expected by the end of August.
You can go on all you like about having this report for 12 months, and having to do quite a bit of work through the department and through my office after having received it.
I commissioned this report, I went out there and commissioned it. I was not afraid to look at it. I put the group together. I gave them the terms of reference and I said: ‘Go forth and look and tell us if these rises in premiums have anything to do with the work health scheme, and if there are any changes we need to make as far as the work health scheme goes’. They did a great job, a fantastic job. They came back with 35 recommendations, and that report was to me as a minister. I took on board that report, I read through that report from back to front and I went out … I beg your pardon?
Dr Lim: He is grinning at the member for Sanderson making a noise with his computer.
Mr BALDWIN: I thought the Deputy Speaker might be indicating something to me.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Mr BALDWIN: So I took on board …
Dr Lim: No, she was gritting her teeth, because of the member for Sanderson.
Mr BALDWIN: I took on board what they said. I didn’t just go to Cabinet with this. Any minister on that side would be foolish to go to Cabinet with a raw report like that without compiling all of the rest of the information. I went and got the information as far as further actuarial advice. I went and got information as far as further legal advice, and I knew that we needed certain medical advice, at an expert level, and we found the right expert. That is why it took so long. I am happy that you are going to make a play of that. But keep it in mind that you have been sitting on a report for five months that needs no extra work. It makes up a part of this report. Now you are a lazy minister for not presenting that to the business community, and to the community at large, who are very interested in this.
I would like to see the other recommendations in this report canvassed in the businesses community as to whether or not they should be implemented. I think this minister is too limp-wristed to implement those other recommendations, but perhaps he has a different story, and I am sure he has. Perhaps it is something to do with Trevor Lord and his report. I hope that is what the minister says because if that is the case then that report should have been tabled in this House tonight. The business community is waiting for the completion of this. I hope that the minister gets on with his job and implements all of the 35 recommendations, as the business community has asked, and certainly as soon as possible, if it is at all possible, gets on and releases Trevor Lord’s report.
I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to Dr Trevor Lord, not that I have seen his report yet, but I am sure that it is a very thorough and very expert report. I look forward, like the rest of the business community, to seeing it in a physical sense.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Karama, Daly and Blain for their comments. There are just a couple of issues. I won’t dignify the cheap shots opposite with any detailed reply.
In relation to the perceptions that the member for Blain was talking about, I can assure him that if he wants to dive back into the records, there was no perception. When we had that shocking spate of quite serious injuries down at Woodcutters Mine a few years ago, there was no perception. I walked around construction sites with Joe Gallagher from the CFMEU some years ago and discovered the atrocious state that some of these construction sites were operating under. I pay credit here that that picture began to change quite quickly when the now Leader of the Opposition, in his early days as a minister, had charge of work health responsibilities. We did see the place get beefed up; we did see inspections occurring; and we did see, for the first time that I have been a member of this parliament, some recognition of the seriousness of occupational health and safety, and some willingness on behalf of the government to address it.
I would like to say that that continued but, unfortunately, it did not once control of the responsibility for the Work Health Authority passed from the member for Brennan. It is the member for Daly, of course, whom we well know - and he sledges me about this report - he sat on it for 14 months, and no one knew what was occurring at any time. So, it is a cheap shot as well for him to come in here and say: ‘Well, Crossin was the author of a minority report in respect of this particular review and now, irony of ironies, he is the head of Work Health’. The fact is there was an advertisement for the position; there was a selection exercise and Crossin won it on merit as, indeed, all of the people in the public service - whilst we have responsibility for the public service – that is how people win jobs, that’s how people get promoted. It is called the merit process and it goes to the best person applying for the job. So it ill behoves the member for Daly to come in with those kinds of remarks against a public servant in charge of the Work Health Authority now.
In relation to the member for Blain, who was talking about the role of medical practitioners and the worker, the employer, and the insurance company in the unfolding process of these cases. The Lord report, of course, goes very much to that. That is something that is being worked on at the moment, and we will have a response back in here later this year, in the same way that the 26 recommendations that we have adopted - some of those are legislative – will be back in the House in June, at which time the member for Blain, as the opposition spokesperson, and the member for Daly, can feel free to have another go.
In relation to the number of inspectors, the member for Blain says: ‘Oh, there are not so many’. Well, I can tell him that they are certainly out there doing their job unlike, at different times, when members opposite had control of the Work Health Authority. I can assure him that there is one builder and one construction site in town who well knows that the Work Health Authority is on the job, and that the inspectors are doing their job, because they were closed. They were closed until they got certain aspects of the construction site, including faulty electrical equipment repaired or replaced so that it did not represent a danger to workers.
There can be no more rough justice than to be killed on the job. It is the tragedy of all tragedies – you are there doing your work and you get knocked over. A car accident and the rest, these things do happen, but to be knocked over at work, particularly where there is an unsafe work environment that has contributed to it has to be one of the worst of the knocks that families can cop.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, with those few remarks I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 18 June 2002 at 10am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, much has been said lately about collaboration between industry, government and Aboriginal people. There has also been much talk about community development and building the capacity of local Aboriginal groups in order to generate economic and social reform on remote Aboriginal communities. In this vein I would like to draw attention to the Jabiluka Aboriginal Association’s Community Development Employment program or CDEP as it is commonly known, funded by ATSIC and in particular two of their co-ordinators, David Webb and his wife, Patricia. The Jabiluka Association is based in Jabiru in the heartland of Kakadu National Park. The association acts as a resource centre servicing the remote outstations scattered throughout the park. While others talk about collaboration they are actually doing it, day in and day out.
It was a very proud David Webb and members of the CDEP program at the Territory Tidy Town awards last year when Jabiluka Association took out an award for their CDEP program. Under David’s guidance the CDEP program not only provides services around Jabiru and outstations in Kakadu National Park, they also stabilise the work of the community of Gunbalunya. The Jabiluka Association has used the Kakadu region social impact study as their blue print. They have been successful at attracting Commonwealth funding in order to bring services into the park such as the Kakadu Health Service and aged care services. The organisation has tried to bring about improved living conditions such as raising power and water facilities to World Health Organisation standards.
Recently on a trip with the Minister for Health and Community Services to Jabiru, the minister and I had the privilege of being shown a number of houses the organisation is building under the IHANT program using the appropriate building standards, that in the past has been an area not properly regulated.
David Webb and his wife, Patricia, recently left for Queensland to work with Noel Pearson and the Cape York Peninsula communities. According to the executive officer of Jabiluka Association, Leah Marr, David’s contribution to the CDEP program has been outstanding. In the four years that he has been employed with the association he has implemented a number of training courses which, prior to his arrival, few had the opportunity to undertake. Today there are quite a number of local Aboriginal people with a variety of skills and qualifications enabling them to seize what employment opportunities come their way. With the firm belief that people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves and their families, he was able to instil a strong work ethic where prior to that there was none. All this may not have been possible if it were not for ERA which accommodated him, supplied him with a vehicle and paid his wages. This is what good, practical collaboration is all about. I believe negotiations are continuing between the association and ERA regarding funding arrangements for a replacement.
Patricia Webb, whilst at the association, was responsible for the homemaker program and ensuring compliance under the IHANT guidelines. The homemaker program used to be run by many organisations and communities, and I have seen in the past the success of these programs and the positive outcomes they had. Unfortunately this program does not get much focus in terms of funding. In my opinion, where you want to get positive outcomes for health and nutrition, then this program certainly has to be looked at in terms of its funding. Patricia worked with families to ensure the housing stock was properly maintained and in the process recouped over $100 000 annually in rent. Both were firm believers in the community development philosophy of not forcing people to do anything, not being paternalistic but allowing people to make decisions for themselves. Both will be sorely missed.
People like David and his wife Patricia are hard to find when looking for honest and hard working people, in particular for Aboriginal communities and they will certainly be hard to replace.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased the Attorney-General is in the House to hear this adjournment comment because it really is to he and his Chief Minister that I direct my comments. It was interesting to note the comments of both the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister in relation to the probity audit of the provision of office accommodation.
I know I heard the Chief Minister correctly during Question Time today. The Chief Minister spoke about how wonderful her government was in having a probity audit process in relation to the tendering for office accommodation. This, she said, was in stark contrast to the previous government where decisions were made ‘behind Cabinet doors’. Obviously, the Chief Minister has not read the three letters from the probity auditors that her colleague tabled in the House on Tuesday. The second letter dated 24 April 2002 says, and I quote:
- We were re-appointed as probity auditors on 19 March 2002 subsequent to Cabinet’s decision to enter into
phase 2 of the process and interview six short-listed respondents.
In other words, the probity auditors were not even in place when Cabinet was making its decisions. But there is more. This letter, and a subsequent letter from the probity auditors dated May, both make clear that they had nothing to do with Cabinet decisions even when they were in place. Again, I quote from those letters – it is astounding:
- We are unable to comment specifically on any decision made by Cabinet as this outside the scope of
our appointment.
Sorry, Chief Minister, you’ve got it wrong again. You did make decisions behind closed Cabinet doors, and those closed doors kept out the probity auditors.
So we turn to the Attorney-General’s comment when he tabled these letters from the probity auditors, and I quote his comments from the Hansard:
- The other thing I would like to say about this development and the process that led to this decision is that – and
I would like to table this today - and that is that the probity auditor’s final sign off on the process saying that it’s
all squeaky clean, above board, done for the first time ever in the history of the Northern Territory, a fully open,
transparent tendering process with a winner and with criteria upon which they won the support from the
government clearly outlined in front of an auditor.
The Attorney-General continued:
- Now, you mob should have a look at that because if we have the misfortune that you get back into government
again, this is the way you do it, fellas and ladies. You follow an open and transparent process. You let everyone
have a fair and even playing field and you get a great result at the end of it for the Northern Territory. That’s how
you do it, and maybe you should try it in the future.
Right. That’s it. This is the harbourer of integrity now speaking in the parliament.
Now, you have to wonder if he read the letters from the probity auditors. Let’s go back on the history of this open and transparent process. On 20 November last year, the Chief Minister announced that 9000 m of office space was going to tender. Let’s not forget that figure – 9000 m. On 29 November, an advertisement on the government tender page in the Northern Territory News requested expressions of interest from property developers for the supply of approximately 9000 m of new office space. The closing date was 12 December. There were 19 expressions of interest lodged. A month and a half later, on 29 January, the probity auditors are appointed and, as they note in the first of the letters tabled by Attorney-General, I quote:
- As we were not appointed until after the request for the expressions of interest document had been issued and
post the closing tender of 12 December 2001, we were therefore unable to review the expressions of interest
document and the proposed evaluation methodology from a probity perspective, or review the procedures for
the receipt and handling of expressions of interest until our appointment. Therefore we are unable to express
an opinion over this part of the process.
So that is how you get a clean bill of health. Why didn’t we think of it? Why didn’t we ever think that the way you get a clean bill of health, certainly for the first stage of the exercise, is you don’t even have any probity auditors in place? Why didn’t we ever think of that Mr Attorney-General? But that’s not all, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. As I said the probity auditors were appointed on 29 January and were reporting in this first letter, dated 6 March, and their job, they thought, was substantially complete because the next step was the findings of the evaluation committee going to Cabinet, of course, and that is behind closed doors.
It is interesting to note that one of their jobs was to ensure the evaluation process complied with the expressed conditions set out in the expressions of interest documents. You will recall that this was the document that they were unable to review.
The next step in this saga is not quite clear, because somewhere along the line, the 9000 m in the expressions of interest documents announcements shrinks, and somewhere along the line the probity auditors finished their job. That is until Cabinet made a few decisions like reducing the number of applicants from 19 to six - a minor technicality.
The auditors are reappointed on 19 March when the process begins of interviewing the six shortlisted respondents. Nothing to do with the 13 that got the boot, the probity auditors were not even involved in that at all, they had lost their job, you shortlisted back to six, then you reappoint them again. It is all there. This is the stuff that you tabled, this is the clean bill of health, this is how you do it.
Of course, during all of this they cannot go anywhere near any Cabinet decision. Somewhere between 19 March and 8 April they again ceased being the probity auditors, because they state in the third letter that, surprise, surprise - the member for Nelson has come in. He is interested in this because anyone with an ounce of integrity would be interested in this.
The way you do it, fellas and ladies, somewhere between the 19 March and 8 April, they again ceased being the probity auditors, because they state in the third letter that, following more Cabinet decisions they are reappointed on 8 April and sign off on 7 May when there are still two shortlisted respondents. Then on 21 May, that is last Tuesday, the government announces with much fanfare that one respondent has been awarded 4300 m and that’s it. There is no more for anyone else.
Dr Toyne: We have $90m worth of development ...
Mr BURKE: Oh, all this development! When we see a bit of dirt moved then we will start really applauding it, let’s see the dirt move for them. I am just getting through the process at this stage, your applauding the process.
According to this Attorney-General, this is how you get a clean bill of health from the probity auditors. This is the new regime in the Northern Territory. This is how, fellas and ladies, you can get a clean bill of health from the probity auditors, and this is the process. You only employ them during certain phases. You do not appoint them to oversee the documents, nor the initial tendering process, and you lock them out of any crucial decision making processes.
That is what this government calls fully open, transparent and a great tendering process. If you are not kidding yourselves, then your certainly kidding Territorians, and particularly Territorian business and developers. Neither the probity auditors in their three letters tabled by the Attorney-General, nor the Attorney-General himself, have addressed the crucial question of when and why the available 9000 m shrank to 4300 m. It obviously happened behind Cabinet closed doors and away from the eyes of the probity auditors. And that is a fact.
There are a few other crucial questions still unanswered. For example, when were the respondents told? Were all 19 told or was it decided after the shortlist of six was produced? Were the six told or was it decided after the shortlist was reduced to two? Were they ever told, or were they ever given the opportunity to recast their expressions of interest accordingly?
We have the Attorney-General’s word that this is a fully open, transparent tendering process, so I am sure he will answer all of these questions. We are told …
Dr Burns: A bit like Mark Textor, is it? Full and open?
Mr BURKE: Oh, Dr Who has arrived! What have you been doing? Drinking more zoopy juice? We are told that ‘us fellas and ladies’ - that’s us over here …
Dr Burns: You mean in opposition.
Mr BURKE: Yes. …this is the way to do it by the new government. You let everyone have a fair and even playing field. The trouble is, the field shrank by more than half while the game was still being played, and the umpire kept being told to leave the field, only to be replaced by a table of seven who made their decisions behind closed doors. That is the way you reckon you do it and, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you or the Attorney-General won’t be offended when I say: ‘No it ain’t; no it ain’t’.
A member: No silver circle on this side. No silver circle on this side.
Mr BURKE: Oh, Sluggo has arrived too! Good on you, Sluggo. Sluggo’s in; they are all in.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, could you direct your remarks to the Chair, please.
Mr BURKE: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I certainly will. It is a more attractive view from this direction.
On another point, we had the Chief Minister today during Question Time, take a dorothy dixer question on the wonderful reforms her government has made for the parliamentary process.
Mr Kiely: That was from the heart.
Mr BURKE: From the heart! One of the crucial ones she said was to put legislation forward into its rightful place on the Notice Paper. But, when we do get into debate - this happens too often on legislation - we get a lecture about the opposition getting briefings and then coming in here and having the audacity to state a position that was not raised at the briefings. This is a scandalous state of affairs that you have in this parliament, that you would have the audacity as opposition to come into this Chamber and raise an issue or put a position that you have not stated at the briefing. It really is an amazing situation that we now have in this parliamentary Chamber. It is similar to the lectures we get in Question Time. Often the Attorney-General says: ‘Why are you asking this question when you haven’t even sought a briefing? You should have got an answer from a briefing’ is the general …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr BURKE: If we were to follow the advice of the government, this parliament would become totally redundant apart from formally rubber stamping government decisions. We could sit for one day every few months and pass all the legislation and totally abolish Question Time, which I am sure the Attorney-General would like and prefer. However …
Mr Kiely: Who wrote this for you?
Mr BURKE: Maybe that is the way you deal with your constituency, but this is the parliament of the Northern Territory. You have had too much to drink. Go away.
This is not the way we intend to work, because we do have respect for this institution. We will continue to come in here and question the government.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr BURKE: It would help, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if you were not gleefully laughing along with your parliamentary colleagues. You do have a position in this Chair, and in this Chamber, that I intend to respect, and I ask you to respect my comments.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I was in fact laughing at your witticisms as well.
Mr BURKE: Thank you.
Dr Burns: Yes, we all are. Good to see you happy.
Mr BURKE: We will continue to come in here and question the government and we will continue to come in here and debate the legislation. You are about ready to take off again, Dr Who, are you?
The whole point of briefings is that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is in a position to adequately debate the legislation. Briefings are not meant to replace debate in this Chamber, nor serve as an alternative to Question Time. Briefings are a time honoured tradition to ensure the opposition has sufficient information and understanding in order to continue to debate in this House. They are not meant to take place of debate in this House, and it is becoming very tiresome to be lectured by members of the government on how we should circumvent the operations of this Chamber.
We do thank the government for making briefings readily available. We will continue to take the opportunity to be informed, but we will not abrogate our responsibility, which is to represent the views and interests of our constituents in this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I might be a little boring after that. I would like to speak on a number of issues in my electorate and surrounding areas.
Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Tourism for his assistance in getting the Litchfield Tourism Task Force up and running. It certainly is appreciated that he has taken on board some of the matters that I raised about local tourism. It is an area that could be applied to other parts of the Territory. I speak especially of the Elliott district where local tourism could be expanded, especially with Lake Woods - unfortunately I am not sure of the Aboriginal name for it, but there are places like that which I think could be developed.
I speak more specifically of my own area. The task force has had two meetings since the minister announced its existence. The last meeting was a tour of the particular sites that I mentioned were worthy of tourism or had tourism potential. They were McMinns Lagoon, Girraween Lagoon and Benjamin Lagoon. The task force saw the potential of that area. They also had Denise Goodfellow, one of the local bird experts, who advised us on what was flying past where, and what was sitting in the water, and what was probably dropping things on us. Denise knew all the names of the birds that were there and the people who went on the tour obviously realised the potential of these lagoons. I know there have been some bad words about Kakadu and we are not trying to put people off going to Kakadu, but for those people who wandered today in our local area, you can find lots of things just in the Litchfield area.
Also we visited the World War II sites. Again, people did not realise the potential of those sites. We had a dossier made up with the help of the Parliamentary Library which we were able to distribute to the people on the tour. They did not realise how close or how real some of the sites still are. One site in particular, right next to Bees Creek Primary School, still has the wires that held up the camouflage for the fighter planes that used to park in the bush there. So I think they began to realise that there is plenty of potential for tourism with our heritage.
Where does it goes from here? At the moment it has been given to me to put together a series of short descriptions of all these sites and to e-mail those to our tour operators. At the moment we are right into the tourist season, or at the beginning of it, so it will be too late to do much else in a more substantial way than at least notify our tour operators that these places are there and if they wish to then they can visit them.
The second matter I would like to raise is the opening of Humpty Doo Skateboard Park. I was pleased that the Chief Minister did make an effort to come down. I am glad she did because she recognises that youth in the rural area do have needs just as much as people in the urban area. I was very grateful that she did come. I reckon Humpty Doo Skateboard Park is probably one of the best. It has taken two years to design and build. It was constructed using funds from the Northern Territory government and from the Litchfield Shire Council. The Humpty Doo Village Green has been able to put its own funds into that project. I make special mention of Shirley Preston and her Skateboard Committee who were the ones who got this whole thing up and running. I also thank the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Kon Vatskalis, for allowing a free bus to travel - we don’t get many of them running in the opposite direction, except on V8 days - but we had a bus service which went from Casuarina to Palmerston to Humpty Doo. I gather it was full of kids, it was full of skateboards and it was full of BMX bikes. I think they had a trailer on the back as well.
It was a really great day. We had a band. Much as it wasn’t quite my kind of music, I think they call it head banging music. I would call it just head banging. But it was some sort of music that some of them certainly appreciated. There was face painting and there were barbecues, all that sort of thing.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That’s the sort of music, thank you, member for Macdonnell. It is really great stuff.
They enjoyed it, and that is the important thing. They had a good day. We have now an asset in the Litchfield Shire, in Humpty Doo, which kids now can use. I am grateful to all those people who got involved and did something. The more things we can do for kids, the more things we can set up for them to keep them on the straight and narrow, the better.
I would also like to mention our Anzac Day cricket match. It is in its second year, and it is set up to raise money for Legacy. It is a day we play cricket on a World War II cricket pitch, just south of the Strauss airstrip. We call it the Strauss Cricket Ground, the SCG, and it is a great place. We played the Army last year, and we played the Army this year. Last year, the Litchfield President’s XI, as the local team is called, won. This year the Army from Robertson Barracks won. I am sure that Brigadier Roche, who is in his last year in the Northern Territory, was very happy to win it. I will give you the scores: 205 for the Litchfield President’s XI and 234 for the Army. I must admit I played for the Army this time. It was a top day.
We raised $1053 for Legacy, and we did that through the help of many people. We had a couple of notable people. We had my friend, Reg Prasad, who acted as Gupta. He was doing the match fixing and match fixing does raise a lot money. Reg is a genuine Indian bookkeeper, and Reg went down there with his pith helmet. We had the television, we had the red and green torches. Besides match fixing, he also gave third umpire decisions from the square leg area especially on things like LBWs. You could actually override that by providing him with a certain amount of money. So he raised quite a bit of money on the day and we were very pleased that he came down.
We also had Mick Murdoch at the last minute, which was great. He came down and commentated. I didn’t know Mick Murdoch was so small, but I do now, he is only a little fellow. I think they described him on the ABC the other day. But he was a great commentator and he put a bit of life into the place.
I also wish to thank Geoff Benger, the same one who is just having his nice Marrara ground dug up. He maintains this little cricket ground just off the Cox Peninsula Road. Signtec provided the chooks, and the chooks this year were special chooks because they had pluses and minuses on their backs. If you hit one, you could have got +10, but that was surrounded by two birds very close together who were -10, so you took the risk. And they certainly added to the score.
We had Max Cannon, St John Ambulance, and Rotary Club which comes down each year now. They get the bar and the barbecue going and raise quite a bit of money. I also should thank Geoff Akers from the Southern Districts Club, who put down the matting and provided all the cricket equipment. I would also like to especially thank the Army. They have made it now an annual event, and we hope to advertise it more. I should thank Brigadier Damien Roche for his work in making sure the Army arrived.
We had a number of advertisers. We had Marjorie Bishop from Birds of Paradise, Coolalinga; Kerry Akers from Creative Gifts at Coolalinga; Mitre 10 Howard Springs; Coates Hire; Stavris Coolalinga; Top End Hire; Humpty Doo Plumbing; Shed Solutions; Howard Springs Bakehouse; the Craft Basket, Reidy’s Lures and Fin Bins. Those people I just mentioned were allowed to put up an advertising sign around the oval, and they paid $50 to Legacy for that, so it was easy to make money. They all thought that Legacy was a great organisation to donate to, especially on Anzac Day, so they also took part. Quite a few of those people came down.
We had our first corporate box as well which was one of those little shade houses with a bit of carpet. They had champagne coolers, nice chairs, and the cheese and the platters. We are hoping to actually make a competition next year for the best corporate box. We would expect to see a few overhead fans, something a little bit more upmarket. They were paying for that, of course and it all goes to Legacy.
Hopefully, next year we are back again and we invite anybody in the Legislative Assembly who wants to see a genuine World War II cricket pitch only been used, we believe, this is the second or third time in 60 years. We think that that was the last time it was used. I must admit, I hope to get the minister for heritage to come down and see why we don’t want a gas pipeline through it and we don’t want a duplication of the Stuart Highway through it. It is worth keeping.
Just quickly, a couple of other items. The Litchfield Soccer Club, which is starting off in its first year, has really taken off. I do not know how many members we have but there are lots of members down there. They all now turn up to the second oval on Freds Pass. It is a beautiful oval. It is as big as Marrara, in fact it is one metre longer. They are playing there regularly on a Sunday. I know a few people in Darwin are having trouble realising that there are people in the rural area. If you want to play soccer at 8 o’clock on Sunday, you have to travel half an hour out to the rural area. Some were complaining, but we did tell them that if we have to play in Bagot Park, we have to do exactly the same. It is funny how people get the idea that you have to take a cut lunch to come out to Freds Pass, but rural people do that all the time into Darwin and we never worry about it at all.
I would especially like to thank Paul Scott. He just lives and breathes and dies - hopefully not now – soccer. He has this soccer club up and going. I am pleased to be patron of the soccer club. It is another one of those sports that is encouraging kids to get into a healthy lifestyle. I am pleased that he has done all this hard work. I should mention that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is also an ex-coach, I gather, of Mindil, which is a pretty horrific soccer team that he actually coached. I believe all those children that play in Mindil have got Greek genes in them because they just look like they are born and bred to play ...
Mr Elferink: They are wearing shorts, not jeans, aren’t they?
Mr WOOD: That’s right. They look like they have been born and bred to play soccer. They did beat our Under 14 team 19 to 1 in the first round, but we have got that down to 9 to 1. I will just tell Kon, if he doesn’t mind me using his name, watch out, we are learning, and we are learning fast. Litchfield soccer will certainly be a match for any other team soon.
I would like to thank especially Tony Hillier from Earthbuilders. The reason I would like to thank him is that we have a famous person in the Litchfield Shire called Ted Watling. He was called Mr Magic. He was crook. Ted died just recently - and I probably put that too bluntly …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Nelson has the floor. If you could have conversations outside the Chamber that would be useful.
Mr WOOD: Ted died about six months ago and many people have missed him. Not only did he do a lot of work for charity, he was involved with the local fire brigade. Our Humpty Doo fire brigade raised quite a bit of money. Ted was a member of the Volunteer Fire Brigade until I think he was getting a bit too old for it. But instead of just packing up and saying: ‘Well, that is the end of that’, he would sit nearly every Saturday morning at Humpty Doo shops raising money through the 100 club. He was a terrific bloke, he did a lot of work for the kids. They called him Mr Magic. He would do magic tricks at school and he is missed greatly in the Humpty Doo area. His widow, Ricky, lives in a house on Edwin Road in Humpty Doo. I noticed recently during the wet season their driveway was about 50 metres of water. I mentioned it to a friend of mine, Tony Hillier, who has a bobcat hire business and he does driveways, and he kindly donated his services and completely re-gravelled that driveway for her free of charge. I thought that was excellent thing to do and that I would mention it in parliament today.
The last thing I would like to mention is, and it is not so much a notice of motion as it was raised today, but I would like to let people know that I have had some people raise issues about the traineeship scheme, and the way it is presently operating in the Northern Territory. I do think there needs to be something which protects trainees, not so much from being, I suppose, terminated in their traineeship by an employer, but they need to be protected. At least they need to say when that person is being terminated, why they are being terminated. There needs to be some means of appeal by the trainee. I have mentioned it to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. He is also aware of these things. I would like to work with the government during the next few sittings to see whether some of the issues that people have raised can be addressed through the act.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight in respect of the Australian Street Circuit Grand Prix held in Tennant Creek on 4 and 5 May. Previously, I have adjourned in this House in reference to this event in Tennant Creek, however, tonight I would like to advise on the progress leading up to this year’s event.
I am pleased to advise that the 12th Tennant Creek Go-Kart Grand Prix turned out to be a resounding success. Some 85 karters travelled from all parts of Australia, including Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Darwin, Mt Isa, Alice Springs, Lismore and numerous other places. There were 14 go-karters from Tennant Creek, and 48 from the Territory in total. The hard work and dedication of the Tennant Creek Go-Kart committee cannot be underestimated, given that only 12 weeks was allowed to organise this major sporting event in my community.
Members may have heard of the difficulties in respect to securing public liability insurance for this event. Last year, the costs were around $1500; this year they turned out to be $25 000, which was a challenge for the community to get the event up. Obviously, the issue of public liability is an issue right across the community and, unless this matter is resolved fairly quickly, I fear that many other community-type events may be placed in jeopardy. I was pleased to hear in the House the other day of the Chief Minister’s commitment to work very hard in resolving this matter. I commend her for that.
It is important not to underestimate the importance of the Grand Prix in Tennant Creek, because it does provide a significant economic boost to our community. This year’s event would not have occurred without the generous support of many local businesses. I would like to read out the names of those people who gave of their time and sponsorships so generously. I refer to NorthLine Transport; Tennant Communication Contractors; Tattersalls; Territory Communications; Dexter Barnes Electrical; Imparja Television; Tennant Creek Town Council; Tennant Creek Foodbarn; BP Tennant Creek; T&J Contractors; Peter Kittle Motor Company; Outback Caravan Park; Al Bundy’s; Territory Road Markings; Tennant Creek Regional Tourist Association; Northern Territory Motor Sports Council; Kenwood; Tennant Creek Securities; Safari Motor Lodge; Ronnie Sutton and the workers from the Tennant Creek Town Council; and Tarmo Kouvamaki. I would like to comment in respect of Tarmo. On the morning in question, I got there about 8 am to meet with organisers in regard to opening the event and Tarmo had only just gone home. He actually worked all night on that track. So Tarmo, I congratulate you on all the hard work that you have put in.
Other very kind sponsors were the Goldfield Hotel; Air North; Eldorado Motor Inn; Headframe Bottle Shop; Tennant Creek Caravan Park; NT Police; Julalikari Council and the CDEP program; and particularly Henry Miller and Tony Braun; Peter Davenport; St John Ambulance; NT Fire Services; Gulf News; Tennant & District Times; Tennant Creek Newsagency; Civic Video; McKelvey Carpentry; Bridgestone Tyre Services; ANZ Bank; Tennant Creek Ford Brothers; and the Tennant Creek Pharmacy.
I would also like to mention the Tennant Creek Memorial Club which provided $30 000 in sponsorship. Obviously, if it was not for their significant contribution the event may not have gone ahead at all. Also, to the Northern Territory government and particularly the Chief Minister’s Office and NT Major Events - $35 000; and a substantial contribution from the Power and Water Authority.
I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Julie Bright and the Tennant Creek Memorial Club committee and also to Paul Cattermole from NT Major Events, Charlie Phillips and Denis Bree from the Chief Minister’s office, and Paul Shailes from the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development in Tennant Creek who played a very important role.
I pay tribute to the organising committee which, as I mentioned previously, only had 12 weeks to put this event together and they worked very hard in achieving that. I refer to Michael Dougall who is the Chairperson, and also events coordinator, Hayley Dodd and I will come to Hayley in a minute. To Ronnie Sutton, Tarmo Kouvamaki, and committee members, Paul Sawyer and Richard Par from my office, who gave their time so generously after hours, Julie Bright, from the Tennant Creek Memorial Club, Bev Kozlowski, Nigel Skelton, Richard Dodd, Arthur Hill, Tony Civitarese, and Bob Torrilla.
Above all, I would like to pay tribute to a young person by the name of Hayley Dodd, who performed a key role in organising and coordinating this year’s event. Hayley is only 19 years of age and was basically roped in at the last moment, and organised a very good event. Hayley’s commitment, dedication and enthusiasm was an outstanding effort. So Hayley, on behalf of the community in Tennant Creek and the Tennant Creek Go-Kart committee, we thank you very much for all the hard work that you put in.
In conclusion, on Sunday night I had the pleasure of presenting the Chief Minister’s Cup on behalf of the Chief Minister, to the winner of the event, William Yarwood, who has now actually won this event for the last two years. During the course of those presentations, I spoke to many drivers who had travelled from all parts of Australia. They both commended the committee and the organisation of the event and were very effusive in their praise in the sense that it was described as one of the better events in Australia. In short, this event could not have happened without all those people that I have mentioned, so I really do pay tribute to them.
There is one other matter that I would also like to speak to tonight. On 23 May, the Tennant Creek Racing Club held a very successful race meeting at Hagan Park which is the local race course. Probably in excess of 300 people attended, locals, people from out of town, but also a lot of tourists, and it was very much a relaxing day and everyone enjoyed themselves. There were five races in the program and as well as entertainment being provided for children, and fashions on the field. Thirty four horses were entered for the races and they came from Darwin and Alice Springs. I would like to thank all the sponsors, major and minor alike; without their continued support the meeting would not have happened. Some of those sponsors were Carlton United Breweries, Lasseter’s Casino, Tennant Foodbarn - all these names, it just shows you how keen and committed people are in Tennant Creek, all these businesses who obviously have also sponsored the Grand Prix as well as the races - Dean Adams Contracting, Tennant Creek Hotel, Headframe Bottle Shop, Barkly Hardware and Gas, Imparja Television, Roche Mining, Tennant Creek Memorial Club again, Taps Tubs and Tile, Neataglass from Alice Springs, Ford Brothers, McKelvey Carpentry, Civic Video, Barkly Agencies, T&J Contractors, Safari Lodge Motel, El Dorado Motor Lodge, Goldfields Hotel, Mike Nash Electrical, the Bush Fires Council, The Cloak Room, the ANZ Bank, Bridgestone Tyres, Anne-Kir Stock and Stud, the Gulf and Barkly News, Julalikari Buramana, H&R Development from Borroloola, NikNax Gifts & Cane Ware, Total Sports ‘N’ Fitness, Barkly Plumbing Services, Tennant Creek Town Council, GK Painting and Contractors, TC Sand Supply, NT Fire Brigade, Al Bundy’s, Tennant Contracting, A Man of Letters, Central Barkly Haulage, Giants Reef Mining, Tennant Security Services, Air North, St John Ambulance, Little Rippers, Cherry Communications, Alice Waste Disposal, Mr Perry’s, Rocky’s, and Buds with Style.
Again, I would also like to pay a tribute to the members of the Tennant Creek Racing Club who worked so very hard to put this event on. It is worth noting that this is the first occasion that Liam McKelvey is the president of the racing club and he works very, very hard in securing sponsorship money. As I understand it, probably something in excess of about $20 000 was raised in just a matter of two months which was our part contribution to putting on the meeting. So to Liam, I congratulate you for all the hard work you put in. Also to John Johnson, Anna Williams, Glen Jones, Lorraine Werner, Mike Nash, Dick Hall, Gail Lowe and Greg Taggart.
I would also like to thank some of the officials who travelled up from Alice Springs. Ross Lennie, David Westover, Tom Sharp, Craig Sant who was the race caller, Trevor Waples, Mike Hurley and also a special thanks to all the jockeys, and trainers, as well as Gary Owen who is the bookie. I am sure he had a good day. I am absolutely certain he went home with a packet. So thanks, Gary, for coming up.
Also some of the organisations and government departments who played a very important role: The Tennant Creek High School, the Tennant Creek Swimming Club, St John Cadets who were at the gate and I think got something like $150-odd as part of the entrance fees; PAWA; the Department of Primary Industries and Resource Development; Telstra; and QTAB.
There were many other people, volunteers, who gave their time so generously and I would like to mention David Penna, Dave Rutherford, Daryl Hayward, Jenny Ellis, Monica Staunton, Cheryl White, Ronnie Staunton, Ronnie Sutton again, Jan Rutherford, Eric Blankenspoor, Lyndal Marshall, Selina Kliendienst, and Bill Daw. A special thanks for his hard work to the Master of Ceremonies, Paul Quinlan.
I would also like to pay a very special tribute to the Minister for Racing, Syd Stirling, who came down to the meeting. I can recall talking to Syd about this a few months ago and he said he would like to come down. It was very much appreciated by the community and I pay tribute to the minister for all the hard work that he has put in. I actually also attended the racing summit in Alice Springs a couple of weeks earlier. So, Syd, thank you very much. It is also worth noting that Syd contributed $1 000 toward the event. The Tennant Creek Racing Club, Syd, extends their very sincere appreciation.
Neville Connor, a real gentleman, came up from Alice Springs for the racing and took out the Tennant Creek Cup with his horse, Zillionaire, ridden by Ben Cornell. As I mentioned previously, there were five races held on that day and Neville won three of the five races. To Neville and Ben, very well done and we look forward to seeing you back next year. Dick Leech from Darwin came down, and Stuart Brownbill, the jockey, rode the other two winners. So between Neville and Dick, they took home all the loot.
Kevin Lamprecht and his wife have been involved in the racing industry for a long time and have lived in Tennant Creek. They have since moved down to Alice Springs where Kevin his now a full-time trainer. Kevin brought up seven horses and unfortunately he could only get a second out of it and that horse, General Beam, was owned by Liam McKelvey whom I mentioned earlier who had worked so hard to get the event up.
I was hoping the Clerk of the House might be here tonight because I was going to pass on a tip to Mr McNeill from Neville Connor in regards to the Palmerston Sprint which is your major spring race up here. Anyway, Nev said to pass it on to the Clerk of the House and he has advised the Clerk to back Bathers and Gunnel in the Palmerston Sprint if they get a start.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight as a result of Question Time today. I wish to pursue an issue that, unfortunately, I was not able to pursue with a supplementary question this morning in Question Time; however, I accept the ruling of the Chair. I am glad that I have been given the opportunity, because it has given me the ability to do a bit more homework on the question that I asked this morning.
However, I will start at the beginning of this tale. It was in relation to a paper I tabled this morning, which is Paper 381 on the tabled papers register in the Tabled Papers Office, which was the article from this morning’s The Australian, dealing with the condition of hungry children in the community of Docker River. I do not particularly want to dwell too much on the contents of that article. I am sure members would have taken the time to read it. However, there are a couple of quotes from the article that I think bear reading into Hansard for the edification of members who may have missed it. I quote the first paragraph - and this is in reference to Dr Wright, a doctor who spoke out to Paul Toohey, the journalist who wrote the article for The Australian:
- In speaking out, Dr Wright has been roundly caned not only by his employer, the press paranoid
Northern Territory Health and Community Services …
And it goes on to refer to other people who also had spoken to Dr Wright about it. Dr Wright was quite moved in his comments because he was obviously passionate enough about it to speak out, and speak to the national media. I also noted in the article the following quote:
- When Dr Wright voiced his concern in a letter to the NT Minister for Central Australia, Peter Toyne, he says
an advisor rang him asking him why they should listen to him - he didn’t live at Docker River, and they had
received no complaints from the locals.
- Recently in this House you told how you were going to rescue Aboriginal health …
This was addressed to the minister:
- However, on the front page of yesterday’s The Australian I read an article entitled ‘Hungry children feeding
our shame’. In that article your department was described as press paranoid and the Minister for Central
Australia’s office was cold hearted in the extreme when approached by a doctor about the problems in
Docker River …
- … and they asked him why they should listen to him. Minister, your department castigated this doctor for
speaking out …
- Madam Speaker, minister, when I phoned the community I discovered that your department had left a notice
on the community notice board saying that there would only be two days to see a doctor because, after that,
there would be no doctor …
And I was granted leave to table a particular notice. I then completed my question:
- Minister, why are you chastising doctors who care for speaking out rather than responding to need, and secondly,
can you tell the people of Docker River why they can’t have a doctor?
I was fascinated by the answer in relation to this question because the minister stood up and engaged in the old approach of ministers long gone that, if they are not sure, you shoot the messenger. Well, in this case I was the messenger. But, he immediately set about pillorying me and that is fine; that is the day-to-day stuff of politics, I am used to that. But, what I was starting to get surprised about is when she went into the answer in some more detail. She said, ‘I do not know that person’. My reply to that is: this person works for you, minister. It is quite beyond me as how you could not know this person in that sense, because this person is your employee. This person works for you, minister.
This is where it gets a little more interesting, and I continue and quote the minister from this morning:
Also, in relation to the impugnities that you have made upon the character of the Minister for Central Australia …
I add at this stage, I made no such impunity at all on the Minister for Central Australia. My question, indeed, related to the office. I continue the quote:
I actually had a conservation with him yesterday. I understand that the person mentioned in this article, who said
he was trying to contact the minister’s office has, in fact, not had any contact with the minister’s office. He has not
had any contact with my office either.
Well that’s good. I thought this is curious because, in the article in The Australian, the journalist seemed quite sure that Dr Wright had, indeed, contacted - oh, here we are, I go back to the quote I said earlier. It said that he had voiced his concern in a letter to the Minister for Central Australia, Peter Toyne, and the advisor rang asking why they should listen to it.
Well, that indicates to me, that there is, indeed, a letter in existence - a letter. I thought if there is a letter, perhaps we can trace it. In the intervening time, I had done some hunting around. I notice that the minister said: ‘I invite this doctor to contact me’. Well, seeing that the person works for you, surely you would know where to find him, minister. But, ‘I invite this doctor to contact me’. I did some ferreting around and Lo! and behold, I found it particularly easy to locate this doctor during the course of the day. During the course of the day, I had cause to speak with Dr Wright. I would now like the opportunity, and I seek leave to table several letters from Dr Wright.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The letters that I seek to table are two letters addressed to John Ah Kit, Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs in Darwin. But, much, much more important is a letter from Dr Matthew Wright to the Hon Peter Toyne, the Minister for Central Australia, dated 4 April 2002 - six weeks ago.
This is of great concern because, I think, ‘Mmm, hang on, I’ll go back and check the answer, and I went back and checked the answer. I am curious because, according to the health minister, she said: ‘I actually had a conversation with him yesterday …’, referring to the Minister for Central Australia, ‘… and I understand that the person mentioned in the article who said he was trying to get to the minister’s office has, in fact, not had any contact with the minister’s office’. Well, I am curious. I am curious …
Dr Burns: Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I know that the member for Johnston did have a childhood trauma when he merely came second in a Darth Vader impersonation contest. I would ask him on this occasion to keep his mouth shut, because I am very concerned that the letter that was sent through to the minister’s office was ignored by the Minister for Central Australia, or he knew about it and he lied to the minister for health.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it on this occasion, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, because the issue is much more important than the semantics of the argument.
He deceived the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell has withdrawn. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an interesting situation we come to because one of two things happened. Either the Minister for Central Australia, in his conversation with the minister for Health, deceived the minister for Health and misled her in relation to correspondence between himself and the doctor, or the minister for Health did not have that conversation with the Minister for Central Australia, and she came in here and misled this House. I am not sure which is true, but there is something very, very wrong.
I noticed that the minister for Health was indeed very quick to defend the Minister for Central Australia, accusing me of impugning the good character of the Minister for Central Australia. Well, I agree. I think the Minister for Central Australia does have a good character. So this leaves us with one conclusion only. That conclusion is that the minister for Health has come in here and said something which was plainly wrong. The Minister for Central Australia had had contact from the doctor six weeks prior to this article being written – six weeks prior to me asking the question in this House this morning. The minister for Health said that the Minister for Central Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: At the end of the day, the issue is quite straightforward. You are either in control of your department and your office, or you are not. If you are in control of your department and your office, and you come in here and say that something is blatantly wrong, then you are misleading this House. If, however, you are not in control of your department, you come in here and say that something is blatantly wrong, then you are incompetent. So which is it? Is the Health minister deceiving this House, or is she merely incompetent? In either instance she should resign. She should resign over this and she should resign for the continuous problems that she is having in her department.
This department cannot supply doctors to rural and remote people in Central Australia. It has cut funding to doctors in the community of Hermannsburg. It is now failing to provide a doctor for the people of Docker River. It is getting national press.
The other problem is that the programs that she is talking about introducing to rescue all of this are at least 15 months away by her own statements in this House the other day. So what is she going to do in the meantime? The fact is I do not think she is capable of doing anything, because she is either incompetent or she is dishonest. Because those communications have been made.
There is one other aspect of this which is of concern, and I start out by saying this may merely be coincidence, and I would accept it if the Health minister comes into this House and says that it is coincidence. However, as I understand it, and I do have this information third hand, I qualify this. But, as I understand it, the doctor who was chastened for speaking out and for caring, was chastened by a staff member of the minister’s office in Central Australia. The information I have received is that there is a relationship between that particular person and a director of the shop in question in the article in The Australian. I would like some answers from the minister for Health. She should come into this Chamber and explain, right now, exactly what she is doing about these issues. She has either been incompetent on this occasion, or she has deceived this House.
And members, as well as the people of Docker River, as well as the whole community of Central Australia, as well as the whole community of the Northern Territory deserve an explanation before we become a national laughing stock.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight because it is appropriate to advise the parliament of the excellent work performed by The Gap Youth Centre in Alice Springs which I am very proud to say rests in my electorate. I am sure this will be of interest to members. I spent some time at The Gap Youth Centre last month in an effort to learn more about this important service. It was a very interesting and useful experience.
By way of background, in 1986 the centre was registered as an Aboriginal Corporation. It is a not-for-profit organisation which is funded by grants from the federal government and, as I understand it, the main funding departments are the Departments of Sport and Recreation, and Family and Children’s Services. The centre also fundraises when it can. Expressed simply but eloquently in its mission statement, The Gap Youth Centre provides a safe environment for youth to pursue recreation, sporting, cultural and educational activities.
The centre aims to improve the quality of life for the youth who attend by instilling in them respect for themselves and others, assisting them to reach their potential and teaching them good citizenship skills. It has a number of facilities including a basketball court, pool table, computers, Kinda Gym equipment, amusement machines, dance room and other sporting equipment.
In addition to all of this, the centre offers a number of very interesting programs, and I would like to take some time to outline some of them for the benefit of members. The variety of services is quite amazing and they are all being provided from the centre in Gap Road. For instance, The Gap Youth Centre operates Deadly Mob mentoring which is a career mentoring program aimed at indigenous Year 10 students. It includes On Site which is one-on-one mentoring and a web site featuring an online mentor gallery.
In November last year, the Deputy Prime Minister attended the centre to announce a grant of $233 000 to establish the Deadly Mob Caf. Once operational, it will join an innovative range of early intervention programs on offer. The caf will provide public access to online services targetting indigenous people and their families. It will be a safe, and drug and alcohol free, environment. It will provide IT skills training for people who do not have access to information technology. It also runs Youth Online which provides computer access for youth to research, surf or just have fun on the internet. It also provides training in information with youth producing a weekly half-hour radio program for CAAMA radio.
It is designed to show Aboriginal youth in Central Australia and in particular in remote communities how they can be part of the wider world by accessing the internet and how they can take their ideas and culture to a wider audience by providing adequate facilities and trainers. The target group is 5 to 25 years of age and Aboriginal youth. On site training and supervision is also part of the program. The radio part of the project is operated, as I said, in conjunction with CAAMA radio. The project aims, amongst other things, to give youth higher self-esteem, improved access to and retention within formal education, improved literacy, numeracy and computer skills, and a greater understanding of how the internet works and its relevance to young Aboriginal people. In addition, an Education Department funded homework centre is available for students and I met with and talked to some of the students when I was there.
Another program offered is the Reconnect program. It is an early intervention program aimed at young indigenous people between 10 and 18 years of age who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless. With an approach towards support, Reconnect increases their opportunities in work, education, training and accommodation. It aims to assist young people and their families to identify and address factors relating to the young person leaving their home. Where it is not possible to remain at home, then other living arrangements are made. Reconnect also assists young indigenous people with any other issues relating to their well being and social interactions.
In practical terms, the program works with young people who are at risk of homelessness and their families. Families with young people at risk are of great concern to the staff and management at The Gap Youth Centre. The Gap Youth Centre services the Alice Springs town area as well as surrounding communities and outstations in the administration of its Reconnect program. The Centre is always on the move and looking to adopt and embrace new projects and new ways of improving the lives of young people in Alice Springs and, in particular, indigenous people.
Recently I was approached by a representative to seek my support for something called the Uncle’s Program. The project was started interstate and federal funding is being sought to implement the project in Alice Springs. It is about recognising that boys and young men figure highly in a number of social problems which negatively impact on the community. Many of these young boys and men lack direction and are not living fulfilling lives. It is a mentoring program similar to the more widely known Big Sister, Big Brother programs interstate. If successful, it will add to the range of services the Centre will provide to and for the youth of Alice Springs. I am very pleased to say that I wrote a letter of support in respect of a recent application for funding.
In closing, I would like to briefly mention the Director of the Gap Youth Centre, Joanne Miller. It has been under her direction that significant advances to services have been made and her skills are a real asset to the Gap Youth Centre. In 2001, Joanne was named the Northern Territory Telstra Business Woman of the Year. At the time of her award, she said that her win was for all women working in the not-for-profit area, because a good business was not always about making a profit, indeed that is true. She has won a host of other awards over the years and has numerous qualifications, but importantly, she is committed to the provision of quality services for young people and her commitment, drive and energy are to be commended. She clearly engenders enthusiasm and commitment with her staff, which I saw when I was there. I thank Joanne Miller and all of her staff for allowing me the opportunity and the privilege to spend some time at the Centre. I very much look forward to working with them during my term.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the Parliamentary Record three different issues.
Firstly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association members, particularly those in government, will have opportunity, I would expect, to be involved in CPA functions. I would encourage members on any side to avail themselves of an opportunity to be involved with the CPA. We can become preoccupied with our own patch and get involved in little battles that we might play here, but it really is very good to be involved in a wider school of Commonwealth parliamentary colleagues who do broaden our experience as parliamentarians and allow us to recognise that we do have a very deep and strong heritage which we can then bring in to our Chamber and then back out in to our electorates and provide the leadership that is necessary.
The aspect that I would like to speak about is one that is good news. There is a CPA Education Trust Fund. That trust fund is tapped, from time to time, by different Commonwealth parliaments to avail themselves of funds to assist them in training. The trustees of this fund have been grateful for the ongoing participation of the parliament of the Northern Territory since the fund’s inception. On several occasions, the Northern Territory has provided programs for training attachments for visiting Pacific parliamentary officers, as the size of the parliament and its relative proximity to some of these CPA branch members, has made it an ideal partner in these exercises.
Those who have not been involved in CPA events or have any experience in this regard, might not even know of the breadth and, in my experience, the richness of this organisation. But further to this, it is important to recognise that the Northern Territory has been recognised as a leader within the whole CPA which takes in all the Commonwealth parliaments of the earth. In terms of its innovation, the last Small Countries Conference that was held here last year pioneered a particular strategy of having groups work together which captured the attention of the executive based in London. As a result of that, the prominence and the respect of the Northern Territory office has been accentuated to the point that they have sought an officer from this parliament to attend to the request of the parliament of Niue to receive assistance in conducting a seminar for new members of parliament.
I advise honourable members that Jan Sporn has been nominated to fill that position. That brings honour to her but, more importantly, to this parliament and to good work that has gone on behind the scenes – which many members may not be aware of – of the regard the Northern Territory parliament has in the broader scheme of the CPA. So, congratulations to Jan, and I am sure she will do us proud in Niue.
Secondly, the Isolated Children’s Parents Association is an association of parents who have a common aspect of being charged with the responsibility – just by being parents – of looking after their children. But, they are in remote locations; they are primarily on pastoral outstations. The reality is, that often, if we are in an urban environment, we do not understand or even spare a thought for the challenges that are facing a mum or dad bringing up their kids, encountering early literacy and numeracy for someone who has no access to their peers or normal school environment, as we are accustomed.
Through my own experience I believe that those isolated parents who are raising their children right across our great country need specific support. The Northern Territory has a higher proportion of them than any of us probably appreciate.
I would like to raise one aspect of concern that the ICPA members have constantly articulated. If anyone has had any experience with people from a rural background, you know when they say they have a concern, it is a concern. They don’t beat about the bush, they don’t like to complain, but when they do state their case, it is a case. The case is that those who are running pastoral stations and happen to have children are, of course, responsible for the education of their children. Granted, they are supported by the Territory Education Department and supported by the federal government.
But there is one aspect of this support that I think is deficient: the recognition that a parent can be useful, of course, in providing the education of their child, but in providing that educational support, they are actually drawn away from the support that they can offer to their employment, and in support to the actual enterprise that they are involved in. It is that specific area that they are actually held captive in many respects. They do need to be recognised; that they cannot abandon their children. Many times, in the recognition of the needs of their child’s education, they are actually withdrawing their support from the enterprise in which they are involved.
I call upon the minister to pay particular and careful interest to the isolated parents who are calling upon this minister, and calling upon the federal minister also, to recognise that they do need support; and that is financial. They are not asking for a lot, but they are asking for recognition for the contribution that they actually do make. If they chose not to make it, I think we would be able to follow the implications of that withdrawal, and unpack the actual cost of supporting that child. They provide it, but they cannot spread themselves too widely. I ask that this parliament and the ministers referred to: please consider carefully the concerns of these parents in terms of the support that they offer to their children and to their other roles on their pastoral leases and so on.
The ICPA recently held a conference in Katherine which I was fortunate to be able to spend a short time at last Friday, just to meet them and to let them know that we in urban environments do recognise their existence and the work that they go through. They have a number of motions that they have discussed and once again, as the minister and federal agencies become aware of the motions that were discussed at that conference, I would ask you add just a little bit extra to it. When parents from remote locations decide to say something, that is simply it. They really do mean it, particularly in respect of financial support for the role that they play in educating their children.
The third issue I wish to raise is of quite a different nature. I recently received acknowledgement of a resignation from the President of the Palmserton RSL, Mr Ian Aiken. Ian Aiken is a long term Palmerston resident and a constituent. He is one of those characters who has contributed in many different way. He supports many of our seniors groups and other groups in catering, and he does it for the love of it. There is never a sense that he is doing it for any personal reward other than the reward of serving his community. He stepped forward to provide some leadership to the Palmerston RSL. I take the time, firstly, to acknowledge the leadership that he has provided in our community, but secondly, there is another aspect of this resignation that needs to be addressed.
He informs me, that he, today, which was a couple of days ago, resigned as the president, and I compliment him on his service. He refers to a no-win situation with the club. He has come to a point where he feels he cannot move any further forward. But he still wishes the club and the membership of that club all the best for the future. He offers his thanks and the thanks extends to the CLP government for the help that was provided to this club whilst he was the president. That help was genuine help. It was no strings attached. It was just a group of people who are in need of support, a no more worthy group than the RSL.
Their club was infested by white ants, and I think it was a couple of years ago there was a bit of a fire and the whole thing was seriously condemned. Though it had been on the books for many months that something had to be done, been acknowledged in fact for years, that something had to be done, the white ants and the fires made sure that something was done. And it had to be done very quickly. I had been to a couple of AGMs and I offered to respond to the needs that were expressed. I did not feel very comfortable by making such a statement unless I felt that I would give my all to ensure that they would have their needs met.
I was satisfied when we were able to put in place the very things that were being articulated by the membership of that branch - that being a new club house and a covered area outside. That RSL club is now equipped with the very things that they have always wanted. I placed it upon the AGM of that club a number of years ago when I was new to the job. I said: I assure you I will do the very best I can to deliver what I can deliver, but I ask the membership of this club deliver something that only they can deliver, and that was to build the membership of the club.
The argument at the time was how can they build the membership, they haven’t got the facilities. I said, let me work on the facilities, I will do what I can. It took some time. I sometimes was not sure whether we were going to pull it off, but I think the white ants helped, but we managed to pull it off. Now I turn to the membership of that club and say: Now you have what you have always wanted, and I can say with some satisfaction that what I said I would deliver, with the support of my colleagues who were in Cabinet at the time, we now have.
But the membership of that club is a concern. The membership has declined substantially and we have this sad resignation from Ian Aiken, and I acknowledge his hard work.
The point I come to is this: there was a time when things turned a little bit strange at that club. I was approached to be the patron and I had learnt that another approach or offer of patronage had been made and I thought, ‘I do not want to get involved in something like this. All I want to do is to deliver what this club has asked for and once I have acquitted that, then I would be happy to stand as patron. But I am not really wanting that office more than to be able to walk around with the satisfaction that I have done what I can do as the local member’. So I declined the offer of patron at that point. I understand that the now Chief Minister accepted patronage of the Palmerston RSL. I use this opportunity as the local member to inform the Chief Minister and to request the Chief Minister that she please become actively involved in the current situation at the Palmerston RSL for no other reason than this club is in need of some assistance.
I am coming from the point of view that the club now has the facilities which I think are quite adequate. A club is buildings in one respect, but a club is actually membership and it is the whole ethos of the membership. The problem is that we have the Northern Country Music Association which also want to make use of that facility and there is serious need of attention in terms of tying together the aspirations of those two groups in a facility that has been funded by the Northern Territory government. So I ask the Chief Minister, the patron of this club, to intervene in the affairs and the activities of this club.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in adjournment tonight to pay tribute to a very special lady. The lady’s name is one Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann. Miriam is a lady who comes from the Daly River area and is the principal of the school at Daly River. Tonight, there is a great tribute being paid to Miriam at the Northern Territory University graduation ceremony. Miriam has the honour of delivering the Occasional Address. It is no coincidence that Miriam is delivering the address tonight because tonight the Northern Territory University is conferring on Miriam a Doctorate of Philosophy. I congratulate Miriam-Rose for this achievement. It is an outstanding achievement. I also congratulate the Northern Territory University for recognising the work that Miriam has done.
The Doctorate of Philosophy is for the work she has done in the field of education which is very extensive and would take me longer than 15 minutes to talk about that. My association with Miriam gives me enough information to elaborate a little in the time that I have tonight and it is a great story. Miriam-Rose was known in her younger years as Rosie, and she was brought up predominantly by her uncle and her uncle’s wife. When you look at it, it is a very interesting story, that part of it. Two brothers married two sisters and Miriam’s father passed away when Miriam was very young. Her uncle, who she calls ‘father’, and her uncle’s wife, who is really her aunty, brought her up for many years.
Miriam had a great upbringing, not only in Daly River. Her uncle who was looking after her was a tracker with the police in Daly River and was transferred, as a promotion I believe, to not only Adelaide River, but to Mataranka and also to Pine Creek. Miriam, in her young days, went with her uncle and aunty to those places. She went to infant and primary school in those communities. I guess from that point Miriam had a broad outlook on life, and has had some amazing achievements in her lifetime up to this point where she has been conferred with a Doctorate. It is going to be very interesting to call her Dr Miriam-Rose Baumann from this point onwards.
Miriam has three degrees; two education degrees in various streams, and also a Masters Degree, and now an Honorary Doctorate, which is a fantastic achievement in anybody’s terms for a lady who is still in the prime of her life. I should not mention her age, because she does not like it to be mentioned, but certainly still a young woman in anybody’s terms. It is a great story, and she has the privilege tonight to tell that story in her Occasional Address when she addresses the graduation ceremony. I had the opportunity this afternoon to slip out to a special afternoon tea to honour Miriam which was being held by the Catholic Education Office at their premises, and heard the honour that she was getting later on at the university. I could only stay a short while as you would understand. Obviously not being able to be at the graduation ceremony tonight with my wife is a bit of a disappointment to me. I believe that the speech that she would have given, some hours ago now, would have been a great one and would have moved the vast audience that usually attends the graduation ceremony at the Northern Territory University.
Miriam is an outstanding person who has some great views on life. She is a traditional Aboriginal woman who has gone out into the contemporary world, If I can call it that, travelled widely, but always dedicated to the education of her people and the enhancement of the people of the Daly River region. She is responsible for the art work that we see, and I am not saying just alone, she is responsible, but certainly as a catalyst for the unique art work that we see at Daly River. In a week’s time we celebrate the Merrepen Arts Festival. I know the Chief Minister is going and if members want to go to a great festival, then Merrepen Arts is a great one to go to. It is in the first week of June. Once again, the DSO is playing on the Saturday night before the Merrepen Arts Festival and it will be a great weekend.
Miriam was very much a part of those early days of bringing art back to the community, the traditional art that is so inherent in people. She was also involved in some written works that look at the life of the people of Daly. I pay tribute to her tonight for this outstanding achievement. It is fantastic that her work, which she goes about in a very quiet way, has been recognised by our leading educational institution, the Northern Territory University. As I said, I congratulate them for recognising her work and choosing Miriam to honour her with a Doctorate of Philosophy and giving her the opportunity to stand in front of that crowd and deliver the Occasional Address which the Chief Minister is having the opportunity to do tomorrow night, so it is no small thing. Miriam will have her family and her friends there, many of whom turned up today at the afternoon tea to celebrate with her.
I would like to put on the record my congratulations for a job well done, for a lady who never asks for any recognition, but always seems to find it coming to her door. She is an extraordinary lady and tonight’s honour is one way that the Northern Territory community at large is showing their appreciation for the work that she has done in the educational field.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016