2005-05-05
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 and Year 5/6 students from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by Wendy Williams, Catherine Olssen, Lesley Streeter, Denise Ryan and Dale Milne. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the government for lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm that this budget will go through the estimates process before the next Territory election and, thereby, failing to fulfil their 2001 election promise to provide open, honest and accountable government.
Madam Speaker, I am moving this censure motion …
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in responding, the government is reluctant; however, we will accept the censure motion. It is spurious and I want the Leader of the Opposition to get it over and done with as quickly as possible so we can get on with the real business of this House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censure the government for lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm that this budget will go through the estimates process before the next Territory election and, thereby, failing to fulfil their 2001 election promise to provide open, honest and accountable government.
The Leader of Government Business said: ‘I hope the opposition gets this censure motion out of the way quickly so that we can get on with the real business of parliament’. The real business of parliament is not listening to press releases coming from the government with little ability for the opposition to respond. The business of this parliament today is to put the Chief Minister on notice and give her the opportunity in this parliament - unfortunately and reluctantly by this censure motion - to finally give an undertaking to Territorians that she will live by that which she preaches; that is, a government that came to power on a mantra of open, honest, and accountable government. The Chief Minister needs to give an assurance today, before we go to the next election, that this budget that has been brought down by the Chief Minister two days ago goes through the full estimates process. That is the obligation and responsibility the Chief Minister has to Territorians, and the obligation and responsibility she is happy to fulfil.
I am hopeful that we can do what the Leader of Government Business says - get on with other business - because I would have thought a Chief Minister who was proud of the budget that she has just brought down, and of the fact that it will deliver what she preaches, would be quite happy to go to Territorians and say: ‘We will definitely go to estimates. I want to go to estimates because I want to make sure that Territorians and this parliament have every opportunity to question the budget process’.
It matters little to me, in fighting the next election, whether the Chief Minister calls the election today or tomorrow, or after the estimates process. The CLP will fight this election whatever situation is given to us. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Chief Minister is prepared to open her budget books for public scrutiny, and for the scrutiny of the parliament. I have made that request to the Chief Minister on a number of occasions. She has used weasel words on every occasion that she has been asked, to such an extent that even Imparja Television shoved the microphone in front of my face at the Alice Springs Cup saying: ‘The Chief Minister has given an undertaking that we are going to estimates’. I said: ‘Are you sure? I have raised this on a number of …’ ‘Yes, we are absolutely sure. We have it on tape. How do you respond to that?’ My response to that was: ‘That complies with the legal advice I was given’.
The legal advice I was given was that when the Chief Minister decides to call the election the first thing the Administrator has to ask her is: ‘Can you guarantee supply?’ If the Chief Minister cannot answer that question, there are real difficulties in the Administrator accepting that the government can go to an election. Apparently, that is the question the Administrator is required to ask. Therefore, on the advice that I have received for some time now, it is logical that the budget that has been brought down has to go through the full appropriation process before the next election, otherwise the CLP in government will have to bring forward another budget as quickly as possible in order to guarantee supply. That is the legal advice I was given.
I would have thought that those sorts of things would go through the mind of a responsible Chief Minister coupled with the fact that: ‘I am proud of my budget; I am in government’. Why isn’t it an easy answer to give? Why do we have to continually try to play games with what I believe is the central responsibility of government; that is, that you are charged with responsibility for the taxpayers’ purse.
You have brought forward a budget that has various figures in it, one page on which we have already established you cannot add up, but we are assured these are minor typographical errors. We have a range of questions that need to be asked, not only in relation to this budget but also on a range of other issues associated with this budget that have arisen directly or indirectly. I can go through them, and I forewarned the Chief Minister of many of those issues last night. We are in an atmosphere whereby the debate in the streets is: will the election be called today? Will the election be called next week?
I want to give the Chief Minister this opportunity to dispense with this censure motion quickly, to re-establish some sense of credibility, integrity and honesty, to probably get back, in part, to that mantra of open, honest and accountable government, and say: ‘Yes, I give an undertaking we will be going to estimates before the next election.’ Then everyone would know where they stand. I would think that is what the public service would need to know because of the enormous amount of work the public servants need to involve themselves in, in preparing for estimates, as is the responsibility of the government and independent members. An enormous amount of work needs to be done in preparation for ensuring that this budget is properly scrutinised in the way the public purse should be scrutinised in a similar way that every public company in Australia needs to have their books open and be accounted for. To not do so would put the Labor government, I believe, in a position going into the next election where no one could believe anything they say. I do not believe that is what the Chief Minister is going to do.
I believe, logically, we will go to estimates and, therefore, the election will be called after the estimates process. This censure motion gives the Chief Minister the opportunity to simply lay that on the record.
It is worth reminding the Chief Minister that, if she looks at her policy in 2001 in response to good government, her mantra was one of open, honest and accountable government. Her mantra was one of believing that we should have fixed, set terms. I notice in government they quickly moved away from that and they are looking for every opportunity to try to trick everyone as to the election date, something that they thought was not so great when the CLP was in government.
There is more to this censure motion than simply the budget being interrogated at estimates. The word on the streets is that financial close to the waterfront project could occur within the next few days. I asked a series of questions yesterday of the Chief Minister with regards to the waterfront project, questions that the Chief Minister could not answer.
Ms Martin: Rubbish!
Mr BURKE: We find at about 11 o’clock last night …
Ms Martin: Just because you will not listen does not mean I did not answer.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says: ‘I could answer it’. If you look at the Hansard transcript, you had no idea of what was going on at the Development Consent Authority yesterday to such an extent that someone jumped on the phone and said to ABN Amro: ‘You had better knock out some sort of a press release in clarification so that we can recover some ground on what is happening with this waterfront development,’ on one issue, and that is whether there is a lock and a marina in this development …
Ms Martin: What did I say in the parliament three, four, five times? There is a lock, there is a lock, there is a lock.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister has said there is a lock in the waterfront development.
Ms Martin: There will be a lock.
Mr BURKE: There will be a lock. Whether there is a lock in the waterfront development, what the Chief Minister needs to accept is that there is absolute confusion out there as to what exactly this waterfront project is going to comprise at the end of the day. That confusion has been added to by the obfuscation of the Chief Minister under this guise of commercial-in-confidence. Remember what commercial-in-confidence meant to the Chief Minister when she was the Leader of the Opposition? ‘I believe everything should be open. I believe nothing should be commercial-in-confidence’.
The Parliamentary Record is there for anyone to read. When she was the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister’s position on commercial-in-confidence was that it did not exist as far as she was concerned. Now, under this guise of commercial-in-confidence, Territorians are being asked to accept a waterfront proposal based on the utterances of the Chief Minister that this will be good for the tourism industry, good for Territorians and, if anyone has the gall to question any of this development, they are un-Territorian and anti-development, and that is the stone cold end of it.
That is not good enough. That is not good enough for a development that has gone from a price of $1bn in the Chief Minister’s mind to $1.3bn; a development that shows, on the Chief Minister’s plans and models, yachts sailing happily past the convention centre, seemingly getting there somehow under her model, under a waterfront …
Ms Martin: Is this a censure to do with this, which is inarticulate, or is it something else? Come on!
Mr BURKE: … under a waterfront plan that shows little boats in the Stage 1 development marina.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have interrupted the business of the parliament; there is important legislation to introduce. The censure motion goes to the issue as to whether the budget will go to the Estimates Committee process. What the waterfront has to do with this censure motion, I find very hard to read because it is not mentioned. The motion is about open, honest and accountable government in regards to the government’s budget. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to get his censure motion over and done with so that we can get on with the business of the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, surely the Leader of Government Business is not suggesting for one second that the waterfront development should not be subject to the scrutiny of the estimates process. If he is, then we are right on target with this censure motion. It is exactly the sort of thing we are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you know what your censure motion is and you are talking very clearly about the government lying to Territorians for refusing to confirm the budget will go through the Estimates Committee. That is what you should be speaking to.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I always stand ready to be assisted by you. However, I refer the government to their own budget papers, comments which are in those budget papers, and where there is confusion in the public’s mind as they relate to those comments. They are the issues that I am talking about, which are directly related to this censure motion.
That the Leader of Government Business made such a point of order makes one wonder if the government has read their own budget papers, because the Treasurer had not read them closely enough to pick up typographical and adding up errors that we picked up within about an hour-and-a-half of the budget being laid down. When it comes to the waterfront project …
Mr Henderson: What are we supposed to do? Sit there with a calculator and go through all the papers?
Ms Martin: Like you did. Syd should have added all of those together.
Mr BURKE: When you finish your childishness over there, I will continue.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the waterfront project …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Let us get on with it.
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the waterfront project, I refer the government to Budget Paper No 2, page 86, where there are three pages devoted to the development of the waterfront project, and the issue of the lock falls in the context of the budget papers announcing what is community infrastructure. We note that, in community infrastructure, the government includes a sea wall, extensive boardwalks, children’s playgrounds, swimming facilities, wave pool, a new cruise ship terminal at Fort Hill Wharf, and an avenue of honour. No mention of a lock. No mention of a marina …
Ms Martin: Stage 2.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that is Stage 2; we will get to that in a second.
Wouldn’t you have thought, where the lock and the marina and the little boats sailing past the convention centre features so strongly in all of the documentation that has been put out by government, that we would have some definition of where the lock appears as a community asset?
Ms Martin: No, it is not being paid for by us.
Mr BURKE: It is a commercial infrastructure asset, is it, Chief Minister? Aha! It is a commercial infrastructure asset, it is not a community asset.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister has now said in parliament - in fact, the Chief Minister is backed up in that by your own budget papers, under community infrastructure, we have seen that the lock has disappeared. It is no longer community infrastructure.
Ms Martin: It is community infrastructure.
Mr BURKE: We look for the lock, and under Property Development we find that the consortium ‘will develop the commercial aspects of the site over time and in accordance with market demand’. So, when it comes to the lock, a marina, and what I and any reasonable Territorian would have thought, was an essential community asset for this wonderful infrastructure project - so important that private developers put it in Bayview, Cullen Bay and Tipperary as a matter of course - that you wonder why it does not appear at all and a wave pool seems to have assumed greater importance.
You then find that anything that could be remotely associated with a lock falls under Property Development, which the consortium will develop the commercial aspects over the site and in accordance with market demand. Then, if you attended the Development Consent Authority meeting yesterday, the consortium said, after questioning, with regards to a lock, ‘we may come back later and excavate; discussions are still under way’.
So we are going to retrofit a lock. I reckon if you walk out to anyone out there and say: ‘How do you do something in the most expensive way?’ They will say: ‘Retrofit it’. The question that was asked yesterday, the answers we are trying to get from the Chief Minister are: where exactly is this waterfront project going? Where is the definition of what exactly is going to be there? What does this sea wall encompass? Does the sea wall encompass only Stage 1 of the development, or does the sea wall encompass all stages of the development? Will there be a lock in this development as a community asset, or will it be something that the consortium, by their comments yesterday at the Development Consent Authority, will put in if they feel like putting it in and in accordance with market demand at the time? The central issue is, these are questions that need answering, and they certainly need answering before this government goes to financial close on this project.
We have also seen models where, as I said, yachts are sailing happily past the convention centre, and the assessment simply is, if they are sailing past the convention centre, they have to get there somehow. What do we find the Development Consent Authority is presented with yesterday - sprinklers on chains, and buoys, aerating Stage 1. Do you know why? Because there is no other way of aerating it and keeping the water pure. When asked about the purity and quality of the water in the lagoon that they are constructing in Stage 1, the answer was: ‘We will commence assessing water quality after financial close’. That is one question that we need answering.
There are a number of questions we need to get clarity on behalf of Territorians. When is financial close going to occur? Why should financial close occur until these questions are properly answered from the public’s point of view and, certainly, the opposition’s? The opportunity to answer those questions will occur in the estimates process and, therefore, why do you need to have financial close with these unanswered questions prior to the estimates process?
You can bludgeon on, you can go to financial close but, certainly when it comes to the importance of the unanswered questions and the way this project has changed in its definition, it is a mess, it is a confusion in the public’s mind, and to go to financial close with that confusion is a disaster when you consider the Territorian taxpayers’ money is being tied up for the next 10 years. We have plans for the Northern Territory and we want to ensure any development of the waterfront fits in with our plans to develop the Northern Territory to the capacity that it can achieve, and not a contingent liability on the taxpayers’ purse. On the information that has been provided so far, there are extremely worrying signs about the contingent liability on the taxpayers’ purse.
Lying! Let us talk about lying. The Chief Minister came into this House last night and defended the member for Arnhem with regards to …
Ms Martin: I did not! An opinion, an opinion. Very clearly. Look at the Hansard.
Mr BURKE: … the investigation in the Ombudsman’s report of the gifting of a Land Rover to traditional owners. In her response, the Chief Minister was quite …
Mr Ah Kit: So, it is a Land Rover now, is it?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I again refer you to the motion that is before this House at the moment, that talks about the government lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm the budget would go through the estimates process. This issue in regards to the Land Rover was debated at length in this House yesterday. We are suspending the business of the parliament to debate this motion. This is going over old ground that was debated in full in here yesterday. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to get this censure back on the content of the motion before the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, how are you tying this in with the Estimates Committee?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking the Leader of the Opposition; it is his censure motion. Could you say how are you tying it into the Estimates Committee?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the …
Madam SPEAKER: That is what we are talking about - going to estimates.
Mr BURKE: The minister’s department will front the Estimates Committee and will, logically, be faced with questions with regards to the gifting of this Land Rover. Part of the basis of those questions will be the Ombudsman’s report, the answers to which we did not get and have not received in any debate in this House so far. That is my rationale.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Keep going.
Mr BURKE: What we have received, Madam Speaker, is misinformation from the Chief Minister in her defence of the minister with regards to that report. The Chief Minister referred to a report of the …
Ms Martin: I did not! An opinion that I received from the Auditor-General – an opinion!
Mr BURKE: … Auditor-General. You referred to …
Ms Martin: An opinion!
Mr BURKE: … ‘I referred the report to the Auditor-General and he has responded to me. I am quoting with his permission, thank you. The Auditor-General has said there was not a breach of the Audit Act …
Ms Martin: Okay. And I refer to an opinion, so do not verbal me!
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, anyone who reads the Hansard transcript, or who listened to the statement that the Chief Minister made in saying she would refer this matter to the Auditor-General, would logically have understood that the Chief Minister was making a proper reference to the Auditor-General. You can weasel out and say you did not mean that or did not do it, but I am saying to you what any logical person would believe.
Further to that, the Chief Minister has asserted that, not only was a proper reference made to the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General has reported in accordance with that reference, she somehow has that report and she is reporting on that report. Madam Speaker, that is a lie. That is a lie and, if anyone is being verballed it is the Auditor-General because, if a reference is done in accordance with the expectations, I would assume, of the Auditor-General, it would be done under section 14 of the Audit Act. Section 14 of the Audit Act requires the Auditor-General, by direction of the Chief Minister, to conduct an audit on a particular issue - not a general issue, on a particular issue - to use the full powers that the Auditor-General has under section 14, with the legal responsibility to report back to this parliament, not the Chief Minister, on the full extent of that investigation.
The Chief Minister came into this House yesterday and tried to con Territorians that that is what had occurred: the Auditor-General had completed his report and it was all over.
I can tell you that I spoke to the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General’s comments to me were that he had established this much in his conversations with departmental officers: that there was a meeting in a pub between the minister and individuals. After that meeting there was a clear understanding from everyone - departmental officers, TOs and the minister - when they left the pub the Land Rover was going to be given to individuals. The minister asked the department to sort it out. The department looked for a way to achieve that and the answer was that they would agree to give it to the council which would be gifted further on to the traditional owners.
Mr Ah Kit: Up until yesterday it was a Toyota not a Land Rover. You changed it overnight.
Mr BURKE: Big deal. The simple facts are that the Auditor-General to date has only interviewed some departmental officers, has been made aware that there is a police investigation in train, has hobbled his investigation till that police investigation is completed, and when he gets the police report he will decide what further steps he will take. In a briefing note to Cabinet, words from the Auditor-General were the words that the Chief Minister used to filibuster yesterday; and that is to suggest that an investigation that had only reached a certain stage was over, complete and the minister had been totally cleared of any wrongdoing, and there was no more of an issue to be attended to - which is absolutely wrong and goes to the heart of where this government stands.
What can we believe about this government? We are being asked to accept the budget and go to an election with no knowledge as to whether we are going to estimates. We are being asked to accept the $1bn waterfront proposal which is changing on a daily basis; where there is confusion in the public’s mind; where there is no definition as to what the project will actually end up like; where central assets to that proposal appear to be in the hands of developers if they want to look at it in a retrofitting manner at a later date, which is what was said. We have issues of environmental quality on that waterfront development which the government, in their own budget papers, has said the contingent liability on those issues cannot be determined at this date, and the developers say they will not even look at some of those issues in detail until after financial close. We have the Chief Minister coming in here trying to suggest that a statutory officer, an independent officer of this parliament, has completed an investigation and he has not.
We have to ask ourselves: can we possibly believe anything that this government says?
That is what I am saying; that is what the motion is. It asks the Chief Minister to give a clear undertaking to go to the estimates process and to answer those questions, just to name a few.
Another question I want answered is why the Chief Minister continues to deceive this House and Territorians regarding spending of taxpayers’ money on special purpose grants. This was a grant - one I could give an example of – which was to get Mr Big Pants and Mistress Natasha into the Northern Territory. In response to that, the Treasurer said he has no responsibility for those grants; these are done independently of him …
Mr Stirling: That is not true at all; I have signed them off.
Mr BURKE: … and then when someone reminded him of that, he actually signed off on those grants, he said: ‘Oh, I signed off …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: What we want to do, Treasurer, is to make sure, through the estimates process, just what grants you have signed off on; whether Mr Small Pants has also come up here as well as Mr Big Pants. Mistress Natasha and all her clan might have come up here for all we know. We want to know where your special purpose grants have actually been spent, and whether those grants have been spent in accordance with the taxpayers’ and your responsibilities.
We also want to know in estimates how you are spending the Prime Minister’s money. I checked with the Prime Minister’s office yesterday because in response to the question as to why you are paying 16-year-olds to attend sessions on ecstasy, the answer was: ‘It is a Prime Minister’s program’. The answer in this House was ‘It is a Prime Minister’s program’.
Mr Henderson: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mr BURKE: I heard.
Ms Lawrie: No, it is a Commonwealth program. Don’t twist things.
Mr BURKE: Prime Minister’s program – check the Hansard.
Mr Henderson: The Australian Institute of Criminology, Drug Use …
Mr BURKE: I want to ask questions as to how the Prime Minister would view the fact that you are paying drug users Commonwealth money to attend sessions. I would have thought the Prime Minister, like myself, would logically say: ‘One thing you are going to achieve is put more money into drug users’ hands to allow them to buy more ecstasy’.
I want to know what is happening with the 100 000 tourists who have not come to the Northern Territory and the estimated loss of those tourists of about $80m to the Territory economy. We have a whole range of questions to ask about the giving away of the parks estate and at what cost that will be to Territorians. We have a whole range of questions relating to the extensions to Alice Springs Hospital and where the liability for the contractual arrangements actually falls; how much information the government had in its own hands with regards to the extensions to Alice Springs Hospital.
We want to know why in Tennant Creek basic medical services cannot be delivered, why 140-odd people are pulled off the street in one night. When I go down there, they say: ‘Don’t go out in the street of a night because you will be shocked by what you will see’. You cannot have a birth in Tennant Creek; you have to go to Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, these are some of the issues that demand the Chief Minister goes to the estimates process. These are questions that I would have thought the Chief Minister would happily answer in such a process prior to the election, rather than trying to filibuster in this House. I have given her the opportunity to respond quickly and unequivocally that she will go to the estimates process. I look forward to her response.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I reiterate that a censure is the most serious motion in this House and …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the censure is the most serious motion you can bring into this House. If the Opposition Leader was serious about a censure, he would have prepared something rather than deliver the half an hour of incoherent ramblings that we have just heard - half an hour of incoherent ramblings based on a censure motion that does not make sense. If this is the seriousness with which the opposition is raising these issues, it is very hard for it to be taken seriously because it is such a rabble. It is such a hotch-potch of …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: What we have from the Opposition Leader is what we have heard consistently in here. The Opposition Leader makes things up, mishears things, they then become facts in his mind and then he says: ‘You are wrong’.
Let us take one example from yesterday. He said I refused to answer the question about the lock. I would like to refer to Hansard. I was on my feet a number of times saying there will be a lock on the waterfront. We still have the Opposition Leader saying (1) that I refused to answer the question; and (2) it won’t be there. How do you deal with someone like that in a parliamentary context? I say to our students: how do you deal with someone who makes things up and then alleges them as facts? It is very difficult.
I say to the Opposition Leader: our primary school students are very keen on this, but you get your facts right, deal with issues, deal with the reality of them, not the things that you make up and maybe read in fantasy novels or get out of Harry Potter. I suspect it has more to do with Harry Potter, whom I love, I think he is terrific. However, it is not really the way to do something in a parliamentary context.
I hate to sound condescending, but this whole censure motion is a load of rubbish.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We had the Opposition Leader put 50 questions. There were 50 questions that he put and said: ‘I demand that the government answer them’. I could have given him half of those in media releases which answer them, and the others are probably on the public record in some form or other. We have a very lazy opposition which either makes things up or does not read what is on the public record. Of those 50 questions - all good questions - most of them have been answered. If this opposition was so concerned about the issues they are raising in here today, most of which are misguided, I must say, where are the matters of public importance you could raise in this House? Where is the strategy in Question Time to really delve down and get answers on those? Not there! It is not there; it is missing.
You come in here and start the day by saying: ‘I am going to have a censure motion’. Disorganised, and a hotchpotch of things that are not based in fact.
I just say again …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: How many times do I have to say? Are you saying I am a liar?
Mr Dunham: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: I am saying the lock is in the waterfront. I have said it again and again. The lock is in the waterfront. I have to deal with the waterfront because it is a wonderful project. When our young Territorians can experience new things at the waterfront like a wave pool and safe swimming areas, you will love it too. You will not be that much older before you can do it, in about three years time. It will be fantastic. Lovely to have you here today.
The Opposition Leader has read pictures of the waterfront the wrong way round. I do not believe he has even been to look at the model. It is only out at Casuarina, you could go out there and take a look at the model because, in its essence, the model is what the waterfront is. Of course, once you have a master plan, which has public consultation, and then you go down to detailed design and the development of that, there will be some minor adjustment. That is what we saw in the Development Consent Authority yesterday, a minor adjustment.
It was responding to concerns, both from the Defence Forces, the Navy and the Port Corporation, about the amount of turning space they had in that open water behind Stokes Hill Wharf between it and the sea wall. Of course, we responded in that detailed design phase to get a bit more room so, therefore, in a minor variation before the Development Consent Authority, the sea wall had to be adjusted - a minor variation. From a minor variation, suddenly you have the Opposition Leader saying: ‘We are not going to have a marina. We are not going to have a lock’. Get your facts right. This is a Development Consent Authority process. They deal with minor variations in projects like this and projects right across the Territory.
I put on the record here that we are moving towards financial close. Details will be given to the public and we will give details to the opposition, of course. There will be a lock, it is a part of the second stage of development, and it is part of the private sector’s contribution to public infrastructure. That is the case. I will say it again, because the Opposition Leader likes to verbal: the lock is part of private investment in public, community infrastructure in the second stage, and it is a very healthy contribution to private enterprise community infrastructure in the second stage of the waterfront development. It is terrific. We have a major private sector operator who believes in the future of Darwin and he is prepared to put tens of millions of dollars into community infrastructure. Hallelujah, I say, let us rejoice. And we have the Opposition Leader being churlish and surly about it.
On the issue of the marina, the Opposition Leader looks at pictures and says: ‘Where are my boats?’ There will be five hectares of marina. We will probably have the Opposition Leader saying: ‘She has it wrong’.
Mr Dunham: How are you going to get in, with a big crane? Unbelievable.
Ms MARTIN: There will be a lock; there will be five hectares of marina. It is all very well for the member for Drysdale to say ‘unbelievable’, but let me tell you who the member for Drysdale and the Opposition Leader are offending in their attitude. Let us just talk about Sitzlers, who are dead keen on this project. Let us talk about someone like Dick Guit, from Barclay Mowlem who is dead keen on this project and looking forward to many years of work.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, cease.
Ms MARTIN: Michael Sitzler is telling lies then? Michael Sitzler is unbelievable? So is Steve Margetic, when you come to Sitzlers? That is the case? That is what you are saying here? The private sector has embraced this project and is committed to what was in the master plan.
Let me tell you about the other offence that you give directly to McMahon NT, the old Henry Walker Eltin. Robert Wilson and his team are right behind this project waiting to see it happen; waiting to see it start. When you stand here and say: ‘You are lying to us, Robert, Steve, Dick, Michael, you are lying to us about what is in the project’. Do not target me, tell them. Tell them, because this is about a lot of local firms. They are the major ones, but there are a lot of local firms, Connell Wagner and others, who are involved in this project and see it as a great project for Darwin. It is jobs for them, and private investment.
Let us get it straight about who you are accusing of lying here. I can cop it! That is fine! Go out there and tell Dick. Go out and tell Robert. Go out and tell Steve and Michael what you reckon about their project, because you cannot wait to come in here, as fast as your feet will take you and, like little termites, try to dig holes in a project that you really want to be honest about that you will not support. You do not want to support it; you are churlish and mean about it and you do everything you can to pull it down.
At least the former Opposition Leader was honest. The former Opposition Leader, the member for Blain, said: ‘We will scrap it. We would like a car park and a spire much better. We would not have the convention centre in it and we would not have that nasty private sector involved in it. No, take your jobs away, take your hundreds of millions of dollars away. We do not want you involved’. Now the current Opposition Leader says: ‘We do not like the project and if we get into government we will change it’. Let us tell the consortium that clearly. Let us go and tell Steve, Robert, Michael and Dick that you are determined to change the project; the project that they have put their heart and soul into and has had at least 100 people in detail involved in moving to financial close. You go and tell them that, when you get into government, you are going to change the whole thing.
Mr Dunham: Yes, but that would be a lie.
Ms MARTIN: That is what he said!
Mr Dunham: No! We want you to tell the truth! This is about you telling the truth.
Ms MARTIN: I will change it. If you go back to the Hansard this morning, that is what the Opposition Leader has said …
Mr Dunham: We need you to tell the truth! Are you going to go to estimates?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order!
Ms MARTIN: Let us just quote it directly; I took one of them down. The Opposition Leader said: ‘It is a mess’.
A member: Confusing.
Ms MARTIN: It is only confusing to you. That is the only one it is confusing, because you keep making things up. It is not confusing. This has a public process. Every single bit of the waterfront convention development will go through the DCA, which is what we saw yesterday. There was a small variation and, suddenly, we have the Opposition Leader say: ‘It is in a mess! It is in a mess!’
Mr Burke: How much marina is there again? How much?
Ms MARTIN: Five …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, just cease for a moment …
Mr Dunham: There is 20% less.
Mr Baldwin: You are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale and Leader of the Opposition, we did listen to the Leader of the Opposition in comparative quietness. We could afford the Chief Minister the same courtesy.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Opposition Leader has said this is a mess. There is no evidence that he has to show that it is a mess. The proper processes are being carried through with the DCA. Every single public requirement is being met; variations are dealt with slightly differently; however, all those processes are going through.
With an issue like water quality, I cannot account for what was actually said by one minor member of the consortium yesterday in front of the DCA. However, let me assure the House that the water quality will be managed in the same way that it is managed in Cullen Bay and in Tipperary Waters. We will establish a statutory authority to manage the waterfront area because the Darwin City Council, in their wisdom – well, I do not actually think it is wisdom, it is a missed opportunity for them - do not want to have to manage the waterfront. So, we will set up a statutory authority; water control will be their responsibility.
The details that the Henny Penny here hears - a little of something - and comes in and says: ‘The sky is falling in. It is a mess!’. The only confusion about this is in his own mind because he does not want to see this wonderful project for Darwin actually go ahead. That is it; trying to undermine, to damn in a half-clever way. He should be honest as the former leader was and just say that he would scrap it for your car park. Just say you would scrap it for a car park; that you do not want a convention centre, an exhibition centre, the community infrastructure that will provide such delight for the young students we just had here. Be honest about it.
As I have said a number of times, details will be given about all aspects of the project when we reach financial close. Those details will be given to the opposition and to the public. There are further details we will talk about after financial close. These are broad numbers in the budget. I will give those details after financial close.
I draw a comparison here, Madam Speaker, to another similarly sized development for the Territory which is the railway and the different attitude we heard from the then opposition and the now opposition about this project. We believed in the project. We got behind the government …
Mr Burke: Just prior to financial close!
Ms MARTIN: … we got behind the government. We could tell details of how much the former Chief Minister, the then railway spokesman, got behind you and you know that. You know that. We do not want to call it in detail here but we got behind the project because we believed in it. How starkly different is this opposition when it comes to a project as significant for the future of the Territory as this waterfront and convention centre development. It tells very poorly for them indeed.
There was a time when the CLP was a proud party. This is a shambles which does not even have a vision for the future of the Territory and cannot even admit when a project is visionary and get behind it.
Madam Speaker, as Chief Minister I have the call of when the election is and previous Chief Ministers have had exactly the same role. I will call the election when I chose. That is the right of the Chief Minister.
Let us look at the estimates process, which seems to be at the heart of this. When was this estimates process, that is now clutched to the collective bosom of the opposition, introduced? When was it introduced? I wonder. Under the former Country Liberal Party government? Did they reject it year after year as the then opposition called for it? That is the truth of the matter. You would have to call it hypocritical. Demanding an estimates process!
I will say two things: we will have an election before 15 October; and part of this budget process will be estimates. Okay? Two things. Part of the budget process will be estimates and we will have an election before 15 October.
To be accused of not having open, honest and accountable government, Madam Speaker; we introduced estimates. That is part of open, honest and accountable government. We introduced freedom of information which the CLP could not quite manage in 27 years! Ran a mile from it. Made tentative tilts of: ‘Oh, we might do it’, I think in the early 1990s, and then ran away! Ran away from it. We have introduced freedom of information legislation and privacy legislation. When it comes to having elections and redistributions, we introduced an independent process which the Country Liberal Party never introduced. This election, when it is held before 15 October, will be run by an independent Electoral Commissioner and I congratulate Bill Shepherd on winning that job.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, we have reformed parliament. It is now open and accountable in that the television cameras are here. The member for Macdonnell laughs but in terms of …
Mr Elferink: It is the biggest debacle!
Ms MARTIN: I sat in here for years with the whole day taken up by endless ministerial statements. You would be doing legislation at 11 pm. We have turned that around. Except for idle censures, we would be doing legislation now, important legislation for the Northern Territory. We have reformed the operation of parliament to make it more accountable in that way and where the time is spent.
This censure has no basis at all and we on this side of the House have probably given it far too much time as it is but, certainly, reject it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this government came to power on a promise of open, honest and accountable government. They are contractually bound to the people of the Northern Territory by the fact that they purchased the votes of Territorians with the promise that they would provide open, honest and accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. That was their mantra. They chanted it repeatedly, suggesting that there were all sorts of villainy being perpetrated by the former CLP government.
All we are asking from this Chief Minister is for a rock solid guarantee, a cast iron statement, that she will take this budget, this promise to the people of the Northern Territory that we are going to spend money in a certain way, to the estimates process so that we can test the quality of that promise. What do we get? Yes, there will be an estimates process, but what she does not say is whether there is going to be an election before or after that process. Whichever government is returned in the Northern Territory, should that occur, will be in an invidious situation because they have to reintroduce the bills and then go to the estimates process all before 30 June, otherwise government will lose supply. That means public servants will not be paid. That means that all of these things the government has promised in this budget will dry up into the ether because once we go to an election, the Notice Paper lapses and this Appropriation Bill evaporates.
The new government, whether it is them or us, has to reintroduce this bill. That means they may even have to rework the budget so there is no guarantee that what we have been shown is actually what is going to be spent in the year 2005-06. That is why we want to go to the estimates process: so we can lock in the budget, so that public servants can be paid, and all the promises that are in this budget can be adhered to. At the moment, there is no guarantee that this document is worth the paper it is printed on.
There are multiple reasons why we have to go to the estimates process in the pursuit of honest, open and accountable government. We have seen any number of reasons why we would like to examine this budget and how money in the last budget has been spent. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly about the issues surrounding the Toyota that was gifted. Yesterday we asked a simple question of the minister: will you put on the table a full and comprehensive list of all the money that you have spent on special purpose grants? How many vehicles have you purchased? Guess what! We got nothing. How is that honest? How is that open? How is that accountable?
In fact, what we had is the Auditor-General being verballed by the Chief Minister who, essentially, lied to this House saying that the Auditor-General had given him a clean bill of health. How incongruous was it that I walked into this Chamber and heard the Chief Minister saying that, after not 20 minutes before been in the lobby speaking to the Auditor-General who said to me: ‘I did not complete a report because I was waiting for the police to come back from Katherine to let me know what is going on’?
The Chief Minister has deliberately misrepresented the Auditor-General’s briefing to paint a whitewash over this minister, and this is the minister who met in a pub to organise the gifting of a Toyota. They are a few questions that might be important for the estimates process.
How much is the dirt file that this government is keeping on Territorians costing Territorians?
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, how much is it?
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding.
Mr ELFERINK: Get on your feet! Tell us how much it is. We will not hear the answer to that question. It is not until we get to the estimates process that it will become clear as to how much it is costing to keep Territorians listed as to what their political persuasions are and what public comments they are making, and those sorts of things.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Rubbish,’ says the minister. Rubbish! I will tell you something, minister: that dirt file is not an act of charity and it is being paid for by the taxpayer. It is being paid for by the taxpayer.
What about this Treasurer? This is a government, incidentally, which has a history of plagiarism in this place. We have seen the members for Sanderson and Johnston reading word-for-word the intellectual property rights of Irish law firms and the former minister Mick Palmer. All of those sorts of things go to the very integrity of this government, the promise for open, honest and accountable government. The Treasurer cannot even come in here without plagiarising my shirt.
The issue surrounding the waterfront has been made clear by the Leader of the Opposition. The issue is that there is mass confusion surrounding the waterfront. The Chief Minister has added to that confusion, and this is why we have to go to the estimates process. Not a couple of questions that we might happen to ask during Question Time, but a detailed examination of what is being proposed. And why do we need that? Well, think about it. Every time the Chief Minister makes an utterance in this House, she …
Mr Burke: It changes.
Mr ELFERINK: It not only changes - and I pick up the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition - but raises more questions. The Chief Minister said there will be five hectares of marina. Here is a question for the estimates process, because the Darwin Cove Consortium media release says: ‘The total area of the marina and lagoon is still considerable, about five hectares’. Well, if the marina is five hectares, how big is the lagoon – a fish bowl sitting in the CEO’s office?
This is the sort of thing that needs to be examined, and why does the Leader of Government Business say: ‘This has nothing to do with the estimates process, this is about the waterfront’. Well, I will give you 1.2 billion reasons as to why this has to go to the estimates process. I would like to know how much of that is actually from the private sector and how much of that comes out of Territory taxpayers’ pockets. If you say that is not a reason to go to the estimates process then I do not know what is. I really do not know what is, because there are Territory taxpayers who are going to be stuck in debt over this - placed in debt. No matter how much you want to justify that, the promise that was made by this government to Territorians was that they will eradicate debt.
In fact, we should be in surplus right now. Go back to the mini-budget of November 2001, with their projected growth rate of 5%. Well, they were in la la land, and we have the right to examine what has gone wrong on behalf of Territory taxpayers, and the place to do that is in the estimates process. ‘Oh,’ says the Chief Minister, ‘but we have introduced the estimates process’. I will tell you something: they have introduced an estimates process, but we had a more effective one, because we went into the committee stages in this parliament, and the only person who was answerable was the minister; not some public servant, as this government has a history spearing public servants, and dragging public servants into an estimates process. The minister who used to sit where the Leader of Government Business sits now used to occasionally take advice from public servants, but the buck stopped with the minister. And guess what? That minister could be examined at length until questions were exhausted. There was no opportunity for the minister to squib out. Now there are time limits, which are very restrictive on questions, and the process is actually less transparent.
‘Oh,’ said the Chief Minister when she was the Leader of the Opposition, ‘We are going to introduce freedom of information’. Freedom of information, under her comments when she was the Leader of the Opposition, was simply this, that everything would be subject to freedom of information legislation – everything; there would be no such thing as commercial-in-confidence. Well, have you seen the ‘freedom from information’ legislation that sits in the Northern Territory at the moment? I can tell you, there are more exceptions than there are rules in the freedom of information legislation. If you have tried to extract any information out of government, you run into the same opaque wall that Territorians have been running into ever since this government came into power.
They say that they have introduced transparency, well here is their big chance to make good on their promise. All the Chief Minister had to do was walk in here and say: ‘I guarantee, rock solid, that this budget, this promise, will go to the Estimates Committee before the next Territory election’, so that we can test it, put an acid test on this budget and find out what the government has done with its money over the last 12 months.
One question I would like to ask is: how much did it cost to get Mr Big Pants and Mistress Natasha up here? The fact is that this Treasurer and this Chief Minister promised Territorians that they were going to clean up the Community Benefit Fund. It was the fund that was abused by this side of the House; they were going to clean up, it was going to be arms length from government. ‘We are going to have nothing to with it’, they said. That was the impression that I, and every other Territorian, was left with until the radio interview the day after Mistress Natasha and Mr Big Pants came to the attention of Northern Territorians. The Treasurer sat there and said: ‘I go through these things vigorously’. That was a lie that they perpetrated to the people of the Northern Territory. I will tell you why it is a lie. I was honestly of the opinion that it was hands-off from government, but the Treasurer sits and goes tick, tick, tick, tick to each project that comes along.
Well, here are questions for the estimates process: how long has it been going on; how many projects has the Treasurer rejected; and how many mates does the Treasurer look after while he is going tick, tick, tick through the list of recipients of the Community Benefit Grants? More questions for estimates: how much is the defence of the Minister for Community Development costing Territorians; and how much is Jeff Sher, the QC in Western Australia who is currently defending the minister, worth? That is a good question because, as I understand it, this fellow does not get out of bed for less than $8000 a day. He is one of the best; he is nationally renowned as the best litigation lawyer in this field. This minister’s refusal to say sorry – he has a lawyer in WA, a bloke by the name of Stone, who is also defending this minister, and he gets - what? - $1000, $1500 a day. It must be costing us about $10 000 a day to keep this minister out of the proverbial. This minister is clearly putting his hands into the public till for his own defence. And what for? Because he cannot bring himself to say sorry. Those are the sorts of questions that need to be asked. Are we going to get to ask them? I think not.
Drugs: here is a government paying ecstasy users above the age of 16 years $30 for taking part in a survey - $30. ‘Oh, it is a federal program, it is the Australian Institute of Criminology program’. When I saw the flyer the Northern Territory government’s logo is clearly emblazoned on it, and it is a Northern Territory e-mail address to which you must respond to collect your $30. There is a whole raft of questions: who is the public servant at the other end of the e-mail; and who put the Northern Territory government web site on it? All of these are questions for the Estimates Committee. Are we getting those questions answered? Not a chance!
Here are another couple of questions for you. There are flyers that have been doing the rounds recently, the ALP, the Martin Labor government flyers from the police department. These are party political flyers. They have Martin Labor government written on them, the minister’s face sitting on it. Who is paying for all of that? What about the recent education flyer attacking the CLP, with the Northern Territory government’s logo emblazoned upon it? Who is paying for all of those? Here it is; look at that: ‘CLP opposition … students forced to move schools …’, rah, rah, rah - badmouthing the CLP: CLP, CLP, CLP … ‘Norther’ Territory government. By the way, you spell Northern Territory with an ‘n’ on the end of it.
This is a fraud being perpetrated on Territorians and the lie is that you folks said that you would be honest, open and accountable. Well, how do we know what process is being gone through? The only place we can find out is the estimate process.
How about health? Here is a good one for you. The Attorney-General and Health Minister was making all sorts of assertions in relation to how many people he was going to sue for work being done for the Northern Territory Health Service. Well, what has happened to that? What is the current condition of that, and who is paying for that? There are some questions for the estimates process, which this government will not guarantee us to have.
What about fake doctors? This is a good one. Back page of the last Sunday Territorian. Three staff sitting there with stethoscopes around their neck saying: ‘We are going to Tennant Creek’. That is wonderful. I am sure that they will be reassured in Tennant Creek. You cannot have a baby here but we will help you with a press release …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the sort of things that we must ask the questions. There may be legitimate reasons for this. The minister says: ‘Oh, come in spinner,’ but we are not going to be allowed to examine it because this government will not give a rock solid guarantee on an estimates process.
Here is a good one. This budget paper here is last year’s budget paper, 2004-05, and in the sports and recreation funding is a comment that the Traeger Park work was going to be done in Alice Springs to bring the grandstands up to scratch. That comment has not appeared in the next year’s budget and, if you read the definition on the very last page of what revoted works are, in Budget Paper No 4, it says capital works that have not been done last year are brought forward and re-entered into the budget paper this year. If that is the case, where has the Traeger Park stuff gone? It is not in the infrastructure budget. I have had a good look at it and I cannot find it. It has dropped out of here and when I asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation this question, ‘Oh, it is coming in off budget’.
Well, how many other projects are coming in off budget, Madam Speaker? I am sure you, as a member in Alice Springs, would be vitally concerned to know that the Traeger Park money seems to have fallen off the budget and into the ether. I am vitally interested to know. I will tell you something: to stand up here and say it is coming in off budget undermines and demeans this Treasurer’s budget because, all of a sudden, we have an interesting question. If this project is not on the budget list but will come in off budget because we will find the money from somewhere else, what else? That brings us back to the waterfront.
What about all the work that has to be done at the waterfront? Who is going to pay for that? What about all of the work that has to be done around the waterfront before we even start work - clearing the sites, those sorts of things? How much unexploded ordnance exists from World War II in there? That is all going to have be cleaned up because every time a bomb dropped from a Japanese plane and landed on one of those mud flats, there is a real chance that it did not explode, it went into the mud and stayed there, and might still be there and that has to be cleared up. How much is that going to cost? We think about $10m. Who is paying for that? We would love to know but we cannot find out until we go to the estimates process.
This is why we must go to the estimates process. We need to know what the value of the Northern Territory parks estate is so that we can tell Territorians, the government can tell Territorians, the value of the parks estate which is going to be given away in a change of ownership.
We have other questions also for the estimates process surrounding the integrity of government - the very integrity of how this government does its business. How do we know? I asked questions about the Chief Minister contacting the Commissioner of Police in the evening because he is going to go through a process of charging a person. I am worried about that, and that has to be examined as well.
This government has breached its promise to Territorians. It has breached its promise and it has broken its contract. This government’s integrity has been undermined by the fact that it is not honest, it is not open and it is not accountable. It has covered up for ministers, it has covered up for CEOs, it has shot junior public servants …
Mr Ah Kit: You have 30 seconds before you reserve your right to silence.
Mr ELFERINK: This minister here, interjecting now, was the one who wanted to shoot a field officer in his own department rather than say: ‘I am responsible’. Surely, that is worth some sort of investigation.
Madam Speaker, this government must give a guarantee because, if it does not, this budget paper, this budget document, stands before Territorians as nothing more that a bit of propaganda and, potentially, nothing more than a lie.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, having been here for four years and listened to many censure motions, I sometimes wonder whether there is an issue about the way we are allowed to debate important issues. It is unfortunate that the system more or less says to bring up an important issue like whether we should go to the election before we go to the Estimates Committee, or whether we should debate the waterfront, we have to go through a censure motion. The system where we only have reports and occasionally statements, leaves a lot to be desired. This is the only place that we can have a thorough debate and, in the case of censure motions, it is normally two-two, anyway. I would like to see some of these issues raised as part of normal ministerial statements, and regularly, because things like the waterfront are issues that are ongoing and very important.
I will say now that I do support the waterfront, as I have said before, but that will not mean that I stand here like a dummy and do not say anything. Questioning is our job, and that does not mean we do not support it. It means that we want to make sure it does not become a burden to future Territorians if it goes so far into debt that we are in debt for years and years and years. We want to make sure it is good quality, that what we are planning is up to world standard and is something we will be proud of. That does not mean by asking questions or even giving it a bit of a knock at times that I oppose it; I do not. However, the process that we have in parliament to discuss these issues is inadequate. If anything happens in the next parliamentary term, it should be opening up government for more debate on major issues.
Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the words of the motion, either, but I agree with the sentiment. The government should go to the Estimates Committee before it goes to election, and the reason is that when I looked at the advice on the position paper by the ALP on Good Government, it said:
The Chief Minister said:
The position paper states:
It goes on to say:
It says it will do that by:
It goes on further to say that an Estimates Committee:
That is all very good, and I support all of that. In fact, I was a great supporter of having an Estimates Committee. However, I find it a little bit hard that the Chief Minister is saying to the opposition: ‘Look at you now supporting the Estimates Committee.’ Fair enough to criticise the opposition because they did not have an Estimates Committee, but that does not mean you join them and say: ‘We do not do the same process’. You proposed the process and people have supported it. If you really believe in what you have written here, you will take this budget to the Estimates Committee and then have the election. It is not clear that that will happen.
All I am saying is that if I read the position paper of Good Government by the Labor Party, you would think that that would be the norm. There is no guarantee that they will be the government in the next sittings of parliament. There is no guarantee for the opposition, either, but the budget and the Estimates Committee surely should be one, not separated. They need to be one.
I have all of these documents and I have been trying to put together a budget speech and, boy, I have to employ people like Jane Large, if I can find her, to help me with all of this. This is fairly complex stuff. You need that break between when we receive the budget and the Estimates Committee so that you can work through it, so you can properly analyse it. For instance, I have the Palmerston and Litchfield Regional Highlights off the web site, and I actually wonder why it did not come as a budget paper this year, but we had to find it there. There is nothing in here to say what is new works, what is the same works as last year. I am definitely not knocking what is in here, it is very good. $0.32m for Beatrice Hill facilities for the buffalo industry - good industry, needs help, but is that $0.32m the same money as they received last year? Was there an increase or a decrease? It is very hard to tell from this unless I go back through a lot of documents.
I do not always have the time; we received it on Monday and we had normal government processes. I do not always have the time to thoroughly go through a lot of this work, which I would do, and be ready for the Estimates Committee. What am I supposed to say to people if they say what is in the budget? I say: ‘Well, there is $0.32m for Beatrice Hill facilities’. When I go and look at estimates and go through it more thoroughly, I find that is the same amount, or that is less than last year. They have actually reduced it. I do not know that yet. I have not had the time to go through it. It is important that we are able to put those questions to the government.
What has helped set off this censure motion is the issue of the waterfront. As I said, I support the waterfront. I asked some questions yesterday. I was at the Development Consent Authority meeting for as long as I could, as we had to get back for Question Time. There was an issue where a gentleman from the consortium was asked a question about how much smaller the boating pool is, as it is referred to, because they were asking for a variance. A variance is normally a minor thing. In this case it is not, it is 20%. That is what he admitted. That is far more than a variance; it is quite a big change.
The other thing is, my impression of the lock is that it will occur, but it is something that will be debated or looked at later, after the signing-off. We do not know who will own the lock, who will manage the lock, who will collect the fees for the lock, etcetera. There is something that certainly should go before the Estimates Committee.
We have not worked out all the issues of the environment, how much all that environmental redevelopment is going to cost yet. They are simple questions. They are not knocking questions, but they are questions that need to go to an estimates committee. I am concerned that there could be a big blow-out in the waterfront because there are too many questions, and the government does not want to pull out of this public/private development because it sees it as a great thing for the Territory. I agree with the Northern Territory News editorial, it is a good thing for the Northern Territory. But I have asked: where is a cost benefit analysis? We do not have a cost benefit analysis. That really should be done; that should be the core of the government’s information. That would be something to ask at the Estimates Committee: show us the cost benefit of the waterfront. The NT News said it will be a great thing for the Territory. Maybe I will ask the NT News: can you give us a cost benefit analysis? But they are issues that are important for Territorians.
I gather, from my reading, we are going to go into debt because of the waterfront. We are putting a huge amount of money into this. The question is: what are we going into debt for, and are the benefits of the waterfront going to get us out of that debt, repay the money that we are putting in? They are simple questions. They are not critical of the project; they are critical of the process. When I say ‘critical’, I mean I am asking questions. I believe that is important, and many people would be much happier if we did go to the Estimates Committee. Even many of the Labor Party would be, because they would say: ‘You are sticking with your doctrine that you put out, “Labor – a new direction on good government”’. That is what you said.
I understand what the Chief Minister is saying, there will be an Estimates Committee, and there will be an election. If you wanted to get rid of all this kerfuffle, if you wanted to show Territorians that you are open about where we are spending money on the waterfront, then you would be pleased, because you would be proud to say: ‘We are running the waterfront well. We are spending this much money and we will tell you all about it at the Estimates Committee. We are so confident that you will accept our good management of the waterfront, we will then go to an election’. If you do not, then people are going to ask questions like: ‘What are you hiding?’ And that is a sad thing.
Madam Speaker, as you know, I do not vote on these particular motions. I am just saying to the government here is an opportunity to show respect, take responsibility, as the document says, and take the budget to the Estimates Committee. After that, let us have an election and we will go from there.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will wrap this particular debate up so that we can get on with business. The Chief Minister has stated that we will have an election by 15 October this year, and this budget will go to the estimates process. That is the position of the government.
However, if we go to the pious grandstanding from the opposition and, in particular, the mantra of honest, open, accountable government - I do not know how many times those four words were stated between the two of them in their particular contributions - but what new words the CLP have learned! It is amazing when you are on this side of the House to hear the new words that they have learned: open, honest, accountable government - words that they could not bring themselves to contemplate when they were in government just a little over three-and-a-half years ago.
Let us look at some of the initiatives that we have put into place. I will start with the budget papers that are certainly very comprehensive. They are put together under the fiscal integrity legislation to ensure that, never again, budget papers are manipulated by the government of the day, as opposed to being independently put together by Treasury. In regards to how good these budget papers are, and the detail, content, and the veracity of the information in them - I have just spoken to the Treasurer – none other than one of the head people of Moody’s in New York - one of the great credit rating agencies in the world – who has travelled extensively working with governments, said that they were the best budget papers in accountability to the public that he had seen in all of his time.
Therefore, in accountability and the detail that is in these budget papers, Territorians - regardless of when the election is called - can have every confidence that what is in the budget papers is the truth. As opposed …
Mr Dunham: It wasn’t last year. It wasn’t the year before.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale should really keep his trap shut because he has form. He has form, the member for Drysdale - and it is all through the Parliamentary Record - when his CEO in the lead-up to the last budget that the CLP handed down, went to the minister of the day …
Mr Dunham: So, why did you sack him? If you agreed with what he said, why did you sack him?
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Drysdale and stated that he had received instructions from the then Treasurer, the former member for Katherine, to underestimate the actual outcomes for that financial year so that the budget papers should not show growth. The member for Drysdale, at the time, pleaded to be aghast, dismayed and very disturbed about this, and he was going to do something. But guess what? He did absolutely nothing! The gutless wonder, the member for Drysdale, was quite happy …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering whether parliament allows the Leader of Government Business to call me a ‘gutless wonder’ - whether those words are acceptable?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it should be withdrawn.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, in the interests of the decorum of parliament, I will withdraw …
Madam SPEAKER: However, I would ask you, member for Drysdale, to cease your interjections.
Mr HENDERSON: I do withdraw, and it is good advice for the member for Drysdale, because every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it even further. He was advised by his CEO that the CEO had received instructions from the then Treasurer to bodgie the figures. The member for Drysdale, the then Health minister, said that he would do something about it – he did absolutely nothing! He was part of the deception, the conspiracy, to fraudulently bring those budget papers to the people of the Northern Territory. Territorians will not forget his part in that actual deception. For the new government of the day to come in and, within four or five days of taking office, to be told by the then Under Treasurer that the budget papers that were merely eight weeks old had a $100m hole in them, and that hole had been created artificially by the government of the day for presentation purposes, was a very sad chapter in the history of the CLP.
We have introduced this fiscal integrity legislation that underpins this budget and Territorians can have confidence, whenever this election is called, that the numbers stack up in these budget papers.
Mr Dunham: No they don’t. They didn’t last year.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are on a warning.
Mr HENDERSON: And we do know on their form that if, heaven help, the CLP were elected to government they would scrap the fiscal integrity legislation and once again get their paws all over the budget numbers for presentation purposes only.
Let us look at the Estimates Committee process that they clutch so proudly to their chest and parade out there as being the best thing since sliced bread, and they have a right to scrutinise this budget under the Estimate Committee process. They will do, they will do.
Mr Elferink: Which was always there. Always there. It always existed.
Mr HENDERSON: And there has been a call for years for the Estimates Committee and the member for Macdonnell thinks he is smart, but there was a very big difference between the Estimates Committee process and the Committee of the Whole that the CLP presided over. The difference is that chief executive officers and accountable government officers sit at the table and they can be asked questions and can answer in their own rights in regards to any question that the committee may put to them. Under the previous government’s the Committee of the Whole process, CEOs sat in their boxes, were mute, were muzzled, could not answer, and the ministers of the day could put any spin or interpretation on the information provided by the public service to them. For the member for Macdonnell to say …
Mr Elferink: So, the buck stopped with the minister, what a tragedy.
Mr HENDERSON: … we had an Estimates Committee process …
Mr Elferink: You squib.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, cease.
Mr HENDERSON: … he once again shows what a goose he is by not recalling the process that they had in regards to the Committee of the Whole.
We know they had form, trust people on actions not words that again, if they were to come to office, the Estimates Committee would be scrapped. They think their process of the Committee of the Whole was better. They have said it again today, so we would go back to the Committee of the Whole with no capacity to ask questions of public servants, public servants muzzled and just spin from the ministers of the day. The Estimates Committee process would be scrapped.
Freedom of information would be scrapped. I think they went to the 1994 election promising to introduce freedom of information legislation. Did it happen? No it did not, even though it was a standing motion on the books of the parliamentary wing. The then government of the day did not have the intestinal fortitude to introduce freedom of information legislation. They would scrap that as well and would go back to having an Electoral Commission inside the Department of the Chief Minister.
There has been significant reform in open, honest and accountable government and this government has acted in terms of actual institutions and reform as opposed to squibbing those issues when the previous government was in power.
Let us look at some of the other things that they did. I only have another 10 minutes left, but just a few things that come to the top of the head about how the previous government were not open, honest and accountable. Let us remember the Community Benefit Fund. The Community Benefit Fund was mentioned by the opposition. Why on earth would they want to bring up the Community Benefit Fund? Let us look at the history of that little piece of deception on the people of the Northern Territory. There was never an independent body to make recommendations to the minister. The good old boys of the CLP - there were not too many girls in the parliamentary wing at the time …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Daly did have responsibility for the Community Benefit Fund, but a couple of years out from the election, the then member for Katherine said: ‘Well, Tim, we cannot trust you with it. We cannot trust Tim with it so I will take …
Mr Baldwin: You are not allowed to use my first name in here, Paul. Paul?
Mr HENDERSON: … the community benefit onboard …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … into my office’, and then promptly froze any disbursements.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Minister, just cease. We had the member for Araluen starting that. We had the minister replying and now you. Just cease all of you, otherwise a few of you are not going to be in this Chamber much longer. Leader of Government Business.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They do not like history - they do not like history.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, did you hear me?
Mr BALDWIN: I did not say anything, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you did.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I did not.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not like the reflection in the mirror because history tells the truth about their form of open, honest, accountable and transparent. With the Community Benefit Fund we had the member for Katherine deciding that he was going to get his paws all over this and a couple of years out from the election - I think it was three years out …
Mr Elferink: And what do you give us? A spanking school!
Mr HENDERSON: … ‘We will bring it into my office – the member for Macdonnell does not like the history here. ‘We will bring it into my office’. Community groups were out there putting in applications for funding under the Community Benefit Fund and it was frozen for two years. There was no independent process, no process at all. We just had the then member for Katherine, a few months out from the election, with a nice big piggy bank saved up, doling out cheques to community groups in the electorates of the CLP. The Auditor-General was certainly very critical of the CLP when he had a good look at that after the change of government.
We do have an independent process now and Territorians can have confidence that those applications to the Community Benefit Fund are judged on their merits, not on the pork barrelling prerogatives of the then government of the day. So do not talk about the Community Benefit Fund.
If you want to talk about the grants program under the local government grants, as the Chief Minister said, if you did you homework, if you understood the reporting requirements of government agencies, you would know that all of that grant funding is reported in Appendix 9 of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs Annual Report. The reports are there and detail all of the grants. All you have to do is go to the Tabled Papers Office and the information is there. To come in here and concoct some sort of mad conspiracy theory that my friend and colleague, the member for Arnhem, is up there dispersing largesse at pubs across the Territory is absolute nonsense. It is all there, it is all reported, it is all on the public report and the processes that support that are all on the public record. We have a tissue of myths that become reality in the minds of members opposite. They are so desperate that they will run any line out there.
We had much talk about the great waterfront development. We had the whole of Question Time yesterday, we have had it again in here this morning, we had an adjournment last night: is a lock going to be built or not? The Leader of the Opposition needs to see an audiologist. I will read from the Hansard: Mr Burke to Chief Minister about the lock. ‘The lock is no longer there’ is the assertion. This is the second question of the day, and the Chief Minister said …
Mr Dunham: She didn’t answer the first one!
Mr HENDERSON: ‘I say quite unequivocally’ – the member for Drysdale, again! No wonder he does not hear anything; he does not listen because his mouth is open all the time. The Chief Minister said:
That was the second question yesterday, Madam Speaker. If there is something more unequivocal than that, I do not know what it is. But, no, the CLP still want to go out there, spin their lines and try to undermine confidence in this development, undermine a fantastic public/private partnership, something you would think the Tories on the benches over there would want to see: the government actually working with the private sector. But, no, the Tories over there do not want to see that. They want to go out there and do it themselves, use public money, build a car park as opposed to a public/private partnership. The guarantee is there from the Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister just said that the annual report he was waving around is in the Tabled Papers Office. I have just checked; it is not there. Could he kindly table that document?
Madam SPEAKER: I am quite sure the Table Office can provide you with a copy.
Mr ELFERINK: No, they cannot; I have just asked them, Madam Speaker. They do not have one.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a public document, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is not a public document. Could the minister table that document in front of him, please?
Mr HENDERSON: I will table it. Absolutely! Tabled! You are so lazy!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has the right to say yes or no.
Mr HENDERSON: I table it, goose! I table it! You would think a shadow minister worth his salt would actually know what publications actually came from the department, but obviously he has not done his research.
The Chief Minister has made an absolute commitment that once financial close is achieved, the financial details of those arrangements and costs of government over time will be made public, and they will. It is very hard to make them public until you actually have them locked down in a contract. It is nothing different from what happened with the railway. The stark difference between us as an opposition, as we were then, was that we believed in the project. I well recall the evening when further public money and guarantees were needed to get the railway deal over the line, that the Leader of the Opposition, the then Chief Minister, spoke to the then Deputy Opposition Leader behind this very Speaker’s Chair here and asked for our support, because the legislation needed to be rushed through on urgency. We had a quick Caucus meeting and agreed that, whatever it took to get this railway over the line, we would sign up to and support the then government of the day. None of this weasel undermining, nitpicking tactics from us as then opposition.
We believed in a project that was going to build the Territory, and this is certainly a project that is going to build the Northern Territory. At the centrepiece is a convention centre for 1500 delegates. We can all see the great impact that The Ghan has had on the economy of Darwin, in particular, since that service started running just over 12 months ago bringing 350 people a week into Darwin. A convention centre that has capacity for 1500 delegates is going to be an enormous stimulus to this economy. Not only are those delegates going to come to the Northern Territory, many of them will bring partners for a trip of a lifetime to the Northern Territory. They are certainly going to spend time, either before or after the convention or conference, to explore the Top End and many will probably take the train back down through the Centre.
The member for Nelson talked about the cost benefit analysis, the multipliers. Well, they are huge and they will all be disclosed, the models have been done. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that, to bring 1500 people into the city of Darwin who are not coming here now, is going to be a huge benefit to this economy, and the multipliers are significant.
It is sad to see the once proud CLP, who were so pro-development in the Northern Territory, knocking and seeking to undermine, at every turn, rubbing their hands with glee when any piece of information comes out that there might be a little change here, a little change there, rubbing their hands with glee, rushing out into the media to try to undermine this great project. That is pretty sad. I am sure there are probably some former CLP members and Chief Ministers and long-time observers of Territory politics who are probably scratching their heads and just wondering where the CLP is coming from in opposition.
As Business minister, I know there is very strong support for this project amongst the business community of the Top End. There is huge support for this particular project and it is sad to see the opposition seek to undermine it at every turn.
This censure motion is nothing but a nonsense. This budget will be scrutinised by the Estimates Committee, a process that we brought to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Ms MARTIN (Tourism): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday night, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of an exciting development for Darwin. The Darwin Airport Resort was opened by His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan. The assembled guests were given a first-hand view of this tropically designed resort, and I have to say, it is very impressive. If this is a first or last impression of Darwin given to our visitors, it will be a very positive one, one which reflects the essence of the Top End.
The Darwin Airport Resort covers three-and-a-half hectares of land located at the airport, just 350 m from the terminal. Visitors are instantly transported into a tropical environment. The design of the resort is deliberately Territorian and tropical. It features indoor and outdoor dining and lounge areas, opening onto a swimming pool with water features and a poolside bar. There are conference facilities, recreation areas, on-site parking and a restaurant. The resort has 130 rooms, providing five levels of accommodation from suites to deluxe and executive bungalows. The bungalows are sited along the Rapid Creek boundary and overlook the natural bushland of the creek corridor.
This project is testimony to the energy and effectiveness of Darwin’s development and construction industry. The resort was opened for business only eight months after construction started.
The resort directors, John (Foxy) Robinson, Brian Kelly, Peter Walker, Peter Walkington and Brian Counihan, are to be commended for their commitment to investment in the Darwin economy. This group, as many of you will be aware, has a long record of sound and successful tourist development in the Territory, having developed and run the Knotts Crossing Resort in Katherine and the Palms Resort at Berrimah. The architecture of the resort is particularly inspiring. John Berryman of Group 1 Consulting Pty Ltd, a local Darwin business, designed the resort and all its buildings and features and has done a sterling job of capturing the essence of the tropical environment without compromising visitor comfort. I am delighted to see this level of climatically appropriate design being used in commercial premises; it adds so much more to the visitor experience and highlights the uniqueness of our part of the world.
The whole facility has been designed with the intent of providing a truly tropical ambience, with entry ponds, internal water features, cool finishes and vistas to Darwin’s largest resort-style pool and lush gardens. The Darwin Airport Resort complex is a fusion of modern resort architecture, traditional tropical design with hints of Asian and colonial influences. The more traditional tropical elements include extensive use of cool ceramic and stone tiles and claddings, exposed timber roof structures, timber linings, high roof lines and Melanesian-style gables. With vast expanses of glass, this immediately defines the spaces as uniquely tropical.
Of course, a beautifully designed building needs a good builder. Sunbuild, a very well-known Darwin company, was responsible for the construction of the main reception and public area. This is a stunning area, and I recommend people to make a point of visiting when they are next at the airport. Neil Sunners and his team have done their usual professional job in delivering this project.
With these credentials, capabilities and talents behind the development, the Darwin Airport Resort can only be a resounding success. I am advised that forward bookings are already extremely encouraging. There is a high level of interest from the corporate sector, with the complex being marketed as providing day accommodation - accommodation able to be booked for the day perhaps between flights or while waiting for one of those middle-of-the-night flights out of Darwin, to which we have all, so sadly, become accustomed. There is also a high level of interest from local residents as the resort and its restaurant offers a new facility in the northern suburbs.
There is nothing else like the Darwin Airport Resort in the Territory. It is long overdue and is a highly welcome addition to our tourist facilities, offering a different experience for visitors and locals alike. I wish it every success in the future, and congratulate the directors and every Territorian involved in its development for a job well done!
Mr BURKE: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was invited but unable to attend the official opening due to the fact that the budget came down that day and I was analysing the budget for my response the following day. However, I had the opportunity of a personal …
Mr Stirling: I think you should have gone to the opening!
Mr BURKE: ‘Should have gone to the opening’, the minister says. Actually, I had a personal tour of the resort by invitation of the owners some time before that. It was interesting, not only to reflect on the fact that these are Territorians who are getting up and having a go, doing it of their own effort and successful developers of another project in the Northern Territory, but doing it in the face of government ignorance to the whole project.
It is stunning that the Chief Minister would get up in this House today and talk about a resort. This is the tourism commissioner of the Northern Territory who has not put one foot inside that project in the whole of its construction period, who has a board in the Tourist Commission which has been calling for a resort in the Northern Territory, without ever mentioning the enormous amount of money and effort that has gone into that project - and her own Tourist Commission called it a bloody caravan park! When it went in for application it was called a caravan park! There were objections to that particular facility.
You have the gall, Chief Minister, to come in here and talk about what a wonderful development it is because you attended the opening - the first time you have set foot into a development that is about $13m of private money of Territorians putting their effort in the Northern Territory to get this place up and going and - trying somehow to suggest that you are interested in this project and have been supportive of it and welcome it on behalf of Territorians. It is an indictment that neither you, your Tourist Commission, your senior officers in the Tourist Commission, or any member of the Tourist Commission Board took any interest in that project in the whole of its time of completion – an indictment and a disgrace from a government that has no interest, no get up and go and, certainly, no vision for developing the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Tourism): Madam Speaker, you cannot let ignorant comments like that go without an answer. As Tourism Minister, I am very proud of what we have done to develop the tourism industry. After tough times, we have marketed the Territory like no other government has marketed the Territory, and it has created the opportunities.
I am delighted for people like the directors of the Airport Resort to be able to build that wonderful facility, and I make no apologies about that. That is the role of the Tourist Commission. That is the role of government and the Tourism Minister; to make sure that we recover the framework, we recover the elements that you need in a tourism market, and that is what we have done. I am proud of what we have done.
We put an additional $27.5m into marketing, and at ATEC last week in Alice Springs we were complimented by those running ATEC saying the Territory is a shining example of how to go about recovering a tourist market, and we received a big tick.
NT Health Call Centre
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I provide a report on the fulfilment of yet another important election commitment – the introduction of the NT Health Call Centre, NTHealthDirect.
NTHealthDirect is delivering a high quality service for the Northern Territory community and builds on the extra $207m and 100 extra nurses already in the health system. This government made the commitment to establish an 1800 free and confidential health call centre to provide a 24-hour, seven day a week, single point of contact for medical advice and support. Of course, in the event of an emergency, we can all still use the 000 emergency service.
In establishing this important service, we have take into account factors such as patient safety, value for money, and optimal risk of the health work force. After careful consideration it was decided to use the service and infrastructure that has been very successfully used for six years by the Western Australian government, a service run by McKesson Asia-Pacific. By ‘piggy-backing’ onto an existing service that has already been operating for six years, we can ensure that Territorians have access to a tried and tested service.
Senior clinical staff from the NT have visited the Western Australian service to ensure that it is appropriate for our environment, and members of the McKesson team have visited the NT and met with a range of service providers, both public and private from across the Territory, to ensure that they understand the issues that are relevant to the operation of the service.
A great deal of work has been undertaken collecting essential information to ensure the health call centre is a high quality, safe service, appropriate for use by all Territorians.
Community members from anywhere in the Northern Territory, and visitors to the Northern Territory, are now able to telephone this free call service, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for health advice. After gathering relevant information, the triage nurse makes an assessment using computerised decision protocols to advise the caller on the most appropriate course of action. At the touch of a button, NTHealthDirect nurses can find the right service for you or your family member and provide contact details and opening hours; that includes after hours care and home visiting services, nearest doctor, late night pharmacies and other health services provided in the community.
This service will reduce the pressures on the emergency departments in a number of ways: doctors working in emergency departments will no longer have to provide telephone health advice services and will be able to focus their attention on the patients in front of them. The same model call centre in Western Australia has resulted in only half the callers who planned to visit the emergency department actually attending. This means that emergency departments will be helping those who need it most.
On 19 April, I was delighted to launch the full service of NTHealthDirect to the Northern Territory community, announcing the 1800 186 026 free call number and the full details of the service. Marketing of this important service to the NT public has commenced and includes television, radio, brochures and print advertising. NTHealthDirect took a remarkable 1108 calls during the month of April. Of these, 742 were redirected from the Royal Darwin Hospital, 87 were redirected from the Alice Springs Hospital, and 189 were from Darwin and Alice Springs households, and the remainder from regional hospitals, regional and remote households.
It is too early to provide an extensive analysis of the results so far, but some representative feedback to date from callers to the NTHealthDirect service include a mother of a small baby who said: ‘This is a wonderful service and I will use it again,’ while another caller described it as ‘a great service’. NTHealthDirect will be continuously evaluated to monitor the use and success of this service, and I will be happy to provide a report to the House in the future on the results it achieves.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report, but I cannot possibly let him go without reminding him of a few home truths. This was the government that closed the Palmerston 24-hour clinic shortly after it came to government.
NTHealthDirect would not be necessary if this minister and, indeed his predecessors, did their job by ensuring that the people of the Northern Territory have adequate health services. They have that expectation because the budget before yesterday was $650m, and now it is up to $686m, a huge budget for a relatively small population.
We do not have enough doctors, we do not have enough nurses, and the minister should be quite ashamed of himself. The fact that he stood up with a straight face was alarming in many respects. I saw the news when he released NTHealthDirect and it was a dreadful performance, and even he must have cringed. The cameras were there and he had the phone on the lectern and he pressed the button and he said: ‘Oh, I am crook! I am crook!’ Well, you may be crook, minister, but I will tell you what is more crook: the state of health in the Northern Territory.
Too many people - including one of your colleagues whom I understand held the view that she nearly died waiting in hospital for up to 24 hours; we have one of your Labor mates saying: ‘Oh, this is serious! The health system must be crook, Pete,’ - are waiting for hours and hours and hours on hospital beds and trolleys at Royal Darwin. We have, I remind you again, 1600 people in Alice Springs waiting for elective surgery!
This is Australia in 2005. We have a relatively small population. I cannot believe that you sit there and indicate that NTHealthDirect is fantastic. NTHealthDirect may well have some benefits - minister, you can make hand gestures all you like - but I will tell you what: you are not doing anything for the state of health in the Northern Territory. You may be crook, but the health system is even more crook. You are a disgrace!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, from the feedback that I have had from NTHealthDirect, it is a good initiative from the government. We can still criticise the government for certain matters in Health. Health is one of those whopping, big departments that, matter who is in government, people are always going to have trouble with.
I would like to see some improvements to the health services in Palmerston and the rural area through the Farrar Medical Centre. However, be that as it may, we should give praise where it is due: the NTHealthDirect program is a good program. If it reduces the number of people turning up at the emergency service at Darwin Hospital for relatively minor complaints that is a good thing. It means fewer people there, and fewer people on the waiting lists at emergency at the clinic.
If I go back to my younger days, we certainly had problems with babies with high temperatures at night and were a bit concerned about what we should do. If that could have been solved over the phone that certainly would have saved us a long trip to the nearest clinic. So credit where it is due.
I will be interested in seeing when the government comes back with a report on it and how it is working. But I should say that that does not excuse work that should be done on places like the Farrar Medical Centre to provide a better service for people in Palmerston and the rural area.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his endorsement of the initiative. It is good to hear someone being a bit more fair-minded about it. On the comments of the member for Araluen, I have a sense of humour: guilty! I have over $200m additional money into a health budget: guilty! I have fulfilled an election promise and provided an excellent service to the Northern Territory: guilty!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report on this government’s commitment to preserving and protecting the Territory’s heritage. Protecting and conserving our unique Territory heritage is a priority for the Martin Labor government. Our heritage places are very important in shaping our Territory’s identity, and they play a significant role in our second biggest industry, tourism.
Labor came to government with a very important promise: to overhaul our systems and processes for conserving our heritage places. My predecessor, the member for Johnston, released a public discussion paper in November 2003 outlining the key issues for heritage reform and posing various options for improvement. Extensive and detailed community consultation was conducted throughout 2004. Community workshops were held across the Territory, meetings held with key organisations, and an on-line survey conducted. One of Australia’s leading heritage lawyers, Peter James, was also engaged to provide expert advice and, indeed, Mr James indicated the review process was the best he had seen.
The public review generated a remarkable level of interest. Over 500 copies of the discussion papers were distributed, and there were more than 1500 visits to the web site. Three hundred people attended public meetings and 44 submissions were received from individuals and a wide range of community organisations. This level of interest demonstrates the importance Territorians place on conserving their heritage. I have been heartened not only by the depth of the community input into the review, but also the remarkable consistency in the views put forward from property interests, industry and those passionate about conserving our heritage.
Almost all respondents agreed that the legislation needed a complete overhaul. Most importantly, there was substantial agreement on the nature of reform in terms of how decisions on heritage should be made, the interests that should be represented, and the additional types of places that should be protected. The Heritage Advisory Council has now provided me with their recommendations, and government has considered them. It is our view that they represent an excellent basis for taking our heritage laws forward.
Key features of the new legislation will be: looking at a new heritage council with expanded membership and decision-making powers in respect of heritage listing, subject to a ministerial call-in powers for matters of Territory significance; expanded appeal provisions for both the community and property owners; interim protection for sites once they are nominated; stricter time lines for decision making, providing the community and property owners with greater certainty; increased penalties for destroying or damaging listed heritage places; and two new types of heritage protection in addition to heritage listing of individual sites, namely, serial listing and notified heritage areas.
Our new heritage laws will bring greater certainty for the community, property owners and developers. The current heritage laws have delivered neither. There are currently more than 100 sites that have been nominated for heritage protection and are at various stages of consideration under the legislation. These include many sites that were nominated in the 1990s, some dating back as far as 1994. While all heritage laws have some backlog, I believe Territorians deserve better than to have heritage icons in legal limbo for more than a decade. This serves neither the property owner nor the person who nominated the property. All interested parties deserve an answer on heritage protection within a reasonable time frame, whichever way the decision goes. We can and will do better.
Our commitment to new heritage laws builds on the many achievements of this government, including listing 22 sites across the Territory; re-establishing a dedicated heritage officer for Alice Springs; establishing a dedicated $1m program for repairing and maintaining government-owned heritage places; and, most recently, I have acted for national heritage listing of the best of our World War II sites. They are a very important part of our and the nation’s history. I believe it would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifice of those who fought on home soil to defend our country and would also put them firmly on the tourist map.
Government will now be moving as quickly as possible to draft a bill for community comment. I look forward to presenting a final bill to this Assembly that will better conserve our heritage for the benefit of all Territorians.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot say enough how pleased I am to hear this ministerial report this morning. The review of this act has been a long time coming and a long time heralded. There are many people concerned with heritage in the Northern Territory who have been calling for this review to be finalised. I know they will be delighted to hear that is being wrapped up. We all look forward very much to seeing this draft bill. Here’s hoping it will not be much longer.
It is disappointing to note in the budget, in the last few days, the $18 000 cut to the heritage budget. Some people might say that $18 000 is neither here nor there, but it gives an impression that heritage is not so close to the minister’s heart as it should be. $18 000 buys a lot in the areas of grants, for example, for the preservation and conservation of heritage buildings here in the Northern Territory.
I had the pleasure, several weeks ago in Alice Springs, of touring some of the heritage sights with some of the community members interested in this area. Madam Speaker, you would be very aware of the issue of how our harsh climate beats down, either as sun, or rain here in the Top End, on our heritage and conservation buildings causing problems with maintenance. The community is very concerned about the lack of funding in the budget and the fact that maintenance is suffering.
Just to close, because I only get two minutes to comment, it is extremely galling to hear the minister talk about the Heritage Advisory Council and how the current legislation is not strong enough. Members of the Heritage Advisory Council, and interested and concerned residents of Alice Springs, will find this extraordinary coming from this minister because she overturned the proposal to have the Rieff Building listed. Many people in Alice Springs are very disappointed to see that this building cannot be preserved. The faade, at the very least, is not going to be preserved, and the minister should be ashamed of herself.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s report. The minister spoke about World War II sites. I believe there is much more to be done on that. There are many World War II sites that should be protected, and the government should move forward in that direction. I would be interested in the minister’s comments about what has happened to the protection of the East Arm leprosarium site that we looked at a couple of years ago; how far advanced that is. Would the government consider protecting some of our sites as if they were parks under the Parks and Wildlife? I believe the Alice Springs Telegraph Station comes under Parks and Wildlife. Should we have rangers to look after our World War II sites?
The last issue is that in the new NT Planning Scheme that is supposed to be one day before us, there is a zone called Heritage. I would be interested to know how the Heritage zoning would actually fit in with any new legislation on heritage. Will the two be compatible or will they be operating separately?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I need to respond to a couple of issues raised by the shadow spokesperson. In their response to heritage, they have form regarding heritage - a couple of things such as the Hotel Darwin which is a clear example of their legacy. They introduced an amendment to the current heritage legislation to enable the minister to destroy a declared heritage place. Their attempts were only thwarted by the community of Alice Springs, and there are some on that side who would remember that. This shameful amendment has no part in good heritage laws, and we will remove that.
For the member for Port Darwin to stand up here and parade her government’s example of heritage - well, thank goodness we are the ones who are putting in good heritage law.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is made up of some of the progressive multicultural communities in Australia. The Martin Labor government is strongly committed to supporting this diversity and is proud of its success in fostering an environment in which different communities forge a common identity with Territorians, irrespective of where they come from or what language they speak, who are retaining linkages with individual cultural identities.
Earlier this year, we released a multicultural policy which is designed to make government agencies responsive to the rights, obligations and needs of our culturally diverse population; to promote social harmony amongst the different culture groups in our society; and to optimise the benefits of our cultural diversity for all Territorians. The policy was developed following extensive consultation throughout the migrant and ethnic community across the Territory.
The basic elements that underlie this policy are set out in four broad principles to which our government is committed. They are: valuing diversity; fair access; encouraging participation; and mutual respect.
As well as a commitment to these ideals, our government also provides specific, tangible support for our multicultural communities. We support the many volunteer and community group efforts to enhance our multicultural society through various grants programs administered by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. The demand and competition for grants is high. For the financial year 2004-05, a total of 80 applications were received under the Multicultural Sponsorship Program; eight applications under the Cultural and Linguistic Awards; and 42 applications for Harmony Day activities or projects. In addition to this, 14 applications were received in 2004-05 under the Multicultural Community Facilities Development Program, a new initiative that we introduced in our last budget to provide $0.5m per annum for three years for refurbishing and upgrading community facilities.
For 2004-05, funding of $712 000 has been available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, which was an increase from $697 000 available in 2003-04. I am delighted to say that in 2005-06 there will be a further increase in grants funds available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program. A total of $737 000 will be available for multicultural activities, the Cultural and Linguistic Awards and Harmony Day activities throughout the Territory.
In addition to this, there will another $0.5m available under the Multicultural Community Facilities Development Program, although much of this has already been allocated to a number of approved upgrade projects which are to be staged over two and three years. There will be, however, funds available particularly for major repair works that arise from time to time.
During this financial year, we have approved funding for general upgrades to 12 organisations, and I have also allocated funding for urgent repairs to four organisations. The funding we have provided for this project has been welcomed by those community groups that have previously struggled to maintain their facilities. It is an initiative that we are very proud of.
We are a government for all Territorians and we are working together to keep the Territory moving ahead. We value the rich cultural diversity of our society and we welcome people from all parts of the world. As a government we will continue to support our multicultural community, not only through financial assistance, but with a genuine commitment to those communities reflected through the progressive multicultural policy that we have developed with the community and presented to this parliament earlier this year.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the minister’s emphasis on harmony in a multicultural society, and would ask the minister why then would he use his ethnicity as a minister to promote a perverse racial and divisive argument suggesting that, somehow, I made a comment in this House that was critical of his ethnicity. It is one of the lowest acts I have heard. It really strikes me as strange for a person who wears the uniform of a member of the Defence Force that you would be so lacking in integrity and basic honour that you would seek to promote an argument that there was something racial and divisive on a harmless comment.
All you could be, minister, is a puppet of a bunch of strategists up there who are somehow trying to leverage some political advantage by running a case to suggest that the CLP is racist. The sadness in the Northern Territory is that there is a perverse racist argument being run by the Labor Party. This Labor Party sets out to divide and promote racism, and sadly, minister, as an ethnic Australian, you are gullible and have fallen straight for it. I find that really sad, really sad.
I saw Greek contractors today at the caf in Briggs Street. Do you know what they are interest in? They are interested in payroll tax. They are interested in how we are getting this Northern Territory moving again. They are interested in how we can get a bit of get up and go into the place and how we can get some dynamic economy going. To have one of their own to be so gullible as to be sucked into this sort of strategy, which is nothing but divisive and wrong, I find really sad.
Do not stand up in this House and talk about harmony and a multicultural society when you cannot even practice it yourself.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, to claim that it was somehow a plot by the Labor Party. He made the comments; we did not plan them. It can be very easy to resolve the issue. He did not stand up and say: ‘It was a misunderstanding, I apologise …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: He did not. He just sat there quietly and said nothing. I did not chase publicity. It was the NT News journalist who heard what happened in this House and came and asked for my comments.
The reality is, yes, the CLP is a racist party. It is the only party in Australia that preferred to preference One Nation at the previous election. Shane Stone and John Howard condemned you. The only one who has not apologised for that is the current Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the party. Yes, they are a racist party.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the government’s commitment to create safer communities by removing the entitlement to bail for those people who have had a history of serious repeat offending. Subject to certain limited exceptions, the Bail Act currently provides that a person is presumed to be entitled to be granted bail. This does not mean that bail must always automatically be granted. Rather, the act sets criteria for determining a grant of bail, including consideration of factors such as the likelihood of committing another offence while on bail. The court always retains discretion to deny bail to an offender.
However, this bill specifically restricts the operation of the current presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders. It also introduces a provision to allow for a decision of a magistrate or justice to grant bail to be stayed for a maximum period of three business days, for the purpose of review by the Supreme Court.
The Bail Act already addresses, in a limited way, repeat offending with respect to serious violence. Section 8 of the Bail Act removes a presumption in favour of bail for an accused person who is seeking bail in relation to a charge of:
where the accused has already been found guilty of an offence of a similar nature within the last 10 years. Section 8 also removes the presumption in favour of bail for a person who commits an offence whilst on a suspended sentence unless the alleged offence is so minor that it is unlikely to be regarded as a breach.
This bill will extend the application of section 8 of the act to include the situation where a person is charged with a serious offence, and that that offence is alleged to have been committed while the offender was on bail for another serious offence, and the offender already has a prior conviction for a serious violence offence within the last 10 years, or a serious offence within the last two years. ‘Serious offence’ is defined in the bill as any offence which attracts a penalty of five or more years’ imprisonment. This amendment specifically targets person who have a history of serious offending and who offend in a similar manner whilst on bail.
Existing section 7A of the Bail Act sets out the offences for which there is a presumption against bail. The offences targeted at present are the most serious kind and include: murder; treason; serious drug offences attracting a penalty of at least seven years’ imprisonment; and certain Commonwealth narcotic offences. A person accused of any of these offences will be refused bail unless he or she can satisfy the court that bail should not be refused.
The presumption against bail is a particularly heavy onus to discharge and one that is not usually overcome. Basically, the applicant must satisfy the court that there are special reasons above and beyond the ordinary arguments for favouring bail which justify a grant of bail in the particular circumstances of the case. This provision recognises the serious nature of the offences in question, the higher level of risk to the community, and the increased risk of the offender absconding when released on bail.
The government believes that our bail legislation should reflect the importance of protecting the community from offenders who repeatedly commit serious violence offences and continue to offend whilst on bail. Under amendments to section 7A proposed by this bill, violent offenders can expect to be denied bail where they have a history of repeat serious violent offending.
There will be a presumption against the court granting bail where:
‘Serious violence offence’ is defined under the bill as covering the full range of offences against a person including: sexual offences; homicide; grievous harm or bodily harm; assault; robbery; and assault with intent to steal, where the offence in question attracts a penalty of five or more years’ imprisonment.
The provisions in this bill have been drafted to cover a wide combination of offences. To achieve this, the definition of ‘serious offence’ and ‘serious violence offence’ overlap insofar as they both cover offences that attract a penalty of imprisonment of five years or more. However, for the avoidance of doubt clause 5(5) of the bill makes it absolutely clear that, where there are at least two serious violence offences involved, one of which is committed whilst on bail, the matter must be dealt with under section 7A as a presumption against bail.
In line with international and government policy regarding offending by young people, these amendments will apply to adult offenders only. This recognises that young offenders require quite different approaches and have quite different needs to those which apply in the case of adult offenders. It also recognises that one of the primary aims of an effective youth justice system is to prevent young people from moving on to becoming adult offenders. In recognition of the success of offender rehabilitation programs, such as CREDIT, and the importance of rehabilitation in controlling crime generally, the amendments will not affect the continued operation of any existing bail rehabilitation programs.
A provision has been inserted by the bill to allow the programs to be prescribed in the regulations and for the court, where a person is assessed as suitable for such programs, to be able to consider this option despite any applicable presumptions against bail.
Finally, the bill provides for a stay of bail. The Bail Act already provides a process for reviewing bail decisions made by justices and magistrates. However, this new provision will mean that where the prosecution indicates its intention to seek a review in the Supreme Court of a court’s decision to grant bail, the grant of bail will be stayed pending the outcome of the review. The result is that the accused person will remain in custody while the stay remains in effect. The bill requires any such review to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, as the stay remains in place for a maximum period of three business days. The review is by way of a re-hearing of the bail application before the Supreme Court, and the court may vary the decision or make a substituted decision.
This legislation is intended to protect the community from known repeat offenders who commit serious crimes. In making amendments to such important legislation as the Bail Act, we are mindful of the balance between community safety and the rights of the individual. We believe that this bill addresses the issue of serious re-offending, while at the same time recognising that important balance.
Madam Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bill. I have tabled the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill, and I commend the bill to honourable members.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, prior to adjourning the bill, I wish to make a few remarks. I appreciate that the Attorney-General cannot speak in reply to this, but I would appreciate something that resembles an assurance that these bills will be debated before the next election. A nod, a nudge or a wink will be fine.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you are speaking to the bill, not about the election.
Ms CARNEY: If this bill, Madam Speaker, is not fully debated before the next election, it could be argued that it is nothing more than an election stunt.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! I just said to you if you want to make comments on the bill, you may, but you must stick to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: I am coming to those comments, Madam Speaker. We have seen that there is invariably a difference between the bills - and this bill is no exception from a cursory glance of it - government presents and their media releases. In that regard, I note a great similarity to a bill that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, introduced in October 2004. It was called the Bail Amendment Bill. This government refused to support it. This bail act that we have today appears to mirror, in many respects, the concept contained in the member for Macdonnell’s bill. I note the minister for Police has issued a media release today saying, in essence, that this bill is about repeat serial offenders who are caught committing another serious offence while on bail. The similarity to the bill the CLP introduced only months ago is startling.
In the member for Macdonnell’s speech he said, ‘The amendment is aimed specifically at indictable offences’, namely serious offences. He went on to say:
Finally, he said:
I do ask that the bill be now adjourned but I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave denied.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today, I present a bill that proposes the significant set of reforms to the Territory’s Criminal Code that have occurred since its inception. This government has worked consistently during its term to identify areas of criminal law that require reform. There is a tendency for debate on reform of the criminal justice system to focus on punishment to consider reform in terms of the penalties that are set for offences. The adequacy of the punishment set for crimes is certainly a matter that requires attention and revision as necessary. However, the punishment set by legislation is, in reality, the final consideration in the criminal justice process.
It is even more fundamental that we ensure:
Ongoing review of our criminal laws is required to ensure that they both meet current community expectations and deal with emerging forms of criminal activity. As a legislature in a jurisdiction in which the Criminal Code operates to the exclusion of the common law, we have a greater level of responsibility for ensuring that the code sets the proper fault standards for conduct in terms of the offences that have been created.
This bill has a two stage effect and purpose. First, it proposes reform of the Criminal Code that goes to the heart of fault theory in criminal law by enacting new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. It does so by enacting a new Part IIAA to the Criminal Code. The bill establishes a foundation upon which, over a proposed period of at least five years, the new general principles of criminal responsibility is set by the new Part IIAA will progressively be applied to all offences, eventually replacing existing Part II of the Criminal Code that currently sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.
Secondly, the bill provides for the existing manslaughter and dangerous act provisions to be repealed. They are to be replaced by a revised manslaughter offence and by offences of recklessly endangering life; recklessly endangering serious harm; negligently causing serious harm; and dangerous driving causing death or serious harm. Significantly, the existing rape offence is also to be amended. Part IIAA, the new criminal responsibility principles, will be immediately applied to all of these offences.
This government has given extensive consideration to whether existing Northern Territory laws that apply to acts of violence against the person are adequate and, in particular, whether those laws are consistent with criminal responsibility standards for that form of conduct in other jurisdictions.
Before I move to detail the contents of the bill, it is necessary to provide some history of the code provisions that are the subject of reform by this bill. The current criminal responsibility provisions in the Northern Territory code differ from the other code states; that is, Queensland and Western Australia which utilise the Griffith Code model, and Tasmania. The Northern Territory code was intended to be a unique code formulation, but it is apparent that its authors drew upon provisions and concepts from other codes, including the Griffith Code. It has been described as ‘eclectic in the utilisation of earlier models’ containing provisions that are ‘quite individual; indeed, almost idiosyncratic’. It certainly is all of that, and more.
As a result of the current formulation of criminal responsibility provisions in Part II, we have a justice system under which offenders who have caused the death of another have not been held criminally responsible to the same degree as they would have been had they committed the identical act in another jurisdiction. That recognition is hardly new. As early as 1992, in the case of R v Hofschuster, Justice Mildren had this to say:
A prime example is the case of Dooley vs R in which the killing in question, as observed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, involved a ‘… vicious beating of the victim in a vigilante fashion …’ involving ‘… premeditation and planning …’. It was characterised as being within the worst category of offending of its kind. It is doubtful whether a revenge-style vigilante killing would result in anything less than, at very least, a conviction for manslaughter in any other jurisdiction. Here in the Territory it was dealt with as a ‘dangerous act’.
This is not a matter that we can remedy simply by increasing the penalty for dangerous acts causing death. The dangerous act provision, under section 154 of the code is, in itself, unique and has been the subject of much criticism. Section 154 is of remarkable width because it covers an infinite range of conduct ranging from, at one end of the scale, that which creates only limited potential danger to the health or safety of a member of the public, to the other end of the scale, that involving actual grave danger to the lives, health and safety of many, including, as I have said, causing actual death.
Again, there is nothing new in this observation. As far back as 1988, the Australian High Court in Baumer v R describes section 154 as an
It would scarcely be an appropriate legislative response to increase the maximum penalty to life imprisonment for an offence that also applies to conduct causing not actual, but only potential harm.
Members may wonder at this point how such a situation can have arisen: how it is that manslaughter in the Territory does not appear to be the same crime that it is in other jurisdictions? It is the general criminal responsibility provisions of the code that bring this state of affairs about. In particular, it is section 31, the key and general criminal responsibility provision of the Criminal Code that is of pivotal importance in understanding these problems. Amending the manslaughter provisions and repealing section 154, dangerous act, and replacing it with new offences would not be possible without addressing the problems created by section 31. A former High Court Chief Justice has described this provision as ‘astonishing’. In its application to manslaughter, section 31 creates the peculiar result that an accused is excused from criminal responsibility for the death of a person unless he or she personally foresaw that death would result from his or her conduct. It, therefore, provides a subjective fault standard rather than an objective standard by which criminal responsibility is to be judged.
Heavy intoxication is a prevalent element in violent conduct in the Northern Territory. Because of the subjective fault requirement in section 31, it is extremely difficult to prove that a heavily intoxicated accused had personal foresight that the beating they were inflicting or the stabbing that they were committing might result in death. In other jurisdictions, conduct of this nature would fall within a category of manslaughter by negligence. In the Territory, by default, this can amount only to a dangerous act. Even more surprisingly, the history of section 154 makes it clear that it was actually intended to be used as a default provision for those crimes that section 31 precluded from conviction for manslaughter because of circumstances of self-induced heavy intoxication. It can be used in this way only because section 31 does not apply to section 154.
Section 154 has even been defended by some on the basis that without such a provision violent conduct committed by intoxicated persons would go unpunished. In 1989, when the matter of Baumer was returned from the High Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Nader observed:
Madam Speaker, let me summarise what the court was saying in that case. Rather than addressing a fundamental flaw in the way in which criminal responsibility provisions were set in the code to ensure that persons who committed violent acts causing death could be properly prosecuted for manslaughter as in other code jurisdictions, the Northern Territory chose to stick with provisions of lower culpability specifically to apply to drunken, violent offenders. That is the way the code stood in 1989 and that is how it stands today.
This is not good enough. It is not good enough to be satisfied that a person can just be convicted of some offence - any old offence it seems - when if that conduct was committed elsewhere, they would be made to bear the full criminal responsibility and punishment for manslaughter. It has sent the wrong message about personal responsibility and alcohol: if you get drunk and commit a violent offence, you are not as responsible and get to be treated more leniently than a sober person committing the same offence.
The problem with section 31 is not limited to manslaughter. As we know, sexual violence is also a prevalent crime in the Northern Territory. Section 31 has a profoundly unsatisfactory effect when applied to the rape offence under section 192 of the code. In its recent decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v WJI, the High Court considered the effect of section 31 on section 192. It held that because of section 31, the relevant fault element for this offence is that the accused must intend the act of having sexual intercourse without consent. The result of this is that if an accused believes that the victim is consenting, even if that belief is an entirely unreasonable one, he cannot have intended to have sexual intercourse without consent and must be acquitted.
Further, if an accused does not turn his mind to the issue of consent, claiming, for example, that in his state of intoxication he gave consent no thought at all, his conduct would again fail to satisfy the requisite fault element imposed by section 31; that is, intention to have sexual intercourse without consent. The effect of the WJI ruling is such that in a recent case before the Northern Territory Supreme Court, the jury was instructed in accordance with the decision in WJI that if they accepted that the accused had never given consent a thought, then they must acquit him. In the case in question, the accused had come upon a naked woman asleep on a bed. His argument was that he had had a few beers and thought that he would have sex with her, and never gave any thought to whether she was consenting or might not be consenting. He was acquitted.
In his judgment in WJI, Justice Kirby noted that this view of the law had been acted upon in the Territory for some time. He commented upon the failure of the Northern Territory legislature to amend the code and suggested that:
This is a fundamental flaw. There is no fall-back offence provision here for the intoxicated accused. An accused in these circumstances must simply be acquitted. If our laws are to address the problems of intoxication and violent and sexual offending in any significant way, then we must at least start by ensuring that in the Northern Territory, we do not accept lower standards of criminal responsibility than other jurisdictions. It is for this reason that I propose this bill to give effect to fundamental reform of the Criminal Code.
As I have said, the bill proposes a new Part IIAA that provides the general principles of criminal responsibility. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, has produced nine chapters for a model criminal code in work undertaken for more than a decade.
Part IIAA is based on chapter 2 of the Model Criminal Code. The Commonwealth has already used chapter 2 as the basis for criminal responsibility provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which is now in force in the Territory in respect of the commission of federal offences it creates. Establishing the general principles of criminal responsibility using the model code as the basis for our own code seeks to create uniformity of standards in the criminal laws that apply in the Territory by aligning the criminal responsibility for Territory offences with that for federal offences.
It will not be possible to immediately apply the new criminal responsibility provisions to the whole of the Criminal Code. This is a significant and substantial reform process upon which we are embarking. Each successive report of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee has included detailed model legislation that is designed to operate with the general principles of criminal responsibility provided by chapter 2.
This bill commences a process by which parts of the model code will gradually be considered, and new offences introduced to replace current offences under the Territory code. Those offences will be re-written to conform to the new general principles of criminal responsibility introduced to the code by the current bill. Offences will need to be drafted according to the style of the model code so that the fault elements of the new part can be applied to them. This new style uses clear and precise language to make our criminal laws more readily understandable.
The Australian Capital Territory has embarked on a similar reform process having already enacted chapter 2 of the model code. The ACT is gradually enacting provisions to replace the common law and the Crimes Act in that jurisdiction, a process that they also estimate will take at least five years to complete.
New Part IIAA of the code, inserted by this bill, will immediately be applied to the offences either amended by or created by this bill that I will describe now in detail.
The bill repeals the existing manslaughter offence and replaces it with the crime of manslaughter that provides that a person will be guilty of manslaughter if they engage in conduct that causes the death of another person; and they are either reckless or negligent as to causing that death by their conduct. New Part IIAA provides the detail of what is encompassed by the fault elements of recklessness and negligence for the purposes of the code. Negligence is not the civil standard with which members may be familiar, but rather it is a criminal standard drawn from the Victorian decision of R v Nydam [1977] VR430.
The bill also amends section 192 of the code - sexual intercourse with gross indecency without consent - the offence more commonly referred to as ‘rape’. The amendment alters the fault element for the offence so that a person who has sexual intercourse with, or commits an act of gross indecency on another person, and who knows about or is reckless as to the lack of consent, is guilty of a crime. Once again, Part IIAA provides for the definitions of what is encompassed by ‘knowledge’ or ‘recklessness’ for the purposes of this crime. A defence of mistake as to consent will still be available. However, unlike the present situation, such a mistake must be a reasonable one.
The bill proposes the repeal of section 154, dangerous acts or omissions. The conduct previously encompassed by section 154 will now be covered by manslaughter; reckless endangerment offences; a negligent harm offence; and an offence of causing death or serious harm by dangerous driving. At present, that conduct is dealt with under the generality of section 154. It is appropriate that these forms of criminal conduct should be separately recognised and prosecuted as such. The bill also provides for a list of aggravating circumstances for each of the endangerment offences to which an increased penalty applies.
The new harm offences draw on definitions of ‘serious harm’ and ‘harm’ from the model code. The bill also replaces all current references to ‘grievous harm’ in the code and other legislation with the new definition of ‘serious harm’, and replaces all references to ‘bodily harm’ with the new definition of ‘harm’. Each of the current harm standards are considered to have defects which make it preferable that they be immediately repealed and new harm standards applied. The definition of ‘grievous harm’ requires a physical or mental injury that either endangers life or causes, or is likely to cause, permanent injury to health. The latter requirement is problematic in that it is unlikely that cosmetic injuries, even extensive ones such as facial scarring or the loss of an ear, will amount to a permanent injury to health, unless accompanied by some lasting psychological consequence.
The definition of ‘bodily harm’ is limited by a requirement that the harm be physical in nature. The consequence is curious in establishing proper levels of criminal responsibility. An offender who causes a psychiatric injury, but no physical harm to a victim, may be guilty of a grievous harm offence, but not bodily harm. If the psychiatric injury is not permanent, then they will not be able to be convicted of either, and the offence would revert to common assault. The new definition of ‘harm’ removes these odd distinctions and provides that harm includes physical harm and harm to a person’s mental health. ‘Serious harm’ removes the requirement for permanency and replaces it with the requirement that the harm is, or is likely to be, significant and longstanding.
As I have said, the bill proposes a new offence for causing death or serious harm by driving a motor vehicle. The code has not previously provided for this offence because section 154 was intended to cover culpable driving cases. These offences had existed as statutory offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act prior to the introduction of the Criminal Code. Section 154 has caused difficulty here also, again particularly where alcohol is involved. Driving under the influence of alcohol or another drug may not, in itself, amount to a ‘dangerous act’, nor is driving at an excessive speed necessarily dangerous. This has led to an acquittal in a case where an intoxicated person drove at an excessive speed causing death, in the case Volz v R 1990 100 FLR 393 at 404 which is the court citation.
The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction that does not have a specific offence of causing death or serious harm by driving a motor vehicle. The bill proposes that such an offence be enacted. Persons who drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a drug, so as to be incapable of exercising proper control over a vehicle, or who drive in a manner or a speed dangerous to another person, will be guilty of this crime. Dangerous driving causing death or serious harm will be an offence of strict liability. In other words, the prosecution will not be required to prove any fault elements - for example, recklessness - but must prove only the physical elements of the offence. However, a defence of mistake of fact remains available.
The creation of a specific offence of causing death or serious harm from driving a motor vehicle will not preclude, in proper cases, such matters being prosecuted as manslaughter. Under the present structure of the crime of manslaughter, such a prosecution was unlikely to be considered because the prosecution was required to prove that the defendant foresaw the victim’s death as a possible consequence of his or her conduct. Under the new manslaughter offence, if there is a level of recklessness or criminal negligence in the driving of a vehicle that is considered to be such that a higher degree of culpability should be considered, then a prosecution for manslaughter may be available.
Of the criminal justice reforms undertaken so far by this government, this will be the most far-reaching and will be of enduring importance in ensuring that the standards of criminal responsibility in the Northern Territory are set at a proper level. It is high time we moved away from an acceptance that intoxication can excuse criminal behaviour. It may explain it, but it should never excuse it. Inadequate criminal responsibility provisions that have allowed the situation to exist will no longer be tolerated.
The reform path that I have announced will be long and complex but, at the end of the day, Territorians will have a Criminal Code that sets appropriate standards of criminality in our community.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bill. I table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill. I commend the bill to all honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Youth Justice Bill 2005 (Serial 292) and Youth Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2005 (Serial 293):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the main bill, the Youth Justice Bill 2005, is to ensure that the legislation that applies to offending by young people provides an appropriate framework for responding effectively to the different circumstances and needs that arise when young people become involved in the criminal justice system. The framework set in place by the bill will cover all facets of the youth justice system from the investigation of offences through to trial and sentencing outcomes.
The Youth Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill amends various acts and subordinate legislation consequent on the enactment of the Youth Justice Act. In particular, there are amendments to the Justices Act, the Police Administration Act and the Sentencing Act. The majority of the amendments in this bill are aimed at correcting terminology or repealing provisions which are no longer necessary.
Amendments to the Sentencing Act also make it clear that the Supreme Court can exercise powers under either the Sentencing Act or the new Youth Justice Act. This is consistent with provisions in the substantive bill dealing with the powers of the new youth justice court and the Supreme Court respectively.
I return now to the main bill – the Youth Justice Bill 2005. This bill is intended to repeal and replace the Juvenile Justice Act. The bill arises out of a lengthy process of consultation with a wide range of government and community stakeholders. A discussion paper on the review of the Juvenile Justice Act was publicly released in March 2004. A process of extensive consultation with stakeholders with experience and/or interest in the youth justice system was undertaken by the working party conducting the review. This process of consultation informed the working party’s subsequent recommendations which shaped the policy underlying the bill in its current form. One of the most significant new features of the legislation to arise out of the working party review was the inclusion in the bill of overarching objectives and guiding principles based on national standards and international conventions relating to the treatment of young offenders.
The guiding principles set out in clause 4 of the bill provide the framework for responding to offending by young people. It is these principles which must be taken into account in administering the act as a whole. The principles will also inform the decisions of the courts made under the new act.
Key guiding principles under the bill include:
These principles recognise that young offenders require quite difference approaches and have quite different needs to those that apply in the case of adult offenders. Young people need to be dealt by the criminal justice system in a way that takes account of their age and maturity, but they also must be held accountable for breaking the law and encouraged to accept responsibility for their behaviour.
One of the primary aims of the youth justice system is to prevent young people moving on to become adult offenders. Young people need to be given the opportunity to address their offending and to develop themselves in a socially responsible way. It is only when such strategies fail that detention in custody may become the appropriate option for addressing offending.
The general principles also recognise the importance of family relationships, cultural identity and the need to encourage parents and caregivers to fulfil their responsibilities in the care and supervision of young people. It is nothing new to observe that youth offending frequently goes hand in hand with family dysfunction, neglect and a failure to properly care for and supervise children and young people.
In addition to the review of the youth justice system, the government has also been undertaking an extensive review of the legislation that provides for the care and protection of children and young people – the Community Welfare Act. A discussion draft of the proposed Care and Protection of Children and Young People Bill was tabled in this House during the December 2004 sittings.
Together, the Youth Justice Bill and the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Bill will provide a complete legislative framework for dealing with the problems faced by children and young people in our society, including ensuring children and young people are afforded appropriate levels of care and protection, preventing the exploitation of children and young people, and dealing with youth offending in a way that will divert young people from progressing to becoming adult offenders and wasting their potential to develop into valuable members of the community.
We have dealt with many bills during this term of the Legislative Assembly that have made specific provisions for matters affecting children. As a legislature, we have been particularly mindful that children and young people are vulnerable members of our society. That is why we have passed legislation providing for longer sentences for people who commit sexual crimes against children, and who would engage in child abuse in the form of pornography. That is why we have attempted to heighten protection for children against sexual predators by establishing a Child Sex Offenders Register and reporting obligations for child sex offenders. That is why we have provided evidentiary procedures in criminal trials involving children as victims or witnesses to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and compassionately during the trial process.
All of these matters are fair and just measures and consistent with our appreciation that children and young people are not adults. In the criminal justice system, recognition of a reduced capacity of children and young people calls for consideration of special measures, whether the young person is a victim of crime or an actual offender.
From time to time we hear calls for, in essence, locking up young offenders and throwing away the key. In reality, some young offenders will certainly need to be held in custody. The seriousness of a young person’s actions and repeated offending may be matters that, in individual cases, do warrant detention and, in some cases, detention for a lengthy period of time. In recognition of their greater level of maturity, this bill provides for young offenders over the age of 15 to be detained for longer periods of time, up to a maximum period of two years; and to be subject to non-parole periods that may be imposed by the court in any case where a sentence involves detention for 12 months or over.
However, such cases are at one end of the spectrum of youth offending. We must be careful not to cast all young people into a single mould. Legislation in this area must recognise the whole range of offending by young people that occurs, and the whole spectrum of youthful behaviour and needs.
In addition to outlining objectives and guiding principles to inform the over-arching approach to responding to offending by young people, this bill provides for a full range of dispositions necessary to deal with offending behaviour by young people.
In summary, this bill:
I will now outline some of the key initiatives contained in this bill.
Diversion: one of the key features of the bill is an expansion of the successful pre-court diversion scheme previously contained in the Police Administration Act. That scheme offered four levels of diversion: verbal warnings; written warnings; formal cautions and family conferences; and victim-offender conferences. Similar levels of diversion will also be offered under the scheme in this bill, with the presumption in favour of diversion as the appropriate response to youth offending in all cases except those involving serious offences; or those involving offending by young people with a history of offending or previous diversions.
The new provisions also include the capacity for a youth justice court to refer a young person to the Police Diversion Unit to re-assess their suitability to participate in a diversionary program. In the interests of furthering rehabilitation of young offenders, it will be an offence to publish information about a young person who is participating in a diversionary program.
Under the diversion scheme, in addition to coordinating family or victim offender conferences, the police are able to refer young offenders to community-based youth offender programs which include counselling, education, training and life skills programs.
Under the bill, an upgraded version of the existing diversion scheme is transferred from the Police Administration Act to the proposed Youth Justice Act. This has been done because provisions under such a diversion scheme is more appropriately situation in legislation that deals with the full range of responses to offending by young people, rather than legislation that provides for the powers of police officers and the establishment of the police force. Nevertheless, the police will continue to play an important operational role in administering youth diversion under the new act.
Making young people aware of their rights and obligations: the bill also provides for a youth justice system that is sensitive to cultural differences and requires adults dealing with young offenders to explain what is happening at all stages of the process, and they must make these explanations in language which is appropriate to the young person’s age, maturity, cultural background and language skills. If we are to expect young people to be responsive to our efforts to curb their offending and to accept full responsibility for their actions, we must start by making sure that they actually understand what is happening to them and why.
This bill provides that, wherever practicable:
Each of these measures is aimed at ensuring that young offenders fully appreciate the nature of the consequences that flow from their offending behaviour. However, they also recognise that young peoples’ lower level of maturity and capacity to understand and anticipate consequences means that they warrant different treatment from adult offenders.
New Youth Justice Advisory Committee: another new initiative established by this bill is the Youth Justice Advisory Committee. This will allow for a greater level of community input in the youth justice system and aims to encourage government agencies responsible for youth matters to take a whole-of-government approach in responding to youth issues.
Part 13 of the bill provides:
I anticipate that the Youth Justice Advisory Committee will meet two or three times each year.
New Register of Appropriate Support Persons: in another new initiative under this bill, the Youth Justice Advisory Committee will also be responsible for establishing and maintaining a Register of Appropriate Persons. The new register will contain a list of people who have been selected as being appropriate persons to act as support persons where a young person’s chosen support person cannot be contacted or cannot attend within a reasonable period of time.
Young people have an existing right to have a support person present when they are apprehended by police for the purposes of interview, a search or any other matter in connection with an investigation. The support person will usually be a young person’s parent or guardian. However, there will be circumstances where the main caregiver may not always be able to be present and it will be important to avoid further delays in progressing a police investigation.
The new provisions under this bill will ensure that, where the police have made reasonable attempts to have a young person’s support person or legal representative attend an investigation, but that person is not available, the police may instead contact someone from the Register of Appropriate Persons to act in the role of a support person. This measure ensures that young people are assured of appropriate support mechanisms during investigative procedures, but that police processes are not unduly delayed by the inability to locate relatives or legal representatives.
Greater victim participation: this bill impacts on all criminal justice agencies at the point at which they become involved with young offenders, including police, court officers and correctional services. It also impacts on the community at large. In addition to providing for greater community participation through the Youth Justice Advisory Committee and the Register of Appropriate Persons, the bill specifically provides for a greater level of engagement by victims of youth offending. Victim offender conferences are already used as a very effective tool in our diversion programs. Under this bill, this tool has been extended to matters that proceed before the Youth Justice Court.
In addition to the court receiving victim impact statements or a victim report, the court may adjourn sentencing proceedings and order the youth to participate in a pre-sentencing conference. Such conferences may be with the victim, or with such community representatives or other persons as the court may consider appropriate. This new initiative will implement a practical way of ensuring young offenders face up to the actual consequences of their actions, and they will be required to meet with and hear directly from the individual or individuals whose lives their offending behaviour has affected. I am convinced that this is a most powerful way of encouraging young offenders to accept full responsibility for their behaviour and gain a very real insight into the consequences of their actions.
A greater range of sentencing options: the bill also makes a wide range of sentencing dispositions available to the court in dealing with young offenders. Sentencing principles are set out in Part 6, Division 1 of the proposed act. These principles are consistent with government policy underlying justice for young people and the community in general, and clearly articulate current sentencing philosophy. The bill sets out the sentencing options in a logical manner and in order of seriousness. This is similar to the approach taken under the Sentencing Act which deals with sentencing of adult offenders. The wide range of sentencing options available to the court will ensure maximum flexibility for magistrates and judges, allowing them to order the most appropriate sentencing outcome for the young offender in question.
Some of the new options available to the court include: provision for supervised bail; more comprehensive provisions for periodic detention; consolidated probation and good behaviour orders; application of review and breach provisions to all sentences; provision for the court to order aggregate sentences or that sentences be served concurrently or cumulatively; and a new option for the court to sentence a young person to strictly monitored home detention as an alternative to detention in an institution. As mentioned previously, amongst the new sentencing options available to the court are longer sentences for detention for young people over 15 years of age, as well as the capacity for the court to impose non-parole periods for such offenders.
While this bill provides a sound framework and a wide range of mechanisms for dealing with young people involved in the criminal justice system, it has to be recognised that legislation cannot, of itself, provide all the answers to youth offending. We are fortunate, however, in the Northern Territory to have agencies and individuals who bring dedication and determination to an often difficult task of working with young people to address their offending behaviour, and assisting them to develop their lives in a constructive rather than a destructive way.
The outcomes of operationally-based responses such as the Territory’s juvenile diversion scheme have been very encouraging. Such programs demonstrate the importance of a continuing commitment to the alternative approaches to dealing with youth offending. An evaluation of the NT diversion scheme undertaken by the Commonwealth highlighted the significant results that can be achieved from this approach to youth offending. Diversion was offered to over 50% of 4159 young people apprehended in the first three years of the scheme. The vast majority of young people offered diversion accepted this option rather than going to court, and over 95% of all diversions were completed to the satisfaction of police.
The outcomes in terms of recidivism are also positive. The vast majority of young people who completed diversion were not re-apprehended within a year of their initial arrest. Furthermore, the rate of re-offending for young people who had completed a diversion program was lower than that for young people who continued through the court process. Other benefits of diversion included a positive impact on the lives of young people, a high level of victim satisfaction, consistency with the application of diversionary measures, and an enhanced perception of the NT Police Force.
I am thankful for the participation of Victims of Crime in this process for their generosity in engaging with the young people who have offended against them in conferences in an attempt to assist them to turn their lives around and, of course, under this bill the role of victims has been enhanced.
It is acknowledged that there is more work to be done but, with the dedication and hard work exhibited by these outcomes and within the framework of the Youth Justice Bill 2005, I am certain that we will continue to build on and achieve more positive outcomes in the youth justice system.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bills. I table the explanatory statements which accompany the bills. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 17 February 2005
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the report from the Standing Orders Committee, the Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly, to this House. There were a number of issues considered by the committee over this term and those issues are outlined in the report that is tabled before us today.
The first issue - the resolution is here in the House - is that the Assembly considers members, in speaking in the Assembly or in a committee, should take the following matters into account – and it goes to the issues of freedom of speech and the right for members to exercise very much, very close discretion in allegations that may be made against members of the public and people who do not have the right of reply in this particular Assembly. The committee was tasked with looking at options to ensure, as much as possible under our standing orders, that members exercise those rights judiciously in regards to freedom of speech. The resolution goes into detail of some principles in regards to the responsibility we have in this parliament of that right that is inherent in the Westminster system, and the capacity for the Speaker, whenever the Speaker considers it is desirable to do so, to draw the attention of members to the spirit and letter of the resolution. That is the issue that was under consideration as a result of comments that were made and representations that were received by me as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee.
Another issue was of proposed Standing Order 177A which was the adoption of explanatory statements to be included with legislation; an issue that the member for Nelson wanted the Standing Orders Committee to consider. I am pleased to say that the Standing Orders Committee has adopted that resolution and explanatory statements are now part of bills that are presented to the House.
There was, I would have to say, a pretty torturous and tortured debate regarding procedural guidelines for debate on motions and amendments to motions. If there is any Territorian who is vitally interested in this matter, included is a discussion of those torturous and tortured debates in committee, and guidelines for amending motions and who can speak to a motion that has been amended or amended a second time. All of us have some clarification of that particular procedural part of parliamentary business; not that there would be too many Territorians, I believe, who would bother to avail themselves of that particular part of the committee’s report.
New Standing Order 270A, essentially, provides guidelines for the Assembly committees to decide whether to conduct meetings using audiovisual or audio links. That is as a result of technology that has emerged over the years. I would encourage all members and public servants who live outside of the major cities of Darwin and Alice Springs, wherever possible, to use video conferencing as opposed to taking up precious time and dollars travelling. As a result of that new technology, I would like to see the committees of this parliament far more frequently use the technology that is now available. Guidelines to assist committees are now incorporated under that new standing order.
I commend the committee for its work. I thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend their report to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a difference in tone and substance we have today compared with the member for Wanguri’s hysteria on 12 October 2004! Much of this report has arisen as a result of what I describe as ‘vigorous debate’ made in the context of legislation. We know that the Australian Labor Party does not like us questioning this government, or rigorously scrutinising the legislation it presents, but, that being our job, we do it. I did it in relation to the Evidence Reform (Children and Sexual Offences) Bill on 7 October last year.
Members will recall that the member for Wanguri, as Leader of Government Business, tabled documentation: letters that were addressed to him as Chair of the Standing Orders Committee by some public servants. They were apparently aghast that I had dared to suggest that the legislation was not all it was cracked up to be, a recurrent theme through the legislative history of this government. The member for Wanguri just went on and on and on about how utterly disgraceful it was that I had dared to criticise the bill. Yet, we have today his insipid response and the effect of it really is: ‘Everything we said that day, member for Araluen, does not really apply. The indignity that we feigned, the outrage that we feigned, we were only joking’.
The member for Wanguri and his colleagues, it seemed to me and my colleagues, were basically threatening me with almost everything and, potentially, an appearance before the committee for my outrageous behaviour as they saw it. I said on the day, and I say again, that my life is too short to simply nod to everything this government wants me to, and I will vigorously scrutinise legislation any day of the week.
We knew the government was not serious because we said at the time: ‘Bring it on, bring it on. Let us have a committee. If you are as outraged as you purport to be, why don’t we get these senior public servants… ’ - and I do hope they are listening - ‘… to front the committee and we can ask them all sorts of questions about why it was that they were affronted?’. I looked forward to the opportunity; I really did. It would have been a very enjoyable and useful process. However, that was not to be.
The member for Wanguri came in here today and, basically, said: ‘Here is the report of the committee and isn’t it good?’ It shows the deceitful way this government operates, the spin to which it is prepared to go in order to make a point; their point being how outraged they were that I scrutinised legislation very, very carefully. The public servants who wrote the letter must be embarrassed. I remember the Leader of the Opposition said that: ‘If the likes of Richard Coates feels affronted by some of the things …’ I said: ‘Diddums, diddums!’ I repeat, echo and thoroughly endorse everything the member for Brennan said on that day, Mr Coates. I am sorry that he was affronted, but I suggest that his indignation was feigned as well. That is evidenced by the fact that this government did not go to where it was threatening to go by possibly having a committee and doing all sorts of things in an attempt to embarrass me.
I will stand by every single word I said during that debate on 7 October last year. The bill was a dog’s breakfast. It was flawed in a number of respects, and why it is that the second reading speech was, in parts, incomprehensible, remains a mystery.
Members will also recall that, on the same day as the debate, we had the Attorney-General issue an outrageous and offensive media release in which he implied that I favoured the protection of paedophiles. It was a vile and disgusting inference, and one which, after much debate, he reluctantly - and I question his sincerity in relation to it - apologised. Members will recall the debate on that day, in which the member for Brennan and the member for Drysdale spoke at length about how disgraceful that media release was.
On 12 October, the Leader of Government Business brought a motion into this House saying that I had made, ‘a series of assertions regarding the professional capacity of NT public servants who prepared the bill’. The member for Wanguri tabled a letter that had been written and signed by three public servants. He named them. I made no reference to any individual, by name or otherwise, in the course of the debate - none whatsoever. In any event, these three people wrote to the Leader of Government Business. It did have the appearance then, and it has now, of being a set-up, but I will never know, that is for others to judge. In any event, they wrote a letter and they were apparently happy for that letter to be made public. Whereas I did not name anyone, these public servants who were so affronted named themselves and acted with government to ensure that they were named by the tabling of the letter. It was as hypocritical as it was irrational.
Part of the motion put by government on 12 October last year was asking whether the standing orders needed to be strengthened to provide people with ‘a mechanism to respond to allegations that they believe unfairly impugned their reputations’. I say how laughable it is that government should name public servants after feigning indignation that public servants who were not named were affronted by my comments. In fact, I do not think I even used the word public servants. However, but I digress. The bottom line is that government did not like the criticism it copped for the bill it introduced, and they manufactured the sham to make it appear as though I had personally attacked public servants, which was and is a nonsense. Government wanted to deflect attention away for the criticism it got for the bill and it is as simple as that.
If government wants to fix up its standing orders, then it is free to do so at any time. But it should not go to the trouble of manufacturing a story and a series of events to make it look like I made you do it. It is both dishonest and disingenuous.
Government produced a letter from Sue Lowry upon which they sought to rely. That letter was dated 7 October and it was written to the Attorney-General. I then received an e-mail from Sue Lowry and I will quote an extract of it:
I digress, she obviously was told that I had attacked public servants. In any case, she goes on in the e-mail:
It seems like she was duped by the people on the fifth floor. I quote part of that e-mail because it demonstrates that this government was hell-bent on attacking me because, as the government members saw it, I had the audacity to question one of its bills. There is a neat way of putting this and it is called a hissy fit. Government created a drama as a result, when there was not one. The Leader of Government Business said in support of the motion he moved on 12 October and I quote:
Etcetera. It is absolutely laughable. Here is what I said about the so-called victims groups in the course of the debate:
When government did produce this stunt back in October 2004, we said that if government was so sensitive, and if the three public servants who named themselves were so sensitive, then the government should arrange for them and others to give evidence on oath before the committee so that we could examine them as to the extent of their concerns and why they felt compelled to write to government, thereby putting their names in the public domain when they were not put there by me or my colleagues. This ‘no guts’ government decided not to do so. It demonstrates again that it was a sham, it was a stunt, and it always was.
As for the feigned indignation and the suggestion that I was attacking public servants, if they want to play that game then we can look at their own conduct. They have named many public servants in this House. Certainly not long after coming to government, they were naming them by the truckload. However, let us have a look at some things that their current members have done - or at least one member in particular - and it is an instructive example of the hypocrisy of this government.
In an ABC radio interview on 1 March this year, the member for Barkly, when he spoke about the lack of adequate services at the Tennant Creek Hospital said, and I quote:
It is the Labor way; they can say and do anything they like - they always do - and it is typical of the patronising, hypocritical approach of most members of this Labor government.
But wait, there is more. There is more - and it was interesting that it came up in Question Time today - and it is the issue of the government’s dirt file. That is a file the Australian Labor Party is keeping on Territorians who ring and do things like exercise their democratic right to ring up talk-back radio and speak their mind in relation to this government.
Mr Bonson: Why don’t you go outside these doors? Why don’t you go outside and say the same thing?
Ms CARNEY: This government does not just keep copies of transcripts …
Mr Bonson: Put it on public record.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … as has been suggested by members of the government. They do not just keep copies of transcripts. What they do is they use a particular …
Mr Bonson: Why don’t you go outside of this Chamber …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Member for Millner.
Ms CARNEY: … categorisation system. They categorise what people say and what they think and who they are. I can quote a couple of extracts and I can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the government …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Millner, what are you saying to me?
Mr Bonson: Go outside this Chamber, like the member for Barkly did and say those things. Go on, why don’t you?
Ms CARNEY: Oh, you are more of a fool than I thought you were. You were the one who says sniffing was illegal, weren’t you?
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: In any event, I will ignore the inane and cretinous interjections of the member for Millner …
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the personal, offensive remarks. You know that is in breach of standing orders.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘cretinous’, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. In any event, I can quote extracts which will demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the government’s handling of this stunt can only be described as a stunt. I can demonstrate the sensitivity, the irrationality and the hypocrisy of this government and, indeed, it gives me some pleasure to do so.
Extracts from the dirt file: I have three here. On radio in relation to tourism, when I was shadow tourism minister, I said on 6 February 2002: ‘I call on the Chief Minister to demonstrate her commitment to Central Australia by committing funding to get another airline into the Centre to help our tourism industry.’ Do you know how they categorised that? It says ‘Policy Result’ then it says ‘critical of NTG …’ meaning Northern Territory government, ‘… /NTPS’, in other words, critical of the Northern Territory Public Service for saying: ‘I call on the Chief Minister to demonstrate her commitment to Central Australia?’ You have to be joking! But wait, there is more.
On 22 July 2002, I said on radio: ‘A police shopfront should also be funded by government.’ Funny that that should resurface again by Labor just before the election. Anyway in 2002, I said: ‘A police shopfront should also be funded by government. I spoke with police officers in Brisbane who have a 24 hour a day presence less than 20 m off the mall and they told me that the shopfront with security cameras had a significant effect on crime’. You know how they categorised it? ‘Critical of NTG/NTPS’! Critical of the Northern Territory Public Service - and I do hope they are listening. I have another example, there are bucket loads more.
Here is what I said on 10 September 2002 - in fact, it is quoting what media said, it says: ‘Ms Carney said the government needs to significantly increase its tourism funding, offer tax incentives to struggling industry members, and get an assurance from Qantas that it will not further cut international links in and out of the Territory.’ Do you know how they classified that one? The Labor dirt file? The classification was ‘critical of NTG/NTPS’. You have to be joking!
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask for those papers to be …
Ms Carney: Happy to.
Mr KIELY: … tabled as they are a record of the so-called ‘Dirt File’. I would like …
Ms Carney: I would be quite happy to table these, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Sit down.
Mr KIELY: I would like these as an accurate reflection …
Ms Carney: Sit down.
Mr KIELY: … of the so-called ‘Dirt File’ and ask that they be tabled, please.
Ms Carney: Sit down! Sit down!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: I said yes.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! I am actually in the Speaker’s Chair. I will decide who sits down.
Ms CARNEY: Well, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was still listening to the member for Sanderson while you were interjecting so if you could just calm down a bit. Continue with your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am guided, as always, by your wise and prudent counsel, unlike the inane and just absurd comments by the member for Sanderson. I hear that the polling in Sanderson is terribly interesting.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask her to withdraw those comments, please. They were a personal reflection.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, the standing order in regards to offensive remarks to a member: if you want to consider withdrawing the references you made to the member for Sanderson, not the references you made to polling, the references to the member himself.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what did I say?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recall two offensive words.
Ms CARNEY: Which was it in particular, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, are you getting smart with me as Speaker?
Ms CARNEY: I am asking you for a point of clarification, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. What was it?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the two words the member took offence to were ‘inane’ and ‘absurd’.
Ms CARNEY: I ask for your ruling, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I have heard those used in parliament all the time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you. I am asking you.
Ms CARNEY: I do not choose to withdraw them, no.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fine, if you want to be like that, member for Araluen. It reflects on yourself.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the classification used by the Australian Labor Party’s ‘Dirt File’, the Labor government in the Northern Territory and, in fact, the theatrics of the members on the other side - although they might not be members for long on account of the polling in relation to the seat of Sanderson - demonstrate how touchy they are. It speaks volumes about this entire stunt orchestrated by government.
The classifications from Labor’s own ‘Dirt File’ do show Labor’s sensitivity. Under the Australian Labor Party, which I thought would have been a decent bunch of socialists when they came in – well, this is turning into a fascist state because, according to the Australian Labor Party, almost any comment about anything is a criticism against not only the government, but a criticism against public servants. Well, a bigger crock I have not heard! And there was I thinking that Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s was a thing of the past.
In summary, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say to government: how dare you waste this parliament’s time…
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I know this is a very important subject to you, but I am in the position of being the only Jew in this Chamber and I personally find those remarks highly offensive. I do not mind most of the cut and thrust of what you say but, really, saying that I am part of a government that is akin to the Fascist state in Germany is incredibly offensive to me. I would ask you to consider withdrawing.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move for an extension of time such that my colleague may conclude her remarks.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sure.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Kiely: No!
Dr Lim: It has been ruled upon. Sit down!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had already ruled that she can continue her remarks. I did, however, pose a question to you, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I decline on the basis that a reference to Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s is in fact a reference to historical fact, and it is on that basis and I am sure, in a personal sense, you appreciate that.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Actually, I am saying that those remarks were offensive because they are saying that the government I am a part of is fascist to the extent of Nazi Germany. I am asking you to consider again that you have offended me as a member of this Chamber.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. You have asked me again, and, again, I decline.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to take some advice on this. Mr Clerk? Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw those offensive remarks without reservation.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw those remarks, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in terms of offensive comments, here is an interesting one. On Tuesday, 3 May, we debated the Volatile Substance Bill. In the course of what, again, would be described as ‘vigorous debate’ and where I was questioning the minister’s knowledge of the bill, this is what the Chief Minister had to say to me. She said:
She said that to me, of all people!
Mr Dunham: Didn’t she call you ‘a harridan’, too?
Ms CARNEY: Oh, she has called me all sorts of things, but misogyny is an offensive term. To be accused of misogyny is, I would suggest, given your comments from the Chair, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you would find that utterly disgraceful.
I say that in the context of the reference to Germany. However, in the context of attacking this government, when they are attacked, when they are held to account, we have your boss, the Chief Minister, accusing someone – me - who is attacking a minister who happens to be a woman, of being a misogynist. This is extraordinary and so hypocritical because if I were to follow the logic of the Chief Minister – and frankly, I do not think that she is possessed of it – I would say to the member for Wanguri: ‘What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny!’.
However, I did not say that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. That is what the Chief Minister said after trying desperately to defend the Minister for Family and Community Services the other day. I have made my point in relation to this government. It is this disgraceful stunt that occurred on 12 October 2004 and, boy, have I been looking forward to it! I was hoping that this would come up in Alice Springs. I thought we would really get stuck into it, but they chickened out. They chickened out. They were all standing there on 12 October, especially the member for Wanguri, really getting stuck into me - some would say he is a misogynist; I could not possibly say that, some might have that view - and threatening me with all sorts of things. It was a stunt and it is the hallmark of this government.
This country, this Territory, is a democracy. I will repeat that, because some members of the government do not understand that. This is a democracy and, like any citizen of the Northern Territory, I plan on having my say whenever I can. Partly, it is because it is what I am paid to do and, partly, because I am a woman who likes to say what I think.
If the government brings to this Chamber flawed, ill-considered, silly legislation, then I will call it that. I said at the time we debated the bill, my life is too short to simply nod my head to government’s legislation. I am sorry that the government did not like what I said. I am sorry it became blindingly obvious during the course of the debate that the bill was terrible, but I say to members of the government …
Mr Bonson: No, I have the words here.
Ms CARNEY: … toughen up! Toughen up, Matty! Toughen up! Do not waste our time and taxpayers’ money by coming up with these sorts of political ‘let’s attack Carney’ sort of stunts. If you are going to be serious, can you at least follow through? You should all be ashamed of yourselves, and I note with interest that is not the first time I have said this in this Chamber, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on a couple of items in the Standing Orders Committee Fourth Report to the 9th Assembly. I thank the committee for moving that we now have explanatory memorandum statements in our bills. I believe that is an important improvement in the way bills are put forward to parliament. Explanatory memorandum statements, as you know, are now part of the bills that are presented here and I certainly believe it is a great help when people are trying to understand what the bill is about.
I would like to make an addendum to that. I have written to one of the committees - I cannot remember which committee, I think it was the Standing Orders Committee - about the possibility of IT being used in this Chamber. IT screens were used during the Alice Springs sittings and they are of benefit to the public, and probably sometimes they are of benefit to parliamentarians as well, so when they come in here they know what is going on. However, especially for the public, they can have a better understanding of what is happening at the time.
I thank the Standing Orders Committee for supporting the idea of explanatory memorandum statements. I believe it is a great improvement in the way we present our bills.
Just a quick note on the amendments to motions, and I notice the member for Wanguri discussed how it is probably not very relevant to many people outside of this Chamber. It is still fairly complicated to read it. I sometimes wonder whether we could do with a diagrammatical form of this because it is not that easy to follow. Perhaps someone could come up with a diagrammatical form to help whoever is in the Chair try to work out at what stage someone cannot speak versus at what stage someone else can speak; and when someone has moved an amendment, whether they can still speak or whether they cannot speak. Whilst it is written there in black and white, some guidance may be required for those people who sit in the Chair occasionally to understand it. A diagrammatical form might be of assistance.
I thank the Standing Orders Committee for helping with putting forward the explanatory memorandum statements.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee I support the Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly. It includes procedural options for dealing with allegations against non-members; explanatory memorandum notes and statements; amendments to motions; and video conferencing.
Like the member for Wanguri, I was going to get up today and play with a straight bat, to talk about all the issues that the committees discussed and the findings and the recommendations of the report. However, after hearing the member for Araluen’s pathetic screams of ‘relevance’ in this House, it was an estimated 40 minutes that she spent talking about herself, how all her problems were here for the world to see and that, somehow, this report had justified her existence. That is a shame. For a member of parliament to spend 40 minutes justifying her own existence she should be more mature than that and move on to dealing with the facts.
The facts were that Hon Loraine Braham, as Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, received a letter. The member for Araluen went on to read out the letter, and cunningly dodged words used within the letter that were of particular offence to the authors. I will read this letter. It says:
If she was to walk outside - and I will read these comments further - and was not hiding behind parliamentary privilege, we would soon see what type of action would be taken against her. But she has not, and she has not gone on radio. She could not point to any radio, television or media reports where she repeated the same comments used in that debate.
For instance, the member for Goyder spoke on radio about a defamatory letter - in his opinion - being put out by the CLP candidate for Goyder, in particular talking about inducements made towards Independents. At least the member for Goyder …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Can I seek a point of clarification? I believe the member has the wrong electorate, and maybe he should look at whether he is defaming the wrong person.
Mr BONSON: Sorry, the member for Nelson. I thank the member for Drysdale for correcting that. So, the member for Nelson has gone outside, on radio, and sought satisfaction in uncovering the fact that this letter had gone out and had, somehow, tarnished his and the Labor Party’s reputations of giving the Independents inducements to control what the Independents do.
Why I raise that is because the member for Araluen will not go outside of this House, on radio, and raise the same issues that she raised in debate, use the same words and text out in the real world. She hides behind parliamentary privilege. This whole discussion and the whole of the standing order debate and the recommendations came about because of the importance of parliamentary privilege. One of the big issues that came out the recommendations was Recommendation 1 under Freedom of Speech 1(d):
People do have rights, member for Araluen, and they have professional rights.
I will read the second paragraph of this letter which these authors believe was an attack on their ability to perform their duties. The second paragraph:
The comments were personal to departmental officers. The member for Araluen kindly mentioned ‘a mess, a dog’s breakfast, absurd, stuffed up’ – I do not think in today’s explanation of her existence as a member that she repeated the comment that it was bad legislation and not properly thought through, but I will stand corrected.
Third paragraph:
There is recognition that we need to scrutinise all bills, which the member for Araluen claims that all of a sudden, come 2001 when the Labor government got in, that stopped happening in this House. However, history shows you that the convention is that all oppositions get an opportunity to scrutinise bills and, whether they agree with it or not, the government is allowed, due to numbers, to pass this legislation:
This is a letter addressed to the Hon Loraine Braham, Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It is not covered by parliamentary privilege. They have made a serious allegation against this member, but she continues to hide behind parliamentary privilege:
The government of the day, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is an election going to be happening this year and that government might change or it might stay the same. But the public service has, to the best of its ability, implement the policies of the government of the day:
Attached to this is a letter of recognition by Loraine Braham and that this matter will go to the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am a member.
We discussed this in quite rigorous terms; I think it took three meetings and both sides of parliament and Independents got to put their views across. Extensive research was done by the Legislative Assembly staff and provided in a way that opposition, Independents and government were able to properly assess what the convention was all around the world, not just within Australia. I am talking Canada, United Kingdom, etcetera. Out of that debate came the recommendations, and they were recognition that parliament members need to have parliamentary privilege to comment and address legislation as best they can. But there was also recognition that rights of individuals needed to be protected, in particular, the adoption of a resolution as follows:
of such allegations and to the standing of parliament;
made in parliament;
and
members to the spirit and the letter of this resolution.
What we had here today was as 40-minute explanation of an individual member’s justification of their existence. No recognition at all of any wrongdoing, of people’s personal and professional capabilities being attacked; or that the only reason these people could not take action in law was because of her protection of parliamentary privilege. Yet, all the examples she used were examples of people having the guts, the courage, the fortitude to go out into the public arena, away from their protection under parliamentary privilege, to make statements on the public record and to face those consequences.
Unfortunately, what we see from the member for Araluen is a consistent theme of hiding behind parliamentary privilege, making outlandish statements, attacking individuals, both public servants and the general public. It is a sad indictment on the responsibilities we have to this Chamber. That is all I want to say on the freedom of speech recommendations.
There were other issues, and you touched on one yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 177A, in the case of a bill presented by a member other than Appropriation Bill, an explanatory notes signed by the member and including an explanation of the reasons for the bill and a brief explanation of each clause of the bill shall be presented to the Assembly of the conclusion of the member’s second reading speech.
The third recommendation was the adoption of procedural guidelines for debate on motions and amendments to motions. I will not go extensively into that, but it is clearly outlined. That was an issue that the Standing Orders Committee looked at over a number of meetings.
The fourth one was the technological changes that the committee accepted. This came about because at another committee meeting of this House that I was attending, an issue arose about the use of mobile phones and ringing in, and this brought up the debate about the video links and an access to audio and visual links. It started off as a meeting about how we stop members from illegitimately attending committee meetings when they should be physically there, or through some other mechanism at the meeting as a member. It went from that argument to: do we really want to restrict members’ ability to contribute to committees?
There was recognition of the use of all different technologies to allow members to participate in committee meetings, whether that be physically or through video, voice, phone, etcetera, and that was accepted. I give credit to all members of parliament that the view, generally, did change and, by the last meeting, it was accepted by all, even those who raised the issue in the first place. Really, the issue was about ensuring - for cost, technological and practical reasons - that all members should be allowed to participate in committee meetings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, finally, I acknowledge the support given to us by staff members of the Legislative Assembly: the committee secretariat, in particular Mr Ian McNeill, the Secretary and Ms Jane Gunner, Research and Admin Officer. I thank all the members, Hon Paul Henderson, Chair, Hon Loraine Braham, MLA, Dr Chris Burns, MLA, Dr Richard Lim, MLA, and Mr John Elferink, MLA. I commend the report of the Standing Orders Committee to the House.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Order of the Day No 3 relating to Report into the Efficacy of Establishing an Environmental Protection Agency in the Northern Territory be called on forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 17 February 2005.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be standing as a member of the environment committee to talk about the inquiry that we held into an EPA. All members of the House contributed in a very positive way. It was great to have the experience of the member for Daly who, obviously, had vast experience in environmental issues in his time as a member and also in his working life; the member for Drysdale, as we know, who can have a very quick wit, but on occasions can come up with very good suggestions, there is no doubt about that, and I thank him for his effort; the member for Barkly who, again, showed his vast experience in a variety of different matters; and the member for Karama who was instrumental as the chairperson in our research, and I thank her for her efforts.
Like many members, the environment is very important to me, and no doubt to many Territorians, and needs protection. As we get older, we see changes in our own environment to the environment, and some of those are good and some not so good. I believe that the adoption of these findings and the recommendations by government will lead to regulatory protection of our environment.
We were able to travel to Western Australia and, while there, we met with Dr Wally Cox, Chairman of the EPA Western Australia, and his key staff to inquire first-hand about Western Australia’s EPA. What a wonderful view we had of the Swan River, one of the biggest environmental issues in Western Australia, from their office block looking out over the causeway bridge and onto the south side of the Swan River bank and the Esplanade. It is my belief that places like the Daly River and Darwin Harbour and all those natural resources that we have throughout the Northern Territory match such a beautiful river. We have much to learn from the way the EPA in Western Australia operates. What we learnt from there, as a committee, was that it is an independent advisory model. It is independent in its role in that it cannot be directed by the minister in its decisions; neither the authority nor the chairman is subject to the direction of the minister. However, they are accountable to the minister for the delivery of its functions and responsibilities.
The key features of the WA EPA accountabilities lie in the following: (1) the WA EPA has an advisory role, it does not make decisions; (2) provision for public appeal rights; and (3) open and transparent decision making processes. Other features include close association with the Department of Environmental Protection. The EPA consists of five members appointed by the government on the recommendation of the minister. The EPA recommendations to the minister must be made public. The EPA has an attached advisory council, a small number of support staff, access to expertise of the DEWCP and WA’s principal Environment Protection Act is reviewed five years after the commencement of the act.
One of the interesting things about the Western Australian model - in talking to members, from evidence and in public conversations that they provided for us - was that they believed the EPA allowed politics to be taken out of an environmental issue, in the sense that if an EPA came up with recommendations on a particular environmental issue, the government of the day was able to follow those recommendations and point to the EPA and its processes as the reasons why they were taking that course of action. However, the interesting thing that they did say to me was that, when an environmental issue becomes political, it is often only when the government of the day makes a decision to go against the EPA advisory recommendation. The reason they say this is that the government of the day might say: ‘Well, we have to look at the public benefit and there might be jobs and industry created and therefore, on this occasion, we are going to go against the advice of the EPA’.
The interesting thing is that those times that any government of the day goes against the recommendations of the EPA – and I think the EPA has been in existence for 25 years in Western Australia; it might be even longer – that is when it becomes a political issue. That is when they have to sell it or get beaten up, so to speak, in the public arena on environmental issues because they did not follow the recommendations of an EPA.
What they also said is that, in 90% of the decisions, they do follow the recommendations of the EPA because they provide sound advice on different environmental issues. Therefore, it does not become a political issues because both sides of parliament, and the general public, are happy with the advice that they get from the EPA.
I enjoyed their hospitality and the information provided by the Western Australian model. I noted that the NT members’ contributions to our model is drawing out many of the aspects from the Western Australian model.
As a committee, we were able to travel to South Australia to meet with Dr Paul Vogel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the EPA, South Australia and his key staff. Dr Vogel informed the committee that South Australia’s EPA is an independent regulatory model. The EPA in South Australia is the principle environmental regulator, with an independent board of nine members. The chief executive of the EPA and the chairman of the EPA board are the same person. The EPA is accountable to the minister for the delivery of its function through the chief executive. The minister cannot direct the EPA chairman and board on their decisions. South Australia has two environmental departments - the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, and the Department of Environment and Heritage.
What we saw, in laymen’s terms, was the South Australian model carried a bigger stick, in the sense that they had the ability to fine people who breached laws and legislation in regard to the environment. As an independent regulatory model, they had a huge staff and a much larger budget. One of the issues recognised by both sides of parliament was that, although we are large in land mass jurisdiction, in general population terms we are quite small. Therefore, whether we go the way of the South Australian model, one of the big issues is the cost, although there needs to be recognition that there are some valuable lessons to be learnt from that model.
Regarding the Tasmanian model, I noticed the input from the member for Daly. As a committee, we did not travel to Tasmania so, at this stage, I would rather not comment on those matters raised by the member for Daly. No doubt, he will address them in his contribution.
I wish to touch on some of the inquiry findings. The committee views their findings of this inquiry as being of equal importance to the recommendations. The committee found – and I will not read through all of the inquiry’s findings, except a couple of importance – that:
I believe, particularly after our visit to Western Australia, that there is probably a misunderstanding in the wider community in the Northern Territory of what an EPA will actually do. What I think it will do is give us independent advice and that independent advice will allow government to act upon that advice. It will take into account industry groups, community groups and environmental groups, traditional owners, relating it back to our own circumstances. I believe that the committee’s findings in regards to the EPA is very open ended. I believe we should be looking at all of the different models and drawing the best of each because there are a lot of good things to come out from what other states and territories are doing.
I would like to talk to a couple on the committee recommendations. The committee recommends that the broad principles of ecologically sustainable development underlie any reform to the existing arrangements for environment protection in the Northern Territory. The public’s right to know, to be informed, to be heard, and to object should be considered in any amendments to the existing arrangements for environmental protection.
I will jump down to point 7: an EPA or similar is considered a beneficial addition to the Northern Territory’s environmental protection measures and standards. Point 9: the EPA or similar be independent in its operations. Point 10: the EPA or similar should not reduce the strength and effectiveness of existing environmental protection measures but enhance them. Point 16: the EPA or similar be given powers to observe, comment and audit environmental protection regulations and regulators in the Northern Territory. Point 17: the EPA or similar be given powers to set best practice standards and guidelines. Point 18: third party appeals be a feature of the Northern Territory’s environmental protection arrangements, to provide for greater transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making. Point 20: the issues and concerns of the Northern Territory community including those issues more specific to indigenous Territorians are given due consideration in any proposed reform.
I will not discuss every inquiry, finding, or recommendation. However, I will say that as an environment committee, and with my membership on different parliamentary committees, this is probably some of the most important work that I have done as a member that will have an effect on the future in a positive way for young and old and black, white, green or purple Territorians who call the Territory home and wish to have an environmentally sustainable future. I thank again all the members of the committee and the Legislative Assembly staff who assisted.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the report from the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, at the outset, I will say that it is a very good report, it is a very comprehensive report and there are no minority reports contained within it. So, congratulations to all involved, including the Chair and members of the committee, because we were able to reach agreement on all of the recommendations contained within the report.
I believe they are very serious recommendations. One that should be taken note of, without going through them all, is that the committee agreed that an EPA or similar is considered a beneficial addition to the Northern Territory’s environmental protection measures and standards. After all the hearings and visits, we proceeded to lay down some recommended options within the report on how you might go about putting an EPA or similar into play in the Northern Territory. The recommendations state that all options, particularly those outlined in the report, are considered viable should government decide to pursue the establishment of an EPA or similar in the Northern Territory.
We were given the opportunity, including the Independent member, to come up with options of models that the various parties and the Independents thought were of merit. The one thing we did agree on in those models is that an EPA or similar should be independent in its operation. We were very strong on that, and that was the message that came through, albeit that some sectors of the community, industry, and what have you, are very nervous about further environmental protection. However, in the end, know that it is on the cards that such a structure will be introduced in the Northern Territory.
Having said that, though, everyone agreed that the structure that is introduced by a government of the future should not be so excessive in its bureaucracy or its structure that it would cripple the Northern Territory in terms of the costs of running it. It should be of a size that reflects the size of this jurisdiction, and it was agreed that any EPA should fit easily into the structures and mechanisms that are already in place for environmental protection. From that point of view, the report is a very good one; very handy for any government of the future to look at and decide on a model of their own using what has been proposed here.
I would also like to thank the members of the committee and those who assisted the committee: Graham Gadd, Maria Viegas, and Liz MacFarlane and Kim Cowcher who helped in the background, and all of the people who made submissions, whether written or oral, and attended the hearings. As usual, when you do these things, there is not a great number of people who come to these hearings. I have been on all sorts of committees over my time in parliament and it is a funny sort of an animal: many people make a lot of noise, but when it comes to turning up at 6 pm somewhere, usually you do not get that many. It was great to see some people come along in the various regions that we visited.
Without going through all the names again, because the member for Millner has already done it, I want to thank all those officers and private individuals who made themselves available in Western Australian and South Australia; we are certainly very grateful for the input they had. It is interesting to look at their models and listen to how things could be better, and the competition between states as to which model is better. Unfortunately, around Australia, like many things, we have many different models. You would think on a matter such as the environment, it would be a good move one day to get together to try to put together something that would suit everyone. The environment does not know boundaries: rivers run through jurisdictions, air passes through all jurisdictions, as do coastal waters.
One day, we will be smart enough in Australia on matters such as the environment to have one agreed-upon instrument of legislation, even though I know the federal legislation overrides all others. However, certainly for governing bodies and statutory authorities such as EPAs, it would be great to have one model across the whole nation. When you look at some of the salt problems down south, they certainly move right across states. That applies equally to water and river degradation problems.
As the member for Millner said, I took it upon myself to travel to Tasmania very briefly for two days and met with the CEO of the board there; and they called it a board. It is an independent statutory body, like most other states. They do not call it an EPA; they call it an Environment Management and Pollution Control Board. Their model is not too dissimilar from other models around other states. I was interested in going there because they have been in the news for many years on environmental issues and I thought they seemed to handle those concerns pretty well and perhaps they have a model that is worth looking at, and I must say that it is worth looking at.
Mr Dunham: Third party endorsement too in South Australia?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, they did in South Australia. Unfortunately, the committee did not have the funding to go there; we should have had. We should have had some free-ranging movement to be able to go to places like Tasmania. As a committee, we seemed to have only picked Western Australia and South Australia because people were whetted to it. We probably should have gone, as a committee, to Tasmania as well as the other states. However, others of us did our own homework and I believe it was very beneficial. I spent quite some time with the CEO of the Environment Management and Pollution Control Board looking at their structure.
I also looked at – and perhaps we should have gone there too – New Zealand. Having had a look at New Zealand, not by going there, but from the information we had, the CLP members of the committee were able to put in the report a model that we believe is very practical whilst giving a very high level of independence. That comes particularly from some of the work that has been done in New Zealand and in Tasmania. Those trips were very worthwhile.
Turning to our model, it is there for all to see. As I said, the ALP’s model is in there and so is the Independent’s model, but what we are proposing is minimal change to the structures that we have. I believe it was incumbent on us to provide a model that did not require a huge new bureaucracy and changing the structures that we have in place. What we are proposing is that the current Office of the Environment becomes the Environment Protection Commission, headed up by a commissioner. The commissioner is the independent component of our model, being appointed by this parliament, reporting only to this House, although that independent Environment Commissioner would also be the CEO of the Environment Protection Commission and, obviously, have reporting duties on management of that commission, which is the current Office of the Environment, to the minister for Environment, although obviously in matters of references and things, could not be directed, but could be asked to take on references by the minister. They could self-reference as well, and take references from third parties or from wherever.
That being the case, what we then said in our model is that the current Development Consent Authority would be re-named. It would stay as an independent statutory authority, as it is now, under the Minister for Lands and Planning. It would become the Sustainable Development Authority. What we would be saying is that any development application across the Northern Territory would have to go before the Sustainable Development Authority. They then would, as they do now, ask agencies for their advice including, in this case, the Environment Protection Commission and the independent Environment Commissioner. They would conduct their assessment and give it to the Sustainable Development Authority, the difference being from now is that their decisions could be appealed by all people directly affected by the application, and that includes the independent Environment Commissioner. If, for some reason, the Sustainable Development Authority, in an application of any sort, and it would include mining, it would include all major applications, thought to ignore or go against the environmental advice given to them by the commission, the commissioner could then appeal the process.
We believe that the model - without going through anymore of it; it is laid out, as the other models are, in quite some detail in this report - would be a very practical model. It would not be excessively costly because both of those structures we are talking about currently exist in the Northern Territory. It would, obviously, take legislative changes and some restructuring in that way, and we have said in our recommendations that an audit needs to be undertaken to look at what changes would be necessary for any future model to be implemented. There is our model; there is the report.
I put on the record that I am quite disappointed, having now spent over three-and-a half years on this committee, that the committee has only had two references in that time. I believe the committee could have been a lot busier. I still believe that the committee could have taken on references - and this is a failing of the Environment minister and government – where we could have been looking at other issues of major concern. I am not playing down cane toads, or an EPA. They are issues of concern and should be dealt with, and we have dealt with them in a very satisfactory manner, to my liking. However, we could have been taking on other issues such as noxious weeds and feral animals that are impacting on the Northern Territory, and one that is very close to my heart and, certainly to this House, is saltwater intrusion in the Mary River, to name but one river system that is being dramatically affected.
I note that in the budget, once again, there is only $0.5m for barrages for the Mary River. I believe, quite passionately, that an environment committee of this parliament as a future reference - if not prior to this we should have been doing it - to take a very hard and long look at what is happening at the Mary River, because similar things are going to happen in other wetland systems around our coastline. What we are doing at the Mary River certainly needs beefing up. It is going to be an ongoing issue that governments of the future will have to provide funding for, if the decision is made to save the wetlands, and I believe they should be. I believe it will be an uphill battle, but it is something the environment committee, with its resources and access to the community, and the will of this parliament behind it, should take on as an immediate reference to look at what has happened in the past, and what is currently happening.
I believe what is happening is very good. I know there has been a lot of engineering work put into it. I have been personally involved with that when I was the minister. I brought in some Dutch experts to look at and oversight some of the engineering works. The works that have been done are very good. However, I believe there is a new emphasis needed over the next decade on that. This parliament could certainly give that as a reference to a future committee. We could have been doing more on that part. It is a shame that we have probably wasted a bit of opportunity there.
However, we have this report and the one before it on cane toads that are of good value and good quality.
As you all know, the CLP has committed to providing an environment protection commission exactly along the terms of our model. That policy has been out for some six months now. We will be doing this in government, but certainly in government a structure of this sort could have a look at all of the issues that are currently plaguing the Northern Territory and the current government, particularly the Douglas Daly - the whole Douglas Daly basin issue - and the water issue and the land issues down there. The structure that has been set up to deal with that is nothing more than a farce and the so-called report that has never seen the light of day is a report that really cannot recommend any action that is decisive.
Government has a problem with how to handle it. They have a moratorium going that they are under pressure to lift. They have a requirement being put before them for massive dollars for the monitoring of ground water and so on. A structure such as an EPA, an EPC as we call it, could have a thorough look at this with all the resources of government behind it through the independent environment commission. The one thing I did not mention in our model is the ability to take on advisory experts or groups. Certainly, in such an issue as the Daly basin this would be the structure to come up with some very decisive outcomes after listening to all of the stakeholders.
The problem when you form a committee such as the Daly River Reference Committee, as government has found out, as soon as you leave somebody off, they start screaming. So what you tend to do is put everybody on and then when you put everybody on they all have disagreements about what the recommendations are that they are trying to achieve and the outcomes are next to useless. Therefore, you need somebody who can be independent, and can, at the end of the day, come up with some decisive recommendations for government to deal with issues such as land clearing, water quality and so on.
Within the next term of government, we will implement a model such as we have suggested and I think it will be a good thing for the Territory. I do not think it will be overly bureaucratic. It certainly will not be much more costly than the current structures that are in place. I look forward to the day that the CLP can do that.
Again, I thank members and the staff of that committee and hope that a future parliament including this one, if it lasts much longer, looks at a reference for the Mary River.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I take the opportunity to speak on the report, The Efficacy of Establishing an Environmental Protection Agency in the Northern Territory. As a member of that committee I, too, have felt particularly privileged to be part of a very cohesive group of people who have worked together, who almost agreed without exception, other than the models, that an EPA, whatever model that might take, was certainly in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Yesterday, I asked a question of the minister for Environment about some of the environmental grants that this government has made available to smaller organisations for programs. During the course of that question, I made the comment that I described our environment as unique and as very special. I meant that. I sincerely meant it because we do live in a very, very special part of Australia; a unique part of Australia. Obviously, all aspects of our country are critical to our long-term economic and social development and, more importantly, to our many young children and their children well into the future. They are the people who are going to be the leaders; they are the people who are going to be providing direction to the Northern Territory in various capacities. It is incumbent upon us as a parliament, as a government, to ensure that we do not leave legacies that in any way might impinge upon their capacity.
I would like to approach this in a different way; from the Barkly perspective. Most members would be aware that I represent a very large and diverse electorate, a bush electorate. It is a great part of the Northern Territory. I will mention some of the features of the Barkly: there are islands, the Sir Edward Pellew Group; we have coast line; and many rivers – the Foelsche, Wearyan, Robinson, McArthur - and all of those areas essentially remain undeveloped. There are immense opportunities into the future for ecotourism, recreational fishing and a whole host of other development opportunities.
Most members would be aware that the Barkly produces probably the most cattle in whole of the Northern Territory. It is probably the most productive. It is certainly the most progressive and possibly the most prosperous per capita in the whole of Australia. There is immense potential to grow that industry in a sustainable way.
We have many parks in the Barkly area - the Davenport Ranges, the Devils’ Marbles and other smaller, undeveloped places, but they will be developed over time. You often hear me talk about the Longreach area in Elliott, and there is a whole host of others which have yet to be identified as new opportunities for development.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you will also be aware that the Barkly and Tennant Creek has been one of the great economic drivers of the Territory economy over a very long period of time. I have said in this House that something probably in excess of $5.5bn in today’s dollars has been pushed into the economy and most people will be aware that gold production is still occurring in Tennant Creek. There is an increasing awareness in the Tennant Creek area of exploration, and drilling is at record levels.
The Banka Banka region has the potential to become a new manganese province, and Bootu Creek is shipping out 600 000 tonnes per year, four trains per week into the Port of Darwin for export overseas. The McArthur River Mine is now owned by Xstrata and they are looking at a rather large expansion program. As I mentioned previously, it is a very important economic driver throughout the Northern Territory.
There is another issue I raise in the context of this report: I do not think that we fully realise the importance of the railway line. I have no doubt that in the coming years, particularly with the bulk loading facility being built at the port, that the whole corridor area will be an outstanding prospect in regards to mining development. It is critical, then, that whatever we do, we do it in a way that is sustainable in the context of economic and social development. It is important in the long term to get it right and to maximise our opportunities.
The bottom line is that we as the government or as the community - any government for that matter - have to look after our country; we have to look after our environment. We have to grow our economy. We have to develop industries. To ignore these, or to not take action would be compromising future generations of our young people in the Territory and also many of our industries.
Other members have spoken in detail about the report and I believe it is a very well balanced and detailed report. Other members have mentioned that we travelled to Western Australia and South Australia. We spoke to experts in their field. We heard the member for Daly state that he went to Tasmania to have a look at their model and, clearly, much discussion took place over the period of time that we made the visits. We also visited all the major regional centres throughout the Northern Territory and were able to speak to a whole host of people who attended the public meetings. We spoke to the NT Minerals Council, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, and horticultural groups. Obviously, they have a view, perhaps a little different from what we might envisage at this point in time, but I will go back to that in a moment. To all those people who took the time to write submissions, to come to our meetings, and to all those experts we were able to talk to, thank you very much for your contribution.
The good thing about the committee, as we have all said, was that we all agreed in respect to the report. There are some abiding principles that we would like to see incorporated into any new proposed EPA. Certainly, what must apply is that the community must always have the right to know and the community has the right to be informed. The community has a right to be heard and the community must also have the right to object. I would have thought that such principles should always be paramount in any future considerations in regards to an EPA.
The committee also recommended that the proposed EPA – all agreed, as I say, it would be in the best interests of the community - that it should be independent, it should not be top heavy with personnel or overly bureaucratic. The other important thing which I alluded to earlier in respect to some of the industry sectors is that it must be phased in. The NT Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Minerals Council and other groups clearly have some concerns. I believe the challenge for any government is to ensure that they are heard, as indeed are all industry groups, that their positions are taken into account, and that we try to develop something that is going to be in the best interests of the Territory.
Already, you will note that one of our recommendations is that we are recommending that the environmental officers attached to Mines and Energy remain with Mines and Energy. That is not unreasonable but, of course, the EPA would be the overriding body. They would have the final say, and there is a great capacity for the Mines and Energy people to come to some sort of agreement on an MOU in regards to that.
In regard to the model we preferred, Option D, we are saying that it should be phased in. The first part being consideration by government in regards to having a look at or at least assessing, or doing an audit of some of our existing environmental programs, the environmental functions and the existing legislative frameworks. That needs to be done first before we move on to the next stage. Then, of course, there is the consultation process because, whatever model is arrived at, has to be in the best interests of the community of the Northern Territory, but it also has to take into consideration the specific needs and requirements of industry, community groups and organisations. I am very confident that we, as a government, would adhere to both those principles in an assessment and audit and then, of course, an orderly consultation process arriving at a model.
In conclusion, I would also like to thank very much the Chair of the committee, Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama. I know you are very committed and you had your heart in this particular task. We thank you for your leadership. I know you put in hours beyond what were required, so thank you. Also, to my colleague, the member for Millner, Matty Bonson, who was also very keen and was always asking the right questions. Thank you to the members for Drysdale, Daly and Nelson for your contributions. We may not have agreed on models, but we all agreed on the principles, and that is very important in the context of any government establishing a model or some form of an EPA.
I thank Mr Graham Gadd who provided wonderful leadership and was always available for our needs; Maria Vegas who did a lot of the research and the leg work, and Liz McFarlane who played a very important role as she always does in her involvement in all the committees.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was a very worthwhile effort and something that has the potential. I know it will serve the best interests of the Northern Territory well into the future.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I probably shall not be as generous as my colleague, the member for Daly, in that I believe that the environmental credentials of this government are on the line here. If you look at the three committees I have been involved in – in one we went off and looked at an estimates committee for this parliament and it turned out that the recommendations were entirely abandoned; we then went off and looked at cane toads and those recommendations were pretty much entirely abandoned; and we spent a fair amount of time looking at this particular term of reference.
While we have been doing this work - and it may well be important, and the member for Daly touched on it - there are massive issues relating to weeds and weed intrusion; to feral animals, of which cane toads are only one; to biodiversity and protection of some of our native flora and fauna; to saltwater intrusion; the effects of fire, particularly insofar as some of our noxious weeds are concerned; and, of course, climate change and issues such as this. We have not, as a committee, really looked at any of these matters. In the past, the committee had a particular focus on the Alligator Rivers region and that has also been newsworthy in the last couple of years.
It has really been a bit of a ‘make work’ scheme again, where we have been sent off to focus on something where I believe the government probably has its mind made up. I shall not be at all surprised if our report gathers dust somewhere and the government has some public servants and other boffins pretty much replicating our work and coming up with a different model. It might sound a bit cynical but I guess that is the way of it.
In this area, natural issues are very important to us. Natural resources are important to our tourist product, there are industries that come from them and, obviously crocodiles is foremost and the harvest of some of our wild stock of fish and pearls and others. Therefore, nature is a pretty important business in this place. It is a pretty important business to look at in terms of our biggest employer which is tourism, and its effect on our other two big industries, mining and primary industries.
What we were looking at in this business of setting up some sort of structure, I believe, was really to keep us largely out of mischief in some of the other main games that were on. I am very disappointed with the budget papers in this area. The budget papers for Conservation, Natural Resource Management show marked reduction across all areas; it is $6.67m cut. That is a significant cut from $94m down to $87m. If you look at some of those areas they are particularly concerning. Natural Resource Management for instance has suffered a $5.5m cut. When we looked at cane toads, one of the big issues that came to us was that we should be doing surveys of population of species, and we should be doing audits of some of our parks. We thought that was pretty important work, and that perhaps it should go ahead certainly as a before and after, for instance. So when the minister says in his budget speech we are going to pull the cane toads up before they hit Western Australia and this is work that should have been done well and truly before, there is lots of work that should have been done before. This committee in a different term of reference looked at those. Its recommendations are definitely not reflected in the budget.
Parks and Reserves Management has been cut. Natural Resource and Management - cut. Biodiversity Conservation - cut. Natural Systems - cut. So I do not think it is a particularly good, green budget. I was disappointed that there has been a focus, for instance, on mining and the mining regulators. Prior to this report becoming public, the current Resources minister, the member for Casuarina, came out and said that he did not believe the mining department had the capability to both promote and regulate mining, and it goes straight to the heart of some of the stuff you are talking about here.
Mining has particular impacts on the environment and there is often a lot of emotion attached to some of those mining impacts. There is a lot of non-scientific emotional argument that goes with it and there is a necessity for an independent umpire and arbiter often.
I was disappointed with what the minister said. It certainly is not a philosophy that holds true if you look at other areas of government. For instance, the Liquor Commission can both promote that industry and regulate it. Work Health can promote practice and regulate it, and a number of other instrumentalities that have a legislative base to monitor and regulate, can both promote and regulate, and I believe the mining industry can. What is interesting, though, is that it seems that this was done significantly in advance of this report being debated here and it seems to be a disposition that we need to have different policemen looking at mining because we really cannot trust them. I thought the Chief Minister’s expression of confidence in the mining regulation part of the bureaucracy with the problems at Ranger was good. She came out and said:
That seems to fly entirely in the face of later comments by the member for Casuarina, who is the current minister, who said: ‘Can’t trust them. They are promoting mining and they are also regulating it’.
These are significant debates to have. The debates it would appear in terms of this report are redundant and irrelevant. I do not think anything we can say in this report, or what we might say standing up here tonight, has any bearing on government policy, to be quite frank. That might seem a cynical attitude again, but pretty much if matters like those that perplexed the mining minister were issues that he thought should have been dealt with, he could have given us a term of reference. We could have looked at that particular aspect, we could have done it in conjunction with the report that was on foot, and we could have provided bipartisan thinking advice that came from not only the industry but also from community consultation.
It is not my intention to speak long, given that I believe that most of what we say here will be arguably a matter for an irrelevant approach to government modifying any of its policies or practices or even structures. The environment is a significant area of our entire business in this parliament that has been neglected. I am disappointed with the cuts that are in the budget. I am very disappointed that the instrumentality of Parks and Wildlife has been subsumed in the department where they are almost unrecognisable now. They are a unique, uniformed, focussed service which should go back to doing that instead of being embedded somewhere where they are anonymous and not seen.
You have the report; have a read of it. I suspect it will not have any impact on any of your decisions that you will make in this area. I suspect it kept us away from looking at the real issues of weeds, feral animals, salt water intrusion, and those important issues. It is immensely important that as a parliament we start to do that. There is no good saying we protect the environment because we have a person and written on his door is ‘The Environmental Protector’.
You actually have to do it as well. That is where this is falling down. The report will be largely seen as rhetoric unless we can ministers to make iron-clad assurances in this place about what portions of it they think are good and bad, particularly the mining minister, who has to describe why he has a lack of confidence in the regulatory capacity of his department. He also has to describe how he will remedy that lack of regulatory capacity.
I would like to see those budgets reviewed. To me, those cuts seem too big for this area. I have disquiet about the fact that some of the third parties you would expect to be jumping up and down loudly are quiet. I would hate to think that it is because they have traded this in for something else, heaven forbid! I would have thought that some of the green groups would have pretty snakey about some those figures I have just mentioned. I am surprised that they have gone through the keeper. I did hear one comment, but I am surprised that cuts of that magnitude are taken as a reasonable proposition in these areas where they are doing it very tough already. As I said earlier, the flow-on effects through a variety of industries including primary industry, mining and tourism will be evident from our neglect of this area.
I will commit that, if I am in this parliament after the election, I will treat this is a very serious issue, whether I am in opposition or in government. Whether I am a member, I was born here, and I agree with my colleague from Barkly: we have a stewardship role in this House. Our job is to look after country. Our job is to make sure that the great heritage and inheritance we have, we pass onto others, and to do it in a way that would not leave us ashamed and embarrassed for our future generations to pick up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start with the thank yous because when I get to the end, I forget these things. I thank Graham Gadd, Maria Viegas and Liz McFarlane for all the work they have done; and our Chair, the member for Karama, for the work put into bringing this report to the parliament.
My comments will be, basically, around the recommendation I proposed, but I believe that the government - whichever government is in power after the next election - should act on this report quickly and set up the EPA - or the EPC or whatever it is going to be - so this does not, as I think the member for Daly said, gather dust. The recommendations are there and they are excellent recommendations. There are many issues the EPA could take up.
If there is one area that I am not quite clear on is where does the EPA’s work fit in relation to whether we have a Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in the next parliament. I hope the committee can continue regardless of which government is in power after the next election. From a political point of view - and I am not talking about party politics, but from a parliamentarian’s point of view - it is good that we are on committees which get out and look at some of these issues first-hand. It will be interesting to see whether those roles of an environment and sustainable development sessional committee can run parallel, or are they complementary to an EPA or an EPC, because I also believe there is enormous scope for both an EPA and the sessional committee.
There are issues, as was mentioned, such as weeds. I might talk about weeds when I am talking about the budget. I attended a gamba grass conference at Batchelor last week. It reinforced in my mind the absolute potential disaster that gamba grass, which is a pasture species but for many of us it is a weed species, and mission grass, Pennisetum, can possibly do to our natural environment, especially in the Top End, if we do not take some positive steps to slow them down at least, or try to eradicate them. That is an awfully big task, but it is a task that needs to be looked at.
Of course, we have the cane toad. Even though the government has been proactive in regard to the cane toad, I believe there is more we can do. I have said before that we should be paying pastoralists and Aboriginal people to perhaps fence off areas to keep the cane toad out so that some species are protected from them.
There are also issues like the management of our parks. How are our parks operating? In my area, or in the surrounding areas, I have now a new park called the Shoal Bay Conservation Park. It would be interesting to see how that park is going to be developed and what its role will be in our overall structure of parks.
Another issue, again an area around my neck of the woods that affects the environment, is extractive mining. I have said plenty of times before that extractive mining is a very important part of the development of places like Darwin and the rural area. Without sand and gravel, you could not build the city. There are some major issues that that sort of mining can lead to, especially with the introduction of weeds; large areas that can be left basically un-vegetated; and the general look of the environment can be affected by extractive mining.
One of the big issues in this part of the world still has to be the Darwin Harbour. Of late, it has been off the agenda, but I believe it is one of those areas that should always be on the agenda. I will continue to push for the rehabilitation of the Middle Arm Peninsula. I do not think that area should have been set aside for light industry. Perhaps, because that is a major development that the government proposes, that is something the EPA should be looking at. I have probably bashed my head against a brick wall saying industrial development should be at a different site. Perhaps an independent EPA could at least look at that without, you might say, my or the government’s biases, and ask: ‘Is this the way we should be going?’ I see that would certainly be a good starting point for an EPA.
There are many other issues. As people know, I am not afraid to talk about cotton. I certainly believe that it is not cotton that we should be talking about; it should be about cropping. Cropping, if done incorrectly, will cause environmental damage. Unfortunately, we have selected cotton as the big bogey crop that is going to wipe out rivers, destroy water resources, pollute everywhere, and clear lots of trees. We have done some of the finest work, I believe, at Katherine Research Station in looking at new ways of growing that crop. Yet, we are going to now finish doing that. There will be no more experimental work at Katherine Research Station.
There would have been an ideal subject for an EPA to look at. People have concerns, and I am not knocking those concerns - that would be the last thing that I am doing - but I am saying that we also have to make sure that we look at these issues through logical debate and eyes, you might say. One way would be to get the EPA people to look at where we are with cotton. We have done six, seven, or eight years of experimental work with cotton, and people will still tell you that it uses too much water, it clears large parcels of land - all based on their knowledge of south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Yet, right in our own backyard we have new techniques; we are doing things differently. However, it is politically not acceptable, therefore, it is out the door. I believe before we say goodbye to cotton in the Northern Territory, we should direct it to the EPA and they look at it.
The top recommendation is that the broad principles of ecologically sustainable development underlie any reform to the existing arrangements for environmental protection in the Northern Territory. There is the recommendation that should be the basis on which we look at cotton, maize, peanuts, - whatever crop - where we are looking at land clearing for improved pastures. That is the basis on which we should be looking at it, and that is the basis on which we should say whether we grow cotton or not; not on whether it is politically unpopular. We should put that to the EPA to look at crops like cotton to see what they say and draw our conclusions from that.
Having an EPA is a good idea for many of those reasons that I just put forward: weeds, cropping, extractive mining, and mining in general. I know some of the mining people where not happy about the idea of having an EPA. They were certainly concerned about the idea of having the mines environmental people in some other department would be not conducive to their industry. I do not, necessarily, agree with that. I believe there should be a department of environment and, within that department, you have mining specialists - the same people you have now - and they still work with the mines. However, there is a perception that, if you work in the mining department you will, perhaps, give a biased report when it comes to environmental issues.
I do not say that in a derogatory manner about those people who work in that department. I know that they are excellent people. However, sometimes the perception is important as well. If they were in the department of environment and they still specialised in mining, I do not think that it would make any difference. But it would be the perception in the public arena which would say they are independent of the department they have to actually monitor. I believe that there is room for a department of environment which collects all of those people from other departments who deal with the environment.
The model that I have put forward is based, I suppose, on the theory - or not so much the theory - the idea that an EPA deals with development; it deals with subdivisions, and environmental matters. We already have a body called the Development Consent Authority which does exactly that. It looks at development, land clearing, and subdivisions. It is not extremely broad in the manner in which I would like it to be, because it generally only works within areas we would call municipalities. It does work outside that where the minister is the Development Consent Authority. In other areas like Litchfield, Darwin, Palmerston, parts of Coomalie and Alice Springs – and I think Katherine has a Development Consent Authority and Tennant Creek, I am not sure. They do have a body made up of local people and those appointed from the government who sit down at a public meeting and make decisions. I believe that is important because that opens up at least some democracy in the system.
The other states where you have large municipalities or shires and, at the same time, there is also local government controlling planning, you have what I call a far more democratic process because those people in that local area who make a decision on planning are elected, and they are directly responsible for the decisions they make. We do not have that system. The minister is the only person we can vote in or out and, of course, the problem is that if the minister is in the electorate of Johnston and he makes a decision about something in Tennant Creek, the Tennant Creek people cannot necessarily vote the minister out. That is the system we have. I do not believe that it is probably going to change. There are some issues with the way we look after our planning which still could be improved.
We have a Development Consent Authority that does a lot of this work, and the EPA would be doing similar work except that it would be taking major projects. If that is the case, why not run the two parallel using resources that they already have, and maybe expanding those resources slightly? For instance, you are going to need investigative officers to look at the proposal; you do that on the Development Consent Authority. You are going to need some administrative staff to complete reports and send out invitations to meetings. One of the recommendations was third party appeals. We have now just introduced limited, need I say limited, third party appeals to the Development Consent Authority, so you have an appeals system that could work for both. You will also have advisory bodies on the Development Consent Authority and you have advisory bodies on the EPA.
The concept that I was putting forward is use the existing staff that you have for both the EPA and the Development Consent Authority because they are, basically, doing very similar things. You may have to expand that to cover increased workloads. There would be no doubt about that. You may even have to get staff who have more skills, especially in matters of the environment because that is one of the major areas that the Environmental Protection Agency would be looking at and, at the same time, streamline your environmental department by putting most of those environmental groups under that same department of environment. I have Parks and Wildlife in that department of environment and it could be, as one of the members said, poor Parks and Wildlife has disappeared into a very large department presently called DIPE, Department of Industry, Planning and Environment, which does an awful lot of things including roads and buildings and things. I am not sure that that is the place for it to be. I would like it to have more prominence.
It was one of those departments that I was proud of when I went away and came back and saw a ranger with a wedge-tailed eagle on his shoulder. I always thought that was good for the Territory and it was good for tourists. It reflected the Territory. Maybe the department is called the Department of Environment, Parks and Wildlife. So you put some prominence back to that department. By putting it into the big super department, to some extent it has lost its way a little. That is not knocking the people who work there but it would be nice to give it prominence so the people working there give it a bit more pride.
I always wanted to be a wildlife ranger. Many years ago, when I was a young bloke going bushwalking, you would always be interested in seeing a ranger. I used to bushwalk in New South Wales and I always reckoned it was a great job as they were people you would look up to because they had a lot of knowledge about local issues, especially environment. I think the same about our rangers in the Northern Territory. We need to put them up there as people who are very important in the maintenance of our environment. Perhaps that is something we can look at if we are introducing an environmental protection agency; whether we could give Parks and Wildlife more prominence in our government.
Madam Speaker, it is good that we have those three options. I suppose if I was a betting man and said option D is the one government members of the committee put forward, that is probably the one that they will pick. But I am hoping that the government will look at the options we have put forward, bearing in mind that many people were concerned that we would develop an EPA that became a new bureaucracy. We saw that in South Australia and, I think, in Western Australia - but especially South Australia – where 230-odd people worked in the EPA there. I realise they are a bigger state when it comes to population, but I am concerned that we would go down that path. If we develop one, we need to ensure it does not go down that path and that it is a very efficient and focussed body. I would be concerned about a bureaucracy; we want a body that is a focussed, efficient and can deal with the issues. If it has to hire people especially for a particular purpose, so be it, but its core should be small. It should be using resources that are already in place.
There are some groups like the Cattlemen’s Association, I think the Horticultural Association, and some of the mining groups who are opposed to the concept of the EPA. Whilst I understand that, the way to attempt to appease their concerns would be to make sure that this EPA did not become a big bureaucracy. They do not want to see another layer of control; they want to see a body that can do the job efficiently. They are saying we can already do it within the department, maybe many of those issues can be handled within the department. However, there will be bigger issues that I presume the EPA will be looking at, and I see that as their role.
Oh, I have not forgotten! I would like to thank all the staff who helped in putting all this together. I thank the other members of the committee with whom I have worked and travelled around Australia. I would also like to thank the Chair, the member for Karama, for keeping us on track, even though I was one of those who believed we should have gone to Tasmania, too, but maybe next time we will look at the funding that we require and we can do that.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report and hope all members support it.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I commend the committee for their report. I have read the report very carefully and, obviously from the contributions tonight, generally, from individual members, they found it most interesting and challenging. They have certainly put a lot of thought into the three options that have been proposed to government.
I want to assure members, from my perspective at least and, I am sure the rest of our government, that we are giving very close consideration to the three options that are being proposed and the relative merits of those options. Much work has gone into it and people have presented their cases further today. I compliment the committee on their work. It has been a very important exercise. It was certainly an election commitment of this government that we would look into the establishment of an EPA. That is what has happened through the committee, and I commend them for their work.
There are a number of issues I would like to address but, principally, the member for Drysdale raised some funding issues in relation to what he thought were cuts within the conservation and natural resources area of DIPE. I would like to quickly run through those so that the member for Drysdale can be apprised of the facts. Basically, in policy and planning there is minus $47,000 from one year to the next. That was mainly due to less funding for the Daly River Reference Group which had run its course. Parks and Reserves Management, down by $412 000 - as members would be aware, there was a massive settlement due to a case of a lady being butted by a ram in Alice Springs, over $2.4m. If you take that $2.4m out, it is certainly a large increase, and that is what I have been talking about here on the floor of parliament: basically, an extra $1.2 m into base funding for Parks staff.
In respect of natural resource management, the member for Drysdale highlighted that at about minus $5.5m. I refer the member for Drysdale to page 222 of Budget Paper No 3. I will read what it says:
I hope the member for Drysdale is taking heed of that. He should be reading his budget papers very carefully. I will direct him to page 222 which explains it. No one should go around pretending that, somehow, budgets have been slashed or whatever. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Just on biodiversity conservation, $391 000, due to the way that overheads are distributed through the department. There has been some discussion earlier today about attributing costs and similarly with natural systems.
Putting that to rest, I thought there were some important issues raised by a number of members in relation to the environmental challenges that we face in relation to weeds, feral animals, saltwater intrusions and toads. I place on the record here this evening that I am certainly committed, and I know DIPE is committed, to addressing those issues. I am certainly focussing on these issues. They are issues raised by the cattlemen and by the Bushfires Council. I have given undertakings to the Bushfires Council and the cattlemen that I want to really focus on these areas; they are of crucial importance. When we meet with councils in our Community Cabinet these issues come up. They are important issues that are not being ignored by government, and I will certainly try to push that as much as I can.
Regarding weeds, the Commonwealth has some extra monies on the table. It is like everything with the Commonwealth these days; it gives with some and take away with another. However, let us hope we can work through the issues with the Commonwealth.
Finally, in relation to what the member for Nelson and others have said about Parks and Wildlife, I believe Parks and Wildlife still have a fantastic identity and I am proud to be Parks and Wildlife minister. I am proud of each and every person in the service, the job that they do, and the way they showcase our natural environment and look after it for Territorians and those visitors from interstate and overseas. Whenever I meet with those officers and engage with them in dialogue, this issue comes up, but I believe we have to look to the longer term. As the member for Nelson said, we have to look at our whole legislative framework and structure, where ministerial responsibilities lie, and where we are headed in natural resource management.
I commend the committee, because these issues have been raised, similarly, in the Daly River Reference Group. As government, as a Northern Territory community, we have to look strategically to the future and the way that we are going to structure these things in a very strategic and effective way. I commend the committee.
Issues have been raised about cane toads which we looked at, and what has happened there. Much has come out the committee in its work on cane toads - its first reference. The committee provided a fantastic foundation which has now been built on by government. The Western Australians want to come in and support the work in the Territory.
I commend the committee that is headed by the member for Karama and all the members because, really, you are the catalyst, you are the beginning, you have set the foundation. There have been fantastic results. There is certainly a lot of thought and strategy going into what you reported here. I commend you for it, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset I welcome the report of the sessional committee. The Territory has a unique environment and it sustains our fantastic Territory lifestyle. It is the best in Australia. Who of us, for example, can imagine life in the Territory without dropping a line in at our favourite fishing spot, going camping with the kids, or going for a walk with the dog. Our unique environment also sustains our second biggest industry, tourism, and it is fundamental to others, such as fishing, agriculture, and pastoralism.
The Martin Labor government has already done so many things to protect our environment for all Territorians. This government has protected the mangroves of Darwin Harbour, taken real action to fight cane toads after years of neglect, introduced comprehensive land clearing controls, said no to cotton and, this year, we are spending a record $1m on grassroots environment and heritage projects. These are achievements we are very proud of.
Since coming to government, Labor has made some significant improvements to our environment protection arrangements. We have created the Office of Environment and Heritage, which reports directly to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and we have strengthened their resources by five staff and more than $1m. We have gained Commonwealth accreditation for our environmental assessment processes, something not achieved before. We have proven that we can have better environment protection and grow the economy.
In the last two years of the CLP government, environmental assessments had bottomed out at 85 projects - a rock bottom 85 projects in two consecutive years. What has happened since Labor came to government? The numbers have skyrocketed. In 2003-04, 288 projects were assessed and that is more than three times as many projects as in each of the last two years of the CLP government.
The Territory is now on the threshold of a new era in our development. Gas is coming onshore, the LNG plant is under construction, the expansion to the Alcan refinery is under way, and the construction of the wonderful Darwin City Waterfront will shortly commence. Investment in these projects is in the billions, but important developments are happening at a smaller scale. Environmental assessments have recently been completed on projects such as the Bootu Creek manganese mine, Harts Range garnet mine and the bio-diesel plant. Other major projects are still at various stages of their environmental assessment including: the McArthur River Mine expansion; the trans-Territory pipeline; the Blacktip gas pipeline and processing plant; the Glyde Point industrial estate; Browns oxide/cobalt/copper/nickel mine near Batchelor; Mt Porter gold project; the Marine Harvest Barramundi Farm at Port Patterson and Snake Bay; and the Aussie Prawn Aquaculture project. The Office of Environment and Heritage is dealing with an unprecedented number of environmental assessments as this government further grows the Territory economy.
As we stand on the verge of a new era and welcome its coming, we also need to look beyond our generation and contemplate what sort of environment we want our grandchildren and their children to have. Yes, we want them to have economic opportunities and all that it brings, but I know that I also want them to have the Territory lifestyle that we enjoy now. To maintain our great Territory lifestyle into the future, we need to protect the environment on which it depends. Yet, with one of the greatest environments in the world and a lifestyle to envy, we are the only state not to have an EPA. Indeed, with an environment like ours, it is reasonable to ask why would we not want an EPA? Why, for that matter, do we not already have one? That is why the government moved to refer the EPA issue to the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
I thank and acknowledge the Chair, the member for Karama, for her commitment, and all committee members for their hard work and the diligence they applied to their investigations. I also thank the many Territorians who took the time to put their views to the committee. The committee’s report is very detailed and we will be taking some time to carefully consider all the recommendations and views put forward during the consultations. However, I can say, categorically, that this government will be moving to establish a Territory Environment Protection Agency, bringing us into line with the rest of Australia.
There are a few places on this earth that truly have the opportunity to develop sustainably. Certainly, there are countries that have abundant natural resources, but many are wracked with war and political unrest, and have insurmountable population pressures. Others have already squandered their natural capital, leaving an environment degraded, where repair rather than sustainability is the best that can be hoped for. In the Territory, however, we have an environment where the landscape and its ecosystem functions are largely intact. By world standards, we have a very modest population size. We have knowledge, technical expertise, and we are a stable democracy. Surely, if we cannot grasp this unique opportunity, then we will have failed to heed the lessons elsewhere, and future generations of Territorians will be the poorer.
Government has made improvements to our environment protection arrangements. However, it has also become clear that we need to make further changes as we enter this new era of development. Now is the right time to take the next step and establish a Territory EPA.
The community expects us to make these changes and we will. That is why we will be having an EPA. The Office of Environment and Heritage does a great job but it does not have the responsibilities across all areas. Environmental problems are complex and they do not respect lines on maps or administrative arrangements. Their resolution requires an integrated and comprehensive response, a strong organisation that can set environmental standards across the board, provide independent advice, ensure compliance, and educate the community, all of which is required. That will be the job of our Territory EPA. We need to look no further than Mt Todd to know what happened when this does not happen.
I note in the committee’s report that the Territory community is certainly saying that they want to have more say in the protection of our unique environment. While our current environment protection legislation provides some avenue for community participation, it is, quite obviously, an area we can improve upon through an EPA. The committee recommended a number of principles that should guide the changes that we need to make in establishing an EPA including the public’s right to know, to be informed, to be heard, and to object. These are very important principles and I thank the committee for bringing them forward.
I am also firmly of the view that, without an organisation that can comprehensively respond to environment issues, we are selling Territory industries significantly short. The days when industry viewed environmental requirements as a threat are, thankfully, largely gone. Responsible industry is embracing environmental management as core business. They do not want their reputations ruined by others who want to do the wrong thing. Nor do they want to be disadvantaged in the marketplace by competitors who cut environmental corners. What industry does want is clear environmental ground rules and fierce pursuit of compliance that they can invest with certainty. For our part, government wants to attract industry with sound environmental credentials and protect our unique environment.
An EPA will help do both. An EPA is, I believe, a mature approach to the maturing of industry in the Territory. Those who believe an EPA will be an impediment to economic growth should look further afield. Western Australia, for example, has had an EPA since 1980s, yet who would doubt their capacity to develop their mineral and gas reserves. Quite simply, an EPA is an investment in sustainable development of the Territory.
This government will establish an EPA. The opposition clearly does not want one. Their own policy calls for a minimalist change and I guess, in one sense, I do not blame them. Why would they want to change environment protection arrangements when, quite clearly, as evidenced by the last two years of their government, they had no capacity to grow our economy? If we go back to 85 environmental assessments per year, then maybe we do not need an EPA. However, the Territory under this government is changing. Our economy is growing and diversifying and the opposition’s response is to stick their head in the sand and cling to their old ways. They do not want to change to current government arrangements. They are happy for their proposed environment protection commissioner to have no rules on mining operations because Mt Todd was not their fault, and they are happy to set their environment protection commissioner up to fail.
Somehow, this environment protection commissioner is going to investigate public complaints, independently audit the environment protection services of government, and report findings to parliament, while at the same time being the CEO of the government agency responsible for the delivery of the very same environment services and, therefore, answerable to the minister. It is like tapping the Auditor-General on the shoulder and saying: ‘Oh, by the way, you are now going to be the head of Treasury as well’. It just will not work.
Yes, Madam Speaker, a few of the states do have environment protection commissioners. They have a very narrow and defined role in an overall environment protection framework as a type of environmental ombudsman. But they are not a substitute for an EPA. Victoria, for example, has both and you will not find the Victorian Commissioner for the Environment impossibly trying to wear two hats. The opposition wants the Territory to be the only state without an EPA and government will not be implementing their flawed model.
Quite simply, after creating the Mt Todd debacle, the opposition cannot use words like ‘minimalist reform’ in its environment policy and expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
Government is giving Territorians what they want: an EPA. The opposition promised more of the same with a Clayton’s environment commissioner. This, coming from the party that presided over Mt Todd, that wanted to dam the Elizabeth River and that did nothing to control land clearing! Already, the CLP is flagging that they want to return to the good old days. The opposition’s candidate for Goyder has already stated that he wants our land clearing controls watered down.
The work presented in the committee’s report will assist government to create an EPA that best suits the Territory’s needs. I note that while the committee could not settle on the best model for an EPA, the committee did find that an EPA would be beneficial and that a restructure of environment protection arrangements is necessary following a review of programs and legislation; an EPA should be independent; an EPA should not be overly bureaucratic; and an EPA should be phased in.
Government agrees, and that is why we are commencing an audit and assessment of environment programs and legislation. Following the audit and review, government will be determining an appropriate model in consultation with the community. A new environment protection and management act will then be drafted to establish the EPA and pull together the relevant items of environment legislation. The work already undertaken by the committee will feed into this process. While the government wants to see the EPA established as soon as possible, most public submissions also acknowledged that it will need to happen progressively. It will take some time to work through those issues, to develop the legislation and reorganise programs. We want to get it right.
More work is required to determine the finer details of the model, but I want to say from the outset that our Territory EPA will be designed so that it adds value to the environment protection services. It will not be an additional layer of bureaucracy; it will be independent in the advice it provides and the assessments it makes, recognising, as I think most of the community do, that governments ultimately are elected to make decisions and, unlike the opposition’s proposal, decisions on mining approvals will not be handed over to an unelected body. Government will establish an EPA that reflects our environmental issues and our circumstances. It will be an EPA that provides certainty to business investment and helps them understand and adhere to environmental regulations. It will be an EPA that supports the sustainable development of the Territory, promotes community participation and protects our unique environment and fabulous lifestyle. It will, Madam Speaker, be an EPA of which Territorians can be proud.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, at the outset I thank all members for participating in the debate: the members for Millner, Daly, Nelson, Barkly, Drysdale, the Minister for Lands and Planning, and the minister for the Environment, who very importantly, put on record in the Chamber this evening that the Martin Labor government would introduce an EPA, that the work is commencing on the environmental audit, and it would look at legislation required to be enacted in the parliament to create an EPA. This is very good news, indeed, for the generations of Territorians who want to enjoy our fantastic lifestyle that we all hold so dear.
I again thank the committee Secretariat, Graham Gadd and Maria Viegas for their incredibly hard and diligent work, and their expertise and knowledge which came to the fore throughout our inquiry. Yes, it was a truly bipartisan inquiry. As you have heard in debate, we were able to agree on specific principles. We had different models, but we accepted each other’s right to have different models. We received terrific support on our visit to Western Australia’s EPA and the environment departmental officers there, as well as South Australia’s EPA and departmental officers, and I thank those jurisdictions.
I also appreciate the advice I received from Queensland’s environment advisors and our own Territory experts. I make particular mention of Andrew Buick, whose advice on what works and how it works in the Territory was invaluable when I sought it. The community should be congratulated. They responded to the inquiry with a passion and an input that was impressive and fantastic. The environment is a core and fundamental issue of importance to Territorians. The number of submissions we received indicates that.
I seek leave to table this evening an additional submission, which was a personal submission submitted by Mr Christopher Amey. Mr Amey submitted this during the process of the inquiry. An administrative error resulted in it being omitted from the report. I seek leave to table this and have this submission read with the rest of the inquiry report.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank Mr Amey for his invaluable submission, which I ensured was sent on to all members of the committee for their consideration, as well as key government advisors who have been integral to the process of the government’s decision making on this issue.
I have to take exception to the comments of the member for Drysdale. I know he is a cynic. I know he is tired. Perhaps he should consider his future if he is going to be so tired and so cynical in his outlook. He said the cane toad recommendations were not implemented. That is clearly wrong. More than 95% of the recommendations of our cane toad inquiry have been implemented by government. We have the cane toad now as a threatening process in Australia. We have a national task force considering all the means that we need to combat cane toads. We have the government committing $1.4m to combating cane toads in the Territory. We have exciting collaboration between Western Australia and the Northern Territory governments specifically. We have research and audits going on, on the ground throughout the Territory in our parks. We have boosted funding in this area. That $1.4m expenditure is a significant, targeted response by the government to the cane toad inquiry recommendations. I congratulate the ministers whom I know have gone in to bat for this funding through the Cabinet process.
Frog Watch is funded to the hilt, on a very local level, to rally the troops, rally the residents of the Territory, to take on the battle against cane toads. We have seen some fantastic public awareness campaigns run by the government and worked on by Frog Watch. I congratulate Graham Sawyer and others involved in Frog Watch. Wherever you look, at a public event, Frog Watch is there explaining the issue of cane toads and how we can best combat them. So, member for Drysdale, take your cynicism somewhere else because we are working hard in the Territory to combat cane toads. Cynicism has its place, but the extent to which the cynicism oozes out of the member for Drysdale is quite disgusting.
As you heard from the Minister for Lands and Planning, who is also the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, there is significant work being done on the ground by our fantastic ranger staff in combating the issues that he raised, such as beating saltwater intrusion. An additional $1.2m in the operational budget of Parks and Wildlife announced in Budget 2005 is not an insignificant amount of money.
We have heard about the different models in the debate, and we have also heard from the government that an EPA will be established in the Territory on the return of the Martin Labor government. Otherwise, the CLP will have a very watered down, weak and, I believe, ineffectual, environment protection commission and a commissioner set up to fail. It will be up to, ultimately, the public, because with all the best intentions in the world, it will take us beyond 15 October to actually create an EPA and create the legislation it requires. It really will be a decision that people will take to the polls. I hope for the future of the Territory that decision is to return a Labor government and to see the introduction of an EPA to protect our lifestyle into the future.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is one of the tragedies with these type of bills that you have to be a little selective as to what you pull out of the budget, even in the areas for which I have shadow responsibility. You find yourself wanting to talk about all manner of things, and with good cause, because these are big budgets. The figures, as I cast my eyes over the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, is a $244m estimate for last year’s spending, and the budget this year is $231m worth of spending. When you think about it, those are enormous figures. I get a cold sweat when I am in the casino putting $5 bets down on Blackjack! To have that much public money under your scrutiny, as a shadow minister of this parliament, makes me very conscious of the fact that we are dealing with enormous amounts of money which affect people’s lives.
Therefore, I take this job very seriously. That is one of the reasons, of course, I urge this government, in the strongest possible terms, to take this budget to the estimates process. If I am to do my job properly and Territorians are to believe this document that we have been handed as being the actual intent of government, then one would hope that they would allow the documents to pass through an estimates process and, indeed, pass into law so that the Treasurer can go to the Treasury, to the Central Holding Authority, which empowers the Treasurer then to fund the public servants and all the services that are suggested in this budget.
If we do not go to the estimates process, this budget is probably not worth the paper it is printed on, because it would have to be reintroduced after the next parliamentary sittings, and we do not know what shape that would take in relation to a new budget coming before the House. It is the prerogative of government at any time - whether it be CLP or ALP - to introduce a mini-budget if it likes. The current government did it in 2001-02. Therefore, you could run the argument that a mini-budget could be brought down at any time, so you are not really bound to the document that is brought down on in May every year.
However, it is useful to go through the estimates process because then, at least once you have trawled through it, you understand how everybody is geared up and how all the guns are loaded to fire in which directions, then the document has a great deal more legitimacy. It was pointed out this morning that there are numerous areas of concern that this side of the House will continue to have with the budget leading up to the estimates process.
I asked a question today in the parliament in relation to how sure we were that the Traeger Park money had been set aside in the budget. I thank the Treasurer for directing me to page 192 of the budget papers. However, I still flag a concern. The reason that I flag a concern is that the Treasurer directed me to this bullet point:
Participation and development programs output costs are higher in 2004-05 due to -
That, of course, suggests that the money in last year’s budget was higher because the Sport and Recreation department had all this money sitting in a bank account which is now pumped and primed and ready to see the announcements and the tenders go out for the development of Traeger Park. What concerns me is that I cannot see how that money is being rolled forward into the current budget. That was the thrust of the question I asked today. The budget paper dealing with infrastructure work clearly says that in Alice Springs, under the Sports and Recreation title, that $800 000 has been set aside for the drag strip. Well, thank the government very much for that excellent announcement! We announced it 12 months ago - in fact, for the same amount. I would love to be one of the first morons to ride down as fast as we possibly can …
Dr Toyne: I will put in a good word in for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely! In fact, I will take the challenge. If we both return to this House, and that is, indeed ...
Madam SPEAKER: What? Both of you on the strip at the same time? That is a worry!
Mr ELFERINK: I think that might be a great challenge, Madam Speaker. I pick up the interjection for the purposes of the Parliamentary Record. Make sure that you got what the good doctor had said, Hansard! The challenge has been thrown down in front of us all. The gauntlet …
Dr Toyne: Only if my Triumph can be started!
Mr ELFERINK: The gauntlet can be laid down and that the minister and I, no matter what form we are as members of parliament after the next Territory election, can race each other down the track on the inaugural day. In fact, how is this for an idea now that I am thinking on my feet, Madam Speaker? The opening ribbon should be placed at exactly one quarter of a mile from the start line and the first person to get there opens the drag strip!
Madam SPEAKER: It is a worry, that’s all I can say!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I think it is an excellent challenge …
Dr Toyne: Oh look, I would not want to take it from you!
Mr ELFERINK: It is an excellent challenge and I look forward to racing the good doctor …
Madam SPEAKER: Push bikes?
Mr ELFERINK: … down the drag strip. It may well be push bikes, Madam Speaker, but I look forward to an event of that nature.
I made some phone calls after that question was answered after Question Time and I am advised that the tender has been set back from a June tender to possibly a July tender, after the Territory election. If the money is not to be found in infrastructure spending this year and we are heading towards a July tender, I would hope that we have to rely on the integrity of this government that the money is actually in the bank somewhere. It is not in the budget papers here, so I am not quite sure where the money has gone. I state on the record now that I have a certain element of apprehension in relation to that money actually being somewhere ready to go.
I understand that the negotiations have reached the point where the CAFL has been advised that the tender is going out in July. I am wary of the fact that it is after the next Territory election, but we now have to take it on trust that this money is actually somewhere. Unless, of course, we end up going to an estimates process and then it would be easy to answer these particular questions.
I now turn to a particular part of the budget papers before me which deals with Housing Business Services. This is, basically, the part of the budget where Territory Housing lives and it is always useful when you are investigating Budget Paper No 3 to read it with another couple of Budget Papers No 3 next to it from the last couple of years. That is a very useful exercise for a very good reason: you get to compare what has happened a few years ago to what is happening now. Here is something curious about what has happened over the last couple of years under the tutelage and carriage of this minister. The operating revenue in the year 2001-02 was $87m. That is five years ago. The budget for this year for housing services is substantially less than that. That is a source of some concern because one would think that, with a government with the social orientation of this particular government, you would expect to see that Territory Housing - here it is, the estimate for this year, the final spend, is $84.664m. There is a sudden leap into next year because Territory Housing has a substantially increased responsibility for Government Employee Housing.
That is a reason for concern because you would think a government of this particular orientation would be increasing this expenditure they have in this area, but in real terms it seems to have been dropping away. The answer for that may be found on page 205 of Budget Paper No 3 for this year, which shows the estimated number of public housing dwellings last year under the management of this department was 5535; the estimate for this year will be substantially fewer, in fact 99 fewer, at 5436. One of the challenges with budget papers over time - and I always think that this is deliberate - is that if you look at measures they do tend to change. Different measures get different meanings.
I am trying to now go back through the 2001-02 Housing Business Services to find the number of Territorians assisted through public rental housing. Presumably - and I am sure that the minister will make this clear to me - that is a slightly different figure from dwellings that are occupied. If that is not, and in fact they are exactly the same figure, then 6745 people in public housing in 2002-03 estimate is substantially more than it is for the estimate for this financial year. And next financial year, there are 100 fewer.
Even if we use the two figures on page 205, Public Housing Dwellings, 5535 last year, 100 fewer this year, then we have a cause for concern because this is the minister who has admonished CLP governments of the past for being derelict in their duty of providing housing to Territorians, both in the bush and otherwise. Yet, under this minister, less and less housing is becoming available. The other concern is: what is happening to the housing stock that is being used?
This is something on which the Auditor-General has seen fit to comment. He noted that there is a trend upwards in the percentage of housing stock which is not providing a return, and it is creeping up towards 6% - in fact, over 6% is my understanding. This happens because of the amount of housing stock that is vacant. The reason that we have a large amount of vacant housing stock is that this minister has tried to use that housing stock to offset a problem that he has identified in the bush.
The consequences of that decision has seen riots in the streets of Alice Springs because of poor choices in deciding who to put in which house, and where. Of course, there are cultural reasons why people cannot be refused by their own family members, so that you have addresses, especially in the Larapinta area around Alice Springs, which essentially become ghettos. That concerns me deeply because the consequences of this sort of planning, with a shrinking housing stock and what is left of that housing stock becoming unproductive because of damage, is that there are public safety issues.
I do not need go into through all of those public safety issues again. Suffice to say it was very recent in Alice Springs that a police officer had a gun drawn and was, I presume, ready to use it to keep people apart. This is not something that I want to see, and I am sure it is not something the minister wants to see if we are going to be honest. However, the minister has to grasp the nettle. It is no good passing the buck to other people; it is no good suggesting to other people that it is their responsibility and the department’s responsibility. The minister must make a decision to grasp the nettle and do what needs to be done.
It was demonstrated that one of the greatest shortcomings of ministers yesterday - and I am not going to say Labor ministers interstate, overseas and nationally - is that they do not want to articulate the consequences of their decision-making processes. Yesterday, we were debating completely different legislation and I was trying to ask a minister whether she appreciated that the decision she was taking meant that people were going to end up in handcuffs. She could not bring herself to concede it. Leadership means that you have to be prepared to make the tough decisions as well as the good ones. I urge the minister to make those tough decisions.
Recently, we have seen a minister finally come out and admit that he was wrong and now is he trying to out-CLP the CLP, if you like. In fact, the whole of the government is trying to do it. I saw a bill tabled today in relation to the Youth Justice Bill, which is being sold out there as this great, tough bill on juvenile crime. However, if you read the bill, it is far from that. That is by the by. The fact is that this government is trying to sell itself as tough on this and tough on that and, in this instance, the minister is trying to sell the government as tough on housing tenants.
Madam Speaker, you have a bill before this House which deals with issues relating to housing tenants. I have a bill before this House which deals with issues relating to housing tenants. All of a sudden, I would suggest, after some polling in the Alice Springs area, the government has decided that it needs to have a bill before this House dealing with Housing tenants. A bill that you and I, Madam Speaker, are doubtlessly aware of the fact that it will never see the light of day because, come the election, it falls off the Notice Paper, as, sadly, yours and mine will as well, because I doubt we will get to see another General Business Day.
That is one of the concerns that I have: that the government is not being honest with Territorians in how it projects itself, and this is one of the ways in which it does it. It also, in selling itself as the great socially responsible government as it has tried to do in the last three years, has shrunk the housing stock, it has sold off parts of the housing stock and has not replenished it.
I turn my attention to another area of these budget papers that bothers me. It is that, once again, the government has promised us open, honest and accountable reporting. It holds up these budget papers as a monument to such reporting, but if you start to drill into past budget papers, certain performance measures are falling off the radar. These are very important performance management measures. Clearly, because I raised them last year as an issue and signalled the fact that I would be checking for them this year, the government has decided to feel sensitive about those performance measurements. One of the performance measures that I now turn to is the performance measure dealing with the Community Harmony project. Before I go any further with the Community Harmony project, it is worth digressing briefly to talk about the Auditor-General’s comments or, more to the point, Housing Business Services’ comments about having the Community Harmony project foisted upon them.
Housing Business Services section has to operate like a business. It is designed and meant to operate like a business and, ultimately and ideally, it would, hopefully, return a profit like a business. Year in, year out it has not for various reasons. Then, you put pressure on a business and say: ‘You are going to operate as a business; we are going to fund you and hope that you have your own revenue sources, which are laid out on the Housing Business Services budget papers, and that you will go as close as you possibly can to breaking even or even doing better’. Sadly, there is a reducing repairs and maintenance budget every year. I notice this year it is $20m, which is substantially less than the spend was a few years ago. If you allow for CPI it is a serious hacking into the R&M budget, which is one of the other reasons you are starting to see vacancy rates as high as 6%, despite the fact we have waiting periods of months and months. If you are trying to run a business in that fashion, then the last thing you need foisted upon you is, effectively, an extra tax. It is the minister’s tax, because once they said that they were going to engage in the Community Harmony project, they had to find somewhere to put it. And where did it land? In Housing Business Services.
If I turn to last year’s Budget Paper No 3, page 206, the average cost per person utilising the Community Harmony service for 2003-04 was $2781. The estimate for the year 2004-05 for the same service, average cost of person utilising Community Harmony services was $3638. Naturally, if you are keeping an eye on that sort of expenditure - and as a potential future minister of this particular area, it is something you want to be across - you would say: ‘Hmm, that is a pretty big increase in spending …’, - some $850 as I cast my eye over it very quickly - $850 per person utilising Community Harmony. I wonder how many people actually utilised it, because if it was 1000 people, that blew out from $2.7m to $3.6m in a 12-month period.
I then turned to the same reporting criteria for Housing Services, and found to my dismay that the average cost per person utilising Community Harmony has dropped off the radar. Why would that be? Frankly, because it has blown out completely and the government does not want anybody else to know how much it is costing the taxpayer to achieve this service, especially considering this particular government has, basically, had to admit in recent times that the Community Harmony project has, effectively, failed. How do we know that the government has had to make that admission? Sadly, because it has had to put out all sorts of press releases and do all sorts of work demonstrating what a serious effort they are making in cleaning up itinerants – ‘We are getting tough on itinerants’.
Once again, we find that the government is trying to out-CLP the CLP. When they have done their polling over recent times, they have realised that they are soft in a couple of areas, one of which is law and order. People just do not believe them. Why don’t Territorians believe this government, that the Community Harmony project has done a wonderful job and gotten rid of all of the itinerants? Because when people walk down the street, as you and I do, and as the government has to, they realise that we are knee deep in itinerants, and that the Community Harmony project has failed Territorians profoundly. Their polling then tells them that that is, indeed, the case, so the only thing that they can do is say that they are going to get tough on itinerants and lock them all up, and do all of these other things which the CLP were being called all sorts of names for over the years.
In fact, even recently in the last few parliaments, the minister for Police has roared his indignation about the monstering and stomping approach that the CLP still adheres to. Yet, in spite of that, what do all of these press releases about the great job they are doing getting rid of itinerants effectively mean other than monstering and stomping?
The problem is that the government has tried a few angles and found themselves wanting. I would like to know from the minister whilst he replies in the budget today, exactly what the cost is for the Community Harmony project which has failed us so badly? I would like to know two sets of numbers from the minister, seeing as I am uncertain as to whether we are going to go to the estimates process. Firstly, I would like the minister to state the average cost per person utilising the Community Harmony project, over the year 2004-05. I would like to know the estimate for the year 2005-06 for the average cost of the person utilising the Community Harmony project. I would also like to know how many people have utilised the Community Harmony project - specifically, that will give me a figure of how much it has cost overall for that - plus any further operational oncosts which are not covered by that list. It is a pretty straightforward request; it is not difficult. What I would like to know is exactly how much the Community Harmony project has cost Territorians?
I do not expect that the minister will answer those questions and lay those details on the table because we are close to an election and, because of that, they will not want Territorians to know how much money is involved in this particular project. As a consequence, I will have to wait until the estimates process which will not occur before the next Territory election; that is my bet. This is one of the big risks that the government wants to take leading up to the next Territory election. However, if they do decide to go before the next estimates process, they are going to find themselves with all sorts of things in the ether - questions which have not been answered about this budget and what they are going to do in dealing with some of these issues will be a problem for them.
This budget needs the integrity of an estimates process to be believable. We have heard today that there are outstanding questions surrounding the waterfront. The waterfront is an area not of my shadow concern, but of which this much I do know: there are all sorts of questions as to how much it is going to cost the taxpayer. The reason I say that is that the rest of the consortium has the government in a very awkward position. The government absolutely needs this project to maintain any form of credibility here in Darwin and it is to Darwin they will be looking to retain their governance. If I was in a consortium’s position and I knew that I had a Chief Minister in that position, I would be trying to squeeze as much as I possibly could to save my own company from any form of extra exposure that I do not need. Consequently, I would be pushing the Chief Minister really hard in all sorts of areas to make her pick up the tab. I am certain that is happening. If that is happening, then we need this estimates process even more than ever because we need to know exactly where that pressure is being applied.
It is a $1.2bn project. The taxpayers’ exposure is uncertain – certainly over $120m or $130m. That exposure is uncertain and to ask the taxpayer: ‘Trust me, I am going to spend all this money on a project, and you just have to trust me, we will wait for closure to happen until we are completely locked in, before I give you any specific details as to where the money is going’, is a big ask. I wonder whether the taxpayer is prepared to cop it on the chin. I do not oppose a waterfront project, but I do ask questions and it is my duty to do so. I will continue supporting both the Leader of the Opposition and other people in this House who are asking questions as to exactly what the exposure is.
This government does not have the fiscal integrity that it needs to be able to say ‘You can trust us’ because, according to this document here, which is their mini-budget, growth at the moment would be 5% and would have been for the last few years. That is why this government would have been returning surpluses. It is the most ambitious belief in the world – the naively ambitious belief of any person, to suggest that they are going to get a growth rate in the current environment of 5% and in the environment of a couple of years ago. It is for this reason that the budget to me is an unbelievable document in some areas, and this government suffers a creditability problem because even on its own projections - and this is the work that they did, the stuff that they were going to do for the Territory - they have been wildly wrong. Not a little bit wrong, wildly wrong.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to go to the estimates process. I do not expect them to, but I urge them to go to the estimates process for the sake of the integrity of this budget and of several projects that they have in the pipeline. Otherwise it is a ‘trust me’ budget – ‘Just watch what I do and just do as we say, vote for us and we will deliver here, there and everywhere else and everything will be sweetness and light’. The track record does not represent that and, as a consequence, that they have to submit themselves to estimates otherwise their credibility is shot to pieces.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not intend to speak too much in detail on the budget because I would like to do that in the Estimates Committee. The budget is a very detailed document and certainly requires a fair bit of study especially, I suppose, from an Independent, before one can comment fully on many of the implications that are in the budget. Of course, there are broad scale indications of any budget, and estimates by the government on population and economic growth and their predictions for how everything will work out in the future. I would like to study those in a bit more detail before I comment.
I would like to talk about some of the issues that the budget raises that I support and, in some cases, I do not support. The government is focussed on getting more skilled people, which is most important. There is no doubt that there is a shortage of skilled people and if we can raise the number of people who are skilled, so be it. I have one comment: the minister spoke about the work wear/work gear cash bonus provided for young people, which is a good idea. However, I recently wrote to the minister saying that one of the complaints that I received, which was from a company, was that it did not apply from the beginning of the year. I ask the government whether it will consider applying the grant to those apprentices who started at the beginning of the year and not wait for those who are going to start later. It would be a good incentive for those people working.
The no stamp duty payable by first home owners up to $200 000 is good. It certainly needed to be raised. There has been much talk about how the government has successfully promoted HomeNorth, which is very good. I have no problem at all with that. The HomeNorth scheme is great, but the issue that I keep trying to reinforce that government needs to look at it is that if you get a loan and the house is worth a lot of money, you are going to be paying that house off forever and a day. What we need is some system to allow first home owners to buy land and house packages at a cheaper rate. I keep saying that the government owns its own land, it is Crown land; surely it would be better to provide land at either cost or a bit more than cost price so people can invest their money in a house.
If you want to help the economy, land does not help the economy. Land just sits there and you have to mow it and take care of the weeds. If you can build a good house on your land, not a cardboard box or a garage, you help the economy. Therefore, even though it is good to have the HomeNorth loan system in place, and no stamp duty payable up to $200 000, a lot of that is not very good if you live in the rural area, for instance, where a block of land in Howard Springs can sell for up to $200 000. By the time you put a house on it, you are probably looking at about $380 000. That is well above what the loan requirements can handle. It more or less says that young people are not going to be able to afford to come into the rural area, which is very sad.
Many of us came into the rural area when we were young and did not have much money. Now it has become very fashionable. We are now excluding young people, so the government needs to look at it, not only in the Howard Springs area, but other places - maybe in those places where population is stagnant. Katherine has a stagnant population. Maybe there are ways for the government to open up land there to encourage people to make their home in Katherine and similar places. It has been done before. In Adelaide River, I remember, I could buy land for about $3000 as long as I built a house in about two years. There were systems to encourage people to come into those places.
The government has good schemes going but, as was stated before when the Chief Minister was talking with glee about a function the Real Estate Institute is having tomorrow night, they love higher prices because they make their money on percentages. However, government has to balance between the real estate industry and families. We might be missing out a little there.
The government said it is going to reduce stamp duty on leases, franchises, hiring arrangements and non-real business, which is all very well and good for business. However, as I have said before, you have to understand that people might see that as terrific but, for the average family - and I know the Treasurer said some things about how much this budget helps families – well, yes, to some extent it does. There is no doubt there are some good initiatives and trying to lower costs. Picking up the home or car or boat insurance and seeing $200 plus GST plus stamp duty, they have to ask: ‘Why am I getting hit with two taxes for one item?’ I am told that stamp duty actually never used to be a percentage; it used to be a flat rate. Somewhere in the system, someone changed the regulation and turned stamp duty into a growth tax just like the GST. So, you have a percentage on a percentage, it is a bit like compound interest.
I ask the government, considering the amount of money that it raises even from its own revenue - in my reading of the budget, they will raise about $6m extra in their own taxes, not forgetting they are getting extra money from the GST, and I know they are doing cuts in other places. However, the extra they are getting from their own taxation they could have used to wipe out a fair bit of the stamp duty impost on insurance. It might not be anything to do with the arrangements that the Commonwealth and Territory governments have agreed to on the removal of taxes. We do not need to have that arrangement to say we are going to get rid of stamp duty on home and car insurance. We can do that ourselves. It would be a really positive thing because people would see directly that there has been a reduction in their cost of living.
The government has put a lot of money into things like health and community services, education and law enforcement. Whilst that is good, somewhere along the line we need to judge whether that money is well spent. That is why you have your Estimates Committee. We have increased funding in these areas quite considerably, and for some good reason. I do not think anyone is going to growl about extra police or extra teachers. We had trouble getting extra nurses. I do not know if there is anything in the budget saying what has happened to our Filipino and Irish nurses. There was a program to get quite a considerable number of people out to the Northern Territory. I would be interested to see what has happened to those. If that program did not work, what has the government put in place to try to offset that program? It might not have been as successful as hoped.
I note that under Health and Community Services, additional funding of $395 000 for homebirth care services and the provision of outreach antenatal services for remote communities. I have been told tonight that the provision of homebirth services goes as far as Howard Springs Road. If you lucky enough to have your baby on one side of Howard Springs Road, you are okay, if you have it on the other side you have a bit of a problem. I will be asking the government whether it could look at the older system which did exist, and to see whether they can make it work for people further down in the rural area, even as far as Darwin River. I know there are some issues there. All I am saying is perhaps we could look at those issues and see whether they could be covered. Why Howard Springs Road would be the cut –off, I am not too sure. There is an ambulance in Humpty Doo. It is the Humpty Doo voluntary ambulance. I am not sure whether they have taken that into account, but that does exist in the rural area. It is something I will be taking up with the government at a later stage.
I am pleased that the oncology and radiation unit is to go ahead. I know there have been comments, and I suppose you could go on forever and a day saying: ‘You promised the first time, do we trust you this time?’. Well, you would not want to not do it. I am saying, good. There are many people out there who have been praying for this to occur. I know there are a lot of issues, but all the paper work I have seen about this issue said this is the time. I have seen letters from Royal Adelaide Hospital - I cannot think of the doctor’s name straight off. He comes up here regularly and liaises with the doctor in Royal Darwin Hospital. He said that now there are enough people coming out of the University of South Australia in this area for us to put our radiotherapy oncology unit in place. There will be skilled staff available to look after that. That is a good thing.
Many people will be very glad to see that. Some might say, and sadly, because some of their relations may have passed away - and I refer to someone in my electorate whose husband passed away recently. They were certainly anxious that this would occur. They are not blaming the government. They are actually very happy now that the government has at least made the promise. I hope it is more than a promise. I hope we see bricks and mortar put in place. It is a very important issue, not only from the aspect of one’s physical wellbeing, because you are trying to deal with people with serious disease, but also the social implications, reducing the break-up of families having to go a long way. In many cases, many Aboriginal people find it a lot more comfortable if they are nearer their country rather than being a long way away. It is great to see that it has come up. We debated it in one of the previous sittings; I had a motion before the parliament. I know that the government adjusted it slightly, but at least that proved to me that they were not going to take it out all together as it looked like it was going to happen. I thank the government for doing that.
I looked at the emphasis on the environment in the Treasurer’s speech, and I am a little disappointed that sometimes the poor old environment gets shoved down the back when it comes to budget speeches. In the speech, I see the one item which is increased funding of $1.2m recurrent for the Territory park management operations and management for the new Channel Point Recreation Reserve - which I am not knocking at all, but I am saying that it is a pity environment is not up there. The Territory is a big environmental area; we have some big environmental issues ...
Ms Scrymgour: More money in there.
Mr WOOD: Aha! Yes! I am not saying there is not, I am saying that, in the Treasurer’s speech it would be nice to reflect the government’s priority by putting a little more emphasis – not one item in 10 pages. I am actually sticking up for the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I am saying: ‘A bit more emphasis on your side of things ...
Ms Scrymgour: See how committed we are! We are committed to the environment.
Mr WOOD: I know you have to support your Treasurer. I am just saying yes, very good …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I will break down and cry in a minute. However, the point is that the government has not put emphasis in its opening speech of this budget – it has put very little emphasis - on the environment. Look at the environmental issues that we have in the Territory. We …
Ms Scrymgour: We have not cut the budget.
Mr WOOD: We – no, I am saying …
Ms Scrymgour: Stop being mischievous and naughty.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Could I have ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please!
A member: Have the floor.
Mr WOOD: That is right, there is a bit of argy-bargy going on here. There should have been more emphasis on those things which are really major issues. We know that gamba grass has the potential to change the total environment in the Top End.
Mr Dunham: More than cane toads, even.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We know mission grass is just going to add a little more to that as well. Where are our initiatives on that? We should have initiatives. I say to the government: what about the subsidy on Glyphosate?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, member for Drysdale, the argy-bargy includes you.
Mr WOOD: What, me too?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale. I am just reminding you, member for Drysdale.
Mr WOOD: I was getting worked up there, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. You have ruined it. I was just getting going. Gamba grass, for instance, is a weed that can be controlled, but it will require a big effort. One of those things that you need to control gamba with is Glyphosate - Roundup or whatever you want to call it. What the government should be doing - and it is something that I am going to be pushing during the election - is putting a subsidy on Glyphosate. I was able to buy 20 litres of Roundup in Emerald for $83. I had pay the 10% so it got up to about $91 for 20 litres – the 480 grams per litre Roundup; the stronger version. Sometimes in Darwin it costs you $120 to $150 for the same item. Surely, it does not cost $50 to get that stuff to Darwin?
If we have a major problem, we not only have to have money, as the budget says, for looking after the government’s parks, because the government has a weed program here, we really have to be investing in the private sector. We have pastoralists who grow it - because it is not a weed, so it is legal to grow it. It spreads! We should be making sure they can get control of the stuff that is outside their blocks. Until we declare it a weed, they are quite entitled to grow it wherever they like.
Have a look at Batchelor; it is just covered in gamba. I have property there, and did not have any gamba a few years ago. Now, it is just impossible for me to slash because my little old tractor just falls apart. I am not the only one. You can go down the Eva Valley Road and it is wall-to-wall gamba. It is taking over and it will change the face of the Northern Territory. Come to Litchfield Shire - mission grass. It is funny, actually, there is more mission grass in the Litchfield Shire and more gamba in Coomalie Shire from the mapping, and then it reverses. There is not as much gamba in Litchfield and there is not as much mission in Coomalie. They are two major weeds that we need to do something about. I say to the government: why don’t you put out a subsidy for those people who wish to get rid of those weeds? We used to have a subsidy, I believe, on control of noxious weeds. I do not know what has happened to that; it has gone.
Maybe this is the time for the government to take the initiative. Don’t sit down with too many committees because, by the time we finish the committees, we will have gamba grass down as far as Elliott. If anyone had been to the gamba grass workshop in Batchelor, they do know that, using the same modelling of climate from Africa, Elliott could be the furthest it could live quite successfully. There you are, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are impressed with that bit of information; that is the potential of gamba grass in the Northern Territory. It is a major problem. That is why I am saying there needs to be more emphasis on some of this.
I went to a cane toad meeting the other night. I still think we should have attempted to put a cheap second-hand corrugated iron fence across the Cobourg Peninsula with a series of traps because we know the traps do work. Which one is the best one? The minister announced the other day that the one from Katherine is the best one. I am not sure what all my Toad Buster friends are going to do now with their version because the one from Katherine looks better. If we had a series of traps combined with the fence, combined with rangers looking after that Cobourg Peninsula, couldn’t we do something about keeping the Cobourg Peninsula free? Not a big effort. Show some leadership. Show some initiative and do it. If it fails you could say we did our best, too bad. We know there are problems with cane toads floating around the sea, but that is why you have your traps. Put your traps along the coast. Have rangers check them regularly. Have solar lights on them. Be inventive. Do something. But we did not do anything. We have done a few good things. We have given money to the Toad Busters but here was a chance to keep a piece of mainland free because we had natural geographical features that would help that, but that is just the pity.
Whilst we are talking about environment, I cannot resist myself, but really, somewhere along the line, we have to bring in container deposit legislation. I went to the Humpty Doo land fill the other day with the Palmerston Sun. We were doing an article on the land fill. You stand there and see the amount of recyclable goods that are just getting crushed under machinery. All the litter abatement schemes that the beverage industry wants to throw at the government so that they do not bring in CDL is just a waste of time. We need container deposit legislation; it is the only way we are going to reduce land fill, increase recycling, and make litter relatively minor. The great thing about container deposit legislation is that the stuff does not get into land fill. We just do not have as much land fill to fill up.
In poor old Litchfield there is no glass recycling. I have asked the government what the policy is on glass recycling and, as far as I know, we do not recycle glass at all unless it goes free, I think, to Waste Master. I have been trying to get a meeting with Waste Master, but there is no recycling of glass in the Litchfield Shire any more because it is just not worth it. It is very sad and people do not like throwing the stuff away. They ask: ‘Where is the recycling?’ I say: ‘Economically it is not worth it’. Put 5 on this material and you will have it back in droves.
Mr Kiely: Wasn’t the Liberal government sponsoring a trial?
Mr WOOD: The Liberal government probably was sponsoring a trial, you are right, and it did not happen either. But do not use that as an excuse for not doing it ourselves. I will criticise the federal government as well, but we are dealing with the Territory budget.
Mr Kiely: That was an election promise.
Mr WOOD: It might be, but I am not here on behalf of the Liberal Party either and I am not here on a federal government budget. I do not like what they did and it was a lousy thing to break their promise, but there is no excuse for us not doing it. We could lead the way.
Ms Scrymgour: You could have voluntary deposit schemes.
Mr WOOD: No, don’t go down voluntary deposits. No, you are wasting your time. It is all sweet and nice. I belonged to the Territory Anti-Litter Committee for so long – sat at so many meetings talking about litter – it is just a big smoke screen by the beverage industry not to introduce container deposit legislation. It has not changed much. Have a look at the litter all over the place in various places. When people are half tanked, they do not worry about litter. They chuck it on the road.
All I am saying is whoever is next in government, if you want to win some votes, push out container deposit legislation. It is something that would work in a place like the Territory.
Just getting on to some matters relating to Palmerston and Litchfield. I am not sure what happened, but this book turned up late. I do not know where this was getting printed, but I did not have the Regional Highlights earlier.
A members: I haven’t got it either.
Mr WOOD: Well, we just got one. I do not know how we got it, but we just got it today. As I said, when I was first talking here this morning, I got a photocopy out of the e-mail. Did they forget to put it in. It was not in the original folder.
Ms Scrymgour: It was.
Members: No, it wasn’t.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, please.
Mr WOOD: It has some interesting things in here. The difficulty I have is not having enough time to go through this. I have had some briefings, but there are many things in here and I am not sure whether they are from last year or if they are new initiatives, but they are good. They are good, I will tell you that: $0.5m for horticultural development projects including citrus, nursery, cut flowers and the tropical fruit sectors. That is great, but I reckon we should spend a lot more money on research and development. Except for mangoes and a few other industries, our vegetable industries are not what they used to be. I wonder whether we have tended to stick with the big crops and not worried about the small crops.
If you went out to the Coastal Plains Research Stations a few years ago, they used to have garden days, a bit like they have down in Katherine. You would see Taiwanese cauliflowers and cabbages, new varieties, and the government was doing all that experimental work. That seems to have disappeared. The role of government is to do that work. If a grower is entrepreneurial and says: ‘I reckon I have a market for that; I will try and grow it’, a couple of growers in the Territory are not going to be able to afford to do trials on Taiwanese cauliflower or cabbages. That is the role of government.
What happens at the moment is the big industry, mangoes, gets it. For sure, they need development, too, but they have a fairly large fund from within their own sources to help as well. The government should be certainly looking at more research and development. I would love to know how many people are still out at the Coastal Plains Research Station. Last time I saw it, there were very few. I wonder whether that reflects the government’s commitment to the land because I have always felt the government really is not a great supporter of the agricultural and horticultural economy. In some areas it is, but I do not know whether they have the big picture as to where it is all going because that part of our economy is a diverse economy and it needs support.
The $1.38m for aquaculture is great; $320 000 for Beatrice Hill facilities for the buffalo industry which needs work and support; $250 000 for mango industry strategies including harvest, labour, code of practice, marketing, quality monitoring and industry communications is good. On some of these other items, it is a bit hard to know how much we are getting.
Under Palmerston and Litchfield, there is $16.47m for secondary education at Palmerston High School, Taminmin High School and Don Dale. I am presuming $10m of that goes straight to Palmerston High School. It would have been nice to break that up and tell us how much Taminmin is going to get.
In Regional Development, $12.24m for public transport services in Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield; $4.73m for school and special transport services in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield regions; and $0.4m funding for libraries at Palmerston and Taminmin - very good. I have been pushing for a long time for an increase in the bus services and I am very pleased that the minister has told me today that we are getting an increase in bus services. It may not be a more frequent bus service, but they have expanded the bus service, so I will give the government that. That at least is something that we needed.
The member for Goyder is like me. He has part of my old electorate and I have part of someone else’s electorate even though I suppose, officially, they are not the electorate; however, you know what I mean. They have varied services in the rural area: routes 445, 446, 447, 450 will also be changed to provide greater route coverage in the Humpty Doo and Coolalinga areas starting from Wanderrie Road. These variations will incorporate linkages to interchange services. That is great and I have been asking for some time that a bus goes up into the Herbert area. I am hoping that is where this is going because I do not have maps of those routes …
A member: They need some shelters up there.
Mr WOOD: We are hoping for shelters. The shelters have actually taken me 12 months. We are now getting asbestos out of the shelters. I am hoping to have an official opening of my shelter because it has taken that long. We will be inviting whoever would like to come to open a bus shelter, but they are coming and that is very good. I am pleased that the minister has said we will get them; it is just a matter of when.
The member for Goyder will be interested to know that on the western side of the Stuart Highway in the Gulnare and Virginia Roads area, they are going to extend the bus service, which will include Saturdays. Services will also be provided in those areas for school holidays. That has taken a lot of lobbying. I keep hammering this bus service. We still need more frequent bus services. I know this is good, but why do we only have two bus services in the morning and two bus services at night when many of us live quite close to Palmerston? I know running buses is expensive; in fact, the minister says here that just these two bus services will increase the distance by 72 000 km per year.
However, governments provide public transport. We know that they do not make money, but that does not matter. That is what you pay your taxes for, to give people the right to have public transport. Unfortunately, if you live in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo or Coolalinga, and you miss the bus at 7.40 am at Howard Springs, you walk, because there are not any buses until about 4 pm. Who else would live in an area like that? That does not help people use public transport, and that is an area which I think the government is missing again in its budget. Here we have high fuel costs and we should be out there promoting public transport. For example, express routes from Humpty Doo, Howard Springs, Palmerston, bing, bing, bing, put in parking lots, bus exchanges where people can park their car in safety and leave them there all day and know they will be there when they get back. If you have comfortable airconditioned buses, and advertise to people the advantages of catching a bus - you can go to town, read a book, get there much less stressed, and you are taking a lot of traffic off the road. There are all these benefits of having good public transport, yet we do not seem to want to promote it. It just seems to be like, well, we have to have it, so we will just have it and that will do. However, I believe we could do a lot better then we are at the present time.
I will mention a couple of little things. We have had some wins in my part of the world. We still have to keep plugging away, not everything is there. I notice, after trying again a couple of years ago, there is $80 000 for the bicycle path from Girraween Primary School. Now, if that does not get me a bicycle path across the Howard River, I will eat my hat. We had some money before, which the local council said was enough and then they rejected it. The government has come up with the same amount of money, plus $30 000 so, hopefully, for the children who have to ride their bikes on Girraween Road - which is not a safe road for kids to have their bikes on - that danger will go away and I thank the government for that. Again, you keep working. Independents work on the theory of perseverance and I believe that that is the way it is going to be.
With regards to the Girraween Road intersection realignment, I got excited about it the other day, but it is good to hear that the minister is in the initial stages of looking at land acquisition. It sounds good. I will be interested to know when that happens. That is a start and a start is better than nothing, so I hope that will go down the path of eventually having a new road here.
Landscaping at Coolalinga and the master plan for the Stuart Highway: I have been waiting. I have letters saying it was going to be released last month. The word is that it is going to Cabinet. I do hope it goes out for public discussion. Coolalinga is a major growth area in the Northern Territory. It is one of the first towns of any substance that tourists hit after leaving Katherine; it has to look better than it does. Government has a job to make the highway look neat and tidy and nice, and encourage people to stop there.
As I said, some improvement in the buses, minister, but I will tell you that we need more frequent buses. As I said, if you miss the bus in the morning, you do not get it later in the day; that is it, you have to walk. I have been asking about getting rid of what we call the spaghetti lines. A lot of areas in the rural area have their own line up and down roads - water lines. Many of those are old, many of them are leaking. I have asked the government through Power and Water - would I be allowed a small extension?
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete his speech.
Mr Wood: I will be brief.
Ms Scrymgour: That is what you said at the outset.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you for your encouragement, member for Arafura. It did not sound too good, but I believe you.
One thing I have been promoting in the area, as I said, we call them spaghetti lines, but a lot of people put there own water lines down the side of the road from the main. There are many of those in the rural area; they are getting old and they are leaking. The government can say: ‘Well, that is too bad; that is yours’. However, the government is putting underground power lines in Nightcliff, and they do not have to do that. The power is already there. They are doing it because it is aesthetically nice, it is better in storms, trees do not fall over, etcetera. You do not have to do it, but it does improve the way the system operates.
I say: government, why do you not set aside maybe $50 000 to $100 000 per year - I am not saying do this is overnight - and where these spaghetti pipes are, put in a proper water main. If anyone wants to connect to them, give them a covenant like we do for the electricity, so they want to join in. In this case, the government needs to be proactive because nothing will change if they are not. They are the only people who can change it. Otherwise, it will stay there and there will be people with leaking water pipes. We do not really want our water to be wasted. I know you can say it is private, so too bad, but sometimes government can say: ‘We will take the lead here. So we know there are no more spaghetti lines; we will put in a new mains’. That would be a good policy. You will get your money back such as the argument for the power and water mains that went into the Wickham Point. They did not pay for it, but you will get it back in the amount of water they use. I would say the same thing in domestic areas as well.
A couple of matters we have been pushing for quite a while is a slip lane at the tip. The member for Goyder would know that there is a terrible intersection to the tip. The department decided taking a short cut there was no good so they put in those lovely steel barriers. I would rather take the short cut and not have the people run up the back of me. Howard Springs Road is a very busy road. When little Mrs Smith with a little trailer for the goodies turns out at the tip, you get all these cars right up the back of her …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I know that might not be of great interest to people in woop-woop, but the government made a decision to cut off people taking the shortcut and did not put in a replacement for it. There has been talk that they would look at, somehow, putting the roads for the 15-Mile community and the road to the tip - which are 500 m apart - together. I do not know how that is going to work. Minister, I am probably going to knock on your door and ask what they have designed. I know they want to do something and it is important that something is done. However, from what I have heard, it is very impractical.
Of course, the one sad thing for me is that we have been pushing for a bicycle path for time immemorial, even when the CLP government was in. The bicycle path on the railway line which Litchfield Shire Council promoted as a way of retaining our heritage, which the government did from Darwin all the way out to Palmerston, has stopped there and has not moved one inch past Palmerston in the last 10 years. I do not know why rural people have to be discriminated against when it comes to being on a push bike. The word I have is: ‘Well, there are not enough of you’. Why can’t we get on a push bike and pedal our way safely to Palmerston? Why can’t tourists come down the old railway line and go to Humpty Doo?
The strange thing is we have a bicycle path on the Arnhem Highway which goes from Hayball Road to the pub which is not connected to anything. If the government could build a bicycle path way back when the Arnhem Highway was widened, why can’t it build something for Litchfield Shire down the old railway line? As you know, we lost a railway bridge. If we had a bicycle path on that railway bridge, it would have been a lot harder to pinch it. Unfortunately, we do not have the railway bridge. The government should have acted quickly and put out a $1000 reward. I reckon you would have received some information quick and fast. However, we lost that bridge and it is going to cost more to put the bicycle path there, because there ain’t anything over 21 m of nothing. The government really has to recognise that Litchfield Shire is out there. Rural people do like some facilities that the urbanites have, and it would be nice to see a start on the bicycle path.
I have asked before why you do not use an initiative for employment projects on the bicycle path. You have the 15-Mile community just nearby; they are on CDEP. What an ideal project for encouraging people to work! They could be building the bridge that has gone missing; they could be welding and painting and learning some skills. They would have some pride because they would use that bicycle path to walk to Palmerston. I do not know why we cannot have projects like that operating for the unemployed. We have done it in Alice Springs. When I was down there for one of the sittings, they were building the path around past the casino. I think that was a CDEP program. When did I last see that in Darwin? The last time I saw that, there were prisoners building parts of Karama many years ago. I think they built some of the footpath there. We seem to have gone away from all that, and there are opportunities there for the government to give us a bicycle path, create employment, and show people that there is not a Palmerston-Berrimah Line at all; that we do exist out there and we know how to ride a bike.
I am just putting some initiatives to you. I thank the government for, especially, the bicycle path around the Girraween School. That is really a safety issue, and it has taken a little while to get it and there have been some complications. I just now hope that the Litchfield Shire Council will take the money and build the bicycle path - that might be the next tricky bit. Also, I notice that you have money for the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which is great. I do not know whether that is extra funds. Upgrading the bus interchange on the Stuart Highway, Cox Peninsula Road, that is great as well. And upgrading lighting from Berrimah Road to Palmerston, that is a good initiative as well.
I notice $150 000 for rehabilitation in priority areas of the proposed Mitchell Creek Reserve. I have noticed that they have been planting trees in the engineered section of the creek, which is great, but the trouble is people forget that creeks are not straight. Engineers believe in getting water from A to B. Creeks do it in a circular motion, they have bends and they move this way and that way, and they flood. Engineers they just go in straight lines and they expect that to be a creek. I do hope that $150 000 is put to good purpose, but I hope we do not have to spend huge amounts of money on more rehabilitation. The creek was in perfectly good nick on its own, so why are we spending that money if we look after the Mitchell Creek properly.
As I said, I would be very brief and I will finish with that. Thank you, members, and I am looking forward to the Estimates Committee where we can look more deeply into what is in the budget for rural people.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, today I support the Treasurer and Budget 2005, backing Territorians with less tax, local jobs and better skills. This is my second budget as minister and the fourth for the Martin Labor government. It will come as no surprise that this budget continues the measures that are so integral to this government: less tax and more support for Territory small businesses; even more support and funding for health and education; our fabulous parks system; and world-class sports and entertainment. Those things continue to make the Territory such a great place to live and raise a family, and initiatives that promote and protect our unique environment.
I welcome the announcement of $40m in tax cuts, making the Territory the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business. I am pleased to see the significant boost to skilling Territorians through Jobs Plan 2 and the commitment to training 10 000 Territorians over the next four years. I know the benefits these initiatives will bring to the Territory businesses and the economy. I know, too, that Budget 2005 brings forward many more initiatives that will enhance our great lifestyle and bring benefits for Territory families and communities. The Martin Labor government is serious about all Territorians having opportunities to develop their potential and live fulfilling lives. We are a government for all Territorians.
After years of neglect, the Martin government is rebuilding our Health and Community Services services and systems. Since 2001, this government has increased funding for our vital health and community services by $207m, an increase of 43%. In reaping the rewards of these record investment budgets, the Mental Health and Disability Services program has not missed out. In 2004-05, $27m more was spent in this area than the last year of the previous government. In the area of mental health, $12.7m in new funding has already been allocated over three years from 2003. In Budget 2005, Disability and Mental Health Services will receive a further $5.5m, bringing the total funding increase to mental health under this government to $18.2m. This funding has been invested in a program of reform and service development, modernising the approach to client care in the Northern Territory and building a more comprehensive mental health system, with better and more accessible services for all Territorians.
To date, new funding has tackled the historical underfunding of the mental health program, established new clinical positions across the Territory to improve adult, child and youth services, increased the number of Aboriginal mental health workers in rural and remote areas, and enhanced rehabilitation services in the non-government sector. Budget 2005 continues this process of building and reform, as well as introducing substantial and exciting new initiatives. With appropriate treatment, there is genuinely no reason for people with a mental illness to spend long periods of time in hospital. Treatment in the community, in a setting that allows people to maintain contact with their family and friends, or to live and receive treatment at home, is vital to people’s recovery and ongoing wellbeing. $1.8m in 2005-06 and $1.1m ongoing will establish community-based residential services in Darwin and Alice Springs with 24-hour support for people with mental illness.
These new services will create 14 beds, eight in Darwin and six in Alice Springs, in a residential setting for people who cannot be intensively supported in their own home. $300 000 has been awarded to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia to trial new individual care packages. A procurement process is under way to identify a suitable service provider for the Top End. The new services will provide an additional community-based option, providing an alternative to hospital admission. In 2005-06, an additional $1.5m will be used to provide a range of essential services across the Territory, including $200 000 to strengthen the 24-hour emergency, and $350 000 to provide four additional child and adolescent psychiatrists in rural areas. Additional services in rural and remote areas will include funding to the Tiwi Mental Health Program and expanding the Aboriginal Mental Health Worker Program provided through the Top End Division of General Practice.
Budget 2005 strongly supports health and community services-based non-government organisation. Increased funding is only one dimension of our strong relationship with the non-government sector. This government has a proud record of listening and talking to, and consulting with, community organisations. Earlier this year, the sector, through the NTCOSS Annual Pre-Budget Presentation, identified indexation of government grants as one of their key priorities. This government has listened to NTCOSS and to the sector. For the first time, this budget builds in grant indexation to meet the real cost of providing these important services. Budget 2005 delivers a transparent and consistent rate of indexation to be applied to the future funding of the sector. From 1 July 2005, grants will be indexed to take into account both inflation and standard CPI increases, but will also include indexation for wage movements in the Northern Territory public sector. I am pleased to report to the House that this measure has been heralded by NTCOSS as a major gain.
As I outlined earlier, the Martin government has increased support to the Department of Health and Community Services by $207m since 2001, an increase of 43%. We have also substantially increased the proportion of this funding flowing to non-government organisations, with 50% of the total community services budget going directly to the sector. Our approach stands in stark contrast to that of the Commonwealth government, which is walking away from the problem of homelessness across Australia. The Commonwealth wants to cut funds to shelters and emergency services across the Territory, putting the most vulnerable people in our community at further risk. All state and territories have rejected this offer and we will continue to do so, but we will continue to work with the Commonwealth to get a better deal for Territorians. As Minister for Family and Community Services, I will continue to call upon the federal government to step up and meet their responsibility.
Funding to the non-government sector has increased from $55m in 2001-02 to $76m in the 2004-05 budget. Budget 2005 continues this strong support.
I have spoken many times in this House of my commitment, and that of my colleagues, to improving the child protection system. Tackling child abuse and neglect is a priority for the Martin government. We are not diverting money to yet another inquiry into child protection. We know what needs to be done to improve this system and we are doing it. The Child Protection Services budget has nearly tripled since the Martin government came in, up from $7.8m in 2001-02 to over $20m in 2004-05. Our $53m investment in Child Protection Services has seen major improvements in our child protection system including the recruitment of 32 new staff since January 2004; a review of the Community Welfare Act, which I look forward to bringing back to this House in coming months; and the establishment of an independent Family and Community Services Ministerial Advisory Council and the Disabilities Advisory Council.
In 2005, an additional $3m to Family and Community Services will be used to maintain these new initiatives, as well as developing a broad range of family support and specialist services for families whose children are at risk of abuse or neglect. $0.5m has been allocated to a new intensive family support service in Darwin and will commence on 1 June 2005, and develop new out-of-home care services for children in care. These new services will expand the range of placement options and deliver improved services to children in care and their families.
Abuse and neglect of children in Aboriginal communities has been ignored for too long. The government’s effort in raising awareness of child abuse in communities is working. The message that child abuse must not be tolerated and that it should be report is being heard. In Budget 2005, we will put in place remote indigenous child and family support projects in partnerships with the communities and the Australian government. Four new community resource workers have commenced in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin remote and Nhulunbuy. These workers undertake developmental work to strengthen the role of families in the communities to ensure the needs of children are met.
In building a better child protection system, we are building on the skills and experience of our child protection workers and those people on the front line of this system. We know that work in this field is often difficult and involves broad-ranging skills, from social or community work qualifications to knowledge of the law and legal system. To ensure that our children protection workers maintain their existing high level of skill, and build upon these skills, this government is implementing a training framework for the government and non-government staff, making them better equipped to meet the demands of their increasingly complex jobs.
The Martin Labor government has made unprecedented inroads into tackling the impact of drugs and alcohol upon our community. Spending in the area of Alcohol and Other Drugs has increased by 40.9% in the last three years. We have tackled the impact of smoke on the health of our communities through the introduction of the Northern Territory’s first ever Tobacco Act.
This week saw our government pass the biggest initiative in fighting petrol sniffing ever seen in the Territory. This government has had the courage and commitment to raise and address the devastating effects of petrol sniffing in our communities. Despite ongoing resistance from members opposite, the legislation that was passed was landmark for the Northern Territory, banning petrol sniffing, giving police and others the powers to seize and dispose of volatile substance being abused, and giving the courts the power to order compulsory treatment for chronic sniffers. We have already committed $10m to our fight on petrol sniffing and this money is already rolling out across the Territory.
There are services like the well-respected program in Mt Theo which will now have the recurrent funding to support the excellent work they do. This service was never funded by the CLP. Instead of bipartisan support, the Leader of the Opposition has responded by claiming we are spending too much money on petrol sniffing. The opposition would rather lock up young sniffers than treat and rehabilitate them. The impact of these legislative reforms and treatment programs will have lasting impacts on future generations and, in the long run, reduce the burden on our health care system and the carers of people afflicted by the drug-related disability. It is a reform of which I and everyone on this side of the House are immensely proud.
This government, through Budget 2005, is putting increased emphasis on local jobs and better skills. I have already outlined the increase in Family and Children’s Service’s staff, with 32 new staff since January 2004, and an even greater commitment to training and development. The other areas of my Family and Community Services portfolio have also seen significant staff increases with 18 new positions created in mental health in the last year, and a further 12 positions being created in the coming year, an increase of eight positions in the Aged and Disability Program in 2004-05, with another nine positions expected in 2005-06, and the creation of nine positions in the Alcohol and Other Drugs program, and two new positions expected in 2005-06.
I turn to Environment and Heritage. Let me start by saying that protecting our environment is a priority for this government. Our environment provides us with our great Territory lifestyle. It is unique and, without doubt, the best in Australia. Our environment sustains our industries: tourism, fisheries and agriculture all depend on a healthy environment. Of course, clean water, clean air, our unique wildlife, and special places are a natural asset that we want to pass on to future generations.
This budget builds on the important work already done by government to protect our environment and heritage. The hallmark of the Martin Labor government is balancing growth with lifestyle, while protecting our unique Territory environment. Because government is growing our economy and better applying our environmental – I am just getting a bit breathless, sorry …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to sit down, minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am right.
The hardworking staff at the Office of Environment and Heritage - thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your concern - are literally run off their feet with environmental assessments at the moment, with an unprecedented number of development projects requiring environmental assessment. However, the job does not finish with environmental assessments. It is very important that we continue to monitor projects during their construction and operation. The budget continues this great work with $1m for environmental assessment and compliance activities for development projects.
This government has drawn a line in the sand in our fight against cane toads. My colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, has shown great leadership in putting cane toads on the national agenda and providing, for the first time, real resources to tackle this pest. The budget provides a very welcome additional $480 000 to tackle this pest. It remains a great pity that this sort of leadership was not shown by the CLP more than 10 years ago when these pests first threatened the Territory. The Western Australian government is not making the same mistake. They are investing heavily in our efforts to slow the progress of these pests westwards. It will be a tough battle, but groups such as Frog Watch are inspiring us all with their energy and determination. We are backing not only Frog Watch, but all Territorians who had a great idea to protect our unique environment. This budget delivers more than $1m to community, environment and heritage groups and projects, continuing our unprecedented spend on grassroots action to protect our environment and heritage.
A total of $460 000 will be available through EnvironmeNT Grants. Last year, I launched the first round of the EnvironmeNT Grants and the response from Territorians was overwhelming. Thirty-two projects received funding, ranging from protecting turtles and bush tucker gardens to controlling feral animals and weeds across the vast areas of the Territory. I launched round two of EnvironmeNT Grants last month, and I encourage all Territorians who have had a great idea for the protection of our environment to apply for a grant in this round. EnvironmeNT Grants also provide operational support for environment groups. Last year, the Territory government provided funding to the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre - a first for any Territory government. This budget will provide continued funding for these organisations.
Unfortunately, this government’s funding comes in spite of a federal government that simply does not care about the valuable work these groups undertake. The federal Environment minister recently slashed funding to both of these groups. I have written to Senator Campbell requesting that he reconsider, and I hope he listens.
In addition to the EnvironmeNT Grants, $250 000 has been allocated for litter grants and $227 000 for heritage grants. The National Trust, which does very important work in promoting our special heritage places, will receive an operational grant of $114 000. This budget also sees the second instalment of our funding to Cool Communities with $50 000 to fund the great work this group does in encouraging households to reduce energy consumption, both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Again, this funding comes after the federal government withdrew their funding. Yet again, we have stepped in while the federal government does not live up to its responsibilities.
This budget continues government’s focus on conserving our heritage assets. $1m will be again allocated for repairs and maintenance of government-owned heritage places across the Territory. Important heritage places such as Lyons Cottage, the Tennant Creek Telegraph Station, and the Arltunga police station will receive much needed repairs and maintenance. Many of these places are important tourist destinations and it is very important that we keep them looking great for visitors and locals alike. When combined with expenditure on conservation and natural resources, government is investing more than $90m on environment. This government believes that protecting our environment is critical to maintaining our great life Territory lifestyle now and into the future.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a budget that delivers less tax, local jobs, and better skills. It is a budget that again provides another record health budget and continues to improve the funding and delivery of our vital community services. Budget 2005 is about better education, supporting families, and protecting our great lifestyle and environment. Budget 2005 is backing Territorians.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be making some remarks about the budget that was tabled a couple of days ago. But first of all, I would like to express a little disappointment in how this government has put its budget together to try to do something right for the Territory. Unfortunately, if you look at it in detail, with handing out a few dollars here and there in a few minor tax cuts, a little bit of stamp duty relief for first home buyers, and the lifting of the payroll tax threshold, very little has changed.
What we see, however, is huge increases in public service expenditure against a background, as was commented by a political observer some 12 months ago, for the population that was declining last year but very, very low in increase this last 12 months. Whilst the rest of Australia is growing in population at the greater rate than the Territory, what will happen is our relative population size is going to shrink and, accordingly, our GST revenue from the federal government is going to decrease. If we keep on increasing our recurrent funding, just as this government is doing, with a decrease in GST pool, you are going to end up not having enough money to afford to keep our public service going. Somehow, this government has to understand that and come to terms with it and ensure that its recurrent budget does not continue to blow out the way it has been.
All you have to do is just look at the two big departments, Health and Education. Health this coming year will receive $686.634m, while Education is going to received $581.537m. That is way past a third of the total budget for the Territory. If you have two major departments sucking up that sort of money then other parts of the public service will suffer.
This government needs to understand where it is going. The minister, in his speech, spoke about a population increase - and I tried to find where he said that – which, from my point of view did not make sense. He spoke about the increase in population and then he said this improved nett interstate migration sees population growth strengthening to 1.1% in 2005. If we are expected to believe that, that he predicts that this year we can have a 1.1% increase in population, then his budget book, Budget 2005-06 Northern Territory Economy on page 24, belies that statement. It says on page 24 of that book under the heading Components of Population Growth, that:
These two books contradict each other. Which is right and which is wrong? When you then look at the graph at the bottom of that page, it clearly states that nett interstate migration was ‘minus 2.1 (000)’. In other words, we lost 2100 people from the Territory this last 12 months. How is this government going to reconcile these two books? It does not make sense to me.
For so long now we have continued to lose people who are working, people who are employable, and we are replacing them with new births. It is well and good that we should have babies born in the Territory, and the more, the better. However, we have to understand that babies do not become productive for some 15 years. Albeit they might get some GST funding because, when we count per head of population, they are supposed to add to that, but unless we can get our population growth strategy right, we are never going to get our economy right.
I do not know whether you remember seeing this article in the Sunday Territorian of 13 February 1994. It says: ‘Martin starts an old fashioned way - by lying. Then, a couple of years ago, there was another one: ‘Martin lied about public service jobs’. This sort of headline shows that this government cannot be believed. The figures they give us are rubbery. They talk about a disparate growth rate of something like 6% or 7% when they know full well that they cannot. They expect Territorian businesses to believe that.
Let us go to Education, one of my shadow portfolios, and talk about where this government has gone wrong. Yesterday, I asked the minister a question about student numbers and he could not give it to me. He had no idea about student numbers at all and he quickly brought out Budget Paper No 3 for this year and said last year in primary school we had 19 851 and next year we anticipate there be a loss and go down to 19 600, so we will have a loss of 251. My question to him was that over the last four years, we have lost over 1000 primary school students and with his predicted loss of another 251, it will add up to 1288 primary school students. That is the equivalent of three largish primary schools in the Territory. That has to surely signal to the minister that we have a significant population loss - a huge loss.
Let me go back to the figures. I went back to the 2002-03 budget papers to have a look at the figures. In the estimate - in other words the final figures for the year 2002-03 - there were 20 888 primary school students. By the next year, the 2003-04 estimate was 20 177, a loss of 711 students. Then for this year, 2004-05 estimate, it has gone down to 19 851 which signifies a further loss of 326. With this current budget paper, they are estimating we will loose another 251.
That is where those figures came from, minister. I hope by now your advisors will be telling you this is where I got my figures, and they have to be right because they are in your own budget papers. I debated him on this issue on radio not so long ago and, at that stage, he did not know the figures, and I told him where to find them. Obviously, he did not bother and here you are again! Look it up now so you know where it is at.
In regard to the allocation for teacher’s salaries, for nine months he dragged this out. He dragged it out with the teachers, refusing to negotiate with them, refusing to budge on their EBA negotiations. This Labor government, before the last election, promised that it would make teachers in the Northern Territory the best paid in the country. Soon after it got into government, it told the teachers: ‘Sorry, folks, we have a huge black hole created by the CLP and, because of the big black hole, we do not have any money, we cannot pay you. Please take a smaller wage rise to help us out’. The teachers believed them. They thought: ‘Oh, this is a new government, it is a good government and they are in trouble, so we have to help them’. And help them they did; they took a smaller wage rise.
However, over the last two or three years, the teachers got wise. They saw and understood the torrent of GST that was coming into the Territory. They knew there was money available, yet this government was not prepared to keep to its promise, and that is why they got angry. That is why they dug their heels in and said that 11% over three years was not enough. They wanted more and they deserved more. But it was not just the money that they were arguing about. It was about the conditions of their employment: the class sizes, the time they get to spend away from the classroom doing administrative work. Those were the issues that they were particularly concerned about, yet they could not get this government to listen.
The CLP came out with a counter offer, an offer that was worked out with the union. In that offer, we offered them 15% over two years, smaller class sizes, and to work with the union to produce a policy where we weight students’ learning ability and use that to create class sizes of, say, a maximum of 22 students. We agreed to early childhood class sizes being a maximum of 20. We also committed to providing relief time for teachers and principals of small schools through the provision of relief teachers and, finally, to introduce a policy of small schools with the commitment to build a new school once the average number of students in a cluster of schools in an area reaches 300. That is what we offered the teachers, and this was circulated quite widely amongst the teachers in the Territory.
Once the offer by the Country Liberal Party was made, the teachers suddenly realised, yes, it is possible, yes, we deserve it, yes, the Country Liberal Party does value our professionalism and, yes, we will dig our heels in and tell the government this is what we want. For another seven weeks the argy-bargy continued. Teachers were asking: ‘Why can’t Syd come to talk to us?’
When the teachers finally agreed, this week, to accept the government’s offer, an offer of 15.5% over two-and-a-half years, they lost the smaller class sizes, they lost the power subsidy, they lost the other working conditions that they were hoping to trade for as well. Well, that is fine. The teachers accepted it, and I am happy for them. They are now on a higher salary of 15.5% across the board, but that works out to be something like 6.2% over the next 12 months - 15.5% divided by two-and-a-half. Each year for the next two-and-a-half years they are looking at 7.5% increase for teachers’ salaries, which is not factored into this budget. I said to the minister: ‘You have a hole in your budget’. Do you know what he said to me yesterday? He said: ‘No, we have put in 3% inflation for wages and salaries in Education’.
That raises two issues with me. First of all, why did he put 3% wages and salaries inflation factored into Education, whereas the rest of his budget is worked on about 1.5%, and the rest of CPI is supposed to be 2%? This does not add up to a real, honest budget. He might have factored in the 3% in the wages and salaries, but when the actual rise is something like 7.5%, he is still 4.5% short. He said yesterday: ‘Oh, that is nothing much, it is a very modest amount – affordable’. When we offered it, it was not affordable. Suddenly, it is affordable, now that he has offered the same thing. If it was so affordable – such a modest amount, as he said yesterday – why did he push the teachers right to the very edge, and finally agreed to their demands on the eve of an election? That, to me, is the cynical act of a minister who is trying to push teachers and exploit their professionalism, their dedication to the job. That is not how you treat teachers.
Regarding the last point that I raised – that we will build new schools if the average within a cluster of schools reaches 300 – this government puts out a lie in this flyer. It is a lie! The Country Liberal Party did not say anything about forcing people to leave school to go to another school – it never did. What we said was, when you have several schools in an area and, if the average within that cluster is 300 or more, then you ought to be building a new school. Then you allow the community to decide which of the schools you would choose to go to. They could do that. With greater detail, I will be elaborating on that when the government calls the election. So, call on the election and you will hear more about it. Until then, do not besmirch and lie about the Country Liberal Party’s policy, because that is what has been spun by this government.
The TAFE sector has been struggling for the last several years, especially since the formation of the Charles Darwin University. Centralian College, which had provided such great TAFE education in the Territory, has been emasculated since the amalgamation. I know the Vice Chancellor is not very happy with me, but I tell you, talk to the industry and the tradespeople who are trying to get apprentices trained. Talk to the people who are trying to get trainees through the university. They say that they cannot get in. I have had e-mails and telephone calls from tradespeople saying: ‘I have an apprentice. I cannot get them to university because they cannot get into a block to do some study’. They have been told: ‘Sorry, we have hit our limit, we cannot take your apprentice at this time; you have to wait’.
Take, for instance, a plumber whose apprentice is now in his third or fourth year and still has to finish his or her last block of studies. Because the university cannot take that apprentice on, the apprentice has to stay as an apprentice for the next six months or so, until that apprentice can get into the university to finish off the studies. So the employer, the plumbing business, has to keep this young person on as an apprentice for another six months extra, at extra cost, and they cannot bill for this young person’s services at the rate that they can bill if the person was already a qualified tradesman. That is the frustration that industry is going through. What has this government done about it? Nothing really. The minister is saying: ‘We are doing so much for training, we are doing so much for our Jobs Plan’. The reality is that even with the budgeted 2700 traineeships and apprenticeships commencements that they thought they would get for this year, they are some 300 short for this year.
They said to us for the four years we are going to get 2500 every year. How can you believe that? If you talk to industry they say that is a lot of codswallop, you will never achieve it. Not only are they not going to achieve it through getting the numbers, if you look at the budget papers there is your funding for training being cut by $3m dollars. You are going to increase the numbers, yet you are going to cut back on the amount that they have already spent. This year, they spent $61.6m for 2400 apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. Next year, they are going to increase to 2500, yet they have cut the money back. They are not going to achieve this figures that they suggest they are going to do. You cannot do it.
The university is obviously struggling; I am not certain why. I suspect that TAFE is taking a very low priority. If it is not, I would like to be convinced otherwise. I am very open to any convincing argument anybody can raise with me to say that yes, the university has its interest in TAFE and is doing everything it can, but I am yet to be convinced.
Let me come to Central Australia. I saw a media release put out by the Minister for Central Australia lauding all of the things that this government is doing for it. We received a late copy of the Regional Highlights, which I only received half-an-hour ago, trying to outline what it has done. Anyway, it is all written in the minister’s media release, so that is fine. When I added it all up, the reality is there is not much new money there. They talk about $23.5m to deliver primary and early childhood education; hey, that is the recurrent budget for Education primary and early childhood education. It talks about $22m for non-government schools; well, that is something that you do every year. Maybe a slight increase. New money?
I went through the list and looked at it. What has Alice Springs specifically got under this budget? $1.7m to complete Stuart Lodge upgrade in Alice Springs - we will see when it is finished. $1.2m for two years for airconditioning upgrade at Ross Park Primary School - I welcome that. I wrote to the minister, I lobbied the minister quite a lot last year and, as late as November last year, Ross Park school was told: ‘Your project is still in the air. It might be going in for some initial assessment but that is it’. As late as November last year. Suddenly, it is election time and money has become available. I welcome the money. As I said, let us not look a gift horse in the mouth and I look forward to the Ross Park Primary School getting its airconditioning upgrade done soon, especially if it is possible over this cooler period of the of year so it will be ready for next summer. But that is $0.6m, not $1.2m, because it is over two years.
Then there is the $1m for renal and acute care upgrades at Alice Springs Hospital, which is not due to start until next year by the way. There is $1m for upgrade at Flynn Drive Renal Services. There is an $800 000 allocation for a new Alice Springs drag strip - I will come back to that in a little while but that is money there. There is $650 000 for staff accommodation upgrade at Alice Springs Hospital, and $1.02m for ongoing works at the Larapinta subdivision.
Additional to that, $100 000 for the mobile police station in Alice Springs and $150 000 for a pedestrian-activated crossing at Larapinta Drive.
In Health, a few things came extra: $1.94m additional ongoing to improve medical staffing levels in Alice Springs. Let us see the positions filled and then I will congratulate this government but, until then, you can put as much money allocation as you like, but it is only a paper entry and there are no more nurses or doctors in Alice Springs Hospital. $6.2 million for renal dialysis services.
When I added it all up, it came up to about $15m and, when you took away the renal dialysis which essentially is not for Alice Springs per se, you are talking about $9m or thereabouts of new money for Alice Springs. That is a population that comprises something like 13% to 15% of the whole of the Territory. $9m new money. Where has the rest of the money gone?
I said I was going to come back to the business about the $800 000 for the CADRA drag strip. This government is amazing. The Deputy Chief Minister says: ‘Where are your policies? You said you would release them within weeks and we have not seen any of them’. I did not come down in the last shower. You are so bereft of policies that you need to look at ours so that you can copy them. At the Finke Desert Race last year, I advised the Central Australia Drag Racing Association that the Country Liberal Party would fund $800 000 for their drag strip. The member for Macdonnell and I have been assisting them in fundraising throughout the last few years. In fact, both of us personally contributed significant amounts of money to their fundraising. There is a policy which will be announced.
Now this government says: ‘Election time. We had better give them the money’. I wrote to all the alderman at the town council in Alice Springs and said we will give you the money to deepen the town pool so you do not have this problem with the starting blocks; we will give them $200 000. Guess what? A couple of weeks ago, this government gives them $200 000. We said we will have a mobile police unit in Alice Springs to deal with issues like the Larapinta riots we had a week ago. Guess what? Last Sunday, the government said they will have a mobile police unit. We said we will make sure that Larapinta Drive has pedestrian-activated crossing lights. Guess what? Within a couple of days, the government is going to do it, too!
There is more. Some six months or so ago, we released the policy on petrol sniffing and, within a few months, the government is going to do it. The only thing that they did not take out of our policy was banning it. That was the only thing. We released a policy on benefits for our senior Territorians and, within a few weeks, they are taking it on as well. That is the problem. You release a policy and, within days and weeks, boom, they declare it as theirs. Do you think we are going to release too many more? Come on! It is the same thing as the Education policy: 15% over two years; they went for 15.5% over two-and-half years.
It is not that we do not want to release our policies, but we cannot trust this government to do the right thing. It clearly shows they have no policies because for a budget that is coming out, the last budget before an election, you would think there would be huge excitement out there. People should say: ‘What a fantastic budget to win government for this party’. But, no, they do not know what to do. They honestly do not know what to do. All they have done is increase the budget more and more to prop up the public service.
It is quite clear that that is the way the Treasurer thinks. I recall, about three months ago, there was comment that Alice Springs population is decreasing, people are leaving, jobs are getting scarce, and more people are unemployed in Alice Springs. Guess what he said? He said: ‘That is all right, we shall fix that. We will just employ more people in the public service and that will fix up the problem’. And if anybody else wants to speak they better get back in the Chamber fairly quickly otherwise they are going to miss out. That is the silly part about it; the way to fix unemployment in the Northern Territory is to increase the public service size. How idiotic can that be? This government needs to reconsider where it is going because it is not taking the Territory anywhere at all.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the shadow portfolios that I cover include Family and Community Services, Environment and Heritage, Arts and Museums, Seniors and Women’s Policy. I see this budget as a mixed bag. There are some things in it that I do like. Naturally, I am pleased to see an increase in staffing for Alice Springs Hospital, especially staffing to, hopefully, affect the heavy workload being worked by the RMOs at the moment. I hope that this goes some way to address the stress that I know they have been experiencing over the last few years. Naturally, I am going to be very pleased to see the completion of the hospice. I understand that it is expected to open in June now, and it will be great to see.
Another plus has been the indexation for non-government organisations including CPI. I have been aware over the last few years of the number of non-government organisations, particularly in the area of community services, who have been calling for this, and the stress that they have been under trying to cope with the expenses, let alone trying to increase their services.
I support the increased funding for renal services. I believe this government has done an excellent job with the provision of renal services, and I understand that the incidence of renal disease in the Northern Territory is now plateauing, and that is a great thing.
I support the initiative to home grow our own midwives. I have not gained an understanding yet of exactly how that $200 000 is going to be spent, and I look forward to the estimates process when I will ask some questions with regards to that. It certainly is a good thing to do, to grow our own professionals here in the Territory in the hope that they will stay.
I am very pleased to see funding being provided for the residential care of people with mental health problems. This has definitely been a gap in our service provision in the Territory and I certainly hope that this service is up and running soon. Like all of us, we are keen to see the impact of the government’s initiatives on petrol sniffing and I support the funding that has gone into that area.
I look forward to seeing how well these Labor commitments are implemented, and if we do go to estimates at the next sittings, I look forward to exploring how some of these commitments will be implemented.
Studying the fine print in budget books does raise concerns. Before I go any further here, I wish to make a comment with regards to the Minister for Family and Community Services’ response to the budget tonight. The minister really pushes it and pushes it. I believe she is a good person and I like her at a personal level, but she really cannot help herself in sticking it to the CLP. The Labor Party people are in government now, and that is their job now: to run government and provide services, to use the money that they obtained from taxpayers - be they Territory or Australian taxpayers - to the benefit of Territorians. That is what you do when you are in government. You come up against problems, regardless of who is in government. I do not think there is anyone on that side of the House who could claim that there are no problems here in the Territory now, as we speak, with regard to the provision of services.
Sure, when the CLP was in government we had problems too, and it was not perfect then either. However, the Minister for Family and Community Services never gives up in having a go at the CLP and implying that everything that is wrong with the Northern Territory happened because of the CLP.
The reality in the real world is that many Labor-voting people are quite disillusioned now because that is what they used to think. Up until the previous election, they also believed that everything that was wrong in the Northern Territory was caused by the CLP government. Now we have had a change in government, we have had three-and-a-half years of the Labor government. I, for one, am not expecting major health problems to have been cured by the fact that Labor have come to power or the CLP were in power. However, the Minister for Family and Community Services continues on with this never-ending business about the CLP.
Which brings me to putting on the record my absolute surprise that, in the last month or so, she has gone so very public in the Northern Territory News about her absolute dismay and anger at the care she received at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the fact that she was going to have to speak to the Minister for Health, her colleague, about it. Because of the care she received there, she was in fear of her life and she then moved to the private service in order to get the treatment that she so desperately needed.
I make that point - I was not going to do it; I have not brought the newspaper clipping in with me as I normally would because I was not going to go into this particular area. Because the minister just pushes it so much, blaming the CLP about everything in the Northern Territory, I put on the record - and for people who might be interested they should have a look at that article and feel the tone of the minister when she went to the press on this matter; feel her frustration and anger. This is a health service, the Emergency Department service, which her colleague has some hand in. We have been calling for years now for the problems in that Emergency Department to be tackled.
I am aware that staff in that department were stunned by that article and not happy. The minister draws a very fine line here. To have a minister of the Crown publicly bagging a health service like that undermines people’s trust in that service throughout the community. We all know that that is a very good service being provided there under difficult circumstances. For the minister to have gone so public with regard to what happened to her was quite extraordinary. She needs to have a think about what is happening now in Health Services and about how involved her own political party and government is with regard to the provision of that service.
I will not say anything more about the minister and those comments, but it was ironic to hear the vitriol from her here tonight - the continuing, year after year, vitriol from her - given the fact that she has given such a serve to her own government, her own party and the staff working so hard at that hospital.
Turning quite specifically to the budget, I mention the fine print. One of the things that is interesting in the areas that I deal with has been the removal - and I cite page 135 as an example, but it is all over the place in Budget Paper No 3. Sorry, that is not a very good number; I will find a better one. They are all over the place. Okay, here is one, page 124. This is the budget concerning admitted patients to our hospital services, but it is in all the sectors that I have had to deal with. If you compare this budget book to last year’s Budget Paper No 3, the budget book from last year used to have costings for particular services; for example, how much on average the average admitted hospital patient cost the department. This year, those sorts of costs are gone, so we cannot compare now what sort of costing it was to have an average patient, for example at Royal Darwin Hospital, compared to what it was last year. It would be very interesting for somebody on the government side, perhaps the Treasurer, to explain to Territorians why that detail has been removed from this year’s budget book.
I move specifically to one of my portfolio areas, the area of Family and Community Services. If members turn to page 122 dealing with this area, the minister said this evening about how important it is to provide services to the homeless. What is interesting is she makes no mention of the fact that she has cut the budget for services for people, and it is known as ‘support services for individuals and families in crisis’. This area has been cut by over $0.5m, by $569 000. I ask the question: why, particularly as this booklet here, Building Healthier Communities, talks so glowingly about the need to provide services for people in such need. These services include help for people who are the victims of family, domestic and sexual assault, and of violence; people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless; and families in financial crises. So I ask: why has this budget been cut in excess of $0.5m, particularly when the performance indicators found on page 126 detail the expanded demand of service provision rate to stay the same.
This budget book details that the services that are going to be provided for people needing support services are going to stay exactly the same as they were this year. Next financial year, the expectation is that the demand for services will stay the same, yet the budget has been cut in this area by over $0.5m. What on earth is going on? Why would this happen? Would there be a fall in demand? Society’s stresses are not improving and representatives from non-government organisations like the Salvation Army often say they are struggling to provide services - for example, to the homeless - and that they are failing to meet that demand. I place on the record an article that appeared in the Northern Territory News on 8 March this year. It features Major Janine Wright from the Salvation Army and she concludes in the article, which was calling for increased funding: ‘We are already turning people away’. I seek leave to table this article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. So, two months ago in the Northern Territory News the Salvation Army talking about how they are struggling to provide services, for example, to the homeless. I ask why has the government cut this service by more than $0.5m? Does it mean that because we have had a cut in funding that cuts will now go to the NGOs, and does this mean that they will have to cut their services?
The minister was very pleased to announce $1.13m for the indexation, including CPI, to non-government organisations, but here we have half of that money, in excess of $0.5m - half of that wonderful indexation money being provided for by the cut. Therefore, It is given on one hand, but taken away on the other. Many non-government organisations will wonder at the cynicism displayed by such an activity.
Another area I cover is the Aged and Disability Services. This is another area which has had a cut particularly with regards to the Pensioner Concession Scheme. The Community Support Services for frail aged people with a disability has had a small increase from $49.639m to $49.933m. What is of concern is the estimate’s expectation that this small increase in funding, which will not even cover CPI, will cover a marked increase in expected services; for example, an increase of 95 000 hours of community support services.
Given that the extra money will not cover CPI, where will the money come from to pay for what the small print on page 128 describes as ‘a projected increase in community support clients’? Hardly any money coming in, will not cover CPI for this area in aged and disability services, yet the performance measures indicate that there is going to be a marked increase in the need to provide services. This is a major concern – and the minister talks frequently about half the budget in her area going to non-government organisations – as to how these organisations are going to be able to cope with an increased demand in service with very little increase, not even enough to cover CPI, in their budget.
In respect of the Pensioner Concession Scheme, the budget cut is $362 000, which is detailed on page 122. What is interesting is that the number of pensioner concession recipients is estimated to rise from 18 200 to 18 900 during the coming financial year, but the budget has been cut. I doubt whether the cut is meant to reflect falling costs in electricity, rates, water charges, sewerage charges, garbage charges, car registration and interstate travel. Those costs will not go down, yet these are the things the Pensioner Concession Scheme subsidises. We all know of people in our electorates who rely on the Pensioner Concession Scheme to enable them to survive financially. We are going to see an increase of 700 seniors accessing the scheme, and there is a cut of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The government needs to explain to Territorians why this area has been cut and how these cuts will affect the operation of the scheme.
Something mentioned as a budget initiative is the provision of a bus service to assist seniors living in seniors’ complexes to attend, for example, Royal Darwin Hospital, which is a great initiative. I know that my constituents who are currently living at Tracy Aged Care are having problems accessing Royal Darwin Hospital, and I know that the government is looking to address it, for which I am grateful. This provision is a great idea, and I hope is resourced so that it can function adequately. It is obviously starting small to begin with, and I note that one of the complexes that will be provided with a service is the complex at Fannie Bay. I have recently written to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure asking him to look at the problem of when the complex at Fannie Bay was built, the in-bound bus stop was moved hundreds of metres away from where it used to be, which was quite close to what is now the seniors complex. The end result is that people with a mobility problem who might be using a walking stick now have to cross three or four roads to access the in-bound bus stop. I have written to the minister in the hope that the bus stop can be moved adjacent to the complex towards the racecourse end of that stretch of road.
I welcome the government’s initiative with regards to the seniors’ bus service. I hope it is not long before a similar service can be expanded to all of our seniors’ complexes in the Northern Territory, because it is certainly a problem that seniors do have being mobile to get, for example, to the major health services.
Another area that I cover is mental health. My concern has been the steady increase in the number of bed days over the past two years that have been provided in Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospital. The annual report for 2003-04, which is the last set of firm figures that we have on how many bed days were provided in our two major hospitals for mental health, cite that the number of bed days provided in that financial year was 10 069. In Budget Paper No 3 for the following financial year, the one that is coming up now, 2005-06, there is an estimate of up to 12 800 patient bed days. These are the number of days, in a unit, that patients clock up. For example, some patients may be admitted and spend 10 days in a unit; other patients might spend 20 days. The system adds up how many days, all up, were in units, and it gives them a measure as to, basically, the busyness and the percentage rate of bed occupancy and things like that. What you can see from that is that, over a two year period, there is an expectation of a fairly steady increase in the service that is required and, in fact, that increase is in the nature of about 2700 bed days. Given that the total bed days expected is 12 800, that is a very substantial amount of bed days being increased.
In the budget, the government is going to provide, in Darwin and, I believe, Alice Springs, residential mental health complexes. I would assume they will be basically almost like step-down units in the community, and this should be good. I will be very interested to see how it operates and I hope it goes well. The government is going to call for tenders shortly. The reality is that this process may take some time and, indeed, there may not be anyone prepared to provide this service, because they will need to employ staff, I would assume. They may need some sort of qualification, and it is not an easy thing to do. At one point, we are going to see some community-based care for people who are obviously not in such a bad way that they need to be admitted to a hospital’s mental health unit, and this may take some pressure off the mental health units with regards to beds. However, on the other hand, it may take some time to set up.
At the same time, we are seeing an expectation, through the budget books, of a very substantial increase in the requirement for beds in our mental health units. This is going to need to be something that the government and the minister looks very carefully at and monitors well, because I have visited both of our mental health units over the last few years.
In fact, I visited the Alice Springs unit only a few weeks ago. In both units, the staff have impressed upon me the fact that they are short of beds, that it certainly does happen, from time to time, that patients have to sleep on mattresses on the floor, and also that it is not uncommon for staff to have to put two beds into single bed bays. In a normal hospital, that may not be a big problem but, arguably, in a mental health unit, when patients may not be in the best of mood to deal with the close proximity of another patient in their bedroom, this may cause quite substantial problems.
The government needs to move very quickly. It is indicating a significant growth in demand, and it needs to do something quick smart to address the problems with accommodation in our two hospital-based mental health units.
One of the issues that we face here in the health system is the extreme difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified staff, and mental health staff are no different. If we are expecting them to look after a large number of patients in difficult physical environments, then there is a chance that they may leave sooner than we might have hope that they would.
Another area that I cover as a shadow is the area of Environment and Heritage. I will touch first on the issue of the environment. Environment Protection Services has had a cut, and that is plain to see on page 221 of Budget Paper No 3. The minister, in her speech tonight, obviously completely ignores the budget book with regards to this, because she talked glowingly about the Environment Protection Service. Her comment was that staff are currently, and I quote: ‘Literally run off their feet’. There is no mention in the key variations of the reduction of $162 000 from this budget area and, given all of the requirements of the Environment Protection Services at the moment, particularly with regards to monitoring the events at the Darwin Waterfront Precinct, I would have thought this was an area that, at the very least, needed to maintain its budget - hardly an area that should be cut.
In a similar budget area with regards to Environment and Heritage, heritage conservation has been cut by $18 000. Given inflation, quite frankly, how can heritage conservation be maintained if the budget is being cut by $18 000? People may not think that is a lot of money, but I believe it is a lot of money in the area of heritage conservation. When we are living in an environment of harsh weather, be it the Wet Season or the summer season in Central Australia, it is an incredibly harsh environment. Many of the heritage buildings we have are very frail buildings. They are buildings that were built at a time when there was not a lot of bricks and mortar and solidness about buildings. Many beautiful old heritage buildings in the Territory – and classic examples exist in Alice Springs - are in need of constant conservation in order to maintain them so that they can exist for generations to come. For the minister and her government to cut this budget by $18 000 certainly needs to be explained.
Another area that I cover is Arts and Museums, and it is another area that has attracted significant budget cuts. The details of that particular area of cut can be found in Budget Paper No 3 on page 191. Collectively, Museums and Art Galleries have been cut by $1.8m. The Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory - particularly the main ones in Darwin and Alice Springs - are absolutely magnificent, and they stand as a testament to the previous CLP government for the work and the commitment that was put into establishing those. I know very well that, here in Darwin, when a tourist says to me: ‘What should I do, where should I go; I only have a day in Darwin’, the first thing I say is: ‘Get down to the museum at Bullocky Point’, because it is absolutely magnificent for a community such as ours to have a museum such as that. Therefore, it has been disappointing to see in this year’s budget such a cut.
The key variations actually explain this one. They claim that $0.5m was provided last financial year, which is the one we are currently in, to deal with the carpet beetle infestation at the Bullocky Point museum. That is fair enough, but I ask: what about the other $1.3m cut? Can the government explain why that sort of cut was needed to this service? Alice Springs Cultural Precinct has been cut by $234 000 - also a lot of money. How will the services being provided by both those fabulous resources suffer as a result to this budget cut?
It is my view that this budget is a mixed bag. There are certainly some very good things in it, but there have been some cuts that are quite disturbing. Listening to, in particular, the Minister for Family and Community Services and Environment and Heritage’s speech tonight, she did not touch on, in any way, to try to explain the cuts in her portfolio areas. She spoke blithely as though nothing had gone wrong except, of course, for the fact that for some time there was a CLP government here in the Northern Territory. Mr Deputy Speaker, like my colleagues, I certainly look forward to exploring this budget before the election in the estimates process in June.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall roam widely, but start with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. I am thankful that the minister has gone before me and has provided a descriptor of much of the department. It is quite a big and complex department and I may need an extension of time to cross it. Like the finishing note of the previous speaker, it is interesting that he dwelled on the ups but not the downs, and the downs are quite significant. This is a department that has taken a $5.6m cut and it is interesting in an election year the government is so quiet on where that money has been. We even have some new vernacular entering the budget debates like ‘remapping’ and stuff like that. This is all code for ‘we are not going to tell you and if we go to estimates you can find out there’.
It is my fervent belief that we are on the eve of an election, and I believe that because this budget here is a farce. The questions that were just posed by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, are such that if she did get a day in a room with the two ministers involved, I am sure she would be able to demonstrate amply to Territorians why she should be the minister and not them. I was very impressed with the contribution of my colleague. Notwithstanding her professional qualifications in this area, she obviously has a thinking approach to this budget. She has talked to practitioners in the area; she has talked to clients. Matters such as the location of the bus stop for the people from the seniors’ village in the Chief Minister’s electorate at what was Kurringal. What marks the CLP is the fact that we have had people talk to us not about that there is $100m going in, or $1m or $2m; it is what the money does. It is the pragmatic approach to what that cash does. We get the taxpayers’ money and we deliver services for them.
I will quickly walk through, in the time that I have, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. It is important probably to start with the city waterfront project because this is at the forefront of the government’s approach to its re-election. They are saying: ‘We will all live happily ever after. Only a fool would not support the city waterfront. We know there are people who are upset because they have jobs relying on the waterfront and anybody who would be so foolish as to make any commentary querying any element of it is un-Territorian’. The long and short of it is that Territorians have rarely seen such a closed, secretive process. Sure, there is a model. Sure, the model is on display, but when do we talk about the process, what the money is, where it goes, what it buys, what is in Stage 1, 2, and 3, are they linked, is there a relationship between the three? It is quite a reasonable thing for people to be querying about 25 ha of their land and some hundreds of millions of dollars of their money.
For instance, in a budgetary context, it went from $700m to $1.2bn, back to $1bn, and now it is $1.1bn. I would have thought that if you are talking hundreds of millions it is pretty important to talk about what those things embrace. From going from $700m in the Chief Minister’s own glossy brochures to $1.1bn in this budget is pretty significant. If we sit in this parliament and talk about appropriating $400m worth of cash, or receiving $400m of assets, it is a reasonable thing to debate. So the secrecy which is ‘do not trust me, I am from the government, I am here to help, how dare you question it, there are people of high standing in the community who are upset with you’, are bullying techniques to say ‘please do not look too hard because after financial close we will tell you everything’. Well, if financial close and estimates are such that the public do not get to participate in them, then I say the government does this at their peril.
The Darwin City Waterfront, we believe, is a site appropriate for development, as do the Independents and the government. Get past the idea that we have the notion that nothing should happen there. The issue we have is that a couple of us from this parliament went to the Development Consent Authority and heard the submission put by your partners. That is why this is different. This was, essentially, a submission put by government because the people putting it had the authority of the government to do it. After all, you are a partner. Budget Paper No 2 tells you how a public/private partnership works. They revealed things we had not learnt before.
We were interested, for instance, when we received Budget Paper No 2, which carries some description of the waterfront, that it missed the lock and the marina. If you are out there boasting about features, wouldn’t you boast about the lock and marina? Wouldn’t they be seen as important community infrastructure, a trinket to hand out to the people? When we look at community infrastructure, the Chief Minister tried to pretend that it was because it was in a later stage and we are talking about Stages 1, 2 and 3.
Let us look at community infrastructure at page 86 of Budget Paper No 2.
We know that. We went to the Development Consent Authority and we have seen the plans of it:
A couple of those things are not actually in Stage 1, so let us make the assumption, first up, that this descriptor is a descriptor of the whole precinct. For instance, the cruise ship terminal is not even in the precinct. This government has chosen to provide a delineation that takes that out. Here we are, and we have the full thing. One would think that, if you were going to boast about a children’s playground, some swings and a slippery dip, surely you would boast about a lock and a marina where you could tie up yachts?
The fact that it was missing was a concern. The fact that we went to the Development Consent Authority and we saw plans that were devoid of a lock, that showed sprinklers trying to aerate the water to make sure it was of reasonable standard, to hear your partners – people talking with your authority - say that they were not going to give any assurances on water quality until after sign-off, is too cute. It is too cute! This project is going to go across five governments, so it is not a matter of, on the eve of this election, saying: ‘This is what we are going to drop in place’.
The government is often keen to quote the fact that I have said some words about ‘we believe the CLP is the best party to govern this place’. If that is portrayed as arrogance on my part, so be it. I will tell you what arrogance is: arrogance is signing up the next five governments. Arrogance is saying: ‘We are not going to tell you anything. We are going to get to financial close, and for the next 16 years, you are stuck with it’. So if the Chief Minister happens to go back to the happy climes of Sydney, from whence she comes - and that is apparently fairly likely - we who are locals and who will stay here will be stuck with this thing for five terms of government. That is arrogance! It is arrogance to parade to us that it has been signed off, and now you might tell us some of the component parts. What if we do not agree with it? What if the community says: ‘We would like a lock’ or ‘We do not think it should be there’? It is too late.
If the government is trying to say they are going to sign off on Stage 1, I would like to believe that an incoming government might have a totally free rein with Stages 2 and 3. That is obviously a foolish notion because we know in this precinct that the cash is in Stages 2 and 3. That is where the big money yield will be, and those big profit margins will be used to subsidise Stage 1, which, hopefully in the government’s view, people will be seduced by. So you have gone out with Stage 1 into the community and are saying that even though the lock is in Stage 2, we will promise you that as well. We want to see Stages 2 and 3. We want to see the whole thing. If they are not bound, the government should be saying to us: ‘Any incoming government has the right to totally review Stages 2 and 3’. I believe that would be a nonsense.
Even though the minister largely with responsibility glossed over this issue, it has featured largely in the last couple of days. I suspect it will feature largely in the election. It has been a massive investment of glossy brochures, people being paid to staff exhibits, and all sorts of models and whatever. But I can tell you, government, I spoke to a man just yesterday and he said: ‘This waterfront is a bit of problem and we were just talking about that’. I said: ‘Where was that?’ And he said: ‘At the Roma Bar’. So if you think this is some sort of CLP plot to say, ‘Let us trick the government and let us pretend we are un-Territorian and white ant this thing’, as the Chief Minister would say to be un-Territorian, I believe our job is to interrogate this budget papers. The waterfront features largely and it should be interrogated and we should do that without fear.
I would be very, very happy to go to estimates on this. I have attended the Development Consent Authority meetings, as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have attempted to gain most of the information that is available; it now fills quite a large lump of my office. We still know very little about this project and I believe the government owes it to Territorians to tell them what they going to do with our land and our money.
Then we go to the Central Desert Knowledge Precinct - $2.7m. If this is not the biggest hit me I have ever seen. This matter is circa 1999. I saw Cabinet documents on the Desert Knowledge Precinct a long time ago, as a Cabinet member. For the government to say: ‘Aren’t we lovely because we are putting $2.5m in’, is pretty foolish. It is a great idea, it is a great notion. It probably has the entire support of this House. However, don’t you think you have been a bit tardy? Don’t you think that, maybe, somehow it has been derailed for it to be appearing here at Stage 2 for headworks - for headworks? We are not talking about the intellectual property; we are not talking about repositories of knowledge. We are talking about a road going into the mulga. We talked about this in Alice Springs. There are more headworks in here now. I believe we have to get to the stage where this thing actually has a product. It is silly talking about how we are going to put trenches in, and put in plumbing and electricity, and aren’t we nice people, when you should be talking about this thing dispensing services and dispensing product.
I am moving pretty quickly because of time restraints. The Darwin Business Park - $1.5m. We should know more about the Darwin Business Park. This was touted as a wonderful thing. It is out there in the port area. Toll moved in as the primary tenant. In fact, they are still pretty much the only tenant. If this government really wants to look at articulating the land bridge concept of the port, the rail, air, road transport, this stood as their bona fides, this Darwin Business Park, which is totally untenanted. I am surprised it needs more headworks. It is pretty much ready to sell. There are signs are up saying, ‘If you want to buy this block, ring this number and someone will sell it to you’. It is obviously service deficient. It is sitting next to the rail terminal which is in the wrong place, as everybody knows and nobody on the government side will admit. It is probably money that, if it is to prop up something to make it more saleable, should look at other things, like maybe moving the terminal.
Moving right along, through a lot of the rhetoric about how wonderful this government is and how terrible the CLP was with its revote and all that stuff. I will read this in for the Parliamentary Record, because perhaps it is a Hansard mistype. So I will read it in and I would hope to quote the minister correctly. I am reading from Daily Hansard, Wednesday, 4 May 2005, page 57:
I have driven to Ngukurr many times and I have driven to Numbulwar. In fact, I have even driven the central line from Beswick to Gove. That is an interesting road. If the minister is going to spend $0.5m to build a road from the central Arnhem highway to Numbulwar, it will cost him more than $0.5m. I can tell you, that is a seriously bad road. If you cross the Leichhardt crossing, and if you go from Ngukurr to Numbulwar, $500 000, you would be doing well just to scrape a track across the black soil plains there. So this is obviously a new highway. The minister may have a geographic problem. He certainly has a mathematic and economic problem, because there is no way known to man he is going to push a road through that country from the Central Arnhem Highway to Numbulwar and Ngukurr for $500 000. Three grader drivers will go missing before that thing is actually scraped through the scrub, I would suggest. It is probably a good spot. It is probably a great tourist road and all that sort of stuff.
Moving through the minister’s speech, he talked about how wonderful he is by protecting the wonderful Darwin nature from the cane toad. We told him a number of things we could do. We had the chairman of the committee come back to the committee and say: ‘I have spoken to the minister …’, which was not him, ‘… and yes, we have the money’. The money did not turn up in the budget - and we are talking two budgets ago. We think the people who are knowledgeable about this, think that the cane toad is probably already in Darwin. He will be a little small beastie, but he will grow big. The reason he is here is because they are notorious hitchhikers. People who go camping with boats, who bring plant into Darwin, and who travel between remote communities and here, will have inadvertently brought the cane toad to Darwin. So, he is here.
The minister is making a great assumption here. He is saying we are going to keep them out of WA: ‘… that should have been done a long time ago’. This is this figure pointing that is going on about the amount of work that was not done by the CLP and is done by Labor in halting the advance of the ubiquitous cane toad. The amount of work that was done by this jurisdiction in the 1980s and 1990s was world first. It was largely done by a fellow called Dr Bill Freeland and, if you read any literature on this, you will see his name in lights. It was immense scientific work and it worked on the best approaches to halt this toad. What we have here is an emotional campaign to the northern suburbs of Darwin saying: ‘We have found a trap’. Well, I can tell you, I can invent a trap out of that water jug there. They are very easy beasts to catch. In Borroloola, they catch them in the footprints in the mud made by cows; they are not hard things to catch. They are hard things to eradicate; they are hard things to stop them spreading.
I know you are looming to go to the election on this thing and you are going to say: ‘Da, da, da, cane toad heroes’. If you are that good, stop them getting into Western Australia. There is your challenge. Stop them getting into Kununurra. Stop them getting into Timber Creek. We think there are some things you could have done. You could have replicated, for instance, the goanna test that was done by Bill Freeland using some women who had goanna dogs near Borroloola. You could be doing that at Yarralin now. You could be doing it at Pigeon Hole now. You could be doing some before and after tests. What he found was that the goanna did not become extinct. He found that, in fact, the big green goannas did die from ingesting cane toads. The new ones either learnt to avoid them or became tolerant to them. Therefore, before you start talking about that you have a trap and have worked out how to fix cane toads, get back to the science; get back to people who understand this stuff. Tell us what it is you are going to do, and lay your career on the line.
If you think that something should have been done a long time ago, you tell us, minister, how you are going to stop cane toads getting into WA. I have seen the prognosis for the spread of this beastie, and they can get everywhere, including Tasmania. It might make you feel good to sit around the room and wring your hands about it, might make you feel good to have a trap you can catch 1000, 2000, 10 000. Each cane toad has 30 000 eggs so you want to have a lot of traps, mate.
I am not telling you to stop. I am not telling you to reduce your enthusiasm in this area. All I am telling you to do is focus it. Focus it on things that you can do like for instance keep them out of Cobourg, keep them out of Beatrice Hill. Talk to some people who know a bit about it. Talk to Dr Freeland, for instance. He is still out there in Darwin, even though you sacked him; I am sure he will give you some advice about this.
The undergrounding of power: the minister in his speech is talking about us continuing with the program, and I will quote:
I asked him this question, and he said: ‘I am not going to tell you’. I put this question to him in one of these little mini-statements: ‘What is it going to cost and how long are you going to do it?’ He is now saying: ‘Here are my budget papers. I am not going to tell you what it is going to cost or whatever but I want you to tell me’. Seriously, if you have any credibility in posing a problem like that, you will tell us what your costs are. We know what they are. We have pretty good ideas about what it is costing you and we know what it is per lot and the fact that you will not divulge it in this parliament is yet another illustration of why we have to go estimates.
I was interested that you have to upgrade disinfection facilities for the water sources at Pine Creek. I would like to know more about that. I know the water at Pine Creek has been problematic with its potability and that there is arsenic and other problems that occur naturally in that area, but you are talking about disinfecting water here. I would like to know, and I am sure the residents of Pine Creek would like to know, just what you are doing with that disinfected water.
Ti Tree: we talk often in this House about how the government should drive the big money spinners. It should drive primary industries, it should drive mining, it should drive tourism, and there is one line here about: we are going to look for some water sources at Ti Tree. Ti Tree has the potential to be a massive bread bowl for Australia, a massive food bowl. We can have all sorts of product grown there. The Ti Tree area is above the frost line, it has enormous water resources. It has incredible potential. If I was in the minister’s shoes, I would not have given it three words in a budget document; I would have talked about what we are going to do with it.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, touched on pension issues and the minister proudly stood up this morning and talked about this bus service, which incidentally will only go – it looks like to the electorate of Fannie Bay, held by the Chief Minister; the electorate of Coconut Grove, a marginal seat held by the member for Millner; and the Nightcliff area, which is held by the member for Nightcliff. There are many seniors around and there are many seniors who could use a free bus, including in Alice Springs, Madam Speaker. What we have here is a generic program that is only specific to a couple of seniors’ precincts and that is pretty interesting. It is going to cost $144 000, the minister tells us. One would not think that that is a lot of money, but if you look at the budget for transport, I would suggest that is a fair bit of money. The increase for public transport is $182 000, which is only about – I am doing some mental arithmetic here – probably about 1.2% of the budget. Fuel alone has gone up more than that. Fuel has gone up 10%. This minister is trying to tell us that he is going to carry more passengers as my colleague from Port Darwin pointed out, he is going to carry these extra free seniors to try to promote the electoral hopes of at least three of the people in this parliament, and he is telling us that they can deliver on all of those new promises within a meagre increase of less than 1.5%. You have to be joking!
Fuel alone will eat that up and one would hope that drivers’ wages, along with teachers and others, would have increased by more than 1% also. Then, of course, we will take off 2% for CPI, which are in these budget papers and we will take 2% off for efficiency. So this is a budget that has been cut. It has a promise sitting in there somewhere to try to re-elect three of members of this parliament. I would say that that is the sort of stunt that needs the maths well and truly worked out during estimates.
I was interested, too, with the outputs. The outputs that are in this document are quite interesting because they are actually in dollar terms and I do not think I have ever seen that before; I could stand corrected. But performance measures, for instance the capacity to provide policy advice – and this is at page 223 of Budget Paper No 3 - is $1.98m. That is not an output. That is an input, and it is right through the document when you come to this transport area - I have not seen it anywhere else, where capacity to deliver the project and provide strategic advice for the waterfront – the output is $7m. They are inputs. I do not know who has done the budget for this particular area, but it is interesting that people can assume that because we have spent $7m, we can go to the parliament and say: ‘We spent $7m, therefore you should judge us on that’. You can spend $7m down at the casino.
An output is what that money produces. The Auditor-General will tell you that. Any budget officer in these departments will tell you that. It occurs on more than one occasion, right through these documents, where you make a stupid assertion that this parliament will accept the fact that you have spent some money. That is not an output. An output measures what you did with the money.
This is as close to an error as I have seen. It is as bad as the arithmetic error that the Treasurer came up with. If the minister wants to tell us that the fact that he has some money and he will spend it is sufficient to gauge his performance, I would say he should at least talk to the Auditor-General because I am pretty sure that Auditor-General would have some difficulty with a budgeting technique where you can throw some money - and big money - for instance, at page 230, Infrastructure Development, capacity to provide service. The output is measured at $22.22m. He has to have another look at this.
Outputs are what you produce: how many kilometres of road you made; how many passengers you carried on your bus service; how many patients you treated in the hospital; how many palliative care patients were in the hospice. That is what an output is. I am absolutely astonished. Apart from sitting down and reading it tonight, I have never seen that before. I suggest he either gets some advice from the Auditor-General and from the budgets people at Treasury who have printed this; somehow it slipped through or whatever. If there is a budgets officer sitting in your department, minister, who thinks that telling this parliament that they have a certain amount of money is sufficient to describe its output, they are sadly mistaken. I hope that particular budgets officer turns up to estimates, in the lucky event that we have it, because I would like people to understand that there is a difference between inputs and outputs.
It is also interesting to talk about cash and accrual. We were lectured and hectored in this parliament about being a pack of economic imbeciles: ‘Do you not realise that you had a cash system? We have changed to accrual. Come and get a briefing. What sort of an idiot would not understand the system?’ There has been a party trick of late with the Labor Party to compare back to the CLP days, and that compares budget with budget. Unfortunately, what it does is leap-frog the change from cash to accrual. I am quite happy for you to continue to do it because, for instance, when you say you are spending double on mental health and double on child abuse services and 40% in the acute system, I hope you keep doing it.
I will tell you why, and it will give you a little heads-up if there are people up there on the fifth floor listening: all you have to do is go to outputs. For instance, when the Chief Minister went to Alice Springs only last sittings and boasted there was an extra 30% going into the acute sector of the health department, it does not take much to go to the budget papers and find that activity went up 4%. If you really want to play this game of saying: ‘We are comparing with the CLP’ - and they all do it - I am happy for you to do it, because we will be looking at what you do with the money.
Mental health is a classic. I have been present on a couple of occasions - I heard the minister here, she did at Raintree Park at a public meeting - where she said mental health funding has doubled. They have treated fewer people. If you really want to run this stupid argument of comparing with the CLP on a non-comparable basis, please continue. All of you up there, keep writing those numbers in because we are going to look at what you do. I am sure that the public - and I have put it in one of my newsletters - will be very interested to know that if health services in hospitals has gone up 30% in funding, and activity has only gone up 4%, we think you have a managerial problem and it is something that you should address.
The hospital services are pretty hard to leave, though, as I say, my colleague did a pretty good job of it. The next we hear from her, she may well be standing here as the Health minister if this budget gets the analysis that it deserves by people out in the community.
It is interesting to go to pension concession services. My colleague from Port Darwin did it and she did the same thing as me; she looked at the additional bus services and pension concessions and said: ‘These sums just do not work. There is something wrong here’. How is it, if you go, for instance, to page 129, Age and Disability, where you see there is going to be many more people accessing the services; the service has gone from 4500 people to 4800. That is a pretty big jump. That is about 8% in my calculation. We see that the money has dropped. Support for senior Territorians and pension concessions has dropped ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time such that my colleague may conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: Here we have the minister telling us how much he loves pensioners. He says we have a young population, but, and this is a quote from Thursday, 5 May, from Hansard in answer to a question:
Well, you are not supporting them by cutting the budget. If you go to page 122 of Budget Paper No 3, you will see ‘Support for Senior Territorians and Pension Concessions’. The minister is saying we support. Here is the support - minus $362 000. So we have a problem: more pensioners accessing services, less money for services, and the government promising that they will increase services. It just does not compute. It cannot work. You cannot say: ‘We are going to increase our pension concession entitlements. There are going to be more people accessing those entitlements, oh, and by the way, we are going to cut the money we need’. It just does not compute.
When you get around to doing your glossy flyers to people in the community and saying: ‘We love you, and there are 200 cops on the beat, and we love our seniors’, and you will probably letterbox those three particular precincts in those seats where you want to get people re-elected, run those numbers, because we will. If you want to tell people, more people accessing the service, more entitlements available to you and less money, blind Freddy can work out that someone is telling a porky. So, good on you, have a go at it and we will see you in estimates.
In closing, and I thank members for giving me a couple of extra minutes, this could well be the last speech we make in this parliament before we go to an election. I, for one, am quite happy to use these documents as a base document to go to the election. It could well be that we have promises above and beyond this document, but we will use this as a base document. We will assume that the numbers you have put in here, particularly Budget Paper No 2, which has been signed by the Under Treasurer, are correct. We know there are errors in there, and we have pointed a couple of them out to you, but we will use these as a base document as well. We will be able to show to the business community, for instance, if we go to Budget Paper No 2, which is supposed to be correct, that of the $20m they were supposed to get last year they only got $2.8m.
Mr Stirling: That is not true.
Mr DUNHAM: Of course it is not true; it is a lie!
Mr Stirling: They got $22.8m. You have to read the heading.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. What the Treasurer would have us believe is that he promised money last year, he does not have to put it in this budget this year, and so the money that is in here is additional money. That is what he would have us believe, okay?
Last year, he made a promise on payroll tax that had two years to it, last year and this year. This year it does not exist either. This year it was supposed to be $7.2m. That money was not appropriated last year but the promise was made last year, Treasurer. You made the promise last year that the money is this year. If you are trying to tell me, ‘Well, the only things in here are things that I did not talk about last year but I am talking about this year’, how come, when you go to some of the others, for instance, community safety - see the O’Sullivan Report? Surely we are talking about this thing growing off previous budgets, are we not?
If you made a promise on payroll tax that crosses two years, like you did last year, and you cashed it last year and this year there is no cash for it, it is either a pretty dumb way to budget or, alternatively, it is a pretty slippery promise or, alternatively, it is a mistake. I suggest it is probably a mistake. I think you made a muck-up here. I do not think you would be happy going to the business community and saying the $20m you promised them last year turned out to be $2.8m.
Let us go to this year, if you are that clever. That cash this year was supposed to be $7.2m. When I come down the column for 2005-06 - and I am on page 26 of Budget Paper No 2 – there is nothing there, mate. There is nothing there, pal. You have a problem in that money that you did not give last year, that you were supposed to give this year, that was not in last year’s budget because it was a two-year promise, has disappeared this year. I reckon you have done this as some sort of an exercise to try and fool us, and you have done such a good job that you have fooled everybody, mate. We will be telling some of the people you fooled. We will be making sure we go out and tell people that the $7.2m that was supported to be in this year - all the business initiatives this year come to $7.2m; the whole lot.
You are strangely silent on payroll tax. Payroll tax is pretty interesting really, isn’t it? You have told us it could not be done, you would have to sack teachers – impossible. When we asked you, you admitted it could be done. You admitted dangling teachers out there in the ether and getting the Commissioner for Public Employment to go and say: ‘Look, we are all going to go broke if you mob get this money’. Yesterday, you told us it was $8m. You said: ‘No, no, we have it all tucked in there; it is an insignificant amount. The extra? Well, that is only $8m. We give petrol sniffers more than that’. I reckon the chalkies are going to be pretty happy to read this - pretty happy that you sent your Commissioner for Public Employment off on a fool’s errand to fight with the teachers. We know lots of them, mate. We know lots of them, and they are not happy with you, cobber. Do you know why they are not happy with you? Because they think you strung them out. They were very interested to know that there is now only $8m to pick up that little extra they wanted.
They were particularly pleased to know that a private school at Port Keats is going to be getting some extra money because the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister went there. They were particularly keen to know that we have also given a school to Indonesia – very generous! Great! In fact, we would probably support you. What we do not support is the fact that you hung them out for so long to dry, on the basis that you had turned out your pockets and said: ‘Gee, we would like to help you, but all that GST stuff that the opposition keeps going on about was all myth’. Well, you admitted, mate, $8m was the ask today. All the rest is tucked away in your budget. They will remember you, my friend, they will remember you.
The teachers will realise that, when they presented their case, which was not a lot different to your Building Better Schools, I might add - so your little trick of coming in here and saying: ‘Here is Building Better Schools, and the initiatives’. They said: ‘Okay, we will bid on those initiatives’ - it is exactly the same. You could twin their bid with what you told this parliament. There is no conflict. Then you strung them out, you sent Mr Kirwan off to tell them, to empty out his pockets. They will remember you, my friend, because, not only do we find: ‘Oops, there is a school for Port Keats because the Prime Minister was there; oops, the President of Indonesia is here, we will given them a school too; oops, it is only $8m’. They will remember how frugal you were, mate.
Being a frugal Treasurer is all good and well, but do not pretend at the same time that you were driven by some sort of financial necessity because you were not; the money was always here and you were playing party tricks with them. Do not pretend either that you were offended that some industrial dispute on the eve of the election might hurt you, and how dare the opposition say anything about it. I was at the receiving end of an illegal industrial campaign at the last election. You were there with spades, mate. You mob were all there with spades. Therefore, if they are upset with you, if they wear black arm bands or black T-shirts as they did in my case when we faced election, good on them. Teachers probably deserve the cash. I do not think you should have dragged them through it the way you did and put them to that amount of stress, or to put teachers, parents and schoolchildren through the stress you put them through.
I am happy to go to war on this budget, Treasurer. We are happy to go to the electorate. This is the budget, so whether the Chief Minister promises that it is going to be sooner or later, or 15 October - who cares! This is our budget. This is your blueprint. We will parade ours out; we will show you ours. I would hope that you stand by the figures in here because we will be using them. We will be telling the business community how you …
Mr Stirling: Yes, but tell the truth with it, mate. Tell the truth with it.
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, it will be the truth. They will be your numbers, mate. They are your numbers, pal.
Mr Stirling: Because you have form.
Mr DUNHAM: They will be you numbers.
Mr Stirling: You have capital ‘L’ for liar when it comes to budgets, and you know it. You know it.
Mr DUNHAM: We will tell them ... No, do not say ‘lie’ because you are not allowed to do it. Do not say ‘lie’ because you are not allowed to do it …
Dr Burns: Well, capital ‘D’ for deception!
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t you say ‘lie’ either because what I will tell you is we will go with your numbers. We will tell the business community, we will tell the school teachers. We will! We will tell them …
Mr Stirling: Yes, just tell the truth.
Mr DUNHAM: What? It might not be the truth. They are your papers, mate! Whether they are a lie is a moot point. The point is they will be your numbers.
I will see you in the trenches because I think it is probably close to the Chief Minister pulling the trigger, sounding the bugle, whatever she is going to do, and see you guys when you get back here after the poll.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in relation to the current subject matter before the House, I place on the record some comments relating to my electorate of Goyder. Before I do that, I do not want to rehash everything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition. The speech that was made by the member for Brennan really encapsulated the appropriate response and also set out a number of very important initiatives. Indeed, the NT News got it absolutely right in their headline which was published in today’s paper: ‘CLP promises to unleash NT’s power’.
That is exactly what this Labor budget should have done. The CLP, after reviewing the material looking at the current state of the economy, has already announced a number of initiatives that were announced by the Leader of the Opposition. Those initiatives amount to a promise to unleash the full potential of the Territory should the CLP secure government after the next election. There is no doubt that the budget should be aimed at creating an environment which will invariably create a strong business community, which will hopefully make the Northern Territory Australia’s economic powerhouse as the gateway to Asia.
I will come back to some of the initiatives which were in the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the budget. Before I do that, in relation to the budget and some of the details or lack of details contained therein, it is fair to say that the current the Labor budget does not invigorate the Northern Territory. From my electorate’s perspective there are a number of very specific promises that were made just under four years ago about what the government would do, about what was going to be supplied, what was going to be built in the rural area. An example, from the top of my head, is the swimming pool. There was talk of the swimming pool; it was going to happen and must be done within the first term. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. The promise is left high and dry.
Mr Stirling: Do you know why it did not happen? Council would not take the dough, mate.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Here we have the Labor government promising to build this pool and I remember the Labor candidate who stood against me was saying the pool was going to be a promise in the first term. Unfortunately, typically, the Labor government is completely out of touch. Rural communities have a minimalist approach to local government. We have the three Rs - roads, rubbish, and reserves. The Labor government promises a pool; they can build a pool and they can run the pool. There is no requirement for the council to take it over. Why should the burden of running a pool be left on the good, the hardworking ratepayers in the Northern Territory because the Labor government opened their mouth, they big-noted themselves, and they made this promise and they have not delivered. They turn around now and say: ‘It is only a halfway promise. We want Litchfield Shire Council and the good hardworking taxpayers of the area foot the bill to run it and maintain it’. They have to be kidding! You made the promise, you deliver. Let me tell you, lots of people are left with a sour taste in their mouth as a result of that blatant non-performance of a fairly straightforward promise.
Another promise that has disappeared in the ether and there is nothing in the budget to indicate that it is even on the horizon was a promise to close Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishing. There was a promise for the Adelaide River and that has occurred, and credit where credit is due. But Bynoe Harbour was also included in a number of references to: ‘This it what we are going to do for rural people. We are going to assist fisherman and we are closing Bynoe Harbour’. Absolutely nothing has occurred. In fact, quite the contrary. There has been a significant backflip. There has been an assertion by the minister of the day that that was not strictly the correct promise that was made. I can indicate that that was not the impression the Labor candidates in the rural community created at the time.
What really makes us tick and what makes the rural area a special place is a whole heap of factors, but one of them would have to be our fantastic reserves. Freds Pass is the hub of the rural area in terms of sporting activities. We have several others - Livingstone, Berry Springs, McMinn’s Lagoon and Howard Springs. But the real hub of weekend social and sporting activity would have to be Freds Pass. The Martin Labor government has completely overlooked Freds Pass. There are no significant promises for infrastructure development. There is talk of a shed being constructed and there is a second shed which has been left on the ground to rust, which is out there now, but there is no significant infrastructure development for Freds Pass. This is a huge disappointment to rural people.
There are nearly 17 000 hardworking rural people, one of the highest proportions of home ownership in Australia, an enormous number of people who work both in the private and public sector, taxpayers who contribute, yet very little of their money is being returned to them at Freds Pass. That is very disappointing and something I am sure the Board of Trustees and the 36 regular user groups will remember come the next election.
Rural people have a great lifestyle. Indeed, I have lived there for 30 of my 35 years. All my friends and neighbours are scattered through the area. The Martin Labor government has overlooked us. Quite frankly, we have been overlooked. Things which could have helped rural people on the ground, such as the cost of registration of a second vehicle - rural rego - these are little initiatives which would have helped rural people. People can understand them because it is money in their hip pocket.
I remember, prior to the last election, the members for Karama and Fannie Bay had a brochure about the cost of fuel and there was certain outrage from the then opposition about how the CLP had in some way contributed to the high cost of fuel and how, if they were in government, there would be inquiries and they would do something. It was not articulated precisely, but they would do something to lower that burden to make sure that the cost of fuel was appropriate. We have seen nothing in the budget to help rural people with the cost of fuel. There has been no real inquiry. There has been no real attempt to look at what the government can do to help rural people. We do not have a comprehensive public transport system. We do not have the convenience of being able to walk 200 m down the road to the local shop. Rural people rely on their cars, rural people rely on their second cars and, indeed, many rural people with families rely on that third car - they have children who drive - just to get to the bus stop or the local shop to get their bread and milk. This is a real burden on rural people and there is nothing in this budget to help relieve that burden.
The member for Nelson touched upon this so I am not going to rearticulate what he said, but weeds continue to be a problem. There is a need for a reinstatement of the Mimosa subsidy. There needs to be a real and comprehensive effort to combat weeds.
The budget does not contain vision. There are no real incentives for families. The average Territory family who already owns a home and, probably more to the heart of the Labor Party and lives in the northern suburbs even, will not be better off under this budget.
This was an opportunity for the Labor government to say: ‘Okay, it is an election year. Here is an election-winning budget’. Rather, there have been a number of pretty significant cost blow-outs, I imagine, in some key portfolio areas, the end result being that, rather than act responsibly in those areas and leave something in the kitty to really send a message to rural people as well as people in the northern suburbs that we care and there are things we can do, there is a lacklustre, boring budget which does not create the excitement and certainly does not go anywhere near unleashing the full potential of the Territory, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his reply.
Going back to the rural area, Coolalinga is the first real shopping centre and point of economic and commercial activity which people see when they come from Katherine. My office is there, it is in a great corner spot. I see hundreds and hundreds of caravans and tourists driving up the Stuart Highway. They slow down, they have a good close look - this is it, this is Darwin. Welcome to Darwin, there is Coolalinga. Really, the government of the day needs to have a long, hard look at Coolalinga. There needs to be some beautification. I never thought I would say that about a road and about an intersection, but let me tell you, there needs to be some work done there. First impressions count. If there is any truth to that adage, Coolalinga is a bit of a gateway, the new Berrimah Line, the new place that people are introduced to the Territory lifestyle, and it needs to be closely looked at. There was much talk, indeed, I wrote several letters on behalf of constituents - I know the member for Nelson certainly was active in the realignment of Girraween Road …
Mr Stirling: Several letters in his whole career. He wrote several letters in four years. What a joke! The most unrepresented electorate in Territory history. The worst attempt at representation in Territory political history.
Mr MALEY: It is falling on death ears, quite frankly, and I put on the record that the member for Nhulunbuy laughs and treats with contempt the suggestion that Girraween Road should be straightened. So laugh and treat it with contempt, the idea that that is a very dangerous intersection, one which this government engaged in a comprehensive consultative process. There were diagrams and public servants turned up at the local shopping centre and said: ‘This is what we are going to do and this is the plan’. Indeed, plans were delivered to my office and I put them on display, quite proudly, trying to take some ownership in this. Of course, it is the government with the cheque book and they would get most of the credit, but nevertheless, it did not happen.
It did not happen; nothing has happened. The plans got replaced by something else and it disappeared into the ether and rural people, taxpayers, are left holding the can here. The road is still appalling; there is a very, very dangerous roundabout. It is a dangerous area, people have been injured there. I understand there have been several serious car accidents and there has not been anywhere near an appropriate response from this particular government.
I know there has been an announcement earlier in the week in relation to the abolition of one set of traffic lights near the Palmerston bypass, I understand. However, traffic lights, Madam Speaker and honourable members, let me tell you, continue to be a serious burden on rural people. We accept, of course, that they are constructed with the best of intentions but, at the end of the day, the economic effect of slowing people down 10 or 15 minutes a day when they travel to and from work will have a significant effect on the economy, the cost of getting to and from work and, ultimately, the lifestyle which many rural people enjoy.
There are other options, and I have spoken about these before, such as properly constructed large roundabouts and service roads. There are options which would alleviate and avoid the construction of any further traffic lights, and not just get rid of one set, but hopefully get rid of a bundle of traffic lights, so people who are travelling from outer Darwin can easily traverse the short distance into the CBD, into Palmerston, to attend their places of employment.
I note that there have been significant increases in the Health budget over recent years. At first glance, you would think that all is incredibly rosy on the health front. Well, I am not a medical person; I am a solicitor and the member for Goyder. However, I can say this at a level of just a local member, that rural people are not particularly satisfied with the health services which are being provided to rural people.
I went to a function recently where there were some of our seniors, and they were talking about the old days when there was a community nurse. This nurse would go out and talk to young mothers and weigh children and have lots of reassuring words. This has gone by the wayside. There is a need for that type of thing, particularly when you have young mothers who are isolated, away from their family, and dealing with burden of raising children. Sometimes, that support makes all the difference.
There has been much said about the abolition by the Labor government of the 24-hour medical centre. There have been petitions presented and countless debates, comments, and adjournment speeches about the concern that creates for rural people. There is nothing in this budget to reinstate that service so, once again, the Labor government has ignored all of those people who signed those petitions and who wrote letters, who were concerned and, quite frankly, once again treated rural people with contempt by not investing in their health and the expansion and better servicing of them from a health perspective.
On a brighter note, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Credit where credit is due, the CLP is a viable alternative. The CLP has a plan which, quite genuinely, will unleash the full potential of the Northern Territory. Territorians can sleep at night knowing that there is a viable, alternative government waiting in the wings. I say bring on the next election. Let the Northern Territory people be the ultimate arbiters on how they think this budget supports them. Let Northern Territory people decide whether they want to go with a boring, unimaginative, unthoughtful and uncompassionate budget, compared to a budget with really will promise to unleash the Territory’s potential.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I do not know if I have the grasp of the English language as some of my colleagues – they are quite entertaining and they certainly keep me interested ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure we will appreciate anything you say, after that.
Mrs MILLER: Quite flowery.
Tonight, I reply to the Treasurer’s budget for this year that was delivered on Tuesday. I have to say that I was anticipating some great things in this budget that would improve the economy, especially for my electorate of Katherine. However, I have spent a fair bit of time going through the budget papers and I cannot honestly say that I have found anything that made me jump up and down with excitement. What made it even more challenging for me to find anything is, for some reason or another, on this side of the House, we did not receive this Regional Highlights booklet in our package. It was only tonight, about two hours ago, that we actually received that. It has been quite interesting going through it. I hope it was not a deliberately kept from us, because it does not look really good in some areas. It has made me even more dubious about what would be happening for Katherine.
However, one thing that I did notice in there was something that has been of great concern to a select group of people in Katherine; that is, the $500 000 which has been revoted from last year’s budget for this year for the headworks for the Katherine Cultural Precinct, which is causing quite a bit of controversy in our town. I do note that there is nowhere in the budget that the government has allocated the $6m that the Cultural Precinct Action Group has told me that the Northern Territory government are committing to it. That is not highlighted in there at all, but the Cultural Precinct Action Group in Katherine can be reassured that the $500 000 is definitely there for the headworks despite all of the backlashing and backstabbing that is going on by some members of that precinct.
I am very inexperienced at looking at these budget papers and they appear to be designed to require intense scrutiny. I am still going through them and I am very glad that we do not have estimates for a couple of weeks at least. I certainly hope that we get the opportunity to have estimates so that I can go through them at length back in my office and be able to address some of these issues there. I can only conclude that I am not going to come up with anything that is going to be exciting for Katherine.
However, I do acknowledge one area that in the budget that I consider very worthy. That is the increase to training, and government’s commitment to support training of new apprentices and traineeships which should encourage some businesses to take the opportunity to train and, hopefully, keep skilled workers in Katherine. It is still a very difficult economic climate in Katherine, despite all the glowing reports I have listened to over the last couple of days about how wonderful the economy is in the Northern Territory. I notice whenever they discuss it, they do not ever discuss what is happening in Katherine. I can assure them it is still far from glowing.
I hope these incentives for traineeships and apprenticeships will be able to be taken up by businesses in Katherine and, in the long run, we will have some skilled workers who will be encouraged to stay in Katherine. In addition, it is very good that apprentices and trainees on considerably low wages will be encouraged because they have an added incentive for them to be able to access up to $500 for their work wear or their work gear bonus. That is a really good incentive.
I see the extra funding for training as a positive. We can have many of these training programs and apprenticeships and traineeships, but the biggest challenge is getting somebody to fill them. I have experienced this in the last 10 years in private enterprise in Katherine. It is so easy for young people to go to Centrelink and get unemployment benefits which are not much different to an apprenticeship’s wages. There is not much incentive for some young people to take up these apprenticeships and traineeships. That is where businesses meet with a lot of frustration. That will be a challenge. Hopefully, it will be an encouragement for young people in Katherine to learn about these traineeships and apprenticeships and maybe come through them via VET in Schools. Katherine High School has some very good teachers who support these programs so, hopefully, it is going to be a bonus for Katherine.
I look forward to estimates where I will be given the opportunity to scrutinise these budget figures a bit more. I notice Katherine High School’s figures in the Regional Highlights have considerably more funding. I am assuming that it is for traineeships and apprenticeships, Treasurer, but I will ask you about that at estimates.
I am going to move on to the area of my shadow portfolios. The first one that I wanted to refer to was resources and the details that are from the budget papers. It is with concern that I have noticed that there is considerably less allocation in this year’s budget for the minerals and petroleum industry. Just to put it on the record, it is recognised as the most significant industry in the Northern Territory with an 18.8% gross state product in 2003-04. It should also be noted that in the previous year, 2002-03, that the GSP contributed 21%, which indicates we have had a decline of 3.1%. Royalty revenues in 2003-04 were estimated at around $37.1m, with royalties for 2004-05 estimated at $38.5m. Private mineral exploration expenditure, which includes uranium, decreased by 13.3% to $43m in 2003-04, while nationally, expenditure increased by 8.2% for the same period.
There are listed in the budget papers important facts that relate to factors affecting mineral exploration in the Northern Territory, and they include the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights(Northern Territory) Act. Considering that mining is such an important economic factor to the Territory, it is very frustrating to see how progress can be stalled and/or halted by this act. Approximately 5.3% of Australian exploration expenditure occurred in the Northern Territory in 2003-04, and it is the lowest proportion for several years. This comes from the Budget Paper Northern Territory Economy at page 76.
The current low level of exploration expenditure is of serious concern and exasperated by the extended lead time of 10 to 15 years to get a mine into production. This is pretty average for the resource industry. There is no tax relief, and no reference to road spending on the Carpentaria Highway, which has heavy use of mining vehicles.
Promotion of the industry through the Mining Road Show 2005, about which the minister reported during this sitting, is very good. I said in my reply that it is about time. As we all know, road shows can give the best presentations and can be all razzamatazz, but the proof of their success is in the outcomes. In this case, how is the minister monitoring the success of the road show? Has he any criteria in place to measure how many investors have made further inquiries about the Northern Territory, and how many have made commitments to invest in the Territory? The Minister for Mines and Energy made great claims about the increased number of exploration licences issued in the Territory, but the future depends on how many of these transfer to real exploration and investment in the Northern Territory.
I hope the minister is exploring what other states and territories are doing in relation to attracting exploration because we have the least attractive exploration industry. In particular, the minister would do well to talk to South Australia which has a very innovative approach to attracting exploration. South Australia has the full support of its Premier and Mines minister. It is a pity that the Northern Territory does not have the full support of the Chief Minister and her ministers. The resources industry is a major industry but receives little recognition from this government. The only way to get economic growth is to build wealth; the minerals and resource industry is definitely where the wealth is in the Northern Territory.
While on the subject of mining and resources, it brings to mind workplace safety, which is an extremely important consideration in industry. I have it on good authority that the Work Health Advisory Council, whose members are from a wide cross-section of stakeholders, has not met for nearly 12 months. The term of the current Work Health Advisory Council members expired in September 2004 which, in effect, means that there is no Work Health Advisory Council active at present. Given the publicity that has been generated in the NT News recently, which highlighted poor work safety practices at various sites around Darwin, I implore this government to address work safe issues before, heaven forbid, we have either a serious injury or, worse, a tragedy. Surely this government is serious about workplace safety.
My shadow portfolio of Primary Industry and Fisheries covers quite a wide area. Recreational fishing is, without a doubt, an enjoyable activity and considered an integral part of the lifestyle of many Territorians and, of course, the thousands of visitors who travel to the Territory each year to fish. The CLP, when in government, recognised the value and importance of recreational fishing and ensured that legislation was in place to protect the industry.
The present government continues to support this important industry, as well they should. The Country Liberal Party, on coming to government, would ensure that the Territory continues to remain the favourite fishing destination for all Australians and international tourists. Access to recreational fishing locations has been an ongoing challenge, but it is one that needs constant reviewing and lobbying.
In the Katherine area, the Country Liberal Party will ensure access from the Victoria Highway to the King River junction, which is a pristine location west of Katherine and one that recreational fishermen have been lobbying for access to for some time. The budget also highlights $2m over four years for new fishing infrastructure, which is to be applauded, and I look forward to the estimates to find out what that $4m covers.
I am also pleased to see the fingerling and stocking programs in areas such as Manton Dam, Lake Bennett, and Darwin Harbour, and in Lake Todd near Katherine will continue. Lake Todd is a very beautiful area and a well-kept secret which has the potential to be developed into a world-class ecotourism venture. It is something that I am sure the Jawoyn will be considering in their future plans for development. The stocking program of barra fingerlings will be an added incentive to develop the area in a sensitive and sustainable way.
Also in the area of primary industries, I have noted in the Regional Highlights tonight that the Katherine Research Station has had its budget substantially reduced. I do not think they will be very impressed with that. I am sure when I get back to Katherine tomorrow I will be talking to them to find out how they feel about that.
In the area of primary industries, the most important area for this government to address is Territory roads and national highways. Our roads and highways are pivotal to the economic development in regional and remote regions of the Northern Territory, which will assist our pastoral and mining industry, as well as our outlying communities. It is pleasing to see the upgrades that have been highlighted and, of course, with the amount of time I spend on the road between Katherine and Darwin, I am doubly pleased to see that the passing lanes are going to be recommenced. That program is going to recommence in this next 12 months.
The Country Liberal Party, when in government, ensured that a passing lane a year was built on that section, so it is very nice to see that this government has finally got around to addressing it. I know the member for Barkly travels on that road a lot too. While I welcome our road tourist market, I really do welcome them to the Territory, but when you are in a big hurry, which most of us in this Assembly are, and you are stuck behind a car that is doing 60 km/h, 80 km/h to 100 km/h, it is very frustrating. As much as I love them, I do not want to get frustrated and annoyed with them, so I am very pleased that there are going to be additional passing lanes, which will keep me a lot less stressful on the road and make me very happy to see our slow travellers.
The budget also allocates $2.8m to agricultural development to, amongst other things, enhance and promote mixed farming in the Territory. I have gone through the Regional Highlights again, and I actually see things down, down, down, and I am not quite sure how we are going to explain this to the people out in the rural industries. I am going to wait until estimates and will certainly be scrutineering that area a lot more. I know these figures might sound good on paper, but they are going to be reduced considerably, according to the Regional Highlights. I do not know how many farmers out on the Douglas Daly are going to be excited about that. They would say that this government is doing little to promote mixed farming in their area already. On the contrary, people in that area consider that the government is discouraging investment in mixed farming by the very fact that this government has placed a moratorium on land clearing in addition to water allocations that do not meet the existing needs of some of those growers. I have had many of them in my office very upset about the allocation of water.
I am very conscious that conservation and environmental issues are very important and are always to be taken into consideration for our future sustainability. However, some of the stories that farmers have talked over with me just do not seem to have any commonsense to them. I am sure that this government has had the same conversations with many farmers, especially over the last 12 months.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now close my fairly brief summary of how I feel about this budget. I look forward with great interest and enthusiasm to the estimates, where I will, hopefully, be able to scrutinise the minister to get a clearer picture of just what this budget is going to do for resources and primary industry. I say ‘hopefully’, that I do get the opportunity because last year I did not get one question in relation to my shadow portfolio of tourism. It is such an important economic industry for the Northern Territory. It was, quite frankly, a joke! I was not at all impressed by this government’s claim of being open and accountable then. I certainly live in hope that they will feel some obligation to be open and accountable at the coming estimates.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, in preparing to comment on the budget presented on Tuesday, it led me to reflect on a couple of issues; one being that this is my first full term in this House. Eighteen months prior to the last general election, I was elected in a by-election, so I view this as my first full term. I recall the first budget presented by this Labor government, and the words and the sentiment of the time. I had high expectations for a new government that had experience in opposition and had committed their sentiments and beliefs to paper. They had written down the parameters by which they would operate. It was the good member for Nelson who, once again, reminded me of the words that had been written about the attitude to governance and the approach that this government would take if ever given the opportunity by the good people of the Northern Territory to govern. Those words we now see really mean little. As the Bee Gees sang: ‘It’s only words …’. That is the saddest thing. I reflect on that, quite genuinely.
There has been a private expectation and a hope from some members on this side that the words and sentiments expressed from the experience gained in opposition, and the words that were committed to a position that was presented to the people of the Territory, would actually mean something. They have meant little. We have seen a continuance of game playing, the practise of extraordinary spin, the selling of perception rather than addressing reality, and the real problems that affect the good people of the Territory.
I only have to look at an article that, in my first reading of today’s NT News I overlooked because I was focussing, sadly, on page 3, on a very disappointing article. I am sure my political opponents on the other side will be rubbing their hands together with glee that they have achieved a very important political point in their strategy of winning at whatever cost, and to see the more important issue of the economic structure that will be addressed and presented by the alternative government, the CLP, relegated to page 6. I had overlooked an article, which is the sort of issue that people want to see addressed. You can have ideas presented to people that give them a bit of short-term excitement that there is going to be millions and millions of dollars thrown at a problem that everyone knows is clearly a problem, which is the skill shortage. The whole nation is talking about it. And so we throw some money at it, a huge amount, some millions and millions of dollars, and most people, with a casual glance think: ‘That is really good because there is a problem and there is a lot of money that has been attached to that problem so money and 10 000 trainees commitment will fix it’. Okay, so we will let that wash and we will see that notionally, perceptibly, fix the problem.
However, the reality is that as we see in today’s paper, Bruce Hunt cannot find anyone to respond to his desperate call for an apprentice. He is not alone. That is the sort of issue that needs to be squarely addressed and that is the sort of grunt that we see missing in this government’s approach. The expectations that people have of those who are elected to lead, to actually face up to the real issue, so that they have some kind of assurance that there is a genuine and honest approach to a real problem.
As the member for Wanguri is often wont to cleverly interject: ‘You need to get out more’, I have been out enough, and I am sure any fair-minded elected representative has been out enough, and has heard that is the sort of problem that needs to be addressed. Any small business operator who is so driven by the demands of their own operation, the risks they have taken, the debts they are carrying, the insurances they are carrying, the rent they are paying, and is not able to find an extra pair of hands to come alongside them. You might have all the incentives on the planet, but you do not have the will in the community from young people to step up there and work hard.
There is a cultural problem and it is those sorts of problems that do need to be addressed. We need that genuine, honest resolve from government to provide that leadership to change the way things are. That is why I believe we are going to enter a whole new era in politics if we are going to continue operating here and be satisfied as representatives. That means the education system being changed so that there is a valuing of those who enter education with a view of gaining skills and appreciation for the trade sector. It is those types of things.
I do not really get much excitement from this budget. In fact, to be honest with you, I got more excitement out of the first budget. I thought there were some grand statements and good intentions. This one has been surprisingly lacklustre. I notice in the Victorian budget, while I am on that line, that there were at least a few trinkets and innovative ideas there. It captivated people and let them know that there is some imagination being applied and some innovation. There has been very little and that is a concern in terms of the culture and the morale of our wider community, those people who work hard and want to know that the real issues are being addressed by those who have been elected to lead.
We all know that the economy of the Northern Territory generally grows and moves along under its own steam. The role that government plays can either be there to lead it with some resolve and take some risks, or to hang around slightly behind the game and be there when the headlines are good, and to stand alongside of them and get your photograph taken like Benny Hill in one of those silly shows. Or when it looks a bit embarrassing to stand on the other side there and say: ‘Oh, that is terrible, that is terrible’, and then blame perhaps the previous administration. You are actually behind the game, you are not actually making anything happen and you are a commentator behind the scenes. Taking the opportunity if it looks good; standing on the other side and disowning it if it does not look good. Success has many parents so if looks good, you are proud parent and fully responsible for this wonderful outcome and, if not a good outcome, disowning it.
When you have the real estate boom in the Territory, fantastic! I am sure the Chief Minister takes personal responsibility for creating the effect of the real estate boom which actually occurred initially in Sydney and then spilled out. Any analyst will tell you that it spills out and ultimately affects every jurisdiction. It takes a while to take effect right across this continent. In Western Australia, regional communities are now beginning to feel the effects. We look back at Sydney and we say the tide is going back the other way. So sure enough, in time to come - and I am sure the Chief Minister is fully responsible for all of this - the tide is going back the other way and, ultimately, it will affect here.
There was a great opportunity; the call of this opposition to reduce stamp duty and take advantage of that national wave. Had stamp duty and payroll tax been reduced significantly at that time, we could have capitalised on that wave, ridden it and drawn more of that energy back into the Territory from other places, rather than have people drawn away from the Territory. That is why it is important that we have some vigour, a commitment and resolve from government to unleash the power of the Northern Territory community and the economy.
That is why the relief from stamp duty is not a political stunt. It is a serious position to release the capacity of small business, those good people who take the risks and are out there day after day. I am close to small business; my family are involved in small business. I listen to people and I know the real pressures of small business. They need the relief. To hold on, as so many of the Labor states are holding on, is a basic misunderstanding of how people operate and how they need to be given some slack so that they can prosper and then extend their borders. We can then have additional resources brought into that key private endeavour.
After four years and four budgets, the rhetoric has faded from the other side. There is a sense that they are also dispirited because, once, there was this nave enthusiasm and the little monikers that go alongside of every utterance that is made with regards to this fantastic work. Now we do not have much of that. What we have is a clear memory that each grand announcement made by the Treasurer has forecast massive growth. That simply has not been matched, nor accurately and honestly reported on, in each of those budgets. The forecast growth has never been realised and, in fact, the GST revenue which was forecast came in well above forecast but has never been honestly reported on, either.
That sort of stuff irritates people. I have to say that I am disappointed to have now, after the fourth budget, the positions changed. Those who were once in opposition and saw it all are now in government behaving in the same way that they pretend they once upon a time treated with distain. No wonder people become disillusioned with politics. When they come to the next election, they will probably begrudgingly go through the motions, but I hope there is a sense of honesty and excitement that starts to permeate throughout our community because they need people to recognise what the real problems are and start talking about them.
I would like to go to a couple of issues related to Asian Relations and Trade. There are a number of questions that need to be answered regarding the amount of investment, which is not huge in Asian Relations and Trade. I note the export scheme has increased to $500 000 in total. That is not a huge investment and, once again, it is a step in the right direction, but we need to seriously lead in this area. We have a strategic advantage by virtue of our location, the opportunities that have been capitalised on in the past - whatever position the current government and minister may take in trying to create some difference by the slight they pay to the endeavours of former Chief Ministers and Asian Relations and Trade Ministers. Let us see what has been done and capitalise on it and move to the next stage. Really, the basic misunderstanding of Asian Relations, which we lost in trade, is once again demonstrated by this budget which lacks that basic understanding.
Once again, we have the presentation which indicates that we have our regional offices out there; in fact, the number of offices and regional representation has been reduced under this government. When there is the opportunity to capitalise on the BIMP-EAGA organisation of regional economies, centring its efforts now on Sabah, this government made the decision to close down the Sabah office. We now have the opportunity to get in on the game and to reopen the office in Sabah so that we are actually a part of the action. Those are the sorts of things that need to happen. We have to get out in front of the game and be a part of it. Other states and territories have now occupied the space and progressed way beyond where the Northern Territory once was. We did lead the way and others have now come in and occupied our space. We need to get back there. They have forgotten about the Northern Territory; it is a memory in some quarters, but it has retracted.
I notice once again there is demonstration of that lack of cohesion within Asian Relations and Trade, where you have a coordination between the endeavours in education, sport, trade, industry and business, and diplomatic exchanges, and an understanding of the great achievement of the Palmerston City Council with the Kupang Palmerston Sister City Committee, where there is that friendship and bridge building that goes on, which then brings in the Palmerston Regional Business Association, the AusAid dollar and helps to start to get things working. That is a clear demonstration of relations leading to trade. That will bring in AusAid dollars and that will bring in a bridge across which will pass genuine trade. That has not occurred for four years.
We have the endeavours of private citizens making these things happen. We have the cattlemen actually out there building relationships and prospering, in spite of, and alongside government’s endeavours, which has been largely to create the impression of activity. You ask the average person out there, they think, oh yes, they seem to be doing a good job, but they read the headline. In fact, we need to be creating the difference and adding the extra and being out in front of the game and taking real risks and showing some real imagination.
Tourism: the clear fact is that the numbers that have come into the Territory have significantly reduced. I cannot see how you could stand up as the Minister for Tourism and put up another glorious picture and say: ‘Look at this one over here, this has happened and this has happened and that has happened’. That is fine, but the fundamental is there were 94 000, or thereabouts, fewer visitors to the Territory in the last year, and a 51% reduction from our immediate region, the very region we are meant to be engaging.
Thousands and thousands of people have chosen not to come to the Territory; it is not their primary destination as a tourism destination. That is a real problem, and we have the people in the tourism industry who take the risk and work so hard, endeavour to keep positive and sell their product and have those runs on the board. They know that that is what has occurred and, today, many of them do not have the time to get up and get involved and to start to rattle the cage and say: ‘For God’s sake, fix it’.
Recognise the problem rather than gloss over it, and to attend to it in a gutsy way. But no, it does not happen. It is not really explained; it is ignored or glossed over and we can endeavour to paint a picture and create an impression, which is the primary objective of this government and this Tourism Minister. The fact is, there has been a significant reduction and, therefore, as the Treasurer would probably be aware if his calculator has been worked on this particular project, you can calculate how much of a reduction to the actual Territory economy that is. I have calculated, conservatively, that there is about $70m of direct and indirect revenue flowing from the Territory economy as a result of people choosing not to come to the Territory in those numbers. These are the official figures, it is not opposition bulldust, it is real figures: 91 000 or thereabouts in one year international arrivals to the Territory.
I believe we should reflect and be very grateful that there is a railway. People from across the country are making the decision to get on the train and come to the Territory. They then tell all their friends for ever and a day about the train trip. Many people want to have that experience on the train. They ask: ‘Have you been on The Ghan yet?’ ‘No, I haven’t, but I am planning to’. ‘I have. Let me show you the photos’. That is happening all around the country. It is fantastic and it is bringing people here and, hopefully, they are having a good time and are going home telling their friends they had a great trip to the Territory. If we did not have that railway - my goodness, imagine!
I will just turn to a couple of Palmerston issues. It is time, when we are on the eve on an election, that we recognise some of the commitments that were made to the community by the Labor government at the last election. One of them, still remembered in the Palmerston community, is that there was a commitment made for a facility for Defence families. A Defence centre was to be constructed and that was communicated to the Palmerston community. No mention of it has been made since. A couple of the other commitments that have been made have been honoured and the community is grateful for that and they should expect nothing less.
However, if a commitment has been made and it is chosen for one reason or another not to honour that commitment, you need to stand up and tell the community: ‘This is exactly what we have done and for this reason’, just to keep some kind of faith and good grace with the community. There has been no mention of that facility for Defence families. I would imagine a number of the people would have thought: ‘Well, there you go, they made that commitment and we will see something from it’. Not a peep. It is only fair that people are reminded that that commitment has been dishonoured.
The good people of Palmerston, and the members for Nelson, Brennan, Drysdale and Goyder, know there is a clear need for the 24-hour medical clinic in Palmerston. There is a very large population out there who feel exposed and they need that cover. They need a genuine response to that need in better health provision for that population. That is still deficient and it is a memory that will be very hard to erase - an action and a decision made by this government.
There are a couple of issues that have come up during the course of these sittings that have caused some concern. It is the need to lead from the top and, reflecting on the last four budgets, the enthusiasm and excitement seems to have waned, quite surprisingly. Maybe, as some analysts have identified, it is because this government is so confident it is going to win it really does not have to get too excited about the budget. They are just going to walk in. Some people hold that view. They think that is what it is about. Well, there is another group that think: ‘Oh, what has happened? Have they lost their will, lost their excitement, lost their enthusiasm, lost that pizzazz, lost that belief?’ I do not know? I am still questioning what really is behind all of this and that clearer definition to the lack of resolve and clear leadership. Maybe they are tired.
The population has to grow if we want our waterfront to actually work. We have to make that commitment to applying a strategy that injects some excitement into our community. That is done by providing clear leadership to the private sector, the small business operator, letting them know that you are there to support them in a very real way. That is when you begin to release some energy into the Territory economy and into the wider community. By innovative tax relief for Territory business, you then release that energy and excitement, which will then draw people from around our country and other places to consider the Territory as a place to settle and bring their families.
The commitment by the CLP in government to achieve a population growth of 2.5% is a very necessary one. We look at the waterfront development and the growing concerns about the commercial centre moving from the CBD down to the waterfront. Anyone can tell you that unless the population increases we are really going to be fighting a losing battle. We have to have that energy and excitement and we have to see the population grow. That is a matter of the highest priority. That is why the commitment is a very serious one from the CLP to scrap five business taxes for the wider Territory.
I had the significant experience of visiting Borroloola in November/December. How important it is to move out of your own community to visit places like Borroloola and Port Keats. In Borroloola, I was reminded that some basic services that we enjoy, say in Palmerston, are not enjoyed by the good people of Borroloola. That is why commitments to roads and the basic infrastructure that links our entire Territory need to be elevated. Weather-proofing of our key arterial roads is an important and necessary commitment.
I have mentioned the medical clinic in Palmerston, but also the commitment for cardiovascular and cancer sufferers in the Territory are very important and necessary commitments.
In closing, you get up and give your few comments as I have done, in broad brush terms and, as the member for Katherine fairly acknowledges, they are fairly detailed documents. To get up and give some kind of analysis of these documents is not possible at this stage. We may not have the accounting experience and understanding of the economy so quickly after these documents have been dropped on our desk on Tuesday. However, in order to actually fairly represent the views of our constituency, we do need to sit alongside them, get their views, ask what they think, determine their understanding, and ask whether their needs are addressed. To be given that opportunity is why we do need to have that canvassing of views within the sectors for which we are responsible with our shadow portfolios and within our own communities, and then to go through the estimates process so that this budget can be properly weighed.
I do not think that is fair dinkum. There is a clear indication – well, time will tell – that we will not be going to estimates, that these documents have been put on our desks, we will get up and say a few words and then there is probably an election, and then we will have estimates and then we will find out what we have. I would be very satisfied to go through that process - I hope we do - where we can go out and talk to our constituencies, get their views and properly represent them. I hope that is the case. It is your last chance to be fair dinkum and to show some real resolve to represent people properly. If not, let the people decide.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent for the Power and Water Corporation. As members are aware, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first Government-Owned Corporation, or GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent is the Corporation’s fourth as a GOC. The SCI contains the annual performance agreement between the GOC and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians, as owners of the corporation.
As required under section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I now table a copy of the corporation’s SCI in the Legislative Assembly. In accordance with section 39(8) of the Government Owned Corporations Act and consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today.
As I have indicated in previous years, the primary reason for this is it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release. This remains relevant even though, at this time, the corporation has no direct competitor for most of its business activities.
The SCI forecasts a nett profit after tax of $30m in 2005-06, approximately $6m lower than from the revised nett profit after tax projected for 2004-05. The forecast lower profitability is primarily due to lower revenue levels in 2005-06. The lower revenue is consistent with 2004-05 showing higher than normal revenue as additional revenue was received by the corporation in 2004-05 for government-funded infrastructure projects. While the billing issues recently experienced by the corporation have resulted in the impact on cash flows, the corporation is a large enough business to sustain this short-term deferral in cash collections. The corporation expects it will catch up in coming months and that the temporarily lower than expected cash flow will not impact on the year’s financial performance.
The corporation’s projected $30m profit for 2005-06 includes government community service obligation funding of approximately $54m, as well as electricity, water and sewerage assets gifted by government of $6m. As members are aware, the government has a uniform tariff policy for most customers, including small business and households. This means that what these Territorians pay is the same for all customers irrespective of how much it costs to provide these services in different locations and conditions. Government has also maintained its position of no tariff increases for non-contestable electricity, water and sewerage. The shortfall between what Territorians pay and what it costs for the corporation to deliver the services is made up by government providing community service obligation funding and also accepting a lower rate of return for its investment in the corporation.
The government also contributes community service obligation funding for medium sized contestable electricity customers – Tranche 4 users - to cover the shortfall between cost-reflective tariffs and regulated maximum prices. Larger contestable customers pay cost-reflective prices as set by the corporation, noting that the Utilities Commission reviews prices charged for generation and use of the corporation’s networks.
As in previous years, 50% of the corporation’s profit will be paid to the Territory in the form of a dividend. The $15m dividend expected to be paid by the corporation for 2005-06 is the return Territorians, as shareholders, receive on their investment in the corporation and will be used by government to provide other services to Territorians such as health, education and safety.
The corporation commenced making company tax payments in 2004-05 and this will continue in 2005-06. Tax payments made by the corporation are received by the Territory under the National Tax Equivalents Regime. The regime is administered by the Australian Taxation Office on behalf of all states and territories. The corporation retains 50% of its after-tax profits to re-invest in new equipment and to maintain older equipment so that it can continue to provide an acceptable quality of service.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as the 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent will be considered in more detail by the GOC scrutiny committee, I will not go into anymore detail on the SCI here. I, therefore, table Power and Water Corporation’s 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you member for Nhulunbuy. I recently took part in the Celebrity Pedometer Challenge with Team Nightcliff, made up of Senior Australian of the Year, Mr Tony Milhinhos, his daughter, Rosemary, and I, which was organised by the Department of Health and Community Services in cooperation with the Heart Foundation.
I am proud to say that Team Nightcliff won, with a total number of steps of more than 400 000 over the three week period. I did just over 74 000 steps, Rosemary did 102 000 and Tony, a totally amazing 227 000 steps, which is about 140 km in the four-and-a-half days. Coming second was the ABC team, with team member Charlie King doing a massive 134 000 steps and, in third place, the Darwin City Council team with team member Peter Adamson doing an impressive 140 000 steps.
Our involvement in this event shows that anyone can fit a bit of exercise into their day. It is recommended that, to maintain general fitness, we all attempt to do 10 000 steps a day. Team Nightcliff demonstrates that, even for very busy people, it is possible to fit some regular exercise into their daily lives. I congratulate all the entrants for their efforts and also congratulate the organisers, especially Annie Villaseche and Edwin Edlund, who are both enthusiastic walkers and health promoters.
Team Nightcliff is donating our three $100 vouchers to local schools in the Darwin and Palmerston area, and Tony Milhinhos is adding further $100 vouchers and inviting school representatives to come for a special prize draw on Saturday, 14 May, at the Nightcliff Woolworths complex, during the opening of the new office of Autism NT in the complex. Tony continues his amazing philanthropy by providing an office free of charge to Autism NT. What a tremendous Territorian he is. It is no coincidence he was named Senior Australian of the Year. He is very passionate about helping the families of children with autism and, at every opportunity, supports that cause. Thank you, Tony, on behalf of the people of Nightcliff, where you live.
I also extend my thanks to Graham Opie, Executive Director of the Heart Foundation, who was involved in the Celebrity Pedometer Challenge. Graham has been Executive Director for the past few years, and I was sorry to hear that he is leaving the Territory at the end of May to take up a position in Sydney with the Motor Neurone Disease Association. I thank him for his commitment to Territorians’ health, and wish him and his family every happiness and success for the future.
Tonight, I note the sad passing of a special Territorian, Mrs Mary Jordan. Mrs Jordan died on Sunday, 24 April, after a long illness. She was a business woman who, with her husband, the late Mr John Jordan, was well known and respected in the Territory business community.
Mrs Jordan was born in Subiaco in Perth in 1917 and came to Darwin in 1967 with her husband, John, to visit her cousins, the Manolis family and, like so many people, she and her husband fell in love with Darwin and stayed. She ran Mary J’s and La Petite in the CBD in what is now the Star Village Arcade. She also owned and operated The Greek Corner at the site of the current Galleria.
She was a very generous woman and was known for her philanthropy. She loved her family and will be sadly missed by her daughter, Mrs Lilliane Gomatos, and her two sons, John and Ian.
For the last few years of her life, Mary was very ill, and Lilliane and Theo Gomatis lovingly cared for Mary in their home in Nightcliff. No mother could have had a more devoted daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. They made sure that Mary’s final years were as comfortable as possible.
Mary died on the Greek Orthodox Palm Sunday, which the Greek Orthodox priest said was a special and fortuitous thing for Mary. It is a testimony to her standing in the community that her funeral was so well attended in Darwin’s Greek Orthodox Church.
I extend sincerely condolences to her family. May she now rest in peace with her beloved husband, John.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was my pleasure to be part of Royal Life Saving’s Active Family Fun Day at the Nightcliff Aquatic Centre on Saturday, 16 April. This is the first time this event has been held in the Territory, although I understand it has been running for many years in other parts of Australia. It was a fabulous afternoon, with around 500 people attending. There were free water activities for young people, and lots of prizes for the kids, including Playstation 2s and lots of Coca-Cola Australia’s Active Factor packs.
The aim of the event was to remind families of the importance of water safety, and there were a number of rescue and resuscitation activities, as well as an opportunity for kids to test their survival skills, a boogie board race and noodle races.
I was very pleased to be able to provide a free sausage sizzle for the event, and congratulate the Executive Director of Royal Life Saving NT, Natasha Fyles and her staff for her excellent organisation of the event.
It was my pleasure to attend the Young Achiever Awards NT Presentation 2005 at the Holiday Inn Esplanade on Saturday, 9 April. It was a tremendous evening with a line up of fine young Territorians vying for these prestigious awards. Unfortunately, as with all award presentations, not everyone can win, but what a fabulous group of finalists we saw that night.
I particularly wish to acknowledge the achievement of one of the winners, George Philbey. George is the son of Angela and Howard Philbey of Palmerston. George is 17 and won the Power and Water Science and Technology Award. He completed Year 12 last year at Palmerston High School and is studying at Charles Darwin University this year. George recently spent 300 hours conducting his first biological census of Lake Alexander as part of the 2004 CSIRO Student Research Scheme. His comprehensive research identified new species to the ecosystem and revealed what species could be destroyed if Cassiopea jellyfish were eradicated. Sample specimens were donated to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, where George works as a volunteer in the Natural Science section. George aspires to a career in marine biology, and aims to contribute to the future of tropical biological research in the Northern Territory.
I have known George for a few years since he moved to the Territory. Those of us who know him are very proud of his achievements. I wish George and his family all the best for the future.
It was my pleasure to attend the removal of the first power pole in the electorate of Nightcliff on 2 March this year, together with the Chief Minister and the Minister for Essential Services. It was recommended in 1975 by the Darwin Reconstruction Commission after Cyclone Tracy that there should be underground power in the older suburbs of Darwin. It did not happen, but it is happening 30 years later with the first Labor government in the Northern Territory.
It was a tremendous occasion seeing the power poles come down in Pandanus Street in front of a large group of Nightcliff Primary School children from Greg Robson’s class, the whole of the Milkwood Steiner School, which is 55 students, and a group of students and their teachers from Nightcliff High School.
This is a tremendous project which is providing safer and more reliable power for the people of Nightcliff, an area that has been the subject of serious outages over many years. It was an important election commitment for this government, and one that I am very proud to see fulfilled.
I thank the officers in the Underground Power Project office in Nightcliff, Ken Frazer and Wendy Jefferies, who demonstrate great professionalism in all their dealings with the public of Nightcliff. They are a credit to Power and Water. I would like to add my thanks to Mr Mike Wright of Linkcorp (NT), the consultants of the underground power project in Nightcliff. Mike works closely with the residents of Nightcliff, and always shows tact and great care when dealing with the many issues that arise in relation to undergrounding. Mike, Ken and Wendy are a great team, and I thank them for their hard work on this important election commitment for the people of Nightcliff.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, Yolngu Scouting in East Arnhem Land was officially launched in Nhulunbuy by the Administrator in April. My congratulations to Mrs Carol Dodd, Group Leader of the Nhulunbuy Scout Group, for her initiative in re-introducing scouting to the Yolngu communities. Carol and her family have worked tirelessly in the community with scouting, and I thank them for their commitment and vision to enhance education and self-esteem through scouting for our indigenous youth. It really became a theme of re-introducing scouting to indigenous communities when the Administrator was saying that he had photographs of scouting in Darwin from the 1930s and 1940s, where 80% of the scouts were indigenous. So it is not new; it is something the movement is trying to get back in place. I was pleased to attend a luncheon with the Administrator in relation to that initiative.
I was also pleased to attend Nhulunbuy High School and present the Student Representative Council with their badges for 2005. Council members are: Jay Arnold, Dominic Bulters, Erin Cislowski, Tiffany Crane, Amber Elliot, Ashleigh Felice, Gemma Fleming, Leigh Florence, Elizabeth Garland, Shondelle Haime-Budd, Kateesha Jeffrey, Juzmin Kesteven, Talisa Keibat, Tiffany Kynigopoulos, Kiana Larkins, Samuel Lines, Kate Monaghan, Monica O’Hanlon, Tanisha Orchard, Thomas Parrish, Nicholas Pikos, Ryan Pitts, Adrian Roeger, Rose Sadleir, Zoe Shepherd, Shannon Sticker, Trent Thomas, Brett Thomas, Nathan Turner, Jessica Turner and Clare Woodrow.
My congratulations to Clare Woodrow, who was elected as President of the council. I am sure under her leadership the school will be served well in progressing towards a better school environment for the students at Nhulunbuy High.
The Yirrkala community was saddened by the death of a dear old Gumatj lady, artist and mother a few weeks ago. Two of her daughters, Merrkiwuy and Banbapuy, are prominent teachers at Yirrkala. This artist’s early family life in the presence of her illustrious parents Mungurrawuy and Bakili fills all of her artwork. Like her father’s, it is spontaneous, powerful, honest and direct. Her first show, I’m Gumatj Lady, in Canberra in 1992 was a huge success. Following the commissioning of the Buku-Larrnggay Mulka print space in 1996, she assumed a leading role.
The Gumatj lady was often delighted in the result, delivered later, of her painting on multiple sheets of plastic, and scratching and painting on metal plates, but it was the process of making these marks, the doing, the using of the brush and hair, the weaving and carving and winding, that she delighted in. Her life was full of many passions: hunting, collecting bush foods, wearing fancy earrings was a particular delight to her, her church and her family, Gopu Football Club and her identity as a Gumtatj lady.
My sincere sympathy and love is with her family and the communities of Yirrkala and Ski Beach at the loss of a beautiful lady who was loved by all who knew her.
My congratulations to our town Administrator, Mr Mike Hindle, who has just clocked up 10 years in the job at Nhulunbuy. Mike has been an astute and very active Administrator for the town, with many enhancements to the town’s infrastructure and appearance achieved during his tenure.
Anzac Day in Nhulunbuy continues to attract record numbers at both the Dawn Service and the Cenotaph. This year, emotions were high as we remembered our regular veterans who passed away during the year: Tom Campbell, Michael ‘Cookie’ Page, and ‘Oil Can’ Harry Fincham.
It was appropriate that Tom’s funeral was conducted on Anzac Day as he was Nhulunbuy’s most senior war veteran and was very proud of his service in the Royal Air Force. Tom had a great love of sailing. In his lifetime, he built himself four boats and was a great support to the Gove Yacht Club, becoming their first life member. He was an absolute stalwart of Anzac parades. He had the admiration of the younger generation for his reverence on these solemn occasions. My sincere condolences are extended to his family.
Promising junior tennis player, Tarlina Tipungwuti, has been selected to participate in the inaugural Goolagong National Development Camp. That camp has been designed by Evonne Cawley in conjunction with the Indigenous Sports Foundation to provide elite indigenous tennis players with the skills necessary to take the next step in their tennis career. The 12-year-old Tipungwuti was selected to participate after being identified by Evonne’s Getting Started program and following a series of good results at recent national tournaments. I congratulate Tipungwuti on her success thus far and wish her all the best for her future in the tennis arena.
I look forward to the official opening of the Renal Dialysis Unit at Galiwinku next week and congratulate the community and the Galiwinku Health Centre in supporting this important initiative. It enables family members to be trained as carers in the unit, allowing the patients to remain in the community during treatment. My thanks to Health Ministers who have seen that project through to fruition.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, tonight I probably contribute a very unusual debate, and that is because an election is pending this year. I might be premature, but only time will tell, so I thought I would take the opportunity to put a few things on the record.
Tonight could be the last night of sittings for me because I am not contesting the next election. I might be proven wrong; I may be back here in June facing the government and asking questions on estimates. I hope I am because there are many questions to be answered, particularly by the Treasurer. However, I will take a gamble. I am not usually a gambling man, although I will put on the record that I have had a bet with one of your colleagues, the member for Johnston, with whom I placed a $10 bet last August in this House. The nature of the bet was when the election would be, and I said I would put $10 on it being in the first week of June. Perhaps I will be wrong. Perhaps I will be right – who knows?
However, I thought I would deliver a few thanks to people who have travelled a journey with me over my last 11 years in parliament and, if it turns out that I am wrong, I will do it again in June, and I might even do it again in August. I have a feeling in my bones, and I always go with gut feeling and have seldom been proved wrong, so I will go with the gut feeling and make this speech tonight.
I know the Labor Party has a fundraiser on the weekend. I am sure all of you will be going on Saturday night. I understand Peter Beattie is coming and that it is about $500 a seat. I wish you well in raising some money. I know Alf Leonardi is ringing around, madly trying to get people to come along. People are ringing people all around Darwin saying: ‘I have a spare seat at my table. Will you come?’ and they are saying: ‘Hang on. I have a table. Will you come to my table?’. So there is a lot of shuffling going on. My estimate is that you will probably raise about $40 000 nett, which is not a bad sort of a function, and good on you. I hope Peter Beattie is a part of that function; I know you brought him up last election.
Everything that is going on at the moment points towards a pending election: the signing off, either tomorrow or early next week, of the waterfront financial closure augers quite well for the start of a campaign for the Labor Party. I say: bring it on, not just for my own sake, but because the CLP is ready to take it on. I should probably not tell you this, but any …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Barry Coulter once said that, if you tell a secret, just tell it to one person at a time and it is not a secret any more. So I will tell you one person at a time. That is that the – no, I will not go there.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I place on the record, after 11 years in this parliament - and that is why I picked the first week in June, 4 June, because that will be my 11-year anniversary in this parliament – my thank to the Clerk and all the staff in the Legislative Assembly, who are such a fantastic unbiased support, and always confidential and willing to help individual members to meet the challenges that are put before them. Without that support, members would not be able to rise to the occasion. I put on the record that support to the very many people, without going through them individually, because that would take all night. Certainly, without them we, as members, could not function properly. To all of the staff who have worked for me over the period, whether they are electorate staff, have been ministerial staff, have been Chief Ministerial staff, or been drivers, I appreciate the work they have done - very professional in the delivery of their services, and certainly makes the job easier when you are either in your electorate office or your ministerial office.
My colleagues, it has been a great ride. I have had many colleagues over 11 years. Some are not here any more, unfortunately. All of them were great colleagues on both sides of the House. I remember very fondly people like Wesley Lanhupuy whom I went to school with and who was a member of this House and has since passed away. Also people like Marshall Perron, Shane Stone, Daryl Manzie, Barry Coulter, Mike Reed – the whole lot - and obviously my current colleagues; it has been a great ride and a great journey. I look forward to the day when my colleagues in this House sit on the other side again as government.
To my family, my children, my wife, who have been a great support. As we all know, they have a very difficult part to play in the life of politics. They get dragged hither and thither to attend things and give up so much for the sake of the elected member. The expectations of the community are that the family will be there supporting their partner, or their father, or whatever the situation is. My family have done that unfailingly.
To the electorate of Daly, previously the electorate of Victoria River, it has certainly been an honour and a privilege. Certainly, when you get re-elected time after time – and I have been re-elected to the sear for three terms now – it is a real honour. Nobody has held the seat of Daly for more than two terms in the history of self-government, and I have been fortunate enough to hold it for three terms. Perhaps it is time for me to go anyway, because I have been pushing the envelope a little, but you only remain in a seat because of the trust and the relationship that you build with the people of the electorate. Certainly, I have been very fortunate in building very good relationships with those people, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
I have made some great friends and great colleagues. Obviously, there are people who give you a hard time, but they do it for good reason and that is because they have issues, and you work through the issues with those people and you end up creating some very good friendships and bonds.
I may be wrong, but this might be my last night and I place on the record my sincere thanks to all of those people, to the CLP, of course, for giving me the opportunity. It is a great party that truly does represent the people of the Northern Territory. It is a born and bred party, and I have been honoured and privileged to serve for them and with them. I served prior to becoming a member as a general party hack, as all these things start, and then later having the privilege of becoming a pre-selected candidate and finally a member and serving the last 11 years for the Territory.
Last, but not least, the Territory is what we all strive to do the right thing for. I believe it is a great place, obviously, because I was born and bred here. We all need to look after it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Timothy Denney Baldwin, born in Darwin and represented a Katherine seat. I was born in Katherine and represent a Darwin seat. We often used to talk about the irony. It was not for the want of trying; I did stand for the seat he stood for and I was unsuccessful. I was beaten by a fellow called Gary Royce Cartwright.
Tim is right. It was held by the Leader of the CLP. The seat of VRD was held by Goff Letts and was lost to a fellow called Jack Doolan. I can recall talking to Dennis Bree, who was the President of the Labor Party, and he said: ‘Jack came in and said: “I’ve got that seat,” and they said: “Good on you, Jack, keep at it”.’ He was standing against the Leader of the CLP. So they appeased Jack and said: ‘Silly old bugger,’ and out he would go again. He won it! And they said: ‘God, Jack! You’ve won the seat’ and he said: ‘Yes, I kept telling you and you did not believe me’. After that, it was won by Terence Robert McCarthy and after that, it was won by Labor.
This is the most volatile seat probably in the Northern Territory legislature. It has gone from CLP Leader to ALP to CLP to ALP to Tim holding it for the last three terms. It is a highly volatile seat and Tim understates because it is a massive seat. When I stood for it, it went from the sea quite close to Darwin down to Renner Springs and from the Western Australian border across, and a lot of that was my heartland. I had worked and served in many of those areas. It was a rare human being who had been to all of those places at once. It was only public servants who went to those places.
Tim got out there and won it. He beat a Labor incumbent and he beat him because Aboriginal people, particularly, could see what he offered. It is a hallmark of the CLP, even though people – the word ‘Tory’ was used today. Tory is a bizarre and offensive word meaning you are some sort of silver tail, but Timothy Denney Baldwin was an electrician. He went to Darwin High, grew flowers, caught buffalo, and worked in a pub. That is us; we represent the working people, and we are quite proud of saying that. We represent the people who work with cattle, and on the decks of boats, down in mines and driving trucks. That is who we represent and we are quite proud of it.
While people might like to pretend that our distant relations, the Conservatives down south - and they are relations, I will not deny that, but neither will I say we are replicas – we are successful because we put up candidates like Tim Baldwin. He is a local bloke. Most of his drinking mates who are close to politics are on the other side. The drinking mates that a young Tim Baldwin sauntered around this town with are the pseudo-Communist Socialists and Marxists who have found their way into the other side of politics.
We know where we are from. We know what we do. We know what we stand for. What marks us is a passion for this place; a powerful passion for the Territory. In Tim’s case, it covers generations: his father and his mum, who has passed away, and his kids. It is a powerful passion. That is why when we go out to fight, we will fight hard and we will take on the case. I will be sad to see this bloke go. I have known him for a while. I helped him with his first campaign when he won, and I went out with his mum and dad and aunty, and we went to places and handed out How to Vote cards. It was amazing how many Aboriginal people knew his dad because this is a tiny village. It is getting bigger, but to the old timers, it is still a pretty small place.
We hope that what Tim offered us, he can continue to offer us in his support. That will be in savvy, smarts, training, advice, bludgeoning us, cajoling us, and I know he will do that because he ain’t going nowhere. This is home and this is where he will live. I look forward to that help because we will need it. We will need it if we are in opposition and we will need it if we are in government.
The repertoire of skills that this bloke has might be the edge. We might be looking for a couple of hundred votes somewhere, and it could be that that is delivered by people like Tim Baldwin. It could be that the couple of hundred votes we are looking for in the one seat that wins us government comes because someone went to school with him or knows him or understood what he did. That is how close this election will be. I agree with Tim; tonight is a night to say that the next time we muster in this place, there could be a different government. Whether it is ALP or CLP, it will be different persona, there is no doubt about it, because that is what our game does.
This is a hard game. This is a game that can hurt you and for people to come through like Tim, pretty much unscathed – he has a couple of little bumps and scars and a bit of gravel rash – it is a difficult business. It is a graveyard for relationships. I have worked close to this game and in it for a while, and it is very hard on our partners. So for Sandy, Reece, Warrick and Annalise, good on you! You did support him. I wish you well, Tim, and farewell.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I join with the member for Drysdale to say a few words about our departing member for Daly.
Mr Baldwin: I might be back.
Dr LIM: He might be back for another sitting. He and I were elected together 11 years ago, both of us a lot younger then than now.
Mr Elferink: Eleven years.
Dr LIM: Eleven years. It is a long time. It is a long time in politics and a long time in life. I can remember way back when I said to Tim: ‘You know, you will be a minister soon’, and in a few months he was there. Later, while I was Parliamentary Secretary, I watched Tim’s performance and ability, and I later said to him that he would soon be No 3 in Cabinet, and within months he was No 3. Watching his performance, he obviously had the capacity and ability, and those skills were recognised by the Chief Minister of the day.
In the time that he was a minister and a senior member of our wing, he had been a strong guiding light for many of us. His skills and strategic thinking has been marvellously and generously shared, and most welcomed from our perspective. We are going to miss you, Tim, when you go …
Mr Dunham: It is true.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Baldwin: Give me a reference.
Dr LIM: Yes, I am a sure you will be as close as a telephone call, but we are going to miss you and your input to our party wing discussions. Your calm and steadfast way of looking at matters has always been greatly appreciated by all of us. I can speak for the leaders I have worked with when I say that we all looked to you for a lot of advice, and I am sure we will be doing so in the future.
There is no need to go into the history of your life. The member for Drysdale has covered that fairly well, but what we need to do is set up a date on 4 June each year; we should all get together as we did last year at the Oriental Gourmet. We rang some of our former colleagues and had a great time together. We should do it again on 4 June this year if the election is not called for that day – or even if it is on that day, we should get on the phone together and celebrate the fact that we will probably win the election. That would be fantastic.
Tim, we will be sorry to see you go. As I said, many of us have really appreciated your advice and guidance all this time and, hopefully, from the sidelines we can still look forward to that.
Mr Mills: Should we have one minute’s silence now?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I contribute to tonight’s condolence motion. I am not going to bash on about Tim because I believe he has done a bloody great job and he has heard enough and it is late and we all want to go home.
I, like him, think that we are heading for the next election and before we come back to this place, there will be a new government formed. I deliberately waited to be the last speaker because I did this the last time immediately prior to an election and, at that time, it is important to state and write down your goals. Tim said, as he closed his speech, that the Territory is what we all believe in and that is why we are here. That is why I am here.
It is important to state your goals. My goal, unlike the member for Daly’s goal, is to return. The last words of the Eighth Assembly were my words when I said that I would be coming back, and everyone said: ‘Mate, you are stuffed!’ Well, I was stuffed the first time, stuffed the second time and maybe I will be stuffed the third time – who knows? That is up to the voters in the seat of Macdonnell, but to put it on the record and say the last words tonight’s parliament, in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: ‘I’ll be back!’
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Yes, I have an adjournment.
Mr Dunham: You gazumped us!
Mrs MILLER: No, no, I am an adjournment. He’ll be back.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I put on the record the success of the 2005 Katherine Country Music Muster, which was held over the May Day long weekend in the grounds of the museum in Katherine.
There is no doubt about it, the dream of having the premier Northern Territory Country Music Muster in Katherine is being realised with this year being bigger and better than the previous five years. The activities began on Friday, 29 April, with busking all day in the CBD. That night, there was the famous Aussie Pub Crawl, which included the Katherine Hotel Motel, Crossways Hotel Motel, Katherine Sport and Recreation Club, and Katherine Country Club. This year, the pub crawl was the biggest yet and the most popular, although I did not go.
On Saturday, 30 April, a Big Brekky in the town square began at 8 am with country music bands playing in the rotunda. There is nothing like a steak and sausage on the barbie in the cool morning air, with the happy country music keeping your toes tapping. The Jalyn Ford Beaut Ute Muster was held in the Katherine Hotel Motel car park, and well supported by the ute lovers, with categories being: the Most Feral, the Best Chicks Ute, the Best 4x4, the Best Street Ute, and the best B&S Ute. This fun event was followed by the Cavalcade Street Parade along Katherine Terrace which, of course, was very country themed, with horses and hay aplenty.
The official opening of the activities was conducted at the museum in the afternoon by His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan, who is also the patron of the Country Music Muster, and the Mayor of Katherine, Anne Shepherd. Ted, of course, entertained us all with a great song, and it was a great way to push the entertainment along. It was excellent to see the Minister for Sport and Recreation enjoying the atmosphere as well, and the entertainment and the people of Katherine really appreciated him attending. I believe they expect to see him there each year.
The entertainment continued non-stop all afternoon, with the main concert beginning at 6 pm. The atmosphere at the muster was very relaxed, with many families taking the opportunity to sit under those fabulous shady mahogany trees to be entertained. Several organisations had food and drink stalls in the grounds, so there was plenty to eat and drink while relaxing.
Sunday morning, the Bush Poets Breakfast started at 8 am, and walk-up poets were invited. This was followed by buskers, and I would like to include the names of the winners of the competitions on the weekend. For the busking competition, Marcus Bader, Donald Horan and Ben Coutts, Janzey Pratt and Troy Jameson, with Rachel McLennan receiving an encourage award. For the poetry, Ron Stevens from Dubbo, New South Wales, Veronica Weal of Mt Isa, and in the junior section, Renee Eitel from Biloela, Queensland and Hayden Riggs from Katherine, whose poetry was titled Summer in the Northern Territory.
At midday, the Territory Showcase Concert began and continued until the close of the activities after 10 pm. What a fabulous and eventful weekend it was for country music lovers, and the atmosphere was such that even people who are not normally great fans of country music were very much enjoying the atmosphere and the entertainment.
The entertainment was provided by artists such as Melinda Schneider, who won the Golden Guitar for Album of the Year, and the APRA Song of the Year 2005, Bella, of the Sensitive New Age Cowgirls, the Red Hot Poker Dots. At this stage, I will have to mention Lil’O’Dette who is such an interesting person to talk to, let alone look at. She has the most amazing absolutely bright red hair, and she is such a little dot and plays the bass guitar and she was just amazing. Grant Luhrs and the Chook Raffle Band, Royden Donahue, Stacey Morris, Keith Jamieson, Jeff Brown, Rob Luckey and the Lucky Bastards – and I am not swearing – Laura Downing, James Anderssen, Paul Wilson, the Toe Sucking Cowgirls, Chris & The Grey bush poets, Ray Cullen, Ray Cattermole and his Northern Territory Whiskey Creek Band, which included Ken Brodie, George Tumino, Geoff Cole, Yoris Wilson, Jackie Izod, and Katherine’s very own Katie Oliver. And last, but definitely not least, Gus Williams OAM.
The weekend could not have been as successful without the support from the Katherine community, and that support has been going on for the whole five years where, if people are not able to sponsor in money, they sponsor in-kind support. The Country Music Muster would not have been as successful and been able to run as long without that support from the community. I would like to recognise and acknowledge the sponsors who so willingly assisted. The Gold Sponsor is 106.1 ABC Katherine. Silver sponsors: Katherine Town Council; St Andrews Serviced Apartments; Carlton United; Channel 9 Darwin; Travel North; Imparja Television; Downes Graderways; Mac’s Hire Service; IBW Crane Hire; Allan King and Sons Constructions Pty Ltd; Canning Industries; Katherine Historical Society Inc; and Don and Anne Walsh.
The Bronze Sponsors included: The Auction Centre; Katherine Hotel Motel; The Cutting Edge; Sandy Taylor; Katherine Crash Repairs; Katherine Sport and Recreation Club Inc; On Site Refrigeration and Airconditioning; Pandion Haulage Pty Ltd; Parker Signs; Braycol Appliances; Nighthawk Couriers Pty Ltd; Bundaberg Rum; Trash and Treasure Market; Katherine Community Radio; Smorgon Steel Group Ltd; Territory Insurance Office; NORPLUMB; Jalyn Ford; Crossways Hotel Motel; and Katherine Country Club Inc. Other sponsores included Prime Industrial Rental; Radio Larrakia; and Web Page NT.
I also thank the Northern Territory government for the grant of $30 000 which acknowledges the importance of the muster. It is very much appreciated by the Katherine community.
In addition to the sponsors, the music muster would not be a reality without the tireless work that a very dedicated and committed group of volunteers put into making this an ongoing successful weekend. There are so many people whom I imagine this week are absolutely exhausted, as they all have other work commitments and did this organising purely on a voluntary basis. I hope that I do not miss anyone out, but I must put the following people on record as going above and beyond the call of duty: Shirley Canning, Kerry Deihm, Sharon Fullarton, Gayle Colvin, Toni Tapp Coutts, Simone Fishlock, Lionel Cole, Sandy Taylor, Sue Moran, Sandy Talbot, Katie Oliver, Keith Jamieson, Merv Webster and Rob Phillips.
In addition to those, I want to acknowledge the staff of the Katherine Historical Museum who prepared the grounds in such a magnificent way. There are too many to name tonight, but they know who they are and they are continually working around the historical museum and give up so much of their time to voluntarily keep the grounds so magnificent.
It was a fabulous job done by everyone and, as the program says, it is the only country music event of its kind in the Northern Territory.
I had several people approach me over the weekend, both entertainers and locals alike, who expressed concern that there was talk that the muster could be moved from the museum grounds next year to the Katherine Showgrounds. That would be a very unwise move because the atmosphere at the museum could not be re-created on an open sports ground. Part of the success of the Katherine Country Music Muster has been its location and I would not like to see it moved. I hope the committee for next year look long and hard at the proposed move from shady and friendly atmosphere as the museum grounds.
I would also like to talk about Anzac Day in Katherine. I was absolutely thrilled to see so many young people involved this year, far more than I have ever seen involved in Katherine. It gives me great hope for the future that the meaning of Anzac will not be lost. The number of people attending the Dawn Service, especially children including the Cantarbillay Choir – they had a huge number in the choir for the Dawn Service, so some of those young people were up at 4 am preparing for their performance.
We went to the RSL Club after the Dawn Service for the traditional breakfast, and it was certainly laid on at the Katherine Club, as it always is. Of course, the milk was spiced with rum, which I could not face at that hour of the morning, but the diggers and others who have such a strong feeling for Anzac Day did not miss out on their toddy.
For the parade in Katherine, we are very fortunate to have Tindal RAAF Base, and their representation in the march on Anzac Day is always very meaningful for me. To watch people marching whom I know so well, who either served in Vietnam or their fathers served in World War II, is also very meaningful; not just for me, but for everyone. The parade ended at the Memorial, which is just near the Katherine High Level Bridge, and the ceremony proceeded at 10 am with the wreath laying. All schools were involved in the wreath laying and, again, there was a record number of people in attendance. I was really pleased to see the number of people who took such a sincere interest in Anzac Day. Of course, we are also spoilt, as you would be in Darwin, to have FA-18s fly over and that is always exciting for everyone.
Following the 10 am service, people were invited back to the RSL Club and continued on with celebrations for the rest of the day. It was so nice to see the smiles on the faces of those people who really look forward to catching up with old friends once a year at the Anzac Day events and to commemorate what the Anzacs did for us to ensure that we have freedom, and to show respect for those who gave their lives for us.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I cannot let the member for Daly know, because I do not know, when the Chief Minister is going to call the election. However, given that the member for Daly tonight, essentially gave his farewell speech to the parliament, I would like to put on the record from this side of the House that we wish Tim Baldwin all the best for the future.
I do not know Tim very well, but I do know many people who do, and many of them are good friends of mine who went to school with Tim and have known him for many years. From what I know and from our mutual friends, the biggest tribute that he can leave this parliament after 11 years of serving the people of the Northern Territory is that all of us in the parliament – and we know that politics is a tough sport; it is a blood sport in many ways – know that Tim is a good bloke.
Tim is leaving pretty much unscathed and all 25 members think that he is a good bloke – I certainly do. This side of the House wishes him, if we do not see him back in combat in June, the best for his future life. As we move around the Northern Territory, we will be catching up and, more than likely, sharing a few beers. So, Tim, all the best for your future life.
Tonight, I pay tribute to a public servant who has just served for 40 years in the Northern Territory. As I have said before, it is very important that this House recognises public servants who have made a significant contribution. It is with pleasure tonight that I acknowledge 40 years of dedicated service to the Territory by the Director of NT Fleet, Mr Frank May. I am sure all parliamentarians will join me in acknowledging what a tremendous achievement this is and what a tremendous example he is to all Territorians.
Frank arrived in Darwin at Easter in 1965 for what was planned as a three-month stay as part of a working holiday around Australia. After a short stint with Coyles Engineering in McMinn Street, Frank started with the Department of Works base workshops at the 2 Mile on 11 May 1965.
The base workshop, operated by the Plant Branch of the Department of Works, employed 100 tradesmen, which included plant fitters, motor mechanics, engine reconditioning, auto electricians, machine shop, welders, panel beaters and an upholstery shop. After commencing in the heavy vehicles section tractor shop, Frank took on the role of field fitter, maintaining a fleet of earth moving and ancillary equipment on the various road building and maintenance projects throughout the Top End. This included a six-month stint at Gove in the construction of the ELDO Tracking Station during the 1965-66 Wet Season, where accommodation at the site was in tents. He was at the ELDO Gove site in February 1966 when the first pay in decimal currency was delivered.
After the stint as a field fitter, Frank was promoted to Plant Inspector, where he served in both the workshop and field positions for many years. After Cyclone Tracy, Frank was involved at the plant pool in the distribution of vehicles, plant and equipment to the many crews involved in the clean-up and reconstruction of Darwin. He was promoted to Senior Plant Inspector for the Northern Region in 1976, and was a compulsory transferee to that position within the Department of Transport and Works at self-government in 1978.
In 1979, Frank was promoted to the Northern Territory Electricity Commission as Transport Officer and was tasked with the setting up of the NTEC fleet. This including setting up of the Transport Workshop at Ben Hammond and the development of fleet management systems for NTEC throughout the Northern Territory. During that time, Frank was involved with the National Electricity Supply Association of Australia Transport Committee, and developed a network of other electricity suppliers and transport industry throughout Australia, and was promoted to the position of the Manager, Stores and Transport in 1982.
In 1985, Frank was enticed to take over the position of Fleet and Workshop Manager in the Department of Transport and Works, and this was the forerunner to NT Fleet as it is today. At this time, Frank was tasked with the job of rationalising workshop operations and to create a partnership with the motor industry through identifying those functions that could be outsourced. This required the creation of many contracts, especially covering the important repair and maintenance of both small and heavy vehicles.
In 1991, the Estimates Review Committee recommended the creation of a government fleet which would cover the centralisation of fleet management under a single authority, which would be tasked to operate on a commercial basis. Frank was involved in the steering committee that implemented the centralised fleet management function and, indeed, he came up with the name of NT Fleet, which is now an icon in the Territory’s motor industry.
Frank has, therefore, been in charge of NT Fleet since its inception on 1 July 1992 and has led this very successful government business division for the past 13 years. Frank’s involvement in the Territory motor industry is highly regarded, and he has built tremendous links with both industry and government agencies.
Frank is always available to provide advice and assistance for not only his clients, but also to industry. Frank’s face is well known at all government auctions, not only in Darwin, but in Katherine and Alice Springs.
Frank is a foundation member of the National Public Sector Fleet Managers Group, which was established in 1991, and is the only one of the original members still participating. Once again, this is evidence of Frank’s persistence and longevity.
Whilst I am talking about Frank as an important employee in the NT government, I must also refer to Frank’s magnificent involvement in the community. Frank May and Waratahs Sport Association are almost synonymous, and he has been a tireless worker for that organisation. His daughters are well known in the softball community, and opposition teams were always worried about ‘those May girls’.
Frank’s 40 years of service will coincide with his 63rd birthday, so there is a double celebration for him, his family and work colleagues. Frank has advised me that he fully intends to see out the next two years in this critical role before retiring on his 65th birthday on 12 May 2007.
I am also pleased that Frank has advised that he intends to retire in the Territory with his wife, Desley, together with his four children and many grandchildren. So, Frank, 40 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory is a huge testament. Congratulations, and all members of this House join with me and the government in thanking you for your service.
In this evening’s adjournment, I want to pay tribute to a constituent, Mr John Wellard, who passed away on 30 March this year. John Wellard was the only child of Frank and Sylvia Wellard. He was born on 27 July 1940 in England. John met his future wife Ann in Manchester in 1960.
John decided to migrate as a 10-pounder, and so applied for a position within the Australian branch of his company. This application was readily accepted, and he was guaranteed a job with AEI in Adelaide. Before departing England’s shores, John and Ann were engaged and so the test of their long distance romance was now in earnest. For two-and-a-half years, communication was mostly by mail. With telephone calls costing 1 per minute, these calls were kept necessarily brief, and were only made on special occasions.
After a year in Adelaide, John drove up to Katherine to take up a position as an electrician at the meatworks. When this work petered out during the Wet, he moved on to Darwin and got his first job when he stopped for a beer at the Parap Hotel. Later in 1965, he applied for a position as a Control Room Operator at Stokes Hill Power Station. After an appropriate amount of time, this entitled him to a house and so, in 1966, Ann set sail for Australia and John’s arms.
To Ann’s amazement, John had managed to arrange, from Darwin, their formal wedding, which was held just days following Ann’s arrival in Adelaide. In 1972, the birth of their much-loved daughter, Fonda, was celebrated at a ceremony at Nightcliff Beach, and then on Christmas Eve 1974, Cyclone Tracy caused damage to the home at 101 Bagot Road, but did not destroy it.
John’s employment was spent working with the Electricity and Water Supply Services, with many letterhead changes until his retirement in 1997. He realised the importance of electronics, and in the mid-1970s, studied electronics and communications at the then Darwin Institute of Technology. This study led him to his passion for computers and all things technical, especially his telemetry work at Hudson Creek.
John was an active member of the Darwin Sub-Aqua Club and 101 Bagot Road was a social meeting place on Friday nights where you got your air tank filled. Since the 1970s, John was interested in solar energy in all of its forms and, being a person with drive, he and Ann set about assisting with the formation of the NT branch of the society. Later, John took part in all of the World Solar Car Challenges until ill-health kept from the last one.
In the first challenge during 1987, he was a member of the NTU’s Desert Rose team and, in subsequent challenges, he was an official observer recording times, penalties and ensuring the road safety rules were kept. He liked the interaction of overseas teams, the camp site stories and he got to know the Stuart Highway pretty well. John also helped form the Australian Institute of Engineering Associates and enjoyed the monthly lunchtime lectures at Engineers Australia. The Royal Commonwealth Society also became an important part of his life and, as the Top End Herb Group’s magazine editor, he taught himself computer-generated display layouts. John was a kindly and thoughtful man and will be sadly missed by his family and friends.
I have known John all the time I have been member for Wanguri. He was certainly a person who dropped into my office on many occasions, using the facilities of the office. I enjoyed many long and thoughtful discussions with John on many issues. To Ann, his wife, I personally pay tribute to John. He has lived a very full and creative life. I am sure that honourable members will join with me in expressing our condolences to John’s wife, Ann, and his daughter, Fonda.
Vale, John Wellard.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 and Year 5/6 students from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by Wendy Williams, Catherine Olssen, Lesley Streeter, Denise Ryan and Dale Milne. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the government for lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm that this budget will go through the estimates process before the next Territory election and, thereby, failing to fulfil their 2001 election promise to provide open, honest and accountable government.
Madam Speaker, I am moving this censure motion …
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in responding, the government is reluctant; however, we will accept the censure motion. It is spurious and I want the Leader of the Opposition to get it over and done with as quickly as possible so we can get on with the real business of this House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
and Northern Territory Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
and Northern Territory Government
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censure the government for lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm that this budget will go through the estimates process before the next Territory election and, thereby, failing to fulfil their 2001 election promise to provide open, honest and accountable government.
The Leader of Government Business said: ‘I hope the opposition gets this censure motion out of the way quickly so that we can get on with the real business of parliament’. The real business of parliament is not listening to press releases coming from the government with little ability for the opposition to respond. The business of this parliament today is to put the Chief Minister on notice and give her the opportunity in this parliament - unfortunately and reluctantly by this censure motion - to finally give an undertaking to Territorians that she will live by that which she preaches; that is, a government that came to power on a mantra of open, honest, and accountable government. The Chief Minister needs to give an assurance today, before we go to the next election, that this budget that has been brought down by the Chief Minister two days ago goes through the full estimates process. That is the obligation and responsibility the Chief Minister has to Territorians, and the obligation and responsibility she is happy to fulfil.
I am hopeful that we can do what the Leader of Government Business says - get on with other business - because I would have thought a Chief Minister who was proud of the budget that she has just brought down, and of the fact that it will deliver what she preaches, would be quite happy to go to Territorians and say: ‘We will definitely go to estimates. I want to go to estimates because I want to make sure that Territorians and this parliament have every opportunity to question the budget process’.
It matters little to me, in fighting the next election, whether the Chief Minister calls the election today or tomorrow, or after the estimates process. The CLP will fight this election whatever situation is given to us. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Chief Minister is prepared to open her budget books for public scrutiny, and for the scrutiny of the parliament. I have made that request to the Chief Minister on a number of occasions. She has used weasel words on every occasion that she has been asked, to such an extent that even Imparja Television shoved the microphone in front of my face at the Alice Springs Cup saying: ‘The Chief Minister has given an undertaking that we are going to estimates’. I said: ‘Are you sure? I have raised this on a number of …’ ‘Yes, we are absolutely sure. We have it on tape. How do you respond to that?’ My response to that was: ‘That complies with the legal advice I was given’.
The legal advice I was given was that when the Chief Minister decides to call the election the first thing the Administrator has to ask her is: ‘Can you guarantee supply?’ If the Chief Minister cannot answer that question, there are real difficulties in the Administrator accepting that the government can go to an election. Apparently, that is the question the Administrator is required to ask. Therefore, on the advice that I have received for some time now, it is logical that the budget that has been brought down has to go through the full appropriation process before the next election, otherwise the CLP in government will have to bring forward another budget as quickly as possible in order to guarantee supply. That is the legal advice I was given.
I would have thought that those sorts of things would go through the mind of a responsible Chief Minister coupled with the fact that: ‘I am proud of my budget; I am in government’. Why isn’t it an easy answer to give? Why do we have to continually try to play games with what I believe is the central responsibility of government; that is, that you are charged with responsibility for the taxpayers’ purse.
You have brought forward a budget that has various figures in it, one page on which we have already established you cannot add up, but we are assured these are minor typographical errors. We have a range of questions that need to be asked, not only in relation to this budget but also on a range of other issues associated with this budget that have arisen directly or indirectly. I can go through them, and I forewarned the Chief Minister of many of those issues last night. We are in an atmosphere whereby the debate in the streets is: will the election be called today? Will the election be called next week?
I want to give the Chief Minister this opportunity to dispense with this censure motion quickly, to re-establish some sense of credibility, integrity and honesty, to probably get back, in part, to that mantra of open, honest and accountable government, and say: ‘Yes, I give an undertaking we will be going to estimates before the next election.’ Then everyone would know where they stand. I would think that is what the public service would need to know because of the enormous amount of work the public servants need to involve themselves in, in preparing for estimates, as is the responsibility of the government and independent members. An enormous amount of work needs to be done in preparation for ensuring that this budget is properly scrutinised in the way the public purse should be scrutinised in a similar way that every public company in Australia needs to have their books open and be accounted for. To not do so would put the Labor government, I believe, in a position going into the next election where no one could believe anything they say. I do not believe that is what the Chief Minister is going to do.
I believe, logically, we will go to estimates and, therefore, the election will be called after the estimates process. This censure motion gives the Chief Minister the opportunity to simply lay that on the record.
It is worth reminding the Chief Minister that, if she looks at her policy in 2001 in response to good government, her mantra was one of open, honest and accountable government. Her mantra was one of believing that we should have fixed, set terms. I notice in government they quickly moved away from that and they are looking for every opportunity to try to trick everyone as to the election date, something that they thought was not so great when the CLP was in government.
There is more to this censure motion than simply the budget being interrogated at estimates. The word on the streets is that financial close to the waterfront project could occur within the next few days. I asked a series of questions yesterday of the Chief Minister with regards to the waterfront project, questions that the Chief Minister could not answer.
Ms Martin: Rubbish!
Mr BURKE: We find at about 11 o’clock last night …
Ms Martin: Just because you will not listen does not mean I did not answer.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says: ‘I could answer it’. If you look at the Hansard transcript, you had no idea of what was going on at the Development Consent Authority yesterday to such an extent that someone jumped on the phone and said to ABN Amro: ‘You had better knock out some sort of a press release in clarification so that we can recover some ground on what is happening with this waterfront development,’ on one issue, and that is whether there is a lock and a marina in this development …
Ms Martin: What did I say in the parliament three, four, five times? There is a lock, there is a lock, there is a lock.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister has said there is a lock in the waterfront development.
Ms Martin: There will be a lock.
Mr BURKE: There will be a lock. Whether there is a lock in the waterfront development, what the Chief Minister needs to accept is that there is absolute confusion out there as to what exactly this waterfront project is going to comprise at the end of the day. That confusion has been added to by the obfuscation of the Chief Minister under this guise of commercial-in-confidence. Remember what commercial-in-confidence meant to the Chief Minister when she was the Leader of the Opposition? ‘I believe everything should be open. I believe nothing should be commercial-in-confidence’.
The Parliamentary Record is there for anyone to read. When she was the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister’s position on commercial-in-confidence was that it did not exist as far as she was concerned. Now, under this guise of commercial-in-confidence, Territorians are being asked to accept a waterfront proposal based on the utterances of the Chief Minister that this will be good for the tourism industry, good for Territorians and, if anyone has the gall to question any of this development, they are un-Territorian and anti-development, and that is the stone cold end of it.
That is not good enough. That is not good enough for a development that has gone from a price of $1bn in the Chief Minister’s mind to $1.3bn; a development that shows, on the Chief Minister’s plans and models, yachts sailing happily past the convention centre, seemingly getting there somehow under her model, under a waterfront …
Ms Martin: Is this a censure to do with this, which is inarticulate, or is it something else? Come on!
Mr BURKE: … under a waterfront plan that shows little boats in the Stage 1 development marina.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have interrupted the business of the parliament; there is important legislation to introduce. The censure motion goes to the issue as to whether the budget will go to the Estimates Committee process. What the waterfront has to do with this censure motion, I find very hard to read because it is not mentioned. The motion is about open, honest and accountable government in regards to the government’s budget. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to get his censure motion over and done with so that we can get on with the business of the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, surely the Leader of Government Business is not suggesting for one second that the waterfront development should not be subject to the scrutiny of the estimates process. If he is, then we are right on target with this censure motion. It is exactly the sort of thing we are talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you know what your censure motion is and you are talking very clearly about the government lying to Territorians for refusing to confirm the budget will go through the Estimates Committee. That is what you should be speaking to.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I always stand ready to be assisted by you. However, I refer the government to their own budget papers, comments which are in those budget papers, and where there is confusion in the public’s mind as they relate to those comments. They are the issues that I am talking about, which are directly related to this censure motion.
That the Leader of Government Business made such a point of order makes one wonder if the government has read their own budget papers, because the Treasurer had not read them closely enough to pick up typographical and adding up errors that we picked up within about an hour-and-a-half of the budget being laid down. When it comes to the waterfront project …
Mr Henderson: What are we supposed to do? Sit there with a calculator and go through all the papers?
Ms Martin: Like you did. Syd should have added all of those together.
Mr BURKE: When you finish your childishness over there, I will continue.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the waterfront project …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Let us get on with it.
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the waterfront project, I refer the government to Budget Paper No 2, page 86, where there are three pages devoted to the development of the waterfront project, and the issue of the lock falls in the context of the budget papers announcing what is community infrastructure. We note that, in community infrastructure, the government includes a sea wall, extensive boardwalks, children’s playgrounds, swimming facilities, wave pool, a new cruise ship terminal at Fort Hill Wharf, and an avenue of honour. No mention of a lock. No mention of a marina …
Ms Martin: Stage 2.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that is Stage 2; we will get to that in a second.
Wouldn’t you have thought, where the lock and the marina and the little boats sailing past the convention centre features so strongly in all of the documentation that has been put out by government, that we would have some definition of where the lock appears as a community asset?
Ms Martin: No, it is not being paid for by us.
Mr BURKE: It is a commercial infrastructure asset, is it, Chief Minister? Aha! It is a commercial infrastructure asset, it is not a community asset.
Ms Martin: No.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister has now said in parliament - in fact, the Chief Minister is backed up in that by your own budget papers, under community infrastructure, we have seen that the lock has disappeared. It is no longer community infrastructure.
Ms Martin: It is community infrastructure.
Mr BURKE: We look for the lock, and under Property Development we find that the consortium ‘will develop the commercial aspects of the site over time and in accordance with market demand’. So, when it comes to the lock, a marina, and what I and any reasonable Territorian would have thought, was an essential community asset for this wonderful infrastructure project - so important that private developers put it in Bayview, Cullen Bay and Tipperary as a matter of course - that you wonder why it does not appear at all and a wave pool seems to have assumed greater importance.
You then find that anything that could be remotely associated with a lock falls under Property Development, which the consortium will develop the commercial aspects over the site and in accordance with market demand. Then, if you attended the Development Consent Authority meeting yesterday, the consortium said, after questioning, with regards to a lock, ‘we may come back later and excavate; discussions are still under way’.
So we are going to retrofit a lock. I reckon if you walk out to anyone out there and say: ‘How do you do something in the most expensive way?’ They will say: ‘Retrofit it’. The question that was asked yesterday, the answers we are trying to get from the Chief Minister are: where exactly is this waterfront project going? Where is the definition of what exactly is going to be there? What does this sea wall encompass? Does the sea wall encompass only Stage 1 of the development, or does the sea wall encompass all stages of the development? Will there be a lock in this development as a community asset, or will it be something that the consortium, by their comments yesterday at the Development Consent Authority, will put in if they feel like putting it in and in accordance with market demand at the time? The central issue is, these are questions that need answering, and they certainly need answering before this government goes to financial close on this project.
We have also seen models where, as I said, yachts are sailing happily past the convention centre, and the assessment simply is, if they are sailing past the convention centre, they have to get there somehow. What do we find the Development Consent Authority is presented with yesterday - sprinklers on chains, and buoys, aerating Stage 1. Do you know why? Because there is no other way of aerating it and keeping the water pure. When asked about the purity and quality of the water in the lagoon that they are constructing in Stage 1, the answer was: ‘We will commence assessing water quality after financial close’. That is one question that we need answering.
There are a number of questions we need to get clarity on behalf of Territorians. When is financial close going to occur? Why should financial close occur until these questions are properly answered from the public’s point of view and, certainly, the opposition’s? The opportunity to answer those questions will occur in the estimates process and, therefore, why do you need to have financial close with these unanswered questions prior to the estimates process?
You can bludgeon on, you can go to financial close but, certainly when it comes to the importance of the unanswered questions and the way this project has changed in its definition, it is a mess, it is a confusion in the public’s mind, and to go to financial close with that confusion is a disaster when you consider the Territorian taxpayers’ money is being tied up for the next 10 years. We have plans for the Northern Territory and we want to ensure any development of the waterfront fits in with our plans to develop the Northern Territory to the capacity that it can achieve, and not a contingent liability on the taxpayers’ purse. On the information that has been provided so far, there are extremely worrying signs about the contingent liability on the taxpayers’ purse.
Lying! Let us talk about lying. The Chief Minister came into this House last night and defended the member for Arnhem with regards to …
Ms Martin: I did not! An opinion, an opinion. Very clearly. Look at the Hansard.
Mr BURKE: … the investigation in the Ombudsman’s report of the gifting of a Land Rover to traditional owners. In her response, the Chief Minister was quite …
Mr Ah Kit: So, it is a Land Rover now, is it?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I again refer you to the motion that is before this House at the moment, that talks about the government lying to Territorians by refusing to confirm the budget would go through the estimates process. This issue in regards to the Land Rover was debated at length in this House yesterday. We are suspending the business of the parliament to debate this motion. This is going over old ground that was debated in full in here yesterday. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to get this censure back on the content of the motion before the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, how are you tying this in with the Estimates Committee?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking the Leader of the Opposition; it is his censure motion. Could you say how are you tying it into the Estimates Committee?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the …
Madam SPEAKER: That is what we are talking about - going to estimates.
Mr BURKE: The minister’s department will front the Estimates Committee and will, logically, be faced with questions with regards to the gifting of this Land Rover. Part of the basis of those questions will be the Ombudsman’s report, the answers to which we did not get and have not received in any debate in this House so far. That is my rationale.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Keep going.
Mr BURKE: What we have received, Madam Speaker, is misinformation from the Chief Minister in her defence of the minister with regards to that report. The Chief Minister referred to a report of the …
Ms Martin: I did not! An opinion that I received from the Auditor-General – an opinion!
Mr BURKE: … Auditor-General. You referred to …
Ms Martin: An opinion!
Mr BURKE: … ‘I referred the report to the Auditor-General and he has responded to me. I am quoting with his permission, thank you. The Auditor-General has said there was not a breach of the Audit Act …
Ms Martin: Okay. And I refer to an opinion, so do not verbal me!
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, anyone who reads the Hansard transcript, or who listened to the statement that the Chief Minister made in saying she would refer this matter to the Auditor-General, would logically have understood that the Chief Minister was making a proper reference to the Auditor-General. You can weasel out and say you did not mean that or did not do it, but I am saying to you what any logical person would believe.
Further to that, the Chief Minister has asserted that, not only was a proper reference made to the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General has reported in accordance with that reference, she somehow has that report and she is reporting on that report. Madam Speaker, that is a lie. That is a lie and, if anyone is being verballed it is the Auditor-General because, if a reference is done in accordance with the expectations, I would assume, of the Auditor-General, it would be done under section 14 of the Audit Act. Section 14 of the Audit Act requires the Auditor-General, by direction of the Chief Minister, to conduct an audit on a particular issue - not a general issue, on a particular issue - to use the full powers that the Auditor-General has under section 14, with the legal responsibility to report back to this parliament, not the Chief Minister, on the full extent of that investigation.
The Chief Minister came into this House yesterday and tried to con Territorians that that is what had occurred: the Auditor-General had completed his report and it was all over.
I can tell you that I spoke to the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General’s comments to me were that he had established this much in his conversations with departmental officers: that there was a meeting in a pub between the minister and individuals. After that meeting there was a clear understanding from everyone - departmental officers, TOs and the minister - when they left the pub the Land Rover was going to be given to individuals. The minister asked the department to sort it out. The department looked for a way to achieve that and the answer was that they would agree to give it to the council which would be gifted further on to the traditional owners.
Mr Ah Kit: Up until yesterday it was a Toyota not a Land Rover. You changed it overnight.
Mr BURKE: Big deal. The simple facts are that the Auditor-General to date has only interviewed some departmental officers, has been made aware that there is a police investigation in train, has hobbled his investigation till that police investigation is completed, and when he gets the police report he will decide what further steps he will take. In a briefing note to Cabinet, words from the Auditor-General were the words that the Chief Minister used to filibuster yesterday; and that is to suggest that an investigation that had only reached a certain stage was over, complete and the minister had been totally cleared of any wrongdoing, and there was no more of an issue to be attended to - which is absolutely wrong and goes to the heart of where this government stands.
What can we believe about this government? We are being asked to accept the budget and go to an election with no knowledge as to whether we are going to estimates. We are being asked to accept the $1bn waterfront proposal which is changing on a daily basis; where there is confusion in the public’s mind; where there is no definition as to what the project will actually end up like; where central assets to that proposal appear to be in the hands of developers if they want to look at it in a retrofitting manner at a later date, which is what was said. We have issues of environmental quality on that waterfront development which the government, in their own budget papers, has said the contingent liability on those issues cannot be determined at this date, and the developers say they will not even look at some of those issues in detail until after financial close. We have the Chief Minister coming in here trying to suggest that a statutory officer, an independent officer of this parliament, has completed an investigation and he has not.
We have to ask ourselves: can we possibly believe anything that this government says?
That is what I am saying; that is what the motion is. It asks the Chief Minister to give a clear undertaking to go to the estimates process and to answer those questions, just to name a few.
Another question I want answered is why the Chief Minister continues to deceive this House and Territorians regarding spending of taxpayers’ money on special purpose grants. This was a grant - one I could give an example of – which was to get Mr Big Pants and Mistress Natasha into the Northern Territory. In response to that, the Treasurer said he has no responsibility for those grants; these are done independently of him …
Mr Stirling: That is not true at all; I have signed them off.
Mr BURKE: … and then when someone reminded him of that, he actually signed off on those grants, he said: ‘Oh, I signed off …
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: What we want to do, Treasurer, is to make sure, through the estimates process, just what grants you have signed off on; whether Mr Small Pants has also come up here as well as Mr Big Pants. Mistress Natasha and all her clan might have come up here for all we know. We want to know where your special purpose grants have actually been spent, and whether those grants have been spent in accordance with the taxpayers’ and your responsibilities.
We also want to know in estimates how you are spending the Prime Minister’s money. I checked with the Prime Minister’s office yesterday because in response to the question as to why you are paying 16-year-olds to attend sessions on ecstasy, the answer was: ‘It is a Prime Minister’s program’. The answer in this House was ‘It is a Prime Minister’s program’.
Mr Henderson: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mr BURKE: I heard.
Ms Lawrie: No, it is a Commonwealth program. Don’t twist things.
Mr BURKE: Prime Minister’s program – check the Hansard.
Mr Henderson: The Australian Institute of Criminology, Drug Use …
Mr BURKE: I want to ask questions as to how the Prime Minister would view the fact that you are paying drug users Commonwealth money to attend sessions. I would have thought the Prime Minister, like myself, would logically say: ‘One thing you are going to achieve is put more money into drug users’ hands to allow them to buy more ecstasy’.
I want to know what is happening with the 100 000 tourists who have not come to the Northern Territory and the estimated loss of those tourists of about $80m to the Territory economy. We have a whole range of questions to ask about the giving away of the parks estate and at what cost that will be to Territorians. We have a whole range of questions relating to the extensions to Alice Springs Hospital and where the liability for the contractual arrangements actually falls; how much information the government had in its own hands with regards to the extensions to Alice Springs Hospital.
We want to know why in Tennant Creek basic medical services cannot be delivered, why 140-odd people are pulled off the street in one night. When I go down there, they say: ‘Don’t go out in the street of a night because you will be shocked by what you will see’. You cannot have a birth in Tennant Creek; you have to go to Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, these are some of the issues that demand the Chief Minister goes to the estimates process. These are questions that I would have thought the Chief Minister would happily answer in such a process prior to the election, rather than trying to filibuster in this House. I have given her the opportunity to respond quickly and unequivocally that she will go to the estimates process. I look forward to her response.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I reiterate that a censure is the most serious motion in this House and …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the censure is the most serious motion you can bring into this House. If the Opposition Leader was serious about a censure, he would have prepared something rather than deliver the half an hour of incoherent ramblings that we have just heard - half an hour of incoherent ramblings based on a censure motion that does not make sense. If this is the seriousness with which the opposition is raising these issues, it is very hard for it to be taken seriously because it is such a rabble. It is such a hotch-potch of …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: What we have from the Opposition Leader is what we have heard consistently in here. The Opposition Leader makes things up, mishears things, they then become facts in his mind and then he says: ‘You are wrong’.
Let us take one example from yesterday. He said I refused to answer the question about the lock. I would like to refer to Hansard. I was on my feet a number of times saying there will be a lock on the waterfront. We still have the Opposition Leader saying (1) that I refused to answer the question; and (2) it won’t be there. How do you deal with someone like that in a parliamentary context? I say to our students: how do you deal with someone who makes things up and then alleges them as facts? It is very difficult.
I say to the Opposition Leader: our primary school students are very keen on this, but you get your facts right, deal with issues, deal with the reality of them, not the things that you make up and maybe read in fantasy novels or get out of Harry Potter. I suspect it has more to do with Harry Potter, whom I love, I think he is terrific. However, it is not really the way to do something in a parliamentary context.
I hate to sound condescending, but this whole censure motion is a load of rubbish.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We had the Opposition Leader put 50 questions. There were 50 questions that he put and said: ‘I demand that the government answer them’. I could have given him half of those in media releases which answer them, and the others are probably on the public record in some form or other. We have a very lazy opposition which either makes things up or does not read what is on the public record. Of those 50 questions - all good questions - most of them have been answered. If this opposition was so concerned about the issues they are raising in here today, most of which are misguided, I must say, where are the matters of public importance you could raise in this House? Where is the strategy in Question Time to really delve down and get answers on those? Not there! It is not there; it is missing.
You come in here and start the day by saying: ‘I am going to have a censure motion’. Disorganised, and a hotchpotch of things that are not based in fact.
I just say again …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: How many times do I have to say? Are you saying I am a liar?
Mr Dunham: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: I am saying the lock is in the waterfront. I have said it again and again. The lock is in the waterfront. I have to deal with the waterfront because it is a wonderful project. When our young Territorians can experience new things at the waterfront like a wave pool and safe swimming areas, you will love it too. You will not be that much older before you can do it, in about three years time. It will be fantastic. Lovely to have you here today.
The Opposition Leader has read pictures of the waterfront the wrong way round. I do not believe he has even been to look at the model. It is only out at Casuarina, you could go out there and take a look at the model because, in its essence, the model is what the waterfront is. Of course, once you have a master plan, which has public consultation, and then you go down to detailed design and the development of that, there will be some minor adjustment. That is what we saw in the Development Consent Authority yesterday, a minor adjustment.
It was responding to concerns, both from the Defence Forces, the Navy and the Port Corporation, about the amount of turning space they had in that open water behind Stokes Hill Wharf between it and the sea wall. Of course, we responded in that detailed design phase to get a bit more room so, therefore, in a minor variation before the Development Consent Authority, the sea wall had to be adjusted - a minor variation. From a minor variation, suddenly you have the Opposition Leader saying: ‘We are not going to have a marina. We are not going to have a lock’. Get your facts right. This is a Development Consent Authority process. They deal with minor variations in projects like this and projects right across the Territory.
I put on the record here that we are moving towards financial close. Details will be given to the public and we will give details to the opposition, of course. There will be a lock, it is a part of the second stage of development, and it is part of the private sector’s contribution to public infrastructure. That is the case. I will say it again, because the Opposition Leader likes to verbal: the lock is part of private investment in public, community infrastructure in the second stage, and it is a very healthy contribution to private enterprise community infrastructure in the second stage of the waterfront development. It is terrific. We have a major private sector operator who believes in the future of Darwin and he is prepared to put tens of millions of dollars into community infrastructure. Hallelujah, I say, let us rejoice. And we have the Opposition Leader being churlish and surly about it.
On the issue of the marina, the Opposition Leader looks at pictures and says: ‘Where are my boats?’ There will be five hectares of marina. We will probably have the Opposition Leader saying: ‘She has it wrong’.
Mr Dunham: How are you going to get in, with a big crane? Unbelievable.
Ms MARTIN: There will be a lock; there will be five hectares of marina. It is all very well for the member for Drysdale to say ‘unbelievable’, but let me tell you who the member for Drysdale and the Opposition Leader are offending in their attitude. Let us just talk about Sitzlers, who are dead keen on this project. Let us talk about someone like Dick Guit, from Barclay Mowlem who is dead keen on this project and looking forward to many years of work.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, cease.
Ms MARTIN: Michael Sitzler is telling lies then? Michael Sitzler is unbelievable? So is Steve Margetic, when you come to Sitzlers? That is the case? That is what you are saying here? The private sector has embraced this project and is committed to what was in the master plan.
Let me tell you about the other offence that you give directly to McMahon NT, the old Henry Walker Eltin. Robert Wilson and his team are right behind this project waiting to see it happen; waiting to see it start. When you stand here and say: ‘You are lying to us, Robert, Steve, Dick, Michael, you are lying to us about what is in the project’. Do not target me, tell them. Tell them, because this is about a lot of local firms. They are the major ones, but there are a lot of local firms, Connell Wagner and others, who are involved in this project and see it as a great project for Darwin. It is jobs for them, and private investment.
Let us get it straight about who you are accusing of lying here. I can cop it! That is fine! Go out there and tell Dick. Go out and tell Robert. Go out and tell Steve and Michael what you reckon about their project, because you cannot wait to come in here, as fast as your feet will take you and, like little termites, try to dig holes in a project that you really want to be honest about that you will not support. You do not want to support it; you are churlish and mean about it and you do everything you can to pull it down.
At least the former Opposition Leader was honest. The former Opposition Leader, the member for Blain, said: ‘We will scrap it. We would like a car park and a spire much better. We would not have the convention centre in it and we would not have that nasty private sector involved in it. No, take your jobs away, take your hundreds of millions of dollars away. We do not want you involved’. Now the current Opposition Leader says: ‘We do not like the project and if we get into government we will change it’. Let us tell the consortium that clearly. Let us go and tell Steve, Robert, Michael and Dick that you are determined to change the project; the project that they have put their heart and soul into and has had at least 100 people in detail involved in moving to financial close. You go and tell them that, when you get into government, you are going to change the whole thing.
Mr Dunham: Yes, but that would be a lie.
Ms MARTIN: That is what he said!
Mr Dunham: No! We want you to tell the truth! This is about you telling the truth.
Ms MARTIN: I will change it. If you go back to the Hansard this morning, that is what the Opposition Leader has said …
Mr Dunham: We need you to tell the truth! Are you going to go to estimates?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order!
Ms MARTIN: Let us just quote it directly; I took one of them down. The Opposition Leader said: ‘It is a mess’.
A member: Confusing.
Ms MARTIN: It is only confusing to you. That is the only one it is confusing, because you keep making things up. It is not confusing. This has a public process. Every single bit of the waterfront convention development will go through the DCA, which is what we saw yesterday. There was a small variation and, suddenly, we have the Opposition Leader say: ‘It is in a mess! It is in a mess!’
Mr Burke: How much marina is there again? How much?
Ms MARTIN: Five …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, just cease for a moment …
Mr Dunham: There is 20% less.
Mr Baldwin: You are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale and Leader of the Opposition, we did listen to the Leader of the Opposition in comparative quietness. We could afford the Chief Minister the same courtesy.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Opposition Leader has said this is a mess. There is no evidence that he has to show that it is a mess. The proper processes are being carried through with the DCA. Every single public requirement is being met; variations are dealt with slightly differently; however, all those processes are going through.
With an issue like water quality, I cannot account for what was actually said by one minor member of the consortium yesterday in front of the DCA. However, let me assure the House that the water quality will be managed in the same way that it is managed in Cullen Bay and in Tipperary Waters. We will establish a statutory authority to manage the waterfront area because the Darwin City Council, in their wisdom – well, I do not actually think it is wisdom, it is a missed opportunity for them - do not want to have to manage the waterfront. So, we will set up a statutory authority; water control will be their responsibility.
The details that the Henny Penny here hears - a little of something - and comes in and says: ‘The sky is falling in. It is a mess!’. The only confusion about this is in his own mind because he does not want to see this wonderful project for Darwin actually go ahead. That is it; trying to undermine, to damn in a half-clever way. He should be honest as the former leader was and just say that he would scrap it for your car park. Just say you would scrap it for a car park; that you do not want a convention centre, an exhibition centre, the community infrastructure that will provide such delight for the young students we just had here. Be honest about it.
As I have said a number of times, details will be given about all aspects of the project when we reach financial close. Those details will be given to the opposition and to the public. There are further details we will talk about after financial close. These are broad numbers in the budget. I will give those details after financial close.
I draw a comparison here, Madam Speaker, to another similarly sized development for the Territory which is the railway and the different attitude we heard from the then opposition and the now opposition about this project. We believed in the project. We got behind the government …
Mr Burke: Just prior to financial close!
Ms MARTIN: … we got behind the government. We could tell details of how much the former Chief Minister, the then railway spokesman, got behind you and you know that. You know that. We do not want to call it in detail here but we got behind the project because we believed in it. How starkly different is this opposition when it comes to a project as significant for the future of the Territory as this waterfront and convention centre development. It tells very poorly for them indeed.
There was a time when the CLP was a proud party. This is a shambles which does not even have a vision for the future of the Territory and cannot even admit when a project is visionary and get behind it.
Madam Speaker, as Chief Minister I have the call of when the election is and previous Chief Ministers have had exactly the same role. I will call the election when I chose. That is the right of the Chief Minister.
Let us look at the estimates process, which seems to be at the heart of this. When was this estimates process, that is now clutched to the collective bosom of the opposition, introduced? When was it introduced? I wonder. Under the former Country Liberal Party government? Did they reject it year after year as the then opposition called for it? That is the truth of the matter. You would have to call it hypocritical. Demanding an estimates process!
I will say two things: we will have an election before 15 October; and part of this budget process will be estimates. Okay? Two things. Part of the budget process will be estimates and we will have an election before 15 October.
To be accused of not having open, honest and accountable government, Madam Speaker; we introduced estimates. That is part of open, honest and accountable government. We introduced freedom of information which the CLP could not quite manage in 27 years! Ran a mile from it. Made tentative tilts of: ‘Oh, we might do it’, I think in the early 1990s, and then ran away! Ran away from it. We have introduced freedom of information legislation and privacy legislation. When it comes to having elections and redistributions, we introduced an independent process which the Country Liberal Party never introduced. This election, when it is held before 15 October, will be run by an independent Electoral Commissioner and I congratulate Bill Shepherd on winning that job.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, we have reformed parliament. It is now open and accountable in that the television cameras are here. The member for Macdonnell laughs but in terms of …
Mr Elferink: It is the biggest debacle!
Ms MARTIN: I sat in here for years with the whole day taken up by endless ministerial statements. You would be doing legislation at 11 pm. We have turned that around. Except for idle censures, we would be doing legislation now, important legislation for the Northern Territory. We have reformed the operation of parliament to make it more accountable in that way and where the time is spent.
This censure has no basis at all and we on this side of the House have probably given it far too much time as it is but, certainly, reject it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this government came to power on a promise of open, honest and accountable government. They are contractually bound to the people of the Northern Territory by the fact that they purchased the votes of Territorians with the promise that they would provide open, honest and accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. That was their mantra. They chanted it repeatedly, suggesting that there were all sorts of villainy being perpetrated by the former CLP government.
All we are asking from this Chief Minister is for a rock solid guarantee, a cast iron statement, that she will take this budget, this promise to the people of the Northern Territory that we are going to spend money in a certain way, to the estimates process so that we can test the quality of that promise. What do we get? Yes, there will be an estimates process, but what she does not say is whether there is going to be an election before or after that process. Whichever government is returned in the Northern Territory, should that occur, will be in an invidious situation because they have to reintroduce the bills and then go to the estimates process all before 30 June, otherwise government will lose supply. That means public servants will not be paid. That means that all of these things the government has promised in this budget will dry up into the ether because once we go to an election, the Notice Paper lapses and this Appropriation Bill evaporates.
The new government, whether it is them or us, has to reintroduce this bill. That means they may even have to rework the budget so there is no guarantee that what we have been shown is actually what is going to be spent in the year 2005-06. That is why we want to go to the estimates process: so we can lock in the budget, so that public servants can be paid, and all the promises that are in this budget can be adhered to. At the moment, there is no guarantee that this document is worth the paper it is printed on.
There are multiple reasons why we have to go to the estimates process in the pursuit of honest, open and accountable government. We have seen any number of reasons why we would like to examine this budget and how money in the last budget has been spent. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly about the issues surrounding the Toyota that was gifted. Yesterday we asked a simple question of the minister: will you put on the table a full and comprehensive list of all the money that you have spent on special purpose grants? How many vehicles have you purchased? Guess what! We got nothing. How is that honest? How is that open? How is that accountable?
In fact, what we had is the Auditor-General being verballed by the Chief Minister who, essentially, lied to this House saying that the Auditor-General had given him a clean bill of health. How incongruous was it that I walked into this Chamber and heard the Chief Minister saying that, after not 20 minutes before been in the lobby speaking to the Auditor-General who said to me: ‘I did not complete a report because I was waiting for the police to come back from Katherine to let me know what is going on’?
The Chief Minister has deliberately misrepresented the Auditor-General’s briefing to paint a whitewash over this minister, and this is the minister who met in a pub to organise the gifting of a Toyota. They are a few questions that might be important for the estimates process.
How much is the dirt file that this government is keeping on Territorians costing Territorians?
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, how much is it?
Ms Lawrie: You are kidding.
Mr ELFERINK: Get on your feet! Tell us how much it is. We will not hear the answer to that question. It is not until we get to the estimates process that it will become clear as to how much it is costing to keep Territorians listed as to what their political persuasions are and what public comments they are making, and those sorts of things.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Rubbish,’ says the minister. Rubbish! I will tell you something, minister: that dirt file is not an act of charity and it is being paid for by the taxpayer. It is being paid for by the taxpayer.
What about this Treasurer? This is a government, incidentally, which has a history of plagiarism in this place. We have seen the members for Sanderson and Johnston reading word-for-word the intellectual property rights of Irish law firms and the former minister Mick Palmer. All of those sorts of things go to the very integrity of this government, the promise for open, honest and accountable government. The Treasurer cannot even come in here without plagiarising my shirt.
The issue surrounding the waterfront has been made clear by the Leader of the Opposition. The issue is that there is mass confusion surrounding the waterfront. The Chief Minister has added to that confusion, and this is why we have to go to the estimates process. Not a couple of questions that we might happen to ask during Question Time, but a detailed examination of what is being proposed. And why do we need that? Well, think about it. Every time the Chief Minister makes an utterance in this House, she …
Mr Burke: It changes.
Mr ELFERINK: It not only changes - and I pick up the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition - but raises more questions. The Chief Minister said there will be five hectares of marina. Here is a question for the estimates process, because the Darwin Cove Consortium media release says: ‘The total area of the marina and lagoon is still considerable, about five hectares’. Well, if the marina is five hectares, how big is the lagoon – a fish bowl sitting in the CEO’s office?
This is the sort of thing that needs to be examined, and why does the Leader of Government Business say: ‘This has nothing to do with the estimates process, this is about the waterfront’. Well, I will give you 1.2 billion reasons as to why this has to go to the estimates process. I would like to know how much of that is actually from the private sector and how much of that comes out of Territory taxpayers’ pockets. If you say that is not a reason to go to the estimates process then I do not know what is. I really do not know what is, because there are Territory taxpayers who are going to be stuck in debt over this - placed in debt. No matter how much you want to justify that, the promise that was made by this government to Territorians was that they will eradicate debt.
In fact, we should be in surplus right now. Go back to the mini-budget of November 2001, with their projected growth rate of 5%. Well, they were in la la land, and we have the right to examine what has gone wrong on behalf of Territory taxpayers, and the place to do that is in the estimates process. ‘Oh,’ says the Chief Minister, ‘but we have introduced the estimates process’. I will tell you something: they have introduced an estimates process, but we had a more effective one, because we went into the committee stages in this parliament, and the only person who was answerable was the minister; not some public servant, as this government has a history spearing public servants, and dragging public servants into an estimates process. The minister who used to sit where the Leader of Government Business sits now used to occasionally take advice from public servants, but the buck stopped with the minister. And guess what? That minister could be examined at length until questions were exhausted. There was no opportunity for the minister to squib out. Now there are time limits, which are very restrictive on questions, and the process is actually less transparent.
‘Oh,’ said the Chief Minister when she was the Leader of the Opposition, ‘We are going to introduce freedom of information’. Freedom of information, under her comments when she was the Leader of the Opposition, was simply this, that everything would be subject to freedom of information legislation – everything; there would be no such thing as commercial-in-confidence. Well, have you seen the ‘freedom from information’ legislation that sits in the Northern Territory at the moment? I can tell you, there are more exceptions than there are rules in the freedom of information legislation. If you have tried to extract any information out of government, you run into the same opaque wall that Territorians have been running into ever since this government came into power.
They say that they have introduced transparency, well here is their big chance to make good on their promise. All the Chief Minister had to do was walk in here and say: ‘I guarantee, rock solid, that this budget, this promise, will go to the Estimates Committee before the next Territory election’, so that we can test it, put an acid test on this budget and find out what the government has done with its money over the last 12 months.
One question I would like to ask is: how much did it cost to get Mr Big Pants and Mistress Natasha up here? The fact is that this Treasurer and this Chief Minister promised Territorians that they were going to clean up the Community Benefit Fund. It was the fund that was abused by this side of the House; they were going to clean up, it was going to be arms length from government. ‘We are going to have nothing to with it’, they said. That was the impression that I, and every other Territorian, was left with until the radio interview the day after Mistress Natasha and Mr Big Pants came to the attention of Northern Territorians. The Treasurer sat there and said: ‘I go through these things vigorously’. That was a lie that they perpetrated to the people of the Northern Territory. I will tell you why it is a lie. I was honestly of the opinion that it was hands-off from government, but the Treasurer sits and goes tick, tick, tick, tick to each project that comes along.
Well, here are questions for the estimates process: how long has it been going on; how many projects has the Treasurer rejected; and how many mates does the Treasurer look after while he is going tick, tick, tick through the list of recipients of the Community Benefit Grants? More questions for estimates: how much is the defence of the Minister for Community Development costing Territorians; and how much is Jeff Sher, the QC in Western Australia who is currently defending the minister, worth? That is a good question because, as I understand it, this fellow does not get out of bed for less than $8000 a day. He is one of the best; he is nationally renowned as the best litigation lawyer in this field. This minister’s refusal to say sorry – he has a lawyer in WA, a bloke by the name of Stone, who is also defending this minister, and he gets - what? - $1000, $1500 a day. It must be costing us about $10 000 a day to keep this minister out of the proverbial. This minister is clearly putting his hands into the public till for his own defence. And what for? Because he cannot bring himself to say sorry. Those are the sorts of questions that need to be asked. Are we going to get to ask them? I think not.
Drugs: here is a government paying ecstasy users above the age of 16 years $30 for taking part in a survey - $30. ‘Oh, it is a federal program, it is the Australian Institute of Criminology program’. When I saw the flyer the Northern Territory government’s logo is clearly emblazoned on it, and it is a Northern Territory e-mail address to which you must respond to collect your $30. There is a whole raft of questions: who is the public servant at the other end of the e-mail; and who put the Northern Territory government web site on it? All of these are questions for the Estimates Committee. Are we getting those questions answered? Not a chance!
Here are another couple of questions for you. There are flyers that have been doing the rounds recently, the ALP, the Martin Labor government flyers from the police department. These are party political flyers. They have Martin Labor government written on them, the minister’s face sitting on it. Who is paying for all of that? What about the recent education flyer attacking the CLP, with the Northern Territory government’s logo emblazoned upon it? Who is paying for all of those? Here it is; look at that: ‘CLP opposition … students forced to move schools …’, rah, rah, rah - badmouthing the CLP: CLP, CLP, CLP … ‘Norther’ Territory government. By the way, you spell Northern Territory with an ‘n’ on the end of it.
This is a fraud being perpetrated on Territorians and the lie is that you folks said that you would be honest, open and accountable. Well, how do we know what process is being gone through? The only place we can find out is the estimate process.
How about health? Here is a good one for you. The Attorney-General and Health Minister was making all sorts of assertions in relation to how many people he was going to sue for work being done for the Northern Territory Health Service. Well, what has happened to that? What is the current condition of that, and who is paying for that? There are some questions for the estimates process, which this government will not guarantee us to have.
What about fake doctors? This is a good one. Back page of the last Sunday Territorian. Three staff sitting there with stethoscopes around their neck saying: ‘We are going to Tennant Creek’. That is wonderful. I am sure that they will be reassured in Tennant Creek. You cannot have a baby here but we will help you with a press release …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the sort of things that we must ask the questions. There may be legitimate reasons for this. The minister says: ‘Oh, come in spinner,’ but we are not going to be allowed to examine it because this government will not give a rock solid guarantee on an estimates process.
Here is a good one. This budget paper here is last year’s budget paper, 2004-05, and in the sports and recreation funding is a comment that the Traeger Park work was going to be done in Alice Springs to bring the grandstands up to scratch. That comment has not appeared in the next year’s budget and, if you read the definition on the very last page of what revoted works are, in Budget Paper No 4, it says capital works that have not been done last year are brought forward and re-entered into the budget paper this year. If that is the case, where has the Traeger Park stuff gone? It is not in the infrastructure budget. I have had a good look at it and I cannot find it. It has dropped out of here and when I asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation this question, ‘Oh, it is coming in off budget’.
Well, how many other projects are coming in off budget, Madam Speaker? I am sure you, as a member in Alice Springs, would be vitally concerned to know that the Traeger Park money seems to have fallen off the budget and into the ether. I am vitally interested to know. I will tell you something: to stand up here and say it is coming in off budget undermines and demeans this Treasurer’s budget because, all of a sudden, we have an interesting question. If this project is not on the budget list but will come in off budget because we will find the money from somewhere else, what else? That brings us back to the waterfront.
What about all the work that has to be done at the waterfront? Who is going to pay for that? What about all of the work that has to be done around the waterfront before we even start work - clearing the sites, those sorts of things? How much unexploded ordnance exists from World War II in there? That is all going to have be cleaned up because every time a bomb dropped from a Japanese plane and landed on one of those mud flats, there is a real chance that it did not explode, it went into the mud and stayed there, and might still be there and that has to be cleared up. How much is that going to cost? We think about $10m. Who is paying for that? We would love to know but we cannot find out until we go to the estimates process.
This is why we must go to the estimates process. We need to know what the value of the Northern Territory parks estate is so that we can tell Territorians, the government can tell Territorians, the value of the parks estate which is going to be given away in a change of ownership.
We have other questions also for the estimates process surrounding the integrity of government - the very integrity of how this government does its business. How do we know? I asked questions about the Chief Minister contacting the Commissioner of Police in the evening because he is going to go through a process of charging a person. I am worried about that, and that has to be examined as well.
This government has breached its promise to Territorians. It has breached its promise and it has broken its contract. This government’s integrity has been undermined by the fact that it is not honest, it is not open and it is not accountable. It has covered up for ministers, it has covered up for CEOs, it has shot junior public servants …
Mr Ah Kit: You have 30 seconds before you reserve your right to silence.
Mr ELFERINK: This minister here, interjecting now, was the one who wanted to shoot a field officer in his own department rather than say: ‘I am responsible’. Surely, that is worth some sort of investigation.
Madam Speaker, this government must give a guarantee because, if it does not, this budget paper, this budget document, stands before Territorians as nothing more that a bit of propaganda and, potentially, nothing more than a lie.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, having been here for four years and listened to many censure motions, I sometimes wonder whether there is an issue about the way we are allowed to debate important issues. It is unfortunate that the system more or less says to bring up an important issue like whether we should go to the election before we go to the Estimates Committee, or whether we should debate the waterfront, we have to go through a censure motion. The system where we only have reports and occasionally statements, leaves a lot to be desired. This is the only place that we can have a thorough debate and, in the case of censure motions, it is normally two-two, anyway. I would like to see some of these issues raised as part of normal ministerial statements, and regularly, because things like the waterfront are issues that are ongoing and very important.
I will say now that I do support the waterfront, as I have said before, but that will not mean that I stand here like a dummy and do not say anything. Questioning is our job, and that does not mean we do not support it. It means that we want to make sure it does not become a burden to future Territorians if it goes so far into debt that we are in debt for years and years and years. We want to make sure it is good quality, that what we are planning is up to world standard and is something we will be proud of. That does not mean by asking questions or even giving it a bit of a knock at times that I oppose it; I do not. However, the process that we have in parliament to discuss these issues is inadequate. If anything happens in the next parliamentary term, it should be opening up government for more debate on major issues.
Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the words of the motion, either, but I agree with the sentiment. The government should go to the Estimates Committee before it goes to election, and the reason is that when I looked at the advice on the position paper by the ALP on Good Government, it said:
- Governments must behave responsibly, transparently and to high standards.
The Chief Minister said:
- I am committed to reforming our parliamentary processes and systems of public administration to ensure
transparency and accountability.
The position paper states:
- One of the challenges of government is maintaining open, accountable and democratic structures.
Transparency and openness is the greatest weapon the public has against the misuse of taxpayers’
funds, and encourages a sense of collective ownership and control over our own future.
Labor believes that it requires vigilance by the parliament and the people to ensure that democracy
is protected not whittled away; that institutions are strengthened not weakened and the power of the
Executive is scrutinised not hidden and secretive.
It goes on to say:
- Good governance also depends on sound fiscal management strategies and guidelines. This position paper
outlines how Labor’s sound fiscal management principles will guide the functions of government. Labor in
government will introduce the following initiatives to ensure that open and accountable government becomes
a reality for all Territorians: …
It says it will do that by:
- Reform[ing] parliament by
introducing an Estimates Committee …
It goes on further to say that an Estimates Committee:
- … would 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 outcomes sought have
actually been achieved. An Estimates Committee would see greater accountability for government expenditure
and of taxes and charges imposed by the government.
That is all very good, and I support all of that. In fact, I was a great supporter of having an Estimates Committee. However, I find it a little bit hard that the Chief Minister is saying to the opposition: ‘Look at you now supporting the Estimates Committee.’ Fair enough to criticise the opposition because they did not have an Estimates Committee, but that does not mean you join them and say: ‘We do not do the same process’. You proposed the process and people have supported it. If you really believe in what you have written here, you will take this budget to the Estimates Committee and then have the election. It is not clear that that will happen.
All I am saying is that if I read the position paper of Good Government by the Labor Party, you would think that that would be the norm. There is no guarantee that they will be the government in the next sittings of parliament. There is no guarantee for the opposition, either, but the budget and the Estimates Committee surely should be one, not separated. They need to be one.
I have all of these documents and I have been trying to put together a budget speech and, boy, I have to employ people like Jane Large, if I can find her, to help me with all of this. This is fairly complex stuff. You need that break between when we receive the budget and the Estimates Committee so that you can work through it, so you can properly analyse it. For instance, I have the Palmerston and Litchfield Regional Highlights off the web site, and I actually wonder why it did not come as a budget paper this year, but we had to find it there. There is nothing in here to say what is new works, what is the same works as last year. I am definitely not knocking what is in here, it is very good. $0.32m for Beatrice Hill facilities for the buffalo industry - good industry, needs help, but is that $0.32m the same money as they received last year? Was there an increase or a decrease? It is very hard to tell from this unless I go back through a lot of documents.
I do not always have the time; we received it on Monday and we had normal government processes. I do not always have the time to thoroughly go through a lot of this work, which I would do, and be ready for the Estimates Committee. What am I supposed to say to people if they say what is in the budget? I say: ‘Well, there is $0.32m for Beatrice Hill facilities’. When I go and look at estimates and go through it more thoroughly, I find that is the same amount, or that is less than last year. They have actually reduced it. I do not know that yet. I have not had the time to go through it. It is important that we are able to put those questions to the government.
What has helped set off this censure motion is the issue of the waterfront. As I said, I support the waterfront. I asked some questions yesterday. I was at the Development Consent Authority meeting for as long as I could, as we had to get back for Question Time. There was an issue where a gentleman from the consortium was asked a question about how much smaller the boating pool is, as it is referred to, because they were asking for a variance. A variance is normally a minor thing. In this case it is not, it is 20%. That is what he admitted. That is far more than a variance; it is quite a big change.
The other thing is, my impression of the lock is that it will occur, but it is something that will be debated or looked at later, after the signing-off. We do not know who will own the lock, who will manage the lock, who will collect the fees for the lock, etcetera. There is something that certainly should go before the Estimates Committee.
We have not worked out all the issues of the environment, how much all that environmental redevelopment is going to cost yet. They are simple questions. They are not knocking questions, but they are questions that need to go to an estimates committee. I am concerned that there could be a big blow-out in the waterfront because there are too many questions, and the government does not want to pull out of this public/private development because it sees it as a great thing for the Territory. I agree with the Northern Territory News editorial, it is a good thing for the Northern Territory. But I have asked: where is a cost benefit analysis? We do not have a cost benefit analysis. That really should be done; that should be the core of the government’s information. That would be something to ask at the Estimates Committee: show us the cost benefit of the waterfront. The NT News said it will be a great thing for the Territory. Maybe I will ask the NT News: can you give us a cost benefit analysis? But they are issues that are important for Territorians.
I gather, from my reading, we are going to go into debt because of the waterfront. We are putting a huge amount of money into this. The question is: what are we going into debt for, and are the benefits of the waterfront going to get us out of that debt, repay the money that we are putting in? They are simple questions. They are not critical of the project; they are critical of the process. When I say ‘critical’, I mean I am asking questions. I believe that is important, and many people would be much happier if we did go to the Estimates Committee. Even many of the Labor Party would be, because they would say: ‘You are sticking with your doctrine that you put out, “Labor – a new direction on good government”’. That is what you said.
I understand what the Chief Minister is saying, there will be an Estimates Committee, and there will be an election. If you wanted to get rid of all this kerfuffle, if you wanted to show Territorians that you are open about where we are spending money on the waterfront, then you would be pleased, because you would be proud to say: ‘We are running the waterfront well. We are spending this much money and we will tell you all about it at the Estimates Committee. We are so confident that you will accept our good management of the waterfront, we will then go to an election’. If you do not, then people are going to ask questions like: ‘What are you hiding?’ And that is a sad thing.
Madam Speaker, as you know, I do not vote on these particular motions. I am just saying to the government here is an opportunity to show respect, take responsibility, as the document says, and take the budget to the Estimates Committee. After that, let us have an election and we will go from there.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will wrap this particular debate up so that we can get on with business. The Chief Minister has stated that we will have an election by 15 October this year, and this budget will go to the estimates process. That is the position of the government.
However, if we go to the pious grandstanding from the opposition and, in particular, the mantra of honest, open, accountable government - I do not know how many times those four words were stated between the two of them in their particular contributions - but what new words the CLP have learned! It is amazing when you are on this side of the House to hear the new words that they have learned: open, honest, accountable government - words that they could not bring themselves to contemplate when they were in government just a little over three-and-a-half years ago.
Let us look at some of the initiatives that we have put into place. I will start with the budget papers that are certainly very comprehensive. They are put together under the fiscal integrity legislation to ensure that, never again, budget papers are manipulated by the government of the day, as opposed to being independently put together by Treasury. In regards to how good these budget papers are, and the detail, content, and the veracity of the information in them - I have just spoken to the Treasurer – none other than one of the head people of Moody’s in New York - one of the great credit rating agencies in the world – who has travelled extensively working with governments, said that they were the best budget papers in accountability to the public that he had seen in all of his time.
Therefore, in accountability and the detail that is in these budget papers, Territorians - regardless of when the election is called - can have every confidence that what is in the budget papers is the truth. As opposed …
Mr Dunham: It wasn’t last year. It wasn’t the year before.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale should really keep his trap shut because he has form. He has form, the member for Drysdale - and it is all through the Parliamentary Record - when his CEO in the lead-up to the last budget that the CLP handed down, went to the minister of the day …
Mr Dunham: So, why did you sack him? If you agreed with what he said, why did you sack him?
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Drysdale and stated that he had received instructions from the then Treasurer, the former member for Katherine, to underestimate the actual outcomes for that financial year so that the budget papers should not show growth. The member for Drysdale, at the time, pleaded to be aghast, dismayed and very disturbed about this, and he was going to do something. But guess what? He did absolutely nothing! The gutless wonder, the member for Drysdale, was quite happy …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering whether parliament allows the Leader of Government Business to call me a ‘gutless wonder’ - whether those words are acceptable?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it should be withdrawn.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, in the interests of the decorum of parliament, I will withdraw …
Madam SPEAKER: However, I would ask you, member for Drysdale, to cease your interjections.
Mr HENDERSON: I do withdraw, and it is good advice for the member for Drysdale, because every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it even further. He was advised by his CEO that the CEO had received instructions from the then Treasurer to bodgie the figures. The member for Drysdale, the then Health minister, said that he would do something about it – he did absolutely nothing! He was part of the deception, the conspiracy, to fraudulently bring those budget papers to the people of the Northern Territory. Territorians will not forget his part in that actual deception. For the new government of the day to come in and, within four or five days of taking office, to be told by the then Under Treasurer that the budget papers that were merely eight weeks old had a $100m hole in them, and that hole had been created artificially by the government of the day for presentation purposes, was a very sad chapter in the history of the CLP.
We have introduced this fiscal integrity legislation that underpins this budget and Territorians can have confidence, whenever this election is called, that the numbers stack up in these budget papers.
Mr Dunham: No they don’t. They didn’t last year.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are on a warning.
Mr HENDERSON: And we do know on their form that if, heaven help, the CLP were elected to government they would scrap the fiscal integrity legislation and once again get their paws all over the budget numbers for presentation purposes only.
Let us look at the Estimates Committee process that they clutch so proudly to their chest and parade out there as being the best thing since sliced bread, and they have a right to scrutinise this budget under the Estimate Committee process. They will do, they will do.
Mr Elferink: Which was always there. Always there. It always existed.
Mr HENDERSON: And there has been a call for years for the Estimates Committee and the member for Macdonnell thinks he is smart, but there was a very big difference between the Estimates Committee process and the Committee of the Whole that the CLP presided over. The difference is that chief executive officers and accountable government officers sit at the table and they can be asked questions and can answer in their own rights in regards to any question that the committee may put to them. Under the previous government’s the Committee of the Whole process, CEOs sat in their boxes, were mute, were muzzled, could not answer, and the ministers of the day could put any spin or interpretation on the information provided by the public service to them. For the member for Macdonnell to say …
Mr Elferink: So, the buck stopped with the minister, what a tragedy.
Mr HENDERSON: … we had an Estimates Committee process …
Mr Elferink: You squib.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, cease.
Mr HENDERSON: … he once again shows what a goose he is by not recalling the process that they had in regards to the Committee of the Whole.
We know they had form, trust people on actions not words that again, if they were to come to office, the Estimates Committee would be scrapped. They think their process of the Committee of the Whole was better. They have said it again today, so we would go back to the Committee of the Whole with no capacity to ask questions of public servants, public servants muzzled and just spin from the ministers of the day. The Estimates Committee process would be scrapped.
Freedom of information would be scrapped. I think they went to the 1994 election promising to introduce freedom of information legislation. Did it happen? No it did not, even though it was a standing motion on the books of the parliamentary wing. The then government of the day did not have the intestinal fortitude to introduce freedom of information legislation. They would scrap that as well and would go back to having an Electoral Commission inside the Department of the Chief Minister.
There has been significant reform in open, honest and accountable government and this government has acted in terms of actual institutions and reform as opposed to squibbing those issues when the previous government was in power.
Let us look at some of the other things that they did. I only have another 10 minutes left, but just a few things that come to the top of the head about how the previous government were not open, honest and accountable. Let us remember the Community Benefit Fund. The Community Benefit Fund was mentioned by the opposition. Why on earth would they want to bring up the Community Benefit Fund? Let us look at the history of that little piece of deception on the people of the Northern Territory. There was never an independent body to make recommendations to the minister. The good old boys of the CLP - there were not too many girls in the parliamentary wing at the time …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … the member for Daly did have responsibility for the Community Benefit Fund, but a couple of years out from the election, the then member for Katherine said: ‘Well, Tim, we cannot trust you with it. We cannot trust Tim with it so I will take …
Mr Baldwin: You are not allowed to use my first name in here, Paul. Paul?
Mr HENDERSON: … the community benefit onboard …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … into my office’, and then promptly froze any disbursements.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Minister, just cease. We had the member for Araluen starting that. We had the minister replying and now you. Just cease all of you, otherwise a few of you are not going to be in this Chamber much longer. Leader of Government Business.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They do not like history - they do not like history.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, did you hear me?
Mr BALDWIN: I did not say anything, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you did.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I did not.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not like the reflection in the mirror because history tells the truth about their form of open, honest, accountable and transparent. With the Community Benefit Fund we had the member for Katherine deciding that he was going to get his paws all over this and a couple of years out from the election - I think it was three years out …
Mr Elferink: And what do you give us? A spanking school!
Mr HENDERSON: … ‘We will bring it into my office – the member for Macdonnell does not like the history here. ‘We will bring it into my office’. Community groups were out there putting in applications for funding under the Community Benefit Fund and it was frozen for two years. There was no independent process, no process at all. We just had the then member for Katherine, a few months out from the election, with a nice big piggy bank saved up, doling out cheques to community groups in the electorates of the CLP. The Auditor-General was certainly very critical of the CLP when he had a good look at that after the change of government.
We do have an independent process now and Territorians can have confidence that those applications to the Community Benefit Fund are judged on their merits, not on the pork barrelling prerogatives of the then government of the day. So do not talk about the Community Benefit Fund.
If you want to talk about the grants program under the local government grants, as the Chief Minister said, if you did you homework, if you understood the reporting requirements of government agencies, you would know that all of that grant funding is reported in Appendix 9 of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs Annual Report. The reports are there and detail all of the grants. All you have to do is go to the Tabled Papers Office and the information is there. To come in here and concoct some sort of mad conspiracy theory that my friend and colleague, the member for Arnhem, is up there dispersing largesse at pubs across the Territory is absolute nonsense. It is all there, it is all reported, it is all on the public report and the processes that support that are all on the public record. We have a tissue of myths that become reality in the minds of members opposite. They are so desperate that they will run any line out there.
We had much talk about the great waterfront development. We had the whole of Question Time yesterday, we have had it again in here this morning, we had an adjournment last night: is a lock going to be built or not? The Leader of the Opposition needs to see an audiologist. I will read from the Hansard: Mr Burke to Chief Minister about the lock. ‘The lock is no longer there’ is the assertion. This is the second question of the day, and the Chief Minister said …
Mr Dunham: She didn’t answer the first one!
Mr HENDERSON: ‘I say quite unequivocally’ – the member for Drysdale, again! No wonder he does not hear anything; he does not listen because his mouth is open all the time. The Chief Minister said:
- I say quite unequivocally there will be a lock. There will be a lock and a wonderful marina development, part of
Stage 2 of the waterfront development.
That was the second question yesterday, Madam Speaker. If there is something more unequivocal than that, I do not know what it is. But, no, the CLP still want to go out there, spin their lines and try to undermine confidence in this development, undermine a fantastic public/private partnership, something you would think the Tories on the benches over there would want to see: the government actually working with the private sector. But, no, the Tories over there do not want to see that. They want to go out there and do it themselves, use public money, build a car park as opposed to a public/private partnership. The guarantee is there from the Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister just said that the annual report he was waving around is in the Tabled Papers Office. I have just checked; it is not there. Could he kindly table that document?
Madam SPEAKER: I am quite sure the Table Office can provide you with a copy.
Mr ELFERINK: No, they cannot; I have just asked them, Madam Speaker. They do not have one.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a public document, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is not a public document. Could the minister table that document in front of him, please?
Mr HENDERSON: I will table it. Absolutely! Tabled! You are so lazy!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has the right to say yes or no.
Mr HENDERSON: I table it, goose! I table it! You would think a shadow minister worth his salt would actually know what publications actually came from the department, but obviously he has not done his research.
The Chief Minister has made an absolute commitment that once financial close is achieved, the financial details of those arrangements and costs of government over time will be made public, and they will. It is very hard to make them public until you actually have them locked down in a contract. It is nothing different from what happened with the railway. The stark difference between us as an opposition, as we were then, was that we believed in the project. I well recall the evening when further public money and guarantees were needed to get the railway deal over the line, that the Leader of the Opposition, the then Chief Minister, spoke to the then Deputy Opposition Leader behind this very Speaker’s Chair here and asked for our support, because the legislation needed to be rushed through on urgency. We had a quick Caucus meeting and agreed that, whatever it took to get this railway over the line, we would sign up to and support the then government of the day. None of this weasel undermining, nitpicking tactics from us as then opposition.
We believed in a project that was going to build the Territory, and this is certainly a project that is going to build the Northern Territory. At the centrepiece is a convention centre for 1500 delegates. We can all see the great impact that The Ghan has had on the economy of Darwin, in particular, since that service started running just over 12 months ago bringing 350 people a week into Darwin. A convention centre that has capacity for 1500 delegates is going to be an enormous stimulus to this economy. Not only are those delegates going to come to the Northern Territory, many of them will bring partners for a trip of a lifetime to the Northern Territory. They are certainly going to spend time, either before or after the convention or conference, to explore the Top End and many will probably take the train back down through the Centre.
The member for Nelson talked about the cost benefit analysis, the multipliers. Well, they are huge and they will all be disclosed, the models have been done. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that, to bring 1500 people into the city of Darwin who are not coming here now, is going to be a huge benefit to this economy, and the multipliers are significant.
It is sad to see the once proud CLP, who were so pro-development in the Northern Territory, knocking and seeking to undermine, at every turn, rubbing their hands with glee when any piece of information comes out that there might be a little change here, a little change there, rubbing their hands with glee, rushing out into the media to try to undermine this great project. That is pretty sad. I am sure there are probably some former CLP members and Chief Ministers and long-time observers of Territory politics who are probably scratching their heads and just wondering where the CLP is coming from in opposition.
As Business minister, I know there is very strong support for this project amongst the business community of the Top End. There is huge support for this particular project and it is sad to see the opposition seek to undermine it at every turn.
This censure motion is nothing but a nonsense. This budget will be scrutinised by the Estimates Committee, a process that we brought to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Darwin Airport Resort
Darwin Airport Resort
Ms MARTIN (Tourism): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday night, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of an exciting development for Darwin. The Darwin Airport Resort was opened by His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan. The assembled guests were given a first-hand view of this tropically designed resort, and I have to say, it is very impressive. If this is a first or last impression of Darwin given to our visitors, it will be a very positive one, one which reflects the essence of the Top End.
The Darwin Airport Resort covers three-and-a-half hectares of land located at the airport, just 350 m from the terminal. Visitors are instantly transported into a tropical environment. The design of the resort is deliberately Territorian and tropical. It features indoor and outdoor dining and lounge areas, opening onto a swimming pool with water features and a poolside bar. There are conference facilities, recreation areas, on-site parking and a restaurant. The resort has 130 rooms, providing five levels of accommodation from suites to deluxe and executive bungalows. The bungalows are sited along the Rapid Creek boundary and overlook the natural bushland of the creek corridor.
This project is testimony to the energy and effectiveness of Darwin’s development and construction industry. The resort was opened for business only eight months after construction started.
The resort directors, John (Foxy) Robinson, Brian Kelly, Peter Walker, Peter Walkington and Brian Counihan, are to be commended for their commitment to investment in the Darwin economy. This group, as many of you will be aware, has a long record of sound and successful tourist development in the Territory, having developed and run the Knotts Crossing Resort in Katherine and the Palms Resort at Berrimah. The architecture of the resort is particularly inspiring. John Berryman of Group 1 Consulting Pty Ltd, a local Darwin business, designed the resort and all its buildings and features and has done a sterling job of capturing the essence of the tropical environment without compromising visitor comfort. I am delighted to see this level of climatically appropriate design being used in commercial premises; it adds so much more to the visitor experience and highlights the uniqueness of our part of the world.
The whole facility has been designed with the intent of providing a truly tropical ambience, with entry ponds, internal water features, cool finishes and vistas to Darwin’s largest resort-style pool and lush gardens. The Darwin Airport Resort complex is a fusion of modern resort architecture, traditional tropical design with hints of Asian and colonial influences. The more traditional tropical elements include extensive use of cool ceramic and stone tiles and claddings, exposed timber roof structures, timber linings, high roof lines and Melanesian-style gables. With vast expanses of glass, this immediately defines the spaces as uniquely tropical.
Of course, a beautifully designed building needs a good builder. Sunbuild, a very well-known Darwin company, was responsible for the construction of the main reception and public area. This is a stunning area, and I recommend people to make a point of visiting when they are next at the airport. Neil Sunners and his team have done their usual professional job in delivering this project.
With these credentials, capabilities and talents behind the development, the Darwin Airport Resort can only be a resounding success. I am advised that forward bookings are already extremely encouraging. There is a high level of interest from the corporate sector, with the complex being marketed as providing day accommodation - accommodation able to be booked for the day perhaps between flights or while waiting for one of those middle-of-the-night flights out of Darwin, to which we have all, so sadly, become accustomed. There is also a high level of interest from local residents as the resort and its restaurant offers a new facility in the northern suburbs.
There is nothing else like the Darwin Airport Resort in the Territory. It is long overdue and is a highly welcome addition to our tourist facilities, offering a different experience for visitors and locals alike. I wish it every success in the future, and congratulate the directors and every Territorian involved in its development for a job well done!
Mr BURKE: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was invited but unable to attend the official opening due to the fact that the budget came down that day and I was analysing the budget for my response the following day. However, I had the opportunity of a personal …
Mr Stirling: I think you should have gone to the opening!
Mr BURKE: ‘Should have gone to the opening’, the minister says. Actually, I had a personal tour of the resort by invitation of the owners some time before that. It was interesting, not only to reflect on the fact that these are Territorians who are getting up and having a go, doing it of their own effort and successful developers of another project in the Northern Territory, but doing it in the face of government ignorance to the whole project.
It is stunning that the Chief Minister would get up in this House today and talk about a resort. This is the tourism commissioner of the Northern Territory who has not put one foot inside that project in the whole of its construction period, who has a board in the Tourist Commission which has been calling for a resort in the Northern Territory, without ever mentioning the enormous amount of money and effort that has gone into that project - and her own Tourist Commission called it a bloody caravan park! When it went in for application it was called a caravan park! There were objections to that particular facility.
You have the gall, Chief Minister, to come in here and talk about what a wonderful development it is because you attended the opening - the first time you have set foot into a development that is about $13m of private money of Territorians putting their effort in the Northern Territory to get this place up and going and - trying somehow to suggest that you are interested in this project and have been supportive of it and welcome it on behalf of Territorians. It is an indictment that neither you, your Tourist Commission, your senior officers in the Tourist Commission, or any member of the Tourist Commission Board took any interest in that project in the whole of its time of completion – an indictment and a disgrace from a government that has no interest, no get up and go and, certainly, no vision for developing the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Tourism): Madam Speaker, you cannot let ignorant comments like that go without an answer. As Tourism Minister, I am very proud of what we have done to develop the tourism industry. After tough times, we have marketed the Territory like no other government has marketed the Territory, and it has created the opportunities.
I am delighted for people like the directors of the Airport Resort to be able to build that wonderful facility, and I make no apologies about that. That is the role of the Tourist Commission. That is the role of government and the Tourism Minister; to make sure that we recover the framework, we recover the elements that you need in a tourism market, and that is what we have done. I am proud of what we have done.
We put an additional $27.5m into marketing, and at ATEC last week in Alice Springs we were complimented by those running ATEC saying the Territory is a shining example of how to go about recovering a tourist market, and we received a big tick.
NT Health Call Centre
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, today I provide a report on the fulfilment of yet another important election commitment – the introduction of the NT Health Call Centre, NTHealthDirect.
NTHealthDirect is delivering a high quality service for the Northern Territory community and builds on the extra $207m and 100 extra nurses already in the health system. This government made the commitment to establish an 1800 free and confidential health call centre to provide a 24-hour, seven day a week, single point of contact for medical advice and support. Of course, in the event of an emergency, we can all still use the 000 emergency service.
In establishing this important service, we have take into account factors such as patient safety, value for money, and optimal risk of the health work force. After careful consideration it was decided to use the service and infrastructure that has been very successfully used for six years by the Western Australian government, a service run by McKesson Asia-Pacific. By ‘piggy-backing’ onto an existing service that has already been operating for six years, we can ensure that Territorians have access to a tried and tested service.
Senior clinical staff from the NT have visited the Western Australian service to ensure that it is appropriate for our environment, and members of the McKesson team have visited the NT and met with a range of service providers, both public and private from across the Territory, to ensure that they understand the issues that are relevant to the operation of the service.
A great deal of work has been undertaken collecting essential information to ensure the health call centre is a high quality, safe service, appropriate for use by all Territorians.
Community members from anywhere in the Northern Territory, and visitors to the Northern Territory, are now able to telephone this free call service, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for health advice. After gathering relevant information, the triage nurse makes an assessment using computerised decision protocols to advise the caller on the most appropriate course of action. At the touch of a button, NTHealthDirect nurses can find the right service for you or your family member and provide contact details and opening hours; that includes after hours care and home visiting services, nearest doctor, late night pharmacies and other health services provided in the community.
This service will reduce the pressures on the emergency departments in a number of ways: doctors working in emergency departments will no longer have to provide telephone health advice services and will be able to focus their attention on the patients in front of them. The same model call centre in Western Australia has resulted in only half the callers who planned to visit the emergency department actually attending. This means that emergency departments will be helping those who need it most.
On 19 April, I was delighted to launch the full service of NTHealthDirect to the Northern Territory community, announcing the 1800 186 026 free call number and the full details of the service. Marketing of this important service to the NT public has commenced and includes television, radio, brochures and print advertising. NTHealthDirect took a remarkable 1108 calls during the month of April. Of these, 742 were redirected from the Royal Darwin Hospital, 87 were redirected from the Alice Springs Hospital, and 189 were from Darwin and Alice Springs households, and the remainder from regional hospitals, regional and remote households.
It is too early to provide an extensive analysis of the results so far, but some representative feedback to date from callers to the NTHealthDirect service include a mother of a small baby who said: ‘This is a wonderful service and I will use it again,’ while another caller described it as ‘a great service’. NTHealthDirect will be continuously evaluated to monitor the use and success of this service, and I will be happy to provide a report to the House in the future on the results it achieves.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report, but I cannot possibly let him go without reminding him of a few home truths. This was the government that closed the Palmerston 24-hour clinic shortly after it came to government.
NTHealthDirect would not be necessary if this minister and, indeed his predecessors, did their job by ensuring that the people of the Northern Territory have adequate health services. They have that expectation because the budget before yesterday was $650m, and now it is up to $686m, a huge budget for a relatively small population.
We do not have enough doctors, we do not have enough nurses, and the minister should be quite ashamed of himself. The fact that he stood up with a straight face was alarming in many respects. I saw the news when he released NTHealthDirect and it was a dreadful performance, and even he must have cringed. The cameras were there and he had the phone on the lectern and he pressed the button and he said: ‘Oh, I am crook! I am crook!’ Well, you may be crook, minister, but I will tell you what is more crook: the state of health in the Northern Territory.
Too many people - including one of your colleagues whom I understand held the view that she nearly died waiting in hospital for up to 24 hours; we have one of your Labor mates saying: ‘Oh, this is serious! The health system must be crook, Pete,’ - are waiting for hours and hours and hours on hospital beds and trolleys at Royal Darwin. We have, I remind you again, 1600 people in Alice Springs waiting for elective surgery!
This is Australia in 2005. We have a relatively small population. I cannot believe that you sit there and indicate that NTHealthDirect is fantastic. NTHealthDirect may well have some benefits - minister, you can make hand gestures all you like - but I will tell you what: you are not doing anything for the state of health in the Northern Territory. You may be crook, but the health system is even more crook. You are a disgrace!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, from the feedback that I have had from NTHealthDirect, it is a good initiative from the government. We can still criticise the government for certain matters in Health. Health is one of those whopping, big departments that, matter who is in government, people are always going to have trouble with.
I would like to see some improvements to the health services in Palmerston and the rural area through the Farrar Medical Centre. However, be that as it may, we should give praise where it is due: the NTHealthDirect program is a good program. If it reduces the number of people turning up at the emergency service at Darwin Hospital for relatively minor complaints that is a good thing. It means fewer people there, and fewer people on the waiting lists at emergency at the clinic.
If I go back to my younger days, we certainly had problems with babies with high temperatures at night and were a bit concerned about what we should do. If that could have been solved over the phone that certainly would have saved us a long trip to the nearest clinic. So credit where it is due.
I will be interested in seeing when the government comes back with a report on it and how it is working. But I should say that that does not excuse work that should be done on places like the Farrar Medical Centre to provide a better service for people in Palmerston and the rural area.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his endorsement of the initiative. It is good to hear someone being a bit more fair-minded about it. On the comments of the member for Araluen, I have a sense of humour: guilty! I have over $200m additional money into a health budget: guilty! I have fulfilled an election promise and provided an excellent service to the Northern Territory: guilty!
Review of Heritage Protection Legislation
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report on this government’s commitment to preserving and protecting the Territory’s heritage. Protecting and conserving our unique Territory heritage is a priority for the Martin Labor government. Our heritage places are very important in shaping our Territory’s identity, and they play a significant role in our second biggest industry, tourism.
Labor came to government with a very important promise: to overhaul our systems and processes for conserving our heritage places. My predecessor, the member for Johnston, released a public discussion paper in November 2003 outlining the key issues for heritage reform and posing various options for improvement. Extensive and detailed community consultation was conducted throughout 2004. Community workshops were held across the Territory, meetings held with key organisations, and an on-line survey conducted. One of Australia’s leading heritage lawyers, Peter James, was also engaged to provide expert advice and, indeed, Mr James indicated the review process was the best he had seen.
The public review generated a remarkable level of interest. Over 500 copies of the discussion papers were distributed, and there were more than 1500 visits to the web site. Three hundred people attended public meetings and 44 submissions were received from individuals and a wide range of community organisations. This level of interest demonstrates the importance Territorians place on conserving their heritage. I have been heartened not only by the depth of the community input into the review, but also the remarkable consistency in the views put forward from property interests, industry and those passionate about conserving our heritage.
Almost all respondents agreed that the legislation needed a complete overhaul. Most importantly, there was substantial agreement on the nature of reform in terms of how decisions on heritage should be made, the interests that should be represented, and the additional types of places that should be protected. The Heritage Advisory Council has now provided me with their recommendations, and government has considered them. It is our view that they represent an excellent basis for taking our heritage laws forward.
Key features of the new legislation will be: looking at a new heritage council with expanded membership and decision-making powers in respect of heritage listing, subject to a ministerial call-in powers for matters of Territory significance; expanded appeal provisions for both the community and property owners; interim protection for sites once they are nominated; stricter time lines for decision making, providing the community and property owners with greater certainty; increased penalties for destroying or damaging listed heritage places; and two new types of heritage protection in addition to heritage listing of individual sites, namely, serial listing and notified heritage areas.
Our new heritage laws will bring greater certainty for the community, property owners and developers. The current heritage laws have delivered neither. There are currently more than 100 sites that have been nominated for heritage protection and are at various stages of consideration under the legislation. These include many sites that were nominated in the 1990s, some dating back as far as 1994. While all heritage laws have some backlog, I believe Territorians deserve better than to have heritage icons in legal limbo for more than a decade. This serves neither the property owner nor the person who nominated the property. All interested parties deserve an answer on heritage protection within a reasonable time frame, whichever way the decision goes. We can and will do better.
Our commitment to new heritage laws builds on the many achievements of this government, including listing 22 sites across the Territory; re-establishing a dedicated heritage officer for Alice Springs; establishing a dedicated $1m program for repairing and maintaining government-owned heritage places; and, most recently, I have acted for national heritage listing of the best of our World War II sites. They are a very important part of our and the nation’s history. I believe it would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifice of those who fought on home soil to defend our country and would also put them firmly on the tourist map.
Government will now be moving as quickly as possible to draft a bill for community comment. I look forward to presenting a final bill to this Assembly that will better conserve our heritage for the benefit of all Territorians.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot say enough how pleased I am to hear this ministerial report this morning. The review of this act has been a long time coming and a long time heralded. There are many people concerned with heritage in the Northern Territory who have been calling for this review to be finalised. I know they will be delighted to hear that is being wrapped up. We all look forward very much to seeing this draft bill. Here’s hoping it will not be much longer.
It is disappointing to note in the budget, in the last few days, the $18 000 cut to the heritage budget. Some people might say that $18 000 is neither here nor there, but it gives an impression that heritage is not so close to the minister’s heart as it should be. $18 000 buys a lot in the areas of grants, for example, for the preservation and conservation of heritage buildings here in the Northern Territory.
I had the pleasure, several weeks ago in Alice Springs, of touring some of the heritage sights with some of the community members interested in this area. Madam Speaker, you would be very aware of the issue of how our harsh climate beats down, either as sun, or rain here in the Top End, on our heritage and conservation buildings causing problems with maintenance. The community is very concerned about the lack of funding in the budget and the fact that maintenance is suffering.
Just to close, because I only get two minutes to comment, it is extremely galling to hear the minister talk about the Heritage Advisory Council and how the current legislation is not strong enough. Members of the Heritage Advisory Council, and interested and concerned residents of Alice Springs, will find this extraordinary coming from this minister because she overturned the proposal to have the Rieff Building listed. Many people in Alice Springs are very disappointed to see that this building cannot be preserved. The faade, at the very least, is not going to be preserved, and the minister should be ashamed of herself.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s report. The minister spoke about World War II sites. I believe there is much more to be done on that. There are many World War II sites that should be protected, and the government should move forward in that direction. I would be interested in the minister’s comments about what has happened to the protection of the East Arm leprosarium site that we looked at a couple of years ago; how far advanced that is. Would the government consider protecting some of our sites as if they were parks under the Parks and Wildlife? I believe the Alice Springs Telegraph Station comes under Parks and Wildlife. Should we have rangers to look after our World War II sites?
The last issue is that in the new NT Planning Scheme that is supposed to be one day before us, there is a zone called Heritage. I would be interested to know how the Heritage zoning would actually fit in with any new legislation on heritage. Will the two be compatible or will they be operating separately?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I need to respond to a couple of issues raised by the shadow spokesperson. In their response to heritage, they have form regarding heritage - a couple of things such as the Hotel Darwin which is a clear example of their legacy. They introduced an amendment to the current heritage legislation to enable the minister to destroy a declared heritage place. Their attempts were only thwarted by the community of Alice Springs, and there are some on that side who would remember that. This shameful amendment has no part in good heritage laws, and we will remove that.
For the member for Port Darwin to stand up here and parade her government’s example of heritage - well, thank goodness we are the ones who are putting in good heritage law.
Grants to Multicultural Groups
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is made up of some of the progressive multicultural communities in Australia. The Martin Labor government is strongly committed to supporting this diversity and is proud of its success in fostering an environment in which different communities forge a common identity with Territorians, irrespective of where they come from or what language they speak, who are retaining linkages with individual cultural identities.
Earlier this year, we released a multicultural policy which is designed to make government agencies responsive to the rights, obligations and needs of our culturally diverse population; to promote social harmony amongst the different culture groups in our society; and to optimise the benefits of our cultural diversity for all Territorians. The policy was developed following extensive consultation throughout the migrant and ethnic community across the Territory.
The basic elements that underlie this policy are set out in four broad principles to which our government is committed. They are: valuing diversity; fair access; encouraging participation; and mutual respect.
As well as a commitment to these ideals, our government also provides specific, tangible support for our multicultural communities. We support the many volunteer and community group efforts to enhance our multicultural society through various grants programs administered by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. The demand and competition for grants is high. For the financial year 2004-05, a total of 80 applications were received under the Multicultural Sponsorship Program; eight applications under the Cultural and Linguistic Awards; and 42 applications for Harmony Day activities or projects. In addition to this, 14 applications were received in 2004-05 under the Multicultural Community Facilities Development Program, a new initiative that we introduced in our last budget to provide $0.5m per annum for three years for refurbishing and upgrading community facilities.
For 2004-05, funding of $712 000 has been available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, which was an increase from $697 000 available in 2003-04. I am delighted to say that in 2005-06 there will be a further increase in grants funds available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program. A total of $737 000 will be available for multicultural activities, the Cultural and Linguistic Awards and Harmony Day activities throughout the Territory.
In addition to this, there will another $0.5m available under the Multicultural Community Facilities Development Program, although much of this has already been allocated to a number of approved upgrade projects which are to be staged over two and three years. There will be, however, funds available particularly for major repair works that arise from time to time.
During this financial year, we have approved funding for general upgrades to 12 organisations, and I have also allocated funding for urgent repairs to four organisations. The funding we have provided for this project has been welcomed by those community groups that have previously struggled to maintain their facilities. It is an initiative that we are very proud of.
We are a government for all Territorians and we are working together to keep the Territory moving ahead. We value the rich cultural diversity of our society and we welcome people from all parts of the world. As a government we will continue to support our multicultural community, not only through financial assistance, but with a genuine commitment to those communities reflected through the progressive multicultural policy that we have developed with the community and presented to this parliament earlier this year.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the minister’s emphasis on harmony in a multicultural society, and would ask the minister why then would he use his ethnicity as a minister to promote a perverse racial and divisive argument suggesting that, somehow, I made a comment in this House that was critical of his ethnicity. It is one of the lowest acts I have heard. It really strikes me as strange for a person who wears the uniform of a member of the Defence Force that you would be so lacking in integrity and basic honour that you would seek to promote an argument that there was something racial and divisive on a harmless comment.
All you could be, minister, is a puppet of a bunch of strategists up there who are somehow trying to leverage some political advantage by running a case to suggest that the CLP is racist. The sadness in the Northern Territory is that there is a perverse racist argument being run by the Labor Party. This Labor Party sets out to divide and promote racism, and sadly, minister, as an ethnic Australian, you are gullible and have fallen straight for it. I find that really sad, really sad.
I saw Greek contractors today at the caf in Briggs Street. Do you know what they are interest in? They are interested in payroll tax. They are interested in how we are getting this Northern Territory moving again. They are interested in how we can get a bit of get up and go into the place and how we can get some dynamic economy going. To have one of their own to be so gullible as to be sucked into this sort of strategy, which is nothing but divisive and wrong, I find really sad.
Do not stand up in this House and talk about harmony and a multicultural society when you cannot even practice it yourself.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, to claim that it was somehow a plot by the Labor Party. He made the comments; we did not plan them. It can be very easy to resolve the issue. He did not stand up and say: ‘It was a misunderstanding, I apologise …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: He did not. He just sat there quietly and said nothing. I did not chase publicity. It was the NT News journalist who heard what happened in this House and came and asked for my comments.
The reality is, yes, the CLP is a racist party. It is the only party in Australia that preferred to preference One Nation at the previous election. Shane Stone and John Howard condemned you. The only one who has not apologised for that is the current Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the party. Yes, they are a racist party.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
BAIL AMENDMENT (REPEAT OFFENDERS) BILL
(Serial 286)
(Serial 286)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the government’s commitment to create safer communities by removing the entitlement to bail for those people who have had a history of serious repeat offending. Subject to certain limited exceptions, the Bail Act currently provides that a person is presumed to be entitled to be granted bail. This does not mean that bail must always automatically be granted. Rather, the act sets criteria for determining a grant of bail, including consideration of factors such as the likelihood of committing another offence while on bail. The court always retains discretion to deny bail to an offender.
However, this bill specifically restricts the operation of the current presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders. It also introduces a provision to allow for a decision of a magistrate or justice to grant bail to be stayed for a maximum period of three business days, for the purpose of review by the Supreme Court.
The Bail Act already addresses, in a limited way, repeat offending with respect to serious violence. Section 8 of the Bail Act removes a presumption in favour of bail for an accused person who is seeking bail in relation to a charge of:
- causing grievous harm;
sexual intercourse without consent; or
failure to comply with a restraining order under section 10 of the Domestic Violence Act
where the accused has already been found guilty of an offence of a similar nature within the last 10 years. Section 8 also removes the presumption in favour of bail for a person who commits an offence whilst on a suspended sentence unless the alleged offence is so minor that it is unlikely to be regarded as a breach.
This bill will extend the application of section 8 of the act to include the situation where a person is charged with a serious offence, and that that offence is alleged to have been committed while the offender was on bail for another serious offence, and the offender already has a prior conviction for a serious violence offence within the last 10 years, or a serious offence within the last two years. ‘Serious offence’ is defined in the bill as any offence which attracts a penalty of five or more years’ imprisonment. This amendment specifically targets person who have a history of serious offending and who offend in a similar manner whilst on bail.
Existing section 7A of the Bail Act sets out the offences for which there is a presumption against bail. The offences targeted at present are the most serious kind and include: murder; treason; serious drug offences attracting a penalty of at least seven years’ imprisonment; and certain Commonwealth narcotic offences. A person accused of any of these offences will be refused bail unless he or she can satisfy the court that bail should not be refused.
The presumption against bail is a particularly heavy onus to discharge and one that is not usually overcome. Basically, the applicant must satisfy the court that there are special reasons above and beyond the ordinary arguments for favouring bail which justify a grant of bail in the particular circumstances of the case. This provision recognises the serious nature of the offences in question, the higher level of risk to the community, and the increased risk of the offender absconding when released on bail.
The government believes that our bail legislation should reflect the importance of protecting the community from offenders who repeatedly commit serious violence offences and continue to offend whilst on bail. Under amendments to section 7A proposed by this bill, violent offenders can expect to be denied bail where they have a history of repeat serious violent offending.
There will be a presumption against the court granting bail where:
- an offender is seeking bail for a serious violence offence;
he or she is alleged to have committed that offence whilst on bail for another serious offence,
or another serious violence offence;
he or she also has a prior conviction for a serious violence offence within the last 10 years,
or a serious offence within the last two years; and
at least two of the offences in question involve serious violence.
‘Serious violence offence’ is defined under the bill as covering the full range of offences against a person including: sexual offences; homicide; grievous harm or bodily harm; assault; robbery; and assault with intent to steal, where the offence in question attracts a penalty of five or more years’ imprisonment.
The provisions in this bill have been drafted to cover a wide combination of offences. To achieve this, the definition of ‘serious offence’ and ‘serious violence offence’ overlap insofar as they both cover offences that attract a penalty of imprisonment of five years or more. However, for the avoidance of doubt clause 5(5) of the bill makes it absolutely clear that, where there are at least two serious violence offences involved, one of which is committed whilst on bail, the matter must be dealt with under section 7A as a presumption against bail.
In line with international and government policy regarding offending by young people, these amendments will apply to adult offenders only. This recognises that young offenders require quite different approaches and have quite different needs to those which apply in the case of adult offenders. It also recognises that one of the primary aims of an effective youth justice system is to prevent young people from moving on to becoming adult offenders. In recognition of the success of offender rehabilitation programs, such as CREDIT, and the importance of rehabilitation in controlling crime generally, the amendments will not affect the continued operation of any existing bail rehabilitation programs.
A provision has been inserted by the bill to allow the programs to be prescribed in the regulations and for the court, where a person is assessed as suitable for such programs, to be able to consider this option despite any applicable presumptions against bail.
Finally, the bill provides for a stay of bail. The Bail Act already provides a process for reviewing bail decisions made by justices and magistrates. However, this new provision will mean that where the prosecution indicates its intention to seek a review in the Supreme Court of a court’s decision to grant bail, the grant of bail will be stayed pending the outcome of the review. The result is that the accused person will remain in custody while the stay remains in effect. The bill requires any such review to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, as the stay remains in place for a maximum period of three business days. The review is by way of a re-hearing of the bail application before the Supreme Court, and the court may vary the decision or make a substituted decision.
This legislation is intended to protect the community from known repeat offenders who commit serious crimes. In making amendments to such important legislation as the Bail Act, we are mindful of the balance between community safety and the rights of the individual. We believe that this bill addresses the issue of serious re-offending, while at the same time recognising that important balance.
Madam Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bill. I have tabled the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill, and I commend the bill to honourable members.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, prior to adjourning the bill, I wish to make a few remarks. I appreciate that the Attorney-General cannot speak in reply to this, but I would appreciate something that resembles an assurance that these bills will be debated before the next election. A nod, a nudge or a wink will be fine.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you are speaking to the bill, not about the election.
Ms CARNEY: If this bill, Madam Speaker, is not fully debated before the next election, it could be argued that it is nothing more than an election stunt.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! I just said to you if you want to make comments on the bill, you may, but you must stick to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: I am coming to those comments, Madam Speaker. We have seen that there is invariably a difference between the bills - and this bill is no exception from a cursory glance of it - government presents and their media releases. In that regard, I note a great similarity to a bill that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, introduced in October 2004. It was called the Bail Amendment Bill. This government refused to support it. This bail act that we have today appears to mirror, in many respects, the concept contained in the member for Macdonnell’s bill. I note the minister for Police has issued a media release today saying, in essence, that this bill is about repeat serial offenders who are caught committing another serious offence while on bail. The similarity to the bill the CLP introduced only months ago is startling.
In the member for Macdonnell’s speech he said, ‘The amendment is aimed specifically at indictable offences’, namely serious offences. He went on to say:
- It brings a person who has been repeatedly convicted in the past of a crime, a responsibility, should they find
themselves charged with a similar offence again, to demonstrate why their liberty should be restored to them.
Finally, he said:
- … if you are a repeat offender, you are not automatically entitled to bail should you be charged again. In short,
your past catches up with you.
I do ask that the bill be now adjourned but I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave denied.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY REFORM) BILL
(Serial 291)
(Serial 291)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today, I present a bill that proposes the significant set of reforms to the Territory’s Criminal Code that have occurred since its inception. This government has worked consistently during its term to identify areas of criminal law that require reform. There is a tendency for debate on reform of the criminal justice system to focus on punishment to consider reform in terms of the penalties that are set for offences. The adequacy of the punishment set for crimes is certainly a matter that requires attention and revision as necessary. However, the punishment set by legislation is, in reality, the final consideration in the criminal justice process.
It is even more fundamental that we ensure:
- that existing offence provisions are not flawed in terms of criminalising particular conduct;
that, where necessary, new offences are enacted to ensure that particular abhorrent behaviour
is criminalised; and
that the evidentiary and procedural rules necessary to safeguard a fair criminal trial process are
adequately addressed within our criminal law legislation.
Ongoing review of our criminal laws is required to ensure that they both meet current community expectations and deal with emerging forms of criminal activity. As a legislature in a jurisdiction in which the Criminal Code operates to the exclusion of the common law, we have a greater level of responsibility for ensuring that the code sets the proper fault standards for conduct in terms of the offences that have been created.
This bill has a two stage effect and purpose. First, it proposes reform of the Criminal Code that goes to the heart of fault theory in criminal law by enacting new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. It does so by enacting a new Part IIAA to the Criminal Code. The bill establishes a foundation upon which, over a proposed period of at least five years, the new general principles of criminal responsibility is set by the new Part IIAA will progressively be applied to all offences, eventually replacing existing Part II of the Criminal Code that currently sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.
Secondly, the bill provides for the existing manslaughter and dangerous act provisions to be repealed. They are to be replaced by a revised manslaughter offence and by offences of recklessly endangering life; recklessly endangering serious harm; negligently causing serious harm; and dangerous driving causing death or serious harm. Significantly, the existing rape offence is also to be amended. Part IIAA, the new criminal responsibility principles, will be immediately applied to all of these offences.
This government has given extensive consideration to whether existing Northern Territory laws that apply to acts of violence against the person are adequate and, in particular, whether those laws are consistent with criminal responsibility standards for that form of conduct in other jurisdictions.
Before I move to detail the contents of the bill, it is necessary to provide some history of the code provisions that are the subject of reform by this bill. The current criminal responsibility provisions in the Northern Territory code differ from the other code states; that is, Queensland and Western Australia which utilise the Griffith Code model, and Tasmania. The Northern Territory code was intended to be a unique code formulation, but it is apparent that its authors drew upon provisions and concepts from other codes, including the Griffith Code. It has been described as ‘eclectic in the utilisation of earlier models’ containing provisions that are ‘quite individual; indeed, almost idiosyncratic’. It certainly is all of that, and more.
As a result of the current formulation of criminal responsibility provisions in Part II, we have a justice system under which offenders who have caused the death of another have not been held criminally responsible to the same degree as they would have been had they committed the identical act in another jurisdiction. That recognition is hardly new. As early as 1992, in the case of R v Hofschuster, Justice Mildren had this to say:
- Under the Northern Territory’s Criminal Code, the offences of murder and manslaughter are not the same as
those offences at common law, and have their own peculiarities which are not always easy to understand or explain …
The effect of the provisions of the code relating to murder, manslaughter and dangerous act, is that in some
circumstances, what would amount to murder or manslaughter in other jurisdictions is the crime of dangerous act
in this Territory …
A prime example is the case of Dooley vs R in which the killing in question, as observed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, involved a ‘… vicious beating of the victim in a vigilante fashion …’ involving ‘… premeditation and planning …’. It was characterised as being within the worst category of offending of its kind. It is doubtful whether a revenge-style vigilante killing would result in anything less than, at very least, a conviction for manslaughter in any other jurisdiction. Here in the Territory it was dealt with as a ‘dangerous act’.
This is not a matter that we can remedy simply by increasing the penalty for dangerous acts causing death. The dangerous act provision, under section 154 of the code is, in itself, unique and has been the subject of much criticism. Section 154 is of remarkable width because it covers an infinite range of conduct ranging from, at one end of the scale, that which creates only limited potential danger to the health or safety of a member of the public, to the other end of the scale, that involving actual grave danger to the lives, health and safety of many, including, as I have said, causing actual death.
Again, there is nothing new in this observation. As far back as 1988, the Australian High Court in Baumer v R describes section 154 as an
- ‘… unusual section … The offence so created can therefore cover an enormous range of conduct from the
comparatively trivial to the most serious …
It would scarcely be an appropriate legislative response to increase the maximum penalty to life imprisonment for an offence that also applies to conduct causing not actual, but only potential harm.
Members may wonder at this point how such a situation can have arisen: how it is that manslaughter in the Territory does not appear to be the same crime that it is in other jurisdictions? It is the general criminal responsibility provisions of the code that bring this state of affairs about. In particular, it is section 31, the key and general criminal responsibility provision of the Criminal Code that is of pivotal importance in understanding these problems. Amending the manslaughter provisions and repealing section 154, dangerous act, and replacing it with new offences would not be possible without addressing the problems created by section 31. A former High Court Chief Justice has described this provision as ‘astonishing’. In its application to manslaughter, section 31 creates the peculiar result that an accused is excused from criminal responsibility for the death of a person unless he or she personally foresaw that death would result from his or her conduct. It, therefore, provides a subjective fault standard rather than an objective standard by which criminal responsibility is to be judged.
Heavy intoxication is a prevalent element in violent conduct in the Northern Territory. Because of the subjective fault requirement in section 31, it is extremely difficult to prove that a heavily intoxicated accused had personal foresight that the beating they were inflicting or the stabbing that they were committing might result in death. In other jurisdictions, conduct of this nature would fall within a category of manslaughter by negligence. In the Territory, by default, this can amount only to a dangerous act. Even more surprisingly, the history of section 154 makes it clear that it was actually intended to be used as a default provision for those crimes that section 31 precluded from conviction for manslaughter because of circumstances of self-induced heavy intoxication. It can be used in this way only because section 31 does not apply to section 154.
Section 154 has even been defended by some on the basis that without such a provision violent conduct committed by intoxicated persons would go unpunished. In 1989, when the matter of Baumer was returned from the High Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Nader observed:
- The prime purpose of section 154 was to provide for charges of criminal offences involving serious personal
injury when the Crown was unable to establish some necessary mental element, solely because the jury was
satisfied that the accused was too drunk to have the necessary insight or foresight … Section 154 was
considered to be necessary because of the high incidence of serious alcohol-induced crime in the Territory.
It was believed to be unacceptable that the citizen should be left legally unprotected from unprovoked
violence, where that violence was a consequence of alcohol, which had obliterated the capacity of the
perpetrator to know what he was doing, or its consequences … Section 154 was a corollary to framing the
Criminal Code so as to accept the law as stated in R v O’Connor (supra) rather than, for example, as stated
in s28 of the Queensland Criminal Code …
Madam Speaker, let me summarise what the court was saying in that case. Rather than addressing a fundamental flaw in the way in which criminal responsibility provisions were set in the code to ensure that persons who committed violent acts causing death could be properly prosecuted for manslaughter as in other code jurisdictions, the Northern Territory chose to stick with provisions of lower culpability specifically to apply to drunken, violent offenders. That is the way the code stood in 1989 and that is how it stands today.
This is not good enough. It is not good enough to be satisfied that a person can just be convicted of some offence - any old offence it seems - when if that conduct was committed elsewhere, they would be made to bear the full criminal responsibility and punishment for manslaughter. It has sent the wrong message about personal responsibility and alcohol: if you get drunk and commit a violent offence, you are not as responsible and get to be treated more leniently than a sober person committing the same offence.
The problem with section 31 is not limited to manslaughter. As we know, sexual violence is also a prevalent crime in the Northern Territory. Section 31 has a profoundly unsatisfactory effect when applied to the rape offence under section 192 of the code. In its recent decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v WJI, the High Court considered the effect of section 31 on section 192. It held that because of section 31, the relevant fault element for this offence is that the accused must intend the act of having sexual intercourse without consent. The result of this is that if an accused believes that the victim is consenting, even if that belief is an entirely unreasonable one, he cannot have intended to have sexual intercourse without consent and must be acquitted.
Further, if an accused does not turn his mind to the issue of consent, claiming, for example, that in his state of intoxication he gave consent no thought at all, his conduct would again fail to satisfy the requisite fault element imposed by section 31; that is, intention to have sexual intercourse without consent. The effect of the WJI ruling is such that in a recent case before the Northern Territory Supreme Court, the jury was instructed in accordance with the decision in WJI that if they accepted that the accused had never given consent a thought, then they must acquit him. In the case in question, the accused had come upon a naked woman asleep on a bed. His argument was that he had had a few beers and thought that he would have sex with her, and never gave any thought to whether she was consenting or might not be consenting. He was acquitted.
In his judgment in WJI, Justice Kirby noted that this view of the law had been acted upon in the Territory for some time. He commented upon the failure of the Northern Territory legislature to amend the code and suggested that:
- … it is more reasonable than otherwise to infer that the approach of the Northern Territory courts to the
operation of the NT Code was deemed to be acceptable to the legislature …
This is a fundamental flaw. There is no fall-back offence provision here for the intoxicated accused. An accused in these circumstances must simply be acquitted. If our laws are to address the problems of intoxication and violent and sexual offending in any significant way, then we must at least start by ensuring that in the Northern Territory, we do not accept lower standards of criminal responsibility than other jurisdictions. It is for this reason that I propose this bill to give effect to fundamental reform of the Criminal Code.
As I have said, the bill proposes a new Part IIAA that provides the general principles of criminal responsibility. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, has produced nine chapters for a model criminal code in work undertaken for more than a decade.
Part IIAA is based on chapter 2 of the Model Criminal Code. The Commonwealth has already used chapter 2 as the basis for criminal responsibility provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which is now in force in the Territory in respect of the commission of federal offences it creates. Establishing the general principles of criminal responsibility using the model code as the basis for our own code seeks to create uniformity of standards in the criminal laws that apply in the Territory by aligning the criminal responsibility for Territory offences with that for federal offences.
It will not be possible to immediately apply the new criminal responsibility provisions to the whole of the Criminal Code. This is a significant and substantial reform process upon which we are embarking. Each successive report of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee has included detailed model legislation that is designed to operate with the general principles of criminal responsibility provided by chapter 2.
This bill commences a process by which parts of the model code will gradually be considered, and new offences introduced to replace current offences under the Territory code. Those offences will be re-written to conform to the new general principles of criminal responsibility introduced to the code by the current bill. Offences will need to be drafted according to the style of the model code so that the fault elements of the new part can be applied to them. This new style uses clear and precise language to make our criminal laws more readily understandable.
The Australian Capital Territory has embarked on a similar reform process having already enacted chapter 2 of the model code. The ACT is gradually enacting provisions to replace the common law and the Crimes Act in that jurisdiction, a process that they also estimate will take at least five years to complete.
New Part IIAA of the code, inserted by this bill, will immediately be applied to the offences either amended by or created by this bill that I will describe now in detail.
The bill repeals the existing manslaughter offence and replaces it with the crime of manslaughter that provides that a person will be guilty of manslaughter if they engage in conduct that causes the death of another person; and they are either reckless or negligent as to causing that death by their conduct. New Part IIAA provides the detail of what is encompassed by the fault elements of recklessness and negligence for the purposes of the code. Negligence is not the civil standard with which members may be familiar, but rather it is a criminal standard drawn from the Victorian decision of R v Nydam [1977] VR430.
The bill also amends section 192 of the code - sexual intercourse with gross indecency without consent - the offence more commonly referred to as ‘rape’. The amendment alters the fault element for the offence so that a person who has sexual intercourse with, or commits an act of gross indecency on another person, and who knows about or is reckless as to the lack of consent, is guilty of a crime. Once again, Part IIAA provides for the definitions of what is encompassed by ‘knowledge’ or ‘recklessness’ for the purposes of this crime. A defence of mistake as to consent will still be available. However, unlike the present situation, such a mistake must be a reasonable one.
The bill proposes the repeal of section 154, dangerous acts or omissions. The conduct previously encompassed by section 154 will now be covered by manslaughter; reckless endangerment offences; a negligent harm offence; and an offence of causing death or serious harm by dangerous driving. At present, that conduct is dealt with under the generality of section 154. It is appropriate that these forms of criminal conduct should be separately recognised and prosecuted as such. The bill also provides for a list of aggravating circumstances for each of the endangerment offences to which an increased penalty applies.
The new harm offences draw on definitions of ‘serious harm’ and ‘harm’ from the model code. The bill also replaces all current references to ‘grievous harm’ in the code and other legislation with the new definition of ‘serious harm’, and replaces all references to ‘bodily harm’ with the new definition of ‘harm’. Each of the current harm standards are considered to have defects which make it preferable that they be immediately repealed and new harm standards applied. The definition of ‘grievous harm’ requires a physical or mental injury that either endangers life or causes, or is likely to cause, permanent injury to health. The latter requirement is problematic in that it is unlikely that cosmetic injuries, even extensive ones such as facial scarring or the loss of an ear, will amount to a permanent injury to health, unless accompanied by some lasting psychological consequence.
The definition of ‘bodily harm’ is limited by a requirement that the harm be physical in nature. The consequence is curious in establishing proper levels of criminal responsibility. An offender who causes a psychiatric injury, but no physical harm to a victim, may be guilty of a grievous harm offence, but not bodily harm. If the psychiatric injury is not permanent, then they will not be able to be convicted of either, and the offence would revert to common assault. The new definition of ‘harm’ removes these odd distinctions and provides that harm includes physical harm and harm to a person’s mental health. ‘Serious harm’ removes the requirement for permanency and replaces it with the requirement that the harm is, or is likely to be, significant and longstanding.
As I have said, the bill proposes a new offence for causing death or serious harm by driving a motor vehicle. The code has not previously provided for this offence because section 154 was intended to cover culpable driving cases. These offences had existed as statutory offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act prior to the introduction of the Criminal Code. Section 154 has caused difficulty here also, again particularly where alcohol is involved. Driving under the influence of alcohol or another drug may not, in itself, amount to a ‘dangerous act’, nor is driving at an excessive speed necessarily dangerous. This has led to an acquittal in a case where an intoxicated person drove at an excessive speed causing death, in the case Volz v R 1990 100 FLR 393 at 404 which is the court citation.
The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction that does not have a specific offence of causing death or serious harm by driving a motor vehicle. The bill proposes that such an offence be enacted. Persons who drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a drug, so as to be incapable of exercising proper control over a vehicle, or who drive in a manner or a speed dangerous to another person, will be guilty of this crime. Dangerous driving causing death or serious harm will be an offence of strict liability. In other words, the prosecution will not be required to prove any fault elements - for example, recklessness - but must prove only the physical elements of the offence. However, a defence of mistake of fact remains available.
The creation of a specific offence of causing death or serious harm from driving a motor vehicle will not preclude, in proper cases, such matters being prosecuted as manslaughter. Under the present structure of the crime of manslaughter, such a prosecution was unlikely to be considered because the prosecution was required to prove that the defendant foresaw the victim’s death as a possible consequence of his or her conduct. Under the new manslaughter offence, if there is a level of recklessness or criminal negligence in the driving of a vehicle that is considered to be such that a higher degree of culpability should be considered, then a prosecution for manslaughter may be available.
Of the criminal justice reforms undertaken so far by this government, this will be the most far-reaching and will be of enduring importance in ensuring that the standards of criminal responsibility in the Northern Territory are set at a proper level. It is high time we moved away from an acceptance that intoxication can excuse criminal behaviour. It may explain it, but it should never excuse it. Inadequate criminal responsibility provisions that have allowed the situation to exist will no longer be tolerated.
The reform path that I have announced will be long and complex but, at the end of the day, Territorians will have a Criminal Code that sets appropriate standards of criminality in our community.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bill. I table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill. I commend the bill to all honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Youth Justice Bill 2005 (Serial 292) and Youth Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2005 (Serial 293):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
YOUTH JUSTICE BILL
(Serial 292)
YOUTH JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 293)
(Serial 292)
YOUTH JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 293)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the main bill, the Youth Justice Bill 2005, is to ensure that the legislation that applies to offending by young people provides an appropriate framework for responding effectively to the different circumstances and needs that arise when young people become involved in the criminal justice system. The framework set in place by the bill will cover all facets of the youth justice system from the investigation of offences through to trial and sentencing outcomes.
The Youth Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill amends various acts and subordinate legislation consequent on the enactment of the Youth Justice Act. In particular, there are amendments to the Justices Act, the Police Administration Act and the Sentencing Act. The majority of the amendments in this bill are aimed at correcting terminology or repealing provisions which are no longer necessary.
Amendments to the Sentencing Act also make it clear that the Supreme Court can exercise powers under either the Sentencing Act or the new Youth Justice Act. This is consistent with provisions in the substantive bill dealing with the powers of the new youth justice court and the Supreme Court respectively.
I return now to the main bill – the Youth Justice Bill 2005. This bill is intended to repeal and replace the Juvenile Justice Act. The bill arises out of a lengthy process of consultation with a wide range of government and community stakeholders. A discussion paper on the review of the Juvenile Justice Act was publicly released in March 2004. A process of extensive consultation with stakeholders with experience and/or interest in the youth justice system was undertaken by the working party conducting the review. This process of consultation informed the working party’s subsequent recommendations which shaped the policy underlying the bill in its current form. One of the most significant new features of the legislation to arise out of the working party review was the inclusion in the bill of overarching objectives and guiding principles based on national standards and international conventions relating to the treatment of young offenders.
The guiding principles set out in clause 4 of the bill provide the framework for responding to offending by young people. It is these principles which must be taken into account in administering the act as a whole. The principles will also inform the decisions of the courts made under the new act.
Key guiding principles under the bill include:
- holding young people accountable and encouraging them to accept full responsibility for
their behaviour;
balancing the needs of young people with the interests of victims and the community at large,
including providing greater opportunities for victims to participate in youth justice processes;
strengthening and preserving family relationships where appropriate and encouraging parents to
fulfil their responsibilities; and
recognising racial, ethnic and cultural identity and involving a young person’s own community in
responding to offending behaviour where appropriate.
These principles recognise that young offenders require quite difference approaches and have quite different needs to those that apply in the case of adult offenders. Young people need to be dealt by the criminal justice system in a way that takes account of their age and maturity, but they also must be held accountable for breaking the law and encouraged to accept responsibility for their behaviour.
One of the primary aims of the youth justice system is to prevent young people moving on to become adult offenders. Young people need to be given the opportunity to address their offending and to develop themselves in a socially responsible way. It is only when such strategies fail that detention in custody may become the appropriate option for addressing offending.
The general principles also recognise the importance of family relationships, cultural identity and the need to encourage parents and caregivers to fulfil their responsibilities in the care and supervision of young people. It is nothing new to observe that youth offending frequently goes hand in hand with family dysfunction, neglect and a failure to properly care for and supervise children and young people.
In addition to the review of the youth justice system, the government has also been undertaking an extensive review of the legislation that provides for the care and protection of children and young people – the Community Welfare Act. A discussion draft of the proposed Care and Protection of Children and Young People Bill was tabled in this House during the December 2004 sittings.
Together, the Youth Justice Bill and the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Bill will provide a complete legislative framework for dealing with the problems faced by children and young people in our society, including ensuring children and young people are afforded appropriate levels of care and protection, preventing the exploitation of children and young people, and dealing with youth offending in a way that will divert young people from progressing to becoming adult offenders and wasting their potential to develop into valuable members of the community.
We have dealt with many bills during this term of the Legislative Assembly that have made specific provisions for matters affecting children. As a legislature, we have been particularly mindful that children and young people are vulnerable members of our society. That is why we have passed legislation providing for longer sentences for people who commit sexual crimes against children, and who would engage in child abuse in the form of pornography. That is why we have attempted to heighten protection for children against sexual predators by establishing a Child Sex Offenders Register and reporting obligations for child sex offenders. That is why we have provided evidentiary procedures in criminal trials involving children as victims or witnesses to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and compassionately during the trial process.
All of these matters are fair and just measures and consistent with our appreciation that children and young people are not adults. In the criminal justice system, recognition of a reduced capacity of children and young people calls for consideration of special measures, whether the young person is a victim of crime or an actual offender.
From time to time we hear calls for, in essence, locking up young offenders and throwing away the key. In reality, some young offenders will certainly need to be held in custody. The seriousness of a young person’s actions and repeated offending may be matters that, in individual cases, do warrant detention and, in some cases, detention for a lengthy period of time. In recognition of their greater level of maturity, this bill provides for young offenders over the age of 15 to be detained for longer periods of time, up to a maximum period of two years; and to be subject to non-parole periods that may be imposed by the court in any case where a sentence involves detention for 12 months or over.
However, such cases are at one end of the spectrum of youth offending. We must be careful not to cast all young people into a single mould. Legislation in this area must recognise the whole range of offending by young people that occurs, and the whole spectrum of youthful behaviour and needs.
In addition to outlining objectives and guiding principles to inform the over-arching approach to responding to offending by young people, this bill provides for a full range of dispositions necessary to deal with offending behaviour by young people.
In summary, this bill:
- provides for matters related to the apprehension and remand of young offenders;
provides for the presumption in favour of diversion for young offenders where appropriate;
establishes a new Youth Justice Court with provision for appointment of specialist youth magistrates;
makes a wide range of sentencing dispositions available to the courts in dealing with young offenders;
sets out the powers of the Supreme Court in dealing with young offenders;
sets out the powers of the courts in correcting, reviewing and dealing with breaches of court orders;
allows for greater participation of victims in the criminal justice processes responding to offending
by young people;
confers a power to establish youth detention centres;
complies with national standards, international conventions and principles in relation to the detention
of young offenders; and
provides the powers for the secure and safe management of young offenders under supervision, whether
in detention centres or serving some form of sentence in the community.
I will now outline some of the key initiatives contained in this bill.
Diversion: one of the key features of the bill is an expansion of the successful pre-court diversion scheme previously contained in the Police Administration Act. That scheme offered four levels of diversion: verbal warnings; written warnings; formal cautions and family conferences; and victim-offender conferences. Similar levels of diversion will also be offered under the scheme in this bill, with the presumption in favour of diversion as the appropriate response to youth offending in all cases except those involving serious offences; or those involving offending by young people with a history of offending or previous diversions.
The new provisions also include the capacity for a youth justice court to refer a young person to the Police Diversion Unit to re-assess their suitability to participate in a diversionary program. In the interests of furthering rehabilitation of young offenders, it will be an offence to publish information about a young person who is participating in a diversionary program.
Under the diversion scheme, in addition to coordinating family or victim offender conferences, the police are able to refer young offenders to community-based youth offender programs which include counselling, education, training and life skills programs.
Under the bill, an upgraded version of the existing diversion scheme is transferred from the Police Administration Act to the proposed Youth Justice Act. This has been done because provisions under such a diversion scheme is more appropriately situation in legislation that deals with the full range of responses to offending by young people, rather than legislation that provides for the powers of police officers and the establishment of the police force. Nevertheless, the police will continue to play an important operational role in administering youth diversion under the new act.
Making young people aware of their rights and obligations: the bill also provides for a youth justice system that is sensitive to cultural differences and requires adults dealing with young offenders to explain what is happening at all stages of the process, and they must make these explanations in language which is appropriate to the young person’s age, maturity, cultural background and language skills. If we are to expect young people to be responsive to our efforts to curb their offending and to accept full responsibility for their actions, we must start by making sure that they actually understand what is happening to them and why.
This bill provides that, wherever practicable:
- the police must ensure that young offenders understand processes they are subject to during an
investigation, and their entitlement to legal representation and the presence of support persons
where appropriate;
the courts must explain the nature of the court proceedings and the effect of any sentencing or other
court order made; and
likewise, detention centre staff must explain to young offenders their rights and responsibilities at the
time they are admitted to a detention centre.
Each of these measures is aimed at ensuring that young offenders fully appreciate the nature of the consequences that flow from their offending behaviour. However, they also recognise that young peoples’ lower level of maturity and capacity to understand and anticipate consequences means that they warrant different treatment from adult offenders.
New Youth Justice Advisory Committee: another new initiative established by this bill is the Youth Justice Advisory Committee. This will allow for a greater level of community input in the youth justice system and aims to encourage government agencies responsible for youth matters to take a whole-of-government approach in responding to youth issues.
Part 13 of the bill provides:
- for the new committee to be comprised of government, non-government and community
representatives;
for the composition of the committee to reflect the composition of the community at large
as well as drawing membership from a number of youth specific organisations and agencies;
for the committee to be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the administration and
operation of the new act, and providing advice to the minister on issues relevant to the
administration of youth justice; and
for the committee to prepare an annual report on its activities to be tabled in the Legislative
Assembly.
I anticipate that the Youth Justice Advisory Committee will meet two or three times each year.
New Register of Appropriate Support Persons: in another new initiative under this bill, the Youth Justice Advisory Committee will also be responsible for establishing and maintaining a Register of Appropriate Persons. The new register will contain a list of people who have been selected as being appropriate persons to act as support persons where a young person’s chosen support person cannot be contacted or cannot attend within a reasonable period of time.
Young people have an existing right to have a support person present when they are apprehended by police for the purposes of interview, a search or any other matter in connection with an investigation. The support person will usually be a young person’s parent or guardian. However, there will be circumstances where the main caregiver may not always be able to be present and it will be important to avoid further delays in progressing a police investigation.
The new provisions under this bill will ensure that, where the police have made reasonable attempts to have a young person’s support person or legal representative attend an investigation, but that person is not available, the police may instead contact someone from the Register of Appropriate Persons to act in the role of a support person. This measure ensures that young people are assured of appropriate support mechanisms during investigative procedures, but that police processes are not unduly delayed by the inability to locate relatives or legal representatives.
Greater victim participation: this bill impacts on all criminal justice agencies at the point at which they become involved with young offenders, including police, court officers and correctional services. It also impacts on the community at large. In addition to providing for greater community participation through the Youth Justice Advisory Committee and the Register of Appropriate Persons, the bill specifically provides for a greater level of engagement by victims of youth offending. Victim offender conferences are already used as a very effective tool in our diversion programs. Under this bill, this tool has been extended to matters that proceed before the Youth Justice Court.
In addition to the court receiving victim impact statements or a victim report, the court may adjourn sentencing proceedings and order the youth to participate in a pre-sentencing conference. Such conferences may be with the victim, or with such community representatives or other persons as the court may consider appropriate. This new initiative will implement a practical way of ensuring young offenders face up to the actual consequences of their actions, and they will be required to meet with and hear directly from the individual or individuals whose lives their offending behaviour has affected. I am convinced that this is a most powerful way of encouraging young offenders to accept full responsibility for their behaviour and gain a very real insight into the consequences of their actions.
A greater range of sentencing options: the bill also makes a wide range of sentencing dispositions available to the court in dealing with young offenders. Sentencing principles are set out in Part 6, Division 1 of the proposed act. These principles are consistent with government policy underlying justice for young people and the community in general, and clearly articulate current sentencing philosophy. The bill sets out the sentencing options in a logical manner and in order of seriousness. This is similar to the approach taken under the Sentencing Act which deals with sentencing of adult offenders. The wide range of sentencing options available to the court will ensure maximum flexibility for magistrates and judges, allowing them to order the most appropriate sentencing outcome for the young offender in question.
Some of the new options available to the court include: provision for supervised bail; more comprehensive provisions for periodic detention; consolidated probation and good behaviour orders; application of review and breach provisions to all sentences; provision for the court to order aggregate sentences or that sentences be served concurrently or cumulatively; and a new option for the court to sentence a young person to strictly monitored home detention as an alternative to detention in an institution. As mentioned previously, amongst the new sentencing options available to the court are longer sentences for detention for young people over 15 years of age, as well as the capacity for the court to impose non-parole periods for such offenders.
While this bill provides a sound framework and a wide range of mechanisms for dealing with young people involved in the criminal justice system, it has to be recognised that legislation cannot, of itself, provide all the answers to youth offending. We are fortunate, however, in the Northern Territory to have agencies and individuals who bring dedication and determination to an often difficult task of working with young people to address their offending behaviour, and assisting them to develop their lives in a constructive rather than a destructive way.
The outcomes of operationally-based responses such as the Territory’s juvenile diversion scheme have been very encouraging. Such programs demonstrate the importance of a continuing commitment to the alternative approaches to dealing with youth offending. An evaluation of the NT diversion scheme undertaken by the Commonwealth highlighted the significant results that can be achieved from this approach to youth offending. Diversion was offered to over 50% of 4159 young people apprehended in the first three years of the scheme. The vast majority of young people offered diversion accepted this option rather than going to court, and over 95% of all diversions were completed to the satisfaction of police.
The outcomes in terms of recidivism are also positive. The vast majority of young people who completed diversion were not re-apprehended within a year of their initial arrest. Furthermore, the rate of re-offending for young people who had completed a diversion program was lower than that for young people who continued through the court process. Other benefits of diversion included a positive impact on the lives of young people, a high level of victim satisfaction, consistency with the application of diversionary measures, and an enhanced perception of the NT Police Force.
I am thankful for the participation of Victims of Crime in this process for their generosity in engaging with the young people who have offended against them in conferences in an attempt to assist them to turn their lives around and, of course, under this bill the role of victims has been enhanced.
It is acknowledged that there is more work to be done but, with the dedication and hard work exhibited by these outcomes and within the framework of the Youth Justice Bill 2005, I am certain that we will continue to build on and achieve more positive outcomes in the youth justice system.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the bills. I table the explanatory statements which accompany the bills. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Adopt - Standing Orders Committee –
Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly
Adopt - Standing Orders Committee –
Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly
Continued from 17 February 2005
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the report from the Standing Orders Committee, the Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly, to this House. There were a number of issues considered by the committee over this term and those issues are outlined in the report that is tabled before us today.
The first issue - the resolution is here in the House - is that the Assembly considers members, in speaking in the Assembly or in a committee, should take the following matters into account – and it goes to the issues of freedom of speech and the right for members to exercise very much, very close discretion in allegations that may be made against members of the public and people who do not have the right of reply in this particular Assembly. The committee was tasked with looking at options to ensure, as much as possible under our standing orders, that members exercise those rights judiciously in regards to freedom of speech. The resolution goes into detail of some principles in regards to the responsibility we have in this parliament of that right that is inherent in the Westminster system, and the capacity for the Speaker, whenever the Speaker considers it is desirable to do so, to draw the attention of members to the spirit and letter of the resolution. That is the issue that was under consideration as a result of comments that were made and representations that were received by me as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee.
Another issue was of proposed Standing Order 177A which was the adoption of explanatory statements to be included with legislation; an issue that the member for Nelson wanted the Standing Orders Committee to consider. I am pleased to say that the Standing Orders Committee has adopted that resolution and explanatory statements are now part of bills that are presented to the House.
There was, I would have to say, a pretty torturous and tortured debate regarding procedural guidelines for debate on motions and amendments to motions. If there is any Territorian who is vitally interested in this matter, included is a discussion of those torturous and tortured debates in committee, and guidelines for amending motions and who can speak to a motion that has been amended or amended a second time. All of us have some clarification of that particular procedural part of parliamentary business; not that there would be too many Territorians, I believe, who would bother to avail themselves of that particular part of the committee’s report.
New Standing Order 270A, essentially, provides guidelines for the Assembly committees to decide whether to conduct meetings using audiovisual or audio links. That is as a result of technology that has emerged over the years. I would encourage all members and public servants who live outside of the major cities of Darwin and Alice Springs, wherever possible, to use video conferencing as opposed to taking up precious time and dollars travelling. As a result of that new technology, I would like to see the committees of this parliament far more frequently use the technology that is now available. Guidelines to assist committees are now incorporated under that new standing order.
I commend the committee for its work. I thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend their report to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a difference in tone and substance we have today compared with the member for Wanguri’s hysteria on 12 October 2004! Much of this report has arisen as a result of what I describe as ‘vigorous debate’ made in the context of legislation. We know that the Australian Labor Party does not like us questioning this government, or rigorously scrutinising the legislation it presents, but, that being our job, we do it. I did it in relation to the Evidence Reform (Children and Sexual Offences) Bill on 7 October last year.
Members will recall that the member for Wanguri, as Leader of Government Business, tabled documentation: letters that were addressed to him as Chair of the Standing Orders Committee by some public servants. They were apparently aghast that I had dared to suggest that the legislation was not all it was cracked up to be, a recurrent theme through the legislative history of this government. The member for Wanguri just went on and on and on about how utterly disgraceful it was that I had dared to criticise the bill. Yet, we have today his insipid response and the effect of it really is: ‘Everything we said that day, member for Araluen, does not really apply. The indignity that we feigned, the outrage that we feigned, we were only joking’.
The member for Wanguri and his colleagues, it seemed to me and my colleagues, were basically threatening me with almost everything and, potentially, an appearance before the committee for my outrageous behaviour as they saw it. I said on the day, and I say again, that my life is too short to simply nod to everything this government wants me to, and I will vigorously scrutinise legislation any day of the week.
We knew the government was not serious because we said at the time: ‘Bring it on, bring it on. Let us have a committee. If you are as outraged as you purport to be, why don’t we get these senior public servants… ’ - and I do hope they are listening - ‘… to front the committee and we can ask them all sorts of questions about why it was that they were affronted?’. I looked forward to the opportunity; I really did. It would have been a very enjoyable and useful process. However, that was not to be.
The member for Wanguri came in here today and, basically, said: ‘Here is the report of the committee and isn’t it good?’ It shows the deceitful way this government operates, the spin to which it is prepared to go in order to make a point; their point being how outraged they were that I scrutinised legislation very, very carefully. The public servants who wrote the letter must be embarrassed. I remember the Leader of the Opposition said that: ‘If the likes of Richard Coates feels affronted by some of the things …’ I said: ‘Diddums, diddums!’ I repeat, echo and thoroughly endorse everything the member for Brennan said on that day, Mr Coates. I am sorry that he was affronted, but I suggest that his indignation was feigned as well. That is evidenced by the fact that this government did not go to where it was threatening to go by possibly having a committee and doing all sorts of things in an attempt to embarrass me.
I will stand by every single word I said during that debate on 7 October last year. The bill was a dog’s breakfast. It was flawed in a number of respects, and why it is that the second reading speech was, in parts, incomprehensible, remains a mystery.
Members will also recall that, on the same day as the debate, we had the Attorney-General issue an outrageous and offensive media release in which he implied that I favoured the protection of paedophiles. It was a vile and disgusting inference, and one which, after much debate, he reluctantly - and I question his sincerity in relation to it - apologised. Members will recall the debate on that day, in which the member for Brennan and the member for Drysdale spoke at length about how disgraceful that media release was.
On 12 October, the Leader of Government Business brought a motion into this House saying that I had made, ‘a series of assertions regarding the professional capacity of NT public servants who prepared the bill’. The member for Wanguri tabled a letter that had been written and signed by three public servants. He named them. I made no reference to any individual, by name or otherwise, in the course of the debate - none whatsoever. In any event, these three people wrote to the Leader of Government Business. It did have the appearance then, and it has now, of being a set-up, but I will never know, that is for others to judge. In any event, they wrote a letter and they were apparently happy for that letter to be made public. Whereas I did not name anyone, these public servants who were so affronted named themselves and acted with government to ensure that they were named by the tabling of the letter. It was as hypocritical as it was irrational.
Part of the motion put by government on 12 October last year was asking whether the standing orders needed to be strengthened to provide people with ‘a mechanism to respond to allegations that they believe unfairly impugned their reputations’. I say how laughable it is that government should name public servants after feigning indignation that public servants who were not named were affronted by my comments. In fact, I do not think I even used the word public servants. However, but I digress. The bottom line is that government did not like the criticism it copped for the bill it introduced, and they manufactured the sham to make it appear as though I had personally attacked public servants, which was and is a nonsense. Government wanted to deflect attention away for the criticism it got for the bill and it is as simple as that.
If government wants to fix up its standing orders, then it is free to do so at any time. But it should not go to the trouble of manufacturing a story and a series of events to make it look like I made you do it. It is both dishonest and disingenuous.
Government produced a letter from Sue Lowry upon which they sought to rely. That letter was dated 7 October and it was written to the Attorney-General. I then received an e-mail from Sue Lowry and I will quote an extract of it:
- I spoke with Michael Tatham, a ministerial advisor, this morning and was asked if my letter could be used.
He stated that they wished to use the letter to highlight the fact that the debate last week was unproductive
in terms of introducing this for victims, and that members need to be considerate of using names and attacking
workers such as authors of the bill.
I digress, she obviously was told that I had attacked public servants. In any case, she goes on in the e-mail:
- I did not interpret the request as supporting a motion against you personally. If, in fact, this is what it has been
used for then I am sorry, it was not my intention.
It seems like she was duped by the people on the fifth floor. I quote part of that e-mail because it demonstrates that this government was hell-bent on attacking me because, as the government members saw it, I had the audacity to question one of its bills. There is a neat way of putting this and it is called a hissy fit. Government created a drama as a result, when there was not one. The Leader of Government Business said in support of the motion he moved on 12 October and I quote:
That the member for Araluen should seek to use parliamentary privilege to attack the competence, the
capabilities and the motives of hardworking public servants and victims groups that have contributed
to the development of this legislation …
Etcetera. It is absolutely laughable. Here is what I said about the so-called victims groups in the course of the debate:
- You want people like Sue Lowry from Victims of Crime Northern Territory - I assume you gave her the same
sort of briefing as I was given - she also would have walked out the door with a bit of a spring in here step.
When government did produce this stunt back in October 2004, we said that if government was so sensitive, and if the three public servants who named themselves were so sensitive, then the government should arrange for them and others to give evidence on oath before the committee so that we could examine them as to the extent of their concerns and why they felt compelled to write to government, thereby putting their names in the public domain when they were not put there by me or my colleagues. This ‘no guts’ government decided not to do so. It demonstrates again that it was a sham, it was a stunt, and it always was.
As for the feigned indignation and the suggestion that I was attacking public servants, if they want to play that game then we can look at their own conduct. They have named many public servants in this House. Certainly not long after coming to government, they were naming them by the truckload. However, let us have a look at some things that their current members have done - or at least one member in particular - and it is an instructive example of the hypocrisy of this government.
In an ABC radio interview on 1 March this year, the member for Barkly, when he spoke about the lack of adequate services at the Tennant Creek Hospital said, and I quote:
There is no direction on the ground here in Tennant Creek and you have got a whole host of public servants - they
mean well but, unfortunately, they don’t live in Tennant Creek …
It is the Labor way; they can say and do anything they like - they always do - and it is typical of the patronising, hypocritical approach of most members of this Labor government.
But wait, there is more. There is more - and it was interesting that it came up in Question Time today - and it is the issue of the government’s dirt file. That is a file the Australian Labor Party is keeping on Territorians who ring and do things like exercise their democratic right to ring up talk-back radio and speak their mind in relation to this government.
Mr Bonson: Why don’t you go outside these doors? Why don’t you go outside and say the same thing?
Ms CARNEY: This government does not just keep copies of transcripts …
Mr Bonson: Put it on public record.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … as has been suggested by members of the government. They do not just keep copies of transcripts. What they do is they use a particular …
Mr Bonson: Why don’t you go outside of this Chamber …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Member for Millner.
Ms CARNEY: … categorisation system. They categorise what people say and what they think and who they are. I can quote a couple of extracts and I can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the government …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Millner, what are you saying to me?
Mr Bonson: Go outside this Chamber, like the member for Barkly did and say those things. Go on, why don’t you?
Ms CARNEY: Oh, you are more of a fool than I thought you were. You were the one who says sniffing was illegal, weren’t you?
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: In any event, I will ignore the inane and cretinous interjections of the member for Millner …
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the personal, offensive remarks. You know that is in breach of standing orders.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘cretinous’, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. In any event, I can quote extracts which will demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the government’s handling of this stunt can only be described as a stunt. I can demonstrate the sensitivity, the irrationality and the hypocrisy of this government and, indeed, it gives me some pleasure to do so.
Extracts from the dirt file: I have three here. On radio in relation to tourism, when I was shadow tourism minister, I said on 6 February 2002: ‘I call on the Chief Minister to demonstrate her commitment to Central Australia by committing funding to get another airline into the Centre to help our tourism industry.’ Do you know how they categorised that? It says ‘Policy Result’ then it says ‘critical of NTG …’ meaning Northern Territory government, ‘… /NTPS’, in other words, critical of the Northern Territory Public Service for saying: ‘I call on the Chief Minister to demonstrate her commitment to Central Australia?’ You have to be joking! But wait, there is more.
On 22 July 2002, I said on radio: ‘A police shopfront should also be funded by government.’ Funny that that should resurface again by Labor just before the election. Anyway in 2002, I said: ‘A police shopfront should also be funded by government. I spoke with police officers in Brisbane who have a 24 hour a day presence less than 20 m off the mall and they told me that the shopfront with security cameras had a significant effect on crime’. You know how they categorised it? ‘Critical of NTG/NTPS’! Critical of the Northern Territory Public Service - and I do hope they are listening. I have another example, there are bucket loads more.
Here is what I said on 10 September 2002 - in fact, it is quoting what media said, it says: ‘Ms Carney said the government needs to significantly increase its tourism funding, offer tax incentives to struggling industry members, and get an assurance from Qantas that it will not further cut international links in and out of the Territory.’ Do you know how they classified that one? The Labor dirt file? The classification was ‘critical of NTG/NTPS’. You have to be joking!
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask for those papers to be …
Ms Carney: Happy to.
Mr KIELY: … tabled as they are a record of the so-called ‘Dirt File’. I would like …
Ms Carney: I would be quite happy to table these, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Sit down.
Mr KIELY: I would like these as an accurate reflection …
Ms Carney: Sit down.
Mr KIELY: … of the so-called ‘Dirt File’ and ask that they be tabled, please.
Ms Carney: Sit down! Sit down!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: I said yes.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! I am actually in the Speaker’s Chair. I will decide who sits down.
Ms CARNEY: Well, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was still listening to the member for Sanderson while you were interjecting so if you could just calm down a bit. Continue with your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I am guided, as always, by your wise and prudent counsel, unlike the inane and just absurd comments by the member for Sanderson. I hear that the polling in Sanderson is terribly interesting.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask her to withdraw those comments, please. They were a personal reflection.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, the standing order in regards to offensive remarks to a member: if you want to consider withdrawing the references you made to the member for Sanderson, not the references you made to polling, the references to the member himself.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what did I say?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recall two offensive words.
Ms CARNEY: Which was it in particular, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, are you getting smart with me as Speaker?
Ms CARNEY: I am asking you for a point of clarification, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. What was it?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the two words the member took offence to were ‘inane’ and ‘absurd’.
Ms CARNEY: I ask for your ruling, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I have heard those used in parliament all the time.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you. I am asking you.
Ms CARNEY: I do not choose to withdraw them, no.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fine, if you want to be like that, member for Araluen. It reflects on yourself.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the classification used by the Australian Labor Party’s ‘Dirt File’, the Labor government in the Northern Territory and, in fact, the theatrics of the members on the other side - although they might not be members for long on account of the polling in relation to the seat of Sanderson - demonstrate how touchy they are. It speaks volumes about this entire stunt orchestrated by government.
The classifications from Labor’s own ‘Dirt File’ do show Labor’s sensitivity. Under the Australian Labor Party, which I thought would have been a decent bunch of socialists when they came in – well, this is turning into a fascist state because, according to the Australian Labor Party, almost any comment about anything is a criticism against not only the government, but a criticism against public servants. Well, a bigger crock I have not heard! And there was I thinking that Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s was a thing of the past.
In summary, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say to government: how dare you waste this parliament’s time…
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I know this is a very important subject to you, but I am in the position of being the only Jew in this Chamber and I personally find those remarks highly offensive. I do not mind most of the cut and thrust of what you say but, really, saying that I am part of a government that is akin to the Fascist state in Germany is incredibly offensive to me. I would ask you to consider withdrawing.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move for an extension of time such that my colleague may conclude her remarks.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sure.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Kiely: No!
Dr Lim: It has been ruled upon. Sit down!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had already ruled that she can continue her remarks. I did, however, pose a question to you, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I decline on the basis that a reference to Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s is in fact a reference to historical fact, and it is on that basis and I am sure, in a personal sense, you appreciate that.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Actually, I am saying that those remarks were offensive because they are saying that the government I am a part of is fascist to the extent of Nazi Germany. I am asking you to consider again that you have offended me as a member of this Chamber.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. You have asked me again, and, again, I decline.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to take some advice on this. Mr Clerk? Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw those offensive remarks without reservation.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw those remarks, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in terms of offensive comments, here is an interesting one. On Tuesday, 3 May, we debated the Volatile Substance Bill. In the course of what, again, would be described as ‘vigorous debate’ and where I was questioning the minister’s knowledge of the bill, this is what the Chief Minister had to say to me. She said:
- What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny.
She said that to me, of all people!
- What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny.
Mr Dunham: Didn’t she call you ‘a harridan’, too?
Ms CARNEY: Oh, she has called me all sorts of things, but misogyny is an offensive term. To be accused of misogyny is, I would suggest, given your comments from the Chair, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you would find that utterly disgraceful.
I say that in the context of the reference to Germany. However, in the context of attacking this government, when they are attacked, when they are held to account, we have your boss, the Chief Minister, accusing someone – me - who is attacking a minister who happens to be a woman, of being a misogynist. This is extraordinary and so hypocritical because if I were to follow the logic of the Chief Minister – and frankly, I do not think that she is possessed of it – I would say to the member for Wanguri: ‘What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny!’.
However, I did not say that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. That is what the Chief Minister said after trying desperately to defend the Minister for Family and Community Services the other day. I have made my point in relation to this government. It is this disgraceful stunt that occurred on 12 October 2004 and, boy, have I been looking forward to it! I was hoping that this would come up in Alice Springs. I thought we would really get stuck into it, but they chickened out. They chickened out. They were all standing there on 12 October, especially the member for Wanguri, really getting stuck into me - some would say he is a misogynist; I could not possibly say that, some might have that view - and threatening me with all sorts of things. It was a stunt and it is the hallmark of this government.
This country, this Territory, is a democracy. I will repeat that, because some members of the government do not understand that. This is a democracy and, like any citizen of the Northern Territory, I plan on having my say whenever I can. Partly, it is because it is what I am paid to do and, partly, because I am a woman who likes to say what I think.
If the government brings to this Chamber flawed, ill-considered, silly legislation, then I will call it that. I said at the time we debated the bill, my life is too short to simply nod my head to government’s legislation. I am sorry that the government did not like what I said. I am sorry it became blindingly obvious during the course of the debate that the bill was terrible, but I say to members of the government …
Mr Bonson: No, I have the words here.
Ms CARNEY: … toughen up! Toughen up, Matty! Toughen up! Do not waste our time and taxpayers’ money by coming up with these sorts of political ‘let’s attack Carney’ sort of stunts. If you are going to be serious, can you at least follow through? You should all be ashamed of yourselves, and I note with interest that is not the first time I have said this in this Chamber, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on a couple of items in the Standing Orders Committee Fourth Report to the 9th Assembly. I thank the committee for moving that we now have explanatory memorandum statements in our bills. I believe that is an important improvement in the way bills are put forward to parliament. Explanatory memorandum statements, as you know, are now part of the bills that are presented here and I certainly believe it is a great help when people are trying to understand what the bill is about.
I would like to make an addendum to that. I have written to one of the committees - I cannot remember which committee, I think it was the Standing Orders Committee - about the possibility of IT being used in this Chamber. IT screens were used during the Alice Springs sittings and they are of benefit to the public, and probably sometimes they are of benefit to parliamentarians as well, so when they come in here they know what is going on. However, especially for the public, they can have a better understanding of what is happening at the time.
I thank the Standing Orders Committee for supporting the idea of explanatory memorandum statements. I believe it is a great improvement in the way we present our bills.
Just a quick note on the amendments to motions, and I notice the member for Wanguri discussed how it is probably not very relevant to many people outside of this Chamber. It is still fairly complicated to read it. I sometimes wonder whether we could do with a diagrammatical form of this because it is not that easy to follow. Perhaps someone could come up with a diagrammatical form to help whoever is in the Chair try to work out at what stage someone cannot speak versus at what stage someone else can speak; and when someone has moved an amendment, whether they can still speak or whether they cannot speak. Whilst it is written there in black and white, some guidance may be required for those people who sit in the Chair occasionally to understand it. A diagrammatical form might be of assistance.
I thank the Standing Orders Committee for helping with putting forward the explanatory memorandum statements.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee I support the Fourth Report of the 9th Assembly. It includes procedural options for dealing with allegations against non-members; explanatory memorandum notes and statements; amendments to motions; and video conferencing.
Like the member for Wanguri, I was going to get up today and play with a straight bat, to talk about all the issues that the committees discussed and the findings and the recommendations of the report. However, after hearing the member for Araluen’s pathetic screams of ‘relevance’ in this House, it was an estimated 40 minutes that she spent talking about herself, how all her problems were here for the world to see and that, somehow, this report had justified her existence. That is a shame. For a member of parliament to spend 40 minutes justifying her own existence she should be more mature than that and move on to dealing with the facts.
The facts were that Hon Loraine Braham, as Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, received a letter. The member for Araluen went on to read out the letter, and cunningly dodged words used within the letter that were of particular offence to the authors. I will read this letter. It says:
- Dear Madam Speaker,
We wish to raise with you a matter of concern arising from the debate on the Evidence Reform (Children and
Sex Offences) Bill (Serial 240) on 7 October 2004.
- During that debate the member for Araluen made repeated remarks on the text of the bill and the process for
the development of the bill which were directed at the professional expertise and competence of both the
Policy Officer responsible for the development of the bill and the Parliamentary Drafter and the Policy
Division of the Department of Justice and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel generally.
If she was to walk outside - and I will read these comments further - and was not hiding behind parliamentary privilege, we would soon see what type of action would be taken against her. But she has not, and she has not gone on radio. She could not point to any radio, television or media reports where she repeated the same comments used in that debate.
For instance, the member for Goyder spoke on radio about a defamatory letter - in his opinion - being put out by the CLP candidate for Goyder, in particular talking about inducements made towards Independents. At least the member for Goyder …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Can I seek a point of clarification? I believe the member has the wrong electorate, and maybe he should look at whether he is defaming the wrong person.
Mr BONSON: Sorry, the member for Nelson. I thank the member for Drysdale for correcting that. So, the member for Nelson has gone outside, on radio, and sought satisfaction in uncovering the fact that this letter had gone out and had, somehow, tarnished his and the Labor Party’s reputations of giving the Independents inducements to control what the Independents do.
Why I raise that is because the member for Araluen will not go outside of this House, on radio, and raise the same issues that she raised in debate, use the same words and text out in the real world. She hides behind parliamentary privilege. This whole discussion and the whole of the standing order debate and the recommendations came about because of the importance of parliamentary privilege. One of the big issues that came out the recommendations was Recommendation 1 under Freedom of Speech 1(d):
- The need for members, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others.
People do have rights, member for Araluen, and they have professional rights.
I will read the second paragraph of this letter which these authors believe was an attack on their ability to perform their duties. The second paragraph:
- These comments ranged from matters of an indirect nature such as describing the bill or clauses of it as ‘a mess’,
a ‘dog’s breakfast’, ‘absurd’, ‘stuffed up’ and ‘bad legislation’ and ‘not properly thought through’ …
The comments were personal to departmental officers. The member for Araluen kindly mentioned ‘a mess, a dog’s breakfast, absurd, stuffed up’ – I do not think in today’s explanation of her existence as a member that she repeated the comment that it was bad legislation and not properly thought through, but I will stand corrected.
- These comments ranged from matters of an indirect nature such as describing the bill or clauses of it as ‘a mess’,
a ‘dog’s breakfast’, ‘absurd’, ‘stuffed up’ and ‘bad legislation’ and ‘not properly thought through’ to comments
that were more personal to departmental officers. In particular she asked ‘why the Attorney-General cannot employ
people with the relevant practical experience, either in the law or in the area of policy’, ‘whether independent
counsel had considered [s21D] and … the bill generally … or did the Attorney-General simply rely upon policy
officers at the Department of Justice’ and ‘that it is drafted in such a dreadful manner, based on, presumably, not
very good instructions’.
Third paragraph:
- Whilst rigorous scrutiny of the detail of a bill is obviously an important and appropriate aspect of parliamentary
scrutiny, …
There is recognition that we need to scrutinise all bills, which the member for Araluen claims that all of a sudden, come 2001 when the Labor government got in, that stopped happening in this House. However, history shows you that the convention is that all oppositions get an opportunity to scrutinise bills and, whether they agree with it or not, the government is allowed, due to numbers, to pass this legislation:
- … we believe that the terms of the member for Araluen’s comments go beyond such scrutiny and constitute a
direct attack on the professional legal expertise of departmental officers.
This is a letter addressed to the Hon Loraine Braham, Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It is not covered by parliamentary privilege. They have made a serious allegation against this member, but she continues to hide behind parliamentary privilege:
- Those officers have no ability to respond to or seek redress for such an attack on their professional
competence under parliamentary privilege and must suffer having their reputations impugned on the
public record.
- We are very disappointed that departmental officers have been brought into the political debate in this
way. It is no doubt both discouraging and embarrassing to them in the dedicated performance of their
duties to the government of the day to be made the subject of such comments.
The government of the day, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is an election going to be happening this year and that government might change or it might stay the same. But the public service has, to the best of its ability, implement the policies of the government of the day:
- This matter is referred to you for your consideration.
Attached to this is a letter of recognition by Loraine Braham and that this matter will go to the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am a member.
We discussed this in quite rigorous terms; I think it took three meetings and both sides of parliament and Independents got to put their views across. Extensive research was done by the Legislative Assembly staff and provided in a way that opposition, Independents and government were able to properly assess what the convention was all around the world, not just within Australia. I am talking Canada, United Kingdom, etcetera. Out of that debate came the recommendations, and they were recognition that parliament members need to have parliamentary privilege to comment and address legislation as best they can. But there was also recognition that rights of individuals needed to be protected, in particular, the adoption of a resolution as follows:
- Freedom of Speech
1. That the Assembly considers that, in speaking in the Assembly or in a committee, members should
take the following matters into account:
a. the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner;
of such allegations and to the standing of parliament;
made in parliament;
and
members to the spirit and the letter of this resolution.
What we had here today was as 40-minute explanation of an individual member’s justification of their existence. No recognition at all of any wrongdoing, of people’s personal and professional capabilities being attacked; or that the only reason these people could not take action in law was because of her protection of parliamentary privilege. Yet, all the examples she used were examples of people having the guts, the courage, the fortitude to go out into the public arena, away from their protection under parliamentary privilege, to make statements on the public record and to face those consequences.
Unfortunately, what we see from the member for Araluen is a consistent theme of hiding behind parliamentary privilege, making outlandish statements, attacking individuals, both public servants and the general public. It is a sad indictment on the responsibilities we have to this Chamber. That is all I want to say on the freedom of speech recommendations.
There were other issues, and you touched on one yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 177A, in the case of a bill presented by a member other than Appropriation Bill, an explanatory notes signed by the member and including an explanation of the reasons for the bill and a brief explanation of each clause of the bill shall be presented to the Assembly of the conclusion of the member’s second reading speech.
The third recommendation was the adoption of procedural guidelines for debate on motions and amendments to motions. I will not go extensively into that, but it is clearly outlined. That was an issue that the Standing Orders Committee looked at over a number of meetings.
The fourth one was the technological changes that the committee accepted. This came about because at another committee meeting of this House that I was attending, an issue arose about the use of mobile phones and ringing in, and this brought up the debate about the video links and an access to audio and visual links. It started off as a meeting about how we stop members from illegitimately attending committee meetings when they should be physically there, or through some other mechanism at the meeting as a member. It went from that argument to: do we really want to restrict members’ ability to contribute to committees?
There was recognition of the use of all different technologies to allow members to participate in committee meetings, whether that be physically or through video, voice, phone, etcetera, and that was accepted. I give credit to all members of parliament that the view, generally, did change and, by the last meeting, it was accepted by all, even those who raised the issue in the first place. Really, the issue was about ensuring - for cost, technological and practical reasons - that all members should be allowed to participate in committee meetings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, finally, I acknowledge the support given to us by staff members of the Legislative Assembly: the committee secretariat, in particular Mr Ian McNeill, the Secretary and Ms Jane Gunner, Research and Admin Officer. I thank all the members, Hon Paul Henderson, Chair, Hon Loraine Braham, MLA, Dr Chris Burns, MLA, Dr Richard Lim, MLA, and Mr John Elferink, MLA. I commend the report of the Standing Orders Committee to the House.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Order of the Day No 3 relating to Report into the Efficacy of Establishing an Environmental Protection Agency in the Northern Territory be called on forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development – Report on an Environmental Protection Agency
Note Paper – Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development – Report on an Environmental Protection Agency
Continued from 17 February 2005.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be standing as a member of the environment committee to talk about the inquiry that we held into an EPA. All members of the House contributed in a very positive way. It was great to have the experience of the member for Daly who, obviously, had vast experience in environmental issues in his time as a member and also in his working life; the member for Drysdale, as we know, who can have a very quick wit, but on occasions can come up with very good suggestions, there is no doubt about that, and I thank him for his effort; the member for Barkly who, again, showed his vast experience in a variety of different matters; and the member for Karama who was instrumental as the chairperson in our research, and I thank her for her efforts.
Like many members, the environment is very important to me, and no doubt to many Territorians, and needs protection. As we get older, we see changes in our own environment to the environment, and some of those are good and some not so good. I believe that the adoption of these findings and the recommendations by government will lead to regulatory protection of our environment.
We were able to travel to Western Australia and, while there, we met with Dr Wally Cox, Chairman of the EPA Western Australia, and his key staff to inquire first-hand about Western Australia’s EPA. What a wonderful view we had of the Swan River, one of the biggest environmental issues in Western Australia, from their office block looking out over the causeway bridge and onto the south side of the Swan River bank and the Esplanade. It is my belief that places like the Daly River and Darwin Harbour and all those natural resources that we have throughout the Northern Territory match such a beautiful river. We have much to learn from the way the EPA in Western Australia operates. What we learnt from there, as a committee, was that it is an independent advisory model. It is independent in its role in that it cannot be directed by the minister in its decisions; neither the authority nor the chairman is subject to the direction of the minister. However, they are accountable to the minister for the delivery of its functions and responsibilities.
The key features of the WA EPA accountabilities lie in the following: (1) the WA EPA has an advisory role, it does not make decisions; (2) provision for public appeal rights; and (3) open and transparent decision making processes. Other features include close association with the Department of Environmental Protection. The EPA consists of five members appointed by the government on the recommendation of the minister. The EPA recommendations to the minister must be made public. The EPA has an attached advisory council, a small number of support staff, access to expertise of the DEWCP and WA’s principal Environment Protection Act is reviewed five years after the commencement of the act.
One of the interesting things about the Western Australian model - in talking to members, from evidence and in public conversations that they provided for us - was that they believed the EPA allowed politics to be taken out of an environmental issue, in the sense that if an EPA came up with recommendations on a particular environmental issue, the government of the day was able to follow those recommendations and point to the EPA and its processes as the reasons why they were taking that course of action. However, the interesting thing that they did say to me was that, when an environmental issue becomes political, it is often only when the government of the day makes a decision to go against the EPA advisory recommendation. The reason they say this is that the government of the day might say: ‘Well, we have to look at the public benefit and there might be jobs and industry created and therefore, on this occasion, we are going to go against the advice of the EPA’.
The interesting thing is that those times that any government of the day goes against the recommendations of the EPA – and I think the EPA has been in existence for 25 years in Western Australia; it might be even longer – that is when it becomes a political issue. That is when they have to sell it or get beaten up, so to speak, in the public arena on environmental issues because they did not follow the recommendations of an EPA.
What they also said is that, in 90% of the decisions, they do follow the recommendations of the EPA because they provide sound advice on different environmental issues. Therefore, it does not become a political issues because both sides of parliament, and the general public, are happy with the advice that they get from the EPA.
I enjoyed their hospitality and the information provided by the Western Australian model. I noted that the NT members’ contributions to our model is drawing out many of the aspects from the Western Australian model.
As a committee, we were able to travel to South Australia to meet with Dr Paul Vogel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the EPA, South Australia and his key staff. Dr Vogel informed the committee that South Australia’s EPA is an independent regulatory model. The EPA in South Australia is the principle environmental regulator, with an independent board of nine members. The chief executive of the EPA and the chairman of the EPA board are the same person. The EPA is accountable to the minister for the delivery of its function through the chief executive. The minister cannot direct the EPA chairman and board on their decisions. South Australia has two environmental departments - the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, and the Department of Environment and Heritage.
What we saw, in laymen’s terms, was the South Australian model carried a bigger stick, in the sense that they had the ability to fine people who breached laws and legislation in regard to the environment. As an independent regulatory model, they had a huge staff and a much larger budget. One of the issues recognised by both sides of parliament was that, although we are large in land mass jurisdiction, in general population terms we are quite small. Therefore, whether we go the way of the South Australian model, one of the big issues is the cost, although there needs to be recognition that there are some valuable lessons to be learnt from that model.
Regarding the Tasmanian model, I noticed the input from the member for Daly. As a committee, we did not travel to Tasmania so, at this stage, I would rather not comment on those matters raised by the member for Daly. No doubt, he will address them in his contribution.
I wish to touch on some of the inquiry findings. The committee views their findings of this inquiry as being of equal importance to the recommendations. The committee found – and I will not read through all of the inquiry’s findings, except a couple of importance – that:
- 1. In general, community groups, particularly environmental groups, supported the creation of an EPA
or similar in the Northern Territory.
2. Largely, industry and business do not support the creation of an EPA in the Northern Territory.
3. The Northern Territory community largely recognises the need to reform the Territory’s
environmental protection arrangements.
4. The current arrangements for environmental protection in the Northern Territory would greatly
benefit from an extensive audit of environmental protection legislation and practice.
I believe, particularly after our visit to Western Australia, that there is probably a misunderstanding in the wider community in the Northern Territory of what an EPA will actually do. What I think it will do is give us independent advice and that independent advice will allow government to act upon that advice. It will take into account industry groups, community groups and environmental groups, traditional owners, relating it back to our own circumstances. I believe that the committee’s findings in regards to the EPA is very open ended. I believe we should be looking at all of the different models and drawing the best of each because there are a lot of good things to come out from what other states and territories are doing.
I would like to talk to a couple on the committee recommendations. The committee recommends that the broad principles of ecologically sustainable development underlie any reform to the existing arrangements for environment protection in the Northern Territory. The public’s right to know, to be informed, to be heard, and to object should be considered in any amendments to the existing arrangements for environmental protection.
I will jump down to point 7: an EPA or similar is considered a beneficial addition to the Northern Territory’s environmental protection measures and standards. Point 9: the EPA or similar be independent in its operations. Point 10: the EPA or similar should not reduce the strength and effectiveness of existing environmental protection measures but enhance them. Point 16: the EPA or similar be given powers to observe, comment and audit environmental protection regulations and regulators in the Northern Territory. Point 17: the EPA or similar be given powers to set best practice standards and guidelines. Point 18: third party appeals be a feature of the Northern Territory’s environmental protection arrangements, to provide for greater transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making. Point 20: the issues and concerns of the Northern Territory community including those issues more specific to indigenous Territorians are given due consideration in any proposed reform.
I will not discuss every inquiry, finding, or recommendation. However, I will say that as an environment committee, and with my membership on different parliamentary committees, this is probably some of the most important work that I have done as a member that will have an effect on the future in a positive way for young and old and black, white, green or purple Territorians who call the Territory home and wish to have an environmentally sustainable future. I thank again all the members of the committee and the Legislative Assembly staff who assisted.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the report from the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, at the outset, I will say that it is a very good report, it is a very comprehensive report and there are no minority reports contained within it. So, congratulations to all involved, including the Chair and members of the committee, because we were able to reach agreement on all of the recommendations contained within the report.
I believe they are very serious recommendations. One that should be taken note of, without going through them all, is that the committee agreed that an EPA or similar is considered a beneficial addition to the Northern Territory’s environmental protection measures and standards. After all the hearings and visits, we proceeded to lay down some recommended options within the report on how you might go about putting an EPA or similar into play in the Northern Territory. The recommendations state that all options, particularly those outlined in the report, are considered viable should government decide to pursue the establishment of an EPA or similar in the Northern Territory.
We were given the opportunity, including the Independent member, to come up with options of models that the various parties and the Independents thought were of merit. The one thing we did agree on in those models is that an EPA or similar should be independent in its operation. We were very strong on that, and that was the message that came through, albeit that some sectors of the community, industry, and what have you, are very nervous about further environmental protection. However, in the end, know that it is on the cards that such a structure will be introduced in the Northern Territory.
Having said that, though, everyone agreed that the structure that is introduced by a government of the future should not be so excessive in its bureaucracy or its structure that it would cripple the Northern Territory in terms of the costs of running it. It should be of a size that reflects the size of this jurisdiction, and it was agreed that any EPA should fit easily into the structures and mechanisms that are already in place for environmental protection. From that point of view, the report is a very good one; very handy for any government of the future to look at and decide on a model of their own using what has been proposed here.
I would also like to thank the members of the committee and those who assisted the committee: Graham Gadd, Maria Viegas, and Liz MacFarlane and Kim Cowcher who helped in the background, and all of the people who made submissions, whether written or oral, and attended the hearings. As usual, when you do these things, there is not a great number of people who come to these hearings. I have been on all sorts of committees over my time in parliament and it is a funny sort of an animal: many people make a lot of noise, but when it comes to turning up at 6 pm somewhere, usually you do not get that many. It was great to see some people come along in the various regions that we visited.
Without going through all the names again, because the member for Millner has already done it, I want to thank all those officers and private individuals who made themselves available in Western Australian and South Australia; we are certainly very grateful for the input they had. It is interesting to look at their models and listen to how things could be better, and the competition between states as to which model is better. Unfortunately, around Australia, like many things, we have many different models. You would think on a matter such as the environment, it would be a good move one day to get together to try to put together something that would suit everyone. The environment does not know boundaries: rivers run through jurisdictions, air passes through all jurisdictions, as do coastal waters.
One day, we will be smart enough in Australia on matters such as the environment to have one agreed-upon instrument of legislation, even though I know the federal legislation overrides all others. However, certainly for governing bodies and statutory authorities such as EPAs, it would be great to have one model across the whole nation. When you look at some of the salt problems down south, they certainly move right across states. That applies equally to water and river degradation problems.
As the member for Millner said, I took it upon myself to travel to Tasmania very briefly for two days and met with the CEO of the board there; and they called it a board. It is an independent statutory body, like most other states. They do not call it an EPA; they call it an Environment Management and Pollution Control Board. Their model is not too dissimilar from other models around other states. I was interested in going there because they have been in the news for many years on environmental issues and I thought they seemed to handle those concerns pretty well and perhaps they have a model that is worth looking at, and I must say that it is worth looking at.
Mr Dunham: Third party endorsement too in South Australia?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, they did in South Australia. Unfortunately, the committee did not have the funding to go there; we should have had. We should have had some free-ranging movement to be able to go to places like Tasmania. As a committee, we seemed to have only picked Western Australia and South Australia because people were whetted to it. We probably should have gone, as a committee, to Tasmania as well as the other states. However, others of us did our own homework and I believe it was very beneficial. I spent quite some time with the CEO of the Environment Management and Pollution Control Board looking at their structure.
I also looked at – and perhaps we should have gone there too – New Zealand. Having had a look at New Zealand, not by going there, but from the information we had, the CLP members of the committee were able to put in the report a model that we believe is very practical whilst giving a very high level of independence. That comes particularly from some of the work that has been done in New Zealand and in Tasmania. Those trips were very worthwhile.
Turning to our model, it is there for all to see. As I said, the ALP’s model is in there and so is the Independent’s model, but what we are proposing is minimal change to the structures that we have. I believe it was incumbent on us to provide a model that did not require a huge new bureaucracy and changing the structures that we have in place. What we are proposing is that the current Office of the Environment becomes the Environment Protection Commission, headed up by a commissioner. The commissioner is the independent component of our model, being appointed by this parliament, reporting only to this House, although that independent Environment Commissioner would also be the CEO of the Environment Protection Commission and, obviously, have reporting duties on management of that commission, which is the current Office of the Environment, to the minister for Environment, although obviously in matters of references and things, could not be directed, but could be asked to take on references by the minister. They could self-reference as well, and take references from third parties or from wherever.
That being the case, what we then said in our model is that the current Development Consent Authority would be re-named. It would stay as an independent statutory authority, as it is now, under the Minister for Lands and Planning. It would become the Sustainable Development Authority. What we would be saying is that any development application across the Northern Territory would have to go before the Sustainable Development Authority. They then would, as they do now, ask agencies for their advice including, in this case, the Environment Protection Commission and the independent Environment Commissioner. They would conduct their assessment and give it to the Sustainable Development Authority, the difference being from now is that their decisions could be appealed by all people directly affected by the application, and that includes the independent Environment Commissioner. If, for some reason, the Sustainable Development Authority, in an application of any sort, and it would include mining, it would include all major applications, thought to ignore or go against the environmental advice given to them by the commission, the commissioner could then appeal the process.
We believe that the model - without going through anymore of it; it is laid out, as the other models are, in quite some detail in this report - would be a very practical model. It would not be excessively costly because both of those structures we are talking about currently exist in the Northern Territory. It would, obviously, take legislative changes and some restructuring in that way, and we have said in our recommendations that an audit needs to be undertaken to look at what changes would be necessary for any future model to be implemented. There is our model; there is the report.
I put on the record that I am quite disappointed, having now spent over three-and-a half years on this committee, that the committee has only had two references in that time. I believe the committee could have been a lot busier. I still believe that the committee could have taken on references - and this is a failing of the Environment minister and government – where we could have been looking at other issues of major concern. I am not playing down cane toads, or an EPA. They are issues of concern and should be dealt with, and we have dealt with them in a very satisfactory manner, to my liking. However, we could have been taking on other issues such as noxious weeds and feral animals that are impacting on the Northern Territory, and one that is very close to my heart and, certainly to this House, is saltwater intrusion in the Mary River, to name but one river system that is being dramatically affected.
I note that in the budget, once again, there is only $0.5m for barrages for the Mary River. I believe, quite passionately, that an environment committee of this parliament as a future reference - if not prior to this we should have been doing it - to take a very hard and long look at what is happening at the Mary River, because similar things are going to happen in other wetland systems around our coastline. What we are doing at the Mary River certainly needs beefing up. It is going to be an ongoing issue that governments of the future will have to provide funding for, if the decision is made to save the wetlands, and I believe they should be. I believe it will be an uphill battle, but it is something the environment committee, with its resources and access to the community, and the will of this parliament behind it, should take on as an immediate reference to look at what has happened in the past, and what is currently happening.
I believe what is happening is very good. I know there has been a lot of engineering work put into it. I have been personally involved with that when I was the minister. I brought in some Dutch experts to look at and oversight some of the engineering works. The works that have been done are very good. However, I believe there is a new emphasis needed over the next decade on that. This parliament could certainly give that as a reference to a future committee. We could have been doing more on that part. It is a shame that we have probably wasted a bit of opportunity there.
However, we have this report and the one before it on cane toads that are of good value and good quality.
As you all know, the CLP has committed to providing an environment protection commission exactly along the terms of our model. That policy has been out for some six months now. We will be doing this in government, but certainly in government a structure of this sort could have a look at all of the issues that are currently plaguing the Northern Territory and the current government, particularly the Douglas Daly - the whole Douglas Daly basin issue - and the water issue and the land issues down there. The structure that has been set up to deal with that is nothing more than a farce and the so-called report that has never seen the light of day is a report that really cannot recommend any action that is decisive.
Government has a problem with how to handle it. They have a moratorium going that they are under pressure to lift. They have a requirement being put before them for massive dollars for the monitoring of ground water and so on. A structure such as an EPA, an EPC as we call it, could have a thorough look at this with all the resources of government behind it through the independent environment commission. The one thing I did not mention in our model is the ability to take on advisory experts or groups. Certainly, in such an issue as the Daly basin this would be the structure to come up with some very decisive outcomes after listening to all of the stakeholders.
The problem when you form a committee such as the Daly River Reference Committee, as government has found out, as soon as you leave somebody off, they start screaming. So what you tend to do is put everybody on and then when you put everybody on they all have disagreements about what the recommendations are that they are trying to achieve and the outcomes are next to useless. Therefore, you need somebody who can be independent, and can, at the end of the day, come up with some decisive recommendations for government to deal with issues such as land clearing, water quality and so on.
Within the next term of government, we will implement a model such as we have suggested and I think it will be a good thing for the Territory. I do not think it will be overly bureaucratic. It certainly will not be much more costly than the current structures that are in place. I look forward to the day that the CLP can do that.
Again, I thank members and the staff of that committee and hope that a future parliament including this one, if it lasts much longer, looks at a reference for the Mary River.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I take the opportunity to speak on the report, The Efficacy of Establishing an Environmental Protection Agency in the Northern Territory. As a member of that committee I, too, have felt particularly privileged to be part of a very cohesive group of people who have worked together, who almost agreed without exception, other than the models, that an EPA, whatever model that might take, was certainly in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Yesterday, I asked a question of the minister for Environment about some of the environmental grants that this government has made available to smaller organisations for programs. During the course of that question, I made the comment that I described our environment as unique and as very special. I meant that. I sincerely meant it because we do live in a very, very special part of Australia; a unique part of Australia. Obviously, all aspects of our country are critical to our long-term economic and social development and, more importantly, to our many young children and their children well into the future. They are the people who are going to be the leaders; they are the people who are going to be providing direction to the Northern Territory in various capacities. It is incumbent upon us as a parliament, as a government, to ensure that we do not leave legacies that in any way might impinge upon their capacity.
I would like to approach this in a different way; from the Barkly perspective. Most members would be aware that I represent a very large and diverse electorate, a bush electorate. It is a great part of the Northern Territory. I will mention some of the features of the Barkly: there are islands, the Sir Edward Pellew Group; we have coast line; and many rivers – the Foelsche, Wearyan, Robinson, McArthur - and all of those areas essentially remain undeveloped. There are immense opportunities into the future for ecotourism, recreational fishing and a whole host of other development opportunities.
Most members would be aware that the Barkly produces probably the most cattle in whole of the Northern Territory. It is probably the most productive. It is certainly the most progressive and possibly the most prosperous per capita in the whole of Australia. There is immense potential to grow that industry in a sustainable way.
We have many parks in the Barkly area - the Davenport Ranges, the Devils’ Marbles and other smaller, undeveloped places, but they will be developed over time. You often hear me talk about the Longreach area in Elliott, and there is a whole host of others which have yet to be identified as new opportunities for development.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you will also be aware that the Barkly and Tennant Creek has been one of the great economic drivers of the Territory economy over a very long period of time. I have said in this House that something probably in excess of $5.5bn in today’s dollars has been pushed into the economy and most people will be aware that gold production is still occurring in Tennant Creek. There is an increasing awareness in the Tennant Creek area of exploration, and drilling is at record levels.
The Banka Banka region has the potential to become a new manganese province, and Bootu Creek is shipping out 600 000 tonnes per year, four trains per week into the Port of Darwin for export overseas. The McArthur River Mine is now owned by Xstrata and they are looking at a rather large expansion program. As I mentioned previously, it is a very important economic driver throughout the Northern Territory.
There is another issue I raise in the context of this report: I do not think that we fully realise the importance of the railway line. I have no doubt that in the coming years, particularly with the bulk loading facility being built at the port, that the whole corridor area will be an outstanding prospect in regards to mining development. It is critical, then, that whatever we do, we do it in a way that is sustainable in the context of economic and social development. It is important in the long term to get it right and to maximise our opportunities.
The bottom line is that we as the government or as the community - any government for that matter - have to look after our country; we have to look after our environment. We have to grow our economy. We have to develop industries. To ignore these, or to not take action would be compromising future generations of our young people in the Territory and also many of our industries.
Other members have spoken in detail about the report and I believe it is a very well balanced and detailed report. Other members have mentioned that we travelled to Western Australia and South Australia. We spoke to experts in their field. We heard the member for Daly state that he went to Tasmania to have a look at their model and, clearly, much discussion took place over the period of time that we made the visits. We also visited all the major regional centres throughout the Northern Territory and were able to speak to a whole host of people who attended the public meetings. We spoke to the NT Minerals Council, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, and horticultural groups. Obviously, they have a view, perhaps a little different from what we might envisage at this point in time, but I will go back to that in a moment. To all those people who took the time to write submissions, to come to our meetings, and to all those experts we were able to talk to, thank you very much for your contribution.
The good thing about the committee, as we have all said, was that we all agreed in respect to the report. There are some abiding principles that we would like to see incorporated into any new proposed EPA. Certainly, what must apply is that the community must always have the right to know and the community has the right to be informed. The community has a right to be heard and the community must also have the right to object. I would have thought that such principles should always be paramount in any future considerations in regards to an EPA.
The committee also recommended that the proposed EPA – all agreed, as I say, it would be in the best interests of the community - that it should be independent, it should not be top heavy with personnel or overly bureaucratic. The other important thing which I alluded to earlier in respect to some of the industry sectors is that it must be phased in. The NT Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Minerals Council and other groups clearly have some concerns. I believe the challenge for any government is to ensure that they are heard, as indeed are all industry groups, that their positions are taken into account, and that we try to develop something that is going to be in the best interests of the Territory.
Already, you will note that one of our recommendations is that we are recommending that the environmental officers attached to Mines and Energy remain with Mines and Energy. That is not unreasonable but, of course, the EPA would be the overriding body. They would have the final say, and there is a great capacity for the Mines and Energy people to come to some sort of agreement on an MOU in regards to that.
In regard to the model we preferred, Option D, we are saying that it should be phased in. The first part being consideration by government in regards to having a look at or at least assessing, or doing an audit of some of our existing environmental programs, the environmental functions and the existing legislative frameworks. That needs to be done first before we move on to the next stage. Then, of course, there is the consultation process because, whatever model is arrived at, has to be in the best interests of the community of the Northern Territory, but it also has to take into consideration the specific needs and requirements of industry, community groups and organisations. I am very confident that we, as a government, would adhere to both those principles in an assessment and audit and then, of course, an orderly consultation process arriving at a model.
In conclusion, I would also like to thank very much the Chair of the committee, Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama. I know you are very committed and you had your heart in this particular task. We thank you for your leadership. I know you put in hours beyond what were required, so thank you. Also, to my colleague, the member for Millner, Matty Bonson, who was also very keen and was always asking the right questions. Thank you to the members for Drysdale, Daly and Nelson for your contributions. We may not have agreed on models, but we all agreed on the principles, and that is very important in the context of any government establishing a model or some form of an EPA.
I thank Mr Graham Gadd who provided wonderful leadership and was always available for our needs; Maria Vegas who did a lot of the research and the leg work, and Liz McFarlane who played a very important role as she always does in her involvement in all the committees.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was a very worthwhile effort and something that has the potential. I know it will serve the best interests of the Northern Territory well into the future.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I probably shall not be as generous as my colleague, the member for Daly, in that I believe that the environmental credentials of this government are on the line here. If you look at the three committees I have been involved in – in one we went off and looked at an estimates committee for this parliament and it turned out that the recommendations were entirely abandoned; we then went off and looked at cane toads and those recommendations were pretty much entirely abandoned; and we spent a fair amount of time looking at this particular term of reference.
While we have been doing this work - and it may well be important, and the member for Daly touched on it - there are massive issues relating to weeds and weed intrusion; to feral animals, of which cane toads are only one; to biodiversity and protection of some of our native flora and fauna; to saltwater intrusion; the effects of fire, particularly insofar as some of our noxious weeds are concerned; and, of course, climate change and issues such as this. We have not, as a committee, really looked at any of these matters. In the past, the committee had a particular focus on the Alligator Rivers region and that has also been newsworthy in the last couple of years.
It has really been a bit of a ‘make work’ scheme again, where we have been sent off to focus on something where I believe the government probably has its mind made up. I shall not be at all surprised if our report gathers dust somewhere and the government has some public servants and other boffins pretty much replicating our work and coming up with a different model. It might sound a bit cynical but I guess that is the way of it.
In this area, natural issues are very important to us. Natural resources are important to our tourist product, there are industries that come from them and, obviously crocodiles is foremost and the harvest of some of our wild stock of fish and pearls and others. Therefore, nature is a pretty important business in this place. It is a pretty important business to look at in terms of our biggest employer which is tourism, and its effect on our other two big industries, mining and primary industries.
What we were looking at in this business of setting up some sort of structure, I believe, was really to keep us largely out of mischief in some of the other main games that were on. I am very disappointed with the budget papers in this area. The budget papers for Conservation, Natural Resource Management show marked reduction across all areas; it is $6.67m cut. That is a significant cut from $94m down to $87m. If you look at some of those areas they are particularly concerning. Natural Resource Management for instance has suffered a $5.5m cut. When we looked at cane toads, one of the big issues that came to us was that we should be doing surveys of population of species, and we should be doing audits of some of our parks. We thought that was pretty important work, and that perhaps it should go ahead certainly as a before and after, for instance. So when the minister says in his budget speech we are going to pull the cane toads up before they hit Western Australia and this is work that should have been done well and truly before, there is lots of work that should have been done before. This committee in a different term of reference looked at those. Its recommendations are definitely not reflected in the budget.
Parks and Reserves Management has been cut. Natural Resource and Management - cut. Biodiversity Conservation - cut. Natural Systems - cut. So I do not think it is a particularly good, green budget. I was disappointed that there has been a focus, for instance, on mining and the mining regulators. Prior to this report becoming public, the current Resources minister, the member for Casuarina, came out and said that he did not believe the mining department had the capability to both promote and regulate mining, and it goes straight to the heart of some of the stuff you are talking about here.
Mining has particular impacts on the environment and there is often a lot of emotion attached to some of those mining impacts. There is a lot of non-scientific emotional argument that goes with it and there is a necessity for an independent umpire and arbiter often.
I was disappointed with what the minister said. It certainly is not a philosophy that holds true if you look at other areas of government. For instance, the Liquor Commission can both promote that industry and regulate it. Work Health can promote practice and regulate it, and a number of other instrumentalities that have a legislative base to monitor and regulate, can both promote and regulate, and I believe the mining industry can. What is interesting, though, is that it seems that this was done significantly in advance of this report being debated here and it seems to be a disposition that we need to have different policemen looking at mining because we really cannot trust them. I thought the Chief Minister’s expression of confidence in the mining regulation part of the bureaucracy with the problems at Ranger was good. She came out and said:
- I am very confident that our people there are doing the right thing and I am very confident that the
regulatory aspects relating to Ranger insofar as the Northern Territory government is concerned are
well looked after.
That seems to fly entirely in the face of later comments by the member for Casuarina, who is the current minister, who said: ‘Can’t trust them. They are promoting mining and they are also regulating it’.
These are significant debates to have. The debates it would appear in terms of this report are redundant and irrelevant. I do not think anything we can say in this report, or what we might say standing up here tonight, has any bearing on government policy, to be quite frank. That might seem a cynical attitude again, but pretty much if matters like those that perplexed the mining minister were issues that he thought should have been dealt with, he could have given us a term of reference. We could have looked at that particular aspect, we could have done it in conjunction with the report that was on foot, and we could have provided bipartisan thinking advice that came from not only the industry but also from community consultation.
It is not my intention to speak long, given that I believe that most of what we say here will be arguably a matter for an irrelevant approach to government modifying any of its policies or practices or even structures. The environment is a significant area of our entire business in this parliament that has been neglected. I am disappointed with the cuts that are in the budget. I am very disappointed that the instrumentality of Parks and Wildlife has been subsumed in the department where they are almost unrecognisable now. They are a unique, uniformed, focussed service which should go back to doing that instead of being embedded somewhere where they are anonymous and not seen.
You have the report; have a read of it. I suspect it will not have any impact on any of your decisions that you will make in this area. I suspect it kept us away from looking at the real issues of weeds, feral animals, salt water intrusion, and those important issues. It is immensely important that as a parliament we start to do that. There is no good saying we protect the environment because we have a person and written on his door is ‘The Environmental Protector’.
You actually have to do it as well. That is where this is falling down. The report will be largely seen as rhetoric unless we can ministers to make iron-clad assurances in this place about what portions of it they think are good and bad, particularly the mining minister, who has to describe why he has a lack of confidence in the regulatory capacity of his department. He also has to describe how he will remedy that lack of regulatory capacity.
I would like to see those budgets reviewed. To me, those cuts seem too big for this area. I have disquiet about the fact that some of the third parties you would expect to be jumping up and down loudly are quiet. I would hate to think that it is because they have traded this in for something else, heaven forbid! I would have thought that some of the green groups would have pretty snakey about some those figures I have just mentioned. I am surprised that they have gone through the keeper. I did hear one comment, but I am surprised that cuts of that magnitude are taken as a reasonable proposition in these areas where they are doing it very tough already. As I said earlier, the flow-on effects through a variety of industries including primary industry, mining and tourism will be evident from our neglect of this area.
I will commit that, if I am in this parliament after the election, I will treat this is a very serious issue, whether I am in opposition or in government. Whether I am a member, I was born here, and I agree with my colleague from Barkly: we have a stewardship role in this House. Our job is to look after country. Our job is to make sure that the great heritage and inheritance we have, we pass onto others, and to do it in a way that would not leave us ashamed and embarrassed for our future generations to pick up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will start with the thank yous because when I get to the end, I forget these things. I thank Graham Gadd, Maria Viegas and Liz McFarlane for all the work they have done; and our Chair, the member for Karama, for the work put into bringing this report to the parliament.
My comments will be, basically, around the recommendation I proposed, but I believe that the government - whichever government is in power after the next election - should act on this report quickly and set up the EPA - or the EPC or whatever it is going to be - so this does not, as I think the member for Daly said, gather dust. The recommendations are there and they are excellent recommendations. There are many issues the EPA could take up.
If there is one area that I am not quite clear on is where does the EPA’s work fit in relation to whether we have a Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in the next parliament. I hope the committee can continue regardless of which government is in power after the next election. From a political point of view - and I am not talking about party politics, but from a parliamentarian’s point of view - it is good that we are on committees which get out and look at some of these issues first-hand. It will be interesting to see whether those roles of an environment and sustainable development sessional committee can run parallel, or are they complementary to an EPA or an EPC, because I also believe there is enormous scope for both an EPA and the sessional committee.
There are issues, as was mentioned, such as weeds. I might talk about weeds when I am talking about the budget. I attended a gamba grass conference at Batchelor last week. It reinforced in my mind the absolute potential disaster that gamba grass, which is a pasture species but for many of us it is a weed species, and mission grass, Pennisetum, can possibly do to our natural environment, especially in the Top End, if we do not take some positive steps to slow them down at least, or try to eradicate them. That is an awfully big task, but it is a task that needs to be looked at.
Of course, we have the cane toad. Even though the government has been proactive in regard to the cane toad, I believe there is more we can do. I have said before that we should be paying pastoralists and Aboriginal people to perhaps fence off areas to keep the cane toad out so that some species are protected from them.
There are also issues like the management of our parks. How are our parks operating? In my area, or in the surrounding areas, I have now a new park called the Shoal Bay Conservation Park. It would be interesting to see how that park is going to be developed and what its role will be in our overall structure of parks.
Another issue, again an area around my neck of the woods that affects the environment, is extractive mining. I have said plenty of times before that extractive mining is a very important part of the development of places like Darwin and the rural area. Without sand and gravel, you could not build the city. There are some major issues that that sort of mining can lead to, especially with the introduction of weeds; large areas that can be left basically un-vegetated; and the general look of the environment can be affected by extractive mining.
One of the big issues in this part of the world still has to be the Darwin Harbour. Of late, it has been off the agenda, but I believe it is one of those areas that should always be on the agenda. I will continue to push for the rehabilitation of the Middle Arm Peninsula. I do not think that area should have been set aside for light industry. Perhaps, because that is a major development that the government proposes, that is something the EPA should be looking at. I have probably bashed my head against a brick wall saying industrial development should be at a different site. Perhaps an independent EPA could at least look at that without, you might say, my or the government’s biases, and ask: ‘Is this the way we should be going?’ I see that would certainly be a good starting point for an EPA.
There are many other issues. As people know, I am not afraid to talk about cotton. I certainly believe that it is not cotton that we should be talking about; it should be about cropping. Cropping, if done incorrectly, will cause environmental damage. Unfortunately, we have selected cotton as the big bogey crop that is going to wipe out rivers, destroy water resources, pollute everywhere, and clear lots of trees. We have done some of the finest work, I believe, at Katherine Research Station in looking at new ways of growing that crop. Yet, we are going to now finish doing that. There will be no more experimental work at Katherine Research Station.
There would have been an ideal subject for an EPA to look at. People have concerns, and I am not knocking those concerns - that would be the last thing that I am doing - but I am saying that we also have to make sure that we look at these issues through logical debate and eyes, you might say. One way would be to get the EPA people to look at where we are with cotton. We have done six, seven, or eight years of experimental work with cotton, and people will still tell you that it uses too much water, it clears large parcels of land - all based on their knowledge of south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Yet, right in our own backyard we have new techniques; we are doing things differently. However, it is politically not acceptable, therefore, it is out the door. I believe before we say goodbye to cotton in the Northern Territory, we should direct it to the EPA and they look at it.
The top recommendation is that the broad principles of ecologically sustainable development underlie any reform to the existing arrangements for environmental protection in the Northern Territory. There is the recommendation that should be the basis on which we look at cotton, maize, peanuts, - whatever crop - where we are looking at land clearing for improved pastures. That is the basis on which we should be looking at it, and that is the basis on which we should say whether we grow cotton or not; not on whether it is politically unpopular. We should put that to the EPA to look at crops like cotton to see what they say and draw our conclusions from that.
Having an EPA is a good idea for many of those reasons that I just put forward: weeds, cropping, extractive mining, and mining in general. I know some of the mining people where not happy about the idea of having an EPA. They were certainly concerned about the idea of having the mines environmental people in some other department would be not conducive to their industry. I do not, necessarily, agree with that. I believe there should be a department of environment and, within that department, you have mining specialists - the same people you have now - and they still work with the mines. However, there is a perception that, if you work in the mining department you will, perhaps, give a biased report when it comes to environmental issues.
I do not say that in a derogatory manner about those people who work in that department. I know that they are excellent people. However, sometimes the perception is important as well. If they were in the department of environment and they still specialised in mining, I do not think that it would make any difference. But it would be the perception in the public arena which would say they are independent of the department they have to actually monitor. I believe that there is room for a department of environment which collects all of those people from other departments who deal with the environment.
The model that I have put forward is based, I suppose, on the theory - or not so much the theory - the idea that an EPA deals with development; it deals with subdivisions, and environmental matters. We already have a body called the Development Consent Authority which does exactly that. It looks at development, land clearing, and subdivisions. It is not extremely broad in the manner in which I would like it to be, because it generally only works within areas we would call municipalities. It does work outside that where the minister is the Development Consent Authority. In other areas like Litchfield, Darwin, Palmerston, parts of Coomalie and Alice Springs – and I think Katherine has a Development Consent Authority and Tennant Creek, I am not sure. They do have a body made up of local people and those appointed from the government who sit down at a public meeting and make decisions. I believe that is important because that opens up at least some democracy in the system.
The other states where you have large municipalities or shires and, at the same time, there is also local government controlling planning, you have what I call a far more democratic process because those people in that local area who make a decision on planning are elected, and they are directly responsible for the decisions they make. We do not have that system. The minister is the only person we can vote in or out and, of course, the problem is that if the minister is in the electorate of Johnston and he makes a decision about something in Tennant Creek, the Tennant Creek people cannot necessarily vote the minister out. That is the system we have. I do not believe that it is probably going to change. There are some issues with the way we look after our planning which still could be improved.
We have a Development Consent Authority that does a lot of this work, and the EPA would be doing similar work except that it would be taking major projects. If that is the case, why not run the two parallel using resources that they already have, and maybe expanding those resources slightly? For instance, you are going to need investigative officers to look at the proposal; you do that on the Development Consent Authority. You are going to need some administrative staff to complete reports and send out invitations to meetings. One of the recommendations was third party appeals. We have now just introduced limited, need I say limited, third party appeals to the Development Consent Authority, so you have an appeals system that could work for both. You will also have advisory bodies on the Development Consent Authority and you have advisory bodies on the EPA.
The concept that I was putting forward is use the existing staff that you have for both the EPA and the Development Consent Authority because they are, basically, doing very similar things. You may have to expand that to cover increased workloads. There would be no doubt about that. You may even have to get staff who have more skills, especially in matters of the environment because that is one of the major areas that the Environmental Protection Agency would be looking at and, at the same time, streamline your environmental department by putting most of those environmental groups under that same department of environment. I have Parks and Wildlife in that department of environment and it could be, as one of the members said, poor Parks and Wildlife has disappeared into a very large department presently called DIPE, Department of Industry, Planning and Environment, which does an awful lot of things including roads and buildings and things. I am not sure that that is the place for it to be. I would like it to have more prominence.
It was one of those departments that I was proud of when I went away and came back and saw a ranger with a wedge-tailed eagle on his shoulder. I always thought that was good for the Territory and it was good for tourists. It reflected the Territory. Maybe the department is called the Department of Environment, Parks and Wildlife. So you put some prominence back to that department. By putting it into the big super department, to some extent it has lost its way a little. That is not knocking the people who work there but it would be nice to give it prominence so the people working there give it a bit more pride.
I always wanted to be a wildlife ranger. Many years ago, when I was a young bloke going bushwalking, you would always be interested in seeing a ranger. I used to bushwalk in New South Wales and I always reckoned it was a great job as they were people you would look up to because they had a lot of knowledge about local issues, especially environment. I think the same about our rangers in the Northern Territory. We need to put them up there as people who are very important in the maintenance of our environment. Perhaps that is something we can look at if we are introducing an environmental protection agency; whether we could give Parks and Wildlife more prominence in our government.
Madam Speaker, it is good that we have those three options. I suppose if I was a betting man and said option D is the one government members of the committee put forward, that is probably the one that they will pick. But I am hoping that the government will look at the options we have put forward, bearing in mind that many people were concerned that we would develop an EPA that became a new bureaucracy. We saw that in South Australia and, I think, in Western Australia - but especially South Australia – where 230-odd people worked in the EPA there. I realise they are a bigger state when it comes to population, but I am concerned that we would go down that path. If we develop one, we need to ensure it does not go down that path and that it is a very efficient and focussed body. I would be concerned about a bureaucracy; we want a body that is a focussed, efficient and can deal with the issues. If it has to hire people especially for a particular purpose, so be it, but its core should be small. It should be using resources that are already in place.
There are some groups like the Cattlemen’s Association, I think the Horticultural Association, and some of the mining groups who are opposed to the concept of the EPA. Whilst I understand that, the way to attempt to appease their concerns would be to make sure that this EPA did not become a big bureaucracy. They do not want to see another layer of control; they want to see a body that can do the job efficiently. They are saying we can already do it within the department, maybe many of those issues can be handled within the department. However, there will be bigger issues that I presume the EPA will be looking at, and I see that as their role.
Oh, I have not forgotten! I would like to thank all the staff who helped in putting all this together. I thank the other members of the committee with whom I have worked and travelled around Australia. I would also like to thank the Chair, the member for Karama, for keeping us on track, even though I was one of those who believed we should have gone to Tasmania, too, but maybe next time we will look at the funding that we require and we can do that.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report and hope all members support it.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I commend the committee for their report. I have read the report very carefully and, obviously from the contributions tonight, generally, from individual members, they found it most interesting and challenging. They have certainly put a lot of thought into the three options that have been proposed to government.
I want to assure members, from my perspective at least and, I am sure the rest of our government, that we are giving very close consideration to the three options that are being proposed and the relative merits of those options. Much work has gone into it and people have presented their cases further today. I compliment the committee on their work. It has been a very important exercise. It was certainly an election commitment of this government that we would look into the establishment of an EPA. That is what has happened through the committee, and I commend them for their work.
There are a number of issues I would like to address but, principally, the member for Drysdale raised some funding issues in relation to what he thought were cuts within the conservation and natural resources area of DIPE. I would like to quickly run through those so that the member for Drysdale can be apprised of the facts. Basically, in policy and planning there is minus $47,000 from one year to the next. That was mainly due to less funding for the Daly River Reference Group which had run its course. Parks and Reserves Management, down by $412 000 - as members would be aware, there was a massive settlement due to a case of a lady being butted by a ram in Alice Springs, over $2.4m. If you take that $2.4m out, it is certainly a large increase, and that is what I have been talking about here on the floor of parliament: basically, an extra $1.2 m into base funding for Parks staff.
In respect of natural resource management, the member for Drysdale highlighted that at about minus $5.5m. I refer the member for Drysdale to page 222 of Budget Paper No 3. I will read what it says:
- The reduction in natural resource management output expenses in 2005-06 is due to decreasing Australian
government funding for the National Land Care and National Heritage Trust Programs of $1.96m and
externally funded projects brought forward from 2003-04 of $4.46m.
I hope the member for Drysdale is taking heed of that. He should be reading his budget papers very carefully. I will direct him to page 222 which explains it. No one should go around pretending that, somehow, budgets have been slashed or whatever. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Just on biodiversity conservation, $391 000, due to the way that overheads are distributed through the department. There has been some discussion earlier today about attributing costs and similarly with natural systems.
Putting that to rest, I thought there were some important issues raised by a number of members in relation to the environmental challenges that we face in relation to weeds, feral animals, saltwater intrusions and toads. I place on the record here this evening that I am certainly committed, and I know DIPE is committed, to addressing those issues. I am certainly focussing on these issues. They are issues raised by the cattlemen and by the Bushfires Council. I have given undertakings to the Bushfires Council and the cattlemen that I want to really focus on these areas; they are of crucial importance. When we meet with councils in our Community Cabinet these issues come up. They are important issues that are not being ignored by government, and I will certainly try to push that as much as I can.
Regarding weeds, the Commonwealth has some extra monies on the table. It is like everything with the Commonwealth these days; it gives with some and take away with another. However, let us hope we can work through the issues with the Commonwealth.
Finally, in relation to what the member for Nelson and others have said about Parks and Wildlife, I believe Parks and Wildlife still have a fantastic identity and I am proud to be Parks and Wildlife minister. I am proud of each and every person in the service, the job that they do, and the way they showcase our natural environment and look after it for Territorians and those visitors from interstate and overseas. Whenever I meet with those officers and engage with them in dialogue, this issue comes up, but I believe we have to look to the longer term. As the member for Nelson said, we have to look at our whole legislative framework and structure, where ministerial responsibilities lie, and where we are headed in natural resource management.
I commend the committee, because these issues have been raised, similarly, in the Daly River Reference Group. As government, as a Northern Territory community, we have to look strategically to the future and the way that we are going to structure these things in a very strategic and effective way. I commend the committee.
Issues have been raised about cane toads which we looked at, and what has happened there. Much has come out the committee in its work on cane toads - its first reference. The committee provided a fantastic foundation which has now been built on by government. The Western Australians want to come in and support the work in the Territory.
I commend the committee that is headed by the member for Karama and all the members because, really, you are the catalyst, you are the beginning, you have set the foundation. There have been fantastic results. There is certainly a lot of thought and strategy going into what you reported here. I commend you for it, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset I welcome the report of the sessional committee. The Territory has a unique environment and it sustains our fantastic Territory lifestyle. It is the best in Australia. Who of us, for example, can imagine life in the Territory without dropping a line in at our favourite fishing spot, going camping with the kids, or going for a walk with the dog. Our unique environment also sustains our second biggest industry, tourism, and it is fundamental to others, such as fishing, agriculture, and pastoralism.
The Martin Labor government has already done so many things to protect our environment for all Territorians. This government has protected the mangroves of Darwin Harbour, taken real action to fight cane toads after years of neglect, introduced comprehensive land clearing controls, said no to cotton and, this year, we are spending a record $1m on grassroots environment and heritage projects. These are achievements we are very proud of.
Since coming to government, Labor has made some significant improvements to our environment protection arrangements. We have created the Office of Environment and Heritage, which reports directly to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and we have strengthened their resources by five staff and more than $1m. We have gained Commonwealth accreditation for our environmental assessment processes, something not achieved before. We have proven that we can have better environment protection and grow the economy.
In the last two years of the CLP government, environmental assessments had bottomed out at 85 projects - a rock bottom 85 projects in two consecutive years. What has happened since Labor came to government? The numbers have skyrocketed. In 2003-04, 288 projects were assessed and that is more than three times as many projects as in each of the last two years of the CLP government.
The Territory is now on the threshold of a new era in our development. Gas is coming onshore, the LNG plant is under construction, the expansion to the Alcan refinery is under way, and the construction of the wonderful Darwin City Waterfront will shortly commence. Investment in these projects is in the billions, but important developments are happening at a smaller scale. Environmental assessments have recently been completed on projects such as the Bootu Creek manganese mine, Harts Range garnet mine and the bio-diesel plant. Other major projects are still at various stages of their environmental assessment including: the McArthur River Mine expansion; the trans-Territory pipeline; the Blacktip gas pipeline and processing plant; the Glyde Point industrial estate; Browns oxide/cobalt/copper/nickel mine near Batchelor; Mt Porter gold project; the Marine Harvest Barramundi Farm at Port Patterson and Snake Bay; and the Aussie Prawn Aquaculture project. The Office of Environment and Heritage is dealing with an unprecedented number of environmental assessments as this government further grows the Territory economy.
As we stand on the verge of a new era and welcome its coming, we also need to look beyond our generation and contemplate what sort of environment we want our grandchildren and their children to have. Yes, we want them to have economic opportunities and all that it brings, but I know that I also want them to have the Territory lifestyle that we enjoy now. To maintain our great Territory lifestyle into the future, we need to protect the environment on which it depends. Yet, with one of the greatest environments in the world and a lifestyle to envy, we are the only state not to have an EPA. Indeed, with an environment like ours, it is reasonable to ask why would we not want an EPA? Why, for that matter, do we not already have one? That is why the government moved to refer the EPA issue to the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
I thank and acknowledge the Chair, the member for Karama, for her commitment, and all committee members for their hard work and the diligence they applied to their investigations. I also thank the many Territorians who took the time to put their views to the committee. The committee’s report is very detailed and we will be taking some time to carefully consider all the recommendations and views put forward during the consultations. However, I can say, categorically, that this government will be moving to establish a Territory Environment Protection Agency, bringing us into line with the rest of Australia.
There are a few places on this earth that truly have the opportunity to develop sustainably. Certainly, there are countries that have abundant natural resources, but many are wracked with war and political unrest, and have insurmountable population pressures. Others have already squandered their natural capital, leaving an environment degraded, where repair rather than sustainability is the best that can be hoped for. In the Territory, however, we have an environment where the landscape and its ecosystem functions are largely intact. By world standards, we have a very modest population size. We have knowledge, technical expertise, and we are a stable democracy. Surely, if we cannot grasp this unique opportunity, then we will have failed to heed the lessons elsewhere, and future generations of Territorians will be the poorer.
Government has made improvements to our environment protection arrangements. However, it has also become clear that we need to make further changes as we enter this new era of development. Now is the right time to take the next step and establish a Territory EPA.
The community expects us to make these changes and we will. That is why we will be having an EPA. The Office of Environment and Heritage does a great job but it does not have the responsibilities across all areas. Environmental problems are complex and they do not respect lines on maps or administrative arrangements. Their resolution requires an integrated and comprehensive response, a strong organisation that can set environmental standards across the board, provide independent advice, ensure compliance, and educate the community, all of which is required. That will be the job of our Territory EPA. We need to look no further than Mt Todd to know what happened when this does not happen.
I note in the committee’s report that the Territory community is certainly saying that they want to have more say in the protection of our unique environment. While our current environment protection legislation provides some avenue for community participation, it is, quite obviously, an area we can improve upon through an EPA. The committee recommended a number of principles that should guide the changes that we need to make in establishing an EPA including the public’s right to know, to be informed, to be heard, and to object. These are very important principles and I thank the committee for bringing them forward.
I am also firmly of the view that, without an organisation that can comprehensively respond to environment issues, we are selling Territory industries significantly short. The days when industry viewed environmental requirements as a threat are, thankfully, largely gone. Responsible industry is embracing environmental management as core business. They do not want their reputations ruined by others who want to do the wrong thing. Nor do they want to be disadvantaged in the marketplace by competitors who cut environmental corners. What industry does want is clear environmental ground rules and fierce pursuit of compliance that they can invest with certainty. For our part, government wants to attract industry with sound environmental credentials and protect our unique environment.
An EPA will help do both. An EPA is, I believe, a mature approach to the maturing of industry in the Territory. Those who believe an EPA will be an impediment to economic growth should look further afield. Western Australia, for example, has had an EPA since 1980s, yet who would doubt their capacity to develop their mineral and gas reserves. Quite simply, an EPA is an investment in sustainable development of the Territory.
This government will establish an EPA. The opposition clearly does not want one. Their own policy calls for a minimalist change and I guess, in one sense, I do not blame them. Why would they want to change environment protection arrangements when, quite clearly, as evidenced by the last two years of their government, they had no capacity to grow our economy? If we go back to 85 environmental assessments per year, then maybe we do not need an EPA. However, the Territory under this government is changing. Our economy is growing and diversifying and the opposition’s response is to stick their head in the sand and cling to their old ways. They do not want to change to current government arrangements. They are happy for their proposed environment protection commissioner to have no rules on mining operations because Mt Todd was not their fault, and they are happy to set their environment protection commissioner up to fail.
Somehow, this environment protection commissioner is going to investigate public complaints, independently audit the environment protection services of government, and report findings to parliament, while at the same time being the CEO of the government agency responsible for the delivery of the very same environment services and, therefore, answerable to the minister. It is like tapping the Auditor-General on the shoulder and saying: ‘Oh, by the way, you are now going to be the head of Treasury as well’. It just will not work.
Yes, Madam Speaker, a few of the states do have environment protection commissioners. They have a very narrow and defined role in an overall environment protection framework as a type of environmental ombudsman. But they are not a substitute for an EPA. Victoria, for example, has both and you will not find the Victorian Commissioner for the Environment impossibly trying to wear two hats. The opposition wants the Territory to be the only state without an EPA and government will not be implementing their flawed model.
Quite simply, after creating the Mt Todd debacle, the opposition cannot use words like ‘minimalist reform’ in its environment policy and expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
Government is giving Territorians what they want: an EPA. The opposition promised more of the same with a Clayton’s environment commissioner. This, coming from the party that presided over Mt Todd, that wanted to dam the Elizabeth River and that did nothing to control land clearing! Already, the CLP is flagging that they want to return to the good old days. The opposition’s candidate for Goyder has already stated that he wants our land clearing controls watered down.
The work presented in the committee’s report will assist government to create an EPA that best suits the Territory’s needs. I note that while the committee could not settle on the best model for an EPA, the committee did find that an EPA would be beneficial and that a restructure of environment protection arrangements is necessary following a review of programs and legislation; an EPA should be independent; an EPA should not be overly bureaucratic; and an EPA should be phased in.
Government agrees, and that is why we are commencing an audit and assessment of environment programs and legislation. Following the audit and review, government will be determining an appropriate model in consultation with the community. A new environment protection and management act will then be drafted to establish the EPA and pull together the relevant items of environment legislation. The work already undertaken by the committee will feed into this process. While the government wants to see the EPA established as soon as possible, most public submissions also acknowledged that it will need to happen progressively. It will take some time to work through those issues, to develop the legislation and reorganise programs. We want to get it right.
More work is required to determine the finer details of the model, but I want to say from the outset that our Territory EPA will be designed so that it adds value to the environment protection services. It will not be an additional layer of bureaucracy; it will be independent in the advice it provides and the assessments it makes, recognising, as I think most of the community do, that governments ultimately are elected to make decisions and, unlike the opposition’s proposal, decisions on mining approvals will not be handed over to an unelected body. Government will establish an EPA that reflects our environmental issues and our circumstances. It will be an EPA that provides certainty to business investment and helps them understand and adhere to environmental regulations. It will be an EPA that supports the sustainable development of the Territory, promotes community participation and protects our unique environment and fabulous lifestyle. It will, Madam Speaker, be an EPA of which Territorians can be proud.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, at the outset I thank all members for participating in the debate: the members for Millner, Daly, Nelson, Barkly, Drysdale, the Minister for Lands and Planning, and the minister for the Environment, who very importantly, put on record in the Chamber this evening that the Martin Labor government would introduce an EPA, that the work is commencing on the environmental audit, and it would look at legislation required to be enacted in the parliament to create an EPA. This is very good news, indeed, for the generations of Territorians who want to enjoy our fantastic lifestyle that we all hold so dear.
I again thank the committee Secretariat, Graham Gadd and Maria Viegas for their incredibly hard and diligent work, and their expertise and knowledge which came to the fore throughout our inquiry. Yes, it was a truly bipartisan inquiry. As you have heard in debate, we were able to agree on specific principles. We had different models, but we accepted each other’s right to have different models. We received terrific support on our visit to Western Australia’s EPA and the environment departmental officers there, as well as South Australia’s EPA and departmental officers, and I thank those jurisdictions.
I also appreciate the advice I received from Queensland’s environment advisors and our own Territory experts. I make particular mention of Andrew Buick, whose advice on what works and how it works in the Territory was invaluable when I sought it. The community should be congratulated. They responded to the inquiry with a passion and an input that was impressive and fantastic. The environment is a core and fundamental issue of importance to Territorians. The number of submissions we received indicates that.
I seek leave to table this evening an additional submission, which was a personal submission submitted by Mr Christopher Amey. Mr Amey submitted this during the process of the inquiry. An administrative error resulted in it being omitted from the report. I seek leave to table this and have this submission read with the rest of the inquiry report.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank Mr Amey for his invaluable submission, which I ensured was sent on to all members of the committee for their consideration, as well as key government advisors who have been integral to the process of the government’s decision making on this issue.
I have to take exception to the comments of the member for Drysdale. I know he is a cynic. I know he is tired. Perhaps he should consider his future if he is going to be so tired and so cynical in his outlook. He said the cane toad recommendations were not implemented. That is clearly wrong. More than 95% of the recommendations of our cane toad inquiry have been implemented by government. We have the cane toad now as a threatening process in Australia. We have a national task force considering all the means that we need to combat cane toads. We have the government committing $1.4m to combating cane toads in the Territory. We have exciting collaboration between Western Australia and the Northern Territory governments specifically. We have research and audits going on, on the ground throughout the Territory in our parks. We have boosted funding in this area. That $1.4m expenditure is a significant, targeted response by the government to the cane toad inquiry recommendations. I congratulate the ministers whom I know have gone in to bat for this funding through the Cabinet process.
Frog Watch is funded to the hilt, on a very local level, to rally the troops, rally the residents of the Territory, to take on the battle against cane toads. We have seen some fantastic public awareness campaigns run by the government and worked on by Frog Watch. I congratulate Graham Sawyer and others involved in Frog Watch. Wherever you look, at a public event, Frog Watch is there explaining the issue of cane toads and how we can best combat them. So, member for Drysdale, take your cynicism somewhere else because we are working hard in the Territory to combat cane toads. Cynicism has its place, but the extent to which the cynicism oozes out of the member for Drysdale is quite disgusting.
As you heard from the Minister for Lands and Planning, who is also the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, there is significant work being done on the ground by our fantastic ranger staff in combating the issues that he raised, such as beating saltwater intrusion. An additional $1.2m in the operational budget of Parks and Wildlife announced in Budget 2005 is not an insignificant amount of money.
We have heard about the different models in the debate, and we have also heard from the government that an EPA will be established in the Territory on the return of the Martin Labor government. Otherwise, the CLP will have a very watered down, weak and, I believe, ineffectual, environment protection commission and a commissioner set up to fail. It will be up to, ultimately, the public, because with all the best intentions in the world, it will take us beyond 15 October to actually create an EPA and create the legislation it requires. It really will be a decision that people will take to the polls. I hope for the future of the Territory that decision is to return a Labor government and to see the introduction of an EPA to protect our lifestyle into the future.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2005-06
(Serial 287)
(Serial 287)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is one of the tragedies with these type of bills that you have to be a little selective as to what you pull out of the budget, even in the areas for which I have shadow responsibility. You find yourself wanting to talk about all manner of things, and with good cause, because these are big budgets. The figures, as I cast my eyes over the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, is a $244m estimate for last year’s spending, and the budget this year is $231m worth of spending. When you think about it, those are enormous figures. I get a cold sweat when I am in the casino putting $5 bets down on Blackjack! To have that much public money under your scrutiny, as a shadow minister of this parliament, makes me very conscious of the fact that we are dealing with enormous amounts of money which affect people’s lives.
Therefore, I take this job very seriously. That is one of the reasons, of course, I urge this government, in the strongest possible terms, to take this budget to the estimates process. If I am to do my job properly and Territorians are to believe this document that we have been handed as being the actual intent of government, then one would hope that they would allow the documents to pass through an estimates process and, indeed, pass into law so that the Treasurer can go to the Treasury, to the Central Holding Authority, which empowers the Treasurer then to fund the public servants and all the services that are suggested in this budget.
If we do not go to the estimates process, this budget is probably not worth the paper it is printed on, because it would have to be reintroduced after the next parliamentary sittings, and we do not know what shape that would take in relation to a new budget coming before the House. It is the prerogative of government at any time - whether it be CLP or ALP - to introduce a mini-budget if it likes. The current government did it in 2001-02. Therefore, you could run the argument that a mini-budget could be brought down at any time, so you are not really bound to the document that is brought down on in May every year.
However, it is useful to go through the estimates process because then, at least once you have trawled through it, you understand how everybody is geared up and how all the guns are loaded to fire in which directions, then the document has a great deal more legitimacy. It was pointed out this morning that there are numerous areas of concern that this side of the House will continue to have with the budget leading up to the estimates process.
I asked a question today in the parliament in relation to how sure we were that the Traeger Park money had been set aside in the budget. I thank the Treasurer for directing me to page 192 of the budget papers. However, I still flag a concern. The reason that I flag a concern is that the Treasurer directed me to this bullet point:
Participation and development programs output costs are higher in 2004-05 due to -
- one-off capital grants totalling $3m (including for Traeger Park, lighting at Rugby Park,
the Alice Springs swimming pool, and new turf at the Hockey Centre).
That, of course, suggests that the money in last year’s budget was higher because the Sport and Recreation department had all this money sitting in a bank account which is now pumped and primed and ready to see the announcements and the tenders go out for the development of Traeger Park. What concerns me is that I cannot see how that money is being rolled forward into the current budget. That was the thrust of the question I asked today. The budget paper dealing with infrastructure work clearly says that in Alice Springs, under the Sports and Recreation title, that $800 000 has been set aside for the drag strip. Well, thank the government very much for that excellent announcement! We announced it 12 months ago - in fact, for the same amount. I would love to be one of the first morons to ride down as fast as we possibly can …
Dr Toyne: I will put in a good word in for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely! In fact, I will take the challenge. If we both return to this House, and that is, indeed ...
Madam SPEAKER: What? Both of you on the strip at the same time? That is a worry!
Mr ELFERINK: I think that might be a great challenge, Madam Speaker. I pick up the interjection for the purposes of the Parliamentary Record. Make sure that you got what the good doctor had said, Hansard! The challenge has been thrown down in front of us all. The gauntlet …
Dr Toyne: Only if my Triumph can be started!
Mr ELFERINK: The gauntlet can be laid down and that the minister and I, no matter what form we are as members of parliament after the next Territory election, can race each other down the track on the inaugural day. In fact, how is this for an idea now that I am thinking on my feet, Madam Speaker? The opening ribbon should be placed at exactly one quarter of a mile from the start line and the first person to get there opens the drag strip!
Madam SPEAKER: It is a worry, that’s all I can say!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I think it is an excellent challenge …
Dr Toyne: Oh look, I would not want to take it from you!
Mr ELFERINK: It is an excellent challenge and I look forward to racing the good doctor …
Madam SPEAKER: Push bikes?
Mr ELFERINK: … down the drag strip. It may well be push bikes, Madam Speaker, but I look forward to an event of that nature.
I made some phone calls after that question was answered after Question Time and I am advised that the tender has been set back from a June tender to possibly a July tender, after the Territory election. If the money is not to be found in infrastructure spending this year and we are heading towards a July tender, I would hope that we have to rely on the integrity of this government that the money is actually in the bank somewhere. It is not in the budget papers here, so I am not quite sure where the money has gone. I state on the record now that I have a certain element of apprehension in relation to that money actually being somewhere ready to go.
I understand that the negotiations have reached the point where the CAFL has been advised that the tender is going out in July. I am wary of the fact that it is after the next Territory election, but we now have to take it on trust that this money is actually somewhere. Unless, of course, we end up going to an estimates process and then it would be easy to answer these particular questions.
I now turn to a particular part of the budget papers before me which deals with Housing Business Services. This is, basically, the part of the budget where Territory Housing lives and it is always useful when you are investigating Budget Paper No 3 to read it with another couple of Budget Papers No 3 next to it from the last couple of years. That is a very useful exercise for a very good reason: you get to compare what has happened a few years ago to what is happening now. Here is something curious about what has happened over the last couple of years under the tutelage and carriage of this minister. The operating revenue in the year 2001-02 was $87m. That is five years ago. The budget for this year for housing services is substantially less than that. That is a source of some concern because one would think that, with a government with the social orientation of this particular government, you would expect to see that Territory Housing - here it is, the estimate for this year, the final spend, is $84.664m. There is a sudden leap into next year because Territory Housing has a substantially increased responsibility for Government Employee Housing.
That is a reason for concern because you would think a government of this particular orientation would be increasing this expenditure they have in this area, but in real terms it seems to have been dropping away. The answer for that may be found on page 205 of Budget Paper No 3 for this year, which shows the estimated number of public housing dwellings last year under the management of this department was 5535; the estimate for this year will be substantially fewer, in fact 99 fewer, at 5436. One of the challenges with budget papers over time - and I always think that this is deliberate - is that if you look at measures they do tend to change. Different measures get different meanings.
I am trying to now go back through the 2001-02 Housing Business Services to find the number of Territorians assisted through public rental housing. Presumably - and I am sure that the minister will make this clear to me - that is a slightly different figure from dwellings that are occupied. If that is not, and in fact they are exactly the same figure, then 6745 people in public housing in 2002-03 estimate is substantially more than it is for the estimate for this financial year. And next financial year, there are 100 fewer.
Even if we use the two figures on page 205, Public Housing Dwellings, 5535 last year, 100 fewer this year, then we have a cause for concern because this is the minister who has admonished CLP governments of the past for being derelict in their duty of providing housing to Territorians, both in the bush and otherwise. Yet, under this minister, less and less housing is becoming available. The other concern is: what is happening to the housing stock that is being used?
This is something on which the Auditor-General has seen fit to comment. He noted that there is a trend upwards in the percentage of housing stock which is not providing a return, and it is creeping up towards 6% - in fact, over 6% is my understanding. This happens because of the amount of housing stock that is vacant. The reason that we have a large amount of vacant housing stock is that this minister has tried to use that housing stock to offset a problem that he has identified in the bush.
The consequences of that decision has seen riots in the streets of Alice Springs because of poor choices in deciding who to put in which house, and where. Of course, there are cultural reasons why people cannot be refused by their own family members, so that you have addresses, especially in the Larapinta area around Alice Springs, which essentially become ghettos. That concerns me deeply because the consequences of this sort of planning, with a shrinking housing stock and what is left of that housing stock becoming unproductive because of damage, is that there are public safety issues.
I do not need go into through all of those public safety issues again. Suffice to say it was very recent in Alice Springs that a police officer had a gun drawn and was, I presume, ready to use it to keep people apart. This is not something that I want to see, and I am sure it is not something the minister wants to see if we are going to be honest. However, the minister has to grasp the nettle. It is no good passing the buck to other people; it is no good suggesting to other people that it is their responsibility and the department’s responsibility. The minister must make a decision to grasp the nettle and do what needs to be done.
It was demonstrated that one of the greatest shortcomings of ministers yesterday - and I am not going to say Labor ministers interstate, overseas and nationally - is that they do not want to articulate the consequences of their decision-making processes. Yesterday, we were debating completely different legislation and I was trying to ask a minister whether she appreciated that the decision she was taking meant that people were going to end up in handcuffs. She could not bring herself to concede it. Leadership means that you have to be prepared to make the tough decisions as well as the good ones. I urge the minister to make those tough decisions.
Recently, we have seen a minister finally come out and admit that he was wrong and now is he trying to out-CLP the CLP, if you like. In fact, the whole of the government is trying to do it. I saw a bill tabled today in relation to the Youth Justice Bill, which is being sold out there as this great, tough bill on juvenile crime. However, if you read the bill, it is far from that. That is by the by. The fact is that this government is trying to sell itself as tough on this and tough on that and, in this instance, the minister is trying to sell the government as tough on housing tenants.
Madam Speaker, you have a bill before this House which deals with issues relating to housing tenants. I have a bill before this House which deals with issues relating to housing tenants. All of a sudden, I would suggest, after some polling in the Alice Springs area, the government has decided that it needs to have a bill before this House dealing with Housing tenants. A bill that you and I, Madam Speaker, are doubtlessly aware of the fact that it will never see the light of day because, come the election, it falls off the Notice Paper, as, sadly, yours and mine will as well, because I doubt we will get to see another General Business Day.
That is one of the concerns that I have: that the government is not being honest with Territorians in how it projects itself, and this is one of the ways in which it does it. It also, in selling itself as the great socially responsible government as it has tried to do in the last three years, has shrunk the housing stock, it has sold off parts of the housing stock and has not replenished it.
I turn my attention to another area of these budget papers that bothers me. It is that, once again, the government has promised us open, honest and accountable reporting. It holds up these budget papers as a monument to such reporting, but if you start to drill into past budget papers, certain performance measures are falling off the radar. These are very important performance management measures. Clearly, because I raised them last year as an issue and signalled the fact that I would be checking for them this year, the government has decided to feel sensitive about those performance measurements. One of the performance measures that I now turn to is the performance measure dealing with the Community Harmony project. Before I go any further with the Community Harmony project, it is worth digressing briefly to talk about the Auditor-General’s comments or, more to the point, Housing Business Services’ comments about having the Community Harmony project foisted upon them.
Housing Business Services section has to operate like a business. It is designed and meant to operate like a business and, ultimately and ideally, it would, hopefully, return a profit like a business. Year in, year out it has not for various reasons. Then, you put pressure on a business and say: ‘You are going to operate as a business; we are going to fund you and hope that you have your own revenue sources, which are laid out on the Housing Business Services budget papers, and that you will go as close as you possibly can to breaking even or even doing better’. Sadly, there is a reducing repairs and maintenance budget every year. I notice this year it is $20m, which is substantially less than the spend was a few years ago. If you allow for CPI it is a serious hacking into the R&M budget, which is one of the other reasons you are starting to see vacancy rates as high as 6%, despite the fact we have waiting periods of months and months. If you are trying to run a business in that fashion, then the last thing you need foisted upon you is, effectively, an extra tax. It is the minister’s tax, because once they said that they were going to engage in the Community Harmony project, they had to find somewhere to put it. And where did it land? In Housing Business Services.
If I turn to last year’s Budget Paper No 3, page 206, the average cost per person utilising the Community Harmony service for 2003-04 was $2781. The estimate for the year 2004-05 for the same service, average cost of person utilising Community Harmony services was $3638. Naturally, if you are keeping an eye on that sort of expenditure - and as a potential future minister of this particular area, it is something you want to be across - you would say: ‘Hmm, that is a pretty big increase in spending …’, - some $850 as I cast my eye over it very quickly - $850 per person utilising Community Harmony. I wonder how many people actually utilised it, because if it was 1000 people, that blew out from $2.7m to $3.6m in a 12-month period.
I then turned to the same reporting criteria for Housing Services, and found to my dismay that the average cost per person utilising Community Harmony has dropped off the radar. Why would that be? Frankly, because it has blown out completely and the government does not want anybody else to know how much it is costing the taxpayer to achieve this service, especially considering this particular government has, basically, had to admit in recent times that the Community Harmony project has, effectively, failed. How do we know that the government has had to make that admission? Sadly, because it has had to put out all sorts of press releases and do all sorts of work demonstrating what a serious effort they are making in cleaning up itinerants – ‘We are getting tough on itinerants’.
Once again, we find that the government is trying to out-CLP the CLP. When they have done their polling over recent times, they have realised that they are soft in a couple of areas, one of which is law and order. People just do not believe them. Why don’t Territorians believe this government, that the Community Harmony project has done a wonderful job and gotten rid of all of the itinerants? Because when people walk down the street, as you and I do, and as the government has to, they realise that we are knee deep in itinerants, and that the Community Harmony project has failed Territorians profoundly. Their polling then tells them that that is, indeed, the case, so the only thing that they can do is say that they are going to get tough on itinerants and lock them all up, and do all of these other things which the CLP were being called all sorts of names for over the years.
In fact, even recently in the last few parliaments, the minister for Police has roared his indignation about the monstering and stomping approach that the CLP still adheres to. Yet, in spite of that, what do all of these press releases about the great job they are doing getting rid of itinerants effectively mean other than monstering and stomping?
The problem is that the government has tried a few angles and found themselves wanting. I would like to know from the minister whilst he replies in the budget today, exactly what the cost is for the Community Harmony project which has failed us so badly? I would like to know two sets of numbers from the minister, seeing as I am uncertain as to whether we are going to go to the estimates process. Firstly, I would like the minister to state the average cost per person utilising the Community Harmony project, over the year 2004-05. I would like to know the estimate for the year 2005-06 for the average cost of the person utilising the Community Harmony project. I would also like to know how many people have utilised the Community Harmony project - specifically, that will give me a figure of how much it has cost overall for that - plus any further operational oncosts which are not covered by that list. It is a pretty straightforward request; it is not difficult. What I would like to know is exactly how much the Community Harmony project has cost Territorians?
I do not expect that the minister will answer those questions and lay those details on the table because we are close to an election and, because of that, they will not want Territorians to know how much money is involved in this particular project. As a consequence, I will have to wait until the estimates process which will not occur before the next Territory election; that is my bet. This is one of the big risks that the government wants to take leading up to the next Territory election. However, if they do decide to go before the next estimates process, they are going to find themselves with all sorts of things in the ether - questions which have not been answered about this budget and what they are going to do in dealing with some of these issues will be a problem for them.
This budget needs the integrity of an estimates process to be believable. We have heard today that there are outstanding questions surrounding the waterfront. The waterfront is an area not of my shadow concern, but of which this much I do know: there are all sorts of questions as to how much it is going to cost the taxpayer. The reason I say that is that the rest of the consortium has the government in a very awkward position. The government absolutely needs this project to maintain any form of credibility here in Darwin and it is to Darwin they will be looking to retain their governance. If I was in a consortium’s position and I knew that I had a Chief Minister in that position, I would be trying to squeeze as much as I possibly could to save my own company from any form of extra exposure that I do not need. Consequently, I would be pushing the Chief Minister really hard in all sorts of areas to make her pick up the tab. I am certain that is happening. If that is happening, then we need this estimates process even more than ever because we need to know exactly where that pressure is being applied.
It is a $1.2bn project. The taxpayers’ exposure is uncertain – certainly over $120m or $130m. That exposure is uncertain and to ask the taxpayer: ‘Trust me, I am going to spend all this money on a project, and you just have to trust me, we will wait for closure to happen until we are completely locked in, before I give you any specific details as to where the money is going’, is a big ask. I wonder whether the taxpayer is prepared to cop it on the chin. I do not oppose a waterfront project, but I do ask questions and it is my duty to do so. I will continue supporting both the Leader of the Opposition and other people in this House who are asking questions as to exactly what the exposure is.
This government does not have the fiscal integrity that it needs to be able to say ‘You can trust us’ because, according to this document here, which is their mini-budget, growth at the moment would be 5% and would have been for the last few years. That is why this government would have been returning surpluses. It is the most ambitious belief in the world – the naively ambitious belief of any person, to suggest that they are going to get a growth rate in the current environment of 5% and in the environment of a couple of years ago. It is for this reason that the budget to me is an unbelievable document in some areas, and this government suffers a creditability problem because even on its own projections - and this is the work that they did, the stuff that they were going to do for the Territory - they have been wildly wrong. Not a little bit wrong, wildly wrong.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to go to the estimates process. I do not expect them to, but I urge them to go to the estimates process for the sake of the integrity of this budget and of several projects that they have in the pipeline. Otherwise it is a ‘trust me’ budget – ‘Just watch what I do and just do as we say, vote for us and we will deliver here, there and everywhere else and everything will be sweetness and light’. The track record does not represent that and, as a consequence, that they have to submit themselves to estimates otherwise their credibility is shot to pieces.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not intend to speak too much in detail on the budget because I would like to do that in the Estimates Committee. The budget is a very detailed document and certainly requires a fair bit of study especially, I suppose, from an Independent, before one can comment fully on many of the implications that are in the budget. Of course, there are broad scale indications of any budget, and estimates by the government on population and economic growth and their predictions for how everything will work out in the future. I would like to study those in a bit more detail before I comment.
I would like to talk about some of the issues that the budget raises that I support and, in some cases, I do not support. The government is focussed on getting more skilled people, which is most important. There is no doubt that there is a shortage of skilled people and if we can raise the number of people who are skilled, so be it. I have one comment: the minister spoke about the work wear/work gear cash bonus provided for young people, which is a good idea. However, I recently wrote to the minister saying that one of the complaints that I received, which was from a company, was that it did not apply from the beginning of the year. I ask the government whether it will consider applying the grant to those apprentices who started at the beginning of the year and not wait for those who are going to start later. It would be a good incentive for those people working.
The no stamp duty payable by first home owners up to $200 000 is good. It certainly needed to be raised. There has been much talk about how the government has successfully promoted HomeNorth, which is very good. I have no problem at all with that. The HomeNorth scheme is great, but the issue that I keep trying to reinforce that government needs to look at it is that if you get a loan and the house is worth a lot of money, you are going to be paying that house off forever and a day. What we need is some system to allow first home owners to buy land and house packages at a cheaper rate. I keep saying that the government owns its own land, it is Crown land; surely it would be better to provide land at either cost or a bit more than cost price so people can invest their money in a house.
If you want to help the economy, land does not help the economy. Land just sits there and you have to mow it and take care of the weeds. If you can build a good house on your land, not a cardboard box or a garage, you help the economy. Therefore, even though it is good to have the HomeNorth loan system in place, and no stamp duty payable up to $200 000, a lot of that is not very good if you live in the rural area, for instance, where a block of land in Howard Springs can sell for up to $200 000. By the time you put a house on it, you are probably looking at about $380 000. That is well above what the loan requirements can handle. It more or less says that young people are not going to be able to afford to come into the rural area, which is very sad.
Many of us came into the rural area when we were young and did not have much money. Now it has become very fashionable. We are now excluding young people, so the government needs to look at it, not only in the Howard Springs area, but other places - maybe in those places where population is stagnant. Katherine has a stagnant population. Maybe there are ways for the government to open up land there to encourage people to make their home in Katherine and similar places. It has been done before. In Adelaide River, I remember, I could buy land for about $3000 as long as I built a house in about two years. There were systems to encourage people to come into those places.
The government has good schemes going but, as was stated before when the Chief Minister was talking with glee about a function the Real Estate Institute is having tomorrow night, they love higher prices because they make their money on percentages. However, government has to balance between the real estate industry and families. We might be missing out a little there.
The government said it is going to reduce stamp duty on leases, franchises, hiring arrangements and non-real business, which is all very well and good for business. However, as I have said before, you have to understand that people might see that as terrific but, for the average family - and I know the Treasurer said some things about how much this budget helps families – well, yes, to some extent it does. There is no doubt there are some good initiatives and trying to lower costs. Picking up the home or car or boat insurance and seeing $200 plus GST plus stamp duty, they have to ask: ‘Why am I getting hit with two taxes for one item?’ I am told that stamp duty actually never used to be a percentage; it used to be a flat rate. Somewhere in the system, someone changed the regulation and turned stamp duty into a growth tax just like the GST. So, you have a percentage on a percentage, it is a bit like compound interest.
I ask the government, considering the amount of money that it raises even from its own revenue - in my reading of the budget, they will raise about $6m extra in their own taxes, not forgetting they are getting extra money from the GST, and I know they are doing cuts in other places. However, the extra they are getting from their own taxation they could have used to wipe out a fair bit of the stamp duty impost on insurance. It might not be anything to do with the arrangements that the Commonwealth and Territory governments have agreed to on the removal of taxes. We do not need to have that arrangement to say we are going to get rid of stamp duty on home and car insurance. We can do that ourselves. It would be a really positive thing because people would see directly that there has been a reduction in their cost of living.
The government has put a lot of money into things like health and community services, education and law enforcement. Whilst that is good, somewhere along the line we need to judge whether that money is well spent. That is why you have your Estimates Committee. We have increased funding in these areas quite considerably, and for some good reason. I do not think anyone is going to growl about extra police or extra teachers. We had trouble getting extra nurses. I do not know if there is anything in the budget saying what has happened to our Filipino and Irish nurses. There was a program to get quite a considerable number of people out to the Northern Territory. I would be interested to see what has happened to those. If that program did not work, what has the government put in place to try to offset that program? It might not have been as successful as hoped.
I note that under Health and Community Services, additional funding of $395 000 for homebirth care services and the provision of outreach antenatal services for remote communities. I have been told tonight that the provision of homebirth services goes as far as Howard Springs Road. If you lucky enough to have your baby on one side of Howard Springs Road, you are okay, if you have it on the other side you have a bit of a problem. I will be asking the government whether it could look at the older system which did exist, and to see whether they can make it work for people further down in the rural area, even as far as Darwin River. I know there are some issues there. All I am saying is perhaps we could look at those issues and see whether they could be covered. Why Howard Springs Road would be the cut –off, I am not too sure. There is an ambulance in Humpty Doo. It is the Humpty Doo voluntary ambulance. I am not sure whether they have taken that into account, but that does exist in the rural area. It is something I will be taking up with the government at a later stage.
I am pleased that the oncology and radiation unit is to go ahead. I know there have been comments, and I suppose you could go on forever and a day saying: ‘You promised the first time, do we trust you this time?’. Well, you would not want to not do it. I am saying, good. There are many people out there who have been praying for this to occur. I know there are a lot of issues, but all the paper work I have seen about this issue said this is the time. I have seen letters from Royal Adelaide Hospital - I cannot think of the doctor’s name straight off. He comes up here regularly and liaises with the doctor in Royal Darwin Hospital. He said that now there are enough people coming out of the University of South Australia in this area for us to put our radiotherapy oncology unit in place. There will be skilled staff available to look after that. That is a good thing.
Many people will be very glad to see that. Some might say, and sadly, because some of their relations may have passed away - and I refer to someone in my electorate whose husband passed away recently. They were certainly anxious that this would occur. They are not blaming the government. They are actually very happy now that the government has at least made the promise. I hope it is more than a promise. I hope we see bricks and mortar put in place. It is a very important issue, not only from the aspect of one’s physical wellbeing, because you are trying to deal with people with serious disease, but also the social implications, reducing the break-up of families having to go a long way. In many cases, many Aboriginal people find it a lot more comfortable if they are nearer their country rather than being a long way away. It is great to see that it has come up. We debated it in one of the previous sittings; I had a motion before the parliament. I know that the government adjusted it slightly, but at least that proved to me that they were not going to take it out all together as it looked like it was going to happen. I thank the government for doing that.
I looked at the emphasis on the environment in the Treasurer’s speech, and I am a little disappointed that sometimes the poor old environment gets shoved down the back when it comes to budget speeches. In the speech, I see the one item which is increased funding of $1.2m recurrent for the Territory park management operations and management for the new Channel Point Recreation Reserve - which I am not knocking at all, but I am saying that it is a pity environment is not up there. The Territory is a big environmental area; we have some big environmental issues ...
Ms Scrymgour: More money in there.
Mr WOOD: Aha! Yes! I am not saying there is not, I am saying that, in the Treasurer’s speech it would be nice to reflect the government’s priority by putting a little more emphasis – not one item in 10 pages. I am actually sticking up for the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I am saying: ‘A bit more emphasis on your side of things ...
Ms Scrymgour: See how committed we are! We are committed to the environment.
Mr WOOD: I know you have to support your Treasurer. I am just saying yes, very good …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I will break down and cry in a minute. However, the point is that the government has not put emphasis in its opening speech of this budget – it has put very little emphasis - on the environment. Look at the environmental issues that we have in the Territory. We …
Ms Scrymgour: We have not cut the budget.
Mr WOOD: We – no, I am saying …
Ms Scrymgour: Stop being mischievous and naughty.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Could I have ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please!
A member: Have the floor.
Mr WOOD: That is right, there is a bit of argy-bargy going on here. There should have been more emphasis on those things which are really major issues. We know that gamba grass has the potential to change the total environment in the Top End.
Mr Dunham: More than cane toads, even.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We know mission grass is just going to add a little more to that as well. Where are our initiatives on that? We should have initiatives. I say to the government: what about the subsidy on Glyphosate?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, member for Drysdale, the argy-bargy includes you.
Mr WOOD: What, me too?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale. I am just reminding you, member for Drysdale.
Mr WOOD: I was getting worked up there, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. You have ruined it. I was just getting going. Gamba grass, for instance, is a weed that can be controlled, but it will require a big effort. One of those things that you need to control gamba with is Glyphosate - Roundup or whatever you want to call it. What the government should be doing - and it is something that I am going to be pushing during the election - is putting a subsidy on Glyphosate. I was able to buy 20 litres of Roundup in Emerald for $83. I had pay the 10% so it got up to about $91 for 20 litres – the 480 grams per litre Roundup; the stronger version. Sometimes in Darwin it costs you $120 to $150 for the same item. Surely, it does not cost $50 to get that stuff to Darwin?
If we have a major problem, we not only have to have money, as the budget says, for looking after the government’s parks, because the government has a weed program here, we really have to be investing in the private sector. We have pastoralists who grow it - because it is not a weed, so it is legal to grow it. It spreads! We should be making sure they can get control of the stuff that is outside their blocks. Until we declare it a weed, they are quite entitled to grow it wherever they like.
Have a look at Batchelor; it is just covered in gamba. I have property there, and did not have any gamba a few years ago. Now, it is just impossible for me to slash because my little old tractor just falls apart. I am not the only one. You can go down the Eva Valley Road and it is wall-to-wall gamba. It is taking over and it will change the face of the Northern Territory. Come to Litchfield Shire - mission grass. It is funny, actually, there is more mission grass in the Litchfield Shire and more gamba in Coomalie Shire from the mapping, and then it reverses. There is not as much gamba in Litchfield and there is not as much mission in Coomalie. They are two major weeds that we need to do something about. I say to the government: why don’t you put out a subsidy for those people who wish to get rid of those weeds? We used to have a subsidy, I believe, on control of noxious weeds. I do not know what has happened to that; it has gone.
Maybe this is the time for the government to take the initiative. Don’t sit down with too many committees because, by the time we finish the committees, we will have gamba grass down as far as Elliott. If anyone had been to the gamba grass workshop in Batchelor, they do know that, using the same modelling of climate from Africa, Elliott could be the furthest it could live quite successfully. There you are, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are impressed with that bit of information; that is the potential of gamba grass in the Northern Territory. It is a major problem. That is why I am saying there needs to be more emphasis on some of this.
I went to a cane toad meeting the other night. I still think we should have attempted to put a cheap second-hand corrugated iron fence across the Cobourg Peninsula with a series of traps because we know the traps do work. Which one is the best one? The minister announced the other day that the one from Katherine is the best one. I am not sure what all my Toad Buster friends are going to do now with their version because the one from Katherine looks better. If we had a series of traps combined with the fence, combined with rangers looking after that Cobourg Peninsula, couldn’t we do something about keeping the Cobourg Peninsula free? Not a big effort. Show some leadership. Show some initiative and do it. If it fails you could say we did our best, too bad. We know there are problems with cane toads floating around the sea, but that is why you have your traps. Put your traps along the coast. Have rangers check them regularly. Have solar lights on them. Be inventive. Do something. But we did not do anything. We have done a few good things. We have given money to the Toad Busters but here was a chance to keep a piece of mainland free because we had natural geographical features that would help that, but that is just the pity.
Whilst we are talking about environment, I cannot resist myself, but really, somewhere along the line, we have to bring in container deposit legislation. I went to the Humpty Doo land fill the other day with the Palmerston Sun. We were doing an article on the land fill. You stand there and see the amount of recyclable goods that are just getting crushed under machinery. All the litter abatement schemes that the beverage industry wants to throw at the government so that they do not bring in CDL is just a waste of time. We need container deposit legislation; it is the only way we are going to reduce land fill, increase recycling, and make litter relatively minor. The great thing about container deposit legislation is that the stuff does not get into land fill. We just do not have as much land fill to fill up.
In poor old Litchfield there is no glass recycling. I have asked the government what the policy is on glass recycling and, as far as I know, we do not recycle glass at all unless it goes free, I think, to Waste Master. I have been trying to get a meeting with Waste Master, but there is no recycling of glass in the Litchfield Shire any more because it is just not worth it. It is very sad and people do not like throwing the stuff away. They ask: ‘Where is the recycling?’ I say: ‘Economically it is not worth it’. Put 5 on this material and you will have it back in droves.
Mr Kiely: Wasn’t the Liberal government sponsoring a trial?
Mr WOOD: The Liberal government probably was sponsoring a trial, you are right, and it did not happen either. But do not use that as an excuse for not doing it ourselves. I will criticise the federal government as well, but we are dealing with the Territory budget.
Mr Kiely: That was an election promise.
Mr WOOD: It might be, but I am not here on behalf of the Liberal Party either and I am not here on a federal government budget. I do not like what they did and it was a lousy thing to break their promise, but there is no excuse for us not doing it. We could lead the way.
Ms Scrymgour: You could have voluntary deposit schemes.
Mr WOOD: No, don’t go down voluntary deposits. No, you are wasting your time. It is all sweet and nice. I belonged to the Territory Anti-Litter Committee for so long – sat at so many meetings talking about litter – it is just a big smoke screen by the beverage industry not to introduce container deposit legislation. It has not changed much. Have a look at the litter all over the place in various places. When people are half tanked, they do not worry about litter. They chuck it on the road.
All I am saying is whoever is next in government, if you want to win some votes, push out container deposit legislation. It is something that would work in a place like the Territory.
Just getting on to some matters relating to Palmerston and Litchfield. I am not sure what happened, but this book turned up late. I do not know where this was getting printed, but I did not have the Regional Highlights earlier.
A members: I haven’t got it either.
Mr WOOD: Well, we just got one. I do not know how we got it, but we just got it today. As I said, when I was first talking here this morning, I got a photocopy out of the e-mail. Did they forget to put it in. It was not in the original folder.
Ms Scrymgour: It was.
Members: No, it wasn’t.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, please.
Mr WOOD: It has some interesting things in here. The difficulty I have is not having enough time to go through this. I have had some briefings, but there are many things in here and I am not sure whether they are from last year or if they are new initiatives, but they are good. They are good, I will tell you that: $0.5m for horticultural development projects including citrus, nursery, cut flowers and the tropical fruit sectors. That is great, but I reckon we should spend a lot more money on research and development. Except for mangoes and a few other industries, our vegetable industries are not what they used to be. I wonder whether we have tended to stick with the big crops and not worried about the small crops.
If you went out to the Coastal Plains Research Stations a few years ago, they used to have garden days, a bit like they have down in Katherine. You would see Taiwanese cauliflowers and cabbages, new varieties, and the government was doing all that experimental work. That seems to have disappeared. The role of government is to do that work. If a grower is entrepreneurial and says: ‘I reckon I have a market for that; I will try and grow it’, a couple of growers in the Territory are not going to be able to afford to do trials on Taiwanese cauliflower or cabbages. That is the role of government.
What happens at the moment is the big industry, mangoes, gets it. For sure, they need development, too, but they have a fairly large fund from within their own sources to help as well. The government should be certainly looking at more research and development. I would love to know how many people are still out at the Coastal Plains Research Station. Last time I saw it, there were very few. I wonder whether that reflects the government’s commitment to the land because I have always felt the government really is not a great supporter of the agricultural and horticultural economy. In some areas it is, but I do not know whether they have the big picture as to where it is all going because that part of our economy is a diverse economy and it needs support.
The $1.38m for aquaculture is great; $320 000 for Beatrice Hill facilities for the buffalo industry which needs work and support; $250 000 for mango industry strategies including harvest, labour, code of practice, marketing, quality monitoring and industry communications is good. On some of these other items, it is a bit hard to know how much we are getting.
Under Palmerston and Litchfield, there is $16.47m for secondary education at Palmerston High School, Taminmin High School and Don Dale. I am presuming $10m of that goes straight to Palmerston High School. It would have been nice to break that up and tell us how much Taminmin is going to get.
In Regional Development, $12.24m for public transport services in Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield; $4.73m for school and special transport services in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield regions; and $0.4m funding for libraries at Palmerston and Taminmin - very good. I have been pushing for a long time for an increase in the bus services and I am very pleased that the minister has told me today that we are getting an increase in bus services. It may not be a more frequent bus service, but they have expanded the bus service, so I will give the government that. That at least is something that we needed.
The member for Goyder is like me. He has part of my old electorate and I have part of someone else’s electorate even though I suppose, officially, they are not the electorate; however, you know what I mean. They have varied services in the rural area: routes 445, 446, 447, 450 will also be changed to provide greater route coverage in the Humpty Doo and Coolalinga areas starting from Wanderrie Road. These variations will incorporate linkages to interchange services. That is great and I have been asking for some time that a bus goes up into the Herbert area. I am hoping that is where this is going because I do not have maps of those routes …
A member: They need some shelters up there.
Mr WOOD: We are hoping for shelters. The shelters have actually taken me 12 months. We are now getting asbestos out of the shelters. I am hoping to have an official opening of my shelter because it has taken that long. We will be inviting whoever would like to come to open a bus shelter, but they are coming and that is very good. I am pleased that the minister has said we will get them; it is just a matter of when.
The member for Goyder will be interested to know that on the western side of the Stuart Highway in the Gulnare and Virginia Roads area, they are going to extend the bus service, which will include Saturdays. Services will also be provided in those areas for school holidays. That has taken a lot of lobbying. I keep hammering this bus service. We still need more frequent bus services. I know this is good, but why do we only have two bus services in the morning and two bus services at night when many of us live quite close to Palmerston? I know running buses is expensive; in fact, the minister says here that just these two bus services will increase the distance by 72 000 km per year.
However, governments provide public transport. We know that they do not make money, but that does not matter. That is what you pay your taxes for, to give people the right to have public transport. Unfortunately, if you live in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo or Coolalinga, and you miss the bus at 7.40 am at Howard Springs, you walk, because there are not any buses until about 4 pm. Who else would live in an area like that? That does not help people use public transport, and that is an area which I think the government is missing again in its budget. Here we have high fuel costs and we should be out there promoting public transport. For example, express routes from Humpty Doo, Howard Springs, Palmerston, bing, bing, bing, put in parking lots, bus exchanges where people can park their car in safety and leave them there all day and know they will be there when they get back. If you have comfortable airconditioned buses, and advertise to people the advantages of catching a bus - you can go to town, read a book, get there much less stressed, and you are taking a lot of traffic off the road. There are all these benefits of having good public transport, yet we do not seem to want to promote it. It just seems to be like, well, we have to have it, so we will just have it and that will do. However, I believe we could do a lot better then we are at the present time.
I will mention a couple of little things. We have had some wins in my part of the world. We still have to keep plugging away, not everything is there. I notice, after trying again a couple of years ago, there is $80 000 for the bicycle path from Girraween Primary School. Now, if that does not get me a bicycle path across the Howard River, I will eat my hat. We had some money before, which the local council said was enough and then they rejected it. The government has come up with the same amount of money, plus $30 000 so, hopefully, for the children who have to ride their bikes on Girraween Road - which is not a safe road for kids to have their bikes on - that danger will go away and I thank the government for that. Again, you keep working. Independents work on the theory of perseverance and I believe that that is the way it is going to be.
With regards to the Girraween Road intersection realignment, I got excited about it the other day, but it is good to hear that the minister is in the initial stages of looking at land acquisition. It sounds good. I will be interested to know when that happens. That is a start and a start is better than nothing, so I hope that will go down the path of eventually having a new road here.
Landscaping at Coolalinga and the master plan for the Stuart Highway: I have been waiting. I have letters saying it was going to be released last month. The word is that it is going to Cabinet. I do hope it goes out for public discussion. Coolalinga is a major growth area in the Northern Territory. It is one of the first towns of any substance that tourists hit after leaving Katherine; it has to look better than it does. Government has a job to make the highway look neat and tidy and nice, and encourage people to stop there.
As I said, some improvement in the buses, minister, but I will tell you that we need more frequent buses. As I said, if you miss the bus in the morning, you do not get it later in the day; that is it, you have to walk. I have been asking about getting rid of what we call the spaghetti lines. A lot of areas in the rural area have their own line up and down roads - water lines. Many of those are old, many of them are leaking. I have asked the government through Power and Water - would I be allowed a small extension?
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete his speech.
Mr Wood: I will be brief.
Ms Scrymgour: That is what you said at the outset.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you for your encouragement, member for Arafura. It did not sound too good, but I believe you.
One thing I have been promoting in the area, as I said, we call them spaghetti lines, but a lot of people put there own water lines down the side of the road from the main. There are many of those in the rural area; they are getting old and they are leaking. The government can say: ‘Well, that is too bad; that is yours’. However, the government is putting underground power lines in Nightcliff, and they do not have to do that. The power is already there. They are doing it because it is aesthetically nice, it is better in storms, trees do not fall over, etcetera. You do not have to do it, but it does improve the way the system operates.
I say: government, why do you not set aside maybe $50 000 to $100 000 per year - I am not saying do this is overnight - and where these spaghetti pipes are, put in a proper water main. If anyone wants to connect to them, give them a covenant like we do for the electricity, so they want to join in. In this case, the government needs to be proactive because nothing will change if they are not. They are the only people who can change it. Otherwise, it will stay there and there will be people with leaking water pipes. We do not really want our water to be wasted. I know you can say it is private, so too bad, but sometimes government can say: ‘We will take the lead here. So we know there are no more spaghetti lines; we will put in a new mains’. That would be a good policy. You will get your money back such as the argument for the power and water mains that went into the Wickham Point. They did not pay for it, but you will get it back in the amount of water they use. I would say the same thing in domestic areas as well.
A couple of matters we have been pushing for quite a while is a slip lane at the tip. The member for Goyder would know that there is a terrible intersection to the tip. The department decided taking a short cut there was no good so they put in those lovely steel barriers. I would rather take the short cut and not have the people run up the back of me. Howard Springs Road is a very busy road. When little Mrs Smith with a little trailer for the goodies turns out at the tip, you get all these cars right up the back of her …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I know that might not be of great interest to people in woop-woop, but the government made a decision to cut off people taking the shortcut and did not put in a replacement for it. There has been talk that they would look at, somehow, putting the roads for the 15-Mile community and the road to the tip - which are 500 m apart - together. I do not know how that is going to work. Minister, I am probably going to knock on your door and ask what they have designed. I know they want to do something and it is important that something is done. However, from what I have heard, it is very impractical.
Of course, the one sad thing for me is that we have been pushing for a bicycle path for time immemorial, even when the CLP government was in. The bicycle path on the railway line which Litchfield Shire Council promoted as a way of retaining our heritage, which the government did from Darwin all the way out to Palmerston, has stopped there and has not moved one inch past Palmerston in the last 10 years. I do not know why rural people have to be discriminated against when it comes to being on a push bike. The word I have is: ‘Well, there are not enough of you’. Why can’t we get on a push bike and pedal our way safely to Palmerston? Why can’t tourists come down the old railway line and go to Humpty Doo?
The strange thing is we have a bicycle path on the Arnhem Highway which goes from Hayball Road to the pub which is not connected to anything. If the government could build a bicycle path way back when the Arnhem Highway was widened, why can’t it build something for Litchfield Shire down the old railway line? As you know, we lost a railway bridge. If we had a bicycle path on that railway bridge, it would have been a lot harder to pinch it. Unfortunately, we do not have the railway bridge. The government should have acted quickly and put out a $1000 reward. I reckon you would have received some information quick and fast. However, we lost that bridge and it is going to cost more to put the bicycle path there, because there ain’t anything over 21 m of nothing. The government really has to recognise that Litchfield Shire is out there. Rural people do like some facilities that the urbanites have, and it would be nice to see a start on the bicycle path.
I have asked before why you do not use an initiative for employment projects on the bicycle path. You have the 15-Mile community just nearby; they are on CDEP. What an ideal project for encouraging people to work! They could be building the bridge that has gone missing; they could be welding and painting and learning some skills. They would have some pride because they would use that bicycle path to walk to Palmerston. I do not know why we cannot have projects like that operating for the unemployed. We have done it in Alice Springs. When I was down there for one of the sittings, they were building the path around past the casino. I think that was a CDEP program. When did I last see that in Darwin? The last time I saw that, there were prisoners building parts of Karama many years ago. I think they built some of the footpath there. We seem to have gone away from all that, and there are opportunities there for the government to give us a bicycle path, create employment, and show people that there is not a Palmerston-Berrimah Line at all; that we do exist out there and we know how to ride a bike.
I am just putting some initiatives to you. I thank the government for, especially, the bicycle path around the Girraween School. That is really a safety issue, and it has taken a little while to get it and there have been some complications. I just now hope that the Litchfield Shire Council will take the money and build the bicycle path - that might be the next tricky bit. Also, I notice that you have money for the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which is great. I do not know whether that is extra funds. Upgrading the bus interchange on the Stuart Highway, Cox Peninsula Road, that is great as well. And upgrading lighting from Berrimah Road to Palmerston, that is a good initiative as well.
I notice $150 000 for rehabilitation in priority areas of the proposed Mitchell Creek Reserve. I have noticed that they have been planting trees in the engineered section of the creek, which is great, but the trouble is people forget that creeks are not straight. Engineers believe in getting water from A to B. Creeks do it in a circular motion, they have bends and they move this way and that way, and they flood. Engineers they just go in straight lines and they expect that to be a creek. I do hope that $150 000 is put to good purpose, but I hope we do not have to spend huge amounts of money on more rehabilitation. The creek was in perfectly good nick on its own, so why are we spending that money if we look after the Mitchell Creek properly.
As I said, I would be very brief and I will finish with that. Thank you, members, and I am looking forward to the Estimates Committee where we can look more deeply into what is in the budget for rural people.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, today I support the Treasurer and Budget 2005, backing Territorians with less tax, local jobs and better skills. This is my second budget as minister and the fourth for the Martin Labor government. It will come as no surprise that this budget continues the measures that are so integral to this government: less tax and more support for Territory small businesses; even more support and funding for health and education; our fabulous parks system; and world-class sports and entertainment. Those things continue to make the Territory such a great place to live and raise a family, and initiatives that promote and protect our unique environment.
I welcome the announcement of $40m in tax cuts, making the Territory the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business. I am pleased to see the significant boost to skilling Territorians through Jobs Plan 2 and the commitment to training 10 000 Territorians over the next four years. I know the benefits these initiatives will bring to the Territory businesses and the economy. I know, too, that Budget 2005 brings forward many more initiatives that will enhance our great lifestyle and bring benefits for Territory families and communities. The Martin Labor government is serious about all Territorians having opportunities to develop their potential and live fulfilling lives. We are a government for all Territorians.
After years of neglect, the Martin government is rebuilding our Health and Community Services services and systems. Since 2001, this government has increased funding for our vital health and community services by $207m, an increase of 43%. In reaping the rewards of these record investment budgets, the Mental Health and Disability Services program has not missed out. In 2004-05, $27m more was spent in this area than the last year of the previous government. In the area of mental health, $12.7m in new funding has already been allocated over three years from 2003. In Budget 2005, Disability and Mental Health Services will receive a further $5.5m, bringing the total funding increase to mental health under this government to $18.2m. This funding has been invested in a program of reform and service development, modernising the approach to client care in the Northern Territory and building a more comprehensive mental health system, with better and more accessible services for all Territorians.
To date, new funding has tackled the historical underfunding of the mental health program, established new clinical positions across the Territory to improve adult, child and youth services, increased the number of Aboriginal mental health workers in rural and remote areas, and enhanced rehabilitation services in the non-government sector. Budget 2005 continues this process of building and reform, as well as introducing substantial and exciting new initiatives. With appropriate treatment, there is genuinely no reason for people with a mental illness to spend long periods of time in hospital. Treatment in the community, in a setting that allows people to maintain contact with their family and friends, or to live and receive treatment at home, is vital to people’s recovery and ongoing wellbeing. $1.8m in 2005-06 and $1.1m ongoing will establish community-based residential services in Darwin and Alice Springs with 24-hour support for people with mental illness.
These new services will create 14 beds, eight in Darwin and six in Alice Springs, in a residential setting for people who cannot be intensively supported in their own home. $300 000 has been awarded to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia to trial new individual care packages. A procurement process is under way to identify a suitable service provider for the Top End. The new services will provide an additional community-based option, providing an alternative to hospital admission. In 2005-06, an additional $1.5m will be used to provide a range of essential services across the Territory, including $200 000 to strengthen the 24-hour emergency, and $350 000 to provide four additional child and adolescent psychiatrists in rural areas. Additional services in rural and remote areas will include funding to the Tiwi Mental Health Program and expanding the Aboriginal Mental Health Worker Program provided through the Top End Division of General Practice.
Budget 2005 strongly supports health and community services-based non-government organisation. Increased funding is only one dimension of our strong relationship with the non-government sector. This government has a proud record of listening and talking to, and consulting with, community organisations. Earlier this year, the sector, through the NTCOSS Annual Pre-Budget Presentation, identified indexation of government grants as one of their key priorities. This government has listened to NTCOSS and to the sector. For the first time, this budget builds in grant indexation to meet the real cost of providing these important services. Budget 2005 delivers a transparent and consistent rate of indexation to be applied to the future funding of the sector. From 1 July 2005, grants will be indexed to take into account both inflation and standard CPI increases, but will also include indexation for wage movements in the Northern Territory public sector. I am pleased to report to the House that this measure has been heralded by NTCOSS as a major gain.
As I outlined earlier, the Martin government has increased support to the Department of Health and Community Services by $207m since 2001, an increase of 43%. We have also substantially increased the proportion of this funding flowing to non-government organisations, with 50% of the total community services budget going directly to the sector. Our approach stands in stark contrast to that of the Commonwealth government, which is walking away from the problem of homelessness across Australia. The Commonwealth wants to cut funds to shelters and emergency services across the Territory, putting the most vulnerable people in our community at further risk. All state and territories have rejected this offer and we will continue to do so, but we will continue to work with the Commonwealth to get a better deal for Territorians. As Minister for Family and Community Services, I will continue to call upon the federal government to step up and meet their responsibility.
Funding to the non-government sector has increased from $55m in 2001-02 to $76m in the 2004-05 budget. Budget 2005 continues this strong support.
I have spoken many times in this House of my commitment, and that of my colleagues, to improving the child protection system. Tackling child abuse and neglect is a priority for the Martin government. We are not diverting money to yet another inquiry into child protection. We know what needs to be done to improve this system and we are doing it. The Child Protection Services budget has nearly tripled since the Martin government came in, up from $7.8m in 2001-02 to over $20m in 2004-05. Our $53m investment in Child Protection Services has seen major improvements in our child protection system including the recruitment of 32 new staff since January 2004; a review of the Community Welfare Act, which I look forward to bringing back to this House in coming months; and the establishment of an independent Family and Community Services Ministerial Advisory Council and the Disabilities Advisory Council.
In 2005, an additional $3m to Family and Community Services will be used to maintain these new initiatives, as well as developing a broad range of family support and specialist services for families whose children are at risk of abuse or neglect. $0.5m has been allocated to a new intensive family support service in Darwin and will commence on 1 June 2005, and develop new out-of-home care services for children in care. These new services will expand the range of placement options and deliver improved services to children in care and their families.
Abuse and neglect of children in Aboriginal communities has been ignored for too long. The government’s effort in raising awareness of child abuse in communities is working. The message that child abuse must not be tolerated and that it should be report is being heard. In Budget 2005, we will put in place remote indigenous child and family support projects in partnerships with the communities and the Australian government. Four new community resource workers have commenced in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin remote and Nhulunbuy. These workers undertake developmental work to strengthen the role of families in the communities to ensure the needs of children are met.
In building a better child protection system, we are building on the skills and experience of our child protection workers and those people on the front line of this system. We know that work in this field is often difficult and involves broad-ranging skills, from social or community work qualifications to knowledge of the law and legal system. To ensure that our children protection workers maintain their existing high level of skill, and build upon these skills, this government is implementing a training framework for the government and non-government staff, making them better equipped to meet the demands of their increasingly complex jobs.
The Martin Labor government has made unprecedented inroads into tackling the impact of drugs and alcohol upon our community. Spending in the area of Alcohol and Other Drugs has increased by 40.9% in the last three years. We have tackled the impact of smoke on the health of our communities through the introduction of the Northern Territory’s first ever Tobacco Act.
This week saw our government pass the biggest initiative in fighting petrol sniffing ever seen in the Territory. This government has had the courage and commitment to raise and address the devastating effects of petrol sniffing in our communities. Despite ongoing resistance from members opposite, the legislation that was passed was landmark for the Northern Territory, banning petrol sniffing, giving police and others the powers to seize and dispose of volatile substance being abused, and giving the courts the power to order compulsory treatment for chronic sniffers. We have already committed $10m to our fight on petrol sniffing and this money is already rolling out across the Territory.
There are services like the well-respected program in Mt Theo which will now have the recurrent funding to support the excellent work they do. This service was never funded by the CLP. Instead of bipartisan support, the Leader of the Opposition has responded by claiming we are spending too much money on petrol sniffing. The opposition would rather lock up young sniffers than treat and rehabilitate them. The impact of these legislative reforms and treatment programs will have lasting impacts on future generations and, in the long run, reduce the burden on our health care system and the carers of people afflicted by the drug-related disability. It is a reform of which I and everyone on this side of the House are immensely proud.
This government, through Budget 2005, is putting increased emphasis on local jobs and better skills. I have already outlined the increase in Family and Children’s Service’s staff, with 32 new staff since January 2004, and an even greater commitment to training and development. The other areas of my Family and Community Services portfolio have also seen significant staff increases with 18 new positions created in mental health in the last year, and a further 12 positions being created in the coming year, an increase of eight positions in the Aged and Disability Program in 2004-05, with another nine positions expected in 2005-06, and the creation of nine positions in the Alcohol and Other Drugs program, and two new positions expected in 2005-06.
I turn to Environment and Heritage. Let me start by saying that protecting our environment is a priority for this government. Our environment provides us with our great Territory lifestyle. It is unique and, without doubt, the best in Australia. Our environment sustains our industries: tourism, fisheries and agriculture all depend on a healthy environment. Of course, clean water, clean air, our unique wildlife, and special places are a natural asset that we want to pass on to future generations.
This budget builds on the important work already done by government to protect our environment and heritage. The hallmark of the Martin Labor government is balancing growth with lifestyle, while protecting our unique Territory environment. Because government is growing our economy and better applying our environmental – I am just getting a bit breathless, sorry …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to sit down, minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am right.
The hardworking staff at the Office of Environment and Heritage - thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your concern - are literally run off their feet with environmental assessments at the moment, with an unprecedented number of development projects requiring environmental assessment. However, the job does not finish with environmental assessments. It is very important that we continue to monitor projects during their construction and operation. The budget continues this great work with $1m for environmental assessment and compliance activities for development projects.
This government has drawn a line in the sand in our fight against cane toads. My colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, has shown great leadership in putting cane toads on the national agenda and providing, for the first time, real resources to tackle this pest. The budget provides a very welcome additional $480 000 to tackle this pest. It remains a great pity that this sort of leadership was not shown by the CLP more than 10 years ago when these pests first threatened the Territory. The Western Australian government is not making the same mistake. They are investing heavily in our efforts to slow the progress of these pests westwards. It will be a tough battle, but groups such as Frog Watch are inspiring us all with their energy and determination. We are backing not only Frog Watch, but all Territorians who had a great idea to protect our unique environment. This budget delivers more than $1m to community, environment and heritage groups and projects, continuing our unprecedented spend on grassroots action to protect our environment and heritage.
A total of $460 000 will be available through EnvironmeNT Grants. Last year, I launched the first round of the EnvironmeNT Grants and the response from Territorians was overwhelming. Thirty-two projects received funding, ranging from protecting turtles and bush tucker gardens to controlling feral animals and weeds across the vast areas of the Territory. I launched round two of EnvironmeNT Grants last month, and I encourage all Territorians who have had a great idea for the protection of our environment to apply for a grant in this round. EnvironmeNT Grants also provide operational support for environment groups. Last year, the Territory government provided funding to the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre - a first for any Territory government. This budget will provide continued funding for these organisations.
Unfortunately, this government’s funding comes in spite of a federal government that simply does not care about the valuable work these groups undertake. The federal Environment minister recently slashed funding to both of these groups. I have written to Senator Campbell requesting that he reconsider, and I hope he listens.
In addition to the EnvironmeNT Grants, $250 000 has been allocated for litter grants and $227 000 for heritage grants. The National Trust, which does very important work in promoting our special heritage places, will receive an operational grant of $114 000. This budget also sees the second instalment of our funding to Cool Communities with $50 000 to fund the great work this group does in encouraging households to reduce energy consumption, both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Again, this funding comes after the federal government withdrew their funding. Yet again, we have stepped in while the federal government does not live up to its responsibilities.
This budget continues government’s focus on conserving our heritage assets. $1m will be again allocated for repairs and maintenance of government-owned heritage places across the Territory. Important heritage places such as Lyons Cottage, the Tennant Creek Telegraph Station, and the Arltunga police station will receive much needed repairs and maintenance. Many of these places are important tourist destinations and it is very important that we keep them looking great for visitors and locals alike. When combined with expenditure on conservation and natural resources, government is investing more than $90m on environment. This government believes that protecting our environment is critical to maintaining our great life Territory lifestyle now and into the future.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a budget that delivers less tax, local jobs, and better skills. It is a budget that again provides another record health budget and continues to improve the funding and delivery of our vital community services. Budget 2005 is about better education, supporting families, and protecting our great lifestyle and environment. Budget 2005 is backing Territorians.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be making some remarks about the budget that was tabled a couple of days ago. But first of all, I would like to express a little disappointment in how this government has put its budget together to try to do something right for the Territory. Unfortunately, if you look at it in detail, with handing out a few dollars here and there in a few minor tax cuts, a little bit of stamp duty relief for first home buyers, and the lifting of the payroll tax threshold, very little has changed.
What we see, however, is huge increases in public service expenditure against a background, as was commented by a political observer some 12 months ago, for the population that was declining last year but very, very low in increase this last 12 months. Whilst the rest of Australia is growing in population at the greater rate than the Territory, what will happen is our relative population size is going to shrink and, accordingly, our GST revenue from the federal government is going to decrease. If we keep on increasing our recurrent funding, just as this government is doing, with a decrease in GST pool, you are going to end up not having enough money to afford to keep our public service going. Somehow, this government has to understand that and come to terms with it and ensure that its recurrent budget does not continue to blow out the way it has been.
All you have to do is just look at the two big departments, Health and Education. Health this coming year will receive $686.634m, while Education is going to received $581.537m. That is way past a third of the total budget for the Territory. If you have two major departments sucking up that sort of money then other parts of the public service will suffer.
This government needs to understand where it is going. The minister, in his speech, spoke about a population increase - and I tried to find where he said that – which, from my point of view did not make sense. He spoke about the increase in population and then he said this improved nett interstate migration sees population growth strengthening to 1.1% in 2005. If we are expected to believe that, that he predicts that this year we can have a 1.1% increase in population, then his budget book, Budget 2005-06 Northern Territory Economy on page 24, belies that statement. It says on page 24 of that book under the heading Components of Population Growth, that:
- Natural increase (births less deaths) is the main contributor to growth in the Territory.
These two books contradict each other. Which is right and which is wrong? When you then look at the graph at the bottom of that page, it clearly states that nett interstate migration was ‘minus 2.1 (000)’. In other words, we lost 2100 people from the Territory this last 12 months. How is this government going to reconcile these two books? It does not make sense to me.
For so long now we have continued to lose people who are working, people who are employable, and we are replacing them with new births. It is well and good that we should have babies born in the Territory, and the more, the better. However, we have to understand that babies do not become productive for some 15 years. Albeit they might get some GST funding because, when we count per head of population, they are supposed to add to that, but unless we can get our population growth strategy right, we are never going to get our economy right.
I do not know whether you remember seeing this article in the Sunday Territorian of 13 February 1994. It says: ‘Martin starts an old fashioned way - by lying. Then, a couple of years ago, there was another one: ‘Martin lied about public service jobs’. This sort of headline shows that this government cannot be believed. The figures they give us are rubbery. They talk about a disparate growth rate of something like 6% or 7% when they know full well that they cannot. They expect Territorian businesses to believe that.
Let us go to Education, one of my shadow portfolios, and talk about where this government has gone wrong. Yesterday, I asked the minister a question about student numbers and he could not give it to me. He had no idea about student numbers at all and he quickly brought out Budget Paper No 3 for this year and said last year in primary school we had 19 851 and next year we anticipate there be a loss and go down to 19 600, so we will have a loss of 251. My question to him was that over the last four years, we have lost over 1000 primary school students and with his predicted loss of another 251, it will add up to 1288 primary school students. That is the equivalent of three largish primary schools in the Territory. That has to surely signal to the minister that we have a significant population loss - a huge loss.
Let me go back to the figures. I went back to the 2002-03 budget papers to have a look at the figures. In the estimate - in other words the final figures for the year 2002-03 - there were 20 888 primary school students. By the next year, the 2003-04 estimate was 20 177, a loss of 711 students. Then for this year, 2004-05 estimate, it has gone down to 19 851 which signifies a further loss of 326. With this current budget paper, they are estimating we will loose another 251.
That is where those figures came from, minister. I hope by now your advisors will be telling you this is where I got my figures, and they have to be right because they are in your own budget papers. I debated him on this issue on radio not so long ago and, at that stage, he did not know the figures, and I told him where to find them. Obviously, he did not bother and here you are again! Look it up now so you know where it is at.
In regard to the allocation for teacher’s salaries, for nine months he dragged this out. He dragged it out with the teachers, refusing to negotiate with them, refusing to budge on their EBA negotiations. This Labor government, before the last election, promised that it would make teachers in the Northern Territory the best paid in the country. Soon after it got into government, it told the teachers: ‘Sorry, folks, we have a huge black hole created by the CLP and, because of the big black hole, we do not have any money, we cannot pay you. Please take a smaller wage rise to help us out’. The teachers believed them. They thought: ‘Oh, this is a new government, it is a good government and they are in trouble, so we have to help them’. And help them they did; they took a smaller wage rise.
However, over the last two or three years, the teachers got wise. They saw and understood the torrent of GST that was coming into the Territory. They knew there was money available, yet this government was not prepared to keep to its promise, and that is why they got angry. That is why they dug their heels in and said that 11% over three years was not enough. They wanted more and they deserved more. But it was not just the money that they were arguing about. It was about the conditions of their employment: the class sizes, the time they get to spend away from the classroom doing administrative work. Those were the issues that they were particularly concerned about, yet they could not get this government to listen.
The CLP came out with a counter offer, an offer that was worked out with the union. In that offer, we offered them 15% over two years, smaller class sizes, and to work with the union to produce a policy where we weight students’ learning ability and use that to create class sizes of, say, a maximum of 22 students. We agreed to early childhood class sizes being a maximum of 20. We also committed to providing relief time for teachers and principals of small schools through the provision of relief teachers and, finally, to introduce a policy of small schools with the commitment to build a new school once the average number of students in a cluster of schools in an area reaches 300. That is what we offered the teachers, and this was circulated quite widely amongst the teachers in the Territory.
Once the offer by the Country Liberal Party was made, the teachers suddenly realised, yes, it is possible, yes, we deserve it, yes, the Country Liberal Party does value our professionalism and, yes, we will dig our heels in and tell the government this is what we want. For another seven weeks the argy-bargy continued. Teachers were asking: ‘Why can’t Syd come to talk to us?’
When the teachers finally agreed, this week, to accept the government’s offer, an offer of 15.5% over two-and-a-half years, they lost the smaller class sizes, they lost the power subsidy, they lost the other working conditions that they were hoping to trade for as well. Well, that is fine. The teachers accepted it, and I am happy for them. They are now on a higher salary of 15.5% across the board, but that works out to be something like 6.2% over the next 12 months - 15.5% divided by two-and-a-half. Each year for the next two-and-a-half years they are looking at 7.5% increase for teachers’ salaries, which is not factored into this budget. I said to the minister: ‘You have a hole in your budget’. Do you know what he said to me yesterday? He said: ‘No, we have put in 3% inflation for wages and salaries in Education’.
That raises two issues with me. First of all, why did he put 3% wages and salaries inflation factored into Education, whereas the rest of his budget is worked on about 1.5%, and the rest of CPI is supposed to be 2%? This does not add up to a real, honest budget. He might have factored in the 3% in the wages and salaries, but when the actual rise is something like 7.5%, he is still 4.5% short. He said yesterday: ‘Oh, that is nothing much, it is a very modest amount – affordable’. When we offered it, it was not affordable. Suddenly, it is affordable, now that he has offered the same thing. If it was so affordable – such a modest amount, as he said yesterday – why did he push the teachers right to the very edge, and finally agreed to their demands on the eve of an election? That, to me, is the cynical act of a minister who is trying to push teachers and exploit their professionalism, their dedication to the job. That is not how you treat teachers.
Regarding the last point that I raised – that we will build new schools if the average within a cluster of schools reaches 300 – this government puts out a lie in this flyer. It is a lie! The Country Liberal Party did not say anything about forcing people to leave school to go to another school – it never did. What we said was, when you have several schools in an area and, if the average within that cluster is 300 or more, then you ought to be building a new school. Then you allow the community to decide which of the schools you would choose to go to. They could do that. With greater detail, I will be elaborating on that when the government calls the election. So, call on the election and you will hear more about it. Until then, do not besmirch and lie about the Country Liberal Party’s policy, because that is what has been spun by this government.
The TAFE sector has been struggling for the last several years, especially since the formation of the Charles Darwin University. Centralian College, which had provided such great TAFE education in the Territory, has been emasculated since the amalgamation. I know the Vice Chancellor is not very happy with me, but I tell you, talk to the industry and the tradespeople who are trying to get apprentices trained. Talk to the people who are trying to get trainees through the university. They say that they cannot get in. I have had e-mails and telephone calls from tradespeople saying: ‘I have an apprentice. I cannot get them to university because they cannot get into a block to do some study’. They have been told: ‘Sorry, we have hit our limit, we cannot take your apprentice at this time; you have to wait’.
Take, for instance, a plumber whose apprentice is now in his third or fourth year and still has to finish his or her last block of studies. Because the university cannot take that apprentice on, the apprentice has to stay as an apprentice for the next six months or so, until that apprentice can get into the university to finish off the studies. So the employer, the plumbing business, has to keep this young person on as an apprentice for another six months extra, at extra cost, and they cannot bill for this young person’s services at the rate that they can bill if the person was already a qualified tradesman. That is the frustration that industry is going through. What has this government done about it? Nothing really. The minister is saying: ‘We are doing so much for training, we are doing so much for our Jobs Plan’. The reality is that even with the budgeted 2700 traineeships and apprenticeships commencements that they thought they would get for this year, they are some 300 short for this year.
They said to us for the four years we are going to get 2500 every year. How can you believe that? If you talk to industry they say that is a lot of codswallop, you will never achieve it. Not only are they not going to achieve it through getting the numbers, if you look at the budget papers there is your funding for training being cut by $3m dollars. You are going to increase the numbers, yet you are going to cut back on the amount that they have already spent. This year, they spent $61.6m for 2400 apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. Next year, they are going to increase to 2500, yet they have cut the money back. They are not going to achieve this figures that they suggest they are going to do. You cannot do it.
The university is obviously struggling; I am not certain why. I suspect that TAFE is taking a very low priority. If it is not, I would like to be convinced otherwise. I am very open to any convincing argument anybody can raise with me to say that yes, the university has its interest in TAFE and is doing everything it can, but I am yet to be convinced.
Let me come to Central Australia. I saw a media release put out by the Minister for Central Australia lauding all of the things that this government is doing for it. We received a late copy of the Regional Highlights, which I only received half-an-hour ago, trying to outline what it has done. Anyway, it is all written in the minister’s media release, so that is fine. When I added it all up, the reality is there is not much new money there. They talk about $23.5m to deliver primary and early childhood education; hey, that is the recurrent budget for Education primary and early childhood education. It talks about $22m for non-government schools; well, that is something that you do every year. Maybe a slight increase. New money?
I went through the list and looked at it. What has Alice Springs specifically got under this budget? $1.7m to complete Stuart Lodge upgrade in Alice Springs - we will see when it is finished. $1.2m for two years for airconditioning upgrade at Ross Park Primary School - I welcome that. I wrote to the minister, I lobbied the minister quite a lot last year and, as late as November last year, Ross Park school was told: ‘Your project is still in the air. It might be going in for some initial assessment but that is it’. As late as November last year. Suddenly, it is election time and money has become available. I welcome the money. As I said, let us not look a gift horse in the mouth and I look forward to the Ross Park Primary School getting its airconditioning upgrade done soon, especially if it is possible over this cooler period of the of year so it will be ready for next summer. But that is $0.6m, not $1.2m, because it is over two years.
Then there is the $1m for renal and acute care upgrades at Alice Springs Hospital, which is not due to start until next year by the way. There is $1m for upgrade at Flynn Drive Renal Services. There is an $800 000 allocation for a new Alice Springs drag strip - I will come back to that in a little while but that is money there. There is $650 000 for staff accommodation upgrade at Alice Springs Hospital, and $1.02m for ongoing works at the Larapinta subdivision.
Additional to that, $100 000 for the mobile police station in Alice Springs and $150 000 for a pedestrian-activated crossing at Larapinta Drive.
In Health, a few things came extra: $1.94m additional ongoing to improve medical staffing levels in Alice Springs. Let us see the positions filled and then I will congratulate this government but, until then, you can put as much money allocation as you like, but it is only a paper entry and there are no more nurses or doctors in Alice Springs Hospital. $6.2 million for renal dialysis services.
When I added it all up, it came up to about $15m and, when you took away the renal dialysis which essentially is not for Alice Springs per se, you are talking about $9m or thereabouts of new money for Alice Springs. That is a population that comprises something like 13% to 15% of the whole of the Territory. $9m new money. Where has the rest of the money gone?
I said I was going to come back to the business about the $800 000 for the CADRA drag strip. This government is amazing. The Deputy Chief Minister says: ‘Where are your policies? You said you would release them within weeks and we have not seen any of them’. I did not come down in the last shower. You are so bereft of policies that you need to look at ours so that you can copy them. At the Finke Desert Race last year, I advised the Central Australia Drag Racing Association that the Country Liberal Party would fund $800 000 for their drag strip. The member for Macdonnell and I have been assisting them in fundraising throughout the last few years. In fact, both of us personally contributed significant amounts of money to their fundraising. There is a policy which will be announced.
Now this government says: ‘Election time. We had better give them the money’. I wrote to all the alderman at the town council in Alice Springs and said we will give you the money to deepen the town pool so you do not have this problem with the starting blocks; we will give them $200 000. Guess what? A couple of weeks ago, this government gives them $200 000. We said we will have a mobile police unit in Alice Springs to deal with issues like the Larapinta riots we had a week ago. Guess what? Last Sunday, the government said they will have a mobile police unit. We said we will make sure that Larapinta Drive has pedestrian-activated crossing lights. Guess what? Within a couple of days, the government is going to do it, too!
There is more. Some six months or so ago, we released the policy on petrol sniffing and, within a few months, the government is going to do it. The only thing that they did not take out of our policy was banning it. That was the only thing. We released a policy on benefits for our senior Territorians and, within a few weeks, they are taking it on as well. That is the problem. You release a policy and, within days and weeks, boom, they declare it as theirs. Do you think we are going to release too many more? Come on! It is the same thing as the Education policy: 15% over two years; they went for 15.5% over two-and-half years.
It is not that we do not want to release our policies, but we cannot trust this government to do the right thing. It clearly shows they have no policies because for a budget that is coming out, the last budget before an election, you would think there would be huge excitement out there. People should say: ‘What a fantastic budget to win government for this party’. But, no, they do not know what to do. They honestly do not know what to do. All they have done is increase the budget more and more to prop up the public service.
It is quite clear that that is the way the Treasurer thinks. I recall, about three months ago, there was comment that Alice Springs population is decreasing, people are leaving, jobs are getting scarce, and more people are unemployed in Alice Springs. Guess what he said? He said: ‘That is all right, we shall fix that. We will just employ more people in the public service and that will fix up the problem’. And if anybody else wants to speak they better get back in the Chamber fairly quickly otherwise they are going to miss out. That is the silly part about it; the way to fix unemployment in the Northern Territory is to increase the public service size. How idiotic can that be? This government needs to reconsider where it is going because it is not taking the Territory anywhere at all.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the shadow portfolios that I cover include Family and Community Services, Environment and Heritage, Arts and Museums, Seniors and Women’s Policy. I see this budget as a mixed bag. There are some things in it that I do like. Naturally, I am pleased to see an increase in staffing for Alice Springs Hospital, especially staffing to, hopefully, affect the heavy workload being worked by the RMOs at the moment. I hope that this goes some way to address the stress that I know they have been experiencing over the last few years. Naturally, I am going to be very pleased to see the completion of the hospice. I understand that it is expected to open in June now, and it will be great to see.
Another plus has been the indexation for non-government organisations including CPI. I have been aware over the last few years of the number of non-government organisations, particularly in the area of community services, who have been calling for this, and the stress that they have been under trying to cope with the expenses, let alone trying to increase their services.
I support the increased funding for renal services. I believe this government has done an excellent job with the provision of renal services, and I understand that the incidence of renal disease in the Northern Territory is now plateauing, and that is a great thing.
I support the initiative to home grow our own midwives. I have not gained an understanding yet of exactly how that $200 000 is going to be spent, and I look forward to the estimates process when I will ask some questions with regards to that. It certainly is a good thing to do, to grow our own professionals here in the Territory in the hope that they will stay.
I am very pleased to see funding being provided for the residential care of people with mental health problems. This has definitely been a gap in our service provision in the Territory and I certainly hope that this service is up and running soon. Like all of us, we are keen to see the impact of the government’s initiatives on petrol sniffing and I support the funding that has gone into that area.
I look forward to seeing how well these Labor commitments are implemented, and if we do go to estimates at the next sittings, I look forward to exploring how some of these commitments will be implemented.
Studying the fine print in budget books does raise concerns. Before I go any further here, I wish to make a comment with regards to the Minister for Family and Community Services’ response to the budget tonight. The minister really pushes it and pushes it. I believe she is a good person and I like her at a personal level, but she really cannot help herself in sticking it to the CLP. The Labor Party people are in government now, and that is their job now: to run government and provide services, to use the money that they obtained from taxpayers - be they Territory or Australian taxpayers - to the benefit of Territorians. That is what you do when you are in government. You come up against problems, regardless of who is in government. I do not think there is anyone on that side of the House who could claim that there are no problems here in the Territory now, as we speak, with regard to the provision of services.
Sure, when the CLP was in government we had problems too, and it was not perfect then either. However, the Minister for Family and Community Services never gives up in having a go at the CLP and implying that everything that is wrong with the Northern Territory happened because of the CLP.
The reality in the real world is that many Labor-voting people are quite disillusioned now because that is what they used to think. Up until the previous election, they also believed that everything that was wrong in the Northern Territory was caused by the CLP government. Now we have had a change in government, we have had three-and-a-half years of the Labor government. I, for one, am not expecting major health problems to have been cured by the fact that Labor have come to power or the CLP were in power. However, the Minister for Family and Community Services continues on with this never-ending business about the CLP.
Which brings me to putting on the record my absolute surprise that, in the last month or so, she has gone so very public in the Northern Territory News about her absolute dismay and anger at the care she received at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the fact that she was going to have to speak to the Minister for Health, her colleague, about it. Because of the care she received there, she was in fear of her life and she then moved to the private service in order to get the treatment that she so desperately needed.
I make that point - I was not going to do it; I have not brought the newspaper clipping in with me as I normally would because I was not going to go into this particular area. Because the minister just pushes it so much, blaming the CLP about everything in the Northern Territory, I put on the record - and for people who might be interested they should have a look at that article and feel the tone of the minister when she went to the press on this matter; feel her frustration and anger. This is a health service, the Emergency Department service, which her colleague has some hand in. We have been calling for years now for the problems in that Emergency Department to be tackled.
I am aware that staff in that department were stunned by that article and not happy. The minister draws a very fine line here. To have a minister of the Crown publicly bagging a health service like that undermines people’s trust in that service throughout the community. We all know that that is a very good service being provided there under difficult circumstances. For the minister to have gone so public with regard to what happened to her was quite extraordinary. She needs to have a think about what is happening now in Health Services and about how involved her own political party and government is with regard to the provision of that service.
I will not say anything more about the minister and those comments, but it was ironic to hear the vitriol from her here tonight - the continuing, year after year, vitriol from her - given the fact that she has given such a serve to her own government, her own party and the staff working so hard at that hospital.
Turning quite specifically to the budget, I mention the fine print. One of the things that is interesting in the areas that I deal with has been the removal - and I cite page 135 as an example, but it is all over the place in Budget Paper No 3. Sorry, that is not a very good number; I will find a better one. They are all over the place. Okay, here is one, page 124. This is the budget concerning admitted patients to our hospital services, but it is in all the sectors that I have had to deal with. If you compare this budget book to last year’s Budget Paper No 3, the budget book from last year used to have costings for particular services; for example, how much on average the average admitted hospital patient cost the department. This year, those sorts of costs are gone, so we cannot compare now what sort of costing it was to have an average patient, for example at Royal Darwin Hospital, compared to what it was last year. It would be very interesting for somebody on the government side, perhaps the Treasurer, to explain to Territorians why that detail has been removed from this year’s budget book.
I move specifically to one of my portfolio areas, the area of Family and Community Services. If members turn to page 122 dealing with this area, the minister said this evening about how important it is to provide services to the homeless. What is interesting is she makes no mention of the fact that she has cut the budget for services for people, and it is known as ‘support services for individuals and families in crisis’. This area has been cut by over $0.5m, by $569 000. I ask the question: why, particularly as this booklet here, Building Healthier Communities, talks so glowingly about the need to provide services for people in such need. These services include help for people who are the victims of family, domestic and sexual assault, and of violence; people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless; and families in financial crises. So I ask: why has this budget been cut in excess of $0.5m, particularly when the performance indicators found on page 126 detail the expanded demand of service provision rate to stay the same.
This budget book details that the services that are going to be provided for people needing support services are going to stay exactly the same as they were this year. Next financial year, the expectation is that the demand for services will stay the same, yet the budget has been cut in this area by over $0.5m. What on earth is going on? Why would this happen? Would there be a fall in demand? Society’s stresses are not improving and representatives from non-government organisations like the Salvation Army often say they are struggling to provide services - for example, to the homeless - and that they are failing to meet that demand. I place on the record an article that appeared in the Northern Territory News on 8 March this year. It features Major Janine Wright from the Salvation Army and she concludes in the article, which was calling for increased funding: ‘We are already turning people away’. I seek leave to table this article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. So, two months ago in the Northern Territory News the Salvation Army talking about how they are struggling to provide services, for example, to the homeless. I ask why has the government cut this service by more than $0.5m? Does it mean that because we have had a cut in funding that cuts will now go to the NGOs, and does this mean that they will have to cut their services?
The minister was very pleased to announce $1.13m for the indexation, including CPI, to non-government organisations, but here we have half of that money, in excess of $0.5m - half of that wonderful indexation money being provided for by the cut. Therefore, It is given on one hand, but taken away on the other. Many non-government organisations will wonder at the cynicism displayed by such an activity.
Another area I cover is the Aged and Disability Services. This is another area which has had a cut particularly with regards to the Pensioner Concession Scheme. The Community Support Services for frail aged people with a disability has had a small increase from $49.639m to $49.933m. What is of concern is the estimate’s expectation that this small increase in funding, which will not even cover CPI, will cover a marked increase in expected services; for example, an increase of 95 000 hours of community support services.
Given that the extra money will not cover CPI, where will the money come from to pay for what the small print on page 128 describes as ‘a projected increase in community support clients’? Hardly any money coming in, will not cover CPI for this area in aged and disability services, yet the performance measures indicate that there is going to be a marked increase in the need to provide services. This is a major concern – and the minister talks frequently about half the budget in her area going to non-government organisations – as to how these organisations are going to be able to cope with an increased demand in service with very little increase, not even enough to cover CPI, in their budget.
In respect of the Pensioner Concession Scheme, the budget cut is $362 000, which is detailed on page 122. What is interesting is that the number of pensioner concession recipients is estimated to rise from 18 200 to 18 900 during the coming financial year, but the budget has been cut. I doubt whether the cut is meant to reflect falling costs in electricity, rates, water charges, sewerage charges, garbage charges, car registration and interstate travel. Those costs will not go down, yet these are the things the Pensioner Concession Scheme subsidises. We all know of people in our electorates who rely on the Pensioner Concession Scheme to enable them to survive financially. We are going to see an increase of 700 seniors accessing the scheme, and there is a cut of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The government needs to explain to Territorians why this area has been cut and how these cuts will affect the operation of the scheme.
Something mentioned as a budget initiative is the provision of a bus service to assist seniors living in seniors’ complexes to attend, for example, Royal Darwin Hospital, which is a great initiative. I know that my constituents who are currently living at Tracy Aged Care are having problems accessing Royal Darwin Hospital, and I know that the government is looking to address it, for which I am grateful. This provision is a great idea, and I hope is resourced so that it can function adequately. It is obviously starting small to begin with, and I note that one of the complexes that will be provided with a service is the complex at Fannie Bay. I have recently written to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure asking him to look at the problem of when the complex at Fannie Bay was built, the in-bound bus stop was moved hundreds of metres away from where it used to be, which was quite close to what is now the seniors complex. The end result is that people with a mobility problem who might be using a walking stick now have to cross three or four roads to access the in-bound bus stop. I have written to the minister in the hope that the bus stop can be moved adjacent to the complex towards the racecourse end of that stretch of road.
I welcome the government’s initiative with regards to the seniors’ bus service. I hope it is not long before a similar service can be expanded to all of our seniors’ complexes in the Northern Territory, because it is certainly a problem that seniors do have being mobile to get, for example, to the major health services.
Another area that I cover is mental health. My concern has been the steady increase in the number of bed days over the past two years that have been provided in Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospital. The annual report for 2003-04, which is the last set of firm figures that we have on how many bed days were provided in our two major hospitals for mental health, cite that the number of bed days provided in that financial year was 10 069. In Budget Paper No 3 for the following financial year, the one that is coming up now, 2005-06, there is an estimate of up to 12 800 patient bed days. These are the number of days, in a unit, that patients clock up. For example, some patients may be admitted and spend 10 days in a unit; other patients might spend 20 days. The system adds up how many days, all up, were in units, and it gives them a measure as to, basically, the busyness and the percentage rate of bed occupancy and things like that. What you can see from that is that, over a two year period, there is an expectation of a fairly steady increase in the service that is required and, in fact, that increase is in the nature of about 2700 bed days. Given that the total bed days expected is 12 800, that is a very substantial amount of bed days being increased.
In the budget, the government is going to provide, in Darwin and, I believe, Alice Springs, residential mental health complexes. I would assume they will be basically almost like step-down units in the community, and this should be good. I will be very interested to see how it operates and I hope it goes well. The government is going to call for tenders shortly. The reality is that this process may take some time and, indeed, there may not be anyone prepared to provide this service, because they will need to employ staff, I would assume. They may need some sort of qualification, and it is not an easy thing to do. At one point, we are going to see some community-based care for people who are obviously not in such a bad way that they need to be admitted to a hospital’s mental health unit, and this may take some pressure off the mental health units with regards to beds. However, on the other hand, it may take some time to set up.
At the same time, we are seeing an expectation, through the budget books, of a very substantial increase in the requirement for beds in our mental health units. This is going to need to be something that the government and the minister looks very carefully at and monitors well, because I have visited both of our mental health units over the last few years.
In fact, I visited the Alice Springs unit only a few weeks ago. In both units, the staff have impressed upon me the fact that they are short of beds, that it certainly does happen, from time to time, that patients have to sleep on mattresses on the floor, and also that it is not uncommon for staff to have to put two beds into single bed bays. In a normal hospital, that may not be a big problem but, arguably, in a mental health unit, when patients may not be in the best of mood to deal with the close proximity of another patient in their bedroom, this may cause quite substantial problems.
The government needs to move very quickly. It is indicating a significant growth in demand, and it needs to do something quick smart to address the problems with accommodation in our two hospital-based mental health units.
One of the issues that we face here in the health system is the extreme difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified staff, and mental health staff are no different. If we are expecting them to look after a large number of patients in difficult physical environments, then there is a chance that they may leave sooner than we might have hope that they would.
Another area that I cover as a shadow is the area of Environment and Heritage. I will touch first on the issue of the environment. Environment Protection Services has had a cut, and that is plain to see on page 221 of Budget Paper No 3. The minister, in her speech tonight, obviously completely ignores the budget book with regards to this, because she talked glowingly about the Environment Protection Service. Her comment was that staff are currently, and I quote: ‘Literally run off their feet’. There is no mention in the key variations of the reduction of $162 000 from this budget area and, given all of the requirements of the Environment Protection Services at the moment, particularly with regards to monitoring the events at the Darwin Waterfront Precinct, I would have thought this was an area that, at the very least, needed to maintain its budget - hardly an area that should be cut.
In a similar budget area with regards to Environment and Heritage, heritage conservation has been cut by $18 000. Given inflation, quite frankly, how can heritage conservation be maintained if the budget is being cut by $18 000? People may not think that is a lot of money, but I believe it is a lot of money in the area of heritage conservation. When we are living in an environment of harsh weather, be it the Wet Season or the summer season in Central Australia, it is an incredibly harsh environment. Many of the heritage buildings we have are very frail buildings. They are buildings that were built at a time when there was not a lot of bricks and mortar and solidness about buildings. Many beautiful old heritage buildings in the Territory – and classic examples exist in Alice Springs - are in need of constant conservation in order to maintain them so that they can exist for generations to come. For the minister and her government to cut this budget by $18 000 certainly needs to be explained.
Another area that I cover is Arts and Museums, and it is another area that has attracted significant budget cuts. The details of that particular area of cut can be found in Budget Paper No 3 on page 191. Collectively, Museums and Art Galleries have been cut by $1.8m. The Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory - particularly the main ones in Darwin and Alice Springs - are absolutely magnificent, and they stand as a testament to the previous CLP government for the work and the commitment that was put into establishing those. I know very well that, here in Darwin, when a tourist says to me: ‘What should I do, where should I go; I only have a day in Darwin’, the first thing I say is: ‘Get down to the museum at Bullocky Point’, because it is absolutely magnificent for a community such as ours to have a museum such as that. Therefore, it has been disappointing to see in this year’s budget such a cut.
The key variations actually explain this one. They claim that $0.5m was provided last financial year, which is the one we are currently in, to deal with the carpet beetle infestation at the Bullocky Point museum. That is fair enough, but I ask: what about the other $1.3m cut? Can the government explain why that sort of cut was needed to this service? Alice Springs Cultural Precinct has been cut by $234 000 - also a lot of money. How will the services being provided by both those fabulous resources suffer as a result to this budget cut?
It is my view that this budget is a mixed bag. There are certainly some very good things in it, but there have been some cuts that are quite disturbing. Listening to, in particular, the Minister for Family and Community Services and Environment and Heritage’s speech tonight, she did not touch on, in any way, to try to explain the cuts in her portfolio areas. She spoke blithely as though nothing had gone wrong except, of course, for the fact that for some time there was a CLP government here in the Northern Territory. Mr Deputy Speaker, like my colleagues, I certainly look forward to exploring this budget before the election in the estimates process in June.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall roam widely, but start with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. I am thankful that the minister has gone before me and has provided a descriptor of much of the department. It is quite a big and complex department and I may need an extension of time to cross it. Like the finishing note of the previous speaker, it is interesting that he dwelled on the ups but not the downs, and the downs are quite significant. This is a department that has taken a $5.6m cut and it is interesting in an election year the government is so quiet on where that money has been. We even have some new vernacular entering the budget debates like ‘remapping’ and stuff like that. This is all code for ‘we are not going to tell you and if we go to estimates you can find out there’.
It is my fervent belief that we are on the eve of an election, and I believe that because this budget here is a farce. The questions that were just posed by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, are such that if she did get a day in a room with the two ministers involved, I am sure she would be able to demonstrate amply to Territorians why she should be the minister and not them. I was very impressed with the contribution of my colleague. Notwithstanding her professional qualifications in this area, she obviously has a thinking approach to this budget. She has talked to practitioners in the area; she has talked to clients. Matters such as the location of the bus stop for the people from the seniors’ village in the Chief Minister’s electorate at what was Kurringal. What marks the CLP is the fact that we have had people talk to us not about that there is $100m going in, or $1m or $2m; it is what the money does. It is the pragmatic approach to what that cash does. We get the taxpayers’ money and we deliver services for them.
I will quickly walk through, in the time that I have, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. It is important probably to start with the city waterfront project because this is at the forefront of the government’s approach to its re-election. They are saying: ‘We will all live happily ever after. Only a fool would not support the city waterfront. We know there are people who are upset because they have jobs relying on the waterfront and anybody who would be so foolish as to make any commentary querying any element of it is un-Territorian’. The long and short of it is that Territorians have rarely seen such a closed, secretive process. Sure, there is a model. Sure, the model is on display, but when do we talk about the process, what the money is, where it goes, what it buys, what is in Stage 1, 2, and 3, are they linked, is there a relationship between the three? It is quite a reasonable thing for people to be querying about 25 ha of their land and some hundreds of millions of dollars of their money.
For instance, in a budgetary context, it went from $700m to $1.2bn, back to $1bn, and now it is $1.1bn. I would have thought that if you are talking hundreds of millions it is pretty important to talk about what those things embrace. From going from $700m in the Chief Minister’s own glossy brochures to $1.1bn in this budget is pretty significant. If we sit in this parliament and talk about appropriating $400m worth of cash, or receiving $400m of assets, it is a reasonable thing to debate. So the secrecy which is ‘do not trust me, I am from the government, I am here to help, how dare you question it, there are people of high standing in the community who are upset with you’, are bullying techniques to say ‘please do not look too hard because after financial close we will tell you everything’. Well, if financial close and estimates are such that the public do not get to participate in them, then I say the government does this at their peril.
The Darwin City Waterfront, we believe, is a site appropriate for development, as do the Independents and the government. Get past the idea that we have the notion that nothing should happen there. The issue we have is that a couple of us from this parliament went to the Development Consent Authority and heard the submission put by your partners. That is why this is different. This was, essentially, a submission put by government because the people putting it had the authority of the government to do it. After all, you are a partner. Budget Paper No 2 tells you how a public/private partnership works. They revealed things we had not learnt before.
We were interested, for instance, when we received Budget Paper No 2, which carries some description of the waterfront, that it missed the lock and the marina. If you are out there boasting about features, wouldn’t you boast about the lock and marina? Wouldn’t they be seen as important community infrastructure, a trinket to hand out to the people? When we look at community infrastructure, the Chief Minister tried to pretend that it was because it was in a later stage and we are talking about Stages 1, 2 and 3.
Let us look at community infrastructure at page 86 of Budget Paper No 2.
- The community infrastructure includes a seawall, …
We know that. We went to the Development Consent Authority and we have seen the plans of it:
- … extensive boardwalks, children’s playground, swimming facilities, wave pool, a new cruise ship
terminal at Fort Hill Wharf and an Avenue of Honour …
A couple of those things are not actually in Stage 1, so let us make the assumption, first up, that this descriptor is a descriptor of the whole precinct. For instance, the cruise ship terminal is not even in the precinct. This government has chosen to provide a delineation that takes that out. Here we are, and we have the full thing. One would think that, if you were going to boast about a children’s playground, some swings and a slippery dip, surely you would boast about a lock and a marina where you could tie up yachts?
The fact that it was missing was a concern. The fact that we went to the Development Consent Authority and we saw plans that were devoid of a lock, that showed sprinklers trying to aerate the water to make sure it was of reasonable standard, to hear your partners – people talking with your authority - say that they were not going to give any assurances on water quality until after sign-off, is too cute. It is too cute! This project is going to go across five governments, so it is not a matter of, on the eve of this election, saying: ‘This is what we are going to drop in place’.
The government is often keen to quote the fact that I have said some words about ‘we believe the CLP is the best party to govern this place’. If that is portrayed as arrogance on my part, so be it. I will tell you what arrogance is: arrogance is signing up the next five governments. Arrogance is saying: ‘We are not going to tell you anything. We are going to get to financial close, and for the next 16 years, you are stuck with it’. So if the Chief Minister happens to go back to the happy climes of Sydney, from whence she comes - and that is apparently fairly likely - we who are locals and who will stay here will be stuck with this thing for five terms of government. That is arrogance! It is arrogance to parade to us that it has been signed off, and now you might tell us some of the component parts. What if we do not agree with it? What if the community says: ‘We would like a lock’ or ‘We do not think it should be there’? It is too late.
If the government is trying to say they are going to sign off on Stage 1, I would like to believe that an incoming government might have a totally free rein with Stages 2 and 3. That is obviously a foolish notion because we know in this precinct that the cash is in Stages 2 and 3. That is where the big money yield will be, and those big profit margins will be used to subsidise Stage 1, which, hopefully in the government’s view, people will be seduced by. So you have gone out with Stage 1 into the community and are saying that even though the lock is in Stage 2, we will promise you that as well. We want to see Stages 2 and 3. We want to see the whole thing. If they are not bound, the government should be saying to us: ‘Any incoming government has the right to totally review Stages 2 and 3’. I believe that would be a nonsense.
Even though the minister largely with responsibility glossed over this issue, it has featured largely in the last couple of days. I suspect it will feature largely in the election. It has been a massive investment of glossy brochures, people being paid to staff exhibits, and all sorts of models and whatever. But I can tell you, government, I spoke to a man just yesterday and he said: ‘This waterfront is a bit of problem and we were just talking about that’. I said: ‘Where was that?’ And he said: ‘At the Roma Bar’. So if you think this is some sort of CLP plot to say, ‘Let us trick the government and let us pretend we are un-Territorian and white ant this thing’, as the Chief Minister would say to be un-Territorian, I believe our job is to interrogate this budget papers. The waterfront features largely and it should be interrogated and we should do that without fear.
I would be very, very happy to go to estimates on this. I have attended the Development Consent Authority meetings, as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have attempted to gain most of the information that is available; it now fills quite a large lump of my office. We still know very little about this project and I believe the government owes it to Territorians to tell them what they going to do with our land and our money.
Then we go to the Central Desert Knowledge Precinct - $2.7m. If this is not the biggest hit me I have ever seen. This matter is circa 1999. I saw Cabinet documents on the Desert Knowledge Precinct a long time ago, as a Cabinet member. For the government to say: ‘Aren’t we lovely because we are putting $2.5m in’, is pretty foolish. It is a great idea, it is a great notion. It probably has the entire support of this House. However, don’t you think you have been a bit tardy? Don’t you think that, maybe, somehow it has been derailed for it to be appearing here at Stage 2 for headworks - for headworks? We are not talking about the intellectual property; we are not talking about repositories of knowledge. We are talking about a road going into the mulga. We talked about this in Alice Springs. There are more headworks in here now. I believe we have to get to the stage where this thing actually has a product. It is silly talking about how we are going to put trenches in, and put in plumbing and electricity, and aren’t we nice people, when you should be talking about this thing dispensing services and dispensing product.
I am moving pretty quickly because of time restraints. The Darwin Business Park - $1.5m. We should know more about the Darwin Business Park. This was touted as a wonderful thing. It is out there in the port area. Toll moved in as the primary tenant. In fact, they are still pretty much the only tenant. If this government really wants to look at articulating the land bridge concept of the port, the rail, air, road transport, this stood as their bona fides, this Darwin Business Park, which is totally untenanted. I am surprised it needs more headworks. It is pretty much ready to sell. There are signs are up saying, ‘If you want to buy this block, ring this number and someone will sell it to you’. It is obviously service deficient. It is sitting next to the rail terminal which is in the wrong place, as everybody knows and nobody on the government side will admit. It is probably money that, if it is to prop up something to make it more saleable, should look at other things, like maybe moving the terminal.
Moving right along, through a lot of the rhetoric about how wonderful this government is and how terrible the CLP was with its revote and all that stuff. I will read this in for the Parliamentary Record, because perhaps it is a Hansard mistype. So I will read it in and I would hope to quote the minister correctly. I am reading from Daily Hansard, Wednesday, 4 May 2005, page 57:
- $500 000 is provided to improve access to the remote Arnhem Land communities of Ngukurr and
Numbulwar along the central Arnhem line from Beswick to Gove.
I have driven to Ngukurr many times and I have driven to Numbulwar. In fact, I have even driven the central line from Beswick to Gove. That is an interesting road. If the minister is going to spend $0.5m to build a road from the central Arnhem highway to Numbulwar, it will cost him more than $0.5m. I can tell you, that is a seriously bad road. If you cross the Leichhardt crossing, and if you go from Ngukurr to Numbulwar, $500 000, you would be doing well just to scrape a track across the black soil plains there. So this is obviously a new highway. The minister may have a geographic problem. He certainly has a mathematic and economic problem, because there is no way known to man he is going to push a road through that country from the Central Arnhem Highway to Numbulwar and Ngukurr for $500 000. Three grader drivers will go missing before that thing is actually scraped through the scrub, I would suggest. It is probably a good spot. It is probably a great tourist road and all that sort of stuff.
Moving through the minister’s speech, he talked about how wonderful he is by protecting the wonderful Darwin nature from the cane toad. We told him a number of things we could do. We had the chairman of the committee come back to the committee and say: ‘I have spoken to the minister …’, which was not him, ‘… and yes, we have the money’. The money did not turn up in the budget - and we are talking two budgets ago. We think the people who are knowledgeable about this, think that the cane toad is probably already in Darwin. He will be a little small beastie, but he will grow big. The reason he is here is because they are notorious hitchhikers. People who go camping with boats, who bring plant into Darwin, and who travel between remote communities and here, will have inadvertently brought the cane toad to Darwin. So, he is here.
The minister is making a great assumption here. He is saying we are going to keep them out of WA: ‘… that should have been done a long time ago’. This is this figure pointing that is going on about the amount of work that was not done by the CLP and is done by Labor in halting the advance of the ubiquitous cane toad. The amount of work that was done by this jurisdiction in the 1980s and 1990s was world first. It was largely done by a fellow called Dr Bill Freeland and, if you read any literature on this, you will see his name in lights. It was immense scientific work and it worked on the best approaches to halt this toad. What we have here is an emotional campaign to the northern suburbs of Darwin saying: ‘We have found a trap’. Well, I can tell you, I can invent a trap out of that water jug there. They are very easy beasts to catch. In Borroloola, they catch them in the footprints in the mud made by cows; they are not hard things to catch. They are hard things to eradicate; they are hard things to stop them spreading.
I know you are looming to go to the election on this thing and you are going to say: ‘Da, da, da, cane toad heroes’. If you are that good, stop them getting into Western Australia. There is your challenge. Stop them getting into Kununurra. Stop them getting into Timber Creek. We think there are some things you could have done. You could have replicated, for instance, the goanna test that was done by Bill Freeland using some women who had goanna dogs near Borroloola. You could be doing that at Yarralin now. You could be doing it at Pigeon Hole now. You could be doing some before and after tests. What he found was that the goanna did not become extinct. He found that, in fact, the big green goannas did die from ingesting cane toads. The new ones either learnt to avoid them or became tolerant to them. Therefore, before you start talking about that you have a trap and have worked out how to fix cane toads, get back to the science; get back to people who understand this stuff. Tell us what it is you are going to do, and lay your career on the line.
If you think that something should have been done a long time ago, you tell us, minister, how you are going to stop cane toads getting into WA. I have seen the prognosis for the spread of this beastie, and they can get everywhere, including Tasmania. It might make you feel good to sit around the room and wring your hands about it, might make you feel good to have a trap you can catch 1000, 2000, 10 000. Each cane toad has 30 000 eggs so you want to have a lot of traps, mate.
I am not telling you to stop. I am not telling you to reduce your enthusiasm in this area. All I am telling you to do is focus it. Focus it on things that you can do like for instance keep them out of Cobourg, keep them out of Beatrice Hill. Talk to some people who know a bit about it. Talk to Dr Freeland, for instance. He is still out there in Darwin, even though you sacked him; I am sure he will give you some advice about this.
The undergrounding of power: the minister in his speech is talking about us continuing with the program, and I will quote:
- It will be interesting to see what sort of costing and time frame they come out with in terms of what
they want to do.
I asked him this question, and he said: ‘I am not going to tell you’. I put this question to him in one of these little mini-statements: ‘What is it going to cost and how long are you going to do it?’ He is now saying: ‘Here are my budget papers. I am not going to tell you what it is going to cost or whatever but I want you to tell me’. Seriously, if you have any credibility in posing a problem like that, you will tell us what your costs are. We know what they are. We have pretty good ideas about what it is costing you and we know what it is per lot and the fact that you will not divulge it in this parliament is yet another illustration of why we have to go estimates.
I was interested that you have to upgrade disinfection facilities for the water sources at Pine Creek. I would like to know more about that. I know the water at Pine Creek has been problematic with its potability and that there is arsenic and other problems that occur naturally in that area, but you are talking about disinfecting water here. I would like to know, and I am sure the residents of Pine Creek would like to know, just what you are doing with that disinfected water.
Ti Tree: we talk often in this House about how the government should drive the big money spinners. It should drive primary industries, it should drive mining, it should drive tourism, and there is one line here about: we are going to look for some water sources at Ti Tree. Ti Tree has the potential to be a massive bread bowl for Australia, a massive food bowl. We can have all sorts of product grown there. The Ti Tree area is above the frost line, it has enormous water resources. It has incredible potential. If I was in the minister’s shoes, I would not have given it three words in a budget document; I would have talked about what we are going to do with it.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, touched on pension issues and the minister proudly stood up this morning and talked about this bus service, which incidentally will only go – it looks like to the electorate of Fannie Bay, held by the Chief Minister; the electorate of Coconut Grove, a marginal seat held by the member for Millner; and the Nightcliff area, which is held by the member for Nightcliff. There are many seniors around and there are many seniors who could use a free bus, including in Alice Springs, Madam Speaker. What we have here is a generic program that is only specific to a couple of seniors’ precincts and that is pretty interesting. It is going to cost $144 000, the minister tells us. One would not think that that is a lot of money, but if you look at the budget for transport, I would suggest that is a fair bit of money. The increase for public transport is $182 000, which is only about – I am doing some mental arithmetic here – probably about 1.2% of the budget. Fuel alone has gone up more than that. Fuel has gone up 10%. This minister is trying to tell us that he is going to carry more passengers as my colleague from Port Darwin pointed out, he is going to carry these extra free seniors to try to promote the electoral hopes of at least three of the people in this parliament, and he is telling us that they can deliver on all of those new promises within a meagre increase of less than 1.5%. You have to be joking!
Fuel alone will eat that up and one would hope that drivers’ wages, along with teachers and others, would have increased by more than 1% also. Then, of course, we will take off 2% for CPI, which are in these budget papers and we will take 2% off for efficiency. So this is a budget that has been cut. It has a promise sitting in there somewhere to try to re-elect three of members of this parliament. I would say that that is the sort of stunt that needs the maths well and truly worked out during estimates.
I was interested, too, with the outputs. The outputs that are in this document are quite interesting because they are actually in dollar terms and I do not think I have ever seen that before; I could stand corrected. But performance measures, for instance the capacity to provide policy advice – and this is at page 223 of Budget Paper No 3 - is $1.98m. That is not an output. That is an input, and it is right through the document when you come to this transport area - I have not seen it anywhere else, where capacity to deliver the project and provide strategic advice for the waterfront – the output is $7m. They are inputs. I do not know who has done the budget for this particular area, but it is interesting that people can assume that because we have spent $7m, we can go to the parliament and say: ‘We spent $7m, therefore you should judge us on that’. You can spend $7m down at the casino.
An output is what that money produces. The Auditor-General will tell you that. Any budget officer in these departments will tell you that. It occurs on more than one occasion, right through these documents, where you make a stupid assertion that this parliament will accept the fact that you have spent some money. That is not an output. An output measures what you did with the money.
This is as close to an error as I have seen. It is as bad as the arithmetic error that the Treasurer came up with. If the minister wants to tell us that the fact that he has some money and he will spend it is sufficient to gauge his performance, I would say he should at least talk to the Auditor-General because I am pretty sure that Auditor-General would have some difficulty with a budgeting technique where you can throw some money - and big money - for instance, at page 230, Infrastructure Development, capacity to provide service. The output is measured at $22.22m. He has to have another look at this.
Outputs are what you produce: how many kilometres of road you made; how many passengers you carried on your bus service; how many patients you treated in the hospital; how many palliative care patients were in the hospice. That is what an output is. I am absolutely astonished. Apart from sitting down and reading it tonight, I have never seen that before. I suggest he either gets some advice from the Auditor-General and from the budgets people at Treasury who have printed this; somehow it slipped through or whatever. If there is a budgets officer sitting in your department, minister, who thinks that telling this parliament that they have a certain amount of money is sufficient to describe its output, they are sadly mistaken. I hope that particular budgets officer turns up to estimates, in the lucky event that we have it, because I would like people to understand that there is a difference between inputs and outputs.
It is also interesting to talk about cash and accrual. We were lectured and hectored in this parliament about being a pack of economic imbeciles: ‘Do you not realise that you had a cash system? We have changed to accrual. Come and get a briefing. What sort of an idiot would not understand the system?’ There has been a party trick of late with the Labor Party to compare back to the CLP days, and that compares budget with budget. Unfortunately, what it does is leap-frog the change from cash to accrual. I am quite happy for you to continue to do it because, for instance, when you say you are spending double on mental health and double on child abuse services and 40% in the acute system, I hope you keep doing it.
I will tell you why, and it will give you a little heads-up if there are people up there on the fifth floor listening: all you have to do is go to outputs. For instance, when the Chief Minister went to Alice Springs only last sittings and boasted there was an extra 30% going into the acute sector of the health department, it does not take much to go to the budget papers and find that activity went up 4%. If you really want to play this game of saying: ‘We are comparing with the CLP’ - and they all do it - I am happy for you to do it, because we will be looking at what you do with the money.
Mental health is a classic. I have been present on a couple of occasions - I heard the minister here, she did at Raintree Park at a public meeting - where she said mental health funding has doubled. They have treated fewer people. If you really want to run this stupid argument of comparing with the CLP on a non-comparable basis, please continue. All of you up there, keep writing those numbers in because we are going to look at what you do. I am sure that the public - and I have put it in one of my newsletters - will be very interested to know that if health services in hospitals has gone up 30% in funding, and activity has only gone up 4%, we think you have a managerial problem and it is something that you should address.
The hospital services are pretty hard to leave, though, as I say, my colleague did a pretty good job of it. The next we hear from her, she may well be standing here as the Health minister if this budget gets the analysis that it deserves by people out in the community.
It is interesting to go to pension concession services. My colleague from Port Darwin did it and she did the same thing as me; she looked at the additional bus services and pension concessions and said: ‘These sums just do not work. There is something wrong here’. How is it, if you go, for instance, to page 129, Age and Disability, where you see there is going to be many more people accessing the services; the service has gone from 4500 people to 4800. That is a pretty big jump. That is about 8% in my calculation. We see that the money has dropped. Support for senior Territorians and pension concessions has dropped ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time such that my colleague may conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: Here we have the minister telling us how much he loves pensioners. He says we have a young population, but, and this is a quote from Thursday, 5 May, from Hansard in answer to a question:
- We value our senior Territorians. We want them to stay here and we want to support them.
Well, you are not supporting them by cutting the budget. If you go to page 122 of Budget Paper No 3, you will see ‘Support for Senior Territorians and Pension Concessions’. The minister is saying we support. Here is the support - minus $362 000. So we have a problem: more pensioners accessing services, less money for services, and the government promising that they will increase services. It just does not compute. It cannot work. You cannot say: ‘We are going to increase our pension concession entitlements. There are going to be more people accessing those entitlements, oh, and by the way, we are going to cut the money we need’. It just does not compute.
When you get around to doing your glossy flyers to people in the community and saying: ‘We love you, and there are 200 cops on the beat, and we love our seniors’, and you will probably letterbox those three particular precincts in those seats where you want to get people re-elected, run those numbers, because we will. If you want to tell people, more people accessing the service, more entitlements available to you and less money, blind Freddy can work out that someone is telling a porky. So, good on you, have a go at it and we will see you in estimates.
In closing, and I thank members for giving me a couple of extra minutes, this could well be the last speech we make in this parliament before we go to an election. I, for one, am quite happy to use these documents as a base document to go to the election. It could well be that we have promises above and beyond this document, but we will use this as a base document. We will assume that the numbers you have put in here, particularly Budget Paper No 2, which has been signed by the Under Treasurer, are correct. We know there are errors in there, and we have pointed a couple of them out to you, but we will use these as a base document as well. We will be able to show to the business community, for instance, if we go to Budget Paper No 2, which is supposed to be correct, that of the $20m they were supposed to get last year they only got $2.8m.
Mr Stirling: That is not true.
Mr DUNHAM: Of course it is not true; it is a lie!
Mr Stirling: They got $22.8m. You have to read the heading.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. What the Treasurer would have us believe is that he promised money last year, he does not have to put it in this budget this year, and so the money that is in here is additional money. That is what he would have us believe, okay?
Last year, he made a promise on payroll tax that had two years to it, last year and this year. This year it does not exist either. This year it was supposed to be $7.2m. That money was not appropriated last year but the promise was made last year, Treasurer. You made the promise last year that the money is this year. If you are trying to tell me, ‘Well, the only things in here are things that I did not talk about last year but I am talking about this year’, how come, when you go to some of the others, for instance, community safety - see the O’Sullivan Report? Surely we are talking about this thing growing off previous budgets, are we not?
If you made a promise on payroll tax that crosses two years, like you did last year, and you cashed it last year and this year there is no cash for it, it is either a pretty dumb way to budget or, alternatively, it is a pretty slippery promise or, alternatively, it is a mistake. I suggest it is probably a mistake. I think you made a muck-up here. I do not think you would be happy going to the business community and saying the $20m you promised them last year turned out to be $2.8m.
Let us go to this year, if you are that clever. That cash this year was supposed to be $7.2m. When I come down the column for 2005-06 - and I am on page 26 of Budget Paper No 2 – there is nothing there, mate. There is nothing there, pal. You have a problem in that money that you did not give last year, that you were supposed to give this year, that was not in last year’s budget because it was a two-year promise, has disappeared this year. I reckon you have done this as some sort of an exercise to try and fool us, and you have done such a good job that you have fooled everybody, mate. We will be telling some of the people you fooled. We will be making sure we go out and tell people that the $7.2m that was supported to be in this year - all the business initiatives this year come to $7.2m; the whole lot.
You are strangely silent on payroll tax. Payroll tax is pretty interesting really, isn’t it? You have told us it could not be done, you would have to sack teachers – impossible. When we asked you, you admitted it could be done. You admitted dangling teachers out there in the ether and getting the Commissioner for Public Employment to go and say: ‘Look, we are all going to go broke if you mob get this money’. Yesterday, you told us it was $8m. You said: ‘No, no, we have it all tucked in there; it is an insignificant amount. The extra? Well, that is only $8m. We give petrol sniffers more than that’. I reckon the chalkies are going to be pretty happy to read this - pretty happy that you sent your Commissioner for Public Employment off on a fool’s errand to fight with the teachers. We know lots of them, mate. We know lots of them, and they are not happy with you, cobber. Do you know why they are not happy with you? Because they think you strung them out. They were very interested to know that there is now only $8m to pick up that little extra they wanted.
They were particularly pleased to know that a private school at Port Keats is going to be getting some extra money because the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister went there. They were particularly keen to know that we have also given a school to Indonesia – very generous! Great! In fact, we would probably support you. What we do not support is the fact that you hung them out for so long to dry, on the basis that you had turned out your pockets and said: ‘Gee, we would like to help you, but all that GST stuff that the opposition keeps going on about was all myth’. Well, you admitted, mate, $8m was the ask today. All the rest is tucked away in your budget. They will remember you, my friend, they will remember you.
The teachers will realise that, when they presented their case, which was not a lot different to your Building Better Schools, I might add - so your little trick of coming in here and saying: ‘Here is Building Better Schools, and the initiatives’. They said: ‘Okay, we will bid on those initiatives’ - it is exactly the same. You could twin their bid with what you told this parliament. There is no conflict. Then you strung them out, you sent Mr Kirwan off to tell them, to empty out his pockets. They will remember you, my friend, because, not only do we find: ‘Oops, there is a school for Port Keats because the Prime Minister was there; oops, the President of Indonesia is here, we will given them a school too; oops, it is only $8m’. They will remember how frugal you were, mate.
Being a frugal Treasurer is all good and well, but do not pretend at the same time that you were driven by some sort of financial necessity because you were not; the money was always here and you were playing party tricks with them. Do not pretend either that you were offended that some industrial dispute on the eve of the election might hurt you, and how dare the opposition say anything about it. I was at the receiving end of an illegal industrial campaign at the last election. You were there with spades, mate. You mob were all there with spades. Therefore, if they are upset with you, if they wear black arm bands or black T-shirts as they did in my case when we faced election, good on them. Teachers probably deserve the cash. I do not think you should have dragged them through it the way you did and put them to that amount of stress, or to put teachers, parents and schoolchildren through the stress you put them through.
I am happy to go to war on this budget, Treasurer. We are happy to go to the electorate. This is the budget, so whether the Chief Minister promises that it is going to be sooner or later, or 15 October - who cares! This is our budget. This is your blueprint. We will parade ours out; we will show you ours. I would hope that you stand by the figures in here because we will be using them. We will be telling the business community how you …
Mr Stirling: Yes, but tell the truth with it, mate. Tell the truth with it.
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, it will be the truth. They will be your numbers, mate. They are your numbers, pal.
Mr Stirling: Because you have form.
Mr DUNHAM: They will be you numbers.
Mr Stirling: You have capital ‘L’ for liar when it comes to budgets, and you know it. You know it.
Mr DUNHAM: We will tell them ... No, do not say ‘lie’ because you are not allowed to do it. Do not say ‘lie’ because you are not allowed to do it …
Dr Burns: Well, capital ‘D’ for deception!
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t you say ‘lie’ either because what I will tell you is we will go with your numbers. We will tell the business community, we will tell the school teachers. We will! We will tell them …
Mr Stirling: Yes, just tell the truth.
Mr DUNHAM: What? It might not be the truth. They are your papers, mate! Whether they are a lie is a moot point. The point is they will be your numbers.
I will see you in the trenches because I think it is probably close to the Chief Minister pulling the trigger, sounding the bugle, whatever she is going to do, and see you guys when you get back here after the poll.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in relation to the current subject matter before the House, I place on the record some comments relating to my electorate of Goyder. Before I do that, I do not want to rehash everything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition. The speech that was made by the member for Brennan really encapsulated the appropriate response and also set out a number of very important initiatives. Indeed, the NT News got it absolutely right in their headline which was published in today’s paper: ‘CLP promises to unleash NT’s power’.
That is exactly what this Labor budget should have done. The CLP, after reviewing the material looking at the current state of the economy, has already announced a number of initiatives that were announced by the Leader of the Opposition. Those initiatives amount to a promise to unleash the full potential of the Territory should the CLP secure government after the next election. There is no doubt that the budget should be aimed at creating an environment which will invariably create a strong business community, which will hopefully make the Northern Territory Australia’s economic powerhouse as the gateway to Asia.
I will come back to some of the initiatives which were in the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the budget. Before I do that, in relation to the budget and some of the details or lack of details contained therein, it is fair to say that the current the Labor budget does not invigorate the Northern Territory. From my electorate’s perspective there are a number of very specific promises that were made just under four years ago about what the government would do, about what was going to be supplied, what was going to be built in the rural area. An example, from the top of my head, is the swimming pool. There was talk of the swimming pool; it was going to happen and must be done within the first term. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. The promise is left high and dry.
Mr Stirling: Do you know why it did not happen? Council would not take the dough, mate.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Here we have the Labor government promising to build this pool and I remember the Labor candidate who stood against me was saying the pool was going to be a promise in the first term. Unfortunately, typically, the Labor government is completely out of touch. Rural communities have a minimalist approach to local government. We have the three Rs - roads, rubbish, and reserves. The Labor government promises a pool; they can build a pool and they can run the pool. There is no requirement for the council to take it over. Why should the burden of running a pool be left on the good, the hardworking ratepayers in the Northern Territory because the Labor government opened their mouth, they big-noted themselves, and they made this promise and they have not delivered. They turn around now and say: ‘It is only a halfway promise. We want Litchfield Shire Council and the good hardworking taxpayers of the area foot the bill to run it and maintain it’. They have to be kidding! You made the promise, you deliver. Let me tell you, lots of people are left with a sour taste in their mouth as a result of that blatant non-performance of a fairly straightforward promise.
Another promise that has disappeared in the ether and there is nothing in the budget to indicate that it is even on the horizon was a promise to close Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishing. There was a promise for the Adelaide River and that has occurred, and credit where credit is due. But Bynoe Harbour was also included in a number of references to: ‘This it what we are going to do for rural people. We are going to assist fisherman and we are closing Bynoe Harbour’. Absolutely nothing has occurred. In fact, quite the contrary. There has been a significant backflip. There has been an assertion by the minister of the day that that was not strictly the correct promise that was made. I can indicate that that was not the impression the Labor candidates in the rural community created at the time.
What really makes us tick and what makes the rural area a special place is a whole heap of factors, but one of them would have to be our fantastic reserves. Freds Pass is the hub of the rural area in terms of sporting activities. We have several others - Livingstone, Berry Springs, McMinn’s Lagoon and Howard Springs. But the real hub of weekend social and sporting activity would have to be Freds Pass. The Martin Labor government has completely overlooked Freds Pass. There are no significant promises for infrastructure development. There is talk of a shed being constructed and there is a second shed which has been left on the ground to rust, which is out there now, but there is no significant infrastructure development for Freds Pass. This is a huge disappointment to rural people.
There are nearly 17 000 hardworking rural people, one of the highest proportions of home ownership in Australia, an enormous number of people who work both in the private and public sector, taxpayers who contribute, yet very little of their money is being returned to them at Freds Pass. That is very disappointing and something I am sure the Board of Trustees and the 36 regular user groups will remember come the next election.
Rural people have a great lifestyle. Indeed, I have lived there for 30 of my 35 years. All my friends and neighbours are scattered through the area. The Martin Labor government has overlooked us. Quite frankly, we have been overlooked. Things which could have helped rural people on the ground, such as the cost of registration of a second vehicle - rural rego - these are little initiatives which would have helped rural people. People can understand them because it is money in their hip pocket.
I remember, prior to the last election, the members for Karama and Fannie Bay had a brochure about the cost of fuel and there was certain outrage from the then opposition about how the CLP had in some way contributed to the high cost of fuel and how, if they were in government, there would be inquiries and they would do something. It was not articulated precisely, but they would do something to lower that burden to make sure that the cost of fuel was appropriate. We have seen nothing in the budget to help rural people with the cost of fuel. There has been no real inquiry. There has been no real attempt to look at what the government can do to help rural people. We do not have a comprehensive public transport system. We do not have the convenience of being able to walk 200 m down the road to the local shop. Rural people rely on their cars, rural people rely on their second cars and, indeed, many rural people with families rely on that third car - they have children who drive - just to get to the bus stop or the local shop to get their bread and milk. This is a real burden on rural people and there is nothing in this budget to help relieve that burden.
The member for Nelson touched upon this so I am not going to rearticulate what he said, but weeds continue to be a problem. There is a need for a reinstatement of the Mimosa subsidy. There needs to be a real and comprehensive effort to combat weeds.
The budget does not contain vision. There are no real incentives for families. The average Territory family who already owns a home and, probably more to the heart of the Labor Party and lives in the northern suburbs even, will not be better off under this budget.
This was an opportunity for the Labor government to say: ‘Okay, it is an election year. Here is an election-winning budget’. Rather, there have been a number of pretty significant cost blow-outs, I imagine, in some key portfolio areas, the end result being that, rather than act responsibly in those areas and leave something in the kitty to really send a message to rural people as well as people in the northern suburbs that we care and there are things we can do, there is a lacklustre, boring budget which does not create the excitement and certainly does not go anywhere near unleashing the full potential of the Territory, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his reply.
Going back to the rural area, Coolalinga is the first real shopping centre and point of economic and commercial activity which people see when they come from Katherine. My office is there, it is in a great corner spot. I see hundreds and hundreds of caravans and tourists driving up the Stuart Highway. They slow down, they have a good close look - this is it, this is Darwin. Welcome to Darwin, there is Coolalinga. Really, the government of the day needs to have a long, hard look at Coolalinga. There needs to be some beautification. I never thought I would say that about a road and about an intersection, but let me tell you, there needs to be some work done there. First impressions count. If there is any truth to that adage, Coolalinga is a bit of a gateway, the new Berrimah Line, the new place that people are introduced to the Territory lifestyle, and it needs to be closely looked at. There was much talk, indeed, I wrote several letters on behalf of constituents - I know the member for Nelson certainly was active in the realignment of Girraween Road …
Mr Stirling: Several letters in his whole career. He wrote several letters in four years. What a joke! The most unrepresented electorate in Territory history. The worst attempt at representation in Territory political history.
Mr MALEY: It is falling on death ears, quite frankly, and I put on the record that the member for Nhulunbuy laughs and treats with contempt the suggestion that Girraween Road should be straightened. So laugh and treat it with contempt, the idea that that is a very dangerous intersection, one which this government engaged in a comprehensive consultative process. There were diagrams and public servants turned up at the local shopping centre and said: ‘This is what we are going to do and this is the plan’. Indeed, plans were delivered to my office and I put them on display, quite proudly, trying to take some ownership in this. Of course, it is the government with the cheque book and they would get most of the credit, but nevertheless, it did not happen.
It did not happen; nothing has happened. The plans got replaced by something else and it disappeared into the ether and rural people, taxpayers, are left holding the can here. The road is still appalling; there is a very, very dangerous roundabout. It is a dangerous area, people have been injured there. I understand there have been several serious car accidents and there has not been anywhere near an appropriate response from this particular government.
I know there has been an announcement earlier in the week in relation to the abolition of one set of traffic lights near the Palmerston bypass, I understand. However, traffic lights, Madam Speaker and honourable members, let me tell you, continue to be a serious burden on rural people. We accept, of course, that they are constructed with the best of intentions but, at the end of the day, the economic effect of slowing people down 10 or 15 minutes a day when they travel to and from work will have a significant effect on the economy, the cost of getting to and from work and, ultimately, the lifestyle which many rural people enjoy.
There are other options, and I have spoken about these before, such as properly constructed large roundabouts and service roads. There are options which would alleviate and avoid the construction of any further traffic lights, and not just get rid of one set, but hopefully get rid of a bundle of traffic lights, so people who are travelling from outer Darwin can easily traverse the short distance into the CBD, into Palmerston, to attend their places of employment.
I note that there have been significant increases in the Health budget over recent years. At first glance, you would think that all is incredibly rosy on the health front. Well, I am not a medical person; I am a solicitor and the member for Goyder. However, I can say this at a level of just a local member, that rural people are not particularly satisfied with the health services which are being provided to rural people.
I went to a function recently where there were some of our seniors, and they were talking about the old days when there was a community nurse. This nurse would go out and talk to young mothers and weigh children and have lots of reassuring words. This has gone by the wayside. There is a need for that type of thing, particularly when you have young mothers who are isolated, away from their family, and dealing with burden of raising children. Sometimes, that support makes all the difference.
There has been much said about the abolition by the Labor government of the 24-hour medical centre. There have been petitions presented and countless debates, comments, and adjournment speeches about the concern that creates for rural people. There is nothing in this budget to reinstate that service so, once again, the Labor government has ignored all of those people who signed those petitions and who wrote letters, who were concerned and, quite frankly, once again treated rural people with contempt by not investing in their health and the expansion and better servicing of them from a health perspective.
On a brighter note, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Credit where credit is due, the CLP is a viable alternative. The CLP has a plan which, quite genuinely, will unleash the full potential of the Northern Territory. Territorians can sleep at night knowing that there is a viable, alternative government waiting in the wings. I say bring on the next election. Let the Northern Territory people be the ultimate arbiters on how they think this budget supports them. Let Northern Territory people decide whether they want to go with a boring, unimaginative, unthoughtful and uncompassionate budget, compared to a budget with really will promise to unleash the Territory’s potential.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I do not know if I have the grasp of the English language as some of my colleagues – they are quite entertaining and they certainly keep me interested ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure we will appreciate anything you say, after that.
Mrs MILLER: Quite flowery.
Tonight, I reply to the Treasurer’s budget for this year that was delivered on Tuesday. I have to say that I was anticipating some great things in this budget that would improve the economy, especially for my electorate of Katherine. However, I have spent a fair bit of time going through the budget papers and I cannot honestly say that I have found anything that made me jump up and down with excitement. What made it even more challenging for me to find anything is, for some reason or another, on this side of the House, we did not receive this Regional Highlights booklet in our package. It was only tonight, about two hours ago, that we actually received that. It has been quite interesting going through it. I hope it was not a deliberately kept from us, because it does not look really good in some areas. It has made me even more dubious about what would be happening for Katherine.
However, one thing that I did notice in there was something that has been of great concern to a select group of people in Katherine; that is, the $500 000 which has been revoted from last year’s budget for this year for the headworks for the Katherine Cultural Precinct, which is causing quite a bit of controversy in our town. I do note that there is nowhere in the budget that the government has allocated the $6m that the Cultural Precinct Action Group has told me that the Northern Territory government are committing to it. That is not highlighted in there at all, but the Cultural Precinct Action Group in Katherine can be reassured that the $500 000 is definitely there for the headworks despite all of the backlashing and backstabbing that is going on by some members of that precinct.
I am very inexperienced at looking at these budget papers and they appear to be designed to require intense scrutiny. I am still going through them and I am very glad that we do not have estimates for a couple of weeks at least. I certainly hope that we get the opportunity to have estimates so that I can go through them at length back in my office and be able to address some of these issues there. I can only conclude that I am not going to come up with anything that is going to be exciting for Katherine.
However, I do acknowledge one area that in the budget that I consider very worthy. That is the increase to training, and government’s commitment to support training of new apprentices and traineeships which should encourage some businesses to take the opportunity to train and, hopefully, keep skilled workers in Katherine. It is still a very difficult economic climate in Katherine, despite all the glowing reports I have listened to over the last couple of days about how wonderful the economy is in the Northern Territory. I notice whenever they discuss it, they do not ever discuss what is happening in Katherine. I can assure them it is still far from glowing.
I hope these incentives for traineeships and apprenticeships will be able to be taken up by businesses in Katherine and, in the long run, we will have some skilled workers who will be encouraged to stay in Katherine. In addition, it is very good that apprentices and trainees on considerably low wages will be encouraged because they have an added incentive for them to be able to access up to $500 for their work wear or their work gear bonus. That is a really good incentive.
I see the extra funding for training as a positive. We can have many of these training programs and apprenticeships and traineeships, but the biggest challenge is getting somebody to fill them. I have experienced this in the last 10 years in private enterprise in Katherine. It is so easy for young people to go to Centrelink and get unemployment benefits which are not much different to an apprenticeship’s wages. There is not much incentive for some young people to take up these apprenticeships and traineeships. That is where businesses meet with a lot of frustration. That will be a challenge. Hopefully, it will be an encouragement for young people in Katherine to learn about these traineeships and apprenticeships and maybe come through them via VET in Schools. Katherine High School has some very good teachers who support these programs so, hopefully, it is going to be a bonus for Katherine.
I look forward to estimates where I will be given the opportunity to scrutinise these budget figures a bit more. I notice Katherine High School’s figures in the Regional Highlights have considerably more funding. I am assuming that it is for traineeships and apprenticeships, Treasurer, but I will ask you about that at estimates.
I am going to move on to the area of my shadow portfolios. The first one that I wanted to refer to was resources and the details that are from the budget papers. It is with concern that I have noticed that there is considerably less allocation in this year’s budget for the minerals and petroleum industry. Just to put it on the record, it is recognised as the most significant industry in the Northern Territory with an 18.8% gross state product in 2003-04. It should also be noted that in the previous year, 2002-03, that the GSP contributed 21%, which indicates we have had a decline of 3.1%. Royalty revenues in 2003-04 were estimated at around $37.1m, with royalties for 2004-05 estimated at $38.5m. Private mineral exploration expenditure, which includes uranium, decreased by 13.3% to $43m in 2003-04, while nationally, expenditure increased by 8.2% for the same period.
There are listed in the budget papers important facts that relate to factors affecting mineral exploration in the Northern Territory, and they include the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights(Northern Territory) Act. Considering that mining is such an important economic factor to the Territory, it is very frustrating to see how progress can be stalled and/or halted by this act. Approximately 5.3% of Australian exploration expenditure occurred in the Northern Territory in 2003-04, and it is the lowest proportion for several years. This comes from the Budget Paper Northern Territory Economy at page 76.
The current low level of exploration expenditure is of serious concern and exasperated by the extended lead time of 10 to 15 years to get a mine into production. This is pretty average for the resource industry. There is no tax relief, and no reference to road spending on the Carpentaria Highway, which has heavy use of mining vehicles.
Promotion of the industry through the Mining Road Show 2005, about which the minister reported during this sitting, is very good. I said in my reply that it is about time. As we all know, road shows can give the best presentations and can be all razzamatazz, but the proof of their success is in the outcomes. In this case, how is the minister monitoring the success of the road show? Has he any criteria in place to measure how many investors have made further inquiries about the Northern Territory, and how many have made commitments to invest in the Territory? The Minister for Mines and Energy made great claims about the increased number of exploration licences issued in the Territory, but the future depends on how many of these transfer to real exploration and investment in the Northern Territory.
I hope the minister is exploring what other states and territories are doing in relation to attracting exploration because we have the least attractive exploration industry. In particular, the minister would do well to talk to South Australia which has a very innovative approach to attracting exploration. South Australia has the full support of its Premier and Mines minister. It is a pity that the Northern Territory does not have the full support of the Chief Minister and her ministers. The resources industry is a major industry but receives little recognition from this government. The only way to get economic growth is to build wealth; the minerals and resource industry is definitely where the wealth is in the Northern Territory.
While on the subject of mining and resources, it brings to mind workplace safety, which is an extremely important consideration in industry. I have it on good authority that the Work Health Advisory Council, whose members are from a wide cross-section of stakeholders, has not met for nearly 12 months. The term of the current Work Health Advisory Council members expired in September 2004 which, in effect, means that there is no Work Health Advisory Council active at present. Given the publicity that has been generated in the NT News recently, which highlighted poor work safety practices at various sites around Darwin, I implore this government to address work safe issues before, heaven forbid, we have either a serious injury or, worse, a tragedy. Surely this government is serious about workplace safety.
My shadow portfolio of Primary Industry and Fisheries covers quite a wide area. Recreational fishing is, without a doubt, an enjoyable activity and considered an integral part of the lifestyle of many Territorians and, of course, the thousands of visitors who travel to the Territory each year to fish. The CLP, when in government, recognised the value and importance of recreational fishing and ensured that legislation was in place to protect the industry.
The present government continues to support this important industry, as well they should. The Country Liberal Party, on coming to government, would ensure that the Territory continues to remain the favourite fishing destination for all Australians and international tourists. Access to recreational fishing locations has been an ongoing challenge, but it is one that needs constant reviewing and lobbying.
In the Katherine area, the Country Liberal Party will ensure access from the Victoria Highway to the King River junction, which is a pristine location west of Katherine and one that recreational fishermen have been lobbying for access to for some time. The budget also highlights $2m over four years for new fishing infrastructure, which is to be applauded, and I look forward to the estimates to find out what that $4m covers.
I am also pleased to see the fingerling and stocking programs in areas such as Manton Dam, Lake Bennett, and Darwin Harbour, and in Lake Todd near Katherine will continue. Lake Todd is a very beautiful area and a well-kept secret which has the potential to be developed into a world-class ecotourism venture. It is something that I am sure the Jawoyn will be considering in their future plans for development. The stocking program of barra fingerlings will be an added incentive to develop the area in a sensitive and sustainable way.
Also in the area of primary industries, I have noted in the Regional Highlights tonight that the Katherine Research Station has had its budget substantially reduced. I do not think they will be very impressed with that. I am sure when I get back to Katherine tomorrow I will be talking to them to find out how they feel about that.
In the area of primary industries, the most important area for this government to address is Territory roads and national highways. Our roads and highways are pivotal to the economic development in regional and remote regions of the Northern Territory, which will assist our pastoral and mining industry, as well as our outlying communities. It is pleasing to see the upgrades that have been highlighted and, of course, with the amount of time I spend on the road between Katherine and Darwin, I am doubly pleased to see that the passing lanes are going to be recommenced. That program is going to recommence in this next 12 months.
The Country Liberal Party, when in government, ensured that a passing lane a year was built on that section, so it is very nice to see that this government has finally got around to addressing it. I know the member for Barkly travels on that road a lot too. While I welcome our road tourist market, I really do welcome them to the Territory, but when you are in a big hurry, which most of us in this Assembly are, and you are stuck behind a car that is doing 60 km/h, 80 km/h to 100 km/h, it is very frustrating. As much as I love them, I do not want to get frustrated and annoyed with them, so I am very pleased that there are going to be additional passing lanes, which will keep me a lot less stressful on the road and make me very happy to see our slow travellers.
The budget also allocates $2.8m to agricultural development to, amongst other things, enhance and promote mixed farming in the Territory. I have gone through the Regional Highlights again, and I actually see things down, down, down, and I am not quite sure how we are going to explain this to the people out in the rural industries. I am going to wait until estimates and will certainly be scrutineering that area a lot more. I know these figures might sound good on paper, but they are going to be reduced considerably, according to the Regional Highlights. I do not know how many farmers out on the Douglas Daly are going to be excited about that. They would say that this government is doing little to promote mixed farming in their area already. On the contrary, people in that area consider that the government is discouraging investment in mixed farming by the very fact that this government has placed a moratorium on land clearing in addition to water allocations that do not meet the existing needs of some of those growers. I have had many of them in my office very upset about the allocation of water.
I am very conscious that conservation and environmental issues are very important and are always to be taken into consideration for our future sustainability. However, some of the stories that farmers have talked over with me just do not seem to have any commonsense to them. I am sure that this government has had the same conversations with many farmers, especially over the last 12 months.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now close my fairly brief summary of how I feel about this budget. I look forward with great interest and enthusiasm to the estimates, where I will, hopefully, be able to scrutinise the minister to get a clearer picture of just what this budget is going to do for resources and primary industry. I say ‘hopefully’, that I do get the opportunity because last year I did not get one question in relation to my shadow portfolio of tourism. It is such an important economic industry for the Northern Territory. It was, quite frankly, a joke! I was not at all impressed by this government’s claim of being open and accountable then. I certainly live in hope that they will feel some obligation to be open and accountable at the coming estimates.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, in preparing to comment on the budget presented on Tuesday, it led me to reflect on a couple of issues; one being that this is my first full term in this House. Eighteen months prior to the last general election, I was elected in a by-election, so I view this as my first full term. I recall the first budget presented by this Labor government, and the words and the sentiment of the time. I had high expectations for a new government that had experience in opposition and had committed their sentiments and beliefs to paper. They had written down the parameters by which they would operate. It was the good member for Nelson who, once again, reminded me of the words that had been written about the attitude to governance and the approach that this government would take if ever given the opportunity by the good people of the Northern Territory to govern. Those words we now see really mean little. As the Bee Gees sang: ‘It’s only words …’. That is the saddest thing. I reflect on that, quite genuinely.
There has been a private expectation and a hope from some members on this side that the words and sentiments expressed from the experience gained in opposition, and the words that were committed to a position that was presented to the people of the Territory, would actually mean something. They have meant little. We have seen a continuance of game playing, the practise of extraordinary spin, the selling of perception rather than addressing reality, and the real problems that affect the good people of the Territory.
I only have to look at an article that, in my first reading of today’s NT News I overlooked because I was focussing, sadly, on page 3, on a very disappointing article. I am sure my political opponents on the other side will be rubbing their hands together with glee that they have achieved a very important political point in their strategy of winning at whatever cost, and to see the more important issue of the economic structure that will be addressed and presented by the alternative government, the CLP, relegated to page 6. I had overlooked an article, which is the sort of issue that people want to see addressed. You can have ideas presented to people that give them a bit of short-term excitement that there is going to be millions and millions of dollars thrown at a problem that everyone knows is clearly a problem, which is the skill shortage. The whole nation is talking about it. And so we throw some money at it, a huge amount, some millions and millions of dollars, and most people, with a casual glance think: ‘That is really good because there is a problem and there is a lot of money that has been attached to that problem so money and 10 000 trainees commitment will fix it’. Okay, so we will let that wash and we will see that notionally, perceptibly, fix the problem.
However, the reality is that as we see in today’s paper, Bruce Hunt cannot find anyone to respond to his desperate call for an apprentice. He is not alone. That is the sort of issue that needs to be squarely addressed and that is the sort of grunt that we see missing in this government’s approach. The expectations that people have of those who are elected to lead, to actually face up to the real issue, so that they have some kind of assurance that there is a genuine and honest approach to a real problem.
As the member for Wanguri is often wont to cleverly interject: ‘You need to get out more’, I have been out enough, and I am sure any fair-minded elected representative has been out enough, and has heard that is the sort of problem that needs to be addressed. Any small business operator who is so driven by the demands of their own operation, the risks they have taken, the debts they are carrying, the insurances they are carrying, the rent they are paying, and is not able to find an extra pair of hands to come alongside them. You might have all the incentives on the planet, but you do not have the will in the community from young people to step up there and work hard.
There is a cultural problem and it is those sorts of problems that do need to be addressed. We need that genuine, honest resolve from government to provide that leadership to change the way things are. That is why I believe we are going to enter a whole new era in politics if we are going to continue operating here and be satisfied as representatives. That means the education system being changed so that there is a valuing of those who enter education with a view of gaining skills and appreciation for the trade sector. It is those types of things.
I do not really get much excitement from this budget. In fact, to be honest with you, I got more excitement out of the first budget. I thought there were some grand statements and good intentions. This one has been surprisingly lacklustre. I notice in the Victorian budget, while I am on that line, that there were at least a few trinkets and innovative ideas there. It captivated people and let them know that there is some imagination being applied and some innovation. There has been very little and that is a concern in terms of the culture and the morale of our wider community, those people who work hard and want to know that the real issues are being addressed by those who have been elected to lead.
We all know that the economy of the Northern Territory generally grows and moves along under its own steam. The role that government plays can either be there to lead it with some resolve and take some risks, or to hang around slightly behind the game and be there when the headlines are good, and to stand alongside of them and get your photograph taken like Benny Hill in one of those silly shows. Or when it looks a bit embarrassing to stand on the other side there and say: ‘Oh, that is terrible, that is terrible’, and then blame perhaps the previous administration. You are actually behind the game, you are not actually making anything happen and you are a commentator behind the scenes. Taking the opportunity if it looks good; standing on the other side and disowning it if it does not look good. Success has many parents so if looks good, you are proud parent and fully responsible for this wonderful outcome and, if not a good outcome, disowning it.
When you have the real estate boom in the Territory, fantastic! I am sure the Chief Minister takes personal responsibility for creating the effect of the real estate boom which actually occurred initially in Sydney and then spilled out. Any analyst will tell you that it spills out and ultimately affects every jurisdiction. It takes a while to take effect right across this continent. In Western Australia, regional communities are now beginning to feel the effects. We look back at Sydney and we say the tide is going back the other way. So sure enough, in time to come - and I am sure the Chief Minister is fully responsible for all of this - the tide is going back the other way and, ultimately, it will affect here.
There was a great opportunity; the call of this opposition to reduce stamp duty and take advantage of that national wave. Had stamp duty and payroll tax been reduced significantly at that time, we could have capitalised on that wave, ridden it and drawn more of that energy back into the Territory from other places, rather than have people drawn away from the Territory. That is why it is important that we have some vigour, a commitment and resolve from government to unleash the power of the Northern Territory community and the economy.
That is why the relief from stamp duty is not a political stunt. It is a serious position to release the capacity of small business, those good people who take the risks and are out there day after day. I am close to small business; my family are involved in small business. I listen to people and I know the real pressures of small business. They need the relief. To hold on, as so many of the Labor states are holding on, is a basic misunderstanding of how people operate and how they need to be given some slack so that they can prosper and then extend their borders. We can then have additional resources brought into that key private endeavour.
After four years and four budgets, the rhetoric has faded from the other side. There is a sense that they are also dispirited because, once, there was this nave enthusiasm and the little monikers that go alongside of every utterance that is made with regards to this fantastic work. Now we do not have much of that. What we have is a clear memory that each grand announcement made by the Treasurer has forecast massive growth. That simply has not been matched, nor accurately and honestly reported on, in each of those budgets. The forecast growth has never been realised and, in fact, the GST revenue which was forecast came in well above forecast but has never been honestly reported on, either.
That sort of stuff irritates people. I have to say that I am disappointed to have now, after the fourth budget, the positions changed. Those who were once in opposition and saw it all are now in government behaving in the same way that they pretend they once upon a time treated with distain. No wonder people become disillusioned with politics. When they come to the next election, they will probably begrudgingly go through the motions, but I hope there is a sense of honesty and excitement that starts to permeate throughout our community because they need people to recognise what the real problems are and start talking about them.
I would like to go to a couple of issues related to Asian Relations and Trade. There are a number of questions that need to be answered regarding the amount of investment, which is not huge in Asian Relations and Trade. I note the export scheme has increased to $500 000 in total. That is not a huge investment and, once again, it is a step in the right direction, but we need to seriously lead in this area. We have a strategic advantage by virtue of our location, the opportunities that have been capitalised on in the past - whatever position the current government and minister may take in trying to create some difference by the slight they pay to the endeavours of former Chief Ministers and Asian Relations and Trade Ministers. Let us see what has been done and capitalise on it and move to the next stage. Really, the basic misunderstanding of Asian Relations, which we lost in trade, is once again demonstrated by this budget which lacks that basic understanding.
Once again, we have the presentation which indicates that we have our regional offices out there; in fact, the number of offices and regional representation has been reduced under this government. When there is the opportunity to capitalise on the BIMP-EAGA organisation of regional economies, centring its efforts now on Sabah, this government made the decision to close down the Sabah office. We now have the opportunity to get in on the game and to reopen the office in Sabah so that we are actually a part of the action. Those are the sorts of things that need to happen. We have to get out in front of the game and be a part of it. Other states and territories have now occupied the space and progressed way beyond where the Northern Territory once was. We did lead the way and others have now come in and occupied our space. We need to get back there. They have forgotten about the Northern Territory; it is a memory in some quarters, but it has retracted.
I notice once again there is demonstration of that lack of cohesion within Asian Relations and Trade, where you have a coordination between the endeavours in education, sport, trade, industry and business, and diplomatic exchanges, and an understanding of the great achievement of the Palmerston City Council with the Kupang Palmerston Sister City Committee, where there is that friendship and bridge building that goes on, which then brings in the Palmerston Regional Business Association, the AusAid dollar and helps to start to get things working. That is a clear demonstration of relations leading to trade. That will bring in AusAid dollars and that will bring in a bridge across which will pass genuine trade. That has not occurred for four years.
We have the endeavours of private citizens making these things happen. We have the cattlemen actually out there building relationships and prospering, in spite of, and alongside government’s endeavours, which has been largely to create the impression of activity. You ask the average person out there, they think, oh yes, they seem to be doing a good job, but they read the headline. In fact, we need to be creating the difference and adding the extra and being out in front of the game and taking real risks and showing some real imagination.
Tourism: the clear fact is that the numbers that have come into the Territory have significantly reduced. I cannot see how you could stand up as the Minister for Tourism and put up another glorious picture and say: ‘Look at this one over here, this has happened and this has happened and that has happened’. That is fine, but the fundamental is there were 94 000, or thereabouts, fewer visitors to the Territory in the last year, and a 51% reduction from our immediate region, the very region we are meant to be engaging.
Thousands and thousands of people have chosen not to come to the Territory; it is not their primary destination as a tourism destination. That is a real problem, and we have the people in the tourism industry who take the risk and work so hard, endeavour to keep positive and sell their product and have those runs on the board. They know that that is what has occurred and, today, many of them do not have the time to get up and get involved and to start to rattle the cage and say: ‘For God’s sake, fix it’.
Recognise the problem rather than gloss over it, and to attend to it in a gutsy way. But no, it does not happen. It is not really explained; it is ignored or glossed over and we can endeavour to paint a picture and create an impression, which is the primary objective of this government and this Tourism Minister. The fact is, there has been a significant reduction and, therefore, as the Treasurer would probably be aware if his calculator has been worked on this particular project, you can calculate how much of a reduction to the actual Territory economy that is. I have calculated, conservatively, that there is about $70m of direct and indirect revenue flowing from the Territory economy as a result of people choosing not to come to the Territory in those numbers. These are the official figures, it is not opposition bulldust, it is real figures: 91 000 or thereabouts in one year international arrivals to the Territory.
I believe we should reflect and be very grateful that there is a railway. People from across the country are making the decision to get on the train and come to the Territory. They then tell all their friends for ever and a day about the train trip. Many people want to have that experience on the train. They ask: ‘Have you been on The Ghan yet?’ ‘No, I haven’t, but I am planning to’. ‘I have. Let me show you the photos’. That is happening all around the country. It is fantastic and it is bringing people here and, hopefully, they are having a good time and are going home telling their friends they had a great trip to the Territory. If we did not have that railway - my goodness, imagine!
I will just turn to a couple of Palmerston issues. It is time, when we are on the eve on an election, that we recognise some of the commitments that were made to the community by the Labor government at the last election. One of them, still remembered in the Palmerston community, is that there was a commitment made for a facility for Defence families. A Defence centre was to be constructed and that was communicated to the Palmerston community. No mention of it has been made since. A couple of the other commitments that have been made have been honoured and the community is grateful for that and they should expect nothing less.
However, if a commitment has been made and it is chosen for one reason or another not to honour that commitment, you need to stand up and tell the community: ‘This is exactly what we have done and for this reason’, just to keep some kind of faith and good grace with the community. There has been no mention of that facility for Defence families. I would imagine a number of the people would have thought: ‘Well, there you go, they made that commitment and we will see something from it’. Not a peep. It is only fair that people are reminded that that commitment has been dishonoured.
The good people of Palmerston, and the members for Nelson, Brennan, Drysdale and Goyder, know there is a clear need for the 24-hour medical clinic in Palmerston. There is a very large population out there who feel exposed and they need that cover. They need a genuine response to that need in better health provision for that population. That is still deficient and it is a memory that will be very hard to erase - an action and a decision made by this government.
There are a couple of issues that have come up during the course of these sittings that have caused some concern. It is the need to lead from the top and, reflecting on the last four budgets, the enthusiasm and excitement seems to have waned, quite surprisingly. Maybe, as some analysts have identified, it is because this government is so confident it is going to win it really does not have to get too excited about the budget. They are just going to walk in. Some people hold that view. They think that is what it is about. Well, there is another group that think: ‘Oh, what has happened? Have they lost their will, lost their excitement, lost their enthusiasm, lost that pizzazz, lost that belief?’ I do not know? I am still questioning what really is behind all of this and that clearer definition to the lack of resolve and clear leadership. Maybe they are tired.
The population has to grow if we want our waterfront to actually work. We have to make that commitment to applying a strategy that injects some excitement into our community. That is done by providing clear leadership to the private sector, the small business operator, letting them know that you are there to support them in a very real way. That is when you begin to release some energy into the Territory economy and into the wider community. By innovative tax relief for Territory business, you then release that energy and excitement, which will then draw people from around our country and other places to consider the Territory as a place to settle and bring their families.
The commitment by the CLP in government to achieve a population growth of 2.5% is a very necessary one. We look at the waterfront development and the growing concerns about the commercial centre moving from the CBD down to the waterfront. Anyone can tell you that unless the population increases we are really going to be fighting a losing battle. We have to have that energy and excitement and we have to see the population grow. That is a matter of the highest priority. That is why the commitment is a very serious one from the CLP to scrap five business taxes for the wider Territory.
I had the significant experience of visiting Borroloola in November/December. How important it is to move out of your own community to visit places like Borroloola and Port Keats. In Borroloola, I was reminded that some basic services that we enjoy, say in Palmerston, are not enjoyed by the good people of Borroloola. That is why commitments to roads and the basic infrastructure that links our entire Territory need to be elevated. Weather-proofing of our key arterial roads is an important and necessary commitment.
I have mentioned the medical clinic in Palmerston, but also the commitment for cardiovascular and cancer sufferers in the Territory are very important and necessary commitments.
In closing, you get up and give your few comments as I have done, in broad brush terms and, as the member for Katherine fairly acknowledges, they are fairly detailed documents. To get up and give some kind of analysis of these documents is not possible at this stage. We may not have the accounting experience and understanding of the economy so quickly after these documents have been dropped on our desk on Tuesday. However, in order to actually fairly represent the views of our constituency, we do need to sit alongside them, get their views, ask what they think, determine their understanding, and ask whether their needs are addressed. To be given that opportunity is why we do need to have that canvassing of views within the sectors for which we are responsible with our shadow portfolios and within our own communities, and then to go through the estimates process so that this budget can be properly weighed.
I do not think that is fair dinkum. There is a clear indication – well, time will tell – that we will not be going to estimates, that these documents have been put on our desks, we will get up and say a few words and then there is probably an election, and then we will have estimates and then we will find out what we have. I would be very satisfied to go through that process - I hope we do - where we can go out and talk to our constituencies, get their views and properly represent them. I hope that is the case. It is your last chance to be fair dinkum and to show some real resolve to represent people properly. If not, let the people decide.
Debate adjourned.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation -
Statement of Corporate Intent, 2005-06
Power and Water Corporation -
Statement of Corporate Intent, 2005-06
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent for the Power and Water Corporation. As members are aware, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first Government-Owned Corporation, or GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent is the Corporation’s fourth as a GOC. The SCI contains the annual performance agreement between the GOC and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians, as owners of the corporation.
As required under section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I now table a copy of the corporation’s SCI in the Legislative Assembly. In accordance with section 39(8) of the Government Owned Corporations Act and consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today.
As I have indicated in previous years, the primary reason for this is it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release. This remains relevant even though, at this time, the corporation has no direct competitor for most of its business activities.
The SCI forecasts a nett profit after tax of $30m in 2005-06, approximately $6m lower than from the revised nett profit after tax projected for 2004-05. The forecast lower profitability is primarily due to lower revenue levels in 2005-06. The lower revenue is consistent with 2004-05 showing higher than normal revenue as additional revenue was received by the corporation in 2004-05 for government-funded infrastructure projects. While the billing issues recently experienced by the corporation have resulted in the impact on cash flows, the corporation is a large enough business to sustain this short-term deferral in cash collections. The corporation expects it will catch up in coming months and that the temporarily lower than expected cash flow will not impact on the year’s financial performance.
The corporation’s projected $30m profit for 2005-06 includes government community service obligation funding of approximately $54m, as well as electricity, water and sewerage assets gifted by government of $6m. As members are aware, the government has a uniform tariff policy for most customers, including small business and households. This means that what these Territorians pay is the same for all customers irrespective of how much it costs to provide these services in different locations and conditions. Government has also maintained its position of no tariff increases for non-contestable electricity, water and sewerage. The shortfall between what Territorians pay and what it costs for the corporation to deliver the services is made up by government providing community service obligation funding and also accepting a lower rate of return for its investment in the corporation.
The government also contributes community service obligation funding for medium sized contestable electricity customers – Tranche 4 users - to cover the shortfall between cost-reflective tariffs and regulated maximum prices. Larger contestable customers pay cost-reflective prices as set by the corporation, noting that the Utilities Commission reviews prices charged for generation and use of the corporation’s networks.
As in previous years, 50% of the corporation’s profit will be paid to the Territory in the form of a dividend. The $15m dividend expected to be paid by the corporation for 2005-06 is the return Territorians, as shareholders, receive on their investment in the corporation and will be used by government to provide other services to Territorians such as health, education and safety.
The corporation commenced making company tax payments in 2004-05 and this will continue in 2005-06. Tax payments made by the corporation are received by the Territory under the National Tax Equivalents Regime. The regime is administered by the Australian Taxation Office on behalf of all states and territories. The corporation retains 50% of its after-tax profits to re-invest in new equipment and to maintain older equipment so that it can continue to provide an acceptable quality of service.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as the 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent will be considered in more detail by the GOC scrutiny committee, I will not go into anymore detail on the SCI here. I, therefore, table Power and Water Corporation’s 2005-06 Statement of Corporate Intent.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you member for Nhulunbuy. I recently took part in the Celebrity Pedometer Challenge with Team Nightcliff, made up of Senior Australian of the Year, Mr Tony Milhinhos, his daughter, Rosemary, and I, which was organised by the Department of Health and Community Services in cooperation with the Heart Foundation.
I am proud to say that Team Nightcliff won, with a total number of steps of more than 400 000 over the three week period. I did just over 74 000 steps, Rosemary did 102 000 and Tony, a totally amazing 227 000 steps, which is about 140 km in the four-and-a-half days. Coming second was the ABC team, with team member Charlie King doing a massive 134 000 steps and, in third place, the Darwin City Council team with team member Peter Adamson doing an impressive 140 000 steps.
Our involvement in this event shows that anyone can fit a bit of exercise into their day. It is recommended that, to maintain general fitness, we all attempt to do 10 000 steps a day. Team Nightcliff demonstrates that, even for very busy people, it is possible to fit some regular exercise into their daily lives. I congratulate all the entrants for their efforts and also congratulate the organisers, especially Annie Villaseche and Edwin Edlund, who are both enthusiastic walkers and health promoters.
Team Nightcliff is donating our three $100 vouchers to local schools in the Darwin and Palmerston area, and Tony Milhinhos is adding further $100 vouchers and inviting school representatives to come for a special prize draw on Saturday, 14 May, at the Nightcliff Woolworths complex, during the opening of the new office of Autism NT in the complex. Tony continues his amazing philanthropy by providing an office free of charge to Autism NT. What a tremendous Territorian he is. It is no coincidence he was named Senior Australian of the Year. He is very passionate about helping the families of children with autism and, at every opportunity, supports that cause. Thank you, Tony, on behalf of the people of Nightcliff, where you live.
I also extend my thanks to Graham Opie, Executive Director of the Heart Foundation, who was involved in the Celebrity Pedometer Challenge. Graham has been Executive Director for the past few years, and I was sorry to hear that he is leaving the Territory at the end of May to take up a position in Sydney with the Motor Neurone Disease Association. I thank him for his commitment to Territorians’ health, and wish him and his family every happiness and success for the future.
Tonight, I note the sad passing of a special Territorian, Mrs Mary Jordan. Mrs Jordan died on Sunday, 24 April, after a long illness. She was a business woman who, with her husband, the late Mr John Jordan, was well known and respected in the Territory business community.
Mrs Jordan was born in Subiaco in Perth in 1917 and came to Darwin in 1967 with her husband, John, to visit her cousins, the Manolis family and, like so many people, she and her husband fell in love with Darwin and stayed. She ran Mary J’s and La Petite in the CBD in what is now the Star Village Arcade. She also owned and operated The Greek Corner at the site of the current Galleria.
She was a very generous woman and was known for her philanthropy. She loved her family and will be sadly missed by her daughter, Mrs Lilliane Gomatos, and her two sons, John and Ian.
For the last few years of her life, Mary was very ill, and Lilliane and Theo Gomatis lovingly cared for Mary in their home in Nightcliff. No mother could have had a more devoted daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. They made sure that Mary’s final years were as comfortable as possible.
Mary died on the Greek Orthodox Palm Sunday, which the Greek Orthodox priest said was a special and fortuitous thing for Mary. It is a testimony to her standing in the community that her funeral was so well attended in Darwin’s Greek Orthodox Church.
I extend sincerely condolences to her family. May she now rest in peace with her beloved husband, John.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was my pleasure to be part of Royal Life Saving’s Active Family Fun Day at the Nightcliff Aquatic Centre on Saturday, 16 April. This is the first time this event has been held in the Territory, although I understand it has been running for many years in other parts of Australia. It was a fabulous afternoon, with around 500 people attending. There were free water activities for young people, and lots of prizes for the kids, including Playstation 2s and lots of Coca-Cola Australia’s Active Factor packs.
The aim of the event was to remind families of the importance of water safety, and there were a number of rescue and resuscitation activities, as well as an opportunity for kids to test their survival skills, a boogie board race and noodle races.
I was very pleased to be able to provide a free sausage sizzle for the event, and congratulate the Executive Director of Royal Life Saving NT, Natasha Fyles and her staff for her excellent organisation of the event.
It was my pleasure to attend the Young Achiever Awards NT Presentation 2005 at the Holiday Inn Esplanade on Saturday, 9 April. It was a tremendous evening with a line up of fine young Territorians vying for these prestigious awards. Unfortunately, as with all award presentations, not everyone can win, but what a fabulous group of finalists we saw that night.
I particularly wish to acknowledge the achievement of one of the winners, George Philbey. George is the son of Angela and Howard Philbey of Palmerston. George is 17 and won the Power and Water Science and Technology Award. He completed Year 12 last year at Palmerston High School and is studying at Charles Darwin University this year. George recently spent 300 hours conducting his first biological census of Lake Alexander as part of the 2004 CSIRO Student Research Scheme. His comprehensive research identified new species to the ecosystem and revealed what species could be destroyed if Cassiopea jellyfish were eradicated. Sample specimens were donated to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, where George works as a volunteer in the Natural Science section. George aspires to a career in marine biology, and aims to contribute to the future of tropical biological research in the Northern Territory.
I have known George for a few years since he moved to the Territory. Those of us who know him are very proud of his achievements. I wish George and his family all the best for the future.
It was my pleasure to attend the removal of the first power pole in the electorate of Nightcliff on 2 March this year, together with the Chief Minister and the Minister for Essential Services. It was recommended in 1975 by the Darwin Reconstruction Commission after Cyclone Tracy that there should be underground power in the older suburbs of Darwin. It did not happen, but it is happening 30 years later with the first Labor government in the Northern Territory.
It was a tremendous occasion seeing the power poles come down in Pandanus Street in front of a large group of Nightcliff Primary School children from Greg Robson’s class, the whole of the Milkwood Steiner School, which is 55 students, and a group of students and their teachers from Nightcliff High School.
This is a tremendous project which is providing safer and more reliable power for the people of Nightcliff, an area that has been the subject of serious outages over many years. It was an important election commitment for this government, and one that I am very proud to see fulfilled.
I thank the officers in the Underground Power Project office in Nightcliff, Ken Frazer and Wendy Jefferies, who demonstrate great professionalism in all their dealings with the public of Nightcliff. They are a credit to Power and Water. I would like to add my thanks to Mr Mike Wright of Linkcorp (NT), the consultants of the underground power project in Nightcliff. Mike works closely with the residents of Nightcliff, and always shows tact and great care when dealing with the many issues that arise in relation to undergrounding. Mike, Ken and Wendy are a great team, and I thank them for their hard work on this important election commitment for the people of Nightcliff.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, Yolngu Scouting in East Arnhem Land was officially launched in Nhulunbuy by the Administrator in April. My congratulations to Mrs Carol Dodd, Group Leader of the Nhulunbuy Scout Group, for her initiative in re-introducing scouting to the Yolngu communities. Carol and her family have worked tirelessly in the community with scouting, and I thank them for their commitment and vision to enhance education and self-esteem through scouting for our indigenous youth. It really became a theme of re-introducing scouting to indigenous communities when the Administrator was saying that he had photographs of scouting in Darwin from the 1930s and 1940s, where 80% of the scouts were indigenous. So it is not new; it is something the movement is trying to get back in place. I was pleased to attend a luncheon with the Administrator in relation to that initiative.
I was also pleased to attend Nhulunbuy High School and present the Student Representative Council with their badges for 2005. Council members are: Jay Arnold, Dominic Bulters, Erin Cislowski, Tiffany Crane, Amber Elliot, Ashleigh Felice, Gemma Fleming, Leigh Florence, Elizabeth Garland, Shondelle Haime-Budd, Kateesha Jeffrey, Juzmin Kesteven, Talisa Keibat, Tiffany Kynigopoulos, Kiana Larkins, Samuel Lines, Kate Monaghan, Monica O’Hanlon, Tanisha Orchard, Thomas Parrish, Nicholas Pikos, Ryan Pitts, Adrian Roeger, Rose Sadleir, Zoe Shepherd, Shannon Sticker, Trent Thomas, Brett Thomas, Nathan Turner, Jessica Turner and Clare Woodrow.
My congratulations to Clare Woodrow, who was elected as President of the council. I am sure under her leadership the school will be served well in progressing towards a better school environment for the students at Nhulunbuy High.
The Yirrkala community was saddened by the death of a dear old Gumatj lady, artist and mother a few weeks ago. Two of her daughters, Merrkiwuy and Banbapuy, are prominent teachers at Yirrkala. This artist’s early family life in the presence of her illustrious parents Mungurrawuy and Bakili fills all of her artwork. Like her father’s, it is spontaneous, powerful, honest and direct. Her first show, I’m Gumatj Lady, in Canberra in 1992 was a huge success. Following the commissioning of the Buku-Larrnggay Mulka print space in 1996, she assumed a leading role.
The Gumatj lady was often delighted in the result, delivered later, of her painting on multiple sheets of plastic, and scratching and painting on metal plates, but it was the process of making these marks, the doing, the using of the brush and hair, the weaving and carving and winding, that she delighted in. Her life was full of many passions: hunting, collecting bush foods, wearing fancy earrings was a particular delight to her, her church and her family, Gopu Football Club and her identity as a Gumtatj lady.
My sincere sympathy and love is with her family and the communities of Yirrkala and Ski Beach at the loss of a beautiful lady who was loved by all who knew her.
My congratulations to our town Administrator, Mr Mike Hindle, who has just clocked up 10 years in the job at Nhulunbuy. Mike has been an astute and very active Administrator for the town, with many enhancements to the town’s infrastructure and appearance achieved during his tenure.
Anzac Day in Nhulunbuy continues to attract record numbers at both the Dawn Service and the Cenotaph. This year, emotions were high as we remembered our regular veterans who passed away during the year: Tom Campbell, Michael ‘Cookie’ Page, and ‘Oil Can’ Harry Fincham.
It was appropriate that Tom’s funeral was conducted on Anzac Day as he was Nhulunbuy’s most senior war veteran and was very proud of his service in the Royal Air Force. Tom had a great love of sailing. In his lifetime, he built himself four boats and was a great support to the Gove Yacht Club, becoming their first life member. He was an absolute stalwart of Anzac parades. He had the admiration of the younger generation for his reverence on these solemn occasions. My sincere condolences are extended to his family.
Promising junior tennis player, Tarlina Tipungwuti, has been selected to participate in the inaugural Goolagong National Development Camp. That camp has been designed by Evonne Cawley in conjunction with the Indigenous Sports Foundation to provide elite indigenous tennis players with the skills necessary to take the next step in their tennis career. The 12-year-old Tipungwuti was selected to participate after being identified by Evonne’s Getting Started program and following a series of good results at recent national tournaments. I congratulate Tipungwuti on her success thus far and wish her all the best for her future in the tennis arena.
I look forward to the official opening of the Renal Dialysis Unit at Galiwinku next week and congratulate the community and the Galiwinku Health Centre in supporting this important initiative. It enables family members to be trained as carers in the unit, allowing the patients to remain in the community during treatment. My thanks to Health Ministers who have seen that project through to fruition.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, tonight I probably contribute a very unusual debate, and that is because an election is pending this year. I might be premature, but only time will tell, so I thought I would take the opportunity to put a few things on the record.
Tonight could be the last night of sittings for me because I am not contesting the next election. I might be proven wrong; I may be back here in June facing the government and asking questions on estimates. I hope I am because there are many questions to be answered, particularly by the Treasurer. However, I will take a gamble. I am not usually a gambling man, although I will put on the record that I have had a bet with one of your colleagues, the member for Johnston, with whom I placed a $10 bet last August in this House. The nature of the bet was when the election would be, and I said I would put $10 on it being in the first week of June. Perhaps I will be wrong. Perhaps I will be right – who knows?
However, I thought I would deliver a few thanks to people who have travelled a journey with me over my last 11 years in parliament and, if it turns out that I am wrong, I will do it again in June, and I might even do it again in August. I have a feeling in my bones, and I always go with gut feeling and have seldom been proved wrong, so I will go with the gut feeling and make this speech tonight.
I know the Labor Party has a fundraiser on the weekend. I am sure all of you will be going on Saturday night. I understand Peter Beattie is coming and that it is about $500 a seat. I wish you well in raising some money. I know Alf Leonardi is ringing around, madly trying to get people to come along. People are ringing people all around Darwin saying: ‘I have a spare seat at my table. Will you come?’ and they are saying: ‘Hang on. I have a table. Will you come to my table?’. So there is a lot of shuffling going on. My estimate is that you will probably raise about $40 000 nett, which is not a bad sort of a function, and good on you. I hope Peter Beattie is a part of that function; I know you brought him up last election.
Everything that is going on at the moment points towards a pending election: the signing off, either tomorrow or early next week, of the waterfront financial closure augers quite well for the start of a campaign for the Labor Party. I say: bring it on, not just for my own sake, but because the CLP is ready to take it on. I should probably not tell you this, but any …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Barry Coulter once said that, if you tell a secret, just tell it to one person at a time and it is not a secret any more. So I will tell you one person at a time. That is that the – no, I will not go there.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I place on the record, after 11 years in this parliament - and that is why I picked the first week in June, 4 June, because that will be my 11-year anniversary in this parliament – my thank to the Clerk and all the staff in the Legislative Assembly, who are such a fantastic unbiased support, and always confidential and willing to help individual members to meet the challenges that are put before them. Without that support, members would not be able to rise to the occasion. I put on the record that support to the very many people, without going through them individually, because that would take all night. Certainly, without them we, as members, could not function properly. To all of the staff who have worked for me over the period, whether they are electorate staff, have been ministerial staff, have been Chief Ministerial staff, or been drivers, I appreciate the work they have done - very professional in the delivery of their services, and certainly makes the job easier when you are either in your electorate office or your ministerial office.
My colleagues, it has been a great ride. I have had many colleagues over 11 years. Some are not here any more, unfortunately. All of them were great colleagues on both sides of the House. I remember very fondly people like Wesley Lanhupuy whom I went to school with and who was a member of this House and has since passed away. Also people like Marshall Perron, Shane Stone, Daryl Manzie, Barry Coulter, Mike Reed – the whole lot - and obviously my current colleagues; it has been a great ride and a great journey. I look forward to the day when my colleagues in this House sit on the other side again as government.
To my family, my children, my wife, who have been a great support. As we all know, they have a very difficult part to play in the life of politics. They get dragged hither and thither to attend things and give up so much for the sake of the elected member. The expectations of the community are that the family will be there supporting their partner, or their father, or whatever the situation is. My family have done that unfailingly.
To the electorate of Daly, previously the electorate of Victoria River, it has certainly been an honour and a privilege. Certainly, when you get re-elected time after time – and I have been re-elected to the sear for three terms now – it is a real honour. Nobody has held the seat of Daly for more than two terms in the history of self-government, and I have been fortunate enough to hold it for three terms. Perhaps it is time for me to go anyway, because I have been pushing the envelope a little, but you only remain in a seat because of the trust and the relationship that you build with the people of the electorate. Certainly, I have been very fortunate in building very good relationships with those people, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
I have made some great friends and great colleagues. Obviously, there are people who give you a hard time, but they do it for good reason and that is because they have issues, and you work through the issues with those people and you end up creating some very good friendships and bonds.
I may be wrong, but this might be my last night and I place on the record my sincere thanks to all of those people, to the CLP, of course, for giving me the opportunity. It is a great party that truly does represent the people of the Northern Territory. It is a born and bred party, and I have been honoured and privileged to serve for them and with them. I served prior to becoming a member as a general party hack, as all these things start, and then later having the privilege of becoming a pre-selected candidate and finally a member and serving the last 11 years for the Territory.
Last, but not least, the Territory is what we all strive to do the right thing for. I believe it is a great place, obviously, because I was born and bred here. We all need to look after it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Timothy Denney Baldwin, born in Darwin and represented a Katherine seat. I was born in Katherine and represent a Darwin seat. We often used to talk about the irony. It was not for the want of trying; I did stand for the seat he stood for and I was unsuccessful. I was beaten by a fellow called Gary Royce Cartwright.
Tim is right. It was held by the Leader of the CLP. The seat of VRD was held by Goff Letts and was lost to a fellow called Jack Doolan. I can recall talking to Dennis Bree, who was the President of the Labor Party, and he said: ‘Jack came in and said: “I’ve got that seat,” and they said: “Good on you, Jack, keep at it”.’ He was standing against the Leader of the CLP. So they appeased Jack and said: ‘Silly old bugger,’ and out he would go again. He won it! And they said: ‘God, Jack! You’ve won the seat’ and he said: ‘Yes, I kept telling you and you did not believe me’. After that, it was won by Terence Robert McCarthy and after that, it was won by Labor.
This is the most volatile seat probably in the Northern Territory legislature. It has gone from CLP Leader to ALP to CLP to ALP to Tim holding it for the last three terms. It is a highly volatile seat and Tim understates because it is a massive seat. When I stood for it, it went from the sea quite close to Darwin down to Renner Springs and from the Western Australian border across, and a lot of that was my heartland. I had worked and served in many of those areas. It was a rare human being who had been to all of those places at once. It was only public servants who went to those places.
Tim got out there and won it. He beat a Labor incumbent and he beat him because Aboriginal people, particularly, could see what he offered. It is a hallmark of the CLP, even though people – the word ‘Tory’ was used today. Tory is a bizarre and offensive word meaning you are some sort of silver tail, but Timothy Denney Baldwin was an electrician. He went to Darwin High, grew flowers, caught buffalo, and worked in a pub. That is us; we represent the working people, and we are quite proud of saying that. We represent the people who work with cattle, and on the decks of boats, down in mines and driving trucks. That is who we represent and we are quite proud of it.
While people might like to pretend that our distant relations, the Conservatives down south - and they are relations, I will not deny that, but neither will I say we are replicas – we are successful because we put up candidates like Tim Baldwin. He is a local bloke. Most of his drinking mates who are close to politics are on the other side. The drinking mates that a young Tim Baldwin sauntered around this town with are the pseudo-Communist Socialists and Marxists who have found their way into the other side of politics.
We know where we are from. We know what we do. We know what we stand for. What marks us is a passion for this place; a powerful passion for the Territory. In Tim’s case, it covers generations: his father and his mum, who has passed away, and his kids. It is a powerful passion. That is why when we go out to fight, we will fight hard and we will take on the case. I will be sad to see this bloke go. I have known him for a while. I helped him with his first campaign when he won, and I went out with his mum and dad and aunty, and we went to places and handed out How to Vote cards. It was amazing how many Aboriginal people knew his dad because this is a tiny village. It is getting bigger, but to the old timers, it is still a pretty small place.
We hope that what Tim offered us, he can continue to offer us in his support. That will be in savvy, smarts, training, advice, bludgeoning us, cajoling us, and I know he will do that because he ain’t going nowhere. This is home and this is where he will live. I look forward to that help because we will need it. We will need it if we are in opposition and we will need it if we are in government.
The repertoire of skills that this bloke has might be the edge. We might be looking for a couple of hundred votes somewhere, and it could be that that is delivered by people like Tim Baldwin. It could be that the couple of hundred votes we are looking for in the one seat that wins us government comes because someone went to school with him or knows him or understood what he did. That is how close this election will be. I agree with Tim; tonight is a night to say that the next time we muster in this place, there could be a different government. Whether it is ALP or CLP, it will be different persona, there is no doubt about it, because that is what our game does.
This is a hard game. This is a game that can hurt you and for people to come through like Tim, pretty much unscathed – he has a couple of little bumps and scars and a bit of gravel rash – it is a difficult business. It is a graveyard for relationships. I have worked close to this game and in it for a while, and it is very hard on our partners. So for Sandy, Reece, Warrick and Annalise, good on you! You did support him. I wish you well, Tim, and farewell.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I join with the member for Drysdale to say a few words about our departing member for Daly.
Mr Baldwin: I might be back.
Dr LIM: He might be back for another sitting. He and I were elected together 11 years ago, both of us a lot younger then than now.
Mr Elferink: Eleven years.
Dr LIM: Eleven years. It is a long time. It is a long time in politics and a long time in life. I can remember way back when I said to Tim: ‘You know, you will be a minister soon’, and in a few months he was there. Later, while I was Parliamentary Secretary, I watched Tim’s performance and ability, and I later said to him that he would soon be No 3 in Cabinet, and within months he was No 3. Watching his performance, he obviously had the capacity and ability, and those skills were recognised by the Chief Minister of the day.
In the time that he was a minister and a senior member of our wing, he had been a strong guiding light for many of us. His skills and strategic thinking has been marvellously and generously shared, and most welcomed from our perspective. We are going to miss you, Tim, when you go …
Mr Dunham: It is true.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Baldwin: Give me a reference.
Dr LIM: Yes, I am a sure you will be as close as a telephone call, but we are going to miss you and your input to our party wing discussions. Your calm and steadfast way of looking at matters has always been greatly appreciated by all of us. I can speak for the leaders I have worked with when I say that we all looked to you for a lot of advice, and I am sure we will be doing so in the future.
There is no need to go into the history of your life. The member for Drysdale has covered that fairly well, but what we need to do is set up a date on 4 June each year; we should all get together as we did last year at the Oriental Gourmet. We rang some of our former colleagues and had a great time together. We should do it again on 4 June this year if the election is not called for that day – or even if it is on that day, we should get on the phone together and celebrate the fact that we will probably win the election. That would be fantastic.
Tim, we will be sorry to see you go. As I said, many of us have really appreciated your advice and guidance all this time and, hopefully, from the sidelines we can still look forward to that.
Mr Mills: Should we have one minute’s silence now?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I contribute to tonight’s condolence motion. I am not going to bash on about Tim because I believe he has done a bloody great job and he has heard enough and it is late and we all want to go home.
I, like him, think that we are heading for the next election and before we come back to this place, there will be a new government formed. I deliberately waited to be the last speaker because I did this the last time immediately prior to an election and, at that time, it is important to state and write down your goals. Tim said, as he closed his speech, that the Territory is what we all believe in and that is why we are here. That is why I am here.
It is important to state your goals. My goal, unlike the member for Daly’s goal, is to return. The last words of the Eighth Assembly were my words when I said that I would be coming back, and everyone said: ‘Mate, you are stuffed!’ Well, I was stuffed the first time, stuffed the second time and maybe I will be stuffed the third time – who knows? That is up to the voters in the seat of Macdonnell, but to put it on the record and say the last words tonight’s parliament, in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: ‘I’ll be back!’
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Yes, I have an adjournment.
Mr Dunham: You gazumped us!
Mrs MILLER: No, no, I am an adjournment. He’ll be back.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I put on the record the success of the 2005 Katherine Country Music Muster, which was held over the May Day long weekend in the grounds of the museum in Katherine.
There is no doubt about it, the dream of having the premier Northern Territory Country Music Muster in Katherine is being realised with this year being bigger and better than the previous five years. The activities began on Friday, 29 April, with busking all day in the CBD. That night, there was the famous Aussie Pub Crawl, which included the Katherine Hotel Motel, Crossways Hotel Motel, Katherine Sport and Recreation Club, and Katherine Country Club. This year, the pub crawl was the biggest yet and the most popular, although I did not go.
On Saturday, 30 April, a Big Brekky in the town square began at 8 am with country music bands playing in the rotunda. There is nothing like a steak and sausage on the barbie in the cool morning air, with the happy country music keeping your toes tapping. The Jalyn Ford Beaut Ute Muster was held in the Katherine Hotel Motel car park, and well supported by the ute lovers, with categories being: the Most Feral, the Best Chicks Ute, the Best 4x4, the Best Street Ute, and the best B&S Ute. This fun event was followed by the Cavalcade Street Parade along Katherine Terrace which, of course, was very country themed, with horses and hay aplenty.
The official opening of the activities was conducted at the museum in the afternoon by His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan, who is also the patron of the Country Music Muster, and the Mayor of Katherine, Anne Shepherd. Ted, of course, entertained us all with a great song, and it was a great way to push the entertainment along. It was excellent to see the Minister for Sport and Recreation enjoying the atmosphere as well, and the entertainment and the people of Katherine really appreciated him attending. I believe they expect to see him there each year.
The entertainment continued non-stop all afternoon, with the main concert beginning at 6 pm. The atmosphere at the muster was very relaxed, with many families taking the opportunity to sit under those fabulous shady mahogany trees to be entertained. Several organisations had food and drink stalls in the grounds, so there was plenty to eat and drink while relaxing.
Sunday morning, the Bush Poets Breakfast started at 8 am, and walk-up poets were invited. This was followed by buskers, and I would like to include the names of the winners of the competitions on the weekend. For the busking competition, Marcus Bader, Donald Horan and Ben Coutts, Janzey Pratt and Troy Jameson, with Rachel McLennan receiving an encourage award. For the poetry, Ron Stevens from Dubbo, New South Wales, Veronica Weal of Mt Isa, and in the junior section, Renee Eitel from Biloela, Queensland and Hayden Riggs from Katherine, whose poetry was titled Summer in the Northern Territory.
At midday, the Territory Showcase Concert began and continued until the close of the activities after 10 pm. What a fabulous and eventful weekend it was for country music lovers, and the atmosphere was such that even people who are not normally great fans of country music were very much enjoying the atmosphere and the entertainment.
The entertainment was provided by artists such as Melinda Schneider, who won the Golden Guitar for Album of the Year, and the APRA Song of the Year 2005, Bella, of the Sensitive New Age Cowgirls, the Red Hot Poker Dots. At this stage, I will have to mention Lil’O’Dette who is such an interesting person to talk to, let alone look at. She has the most amazing absolutely bright red hair, and she is such a little dot and plays the bass guitar and she was just amazing. Grant Luhrs and the Chook Raffle Band, Royden Donahue, Stacey Morris, Keith Jamieson, Jeff Brown, Rob Luckey and the Lucky Bastards – and I am not swearing – Laura Downing, James Anderssen, Paul Wilson, the Toe Sucking Cowgirls, Chris & The Grey bush poets, Ray Cullen, Ray Cattermole and his Northern Territory Whiskey Creek Band, which included Ken Brodie, George Tumino, Geoff Cole, Yoris Wilson, Jackie Izod, and Katherine’s very own Katie Oliver. And last, but definitely not least, Gus Williams OAM.
The weekend could not have been as successful without the support from the Katherine community, and that support has been going on for the whole five years where, if people are not able to sponsor in money, they sponsor in-kind support. The Country Music Muster would not have been as successful and been able to run as long without that support from the community. I would like to recognise and acknowledge the sponsors who so willingly assisted. The Gold Sponsor is 106.1 ABC Katherine. Silver sponsors: Katherine Town Council; St Andrews Serviced Apartments; Carlton United; Channel 9 Darwin; Travel North; Imparja Television; Downes Graderways; Mac’s Hire Service; IBW Crane Hire; Allan King and Sons Constructions Pty Ltd; Canning Industries; Katherine Historical Society Inc; and Don and Anne Walsh.
The Bronze Sponsors included: The Auction Centre; Katherine Hotel Motel; The Cutting Edge; Sandy Taylor; Katherine Crash Repairs; Katherine Sport and Recreation Club Inc; On Site Refrigeration and Airconditioning; Pandion Haulage Pty Ltd; Parker Signs; Braycol Appliances; Nighthawk Couriers Pty Ltd; Bundaberg Rum; Trash and Treasure Market; Katherine Community Radio; Smorgon Steel Group Ltd; Territory Insurance Office; NORPLUMB; Jalyn Ford; Crossways Hotel Motel; and Katherine Country Club Inc. Other sponsores included Prime Industrial Rental; Radio Larrakia; and Web Page NT.
I also thank the Northern Territory government for the grant of $30 000 which acknowledges the importance of the muster. It is very much appreciated by the Katherine community.
In addition to the sponsors, the music muster would not be a reality without the tireless work that a very dedicated and committed group of volunteers put into making this an ongoing successful weekend. There are so many people whom I imagine this week are absolutely exhausted, as they all have other work commitments and did this organising purely on a voluntary basis. I hope that I do not miss anyone out, but I must put the following people on record as going above and beyond the call of duty: Shirley Canning, Kerry Deihm, Sharon Fullarton, Gayle Colvin, Toni Tapp Coutts, Simone Fishlock, Lionel Cole, Sandy Taylor, Sue Moran, Sandy Talbot, Katie Oliver, Keith Jamieson, Merv Webster and Rob Phillips.
In addition to those, I want to acknowledge the staff of the Katherine Historical Museum who prepared the grounds in such a magnificent way. There are too many to name tonight, but they know who they are and they are continually working around the historical museum and give up so much of their time to voluntarily keep the grounds so magnificent.
It was a fabulous job done by everyone and, as the program says, it is the only country music event of its kind in the Northern Territory.
I had several people approach me over the weekend, both entertainers and locals alike, who expressed concern that there was talk that the muster could be moved from the museum grounds next year to the Katherine Showgrounds. That would be a very unwise move because the atmosphere at the museum could not be re-created on an open sports ground. Part of the success of the Katherine Country Music Muster has been its location and I would not like to see it moved. I hope the committee for next year look long and hard at the proposed move from shady and friendly atmosphere as the museum grounds.
I would also like to talk about Anzac Day in Katherine. I was absolutely thrilled to see so many young people involved this year, far more than I have ever seen involved in Katherine. It gives me great hope for the future that the meaning of Anzac will not be lost. The number of people attending the Dawn Service, especially children including the Cantarbillay Choir – they had a huge number in the choir for the Dawn Service, so some of those young people were up at 4 am preparing for their performance.
We went to the RSL Club after the Dawn Service for the traditional breakfast, and it was certainly laid on at the Katherine Club, as it always is. Of course, the milk was spiced with rum, which I could not face at that hour of the morning, but the diggers and others who have such a strong feeling for Anzac Day did not miss out on their toddy.
For the parade in Katherine, we are very fortunate to have Tindal RAAF Base, and their representation in the march on Anzac Day is always very meaningful for me. To watch people marching whom I know so well, who either served in Vietnam or their fathers served in World War II, is also very meaningful; not just for me, but for everyone. The parade ended at the Memorial, which is just near the Katherine High Level Bridge, and the ceremony proceeded at 10 am with the wreath laying. All schools were involved in the wreath laying and, again, there was a record number of people in attendance. I was really pleased to see the number of people who took such a sincere interest in Anzac Day. Of course, we are also spoilt, as you would be in Darwin, to have FA-18s fly over and that is always exciting for everyone.
Following the 10 am service, people were invited back to the RSL Club and continued on with celebrations for the rest of the day. It was so nice to see the smiles on the faces of those people who really look forward to catching up with old friends once a year at the Anzac Day events and to commemorate what the Anzacs did for us to ensure that we have freedom, and to show respect for those who gave their lives for us.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I cannot let the member for Daly know, because I do not know, when the Chief Minister is going to call the election. However, given that the member for Daly tonight, essentially gave his farewell speech to the parliament, I would like to put on the record from this side of the House that we wish Tim Baldwin all the best for the future.
I do not know Tim very well, but I do know many people who do, and many of them are good friends of mine who went to school with Tim and have known him for many years. From what I know and from our mutual friends, the biggest tribute that he can leave this parliament after 11 years of serving the people of the Northern Territory is that all of us in the parliament – and we know that politics is a tough sport; it is a blood sport in many ways – know that Tim is a good bloke.
Tim is leaving pretty much unscathed and all 25 members think that he is a good bloke – I certainly do. This side of the House wishes him, if we do not see him back in combat in June, the best for his future life. As we move around the Northern Territory, we will be catching up and, more than likely, sharing a few beers. So, Tim, all the best for your future life.
Tonight, I pay tribute to a public servant who has just served for 40 years in the Northern Territory. As I have said before, it is very important that this House recognises public servants who have made a significant contribution. It is with pleasure tonight that I acknowledge 40 years of dedicated service to the Territory by the Director of NT Fleet, Mr Frank May. I am sure all parliamentarians will join me in acknowledging what a tremendous achievement this is and what a tremendous example he is to all Territorians.
Frank arrived in Darwin at Easter in 1965 for what was planned as a three-month stay as part of a working holiday around Australia. After a short stint with Coyles Engineering in McMinn Street, Frank started with the Department of Works base workshops at the 2 Mile on 11 May 1965.
The base workshop, operated by the Plant Branch of the Department of Works, employed 100 tradesmen, which included plant fitters, motor mechanics, engine reconditioning, auto electricians, machine shop, welders, panel beaters and an upholstery shop. After commencing in the heavy vehicles section tractor shop, Frank took on the role of field fitter, maintaining a fleet of earth moving and ancillary equipment on the various road building and maintenance projects throughout the Top End. This included a six-month stint at Gove in the construction of the ELDO Tracking Station during the 1965-66 Wet Season, where accommodation at the site was in tents. He was at the ELDO Gove site in February 1966 when the first pay in decimal currency was delivered.
After the stint as a field fitter, Frank was promoted to Plant Inspector, where he served in both the workshop and field positions for many years. After Cyclone Tracy, Frank was involved at the plant pool in the distribution of vehicles, plant and equipment to the many crews involved in the clean-up and reconstruction of Darwin. He was promoted to Senior Plant Inspector for the Northern Region in 1976, and was a compulsory transferee to that position within the Department of Transport and Works at self-government in 1978.
In 1979, Frank was promoted to the Northern Territory Electricity Commission as Transport Officer and was tasked with the setting up of the NTEC fleet. This including setting up of the Transport Workshop at Ben Hammond and the development of fleet management systems for NTEC throughout the Northern Territory. During that time, Frank was involved with the National Electricity Supply Association of Australia Transport Committee, and developed a network of other electricity suppliers and transport industry throughout Australia, and was promoted to the position of the Manager, Stores and Transport in 1982.
In 1985, Frank was enticed to take over the position of Fleet and Workshop Manager in the Department of Transport and Works, and this was the forerunner to NT Fleet as it is today. At this time, Frank was tasked with the job of rationalising workshop operations and to create a partnership with the motor industry through identifying those functions that could be outsourced. This required the creation of many contracts, especially covering the important repair and maintenance of both small and heavy vehicles.
In 1991, the Estimates Review Committee recommended the creation of a government fleet which would cover the centralisation of fleet management under a single authority, which would be tasked to operate on a commercial basis. Frank was involved in the steering committee that implemented the centralised fleet management function and, indeed, he came up with the name of NT Fleet, which is now an icon in the Territory’s motor industry.
Frank has, therefore, been in charge of NT Fleet since its inception on 1 July 1992 and has led this very successful government business division for the past 13 years. Frank’s involvement in the Territory motor industry is highly regarded, and he has built tremendous links with both industry and government agencies.
Frank is always available to provide advice and assistance for not only his clients, but also to industry. Frank’s face is well known at all government auctions, not only in Darwin, but in Katherine and Alice Springs.
Frank is a foundation member of the National Public Sector Fleet Managers Group, which was established in 1991, and is the only one of the original members still participating. Once again, this is evidence of Frank’s persistence and longevity.
Whilst I am talking about Frank as an important employee in the NT government, I must also refer to Frank’s magnificent involvement in the community. Frank May and Waratahs Sport Association are almost synonymous, and he has been a tireless worker for that organisation. His daughters are well known in the softball community, and opposition teams were always worried about ‘those May girls’.
Frank’s 40 years of service will coincide with his 63rd birthday, so there is a double celebration for him, his family and work colleagues. Frank has advised me that he fully intends to see out the next two years in this critical role before retiring on his 65th birthday on 12 May 2007.
I am also pleased that Frank has advised that he intends to retire in the Territory with his wife, Desley, together with his four children and many grandchildren. So, Frank, 40 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory is a huge testament. Congratulations, and all members of this House join with me and the government in thanking you for your service.
In this evening’s adjournment, I want to pay tribute to a constituent, Mr John Wellard, who passed away on 30 March this year. John Wellard was the only child of Frank and Sylvia Wellard. He was born on 27 July 1940 in England. John met his future wife Ann in Manchester in 1960.
John decided to migrate as a 10-pounder, and so applied for a position within the Australian branch of his company. This application was readily accepted, and he was guaranteed a job with AEI in Adelaide. Before departing England’s shores, John and Ann were engaged and so the test of their long distance romance was now in earnest. For two-and-a-half years, communication was mostly by mail. With telephone calls costing 1 per minute, these calls were kept necessarily brief, and were only made on special occasions.
After a year in Adelaide, John drove up to Katherine to take up a position as an electrician at the meatworks. When this work petered out during the Wet, he moved on to Darwin and got his first job when he stopped for a beer at the Parap Hotel. Later in 1965, he applied for a position as a Control Room Operator at Stokes Hill Power Station. After an appropriate amount of time, this entitled him to a house and so, in 1966, Ann set sail for Australia and John’s arms.
To Ann’s amazement, John had managed to arrange, from Darwin, their formal wedding, which was held just days following Ann’s arrival in Adelaide. In 1972, the birth of their much-loved daughter, Fonda, was celebrated at a ceremony at Nightcliff Beach, and then on Christmas Eve 1974, Cyclone Tracy caused damage to the home at 101 Bagot Road, but did not destroy it.
John’s employment was spent working with the Electricity and Water Supply Services, with many letterhead changes until his retirement in 1997. He realised the importance of electronics, and in the mid-1970s, studied electronics and communications at the then Darwin Institute of Technology. This study led him to his passion for computers and all things technical, especially his telemetry work at Hudson Creek.
John was an active member of the Darwin Sub-Aqua Club and 101 Bagot Road was a social meeting place on Friday nights where you got your air tank filled. Since the 1970s, John was interested in solar energy in all of its forms and, being a person with drive, he and Ann set about assisting with the formation of the NT branch of the society. Later, John took part in all of the World Solar Car Challenges until ill-health kept from the last one.
In the first challenge during 1987, he was a member of the NTU’s Desert Rose team and, in subsequent challenges, he was an official observer recording times, penalties and ensuring the road safety rules were kept. He liked the interaction of overseas teams, the camp site stories and he got to know the Stuart Highway pretty well. John also helped form the Australian Institute of Engineering Associates and enjoyed the monthly lunchtime lectures at Engineers Australia. The Royal Commonwealth Society also became an important part of his life and, as the Top End Herb Group’s magazine editor, he taught himself computer-generated display layouts. John was a kindly and thoughtful man and will be sadly missed by his family and friends.
I have known John all the time I have been member for Wanguri. He was certainly a person who dropped into my office on many occasions, using the facilities of the office. I enjoyed many long and thoughtful discussions with John on many issues. To Ann, his wife, I personally pay tribute to John. He has lived a very full and creative life. I am sure that honourable members will join with me in expressing our condolences to John’s wife, Ann, and his daughter, Fonda.
Vale, John Wellard.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016