2005-07-07
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 1 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I lay on the Table my warrant nominating Mr Elliot McAdam, Mr Matthew Bonson and Mr Gerry Wood to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 August 2005 at 10 am, or such other time and/or date as may be set by the Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I nominate Thursday, 18 August 2005, as the next day on which precedence will be given to General Business pursuant to Standing Order 92.
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we are now going into the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. I will leave the Chair so that that the member for Barkly can chair committee proceedings.
In committee:
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, I call on the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the committee.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, together with questions taken on notice and additional information provided to the committee today. Members should note that there are additional answers that were read into the Hansard or tabled during the hearings.
I also advise honourable members that additional information and answers to outstanding questions taken on notice will be tabled during the August 2005 sittings of the Assembly.
Over the next few days, the committee secretariat will be updating the questions taken on notice database and, when completed, a composite set of questions and answers will be placed on the Legislative Assembly web site.
This has been the fourth public hearing conducted by the Estimates Committee and the overall process now appears to be bedded down. This year saw no major changes to the overall process involving the day-to-day operations during the three-and-a-half days of public hearings. Committee members, ministers, chief executives and their support staff now appear to be very comfortable working within the process.
A necessary amendment to the Terms of Reference for the public hearings was in the area of substitution for both committee members as well as the position set aside to accommodate shadow ministers and opposition members. The requirement to notify Madam Speaker of any substitute of a committee member now sits with the chairman. This amendment streamlines what should have been a simple process in the first place.
I take this opportunity to personally thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee who formed the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these public hearings have been conducted.
I also place on record a vote of appreciation from the committee to all other members who participated in the public hearing process. Apart from the members for Barkly and Millner and shadow opposition members, all members who substituted over the three-and-a-half days have only recently been elected to this parliament, and their involvement in this committee process has been a worthwhile learning curve.
My thanks also to the Legislative Assembly staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the whole process ran smoothly, in particular the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the Daily Hansard rushes during the day.
An established reporting procedure for the last three Estimates Committees has been the provision of statistical information relating to questions taken on notice. I do not intend to change that procedure at this time. During the 42 hours of debate, there were 82 questions taken on notice. This is just in excess of double the 39 questions taken last year. It was noticeable this year that ministers were required to take far more questions on notice. I do not see this as any reflection on the ability of ministers to respond but, rather, a rigorous approach with an emphasis on detail by the opposition in preparing their questions for this year’s process. I welcome this level of interrogation of the budget.
When the public hearings were halted, 36 answers had been received and, with the limitation of time to take and process questions taken on notice, the outstanding number is well within reason.
In addition, there were three questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this morning and, because of the relatively short time frame, these remain outstanding. Members should be aware that, despite the sometimes short time frames, all outstanding answers must be included with papers to be tabled during the August sittings.
I acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which sat for the third time. Power and Water Corporation officials provided members with valuable insight into the operation of the organisation. I place on the record the committee’s appreciation for the time and effort put in by Mr Neil Philip, Chairman of the Board; Mr Kim Wood, Managing Director; and Mr Andrew Macrides, Manager, Business Services.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chair of the Estimates Committee.
Honourable members, pursuant to resolution of the Assembly dated 29 June 2005, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and if the resolutions or expressions …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! Do we have a chance to speak to the chairman’s report before we move that?
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Later on. I might commence that again. Pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 29 June 2005, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion, as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, or the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2005-06 be agreed to.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers – 20 minutes; any other member – 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration of conduct of this debate is five hours. The time now is 1.07 pm, so it will be 6.07 pm.
When consideration of the bill and the reports has been concluded and the question put, the following question will be put forthwith, without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly in accordance with the resolution dated 29 June 2005.
When the bill has been agreed to by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the Assembly, the third reading will be taken into consideration forthwith.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Chair, I wish to make a few comments about this year’s estimates process, but to the extent that I even agree with the member for Sanderson. I join with him by extending our thanks and appreciation for the work done by the staff of the Legislative Assembly and Hansard over the last few days.
There are a whole lot of very tired politicians from both sides, having recently finished an election and now having had two weeks of parliament, but I also know that there are a lot of tired members of staff from the Assembly, so I thank them all very much.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY: In relation to the estimates process itself, obviously this is the first time that the new opposition has had to tackle it. We are very proud of the way we went about our job. Our questions, I think, were very good. It is important, as I said last week in this parliament, that we do scrutinise and challenge the government, given that all governments are so notoriously bad at doing it themselves.
It is in that context that we need to look in some detail at the estimates process itself. My view, Mr Deputy Chair, is that the estimates process, to a large extent, failed. It failed because it did not do what Labor wanted it to do. It did not meet the objectives that Labor set.
In order for me to prosecute this argument, I went back and looked at the speech made by the member for Nhulunbuy when he was then Leader of Government Business. His speech was made on 23 May 2002. He went on at some length about the virtues of an estimates process. I remember that speech because I had heard a lot about estimates processes and, perhaps naively, I took him at his word.
Let me remind members of what the member for Nhulunbuy said when he was Leader of Government Business on 23 May 2002:
When he said that in his speech, he did not qualify it and there were no limitations. ‘It would assist all of us’, he said. Well, Mr Deputy Chairman, here are most of the questions we did not get to ask. I have not counted them all up, but we think it is about …
Dr Toyne: It is your time management.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, just wait your turn! Wait your turn, Peter. Here are the questions that we did not, or we were not, able to ask due to time constraints.
Mr Stirling: Maybe you should have asked them instead of the nonsense you did ask.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Nhulunbuy, I can raise my voice if you like or I can lower it …
Mr Stirling: I heard that on the news this morning.
Ms CARNEY: Do you want me to go on, or not? Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask for your assistance. The member for Nhulunbuy should afford me the courtesy of listening to me in silence.
In any event, when the member for Nhulunbuy said that this estimates process would benefit the opposition and benefit Territorians, we thought that we would have the opportunity to interrogate. Our questions this year, like other years, were culled due to unrealistic time limits. We have a duty to interrogate portfolio areas as an opposition since we take on the mantle of shadow portfolios. We did not finish our questions in one portfolio area.
My observation was that the Independents were frustrated. We saw their frustration, and I am sure they saw ours. We were denied the opportunity to ask a range of questions on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, so the benefit to which the member for Nhulunbuy referred was limited and restricted.
The member for Nhulunbuy in 2002 said, and I quote:
Well, if this government was serious about accountability, you would not know it from the performances we saw this week. There are numerous examples. We had, for instance, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, when asked about $1m of public money, not wanting to give any details. He did not even apparently think that the public should know how much was paid for legal costs. All of his arguments in support of his position were certainly fatuous when he had earlier tabled a list of costs paid to lawyers throughout the Northern Territory over the last couple of years, and the very lawyer who came up to investigate the case involving Anthony Gillies, the figures were there for all to see. So when the minister was going on about confidentiality agreements and so on, clearly he did not know what he was talking about.
In any event, notwithstanding the fact that the Territory’s first law officer got himself into a mess when he was saying he was not obliged to provide that information, we were left with a sentiment from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General best described by what he said in answer to one of my questions. He said: ‘That is all we are prepared to say.’ This level of arrogance leaves even me gob-smacked. He certainly was not the worst offender, but for the minister for Justice, who I would have thought clings to his integrity more strongly than some of his colleagues, to say: ‘I do not have to answer this question’, I found completely staggering.
The minister for Justice then, of course, later in the day, had the audacity to say to the media when interviewed: ‘Trust me. Trust me; I have spent $1m of your money, but trust me’. I do not care what the flavour of your politics is; if any government minister in this country says ‘Trust me’, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. For anyone to argue that the minister for Justice and, indeed, his colleagues, conducted themselves in such a way that maximised this concept of accountability, it is not possible to sustain the argument. It just is not.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in May 2002 said that the Estimates Committee will provide:
Really? Well, you would not know it by the week we have just had. The minister for Police, of course, naturally indignant about any questions that were asked, said dismissively on occasion: ‘Get a briefing. Get a briefing.’ This is the system of so-called scrutiny introduced by this government. Where a minister was asked a question, apart from the political speeches on the side before deferring to the public servant, we had an element of indignation and further arrogance from the Police minister who seemed to be, surprisingly, quite miffed that we were able to ask any questions.
The system that was in existence prior to Labor coming into office was very different. A minister was asked questions until the opposition ran out. If that meant that people like the member for Nhulunbuy checked into his hotel and checked out again early the next morning without going into his room, so be it. At least he was given the courtesy and the opportunity of asking questions until he had no more. However, this Labor way, since coming to government, is fundamentally different.
In my own portfolios, three hours to ask questions for health, a budget of about $660m, and justice, a budget of about $127m - not your money; the public’s money - three hours to ask those questions, who thinks that is reasonable? It cannot be reasonable. It is not about accountability and scrutiny. I know you know this.
They are huge portfolios. There is an obligation on us. We take our role seriously, even though government, and in particular the new Leader of Government Business does not, we take our obligations and duties very seriously. Furthermore, it is an insult to the very hardworking public servants who spend weeks preparing this stuff to cover every possible question that might be asked. They turn up and some of them are only in the chair for five minutes because of the timetable that government has set.
I know there are some public servants listening, and I am very sorry that they have probably had sleepless nights preparing all of this information, and that, due to the time restrictions over which the opposition has no influence or involvement, we had people sitting in that room on Level 4 until 11.30 pm, hanging on to their folders of information and some of them did not get on.
We know you regard the opposition with contempt, but surely you think more highly of the Territory’s hardworking and decent public servants? Forget about us if you like; think about them. Think about how they might be placated in this system that you have introduced.
Estimates, it is clear, should be extended for three more days. As a matter of fairness, I would ask government members, despite their natural and increasing levels of cynicism, to accept me at my word when I say that I believe a combination of the system that the CLP had and the system that Labor has introduced should be about right. The system the CLP had was that there were no limits on time. The positive aspect of the system Labor has introduced is the inclusion of public servants, which all of us acknowledge is very useful. If you had the benefits from both of those systems spread over two weeks, would it not be in the best interests of Territorians? Would it not lead to a sound, comprehensive and better scrutiny of not your money, not ours, but the money that belongs to the public of the Northern Territory? I ask that government give that serious consideration.
However, I was still poring through the speech made by the then Leader of Government Business in May 2002. He said that estimates was about ‘opening the books of government’. The books are only partially opened, member for Nhulunbuy, or, put another way: the door is not wide open; it is only ajar. If you are serious about the process - and you were only a few months after coming to government - then you would meet your own standards, the things you wanted to achieve, as eloquently enunciated and outlined in the Treasurer’s speech. Lofty ambitions indeed, these things called scrutiny and accountability. I was new to parliament then. I believed every word he said. However, time changes all of us, and certainly the experience of this week in particular, and the other Estimates Committees in which I have been involved, tell me that the system is not working.
Open your books, Treasurer. You can do this by providing more time to question. We and the Independents were deprived, prevented and obstructed in the opening of your books, and the facts speak for themselves. The member for Nhulunbuy said in May 2002 that an Estimates Committee would seek greater accountability for government. The time allocations are simply unrealistic. Ministers refused to be accountable, invariably, such as the minister for Justice, and I gave the example if him saying: ‘I am not prepared to say anything else’ when asked about spending money that does not belong to him.
Time was wasted by ministers. Almost without exception, ministers gave political speeches that invariably had nothing to do with the question, and then said at the end of their two to five minute drivel: ‘I will ask Mr-So-and-So …’, a public servant ‘… to answer that’. I implored ministers to desist, but they could not help themselves. The time wasting was as deliberate as it was overt.
In fact, it was very interesting the way the room was structured. The ministers, of course, had their backs to the public servants. We could see them all, and the faces of the public servants said a lot.
Mr Henderson: Especially when you were asking questions.
Ms CARNEY: I am thinking about you, minister for Police. You need to be a bit more careful. You could not see, just like your colleagues, the public servants sitting behind you. When you were waxing lyrical about not much in particular, I looked at the public servants. Many were rolling their eyes, raising their eyebrows and, in one case, there was a curling of the lip. When the minister for Police who, as we know, is a naturally arrogant sort of fellow, would not let up with his political banter …
Members interjecting
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! I do not think we go the point of saying those things about public servants. ‘Naturally arrogant sort of fellow’ should be withdrawn.
Dr Lim: Why do you deliberately misinterpret everything we say?
Mr KIELY: It is on the record! It is disgusting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, I am not absolutely certain what you said, but if you in any way attempted to impugn the good name of professional public servants, then I would ask you to cease and desist in the future.
Ms CARNEY: May I speak to the point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman?
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You may.
Ms CARNEY: I did not - and this will be revealed by Hansard - suggest in any way that public servants were arrogant. I said, and I will quote: ‘The police minister, a naturally arrogant fellow, would not let up with his political banter’. In any event, I will go back to the point, Mr Deputy Chairman.
Ms Lawrie: And what is this, if not political banter?
Ms CARNEY: This is not accountability. When the Leader of Government Business stands up, he will go on in the way that he does and say: ‘Oh, your questions were not relevant.’
Mr Henderson: Cite one question I did not answer.
Ms CARNEY: He will also say - Leader of Government Business, living in a democracy and all, you will have your opportunity to respond. I know you do not like being challenged; you can always tell. It was evident fairly early on when we were pressing the government’s buttons; they would all get twitchy, so it was evidenced because they would start chatting away.
Ms Lawrie: You have wasted six minutes on a personal attack.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Karama - well, what an invaluable contribution she made to the Estimates Committee! I will come back to that; I plan on dealing with the Chairs in any event. This is not accountability. I hope public servants are listening and I know they are.
The Leader of Government Business will say that our questions were not relevant and we wasted time. No one will bite, minister; not the public servants or the media. So, do not dare drag that one out of the cupboard!
Mr Henderson: Just one question!
Mr Mills: I will give you more than one!
Ms CARNEY: The member for Nhulunbuy said in - Mr Deputy Chairman, I would be grateful if you would instruct the Leader of Government Business to listen to me quietly.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Continue.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Nhulunbuy said in May 2002:
That is, the Estimates Committee:
I do not think he was so arrogant in May 2002, but I certainly think that government has become more arrogant in 2005. I love surprises! I am a woman who loves surprises. I would be delighted if government, at some point - and it does not necessarily have to be today; we know that sometimes we come up with brilliant ideas which government dismisses and then comes up with further down the track. The estimates process does need to be reviewed; it is not a process that ensures accountability. The conduct of ministers ranged from being arrogant, dismissive, ill-prepared and, in some cases, cavalier. The chairman was, predictably, appalling and he gave non-government members lectures and reprimands whenever we expressed dissatisfaction with the way ministers answered or, in so many instances, failed and refused to answer questions.
We bothered to prepare; the public servants bothered to prepare. We all took the process very seriously, but not the ministers. The government has done themselves and the Territory population a disservice. The ministers were, for the most part, contemptuous of the process. It is a shame because, ultimately, it is Territorians who miss out.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Chairman, the process does not meet the objectives so proudly announced by the then Leader of Government Business in May 2002 when he announced the estimates process. This man is now the Treasurer. I have only quoted parts of what he said in his speech in May 2002, but I commend it to those on the government side, particularly new members, because it consists of good stuff; good principles. It is a good read. However, the week we have just had shows us that those objectives were not met, and cannot be met under the present system.
I have heard it said, Mr Deputy Chairman, that Labor members are true believers and they proudly describe themselves thus on occasion. We do not expect Labor members to live by our standards and our principles, but we and other Territorians at the very least expect them to live by their own. In the words of young people these days, Treasurer: right back at you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Chairman, I want to make some comments on the estimates process in general, and particularly on some of the comments made by the member for Araluen.
This is the fourth year that we have had this particular style of interrogation of the budget under the Estimates Committee process. It is a process that operates in all Australian parliaments along similar lines and it was picked up as a result of committee work by this parliament looking at other jurisdictions and how they do it. I still believe that it is an effective tool for scrutiny of a budget and the details behind the budget as presented. It certainly remains a very important part of this government’s push for accountability to the public, and transparency in the operations of government.
The member for Araluen took some pains to wade through a May 2002 speech of mine. I could not remember it being that good. Obviously, one of my better efforts, picking up some of the comments I made at that time.
Let us look back a little in history. I had 11 years experience interrogating budgets as a member of the opposition, well before the member for Araluen came to this House. If she says, as she laid the claim, that she has a pile of questions unanswered, and it simply never happened under the old system, I ask that those questions be tabled and put on notice and they will be answered. They will be answered, Mr Deputy Chairman. Let me give that assurance. If those questions are put on notice they will be referred to ministers and answers will be given as, indeed, we used to have to do even under the old system.
In looking at how we might go forward in the new estimates process, we spent a considerable amount of time analysing the process as it was, and we came to this parliament at times armed with 2500-plus questions one year. I think that might have been the single largest number of questions in any one time, and it was true; we had the opportunity to question the minister responsible all of the way through. Just let me remind the member for Araluen what that meant. That meant leaving parliament at 4 am, where the minister involved and the public servants offering advice were all dead on their feet, and the most notable example was leaving this parliament and 7.40 the next morning to resume parliament at 10 am on the same day. If she thinks that is an efficient use of resources and members of the opposition and ministers responsible are still operating at their best, at their peak at 5 am, 6 am and 7 am, she has another think coming. It simply was a nonsense, dragging the process out through those ungodly hours. That was the worst, but there were many occasions when it was 3 am, 4 am and 5 am.
What we did in bringing structure and this committee system in, was a reasonable start, around 8.30 am, and a reasonable finish, of 11 pm or 11.30 pm, the latest we finished during this process. In preparing for this year’s Estimates Committee process, I had a very close read of the transcript of the questions I took last year. Flicking through the transcript, I was thinking, yes, it is all about deficit reduction strategy and the questions came thick and fast, an area that was not too bad to handle in terms of how we were going forward and what the forward estimates might show. As I was reading, I noticed the chairman said: ‘Actually, we have spent two-and-a-half hours on this item, do you think we have had enough?’ or ‘Do you think you might move on to more questions?’
A similar thing occurred this year, except the two-and-a-half or three hours was spent on the question of nett debt versus deficit and what it meant. I do not mind that sort of educative process in getting people to understand what nett debt was and what deficit was under the CLP government, what it is under us and the differences there. However, you cannot then spend two, three and three-and-a-half hours on a particular principle or policy question around the budget, and then claim that you did not have time to ask all of those questions around line budget items and where the money actually went.
That sort of information, in terms of the big principles, operations and fiscal strategies, is best gained by either bringing it on as debate in here - and you are quite welcome to and we would welcome it - or by way of briefing and going away and getting a solid understanding in your own head instead of using two, three and four hours of valuable committee time in and around a concept that, no matter what you say, that is what we are doing, and that is our policy position. You would have been better off getting that information another way and using that valuable time to interrogate the budget papers.
That 42 hours is in excess of the longest time ever used any time in interrogating a budget in the Northern Territory. The longest we ever spent under the old system was, in fact, 42 hours. So, there is more time granted under this process than that used by the opposition under the previous system.
I made comments in relation in the system, how it works, and whether there is room for improvement, but I do not say it is absolutely the best or it is perfect. We remain open to constructive proposals and suggestions, and they can come by way of the Standing Orders Committee, which would probably be the appropriate body for those suggestions. We are open to suggestions at any time on how the process, from the opposition or Independent members’ view, might be strengthened.
I am of the view, though, that it is an effective tool. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to claim it a complete failure, she needs to look at how she and other members of the opposition used it. You need to be strategic and you need to be focused in those questions. However, it remains for the Leader of the Opposition to drop all those questions on the table today or send them over to us. I give an absolute assurance that every minister will respond in writing to those questions if they are sent to us and put on notice.
Putting the budget together and managing the budget throughout the subsequent 12 months is no easy task. It is incumbent, of course, on this Cabinet and government to ensure that the broad parameters laid down against the forward estimates are strictly adhered to, and that we do manage whatever fluctuations arise over the next 12 months and will occur in a way that is of benefit to the people of the Northern Territory. The whole reason we embark on this quite complex process of budgeting, of course, is the aim of improving the economic and social development and wellbeing of all Territorians.
I add my thanks to all of the participants in the process, despite the occasional bout of crankiness, if I could refer to it as that, as national radio seemed to pick up this morning, to some extent. The process, generally, was conducted with good intent and a little humour here and there helps the process along.
The Leader of the Opposition said ‘predictably appalling’ in relation to the chairman. I want to commend him. I want to commend him because he has a very solid understanding of the process. He has brought experience and authority to the Chair. I thought, certainly in the time I was there as a minister and when I popped in during the week, that he retained a focus, above all else, of attempting to keep the committee on track.
I thank the opposition for their efforts. It is not easy with the spread of responsibilities and numbers there. I commend them for their efforts, albeit it needs to be probably more tightly focused and disciplined in terms of the strategy of getting to what you want to know.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, it is no good coming in here and saying, here are how many questions we did not ask. Put them on the table and we will get those answers.
Mr Henderson: Put them on the table now.
Ms Carney: Just let us categorise them, Paul, and we will!
Mr STIRLING: Okay, sure. But I do welcome …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I am just waiting for silence, Mr Deputy Chairman. I congratulate and commend all committee members for their participation throughout the process. The Independent members of parliament demonstrated great tolerance and patience in playing their role in the process, and if there is a weakness, it is exactly that, and I thought it unfair. Another reason I thought it unfair is that I always welcome questions from the Independents because they usually have a little twist or something interesting so that they are not going to be always of straight political intent. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what the whole process is there for. I did miss some of the questions I have had in the past from both members - and the member for Nelson always seems to have quite interesting queries.
I certainly place on the public record the thanks of government to all the Territory public servants - and there were many, certainly in my areas - who appeared before the committee, or who assisted in the preparation of the material presented to the committee, or were there on hand should a specific query come their way. I felt tremendously supported, and I believe I speak for all ministers in terms of the public servants who accompanied ministers at the committee process. I am always pleased to encourage as many public servants throughout my agencies to witness the process so that they develop and grow and see not only how their work is utilised as part of that process and learn about the parliamentary end of all the work they do, but it is also preparation for them at any time that they are in a more senior position, answering the questions directly themselves. I am grateful to all of them for their efforts.
We often talk about the quality public service that we have, and it is times like this last four days when it shines through. In talking about the four days between Monday and Thursday, if the opposition thinks that is not enough time, the old system, of course, was a three day process – Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday – and therein lay half the problem. At least we provide an extra day and, as I said, 42 hours as opposed to the longest session under the previous system of 42 hours. We got through many more questions as an opposition in that 42 hours than perhaps this current opposition got through this year and last year in 42 hours.
Of course, it is difficult to match. We finished up being such a good opposition that they made us government. They made us government because we were so effective.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: We were so effective as an opposition, we were so effective with our use of time that that was recognised by the Northern Territory back in August 2001 and reaffirmed a month or so ago.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! I will call you in a moment, member for Braitling. Leader of the Opposition, you know very well in the House that you refer to members by their proper title.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your forbearance if I do jump at the wrong time; I am still not quite used to being on the floor here on this side.
It is interesting listening to both sides talk about the estimates process. The Treasurer was right; it did discriminate against and disadvantage Independents, and that is the weakness of the process at the moment. I ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at whether we can change the process by allowing alternate questions. The opposition goes first on one area, and an Independent on another. I am not sure. I can see the Opposition Leader wriggling. It is the opposition which sees themselves having the role of questioning government, but the Independents have a very strong role in this House to question the government and we should be given the opportunity. I did not get one opportunity to question the Treasurer, for instance, on the overview of the budget because the entire time was taken by the opposition. The most important questions I wanted to ask were on Territory Housing but we ran out of time. That is, obviously, something we will follow up.
However, it has disadvantages in the fact that the time is consumed and controlled by the opposition and the Independents miss out. It works better when you go clause by clause; at least we do get an opportunity then. For the most part, the system has that discriminatory element to it. I am quite sure we could learn from other parliaments in Australia that have estimates involving opposition members and Independents. It is something we will be raising.
I feel that many of the questions the opposition asked were repeated many times and there was a lot of filibustering and dithering going on, which is part of the process of trying to score points against the government, whereas many of my questions and those from the member for Nelson were direct questions to which we at least did get answers. I am pleased about the answers we got, but there were many we did not have the opportunity to ask. Of course, we will either be submitting them as Written Questions, asking them during Question Time, or writing to the minister.
The disadvantage is making public the answer you receive. The good part about the Estimates Committee is that it is a very public hearing. The media does listen and report, and it is on record whereas, if you write to a minister and get a reply in writing then, somehow or other, you have to manage to get that into the public arena.
I have to say that there was time wasting. It is frustrating listening to a question being asked in a number of ways over and over again. Ministers could cut back on the preambles they like to give before they answer questions, and just get on with it.
I was mortified listening to the Leader of the Opposition ask questions over a considerable amount of time on a statement made by the Minister for Health and Community Services 12 months ago. This was the process of estimates. Why did we have to have that?
Although you felt the chairman was contemptuous at times, I would have thought the chairman could have pulled people up now and again and said: ‘Let us stick to the budget. Is this relevant? Can we get back to what we are supposed to be questioning?’ It was very wide-ranging and a huge amount of valuable time was, in fact, wasted.
It is a great time to see the departments work together with the ministers to answer questions. Yes, there is a huge amount of work that goes into the preparation for this. No, it is not a waste of time because the work done at least summarises for departments and ministers exactly where they are going.
I place on the public record my thanks to the staff of all the departments, and say that I will be seeking a briefing or following up – wait for it, it will be coming. I thank the Department of the Legislative Assembly staff who, again, have done a magnificent job in getting everything done so quickly, especially the Hansard people upstairs. We were just commenting earlier how one of the Hansard people can have her earphones on, type what she is listening to and have a conversation with you at the same time. I reckon that is a tremendous skill because I cannot even take my eyes off the keyboard if I am trying to type. We have some extremely talented professional people in this organisation.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee to take the process back to the Standing Orders Committee to see if we can find a way that does not discriminate against Independents; think about an alternative approach or think about putting time limits on certain sectors of questioning so that we can get through it a lot more quickly and effectively. Overall, even though it is a long process, the other system was a long, drawn out process, too. I am not sure how we will ever have an effective, efficient Estimates Committee unless you are prepared to put in a lot more days and a lot more hours to do it.
Mr BONSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, I contribute to the Estimates Committee Report 2005, the fourth such report. I thank all members of the committee, particularly government members who, throughout the whole process, conducted themselves very professionally.
This process was designed to allow the opposition the opportunity to examine the budget. The Opposition Leader’s attack on process for the sake of attacking process is designed for political purposes. She is trying to associate the word ‘arrogant’ with this government already and, obviously, that is a game plan of the opposition. They are trying to undermine all the good work that we have done over the last four years and what we are going to do in the next four years. I do not think that word will stick, Leader of the Opposition, because the one thing that you forget about this process is that it was introduced many years ago in every other jurisdiction in Australia except for the Northern Territory because the CLP was scared of scrutiny.
We came into power and we introduced the estimates process. We joined the other jurisdictions in Australia and entered into the modern age of democracy. Estimates is a fantastic initiative, particularly because it allows ministers to be cross-examined so that the general public can understand the budget for the year coming. It also allows for public servants to be on hand to answer questions, and I thank them because they were very professional and provided unbiased evidence to the committee. I do not think anyone in this House can argue with that.
The issue of time always comes up. It is a theme, tactic and strategy of the opposition. The reality is that we went for three-and-a-half days, for 42 hours. It became patently obvious that some members, and in particular the member for Greatorex, were just going around in circles looking to grandstand, to make some kind of king hit that was going to bring down the government. They wasted hours and hours of opportunity to ask questions.
I am happy that member for Braitling talked about public housing. During the election campaign, the opposition tried to raise it as a big election issue. I think it was seven minutes - and I may stand corrected – that the member for Greatorex gave to public housing. I, like the member for Braitling, was very interested in public housing questions, as Millner traditionally is an area with a high density of public housing. Through the grandstanding of the member for Greatorex, and other members of the opposition, we saw a clear time-wasting strategy. Today, they made a poor attempt of saying that they were not given enough time for questions.
I agree with the Opposition Leader on one thing: the member for Nhulunbuy did give a good speech two years ago, and it was from the heart. It was about democratic process. It was about bringing the Northern Territory parliament into the modern era, and through, the introduction of estimates, this has occurred.
My role, as a member of the committee and government, was to allow the opposition and Independents the opportunity to cross-examine ministers on the budget. One of the highlights for me was hearing the minister for Education talk about indigenous education in remote areas and our goals and achievements compared with past performances of governments.
Another highlight was the Chief Minister’s detail on the waterfront: that is going to be a fantastic venue for Darwin and the wider community of the Northern Territory. It will be very much an icon. I also welcome the Minister for Business and Industry’s explanation of Defence support. Some 20% of my electorate has a Defence Force background and they are constituents on the RAAF Base. Defence personnel as a group is getting larger in the Northern Territory and we need to have a strategy. It was great to hear from him.
There was a lot of time wasting from the member for Greatorex on CDSCA issues. I know he was the Deputy Leader before the election; now he has been demoted and has to make a bit of an example of himself. However, not to address the issue of Housing tenants was a very poor effort, but he might get his opportunity yet.
As people know, I am a lover of sport and recreation and all sports. To hear about the money going to netball, international cricket, the soccer stadium, the Palmerston Magpies, money going to Australian Rules football, the extra hundreds of thousands of dollars into NTIS was fantastic. Being an avid amateur fisherman, I loved the Primary Industry and Fisheries explanation of what we have done with boat ramps all around the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I thank all the parliamentary staff, and we all know who those characters are. They work behind the scenes tirelessly, and for well in excess of the 42 hours over three-and-a-half days that the committee sat. That commitment takes them away from their families and from things such as the State of Origin. They deserve our thanks for making this process run smoothly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Chairman, this is the second estimates in which I have been involved since I first came into the Assembly in 2003, but it is the first one in which I have been so intently involved. I found the process very interesting from several aspects; the first being that I, like my colleagues, spent an enormous amount of time trawling through the mountains of budget information that were provided. This followed the very busy time of the recent election campaign. It would be an understatement to say that there would not be one person in this building who is not very, very tired at this point.
It is very important to be as familiar as possible with all aspects of the budget, and to have the opportunity to question ministers about their portfolios. The estimates process, if allowed to progress in an open and accountable manner, assists all members of the Territory community to understand how the government will be handling Territory money for the next 12 months. My job in opposition is to ensure that the best interests and the concerns of the people of the Northern Territory are served.
I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition; that we had insufficient time to get through all the questions that we wanted to ask. I have 50 questions across my portfolio areas that have gone unasked.
A very interesting observation that I made during this estimates is the great difficulty that the chairman at the time - and I am particularly referring to the member for Karama - has in being impartial. In all my experience in committees, I have never seen such arrogance and bias by a chairman. At no time did the chairman pull up any of the ministers for any of their derogatory comments and remarks made towards the opposition, but my goodness, the chairman certainly wielded anything she could to protect her government ministers during questioning. I would say that you would win the award in theatrics, especially as a drama queen.
There are, obviously, different rules observed in good manners and openness and accountability in this magnificent building where we are elected to serve the people of the Northern Territory. I have to say that I am still getting my head around the arrogance of some of it. In no other committee, in my vast knowledge and experience over a long period, have I ever seen such grandstanding power played out. I can assure you that it served as a strong reminder that this government, in the very early stages of its second term, is already displaying arrogance.
Just when I thought I might have been able to say how reasonably fair the other chairman, the member for Sanderson, was - and he has been pretty good actually - Lo and behold! during this morning’s hearings of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, he decided that it was his last opportunity to grandstand, too, and spent some of our valuable question time on his own political spin asking questions of the Power and Water representatives that were not relevant. It was nothing more than abuse of his position as chairman; not at all impartial.
In the time that I had allocated to the relevant ministers in my portfolio areas of Tourism, Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Environment and Heritage, I did not have anywhere near enough time to get all my questions asked. However, I was reasonably happy with the answers that I did receive and look forward to receiving, in the near future, the answers to the other 50 questions that are on notice.
In the area of Tourism, the biggest concern that I have is the ongoing challenge of reliable scheduled airline flights into Darwin. This is highlighted with the withdrawal of Virgin Blue Airlines as of October, again making the Northern Territory harder to access. It is not encouraging for operators to develop and promote their product without the reliability of airline passenger seats into the Northern Territory. I see the biggest challenge in the short term for tourism is for this government to vigorously lobby airlines to get additional seats into the Territory following the withdrawal of Virgin Blue. The additional funding that the government has given to tourism marketing is necessary in promoting the Territory, but will not be fully appreciated without the capacity of airline seats into the Northern Territory.
The fear of limited airline flights into the Territory with only one carrier is that the price of airline tickets will rise without competition. This will be, without a doubt, a deterrent to potential tourists when deciding what destination they will choose. For those people who have disposable income, the cost of the air fare is not as likely to be a factor as those who are on a limited budget. For the Northern Territory to be attractive to the majority of travellers, we need to be affordable, and the price of travel is a significant factor in determining one’s destination. This government has a responsibility to attract and secure regular airline services into the Territory. I am not for one minute suggesting that this is an easy task, as we know from past experience, but nonetheless, government bears that responsibility.
Another disappointing downturn in the tourism industry is the decline in backpacker numbers into the Territory. Backpackers traditionally travel in budget seats, stay in the cheaper accommodation, but spend considerably more on tours. In other words, they are the adventure travellers. In the past, backpackers have been relied upon for seasonal work, mainly in the horticultural area, picking melons, pumpkins, mangoes and the like. It has been challenging for several years now to get enough backpackers to fill these very important roles. Their contribution to the Northern Territory is valuable across several industries.
I had quite a few more questions to ask in the Tourism portfolio but, of course, I did not have anywhere near enough time. At least it was an improvement on last year when I got one question in.
The Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Casuarina, answered most of the questions that I was able to ask in the time allowed, although I was a little surprised at his answers to any question on the subject of uranium. It is as though the person asking the question of him all of a sudden had illuminated green eyes the moment they said the word ‘uranium’. The very thought of the word seems to invoke fear. It is interesting because this is the place where we are expected to have informed debate on all sorts of issues, whether they are considered controversial in the public domain or not. Uranium is one of those issues.
I believe we need to have lengthy and informed research, debate and discussion on the subject of uranium in the future, and that is across all aspects of mining, use and storage. It is only after we are truly and accurately informed that we can all make a sound decision in the best interests of the people we know and represent. It may be that at the end of this lengthy process, we decide in the House that it is not a good idea to go ahead and open up more uranium mines, but let us go through the process so that we are accurately informed. It would be interesting to know how much knowledge and detail each member of this House has on uranium at this very moment. I could guarantee that most of it is based purely on scaremongering and fear. Fear spells out false evidence appearing real. Now, there you are. I do not think my eyes have turned illuminating green at the moment, have they? I do not think so.
In another area of Mines and Energy, it was interesting to hear from the minister that there has been no notice of intent lodged as yet in relation to the reopening of Maud Creek gold mine. I was led to believe that there has been, so I will be following that up. I am also reassured that there will be no repetition of the environmental challenges that Mt Todd faces.
The Katherine River is the water source for Katherine. Maud Creek mine is in the upper catchment of the Katherine River, and should there be any leakage from that mine site, it would only be a matter of hours before there would be contamination of the Katherine River, which would be a major disaster.
You can understand the concerns that the Katherine region has about Maud Creek gold mine. The extraction process does not present any significant challenges, but should the mining company decide to process the ore at the site, there would be strong opposition from the community in general. The risk to the Katherine region is not worth the small financial gain.
In relation to Primary Industry and Fisheries, I do not agree with the lengthy restrictions that this government has placed on landowners in the Daly region. They have overreacted to a minority group, and have not taken into consideration the interests and financial commitments that primary industry has made to this area. Whilst I support sound scientific research and retaining the land and rivers for which we are responsible, I sincerely believe that this government has overreacted in this instance. The primary industry people in the Daly are very conscious of ensuring that their land and water supplies are sustainable. They are responsible landowners, and have not shown otherwise.
I am also intrigued why the report from the Daly River Community Reference Group, which was handed to government in December, was not made public until after the election was called, and why this government is forming another reference group to address the same issues. I am interested to hear why government is not accepting the report from the first reference group. I wonder how many more reference groups we will have before a decision is made by this government.
At estimates, the minister provided information about the meatworks at Katherine, and the progression towards its reopening some time in the future. He has assured me that his department will be monitoring any future changes and live cattle export prices that could give Katherine meatworks the opportunity to be viable. I will be keeping a keen eye on that area, as this facility provided valuable jobs for Katherine.
The minister has also advised that access to the King River junction for recreational fishermen and women is still progressing, but would not give a certainty that it would happen in the next 12 months. As this was also a commitment by the Country Liberal Party at the election, and knowing what benefit this will be to Katherine, I will also be pursuing this area vigorously.
Unfortunately, I had very little time to discuss any issues on Environment and Heritage, but I did get some questions on the EPA answered.
I have a total of 50 questions that are unanswered. I eagerly await the answers. I support the idea of having at least two additional days for estimates so that we are able to scrutinise the budget to its fullest.
In closing, I thank all the Assembly staff for their hard work making sure we were fed and supplied with coffee as many times as we needed to be. They did an exceptional job. I thank the girls in Hansard who had to try to understand everything as it was being said, and for being so prompt in getting our Daily Hansard reports to us. I especially thank the public servants for the long hours that they put in preparing these estimates because I know that they have spent many hours, many late nights, working over a long period of time. Despite the fact that we did not get the opportunity to have a lot of information passed on from those public servants, I know that we may be able to glean that in the future.
Mr Deputy Chairman, all in all, it has been a very tiring week; rewarding in some parts and not in others.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Chairman, it is with pleasure I contribute to debate as Deputy Chair of the Estimates Committee. Obviously, I had an integral role in the estimates week; I was there for a significant number of hours.
I do not believe estimates was a failure, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition. Estimates is very much an opposition process. All government members who participated in the Estimates Committee did everything they could to facilitate allowing all the time to be used by the opposition and Independents for questions. What we found, though, was an essentially disorganised rabble, often with CLP members competing amongst themselves to ask questions despite the hierarchy established for the shadow minister. If there is a failure in this process of estimates, the failure is in the opposition’s incapacity to be organised and focused, and understand that estimates is about the scrutiny of budget appropriation of government’s expenditure.
I sat through hour upon hour upon hour of questions that had absolutely nothing to do with the estimates process. It was political trawling and really gutter trawling at some stage by the member for Greatorex during the CDSCA session that did not go to appropriation or scrutiny of the budget. It was a shame because there were many questions that should have been asked on behalf of the public by the opposition as to appropriation and expenditure. However, it really was a political grandstanding process by the opposition to try to crawl through and make ideological points, whether it be on uranium or the appointment of public servants that they did not seem to think was in keeping with what they wanted.
It is easy to sit there in opposition and tag a government as arrogant, but if you look through Hansard and look at how many times government members actually spoke in 42 hours, it was very seldom. When the chair ….
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There is hysterical laughter coming from the Leader of the Opposition, but the record speaks for itself. Maybe you might want to get Shane Stone, who is doing the review of the party, to also review the performance of the parliamentary wing during estimates, because there could be some tips he could give you on how to tighten up your process and, perhaps, become a more effective opposition, which we all really …
Ms Carney: Get it off your liver, Delia. Come on, get it all off.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! The Leader of the Opposition knows that in this Chamber, she can only refer to members by electorate ...
Ms Carney: I forgot, sorry. I am so sorry, Paul.
Mr HENDERSON: She consistently abuses that and I ask that she withdraw.
Ms Carney: Sorry, Delia.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: The word ‘Delia’? Thank you. I will withdraw the word ‘Delia’, Mr Deputy Chairman, it being her name and all.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The point I was making is that if there is a real desire by the CLP to improve itself as an opposition, then I really do recommend that within the review undertaken by Shane Stone they review their approach to estimates.
It would be heartening as a government member to see an improvement in the quality of questions asked by the opposition, because estimates is about scrutinising appropriation. However, too much time was wasted by opposition in political grandstanding. It would have been far more illuminating to public servants, the taxpayers, the broader community and, indeed, members of government if we had more questions that focused on appropriation expenditure by government.
The member for Braitling raised the issue of repetition; that was a significant falling down in the process. I would have to say that in chairing several sessions, it very quickly became apparent that members of the opposition in questioning if they were not satisfied with the answer - that is, they did not agree with the answer, which is going to be the case in most cases; that is the nature of government and opposition, they tend to disagree - they would reframe the question and ask it again and again. If you scrutinise the Hansard of the estimates process, you will see that in some instances upwards of two hours was wasted through such a process.
As a chair, when you tried to draw members’ attention to the issues of repetition, scope and sticking to scrutiny of estimates and appropriation, you were then accused of gagging. I pick up on the member for Braitling’s point that she would have preferred to see the chairs more regularly try to bring the process back on track to the scrutiny of appropriation. However, have a look back through Hansard, member for Braitling, and you will see that where attempts were made to do that by the chair - and certainly I can think of quite a few instances where I did that - the offensive remarks that would immediately come flying from the mouths of opposition members just shows that it was a real impediment to being a chair who was genuinely trying to keep us on track in a process of scrutiny. I absolutely agree with her comments that there was a lot of time wasting and repetition of questions which really had nothing to do with the scrutiny of estimates.
I note the Opposition Leader is asking for three additional days and then the Deputy Leader asks for two additional days. This is yet another example of how the opposition does not seem to be able to work as a team, and identify in a very thorough sense how to achieve better outcomes. The Leader of the Opposition made a great play in believing she understood the thoughts and wishes of public servants in the comments she made, believing that she was interpreting the facial expressions or otherwise of public servants. I question whether the Leader of the Opposition has asked any public servants whether they want another three days of estimates and what their views on that would be; whether any consultation occurred before she came in here and suggested another three days, or whether it continues to be a circle of CLP arrogance in which they only navel gaze and discuss amongst themselves rather than go out and consult with people who are involved in the process.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Member for Karama, cease. The interjections and the chatter from the opposition are becoming a little excessive.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, just hold on a second! I ask that you accord the member for Karama the same respect that she accorded you when you spoke. Continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. A lot of work goes into estimates preparation by public servants and I take exception to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition that ministers did not prepare at all. I am very aware of the great hours that ministers put into preparation for estimates and the seriousness with which they take their roles as ministers of the government, the seriousness they apply to the estimates process, which is a very important process of scrutiny. To make glib statements that ministers did not prepare shows the level of ignorance that we have to deal with in terms of the remarks coming from the opposition. Public servants work with their ministers to provide a whole range of information ready for the opposition, quite appropriately, during the scrutiny process.
The opposition, quite rightly, should be involved in any process that the Standing Orders Committee undertakes in looking at how we can improve the estimates process. I know that I had some suggestions during estimates about how the process could be improved regarding timing and scheduling breaks. All chairs had to call for short breaks within a period of an estimates session to allow for comfort stops, as it were. I was criticised by the opposition for having done that, after having sought advice from the secretary of the committee that, indeed, I could take a short toilet break.
There are always opportunities to refine and improve the estimates process and, as government, there is a committee through which we can do that work, which is the Standing Orders Committee. Before people espouse what they believe public servants feel they want, I urge members to consider that there is an opportunity to consult with public servants as to what they think could occur to improve the estimates process because they are involved in it.
The member for Katherine’s contribution today showed the level of personal vindictive attack that occurred numerous times through the estimates process. It is a shame. One would hope that we could work professionally as members of parliament and accept that each of us have a role to play in any process and that the role of chair is not always an enviable role. It is certainly a very important role and one I know the member for Sanderson and I took very seriously. We both took an approach where we did out utmost to ensure impartiality; to allow broad and open debate, discussion and questioning. However, from time to time, we obviously had to exercise the role of chair and try to get order back into the process. Member for Katherine, you can refer to me in all manner of derogatory terms, but I will never resile from the important role of chair that I take very seriously in the estimates process.
I thank very much the staff of the Assembly. They have worked tirelessly through the week, as they do throughout the year, to support the members of the Assembly. Hansard does a magnificent job; they are a group of very professional and talented women. The Table Office staff sat there hour after hour and supported us fully. To the secretary of the committee, Terry Hanley, and to your staff, I thank you sincerely.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chairman, I have a few things to say about the Estimates Committee. I enjoy it. That might sound sick. I enjoy it because it makes me feel like I am part of the parliamentary process that is vitally important for the good governance of the Territory. It gives me an opportunity that I do not have in Question Time because the minister can give you an answer and that is the end of that. In estimates, you can follow up on the answers that the minister gives. Ministers have advice from members of staff to help them. The process is an extremely important part of the overall parliamentary process. It is better than the previous process, where members were here all night asking question after question, and they did not have the staff resources as we do in the current system.
The Treasurer asked for constructive criticism. From an Independent’s point of view, this Estimates Committee was far too close to the election. The reason is that although the budget was some time before the Estimates Committee, most people in the political sphere would have been spending most of their time seeing whether they could get back into this parliament at the election. Having estimates two weeks after that, when we also had the opening of parliament, made it difficult, as an Independent, to cover the range of portfolios and adequately write up questions for each department.
I was not at the V8s; Ford got done so it was probably good that I was not. The reason I was not there is because I was writing up questions for estimates. Be that as it may, that is part of the process. In this case, we could have had another two weeks to get over the stress, you might say, of the election and to have a bit more time to put questions together.
I say this as constructive criticism: we tend to, except for the Treasury, weigh all departments evenly. The Minister for Lands and Planning has an extremely important portfolio and a big spending department with many smaller departments within that portfolio. I do not think we have ever got down to Ports. We might have one year, but I would love to have asked about whether the rods are still snapping down there on the first stage. That is a really important question for a multimillion dollar project, but it is one of the questions we did not get to.
Some members of the Public Accounts Committee visited Tasmania to look at their parliamentary accounts process. They have two Houses and, believe it or not, the two Houses have Estimates Committees operating at the same time, so departments are quizzed twice. They will tell you that the friendliest, most non-political and expeditious is the Upper House committee because it is full of Independents. I understand what that is: it is not as political upstairs. There were more questions being asked simply because people wanted to know the answer.
They had a process where they sat for five days. I think they start at around 9 am and finish about 10 pm, or might have been a little earlier than that, and they broke it up into three sections. I wonder whether instead of going to 11.30 pm - which I know it is not as bad as 4.30 am or 7.30 am - some days could have the evening section set aside for portions of the larger departments that could be run into the evening so we do cover all those matters.
That may be difficult to work in practice because of staffing and all that sort of thing, but the Minister for Health also has carriage of Justice, and they are two pretty big portfolios. There are many questions you would like to ask the minister, yet you really cannot do it justice - pardon the pun - within the time we are given.
Be that as it may, we have to tighten up on both questions and answers. I am to blame to some extent. The member for Sanderson did pull us up from time to time. He knows I get passionate about a few things. Sometimes, that is also in response to a fairly long-winded answer by the minister. There are times when we could shorten the questions, make them more precise, and not have so much opinion within the question. Equally, ministers could spare us a lecture on the entire policy of the department in relation to this one little aspect and just give us the answer. If someone had the time, and they would like to go through the questions and answers and was good at doing prcis, it would be interesting to see, if you took out all the waffle, what amount of time is left.
On both sides, we need to tighten up and make sure we are not repeating questions. I had a lot of questions and, when the opposition asked them, I crossed them off my list unless they were not covered fully. I was happy with that as long as the questions were asked.
A comparison of the way questions are asked is evident from this morning’s session with Power and Water. You can see the difference between dealing with politicians and dealing with corporate representatives. There is a variation in the way questions are asked and answered. If you want to get a good sample of time management, at least the Power and Water session was better.
We need a standard clock, by the way, Mr Deputy Chairman. I accept the decision of the chair last night and I was not having a go at her, but perhaps we need a standard clock.
In respect of what a minister should answer, and because we use accrual accounting now and we deal with outputs and outcomes, I noticed in the Budget Overview the following statement:
That sounds good:
We do not have what we used to have as a standard budget; we have a different form of budget which is about inputs, outputs and outcomes. A lot of that is measured by policy. It is important that, in the scrutiny of government departments and ministers, we are entitled to scrutinise the policy of government because that policy is reflected in the budget. It is important we take on issues that are controversial such as uranium. I did not ask the question because I did not want to start a brawl; I asked it because I felt that I should test the minister on that policy. I asked about cotton not because I am a great fan of growing cotton all over the place, but because I felt the logic was not correct when other crops, I feel, can do more damage.
I am a great supporter of the environment, and if I speak in this parliament, it is not because I want to destroy the environment but because sometimes the government’s policies are a bit haywire ...
Mr Bonson: We are worried, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Well, I must admit, many years ago when I was 19, my father had on the back of his car before protests became the normal thing: ‘Save the Little Desert’. Probably not many people would know that the Little Desert is, but it is a small national park in Victoria. A group of us, horticultural colleagues, went out of our way to stop the Premier of Victoria selling it off to a large wheat farmer. The Little Desert is still there.
My credentials, although people might think they are a bit mixed up at times, are basically there …
Mr Stirling: Why do you want cotton?
Mr WOOD: I did not say that, minister. You see, you missed the point. I want cropping that is sustainable and does not do damage. I do not sit there and just take things for granted; I look at the science and the logic. That is what I am testing. That is my job as an Independent: to come here and ask the minister why does he do that and what is the decision behind that, which is important.
Mr Deputy Chairman, it is a good system, although it needs some refining. We all should try to tighten up on questions and answers. I thank all the staff who support the process. I thank the ministers for coming along. I thank the Legislative Assembly staff and the media. It is very important that the media comes along. When you look at estimates hearings, how many members of the public were there? Very few. The media has a very important role in the estimates process.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Chairman, I agree with the member for Nelson. Going through estimates is an experience that is satisfying as an elected representative and a member of parliament. To have that level of access to ministers over an extended period of time, as well as heads of department and others who work in agencies to assist in finding answers to very important questions, is satisfying.
There are aspects of this process that do cause genuine irritation and they should be raised and allowed to be considered sensibly. We are here to advance the best interests of Territorians, not political interests as much the long-term interests of Territorians. It reminds me a little of trying to get a handle on what is going on. There are two levels of discussion that occur. I was trying to think of an analogy and it is a bit like The Truman Show, which is the Jim Carrey movie where he was living in a false world - everyone else knew but he did not and it had been concealed from him.
The opposition has the obligation to reveal the true story, whereas government wants to conceal a story and maintain a perception. For the opposition, it is a bit like going fishing. If you have ever been fishing and you know there is a barramundi underneath an overhang, you just know it is there, you keep fishing, you keep throwing your lure in. You know it is there and you will not give up until you get that strike. We in opposition often know the answer to the question and we know that the minister knows the answer to the question and very cleverly evades the answer ...
Mr Stirling: If you know the answer, why are you asking the question?
Mr MILLS: This is the role of opposition: to ensure that there is appropriate accountability.
Mr Stirling: Failure of strategy No 1. Do not ask questions to which you already know the answers. It is a waste of time.
Mr MILLS: If we know the answer to the question, we ask the question so that government may be able to come out into the open and speak quite plainly so that the wider community understands the truth. However, the greater level of energy is political and is spent in concealing that which is beneficial to prosecuting the core issue of accountability and transparency. That is the game that is being played. Those who see this game in action and do not understand it and criticise the repeat of a line of questioning as a waste of time, would believe a fairy story. We would be asking questions like: ‘Please, minister, tell us all the great initiatives that have been achieved in your area over the past 12 months?’ ‘Thank you very much, member of parliament, for asking such a question. Let me tell …’. Then out pumps all this bulldust and we give you a round of applause, with tears in our eyes and go on to ask another question. ‘Tell us all the wonderful things that happened’. ‘Please do not ask a negative question because we are doing such a fine job and it would be quite upsetting and we would take it personally if you ever asked a question that would probe a little deeper than the surface’.
This is not The Truman Show; this is real life. It is real money that belongs to Territorians and we have been charged with a very serious responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability.
Parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government. They are the Labor government’s own words and that is the endeavour that we undertake. We operate in a political environment that I, for one - and I believe my colleagues are the same - would like to see the political element of this reduced so that we can be satisfied with prosecuting the core matter here. That is to operate in an unhindered way, to praise and criticise or call to account. That is why a line of questioning is often pursued: because we know darn well what is being concealed and it is appropriate accountability. We will be continuing with this.
Members opposite try to shrug off this tag of arrogance in the clear knowledge that you went to an election with a budget that had not been scrutinised. You knew that. You played the game. You took that to Territorians with an extraordinary level of self-promotion immediately after the budget, went to an election and immediately had estimates. I guess you were rubbing your hands together with glee thinking there are only a few little opposition members and that you would run over the top of them.
I am proud to say that we put up a good show on behalf of Territorians. We hold you to account and will continue to do so because we have a higher duty, and it is not self-interest. It is not governed primarily by politics; it is governed by prosecuting the core business of accountability to the public of financial expenditure in every agency, and it starts with management of the economy.
The estimates process provided an opportunity to have clearly revealed intellectual inconsistency in Labor Party policies. When issues of principle are referred to, I would like to see that the principle is sound and can withstand scrutiny. The intellectual position with regards to uranium mining is baffling and disturbing, particularly when you marry that with a similar Labor Party policy with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and the failure of this government to take any responsibility on that issue of principle. It reveals, in the member for Nelson’s words ‘a haywire approach’ to matters of policy that are undergirded by sound principle. These are the sort of things that Territorians need to see: that you are yourselves governed in your own intellectual rigour by principle.
Be fair, be honest; you have raised expectations as to the way business would be conducted in this Chamber. I was elected in 1999 in a by-election. I had a short time as a backbencher in government. Two years later, I went to a general election, at the same time as the member for Wanguri. We entered the Chamber in different circumstances with positions reversed. I listened carefully to all of the speeches that were made. All those maiden speeches, I remember well, and I have mentioned this a number of times. I took to heart the things that many of you said, but I did not expect to see the level of hatred and vitriol that has been sustained to this day for the CLP. I did not expect that.
I expected to see the ability to think outside of prejudice, to think creatively and to honour principles that were espoused in maiden speeches. I expected that words contained in your Good Governance document meant more than something you get in The Truman Show. They have to mean something.
If we ask questions that hold you to account and rankle slightly, think a little deeply. What is it really about? We might expose an embarrassed minister, a minister of the Crown who is discharging a very profound responsibility. We might embarrass them. We have members come in and try to interject to block a line of attack. Are we are attacking the person? Good heavens, no. We are not attacking that person; we are holding that person to account in the responsibility that they hold. If some do not understand that and operate at that lower level and think that it is a game of football where you attack the other player, you are in the wrong place. We are governed by self-interest, not in the greater interests of those whom we serve.
I appreciate the opportunity. The member for Braitling, obviously, does not understand the responsibility that we take seriously as shadow minsters to get a grasp of the fiscal strategy and how revenue is being expended to serve the greater and longer term interests of the Territory. It cannot be prosecuted in four or five quick and easy questions - it cannot be. It is an incredibly complex business. The Treasurer knows that from the number of questions I asked that he was unable to answer and had to call upon the cast of thousands gathered around to assist. There is the opposition with a clip board, just the four of us with minimal resources, having to get across a number of issues.
The truth is that some of these matters take a fair amount of time to lead up to. In the core scrutiny, being the management of the Territory economy, it was revealed quite plainly, and members opposite will have difficulty if they are accustomed to preserving self-interest, that the Labor Party has not managed the Territory economy well at all.
Any indicator as to whether the economy is travelling well would show that we have not matched expectations. You only have to look at every other state or territory and you can see the strong indicators. The primary indicators are population increase and employment growth. They are down in the Territory and reveal an economy that is not going as well as it could be. This is not just a wild assertion from opposition. The Territory public need to know this: you have had a very unusual opportunity, and that has been the increase in revenue. In the Treasurer’s own words, it was far greater than expected. If you are running a business, you run it within your budget. If you receive far greater income than you expected, you can use it in either of two ways. One, you could employ more staff and have a jolly good time in the shop, or you could invest it deeply into your business to make it more profitable in the longer term. That is the issue.
How has the increase in revenue, far greater than expected to the tune of $300m additional, unexpected, been applied? How has it been used? Has it been used to make deep investments to increase the profitability and the strength of the Territory economy? Yes or no?
A member: Yes.
Mr MILLS: If I ask that question, of course government says yes, yes, yes. However, we have access to figures and indicators, too, and we have to hold their assertions to account. Their assertions do not marry with reality. This is the real world. Expectations have been raised in glossy documents, and statements made around budget time do not match the actual outcome in terms of population or employment growth. What we have seen is an increase in recurrent expenditure, but we have not seen enough evidence of deeper level investments that increase long-term profitability - immediately, wave pool and waterfront come to mind. Well and good. However, with a significant, unexpected increase in revenue, and a prior commitment to balanced budgets and debt reduction, why then increase nett debt to the tune of $200m? Why increase the debt?
We took the opportunity through estimates to actually ask that question, to develop that case, and to put that question in a way that stands up to scrutiny. The budget figures clearly demonstrate nett debt has increased, revenue has increased, key indicators to determine whether the economy is growing indicate only meagre progress, and the ultimate story is one that Territorians will judge. It is our responsibility to ask these questions and, if it is unpleasant or prolonged for the Independent member who spoke earlier, the member for Nelson, I make no apology. We have taken our task very seriously.
In concluding, there is much more that I could say. I am looking forward to these four years, I really am. There is much to be done and, as I said earlier last week, I expect the Territory to be a markedly different place in four years time. There will be a different level of discussion and consideration. I hope that hope is strengthened for what can be achieved in the Northern Territory. The Territory has immense potential, and it is up to each of us to find our contribution to unleash that potential. That can only be done if we rise above political self-interest and find our way towards dealing with that core business: asking honest questions and having the guts to answer them.
To finish off, we often, in times of human weakness, say: ‘Gee whiz, it is late, early days, a lot of preparation’, and there has been all of that. We are rewarded well as parliamentarians. However, there are also others who have not gone around saying: ‘Gee whiz, I am really tired, and look at me and how many hours I put in’. They are those wonderful people who have been with us, day by day, from morning to night. I would like to put their names on the public record because I, along with fellow members, sincerely appreciate the dedication and the superb service that we receive from the staff of the Legislative Assembly.
Thank you - and I am sure I say this on behalf of all members - Joanne Carbone, Anna-Maria Socci, Kim Cowcher, Pat Hancock, Annette Brown, Graham Gadd and Stephen Stokes, who work with us on the floor as our day-to-day helpers, and those characters who work behind the scenes. We may not know that they are there but everything seems to be in place. Thank you to Derek Stafford, Tony Hume, Tony Hibberd and Peter McGann for the work that you did behind the scenes.
A member: Terry Hanley.
Mr MILLS: Oh, Terry Hanley, of course. The reason Terry’s name is not on this is because I asked him to provide the names. Isn’t that beautiful? Thank you, Terry, I hope you are listening and we sincerely appreciate your efforts. To those who are also listening at this time, thank you to the Hansard workers.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: We finish and they continue. I think it was yesterday I received one of those little yellow Daily Hansard books and it was still hot because it had just come out of the printers. It was not that long before I had spoken those words, and there they were. Thank you very much on behalf of all members to the Hansard workers.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Chairman, it is important for us in opposition to voice our concerns about the estimates process. We see a government, newly elected, with 19 members, and I congratulate the government for achieving that. To see them cynically schedule not only the ceremonial sittings of parliament which are, obviously, necessary, and then go straight into the estimates process, as the member for Nelson said, after we had gone through a two-and-a-half week election campaign. Many of us had been campaigning long before that in the Clayton’s campaign. We have been, effectively, working really hard for quite a long time. I suppose the government looked at it cynically and said: ‘Oh well, here is a severely diminished opposition, they are not able to deal with it. Let us steamroll them and push everything through’.
If the government was serious about open and transparent governance of the Territory and was prepared to expose the budget to close scrutiny, they would allow time for preparation of detailed questions that we could put to ministers. The fact that the opposition carried the fight to the government, I believe, surprised the government and perhaps even the media and political commentators around the place. We were focused, we knew what we were about, we knew the issues that had to be raised with this budget, and we raised them in an effective manner. I appreciate that the media took time to consider the issues that were raised by us and reported them accordingly.
The member for Braitling said: ‘We did not have enough time for Independent members to ask questions of ministers and there should be alternate questions between the opposition and the member for Braitling’. Well, she has another think coming.
Mr Stirling: Democracy!
Dr LIM: She is not in opposition.
Mr Stirling: She is not entitled to a voice now? Interesting. You are as arrogant as you ever were.
Dr LIM: She is not in opposition, and the job of the opposition is to closely scrutinise the government on behalf of all Territorians.
When the member for Nelson was speaking about the estimates and commented on how tightly the estimates were placed with the ceremonial sittings, you could see the body language of the Deputy Chief Minister; his arrogant manner, cynically dismissing what the member for Nelson had to say. The member for Nelson made a lot of sense. There needs to be a fairer process. Diminished in numbers we might be, but diminished in fight, definitely not.
Coming to some of the specific issues that were raised in parliament, I made a very scathing comment about the mistaken list that came from Madam Speaker when she tabled members’ overseas travel. I look forward to the corrected list and that will be forthcoming I am sure. However, it is a pity that Madam Speaker tabled a paper that she did not closely scrutinise, one which had no relevance to the current budget.
As regards education, we tried to get government to make it clear that their election commitments and commitments made in the budget were, in fact, genuine. One that I raised was the commitment by the Chief Minister on the night of the election in her victory speech, when she said that her government was committed to 10 000 apprentices and that, in fact, she - or we, and I use the words in quotes – ‘‘We will deliver’. When that point was put to government, you could see the ministers all running 100 miles in the other direction, especially the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. There were weasel words being used: ‘Oh, we were talking about apprentices and trainees. We are talking about 10 000 Territorians. No, we are not talking about 10 000 apprentices’. The average Territorian understands what an apprentice is. An apprentice is a person who is undertaking a course in trades with the hope that, after three or four years of training, that person becomes a qualified tradesman.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in fact, admitted that a tradie, after two to five years in private work, could be generating an income well in excess of $100,000. There was a significant difference between what the Chief Minister promised and how the government now tries to re-interpret its pre-election promise. That is cynical. It is not telling Territorians the truth. If you did make a mistake, admit you made a mistake, like the Beattie fellow, the Premier of Queensland. People used to forgive him. Used to - not any more.
A member: Warren Beattie?
Dr LIM: No, Warren Beattie is the actor. He might have been an actor too, but Queenslanders used to forgive the Premier for his admission of wrong, but it has worn a little thin of late and he is copping a little. But admit that you are wrong. Admit that you cannot deliver 10 000 qualified tradesmen over the next four years …
Mr Mills: It sounds good, though.
Dr LIM: It sounds good, very good, of course it sounds good. Even in the budget papers, they were quite clear when they said they were not going to be able to have a completion rate of 100%. In other words, you might have 10 000 people starting apprenticeship training, but at best they are going to have 48% completion. That is a very telling point. Yes, we did labour on that a fair bit and, as the member for Blain said earlier, we had to labour on points such as this to ensure that government’s commitments are accurately defined for Territorians.
In terms of Tourism, while I was not there, I was monitoring the Chief Minister’s comments on the parliamentary broadcast system, and I am very disappointed that Virgin Blue is withdrawing from Alice Springs entirely and appears to be going to do the same in Darwin. I offer this suggestion to the government, something that I have discussed at length within the Country Liberal Party: the government could implement a policy - if it is not too late, that is - to ensure that, say, 10% or more of all government airline travel – and that includes ministers, backbenchers, parliamentarians, all public servants - be placed with airlines other than Qantas. That way, you provide core business to those airlines without costing $1 more, without having to provide subsidies, or any other form of financial support. You can just say: ‘10% of government travel will be booked with other airlines, whether they be regional or national carriers’.
That way, those airlines could say: ‘We can survive’. This is a Country Liberal Party policy that we are offering, again, to government. Take it on because it will be for the betterment of Territorians to have successful regional and national airlines servicing the Territory. It is not about your policy or my policy; it is about how Territorians can benefit.
I hear a giggle from one of the backbenchers, newly elected, on the government side. In due course, you might think again. You might live in Darwin - and it is all very well and fine that you can get in and out of Darwin easily - but those of us living in the regions have continued to struggle to get appropriate travel services.
I come to Health. I was astonished - literally astonished - when the question was put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Health Minister about whether there were any locum anaesthetists practising at the Alice Springs Hospital, and he was so quick to respond: ‘No. We are all fine, we have a full complement’. When I pushed him, his response was: ‘No, everything is fine’. I kept pushing, and I kept pushing and that obviously rang a bell with the minister. Uh-oh! That doctor from Alice Springs, Limmy, he actually knows something that I do not know.
While I was watching the body language of the officers sitting behind the minister, the person who should know, the General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital, kept giving the minister the same answer: no, no, no, no. Finally, and after several minutes of confusion on the minister’s part and his officers around him, they pulled out a piece of paper that indicated that, indeed, there was at least one locum anaesthetist at the Alice Springs Hospital. That is the level of incompetence within the management of the Alice Springs Hospital. That is what I was trying to demonstrate.
Mr Henderson: That is an outrageous attack on public servants again.
Dr LIM: There is! There is that level of incompetence, and it is no wonder you have problems at the Alice Springs Hospital.
The waiting list is a classic example. At the change of government four years ago, there were about 450 patients waiting for surgery. Now we have some 1600 patients. That is an increase of nearly four times over four years. You have to wonder why. The case I quoted about this particular person who saw me last weekend at the Alice Springs Show complaining that his elective hip surgery, for a very painful osteoarthritic hip condition, had been cancelled and re-booked six times. Six times! The last time it was cancelled was within days of the surgery when he had already presented himself to the hospital for a pre-surgical assessment and everything was all set and ready to go.
It is like the Olympic walker, I cannot remember her name now, who walked the whole course until the last 400 m and then she was disqualified. How tragic would that be? Had you been disqualified within the first kilometre or two of the race, you would say that is fine, but when you are right at the end and you think: ‘Yes, I am now over the line, I am going to be there’, you have the case cancelled. When this man was talking to me, he was absolutely distraught; there were tears in his eyes. For 12 months he has been waiting for this surgery. The pain he has had to live with the last 12 months is still there. I hope the minister will examine this case. I am sure he would know who the patient is because there are not very many patients who have been put off six times in 12 months. I hope the minister will check the case out and personally intervene. Fix it up, for goodness sake, because it is not fair on anyone, least of all this man and his family.
There was some confusion with ministers. Members will recall I put a question to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure about the level of contamination of the ground at the wharf precinct. I asked him how much dirt was going to be removed, where it was going to be moved to, and what it is going to cost Territorians. Well, not much information was forthcoming from the minister. He was not able to give me any accurate costings of what it will be for Territorians to bear over the foreseeable future, that being five, 10, 15 years into the future, to rehabilitate the ground that we know is contaminated. Then, when I quoted some figures that I know were available within the department and the Darwin City Council, the Chief Executive Officer and the minister contradicted me. He said: ‘No, you are wrong’.
I am glad the member for Nelson was able to support me in that matter and produce documentation right there and then, provided either by the Darwin City Council or directly to him that, in fact, there is no soil that has to be treated or removed from the wharf precinct as far as the Chief Executive Officer knew. That is the sort of incompetence that really worries the opposition.
The government has to manage the Northern Territory well. You have won an election overwhelmingly and, fine, manage the Territory, but do it well. The opposition will undertake to make sure that you do so. That is our role, and governments are only as good as the opposition. I seek to ensure that this government knows what it is doing and tells Territorians the truth. Do not hide behind a lot of obfuscation, a lot of words that tell us nothing.
The third incident of conflicting evidence came when questions were put to various ministers about whether the budget promotion papers were translated and produced by government. When that question was put to the Treasurer, he initially denied having anything to do with it. He knew nothing about it and said nothing like that happened. When push came to shove, he started to back off and suggested that maybe the Chief Minister might know what happened there and, in fact, suggested that I ask the Chief Minister that particular question. As far as he was concerned, he did not know. Well, not entirely did not know; he thought there might be something like that happened, but he was not sure, or did not want to say. To use the words of the member for Blain, he did not want to say whether there was or not, and suggested I should ask the Chief Minister.
The Leader of the Opposition did ask the Chief Minister that question, and she initially did not respond. The Chief Financial Officer for the Department of the Chief Minister responded on the Chief Minister’s behalf, and said initially there was nothing. Again, as the Leader of the Opposition pushed for a more accurate response, there was reluctant admission: ‘Yes, there might be some translation costs, but that is really the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’ responsibility and you need to ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’. It went back and forth and no one wanted to take any responsibility for it. Then, gleefully, the Chief Minister said, and I quote: ‘Can I just add that I am very proud of the fact that we do actually translate the budget’. It is about time! Now, the Chief Minister says: ‘No, no, we did do it’. However, would she give us the figures, or who authorised it? No, she would not. That is cynical, devious, hiding behind a lot words. That is what I do not like about governments that try to conceal what they do.
When it came to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’ time to face the Estimates Committee, I put the same question to him. Guess what? He said: ‘Oh, it is not my decision. We are the service agency, we provide the translation service to a client agency/minister’, and ‘Oh, well, yes we did’. I said: ‘Which language do you use?’ ‘Oh, we do not know.’ Then he eventually said: ‘Oh, it is Greek, Filipino, Indonesian and Chinese, and we only paid $480.64 for the translation’. My mind just could not accept that. I said: ‘Hey, that is four languages; that is $120 per language to produce 1200 bits of different brochures in language’. That is a lot of work and so very little money was used to translate. Something is just not right, and I propose to put this to the Auditor-General to seek that he investigate this matter closely.
Thank you to all the staff. The member for Blain mentioned all your names. Thank you very much for your support. I apologise that I picked up a paper that I just bundled in with my papers. I have returned it to Mr Hanley and hope things will be squared off.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, I would also like to thank the committee for their hard work, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Independents over the four days of the Estimates Committee.
The chairman, the member for Sanderson, and the deputy chair, the member for Karama, I thought, in the times that I was in the seat, acted impartially and tried to keep the questions flowing. It is important that those questions keep flowing. It is interesting that some of the members of the opposition and Independents think the chairs did a pretty good job, but obviously, the member for Araluen, in the bile that she brought forth earlier this afternoon could not bring herself to say that.
In terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to this committee report, we had 20 minutes of invective, anger and bitterness and no mention - not one mention – of expenditure and the areas where she scrutinised ministers on departmental expenditure, and some of the criticisms that I would expect the opposition to have of the priorities in expenditure of the current government and the budget. The Leader of the Opposition has totally missed the point: estimates is about scrutiny of the 2005-06 Budget, not a personal tirade of abuse for 20 minutes about individual members on this side of the House.
Ms Carney: Tirade of abuse!
Mr HENDERSON: Hansard will bear me out and, if the Leader of the Opposition is just going to carry on in that vein, it is going to be an interesting four years.
I had four separate Chief Financial Officers come to the table with the agencies that I carried through the budget this year, and I think only one of them actually answered a question on the budget. So much of it was just trawling down vacant alleyways looking for a conspiracy theory that was never there in the first place. As the father of the House, the member for Nhulunbuy who has been in this parliament for 17 years, said, and we have said time and time again, 42 hours was made available to the opposition and the Independents to scrutinise the budget and they still could not prioritise the areas they needed to focus on. The previous record during the previous government’s reign was 42 hours. So to allege that we were gagging debate again does not stand scrutiny in terms of the history …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: … in terms of the history of this parliament.
It is interesting to see the different attitudes of members on the committee from the opposition to the Independents. The member for Braitling asked specific electorate or Alice Springs questions on policy issues. I make a commitment to the member for Braitling: the Standing Orders Committee will look at time and how we can better balance the time for the Independents in the parliament through the Estimates Committee process. We will have a little review, look at what is happening in parliaments around Australia and try to balance that up, because Independents do have a significant role, not only in representing their electorate, but scrutinising government.
The opposition questions were repeated over and over and over again. Listening to the members for Greatorex and Blain saying: ‘We know the answer and we are going to ask you the question. If you do not tell us the answer, we are going to keep asking the question over and over and over again’. What is the point of that? If there is an accusation or an allegation against the government, why not put the allegation and say: ‘Minister, this is the document that I have. This is the representation I have had. I am informed that blah, blah, blah is the particular issue and you have misled the committee’. Not once did that occur. It was endless trawling down rabbit holes for no particular effect.
Take cricket and netball: I was asked so many questions about cricket and whether it was going to come back to the Northern Territory. I am astounded that the member for Blain, the shadow sports minister - and I think he was the shadow sports minister in the previous parliament - did not know what the Australia A cricket team was. There were other areas that we could have gone to. There were questions on the election commitment of $4.8m for netball in 2007-08. We were looking at the 2005-06 Budget. How the election commitment for 2007-08 was in any way relevant to this budget astounds me, and we must have spent 20 minutes on that.
Of all the responsibilities in government, I would have thought Family and Children’s Services is probably one of the most difficult, one of the most challenging in a policy and emotional sense and there is not a government around Australia that does not face challenges in improving child protection and responding to child abuse. But, oh no, we did not want to talk about the budget, and how much was allocated, and what were the government’s priorities for the next year. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to debate a statement of 12 months ago …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman!
Mr HENDERSON: … in this House that had absolutely no relevance to what was in the budget.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, minister. What is the point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman, is that the member well knows not to mislead. I asked those questions with a reference to the budget. Had I not done so, I am sure the deputy chair would have picked me up. I do not mind the member being creative, but I do object to him lying.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. There is a process if you believe the minister is misleading.
Ms CARNEY: No, just lying.
Mr HENDERSON: Responding to the point of order, I am pretty sure that, as the member for Araluen sat down, she said: ‘I do object to the member lying’.
Ms Carney: Yes, I did.
Mr HENDERSON: I ask her to withdraw that comment unless she wants to bring it on by way of a substantive motion.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the comment, but if that is what you said and you agreed that you said it, please withdraw it, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the fact that I said I object that he is lying.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! Leader of Government Business.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is too smart by half. If my memory of that debate is questionable, I recall the member for Braitling said that the Leader of the Opposition in referencing that speech and taking up so much of the minister’s time was contemptuous of the process. That was what the member for Braitling said, so if you do not believe me, member for Araluen, the member for Braitling said the same thing.
The member for Katherine said that she has 50 unanswered questions. I urge her to put them on the table because we will respond to them. I would have thought in the hierarchy of the opposition that as Deputy Leader, the member for Katherine would take precedence over the members for Greatorex and Blain. If she, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has unanswered questions, there is certainly something happening in the party room where the member for Greatorex has ascendency over the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Nelson mentioned the timing of the election; an interesting comment. We thought long and hard about when we would bring estimates on, and we decided to bring the process on as soon as we could because the government did have a budget on the table with appropriation allocated for the 2005-06 financial year. We want to get on with those programs and that expenditure as soon as possible and so, I believe, do public servants.
To the member for Nelson, yes, we will look at the issues of government questions. If you did not get to ask the question on the port and it was a priority, then I suggest you put it in writing to the minister or seek a briefing and I am sure you will get the answer.
On the member for Blain, I am not going to comment. There was a lot of hypothesis about the state of the economy and where were the priorities in terms of getting the economy moving; very little in challenging the appropriation in the budget to particular output areas.
The member for Greatorex wasted ages on the number of speed camera checks and tickets that the police issued and what revenue was collected. It was very clearly demonstrated to the member for Greatorex that Territorians are responding in a responsible way. The number of people being booked for speeding is reducing; it has been reducing for a number of years. The amount of revenue being collected is reducing; one would expect that. He insisted he wanted a monthly breakdown of those figures. Is he saying that the police are providing misleading information? I had specific advice at the table and stated to the member for Greatorex over and over again that the amount of work that would be required in the police finance area and the revenue section of Treasury to reconcile tickets that were issued with receipts received on a month-by-month basis would be extraordinary, and asked why he needed this particular information. He was unable to give any answer. We must have wasted about 20 minutes on that issue. To say that they did not have time for all their questions to be answered is patently absurd.
I can say that I am very pleased with this budget. It has been crafted with a lot of hard work not only by Cabinet ministers, but by public servants across the Northern Territory. Many, many hours - probably hundreds and thousands - go into creating a budget. There are some exciting initiatives in there for the 2005-06 financial year, and we will deliver on those. I would like to put on the record tonight my thanks to all of those public servants who participated in the estimates process.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: It is interesting when you talk to those public servants about what they think of the process. I will not divulge some of those comments, but it is a process that focuses, not only the public service, but ministers and governments in doing the right thing, making sure that processes and protocols within government are established and adhered to.
My thanks to all Legislative Assembly staff who supported the Estimates Committee process - fabulous work! It is really draining on you guys as well as us. Like the member for Arafura, as I was driving home down Bagot Road about 8.15 last night, and the State of Origin was probably 30 minutes in, there was not another car on the road, and I felt sorry for people still in the parliament debating estimates and not watching the State of Origin. So all to all of the staff of the Legislative Assembly, members of the committee, and public servants, thank you. It is a vigorous process. We will look at the process, and we will be back again next year.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Chairman, I thank all ministers, core members of the Estimates Committee, opposition and Independent members who contributed to the debate.
The common theme that seemed to come through was concern about whether the time was adequate. The majority of members of the opposition were saying they wanted longer. The core members of the PAC who were there at the start - and I am referring to the members for Greatorex, Nelson and myself - participated in a mission to Tasmania. I believe the member for Greatorex also went to another parliament in a different jurisdiction to have a look at how their estimates worked. We came back and trialled our system, and I believe everyone, from the time of the first estimates, will remember just how it was, with every member of opposition sitting up on the bench, all strung along, and a few members of government on the PAC, and how that was really quite an unmanageable circus. Things did get out of hand in that case.
We debated that estimates process, reviewed and modified it and changed it into something similar to what we see today. It needed a bit more tinkering the following year until last year, when we felt really comfortable with the process and the time that was allocated per portfolio.
I remind members that the then Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in the House, was full of praise for it. We are here at this point, and members who were critical of the time allocation are not members who have been actively participating in the process of the Estimates Committee.
I can see that it would come as a bit of a surprise and a shock to be thrown in, but, once again, I say that we have got to the point of 42 hours based on the historic knowledge of how long the budget was interrogated for in previous regimes, and how we got to this point. I am of the firm belief the 42 hours is long enough. Some members of the Estimates Committee are also of that belief, yet we do have to look at the distribution and allocation time within the portfolios, and I go along with that.
Once again, I will talk about the member for Greatorex. We had two instances in the committee stage: one where, as the shadow minister, he was prepared to forgo his first shot at an output and offered it to the member for Nelson. As the chair, I said no, we have a process to follow, because you, as the shadow minister responsible for this portfolio, should go through and exhaust all those questions. I believe that is the right call. Perhaps I did not make it that clear at the start and we had an internal debate about it. However, we did get through okay. We did get over to the member for Nelson, as a committee member, to ask his questions.
The other instance was this morning during scrutiny of the GOC when there were two hours set. There was only one line item, so we were not going through output-by-output. We were able to, without too much trauma, give the opposition member the opportunity to have a one-and-a-quarter hour bite of it straight up, and then we opened it up to the committee. Clearly, the member for Greatorex did have more questions, but he could see the value in opening up the floor to other members of the committee so that they could ask their questions. Then we were able to get it back over to the opposition side. There was a lot of room for private member’s questions, which were asked around the table.
It worked, but that method can only work on a single-line item such as the GOC. Where we have output-by-output, the challenge is going to be to try to find out exactly how we can do it. I would not like to see us cut off the opposition on their line of interrogation. If they believe there is something further they need to interrogate, we run the chance of, perhaps, cutting them short. That is not what estimates is all about; estimates is about giving a good rein to opposition and Independents and to local members to interrogate the budget, and to have a really good, in-depth discussion with the minister and the public sector officers who are assisting them at the table.
Without being overly critical of how this year’s performance went, there were times when some of the questions being asked were about information that was already in the public domain. The information was already there. Perhaps members did not know it existed, but it comes back to research. I take the point that in the middle of all of this, there was an election. Well, there will not be next year or the year after …
A member: Oh, I don’t know!
Mr KIELY: No, I do not have a crystal ball! I do know there are a lot of members travelling to Tennant Creek in the same plane. No, I will not go so far as to say that.
You will have the opportunity. It was not said tongue-in-cheek, when a number of ministers offered briefings. I know you think that is code for ‘you are telling us we are not doing our job’, but it is not. Sincerely, when the budget comes down, all of us should seek briefings on areas of interest or responsibilities, and then get all the information you can and get it out of the way. Then, you will know where to look for all that information that is in the public domain, and you can target and help facilitate the timeliness, and there will be ample time for Independents and local members.
As I said, I am not going to go to individual members and their particular lines of questioning. However, I will say this about the Leader of the Opposition: being in the chair, there were times when I thought it was a little personalised in some responses to me. It is going to be a long four years if we keep this up. I can give a commitment now that I am not going to bite. I have bitten so many times on the lines the Leader of the Opposition throws at me. I give this commitment now.
Mr Henderson: Careful, Len.
Mr KIELY: No, no, because, as the member for Blain was saying with his fishing analogy about chucking the lure out, I have bitten a few times; I will admit to that …
Mr Stirling: A few!
Mr KIELY: Those days are behind me. I thought I was going to get a bit of a rap from the Deputy Opposition Leader. I was chuffed about that. I thought: ‘Gee, this is a pretty good thing for the member for Katherine’. It did not quite go that far; I was slapped instead. I would like to say to the Deputy Opposition Leader that the chair can ask questions; the chair is allowed to ask questions. Over the whole of the three-and-a-half days, the 42 hours, I asked three. That is all; just three. The questions I asked happened to deal with the powerline coming from Brisbane, and that might have cranked you up a little, but they were fair and legitimate questions.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Member for Katherine, there are no standing orders to preclude the chair from asking questions. I just thought I would clarify that.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex.
Mr KIELY: It is on the record from all of us our true appreciation of the Legislative Assembly staff who provided all the support. I, too, as the Chair of the Estimates Committee, wholeheartedly thank all those involved, and it goes right from the top, from the Clerk down to the people who come in and clean up the rooms afterwards, the whole lot. Without that support team behind us we could not function, we could not operate. I truly appreciate it and I know that all members of the committee do as well.
I would also like to extend a sincere thank you to all the public sector officers who were coming in to assist us interrogate the budget. They put in long hours, and some did not get up into the front. I, too, was looking at the body language. They were attentive, they had the information on hand, and they were trying to get it up to the minister as quickly and effectively as possible.
There were times, believe it or not, that there was some goodwill shown in the committee between the shadows and the minister, and there were times when there was a bit of humour going around. When I was watching their body language, they could also see the times when it was in good humour, but I did not see anyone rolling their eyes. We are talking about highly paid professionals. They do not sit in the audience and roll their eyes at the back of the minister, let me tell you. I never saw any of that sort of business. So to all of the members of our professional and diligent public sector, I thank you for your attention and assistance in this interrogation.
I would finally give my sincere thanks to the new members who joined us coming straight off the back of an election, straight in for one week in parliament and being sworn in. They were there, sitting at the table, helping to interrogate the 2005-06 Budget. I would like to say thank you to them for a job well done. I am certain that some of you are probably going to get more experience on there than what you bargained for.
The Estimates Committee is a fantastic concept and it is something that I commend. I am proud and pleased that we brought it in and I am sure that it is here to stay.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chair of the Estimates Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion, as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, or the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2005-06 be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
In many ways, it is a very solid piece of work and it reflects a growing economy in the Northern Territory, and will deliver sustainable services and outcomes throughout 2005-06.
Budgets do not get easier despite a few years of experience behind us. Budget Cabinet probably remains the most onerous process that ministers have to come to grips with throughout a given year. That is exactly as it should be because there are no more important decisions in general than those made at Budget Cabinet as those decisions are critical to the future of the Territory.
Those are the decisions that finish up in the document that is the guiding light, which outlines the agenda of government and which pushes the public service and the policy decisions from government out into the community. It is the document that drives government, propels the Territory forward and keeps the Territory moving ahead. Sometimes the process seems to start earlier than ever, but of course it has its finishing date when we finally get here to deliver budget. As difficult a process as it is, there is no more exciting piece of work in government, from my view, than the work that goes into framing budgets.
I do want to put my final thanks on the record to, first and foremost, Treasury, who do an enormous amount of work. Talk about the midnight oil; drive past Treasury at 2 am and 3 am as we get close to budgets! All the lights are ablaze, and they are hard at it. No one sees it, but that is a fact. That is how professional, dedicated and diligent these officers are. Prior to that stage of keeping Treasury busy all night, there is an enormous amount of work at agency level. Chief Financial Officers and Chief Executives throughout the agencies do a similar amount of work at their own level putting together their bids and ideas. It does tie up a huge number of public servants and it drives Cabinet very hard.
I am very proud of this budget. Given where we are and what we have done in the last three or four years, this is the best one yet. I hope they continue to get better, but I think it is a very solid and sound piece of work that will guide us well into the future, and my thanks go to all involved in it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I want to make some comments on some of the topics on which I was unable to comment during estimates.
I wish to address some of these remarks to the Treasurer because no matter what spin you put on it, Treasurer, Territory debt is again beginning to spin out of control: a total of $1.781bn. Even though the CLP panicked when the debt was beginning to get near $2bn, an unsustainable amount for a population of 200 000, you seem to be wanting to justify it.
The nett debt for the Territory increased considerably, an increase of $128m over four years totalling $1.781bn, an increase of $28m over the level of debt you inherited in 2001 that you said was a black hole. Would you say now that this budget also has a black hole? Is it true, for instance, that the borrowing program is the largest to date for debt refinancing and that an estimated $530m is due to mature this year?
Can you advise whether Treasury will be undertaking borrowings for new and extra funds for 2005, or only for refinancing previous borrowings that are due to mature this year? If this is so, what is the interest payment? Your table indicates that the interest payments are decreasing. How can this be so when the debt is continuing and annual borrowings are continuing? What is a more realistic figure for interest borrowings?
In this year’s budget papers, one table indicates that there is an estimated surplus of $46m for 2004-05. There is a turnaround deficit of $68m for this financial year, 2005-06. If my maths is correct, this is a turnaround of $114m for one year. I know you keep saying it is for the waterfront, but that is a huge increase in spending. How can you justify this increase in spending when you have continually condemned the previous debt? Is the government becoming complacent and trusting that the GST will pull them out of the situation?
It is a fault of the Estimates Committee process that I was not able to question the Treasurer on this area, but I raise it now because I believe close scrutiny of the debt that we are going into and the way the debt is being managed is one of the important elements that we should, as members, be questioning hard.
Mr Stirling: It is, and it is being well managed.
Mrs BRAHAM: I hope you can explain to me how you are going to refinance some of these debts and how you are going to repay and not get us further into debt, Treasurer.
Mr Stirling: I will arrange an urgent briefing, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: Unfortunately, as members know, time ran out before I could question the government on one of the most important areas of my electorate, and that is the previous minister’s policy of social engineering and the effect on public housing. I wanted to question the Chief Minister about her media release on getting tough with Housing tenants and ask what initiatives are in the budget to do this, but, unfortunately, I did not have time.
In one of my suburbs, we have experienced mob violence where people were armed with star pickets and axes - hardly traditional weapons, although this was a family dispute flowing into town. People were denied access to their homes during this riot, as the streets were closed off by the police, and parents were unsure of the safety of their families. Houses have been burnt down. There has been drug dealing coming out of the units. There has been murder. There has been suicide. There has been domestic violence as well as alcohol-related fighting. Even small babies have been used as human shields during domestic violence arguments. There is over-crowding arising from uncontrolled visitors and a lack of control has resulted in brawls. The health and hygiene standards are thrown out the window because rubbish is strewn everywhere and there are inadequate toilet facilities in the house or unit where visitors have taken over.
It is a pretty sad picture to paint, Madam Speaker, but this has happened during this period of the previous minister’s carriage of public housing when he was not strong enough to speak up against what was going on and direct his department to take some control. Chief Minister, I am looking forward to a new Housing minister, and looking forward to you giving them the means to, as you say, get tough on tenants because the situation is deplorable and we cannot continue to live with it. I hope that the new minister for Housing comes to Alice Springs, and I invite him to come with me and visit some of the areas in the electorate where people are constantly putting up with this behaviour. Then I would like to see in the budget where these measures are that will address this deplorable situation.
I also did not have an opportunity to ask the mining minister or the Chief Minister about the government’s policy on uranium mining. I cannot understand how this government can continue to allow exploration if they do not intend to allow mining from any credible find such as we have seen recently out of Alice Springs. Is it not, in fact, Madam Speaker, perpetuating a fraud to those 10 to 12 mining companies currently involved in exploration for uranium? Is it okay to accept the benefits of their endeavours, but deny them the fruits of their investments? For a government promoting employment, does the Chief Minister acknowledge the many jobs generated by these mining companies seeking uranium? Does she acknowledge the revenue flowing to land councils? Does she acknowledge the involvement of Aboriginal communities and the estimated $45m that is being spent by these companies in the Territory each year?
If she does, does she also listen to what her colleagues from interstate are saying? Premier Bob Carr commented on his concern about global warming, its effect on our weather and his state’s subsequent water shortage. Is she aware of the incentives the South Australian government is giving to mining companies in the form of funding for drilling initiatives and the promotion and boost to their economy that is occurring because of it? Has the Chief Minister ever had a mammogram or an X-ray? Will she ban the use of uranium in the treatment of cancer patients, or does she have a forked-tongue approach to allowing its use but denying its production?
I remind the Chief Minister that her predecessors Bob Collins and Maggie Hickey were both in favour of uranium mining. When you know that one of the founders of Greenpeace, the scientist Patrick Moore, breaks ranks and says that a new look needs to be taken at nuclear power if we are to get a significant reduction in the greenhouse effect, how can we continue not to acknowledge what must inevitably happen?
As far as I am concerned, there are double standards being voiced by the Chief Minister. She wants the mining companies to invest. She has not banned the use of uranium in the Territory in whatever form it is being used. She allows yellowcake to be transported on the railway and shipped out of the port, but gives no encouragement or confidence to those mining companies currently in the Territory that their efforts will be rewarded. I find that a very hypocritical stance to be taken by the Chief Minister. I ask her to seriously think about this stance, and of what she is doing to the confidence of mining companies within the Territory and how they must be feeling about her statements. It is not the way to encourage investment in the Territory.
I was also, unfortunately, not able to speak to the minister on environmental matters. The minister recently made a number of grants and, if you look closely at them, you will find that many are to do with recycling. They are great. Install a custom-built skip with an in-built bank of single can crushers and pop holes to collect crushed cans, Nyirripi; purchase and install a can crusher at Maningrida; extend the existing 5 item container deposit, Titjakala; and so on. It reflects an obvious number of applications from communities saying: ‘We would really like to get on with recycling’. The minister has acknowledged that by giving this funding. As we pointed out, the Arid Lands Environment Centre at the Alice Springs Show collected 6000 cans. That was how many were returned. Those 6000 cans were then not dumped in the landfill; they were given to a recycling firm to take south.
Madam Speaker, I am running out of time. Is it possible for me to have an extension?
Madam SPEAKER: Standing order 77 deals with extensions of time. Consent is required of the majority of members.
Ms LAWRIE: We will not support an extension in the third reading, Madam Speaker.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks during adjournment tonight. However, the gist of my argument is that this government has to be a lot more honest with what they are doing as regards their debt, uranium mining, employment in this Territory, the environment, and getting tough on public housing because I am certainly not satisfied with the answers I received.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak at this stage because I believe that most has already been covered.
However, in the event of anyone reading the Hansard only of this element of the debate, getting the idea that the issues that were raised by the member for Braitling were not soundly dealt with in the Estimates Committee, I wish to join with the member for Braitling and re-affirm my concern about the rising level of debt, which was clearly demonstrated through the estimates process, and to re-affirm the clear hypocrisy and inconsistency with regards to the stance on uranium mining when that is married up with the same principled stance of the Labor Party with regards to the Kyoto Protocols. It does not marry, it does not make sense, and it resonates quite wrongly through the community.
I support what the member for Braitling had to say about antisocial behaviour in public housing. As a local member, I received tremendous support from the member for Braitling, a former Housing minister. It was proactive support from an active minister who has made a clear difference in my electorate of which I am appreciative. I have to say I am not receiving the same level of proactive response to issues in Palmerston at this point. However, I remain ever hopeful and join my comments with the member for Braitling.
I say again that the issues regarding debt were clearly demonstrated. Allied with that was the issue, which was clearly presented through this debate, of the significant increase in revenue, which provides the capacity to reduce debt. Rather, this government has not maintained the status quo, but increased debt by $200m.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, you have the right of response if you wish to take it.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Oh, absolutely. Madam Speaker; I did not appreciate that. Standing orders always leave me breathless and confused.
Let us go to this question of deficit and debt for the benefit of the member for Braitling. I am more than pleased if she would take the opportunity for a relatively high-level briefing from Treasury on this matter.
What we described as the black hole in August 2001 was the subsequent deficit revealed to a new government by the then Under Treasurer within six weeks of the budget passing through this Assembly with a given bottom line that would be a $12m deficit; that is, the government, over the financial year 2001-02, would spend $12m more than it took in revenue. That was the starting point for that budget.
After the election, one of our first meetings was with the Under Treasurer. He said: ‘Chief Minister and ministers, I have to inform you the budget is in an unsustainable position’. ‘Well, how can that be?’, we said, ‘We have only just passed it with a $12m deficit; we are only just weeks into the financial year’. He said: ‘That is not the true state of the books and it needs a thorough going over to establish what the true level of debt may come to through the financial year’.
That is when Professor Percy Allan, in the black suit, was brought in and worked very closely with Treasury, and best bottom line was established at a deficit likely to be between $126m and $139m, as opposed to the $12m that this Assembly and the people of the Northern Territory were led to believe. That was the black hole. The difference between the minus $12m that the CLP said they would achieve, and the potentially worse case scenario of minus $139m.
We subsequently had the November mini-budget in 2001, changed the agency structures, drew lines around expenditure and the rest, and we achieved a negative deficit of $83m, a significant improvement on the position that we had been left with.
So do not let us get confused about nett debt, which has always been high, a big pile of debt that had been built up over many, many years by former governments, and the black hole deficit. The deficit is what occurs in one year. Deficit or surplus occurs in one year as an outcome. Nett debt is what the Territory owes after you take all of its assets into account, the cash it is holding, what it would have to pay out tomorrow if it was to be absolutely square.
That figure jumped in the first two years of this government. Why? Because there was a $150m payment to the railway still not made when we came to government. Any cash in this new government? No, because we were headed for a $139m deficit, worse case. Where was the $150m payment for the railway going to come from? Hello! The banks; borrowing. What does that do to nett debt? Hello! It increases it by $150m. You say it has gone up alarmingly. There was $150m that had to be paid, had to be found, had to be borrowed and went onto nett debt.
We have had surpluses in terms of outcomes. In a cash sense, we have had more money at the end of the financial year after 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, than we spent. So that has arrested nett debt because we have not had to go out and borrow more money. We have actually had more money left at the end of the financial year - modest amounts, I admit, but better than over spending the books.
In terms of the borrowings in any financial year, and why the daily interest rate, which we used to refer to as around $0.5m a day. I think it is well down below perhaps $470 000 a day or somewhere in that order. Why is that reducing when nett debt remains fairly large? It is because many long-term loans that were taken out by previous government to fund the debt were at very high interest rates. They were long-term, fixed, high interest rate loans that continued to accrue that high interest even though, over the years, interest rates have fallen to quite historically low levels. The way the loans were structured meant that if it was 14% or 15% at the time, that is what government continued to have to pay.
At a given point in time, those loans, a 14- or 15-year loan, or a 10-year loan or whatever it was, finish. Then that has to be refinanced and it is refinanced, of course, at 5.8%, 5.9%, so it is a huge bottom line improvement to government. Even though nett debt may increase and will increase marginally over the next couple of years, the interest rate and the daily interest rate that government pays on its overall nett debt will, in fact, be less because it is financed at much more attractive interest rates. This financial year, we will see the last of those high rate loans, accrued over many years past, wash through the system.
At some point in the future, we will go again through a period of high interest rates and it will be the reverse effect. Our very attractive low interest rate loans will expire, and we will be forced into the market at 8%, 9% 10%. Hopefully, that does not come too soon, but that is the natural cycle of events and probably one day we will be back there again.
In looking at nett debt as a figure - that is what government would owe if it took all of its cash available and everything it had and plonked it there, what it would owe at the end - in June 2002, it stood at about $1753m or $1.753bn. We increase marginally over the next couple of years with the waterfront, but we come back to a balanced budget in 2008-09, and in June 2009, we estimate we will owe $1754m, a nett worsening of $1m only over those four years.
I accept what you said, that nett debt jumped; it jumped very early but because of $150m for the railway - no other reason – which had to be found. There was no cash in the budget. There was a ballooning deficit that had to be covered as well and that $150m had to go on borrowings then and there. Otherwise there would have been a failure to meet contractual obligations around the railway.
However, I encourage you and the opposition spokesperson individually or together, whichever would be your preference, to go through some of these issues with Treasury. They have good people who are not Treasury-speak people. They can get me to understand most things - not everything, but most things, and if they can get me across these sorts of issues, I have no doubt that they would get you across them as well.
Mrs Braham: That is probably a clearer explanation today …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Braham: … than we have heard throughout estimates.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr STIRLING: It is what I tried to take people through on Monday morning when these issues were being fired across the table, but of course the heightened atmosphere of estimates and all of that and cut off with further questions perhaps makes it - and I have had a practice now because I tried to explain it Monday and I have probably done a better job this afternoon. Thank you for your comment there.
If any member of this Assembly, should they want a greater understanding or have questions about Treasury matters and how budgets fit together and what this page means, please speak to my office and we will arrange that. Treasury are only too pleased to - and I do not want to sound patronising - educate so that people have a much fuller and greater understanding because it is in their interests.
The Auditor-General would only be too pleased. He, as well, has an interest in seeing everyone know and understand as much as they desire in matters fiscal and budgetary.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the points you were making. There are other issues in there that you are putting on the table, but we will write to you and offer you a briefing and I would be pleased if you accept it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Are we talking about the Pay-Roll Tax Amendment Bill?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, the cognate bills, member for Blain.
Mr Stirling: They are all together.
Mr MILLS: Yes, the whole package. I understand; my apologies for not being on the ball right at that moment. The opposition will, of course, permit unhindered passage of this bill because we believe that the payroll tax relief is sorely needed by industry. We have argued to that end consistently in the last term of government.
Of course, it goes without saying that there are different approaches to dealing with the economy and how our public funds are administered. A CLP government would have done it differently, but we are not in government; we can only raise the argument. Government has the right to deal with these matters in a way that they choose. We would have directed the GST payments in a much earlier phase to provide effective and more aggressive relief by way of payroll tax and stamp duty earlier on to allow industry to grow at a time when they were really struggling, particularly payroll tax because providing payroll tax relief earlier would have provided the incentive for small business to retain workers who are skilled. We saw, as a result of not passing on this GST benefit earlier on and showing that national leadership, that we have lost a skills base. It is now going to be a very expensive proposition to repair and to fill that vacuum.
That is an argument that has been had. From opposition, we endeavoured to mount that. The last election has, once again, allowed this government to continue on the path that they have determined. We will endeavour to provide robust debate on these matters. These bills have the support of opposition.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in reply closing debate, I thank the member for Blain for his generally supportive comments, notwithstanding he thinks perhaps that some of these things could have been done earlier.
These are very dramatic changes that we have made to payroll tax. It was a matter at the time of taking a deep breath and saying: ‘Let us think big and use big numbers, and we are not going to change the threshold from $600 000 to $650 000. We are going to go - bang! - $800000, a $200 000 jump in one hit’. We took another deep breath and said: ‘In the next year, let us take it from $800 000 to $1m, not $850000 or $880 000 but massive leaps in the threshold to get the result we want’. From next year, $1.25m, by which time if further changes were to be made, they ought to be around the rate rather than the threshold.
No one likes payroll tax; that is no secret. No Treasury and no government in the country likes payroll tax; it is a tax on jobs. For Labor governments particularly, which want to see more jobs and creation of more employment, payroll tax is one of those elements stuck in the system that you simply cannot wash out of the system straight away, but you can make moves to, as far as you can, rein it in and minimise it.
There is an interesting process being put together by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in relation to payroll tax. They are putting a proposal to the federal government, given the massive surpluses that the federal government is racking up, really behind everyone’s back while they point at the GST in the states and territories, that the federal government ought buy out the payroll tax accrued by the states and territories, even if it was to do it over a period of time. The federal government came out coyly and said: ‘We could have a $5bn surplus’. It quickly becomes $8bn, and three of four days later it is likely to be $10bn or $11bn. By the time we get the finals, I would be surprised if it is not $15bn or $16bn, and therein lies the ability to get rid of this tax through the system.
Can it be managed? I suspect it could, with goodwill on the part of the federal government, and a willingness to use those massive surpluses to get rid of what is not a very popular or welcome tax in any jurisdiction, but one that remains a critical part of our revenue base. I certainly wish the Australian Chamber of Commerce well in that approach.
There is similar thinking around the stamp duty; I think it was $85 000 when we first came in as a threshold for first home owners. We have pushed it to $125 000, then to $200 000, and, as an election commitment, pushed it to $225 000, which is welcome to all first home owners and gives them breathing space. The principal place of residence rebate has gone from $1500 to $2500. That was welcomed, and with as soon as possible commencement dates, I think we set 1 July and 3 May, some of those changes, and 20 June were the effect of the others, so that the market was not distorted in any way by people withholding or changing their mind or trying to defer or delay their purchase. In a sense, these bills are retrospective from, in the first place 3 May, 20 June and, of course, 1 July.
I thank the opposition for their support. A number of other taxes go; a couple of those are part of the intergovernmental agreement. We still have not heard back from the federal government in relation to that. I believe he remains preoccupied with the response from Western Australia and New South Wales at this stage, but we would expect to hear in the near future that our proposal has been accepted. He may come back and say: ‘We want some slight change around this’. Generally, we think our proposal is in there with a positive stamp from the federal Treasurer, but we wait to be fully informed.
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support, and urge acceptance by all members.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Rae Elizabeth Flanagan, a gracious and courageous woman who died on 12 June after a long battle with cancer. In doing so, I shall draw on some of Rae’s own words and the reflections of her many friends.
Rae was born the second of four children in a working class, Australian-Irish Catholic family in Colac in Victoria. Her parents were Denis and Brenda Flanagan. Not long after Rae’s sixth birthday, the family moved to Geelong. Rae said it was like a breath of fresh air to be in a city by the sea, rather than in the greyness of the Western District.
Rae began her schooling at Sacred Heart College, and remained there until she was 18. Despite the conservatism of provincial Victoria in the 1950s and 1960s, Rae’s school days were uniformly happy. Reflecting on these days, she said:
After school, Rae commenced at teachers college and graduated in 1969. She gave up teaching for a while, lived in Melbourne for a couple of years, and then went on a 72-day bus trip from Kathmandu to London. It was all very 1970s with flared jeans, ribbed polo necks and platform shoes. She married in London and did the European jaunt, including a visit to her Irish relations still living in the thatched cottage in Tipperary from which her great-grandfather and his brothers emigrated.
Many years later, Rae took her sons, Kieran and Lachlan, to visit so they would know their roots and some of their culture. This decision was probably influenced by her work with Aboriginal people both in Darwin and out bush. She always believed if you knew you were coming from, you might have a better chance of knowing where you want to go.
Rae came to Darwin with her husband, Graeme, in 1978. Like many others, she thought it was for a couple of years, but when George Brown, Graeme’s new boss, met them at the airport, he shook Rae’s hand and said: ‘Welcome home’. His words proved prophetic because Rae came to love living in Darwin and thought of it as home.
Rae had many gifts that she shared with all she knew. She had a gift for making and maintaining strong and lasting friendships. She was a wonderful musician, playing recorder, piano and, later, viola, which she mastered in order to become a member of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra.
With Lorraine Connell and Andrea Britten, she started a recorder group, originally called The Terrible Territory Tootlers, but later to become the Abellare Consort. They played at numerous functions and soirees, and later Rae helped establish the Recorder Guild.
In her early days in Darwin, Rae helped start a netball team with other young teachers. The times on and off the court helped cement lasting friendships. She played hockey in the early days, and was also an enthusiastic founding member of the Aralia Street Tennis Club, and she proudly supported Lachlan and Kieran when they became involved in hockey.
Rae had a well-developed social conscience. Her work at Charles Darwin University - before that, NTU, as it was - only served to further heighten Rae’s social justice sensibilities. At FATSIS, she immersed herself in the action, including a period as Associate Dean and teaching at all levels. Rae enrolled in Yolngu studies and developed basic conversation and command of a complex kinship system with all its names and responsibilities. She also organised highly successful Yolngu pandanus weaving workshops for interested Darwin women.
Rae loved the bush. Her work with Aboriginal rangers and their families at Maningrida was very dear to her. She visited Maningrida regularly for about five years. People there still tell the story of the broken down four-wheel drive in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere.
Rae is remembered at the university as an amazing teacher, a master of improvisation, who could bring together training in literacy and numeracy and make both of them relevant and meaningful to students.
Rae was a long-standing member of the Australian Labor Party, committed to its fundamental principle: equality of opportunity. I am sure all honourable members will join me in expressing our condolences to Rae’s sons, Kieran and Lachlan, and her many, many friends and loved ones.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before you go on, I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a delegation from the Tibetan Autonomous Region Department of Education, which is visiting Darwin. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, this week we also saw the passing of a terrific Territorian, who I am sure will be familiar to everyone who has visited Pine Creek. I refer of course to Alistair Quest, who died in Royal Darwin Hospital on 30 June, at the age of 67.
I am grateful to Elaine Gano and Elizabeth Close, his friends from the National Trust, for information about Alistair’s life. Originally from New Zealand, Alistair spent a number of years in the army, serving in New Guinea. He was always the ex-military man and frequently referred to his time in service. He lived in the Territory for many years, working on his beloved railways but also the Mt Wells Battery before settling in Pine Creek. In 1995, he started as a volunteer caretaker at the Pine Creek Railway Station, a National Trust of Australia property where he entertained all visitors with his tall tales. Alistair is probably most famous for his dog-spike whistles, which he made and sold or gave away.
I understand that one of his whistles was given to every passenger on the inaugural Adelaide to Darwin Ghan trip in 2004, and I proudly still have that whistle. He loved railways and trains and was a fixture at the station, always ready to chat with visitors. He communicated with the world outside Pine Creek by fax machine, an item of technology that he loved. He remained at the station despite failing health until two weeks before his death.
Our condolences go to his family and friends. We are all the poorer for the passing of this original and entertaining Territory character. On behalf of us all, and I know that the member for Daly probably has a few words to say about Alistair Quest, but on behalf of us all: farewell, Questie.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: This week, Madam Speaker, we were saddened to hear of the passing of Mr W Rabuntja Pengarte, AM, a man known and respected by all Territorians. To tell you the truth, it is hard to believe that he has gone. When you look at the town of Alice Springs, or as he would have had me say, Mparntwe, embedded within the sacred landscape, ancient red gums in the river and the backdrop of the MacDonnell Ranges, I will always think of this old man, and my thoughts are with his family now.
Mr Rabuntja was born at Burt Creek, north of Alice Springs, in about 1923. His life spans the development of the town of Alice. He grew up at the Telegraph Station in a humpy made against a big red gum along the Todd River. As a small child, he recalls sneaking into The Bungalow kitchen like a kadaicha man to get potato peelings to cook on the coals, and playing cowboys and Indians with Bernie Kilgariff in the river bed. He remembers the ceremonies where the casino now stands and later lived at a soak near the present Coles complex.
He worked as a brick maker, drover, butcher and cook. In all respects, he was the quintessential outback Australian man: a man who could and did turn his hand to anything, whose ability to celebrate his spirituality and connection to the land through political and creative contribution was unparalleled.
Mr Rabuntja served as deputy chair of the interim Central Land Council in 1975, chair from 1976 to 1980, and 1985 to 1988; foundation member of the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, 1979 to 1989, including three years as chair from 1983 to 1985; foundation member of the Conservation Commission, 1980 to 1986, and reappointed 1991 to 1995; foundation member of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, 1989 to 1999; appointed to the National Reconciliation Council in 1991 and reappointed in 1995; and served on the Boards of the Tangentyere Council and the Yipirinya School.
Mr Rubuntja’s central leadership role on three pivotal organisations, the CLC, the Sacred Sites Authority and the Conservation Commission, changed the way indigenous cultural traditions are recognised and valued by the wider community.
Mr Rubuntja was an artist of international reputation. Both Queen Elizabeth II and the late Pope John Paul II held his paintings in their collections. Mr Rubuntja’s extraordinary life was documented through the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, and in 2002, I was privileged to join him in launching this wonderful biography, The Town Grew Up Dancing.
Mr Rubuntja was known by statesmen and elders all over Australia, and his contribution to policy is acknowledged by Prime Minsters Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, not to mention the numerous people of Alice Springs he mentored and brought up. He was a father to many.
I heard a story about him in the week before he died. Apparently he got up, grabbed the blanket from his wife, Cynthia, who was keeping him company in a chair beside him in the hospital, and said: ‘I am going out bush. Call up the sacred sites mob. They are taking me out bush’.
From this parliament, farewell, Old Man. You will be greatly missed by all of us. Our deepest sympathy to Cynthia and the family on the loss of this great man.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on recycling, something I was unable to do in the Estimates Committee over the last few days.
Members may be aware that there was a meeting of Environment ministers in Perth last Friday and, for obvious reasons, the Northern Territory minister was not able to attend. State and federal ministers made an historic agreement on new recycling targets for Australia. They agreed to incorporate an overall packaging recycling target of 65% into the National Packaging Covenant to be achieved by 2010. They also agreed to set separate recycling targets for paper, steel, aluminium, glass and plastic, with a safety net if the industry does not deliver.
A definite 65% target shows the ministers were prepared to resist industry attempts to weaken the agreement by making these targets only aspirational. At the moment, recycling is achieved at a rate of about 35%.
Unfortunately, our minister was not there, as I said, for obvious reasons, so we are not sure whether the Territory will become a signatory to this agreement or not. That will be very important over the next few weeks when Cabinet discusses this issue. At the moment, any target would only be aspirational in the Northern Territory because we really do not know how much is being recycled. We have no idea of what is happening out there. All we know is that there is a huge amount being dumped in landfill and I mentioned earlier the 6000 cans that were returned at the Alice Springs Show and went to a private recycler who will return them to Adelaide.
Normally, in the clean-up after a show, all that would be dumped in the landfill at the Alice Springs dump. That is what is happening all the way along. It will happen in Tennant Creek tomorrow. All the junk will be thrown into the Tennant Creek dump. This is why it would have been a great initiative if the minister had said we will do this all the way along for all the shows, for every major event. What an enormous amount of recycling we would do, even if you just did aluminium cans and did not concentrate on anything else.
When the minister announced the grants, there were a large number of grants to people in communities who, obviously, are of the view that we need to start recycling. I mentioned earlier Nyirripi, Maningrida, Titjakala, Palmerston, Daly Waters, Roper River can recyclers, and so on. All these communities have this desire to start recycling. It is good that they are being assisted by the minister by having these grants given to them, but it is only piecemeal and it is only in certain pockets throughout the Territory. What we really need to do is to make a Territory push so that we will all be involved in this recycling.
At the moment, we only have one firm that recycles in Alice Springs. They receive very little encouragement or incentive from government or from the Alice Springs Town Council, which is a real disappointment. The Alice Springs Town Council has no recycling policy as far as I can determine. They have what they call The Bowerbird Shop at the dump, but the recycling firm has bins where people can go and dispose of their cans. Unfortunately, people abuse it, as I see in the units where I stay. They throw their household waste in these bins as well as the cans, and when the firm has to separate them and then take the rubbish that has been dumped with the cans, they are charged by the town council for the rubbish they dump. You would think there would be some sort of incentive from the council saying: ‘If you are recycling and collecting these cans from people, we will at least not charge for the rubbish that is collected with them’, but there is no incentive for this firm from the council.
Instead of the government giving away $0.5m in different litter grants throughout the year, why don’t they start thinking about the bigger picture? Get out of the box, think wider than that and start saying: ‘How can we encourage this and how can we have a coordinated approach?’ At the moment, apparently to return the cans, steel and whatever is recycled, is not too expensive to do on the railway. I am sure government could negotiate either with the empty transport vehicles that go back to South Australia or with the railway for a better deal for people and communities.
The federal minister, Senator Ian Campbell, was glowing in his praise of the agreement reached in Perth. He said that the new target was challenging but realistic, and to have the federal government behind this measure will be encouragement and incentive for the Northern Territory government to be part of it. I look forward to seeing whether our minister will take it up.
One of the interesting projects to receive a grant was ‘Collect a can; Scouts can’. The Scouts of the Northern Territory are getting together at Palmerston to have collection bags so that they can collect cans. If the Scouts throughout the Territory, or the Guides or any service club, said to people in our regional towns: ‘Once a month, we will come around and collect your cans; leave them out the front for us’, I am quite sure people would do that. However, at the moment, most of us throw our cans in with the rest of our household rubbish and they go to the dump.
Recycling has benefits. It creates employment, it saves our natural resources and, let us face it, we cannot continue to use our resources without thinking about recycling. We know the value of recycling paper and how easy it is to recycle aluminium cans, so we should, as a nation, get behind this. The Territory could be leaders in this area. South Australia has shown that they recycle 85% of their packaging and containers, which is a huge amount. They have shown how successful it can be. It even goes up to the smaller communities in the north of South Australia where they have the ability to exchange their cans for cash, which is very important. The member for Nelson and I seem to harp on this, but it is such a simple thing.
During the election campaign, many people approached me and said: ‘Yes, we agree that we should be doing something about it’. I wonder why we cannot get government to think big and implement this scheme right across the Northern Territory; put their money into helping people establish collection agencies, create employment for people, create some money for the people who collect the cans; do something we know will reduce the impact on landfill and the rubbish on our highways. You only have to look at some of the Letters to the Editor in the paper to see how shocked people are who visit the Territory and see the litter that we unfortunately tend to take for granted. We become desensitised to it.
When the new minister for Environment is announced, I hope they will come to Alice Springs. I will take them to our only recycling business so that they can discuss how we could make it better and think about how they can work cooperatively with local government. If they do not want to do it themselves, perhaps they can do it with community and local governments so it becomes a Territory-wide venture.
Last term, I sponsored a bill for container deposit legislation. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was not supported by either the opposition or government. It was one of those unique occasions in this House where the member for Nelson and I stood on one side of the House and 23 members stood on the other. I guess there has never been such resounding defeat. However, I hope that new members may have sympathetic views on what we want to do so that we can change that decision. I will be reintroducing CDL legislation. We will go through it again, refine it and make sure it conforms with Commonwealth guidelines. I will be more than happy to offer the new members a briefing on how it should work so we can have more support in the House for it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight for the first time in the Tenth Assembly of this parliament to, first, thank the people of Nightcliff for placing their trust in me for a second term. It is a true honour to be able to serve the residents of Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Sunset Cove in this way, and I look forward to continuing to meet with residents, whether they be in their homes, at shopping centres, along the beautiful Nightcliff foreshore, the Nightcliff Markets, or in my office in Pavonia Way.
In the last term of government, I developed a motto for the electorate of Nightcliff: ‘The place where all the women are gorgeous, all the men are handsome, and all the children are above average’. I might add, honourable members, that even those who simply wander into the beautiful electorate of Nightcliff take on this mantle for the period they visit.
Fighting an election is, as we all know, a tough business and requires a lot of support and hard work by many people. I extend my regards to my major opponents, Mr Anthony Reiter of the CLP and Ms Ilana Eldridge of the Greens, for a clean and decent campaign. For all people who seek public office, it is a major commitment for the individual and their families and supporters, and I would like to extend my best wishes to Anthony and Ilana for their futures.
Throughout my last term as the member for Nightcliff, I was blessed by the tremendous support of a large group of volunteers and supporters who assisted me over the four years in many ways. As honourable members may be aware, each week I have a mobile electorate office at the Nightcliff foreshore, Nightcliff Woolworths, and I open my office on a Sunday during Nightcliff Markets. In order to do this, I call on volunteers to assist me. This is a huge level of support over a four-year period. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Bob Corry, Bill McMahon, Jack Myer-Shearer, Bill Tutty, Jodi Tutty, Denise Walsh, Betty Woods, Helen Campbell, Sally Gearin, Carole Rollason and Chris Draffin in particular, as well as my long-suffering electorate officer, Warren Martin and his family. Warren is taking a well-deserved break at the moment, and I hope he returns to the job rested and well in the next couple of weeks.
In relation to the election itself, I would like to thank, once again, the people of Nightcliff for their generosity of spirit when I visit them in their homes. I am a member who really enjoys the doorknocking experience. I am always grateful for the warm reception that I receive when I am visiting people in their homes, and I remain humbled by the gracious way in which residents share their lives, trials, tribulations and joys with me. It makes the job of being the member very worthwhile, and constantly reminds me that our job is to serve the people in our electorates. I commit that in this term I will continue to visit people and look forward to listening to the many stories of people in the electorate.
Of course, it would be remiss not to mention some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of my electorate. In my maiden speech in 2001, I remarked on the fact that some constituents come to the door in the nude. Let me assure honourable members that this aspect of doorknocking has continued in the electorate of Nightcliff, a place where lifestyle is clearly important.
I would like to express my thanks to my campaign team, especially to my campaign manager, my former electorate officer, Mr Chris Draffin, Miss Carole Rollason, Ms Sally Gearin, Ms Helen Campbell and my electorate officer, Mr Warren Martin. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Alf Leonardi, who provided me with reassurance and stern words whenever they were needed, and thank him for his continuing support and warm friendship of more than 20 years. You are a very special person, Alf; thank you.
Of course, a campaign such as this requires considerable talent and effort by a central team and I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations, first, to the Chief Minister. It is a big ask of any member to seek re-election, to seek the re-election of a government is a massive task and a huge personal commitment for an individual and their family. I thank the Chief Minister for her commitment to government members and for her hard work for the Australian Labor Party, but especially her commitment to the people of the Northern Territory and their future.
I extend my thanks to the government Chief of Staff, Ms Adele Young. Adele is feared by many, but I think she is just a teddy bear. Thank you, Adele. Your hard work and commitment to the Australian Labor Party and your efforts on behalf of all members is greatly appreciated. I thank the very calm Michael Gunner and Ryan Neve for their hard work for candidates and their special way of dealing with the many difficult requests.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to mention the many people who helped throughout the campaign itself, and I will seek leave shortly to incorporate a list in alphabetical order of people who assisted me. This list is not prioritised, and I express my real gratitude to these people. A candidate simply cannot win unless they have the support of many people. I am very grateful for the support of so many people and I thank them sincerely.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in the Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, I express my thanks to honourable members for the trust you have placed in me to serve as your Speaker. This is a significant honour and I commit to work as impartially and fairly as I can during the Tenth Assembly. I thank the Chief Minister for proposing me and, particularly, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the gracious way in which she seconded the proposal. I agree with her that this is probably unprecedented in Australian politics. I thank especially the members of the opposition for this as well.
I also like to express my thanks, and I am sure that of all members, to the member for Braitling for her time as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I thank her for the gracious remarks she made in her Address-in-Reply to the Administrator’s Address, and look forward to following in her footsteps and maintaining order and decorum in the House. Thank you, member for Braitling.
It would also be remiss of me not to place on the record my thanks to the Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and staff of the Assembly for all their help over the past week. I look forward to working with you during the Tenth Assembly of this parliament.
Finally, I want to place on record my thanks and love to my husband, Simon, and children, Alex, Michael and Zoe for their ongoing love and support.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I inform the Assembly of the festivities in Palmerston during NAIDOC Week, and congratulate the Palmerston City Council for its support of NAIDOC Week.
Before going to those celebrations, I would like to say that my wife and I attended the Palmerston Markets on 1 July and thought the fireworks display for Territory Day most enjoyable. On Sunday, 3 July, I attended the Family and Community Day at Marlows Lagoon, which was part of the NAIDOC celebrations and the event was well attended. Congratulations must go to the organisers of this event and those who volunteered their time to make this event such a success. Organisations such as Danila Dilba and Lions Club also lent their support.
Jack Ah Kit, a former minister in this government and the first Aboriginal person to be a minister in the Northern Territory, is Patron of Palmerston NAIDOC Week. He was at the family day and he, Chris Natt, the member for Drysdale, and I were privileged to hand out a number of awards.
Christopher Puruntatamerireceived an award for Outstanding Achievement in Education. Christopher is 13 years old and attends Bakewell Primary School. He is a high academic achiever and is always willing to help others. He is House Sports Captain and a member of the Student Leadership Council. He manages a paper run and is reported as an excellent role model for all students.
Jake Barlow, who is 12 years old, received an Outstanding Contribution award for his contribution to the sport of Rugby Union. He not only plays for the Palmerston Crocs, but referees juniors and is a Touch Judge for the seniors. He is the youngest referee in the game at this time.
Richard Tambling received an award for his Outstanding Achievement in the sport of Australian Rules football. He played for Southern Districts Football Club prior to his recruitment to Richmond Football Club. Rated one of the most talented players on offer in the 2004 National Draft, he was the Harrison Medallist in 2004 as the Best Player in the National Under 16 and Under 18 Championships and earned an All-Australian Under 18 selection – a fantastic role model, and already playing like the champion we know he is.
Bruce Dharmarrandgji received an award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. Originally from Elcho Island, he has been a positive influence and is a great mentor for local youth.
Sally Wotha received an Outstanding Contribution award for her contribution to the community. Also originally from Elcho Island, she has been working to improve the lives of young people in the Palmerston area.
Phillip Goodman received an award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. He has spent most of his life around the Humpty Doo area, and currently works tirelessly to develop initiatives and address issues for the Palmerston Indigenous Village. He mentors and motivates other members of the community and has shown great leadership.
Jindulu Garawirrtja received his award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. Born in Galiwinku, he lives at Knuckey Lagoon and often goes back to country often to fulfil cultural obligations for ceremony, and shares knowledge of culture with young people through his art. He is a well respected man and a good leader, keeping culture and family strong in his community.
Billy David received an award for Outstanding Service to the Community. Originally from Cairns, he has lived in Darwin for the last eight years and worked in Palmerston for the last four years as an Aboriginal Community Policing Officer. His nomination came from young people who made the following comments about him:
And finally:
Peter Detourbet was recognised for Outstanding Contribution to Palmerston Youth. Peter has devoted much of his time working with young people in Palmerston through his church youth group and, more recently, working at the Palmerston YMCA. He has a positive influence on young people is a fantastic role model who, through his own life experience, has proven that no matter what barriers you face, there is always hope for the future. He is also the Palmerston Australia Day Young Person of the Year. I understand from others that he is also a fantastic break dancer.
The FAST Program received an award for its Outstanding Contribution to Families and the Community. It is the first time a program has been nominated. It is a school-based program introduced at Moulden School early last year. The program works together with the school, parents and other agencies to improve self-esteem, develop skills and strengthen families. It has achieved fantastic results within the local community. Its success is the direct result of the commitment of everyone who works within the program including the school, the workers and families. Congratulations to all involved in the FAST Program.
Dottie Daby received an acknowledgement for her outstanding contribution to the community and is the Palmerston Australia Day Person of the Year. Delsey Tamiano was acknowledged for outstanding contribution to the community.
There were also some special appreciation awards. Joan Mullins received her award for Outstanding Contribution and Commitment to the Community through her work Yilli Rreung, ATSIC Regional Council and as founding member and inaugural chair of Palmerston NAIDOC Week, only stepping down this year to pursue other interests.
This government’s very own John Ah Kit received an award for his Outstanding Contribution and Commitment to the Territory Community. Jack’s contribution was summed up by former Senator Aden Ridgeway:
I think the number of Aboriginal members of this Assembly is part of Jack’s legacy, shared with other Aboriginal leaders who have been members of previous Assemblies or who have made their contribution in other places.
On Monday, which incidentally is Independence Day for the United States of America, NAIDOC celebrations in Palmerston included a number of Labor MLAs attending the flag raising ceremony at Palmerston City Council chambers. I was honoured to raise the Australian flag with the Mayor of Palmerston. It was good to see it flying alongside the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag. When I look at each of the flags, I am reminded of the struggles and sacrifices made by many people under each of them. Flags are important symbols. To see the three flags flying together in unison says something about the strength of our multicultural society and respect for our indigenous people. I feel that the Territory leads the way in terms of multiculturalism.
I attended a lunch at the Terrace Gardens Aged Care facility. The centre caters for those who have become frail with age and those with other health problems, such as dementia. I put on the record my admiration for the staff at Terrace Gardens and all those who work in providing care to our elderly citizens. It is a hard a job but also, I understand from carers, very rewarding. It is fair to say that the role of aged care is undervalued. Maybe this is accentuated by the Territory’s young population, but it is something that is common throughout our country and a number of others. We are prone to forget that we are where we are because of those who went before us.
Our older citizens have a wealth of experiences and knowledge that we all should treasure. Much of it will not make it into books or other forms of media, but it is our collective oral history. It seems to me that our modern society could better follow the example of our indigenous peoples’ respect for the protection of oral histories.
I would like to say well done to Alice Sotheren for organising the lunch. Part of the Palmerston NAIDOC celebrations were hair braiding and hairdressing workshops held by Narelle and her staff at Friends Hairdressing Salon in the Gray shops. It is very generous of Narelle and her staff to make the salon available in this way. When I visited the salon, it was quite literally packed with young people learning about washing hair, braiding and the use of various hair products. I was particularly impressed that there were as many as young men in attendance as young women.
I take this opportunity to apologise to Dottie Daby, who organised the Palmerston senior residents’ luncheon today as part of NAIDOC celebrations. I had intended to go to that lunch, but unfortunately other matters meant that I had to miss the event. I am sure it was a success and that the staff of The Hub looked after those who were able to attend.
Events of the Palmerston NAIDOC week continue, and anyone interested can find a copy of the program on my electorate office’s shop front or, alternatively, I am happy to e-mail the program to any interested members.
Palmerston City Council is currently hosting a delegation from its sister city, Kupang. I wish the visit every success. I believe connections between cultures at a community and local government level are very valuable. I am biased in this because of my involvement with Darwin City Council’s own program in years gone by. I indicated to the Mayor and officers of council my desire to be involved in functions and other events to assist promoting Palmerston’s sister city link.
Last week, I went to the Alice Springs Show. It is important to attend local community events outside my own electorate because, as a member of this Assembly, I believe I have a general commitment to all Territorians, not just those in my electorate of Brennan. The various shows are important community events and an opportunity to discover regional issues through discussions with people. I am attending the other shows, and look forward to meeting people and listening to their views.
I have listened to other members of this Assembly discuss the Estimates Committee process. I simply want to say that, as a new member, I found the process extremely useful. I have gained insights into the operation of government that I did not have previously. I look forward to contributing to improving life in the Northern Territory as much as I can in my capacity as member for Brennan.
This is the end of my first sittings as a member of the Legislative Assembly, and I thank the staff of the Assembly for their assistance, patience and perseverance.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of this country.
I also congratulate you on your new role as Speaker. I know that you will discharge your duties in a very fair and impartial manner, and I wish you all the very best.
Last week, I was very honoured and privileged to listen to the maiden speeches of our seven new members of parliament. Each spoke with compassion, commitment and conviction. I know that they will serve their respective electorates and the Northern Territory well. To Rob Knight, the member for Daly, Ted Warren, the member for Goyder, Alison Anderson, the member for Macdonnell, James Burke, who has just spoken, the member for Brennan, Barbara McCarthy, the member for Arnhem, Chris Natt, the member for Drysdale, and Kerry Sacilotto, the member for Port Darwin, congratulations to you all. Madam Speaker, I think you will agree that we are truly blessed with some fine new talent in this House.
I also congratulate other members who were re-elected. It is lovely to see people back here unscathed. I congratulate you all.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my good friend, my brother, Jack Ah Kit, the former member for Arnhem. We had some wonderful times in this House and, indeed, outside the House. There was never a dull moment, and Jack was always on hand to give advice on a whole range of issues, particularly when I first came into this House, as he did for all the other members. To you, Jack, and, of course, to your good wife, Gail, to Jonathon, Ngaree and Bardi, we wish you all the very best. Take care, my brother.
I pay tribute to the members opposite: to Jodeen Carney, congratulations on your election as Leader of the Opposition; Fay Miller, Deputy Leader; Terry Mills; and Dr Richard Lim. Equally, my congratulations to Loraine Braham, the member for Braitling, and to Gerry Wood, the member for Nelson.
Quite often, this place is described as a bear pit; a place where we can debate our differences in a very robust way and, at the same time, respect our differences. I acknowledge Sue Carter, Denis Burke, Steve Dunham and Tim Baldwin for their contributions to this place and to the Northern Territory.
Importantly, I would like to thank the people of the Barkly for their kind support and trust. I hope that I will continue to repay their faith in me and the Martin Labor government in a very fair, equitable and committed manner. You often hear me speak in this House about the Barkly. It is a very special, wonderful place. It is made up of people who are straight, honest, self-reliant, creative, innovative, hard working and very industrious. They possess a quiet determination to get things done. In saying that, I acknowledge that there is much more to be done in regards to the Barkly and, indeed, a lot of the other bush communities.
The Barkly electorate is now our largest, some 381 000km2 incorporating places such as Alpurrurulam, which is new to the electorate, and of course Barrow Creek, Tara, Ali Curung, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Mungkarta, Tennant Creek, Mungalawurru, Elliott, Borroloola, Mungoorbarda, otherwise known as Robinson River, and a whole host of pastoral properties such as Brunette Downs, Alexandria, Kurundi, and numerous roadhouse such as Wauchope, Three Ways, Renner Springs and Dunmarra, amongst many others.
The Barkly has been a major wealth creator for the Northern Territory going back over a great many years and, obviously, beef production in the Barkly remains a high priority. I know that over the period of time, people in the Barkly, the pastoralists and a whole host of other people, continue to work very hard in growing that industry. The Barkly is the cattle capital of Australia, and I know that there is a lot more potential, particularly if we are in a position to ensure that indigenous people are part of that wealth and job creation.
Roads remain an important issue, not only in regards to the pastoral properties, but also to all the communities in the regions. It is imperative for us as a government to continue to work hard to improve our road network, quite apart from its economic potential, but also for those people who are visiting towns in Tennant Creek and other parts of the Northern Territory for footy, social and cultural purposes.
I have often spoken in this House about mining and I am pleased to advise that Bootu Creek is on track for producing 600 000 tonnes of manganese over the next few months, generating about 90 new jobs - a very timely response, given the fact that Giants Reef ceases production in September or October this year and about 40 jobs will go. I am encouraged by the fact that the Giants Reef management is talking to management at Bootu Creek about the placement of some of those people.
In mentioning Giants Reef, I want to thank them. Clearly, it would have been nice for them to remain in production for a lot longer, however, during their period in Tennant Creek, they were great supporters of the local community to the extent that they sponsored BAFL, the Barkly Australian Football League, to the tune of $60 000 over two years, probably one of the Northern Territory’s largest regional sponsorships. They also provided dollars to some of the small schools and particularly the one at Warrego. To Giants Reef, thank you very much.
I have already mentioned the pastoral industry. The mining industry also has a lot of scope for ensuring that employment opportunities exist for people in the regions and for indigenous people. I hope that we will put in place a framework to ensure that indigenous organisations, people and the land councils will be in a position to be able to enter into joint venture projects in the near future.
The tourism industry continues to grow in the Barkly, with the commissioning of Nyinkka Nyunyu which is a world-class indigenous cultural centre. It is fitting, Madam Speaker, that Alison Anderson, who is now the member for Macdonnell, opened that complex about two-and-a-half years ago.
The Battery Hill mining complex remains an important destination for tourism in the Barkly, and one of our new initiatives in respect of our commitments is the establishment of a Barkly Pastoral Interpretive Centre.
I have already spoken about pastoralism, and it has a long history and heritage in respect of the Barkly and throughout the Northern Territory. There is also a very strong link between the indigenous community and the pastoral industry, and the idea that we have in mind is to build a pastoral complex not dissimilar to that of Nyinkka Nyunyu, which will show case the pastoral industry’s contribution not only to the Barkly, but right across the Northern Territory. Obviously, we will need to consult with the NT Cattlemen’s Association, pastoralists, indigenous organisations and the Tennant Creek Town Council.
Other initiatives which will enhance the capacity of Tennant Creek is the $250 000 allocated to the Mary Ann Dam project and the $1m upgrade to Paterson Street. Already we have had several meetings in Tennant Creek regarding that project. We will be working very hard to ensure that all stakeholders are involved. More important is to ensure that the businesses are part of it because, as I have said to them, there is no point in doing up the main street if you do not have businesses onboard to enhance their existing businesses.
Borroloola and the Gulf remains a very important area in the Northern Territory. I really believe that Borroloola is the uncrowned jewel in regards to potential economic and social development throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in relation to the advent of the promotion of the Savanna Highway, which passes from Queensland through Borroloola into the Northern Territory and on to Western Australia. The construction of two new boat ramps out at Mule Creek and Rocky Creek will enable new opportunities to be developed in Borroloola. Also our commitment to upgrade the sewerage is a very important one for development. That amounts to $5m in stage one and a total of $15m over the duration of this term.
Also important is the allocation of $5m to a new school in Borroloola, something that is badly needed, and the $3.2m allocated to the McArthur River Bridge, and $1.8m for crossings to the Queensland border.
The other community that I would like to mention is Alpurrurulam. As I mentioned, it is a new community in my electorate. There are about 600 or 700 people there. They are really gutsy, strong, dedicated people. They have been out there battling for a long time. I know that they have a lot of potential in regards to providing a better lifestyle for not only themselves but the broader region and the allocation of $1.2m to upgrade the airstrip at Alpurrurulam will be of benefit to those people.
Alpurrurulam is an isolated community. As I said, the people are gutsy and courageous. They are always trying new initiatives or new ways of doing things. Two years ago, they were recipients of $330 000 of CDEP dollars. This financial year, they were in receipt of $69 000, which is a reduction of something like $260 000. You can only truly appreciate and understand what impact that has on a community when CDEP is the main base upon which you are able to fund their night patrol, their women’s programs and that sort of stuff. I want to give an assurance to the people that Alpurrurulam that I will work very hard to get that money back into the community.
I want to extend personal thanks to a lot of people who assisted me and the Australian Labor Party throughout the Barkly over the last 12 months, more so over the last three to four years. Very quickly, I want to thank Peter Callinan, Graham Dingwall, David Harvey, Carol and Dave Harris, Miriam Charlie, Thelma Douglas, Cathy Willets, Keith Rory, Malcolm Thompson, Albert Charlie, George Matthews and, of course, my grandfather, Kingsley, and Gloria Friday.
In the Alpurrurulam region, I would like to thank very much Kenny Philomac, Jennifer Mahoney, Maxie Ray and Tony Willy. I extend a very special thanks to Tony Willy because in a period of around seven days, we travelled 6000 kilometres and he was with me for that whole period. That meant driving at all hours of the night. So to Tony Willy, thank you very much for the hard work you put in.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude there and continue in a later adjournment.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, first, I support the condolence motion by the Chief Minister in regard to the late Mr Alistair Quest. It just so happened that I doorknocked Mr Quest a week before his death. He was truly a great character who contributed greatly to the Pine Creek community and he will be sadly missed.
My adjournment speech tonight is to acknowledge and congratulate Mr Eddie Ah Toy on being named Territorian of the Year.
Mr Ah Toy lives in my electorate in Pine Creek, and I am very proud that someone from my electorate was named Territorian of the Year. In receiving the award, Mr Ah Toy paid tribute to his father, Jimmy, and his mother, Lily. My wife’s family knew Jimmy and Lily, and they were fine people. In 1954 or 1955, Jimmy wrote to the then Native Affairs officer to stop my mother-in-law, who was then six or seven years old, from being forcibly removed from Pine Creek after her stepfather died. That was the law at the time.
Jimmy and Lily were extremely kind to all the people in the area, especially to the Aboriginal people, and they gave them jobs and great generosity. I believe these qualities and values have naturally flowed onto Eddie. Eddie quoted his father as saying that if you live in a place, you strive to make progress and bettering the life of that place. That is what Eddie has done in his 67 years living in Pine Creek. He gave his time, leadership, some of his own money, his equipment and his business confidence in dire times in Pine Creek to benefit the community.
To give an overview of Mr Ah Toy’s life and work, I quote from the reliable information gathered by the local council in their newsletter Up The Creek:
One last and undoubtedly unforgettable contribution to the community by Mr Ah Toy was in participation in The Full Monty nude calendar in 2000 to raise money for their New Year’s Eve party. You have to comment on a bloke who is prepared to get his gear off to help the community.
Finally, Mr Ah Toy is a fine and deserved winner of this award. I am proud that he comes from my electorate. Congratulations to Eddie Ah Toy.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand before this Assembly as the newly re-elected member for Sanderson, but also humbled by the enormous vote of confidence given to me by the electorate of Sanderson as reflected in the election results.
These results could not have been achieved without the constant faith and assistance of many wonderful people - not just throughout the election period, but throughout the four years of my first term.
Shortly after the election results were known, former Chief Minister Shane Stone was attributed with making the comment that you cannot fatten the pig on market day. He was talking about the significant change in status of the parties. I reflected on what Shane Stone said and I thought it could apply to us in that our result was not just because we ran a good campaign, and I will talk about that later. I believe our result was an endorsement by the community of the Northern Territory of the good leadership of the Chief Minister, the hard work of her ministers, and the equally hard work of the backbenchers and the committees. All MLAs worked hard over the years in their own electorates for their own communities.
I am truly in agreement with Shane Stone that you cannot fatten the pig on market day, and that our result is not just a blip from a good campaign or from the misadventures of the opposition, but rather because we have been serving the community. We will continue to proudly serve our communities. I, for one, certainly give that commitment to the people of Sanderson.
You cannot achieve a campaign win by yourself. There are many people who help you. I was very lucky in that I had a great team of supporters and friends around me. My campaign team comprised Didge McDonald, my campaign manager, Sandy Oldroyd, Marie Kirkwood, Mickey Dewar, Neil Spencer and Therla Fowlestone. I have the greatest admiration for the dedication they showed during the campaign because nothing was too much trouble for these people. We would meet regularly, and it was them acting as a think tank and their freely-flowing ideas that helped us to achieve our aim. This team, together with campaign volunteers, is the very reason we achieved the result we did in Sanderson.
I would also like to mention, as part of my central campaign team, the two outstanding contributions from people from interstate who volunteered to help. One was Cameron Crowther from Brisbane who recently returned from assisting in US campaigns. I guess you could describe him best as a political animal. He joined my team and that was fantastic. I also had my brother-in-law, Peter Keech who came up to assist in the last election. Peter has great expertise and knowledge when it comes to campaigns. He has been a campaign manager for his wife, Margaret Keech, whom he helped get across the line in Albert. I was pleased, as he was, that he was staying with us, living at home and really bringing fresh blood into the team and really helping with the mix. That helped us along a great deal.
I am also proud and grateful to my multicultural campaign volunteers, the vast majority of whom live in the electorate of Sanderson and are people I have known for years, or I have met through the job. There was Joe and Pacita Bonson, Martin Gentle, Steve Glennon, Jenny Russell, Rod McLaren, Terri Domingo, Fuk Sang Lay, Taek Fung Lay, Michael and Teng Murray, Tse Leong Lay, Cecily Willis, Doreen Walsh, Wendy White, Christine Long, Robyn Miller, Ian Smith, Jimmy Francis, Danny Coombes, Lee Treacy, John and Rachel Kroes, Heather Traeger, David Hardy, Tony Fowlestone, Liz Lohmeyer, Rob McFarlane, Felicity Creed, Marie Evans, Phil Cashmore, Barbara Bagley, Ian Gallacher, Denis Blackford, Cythia Bader, Trish Kurnoth, Judith Ventic, Ram Badlu and Di Stanford.
All these wonderful people responded immediately to a phone call request when the team needed assistance. I have been working with many of these people for the four years. Many of them are volunteers who help out in the office. As Madam Speaker and many of my colleagues would know, our newsletters are A3 in size and have to be folded and distributed. Many of these people would come in and sit around the table in the meeting room folding, talking and eating, bringing in their own food and sharing it with us. We used to have this great big cook-up and all sorts of different food around the table. I must admit, they were partial to a little Kentucky Fried Chicken every now and again as well.
Ms Scrymgour: Is that why the waist is widening?
Mr KIELY: Yes, yes. It is an enjoyable time in my office when that occurs. It is a fantastic thing when you have everyone sitting on the table and all the different languages are going. The spirit of the place is truly wonderful and it does bring home the term ‘community’.
I have talked about the team in electorate, but we have a great central campaign team. I place on the record my great thanks to them. To Adele Young, who I do not think is a teddy bear, Madam Speaker. She is a wonderfully professional person who gets across the line. No truly, Adele Young, Brett Walker, Sonia Peters, Michael Gunner, Ryan Neve, Frank Moukaddem, Laurene Hull, John Martin, Mary Fall, and Christine Gray. There is a whole range of people helping coordinate because it is a massive logistical task and these people have my sincere thanks. I am sure there are more I have forgotten to name. That team is wonderful. From the people of Sanderson and from my family and from me particularly, I thank you for your assistance.
There are also some individuals who need singling out and they are Trish Crossin, who has supported me for four years and who was with me before I was elected the first term. Her rock-solid friendship, guidance and mentoring have been fantastic strengths. I place on the public record my thanks to her for everything she has done in standing by me through the four years. It has been tremendous.
I place on the record my very sincere thanks to my electorate officer, Therla Fowlestone. She came on to my campaign team as well as the role that she had as electorate officer. Therla has immense skills in her relations with members of the public, working long hours beyond the remuneration period. A local member cannot function well without the support of a good electorate officer, and I am lucky that Therla enjoys her job working with the people of Sanderson who know her and have great respect for her.
However, Therla could not do this work and the extra hours without the support of her husband, Tony. I am particularly grateful to Therla who suffered a great personal loss during the last few days of the campaign. She mustered hidden strengths and took this tragedy in her stride, carried on campaigning without seeming to miss a beat. Therla, you are an inspiration.
My wife: we all thank our partners, but she is a true gem. She certainly kept me focused. We are a bit like the Clintons in our house! Certainly, she is not one to be shy with political advice, however, it is very good. In any relationship, either work or personal, you need someone who will throw up a contrary view to test you and to give you reality checks. My wife is not at all shy about giving me reality checks – I get at least one a week. I want to put on record my gratitude to Marie, not only for the assistance she provided during the course of the campaign, but over the whole four years, particularly for the care and control of our children. Clare and Ned were fantastic; we had to pay them off with a trip to Zone Three with three mates, but my children were very supportive and I could not do the work I do without the support of my wife and family. For them, I want to put on the record that I very much thank them for it. I have an undying love for them; I am blessed to have such a wonderful family.
There is another group I must thank, and these are the people who agreed to endorse me as the hardworking member for Sanderson. These are people in the community whom I saw and said I was standing for re-election and asked if they would endorse me, and they did. They are locals. They are everyday, run-of-the-mill, but all very special: Uncle Jimmy Anderson, Rob Fischer, Margaret Stehouwer, Sarah Fischer, Sean Stimson, Jo Glennon and Rob Fletcher. I am glad that the election results reflected your trust in me. Thank you for all the support you gave me.
Election campaigns are not cheap. Over the course of four years, we have been running fund raisers in different venues: St Mary’s, Northlakes Chinese restaurant, the Greek Hall where all manner of people go, particularly Christine Long who always helps out. She is an unswerving helper; just fantastic. Through that time, we raised money for the campaign, and at the end of it, people were donating to help. I will not embarrass them by naming them, but I truly want to say thank you for your donations. They helped get the message about, which was what it was all about; communicating with the electorate.
We promised some good things in our electorate over the next four years. I am particularly pleased about the fitness track that will go around Abala Road at Marrara. That is a fantastic thing for the community. We are also going to be opening the road that runs down beside the Italian Club to give another exit/entrance point, and I will talk to the minister for Transport, who I hope is Dr Burns because we do not want traffic lights there; we want a roundabout. I will talk to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Environment, whoever that may be, about that.
As members may recall, there were concerns expressed at the Darwin Golf Club sometime prior to the election regarding cash problems. There are many solutions that could be proposed for clubs. The government wisely said: ‘We do not bail out clubs’. You cannot; there is a definite shake-up going on in the licensed club area and clubs have to compete in the same way as everyone else. However, I was pleased and proud to be part of the solution of a golf tournament in the shoulder season, which we know will inject money not only into the Darwin and Palmerston Golf Clubs, but also into our tourism areas.
Madam Speaker, I can see the clock winding down. I will give this commitment to Darwin Golf Club and to the members of my electorate: I will follow through on all the promises that we made. I will work with the community, but it does not stop there. What I promise the people of Sanderson and the greater community of Northern Territory is that we will deliver good government over the next four years because of the endorsement that you have given us, and that is the endorsement we will give back to you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
WARRANT
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I lay on the Table my warrant nominating Mr Elliot McAdam, Mr Matthew Bonson and Mr Gerry Wood to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 August 2005 at 10 am, or such other time and/or date as may be set by the Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
GENERAL BUSINESS DAY
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I nominate Thursday, 18 August 2005, as the next day on which precedence will be given to General Business pursuant to Standing Order 92.
APPROPRIATION BILL (No 2) 2005-06
(Serial 2)
(Serial 2)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we are now going into the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. I will leave the Chair so that that the member for Barkly can chair committee proceedings.
In committee:
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, I call on the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the committee.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Chairman, I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and its considerations of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, together with questions taken on notice and additional information provided to the committee today. Members should note that there are additional answers that were read into the Hansard or tabled during the hearings.
I also advise honourable members that additional information and answers to outstanding questions taken on notice will be tabled during the August 2005 sittings of the Assembly.
Over the next few days, the committee secretariat will be updating the questions taken on notice database and, when completed, a composite set of questions and answers will be placed on the Legislative Assembly web site.
This has been the fourth public hearing conducted by the Estimates Committee and the overall process now appears to be bedded down. This year saw no major changes to the overall process involving the day-to-day operations during the three-and-a-half days of public hearings. Committee members, ministers, chief executives and their support staff now appear to be very comfortable working within the process.
A necessary amendment to the Terms of Reference for the public hearings was in the area of substitution for both committee members as well as the position set aside to accommodate shadow ministers and opposition members. The requirement to notify Madam Speaker of any substitute of a committee member now sits with the chairman. This amendment streamlines what should have been a simple process in the first place.
I take this opportunity to personally thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee who formed the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these public hearings have been conducted.
I also place on record a vote of appreciation from the committee to all other members who participated in the public hearing process. Apart from the members for Barkly and Millner and shadow opposition members, all members who substituted over the three-and-a-half days have only recently been elected to this parliament, and their involvement in this committee process has been a worthwhile learning curve.
My thanks also to the Legislative Assembly staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the whole process ran smoothly, in particular the Table Office and Hansard for their prompt delivery of the Daily Hansard rushes during the day.
An established reporting procedure for the last three Estimates Committees has been the provision of statistical information relating to questions taken on notice. I do not intend to change that procedure at this time. During the 42 hours of debate, there were 82 questions taken on notice. This is just in excess of double the 39 questions taken last year. It was noticeable this year that ministers were required to take far more questions on notice. I do not see this as any reflection on the ability of ministers to respond but, rather, a rigorous approach with an emphasis on detail by the opposition in preparing their questions for this year’s process. I welcome this level of interrogation of the budget.
When the public hearings were halted, 36 answers had been received and, with the limitation of time to take and process questions taken on notice, the outstanding number is well within reason.
In addition, there were three questions taken on notice during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing this morning and, because of the relatively short time frame, these remain outstanding. Members should be aware that, despite the sometimes short time frames, all outstanding answers must be included with papers to be tabled during the August sittings.
I acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, which sat for the third time. Power and Water Corporation officials provided members with valuable insight into the operation of the organisation. I place on the record the committee’s appreciation for the time and effort put in by Mr Neil Philip, Chairman of the Board; Mr Kim Wood, Managing Director; and Mr Andrew Macrides, Manager, Business Services.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chair of the Estimates Committee.
Honourable members, pursuant to resolution of the Assembly dated 29 June 2005, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and if the resolutions or expressions …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! Do we have a chance to speak to the chairman’s report before we move that?
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Later on. I might commence that again. Pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 29 June 2005, the committee has before it for consideration the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, and the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion, as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, or the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2005-06 be agreed to.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers – 20 minutes; any other member – 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration of conduct of this debate is five hours. The time now is 1.07 pm, so it will be 6.07 pm.
When consideration of the bill and the reports has been concluded and the question put, the following question will be put forthwith, without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly in accordance with the resolution dated 29 June 2005.
When the bill has been agreed to by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the Assembly, the third reading will be taken into consideration forthwith.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Chair, I wish to make a few comments about this year’s estimates process, but to the extent that I even agree with the member for Sanderson. I join with him by extending our thanks and appreciation for the work done by the staff of the Legislative Assembly and Hansard over the last few days.
There are a whole lot of very tired politicians from both sides, having recently finished an election and now having had two weeks of parliament, but I also know that there are a lot of tired members of staff from the Assembly, so I thank them all very much.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY: In relation to the estimates process itself, obviously this is the first time that the new opposition has had to tackle it. We are very proud of the way we went about our job. Our questions, I think, were very good. It is important, as I said last week in this parliament, that we do scrutinise and challenge the government, given that all governments are so notoriously bad at doing it themselves.
It is in that context that we need to look in some detail at the estimates process itself. My view, Mr Deputy Chair, is that the estimates process, to a large extent, failed. It failed because it did not do what Labor wanted it to do. It did not meet the objectives that Labor set.
In order for me to prosecute this argument, I went back and looked at the speech made by the member for Nhulunbuy when he was then Leader of Government Business. His speech was made on 23 May 2002. He went on at some length about the virtues of an estimates process. I remember that speech because I had heard a lot about estimates processes and, perhaps naively, I took him at his word.
Let me remind members of what the member for Nhulunbuy said when he was Leader of Government Business on 23 May 2002:
- Estimates will benefit the opposition and benefit Territorians.
When he said that in his speech, he did not qualify it and there were no limitations. ‘It would assist all of us’, he said. Well, Mr Deputy Chairman, here are most of the questions we did not get to ask. I have not counted them all up, but we think it is about …
Dr Toyne: It is your time management.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, just wait your turn! Wait your turn, Peter. Here are the questions that we did not, or we were not, able to ask due to time constraints.
Mr Stirling: Maybe you should have asked them instead of the nonsense you did ask.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Nhulunbuy, I can raise my voice if you like or I can lower it …
Mr Stirling: I heard that on the news this morning.
Ms CARNEY: Do you want me to go on, or not? Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask for your assistance. The member for Nhulunbuy should afford me the courtesy of listening to me in silence.
In any event, when the member for Nhulunbuy said that this estimates process would benefit the opposition and benefit Territorians, we thought that we would have the opportunity to interrogate. Our questions this year, like other years, were culled due to unrealistic time limits. We have a duty to interrogate portfolio areas as an opposition since we take on the mantle of shadow portfolios. We did not finish our questions in one portfolio area.
My observation was that the Independents were frustrated. We saw their frustration, and I am sure they saw ours. We were denied the opportunity to ask a range of questions on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, so the benefit to which the member for Nhulunbuy referred was limited and restricted.
The member for Nhulunbuy in 2002 said, and I quote:
- Accountability is a word often championed by oppositions and certainly ourselves in the past, but this government
is serious about accountability and we see the estimates committee as another vehicle in favour of it.
Well, if this government was serious about accountability, you would not know it from the performances we saw this week. There are numerous examples. We had, for instance, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, when asked about $1m of public money, not wanting to give any details. He did not even apparently think that the public should know how much was paid for legal costs. All of his arguments in support of his position were certainly fatuous when he had earlier tabled a list of costs paid to lawyers throughout the Northern Territory over the last couple of years, and the very lawyer who came up to investigate the case involving Anthony Gillies, the figures were there for all to see. So when the minister was going on about confidentiality agreements and so on, clearly he did not know what he was talking about.
In any event, notwithstanding the fact that the Territory’s first law officer got himself into a mess when he was saying he was not obliged to provide that information, we were left with a sentiment from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General best described by what he said in answer to one of my questions. He said: ‘That is all we are prepared to say.’ This level of arrogance leaves even me gob-smacked. He certainly was not the worst offender, but for the minister for Justice, who I would have thought clings to his integrity more strongly than some of his colleagues, to say: ‘I do not have to answer this question’, I found completely staggering.
The minister for Justice then, of course, later in the day, had the audacity to say to the media when interviewed: ‘Trust me. Trust me; I have spent $1m of your money, but trust me’. I do not care what the flavour of your politics is; if any government minister in this country says ‘Trust me’, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. For anyone to argue that the minister for Justice and, indeed, his colleagues, conducted themselves in such a way that maximised this concept of accountability, it is not possible to sustain the argument. It just is not.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in May 2002 said that the Estimates Committee will provide:
- …individual members with an unparalleled opportunity to gather information on the operations of government.
Really? Well, you would not know it by the week we have just had. The minister for Police, of course, naturally indignant about any questions that were asked, said dismissively on occasion: ‘Get a briefing. Get a briefing.’ This is the system of so-called scrutiny introduced by this government. Where a minister was asked a question, apart from the political speeches on the side before deferring to the public servant, we had an element of indignation and further arrogance from the Police minister who seemed to be, surprisingly, quite miffed that we were able to ask any questions.
The system that was in existence prior to Labor coming into office was very different. A minister was asked questions until the opposition ran out. If that meant that people like the member for Nhulunbuy checked into his hotel and checked out again early the next morning without going into his room, so be it. At least he was given the courtesy and the opportunity of asking questions until he had no more. However, this Labor way, since coming to government, is fundamentally different.
In my own portfolios, three hours to ask questions for health, a budget of about $660m, and justice, a budget of about $127m - not your money; the public’s money - three hours to ask those questions, who thinks that is reasonable? It cannot be reasonable. It is not about accountability and scrutiny. I know you know this.
They are huge portfolios. There is an obligation on us. We take our role seriously, even though government, and in particular the new Leader of Government Business does not, we take our obligations and duties very seriously. Furthermore, it is an insult to the very hardworking public servants who spend weeks preparing this stuff to cover every possible question that might be asked. They turn up and some of them are only in the chair for five minutes because of the timetable that government has set.
I know there are some public servants listening, and I am very sorry that they have probably had sleepless nights preparing all of this information, and that, due to the time restrictions over which the opposition has no influence or involvement, we had people sitting in that room on Level 4 until 11.30 pm, hanging on to their folders of information and some of them did not get on.
We know you regard the opposition with contempt, but surely you think more highly of the Territory’s hardworking and decent public servants? Forget about us if you like; think about them. Think about how they might be placated in this system that you have introduced.
Estimates, it is clear, should be extended for three more days. As a matter of fairness, I would ask government members, despite their natural and increasing levels of cynicism, to accept me at my word when I say that I believe a combination of the system that the CLP had and the system that Labor has introduced should be about right. The system the CLP had was that there were no limits on time. The positive aspect of the system Labor has introduced is the inclusion of public servants, which all of us acknowledge is very useful. If you had the benefits from both of those systems spread over two weeks, would it not be in the best interests of Territorians? Would it not lead to a sound, comprehensive and better scrutiny of not your money, not ours, but the money that belongs to the public of the Northern Territory? I ask that government give that serious consideration.
However, I was still poring through the speech made by the then Leader of Government Business in May 2002. He said that estimates was about ‘opening the books of government’. The books are only partially opened, member for Nhulunbuy, or, put another way: the door is not wide open; it is only ajar. If you are serious about the process - and you were only a few months after coming to government - then you would meet your own standards, the things you wanted to achieve, as eloquently enunciated and outlined in the Treasurer’s speech. Lofty ambitions indeed, these things called scrutiny and accountability. I was new to parliament then. I believed every word he said. However, time changes all of us, and certainly the experience of this week in particular, and the other Estimates Committees in which I have been involved, tell me that the system is not working.
Open your books, Treasurer. You can do this by providing more time to question. We and the Independents were deprived, prevented and obstructed in the opening of your books, and the facts speak for themselves. The member for Nhulunbuy said in May 2002 that an Estimates Committee would seek greater accountability for government. The time allocations are simply unrealistic. Ministers refused to be accountable, invariably, such as the minister for Justice, and I gave the example if him saying: ‘I am not prepared to say anything else’ when asked about spending money that does not belong to him.
Time was wasted by ministers. Almost without exception, ministers gave political speeches that invariably had nothing to do with the question, and then said at the end of their two to five minute drivel: ‘I will ask Mr-So-and-So …’, a public servant ‘… to answer that’. I implored ministers to desist, but they could not help themselves. The time wasting was as deliberate as it was overt.
In fact, it was very interesting the way the room was structured. The ministers, of course, had their backs to the public servants. We could see them all, and the faces of the public servants said a lot.
Mr Henderson: Especially when you were asking questions.
Ms CARNEY: I am thinking about you, minister for Police. You need to be a bit more careful. You could not see, just like your colleagues, the public servants sitting behind you. When you were waxing lyrical about not much in particular, I looked at the public servants. Many were rolling their eyes, raising their eyebrows and, in one case, there was a curling of the lip. When the minister for Police who, as we know, is a naturally arrogant sort of fellow, would not let up with his political banter …
Members interjecting
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! I do not think we go the point of saying those things about public servants. ‘Naturally arrogant sort of fellow’ should be withdrawn.
Dr Lim: Why do you deliberately misinterpret everything we say?
Mr KIELY: It is on the record! It is disgusting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, I am not absolutely certain what you said, but if you in any way attempted to impugn the good name of professional public servants, then I would ask you to cease and desist in the future.
Ms CARNEY: May I speak to the point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman?
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You may.
Ms CARNEY: I did not - and this will be revealed by Hansard - suggest in any way that public servants were arrogant. I said, and I will quote: ‘The police minister, a naturally arrogant fellow, would not let up with his political banter’. In any event, I will go back to the point, Mr Deputy Chairman.
Ms Lawrie: And what is this, if not political banter?
Ms CARNEY: This is not accountability. When the Leader of Government Business stands up, he will go on in the way that he does and say: ‘Oh, your questions were not relevant.’
Mr Henderson: Cite one question I did not answer.
Ms CARNEY: He will also say - Leader of Government Business, living in a democracy and all, you will have your opportunity to respond. I know you do not like being challenged; you can always tell. It was evident fairly early on when we were pressing the government’s buttons; they would all get twitchy, so it was evidenced because they would start chatting away.
Ms Lawrie: You have wasted six minutes on a personal attack.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Karama - well, what an invaluable contribution she made to the Estimates Committee! I will come back to that; I plan on dealing with the Chairs in any event. This is not accountability. I hope public servants are listening and I know they are.
The Leader of Government Business will say that our questions were not relevant and we wasted time. No one will bite, minister; not the public servants or the media. So, do not dare drag that one out of the cupboard!
Mr Henderson: Just one question!
Mr Mills: I will give you more than one!
Ms CARNEY: The member for Nhulunbuy said in - Mr Deputy Chairman, I would be grateful if you would instruct the Leader of Government Business to listen to me quietly.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Continue.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Nhulunbuy said in May 2002:
- We are not so arrogant to think it is absolutely perfect …
That is, the Estimates Committee:
- … commonsense would dictate that we should give the model a bit of a trial run first and then seriously review it.
I do not think he was so arrogant in May 2002, but I certainly think that government has become more arrogant in 2005. I love surprises! I am a woman who loves surprises. I would be delighted if government, at some point - and it does not necessarily have to be today; we know that sometimes we come up with brilliant ideas which government dismisses and then comes up with further down the track. The estimates process does need to be reviewed; it is not a process that ensures accountability. The conduct of ministers ranged from being arrogant, dismissive, ill-prepared and, in some cases, cavalier. The chairman was, predictably, appalling and he gave non-government members lectures and reprimands whenever we expressed dissatisfaction with the way ministers answered or, in so many instances, failed and refused to answer questions.
We bothered to prepare; the public servants bothered to prepare. We all took the process very seriously, but not the ministers. The government has done themselves and the Territory population a disservice. The ministers were, for the most part, contemptuous of the process. It is a shame because, ultimately, it is Territorians who miss out.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Chairman, the process does not meet the objectives so proudly announced by the then Leader of Government Business in May 2002 when he announced the estimates process. This man is now the Treasurer. I have only quoted parts of what he said in his speech in May 2002, but I commend it to those on the government side, particularly new members, because it consists of good stuff; good principles. It is a good read. However, the week we have just had shows us that those objectives were not met, and cannot be met under the present system.
I have heard it said, Mr Deputy Chairman, that Labor members are true believers and they proudly describe themselves thus on occasion. We do not expect Labor members to live by our standards and our principles, but we and other Territorians at the very least expect them to live by their own. In the words of young people these days, Treasurer: right back at you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Chairman, I want to make some comments on the estimates process in general, and particularly on some of the comments made by the member for Araluen.
This is the fourth year that we have had this particular style of interrogation of the budget under the Estimates Committee process. It is a process that operates in all Australian parliaments along similar lines and it was picked up as a result of committee work by this parliament looking at other jurisdictions and how they do it. I still believe that it is an effective tool for scrutiny of a budget and the details behind the budget as presented. It certainly remains a very important part of this government’s push for accountability to the public, and transparency in the operations of government.
The member for Araluen took some pains to wade through a May 2002 speech of mine. I could not remember it being that good. Obviously, one of my better efforts, picking up some of the comments I made at that time.
Let us look back a little in history. I had 11 years experience interrogating budgets as a member of the opposition, well before the member for Araluen came to this House. If she says, as she laid the claim, that she has a pile of questions unanswered, and it simply never happened under the old system, I ask that those questions be tabled and put on notice and they will be answered. They will be answered, Mr Deputy Chairman. Let me give that assurance. If those questions are put on notice they will be referred to ministers and answers will be given as, indeed, we used to have to do even under the old system.
In looking at how we might go forward in the new estimates process, we spent a considerable amount of time analysing the process as it was, and we came to this parliament at times armed with 2500-plus questions one year. I think that might have been the single largest number of questions in any one time, and it was true; we had the opportunity to question the minister responsible all of the way through. Just let me remind the member for Araluen what that meant. That meant leaving parliament at 4 am, where the minister involved and the public servants offering advice were all dead on their feet, and the most notable example was leaving this parliament and 7.40 the next morning to resume parliament at 10 am on the same day. If she thinks that is an efficient use of resources and members of the opposition and ministers responsible are still operating at their best, at their peak at 5 am, 6 am and 7 am, she has another think coming. It simply was a nonsense, dragging the process out through those ungodly hours. That was the worst, but there were many occasions when it was 3 am, 4 am and 5 am.
What we did in bringing structure and this committee system in, was a reasonable start, around 8.30 am, and a reasonable finish, of 11 pm or 11.30 pm, the latest we finished during this process. In preparing for this year’s Estimates Committee process, I had a very close read of the transcript of the questions I took last year. Flicking through the transcript, I was thinking, yes, it is all about deficit reduction strategy and the questions came thick and fast, an area that was not too bad to handle in terms of how we were going forward and what the forward estimates might show. As I was reading, I noticed the chairman said: ‘Actually, we have spent two-and-a-half hours on this item, do you think we have had enough?’ or ‘Do you think you might move on to more questions?’
A similar thing occurred this year, except the two-and-a-half or three hours was spent on the question of nett debt versus deficit and what it meant. I do not mind that sort of educative process in getting people to understand what nett debt was and what deficit was under the CLP government, what it is under us and the differences there. However, you cannot then spend two, three and three-and-a-half hours on a particular principle or policy question around the budget, and then claim that you did not have time to ask all of those questions around line budget items and where the money actually went.
That sort of information, in terms of the big principles, operations and fiscal strategies, is best gained by either bringing it on as debate in here - and you are quite welcome to and we would welcome it - or by way of briefing and going away and getting a solid understanding in your own head instead of using two, three and four hours of valuable committee time in and around a concept that, no matter what you say, that is what we are doing, and that is our policy position. You would have been better off getting that information another way and using that valuable time to interrogate the budget papers.
That 42 hours is in excess of the longest time ever used any time in interrogating a budget in the Northern Territory. The longest we ever spent under the old system was, in fact, 42 hours. So, there is more time granted under this process than that used by the opposition under the previous system.
I made comments in relation in the system, how it works, and whether there is room for improvement, but I do not say it is absolutely the best or it is perfect. We remain open to constructive proposals and suggestions, and they can come by way of the Standing Orders Committee, which would probably be the appropriate body for those suggestions. We are open to suggestions at any time on how the process, from the opposition or Independent members’ view, might be strengthened.
I am of the view, though, that it is an effective tool. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to claim it a complete failure, she needs to look at how she and other members of the opposition used it. You need to be strategic and you need to be focused in those questions. However, it remains for the Leader of the Opposition to drop all those questions on the table today or send them over to us. I give an absolute assurance that every minister will respond in writing to those questions if they are sent to us and put on notice.
Putting the budget together and managing the budget throughout the subsequent 12 months is no easy task. It is incumbent, of course, on this Cabinet and government to ensure that the broad parameters laid down against the forward estimates are strictly adhered to, and that we do manage whatever fluctuations arise over the next 12 months and will occur in a way that is of benefit to the people of the Northern Territory. The whole reason we embark on this quite complex process of budgeting, of course, is the aim of improving the economic and social development and wellbeing of all Territorians.
I add my thanks to all of the participants in the process, despite the occasional bout of crankiness, if I could refer to it as that, as national radio seemed to pick up this morning, to some extent. The process, generally, was conducted with good intent and a little humour here and there helps the process along.
The Leader of the Opposition said ‘predictably appalling’ in relation to the chairman. I want to commend him. I want to commend him because he has a very solid understanding of the process. He has brought experience and authority to the Chair. I thought, certainly in the time I was there as a minister and when I popped in during the week, that he retained a focus, above all else, of attempting to keep the committee on track.
I thank the opposition for their efforts. It is not easy with the spread of responsibilities and numbers there. I commend them for their efforts, albeit it needs to be probably more tightly focused and disciplined in terms of the strategy of getting to what you want to know.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, it is no good coming in here and saying, here are how many questions we did not ask. Put them on the table and we will get those answers.
Mr Henderson: Put them on the table now.
Ms Carney: Just let us categorise them, Paul, and we will!
Mr STIRLING: Okay, sure. But I do welcome …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I am just waiting for silence, Mr Deputy Chairman. I congratulate and commend all committee members for their participation throughout the process. The Independent members of parliament demonstrated great tolerance and patience in playing their role in the process, and if there is a weakness, it is exactly that, and I thought it unfair. Another reason I thought it unfair is that I always welcome questions from the Independents because they usually have a little twist or something interesting so that they are not going to be always of straight political intent. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what the whole process is there for. I did miss some of the questions I have had in the past from both members - and the member for Nelson always seems to have quite interesting queries.
I certainly place on the public record the thanks of government to all the Territory public servants - and there were many, certainly in my areas - who appeared before the committee, or who assisted in the preparation of the material presented to the committee, or were there on hand should a specific query come their way. I felt tremendously supported, and I believe I speak for all ministers in terms of the public servants who accompanied ministers at the committee process. I am always pleased to encourage as many public servants throughout my agencies to witness the process so that they develop and grow and see not only how their work is utilised as part of that process and learn about the parliamentary end of all the work they do, but it is also preparation for them at any time that they are in a more senior position, answering the questions directly themselves. I am grateful to all of them for their efforts.
We often talk about the quality public service that we have, and it is times like this last four days when it shines through. In talking about the four days between Monday and Thursday, if the opposition thinks that is not enough time, the old system, of course, was a three day process – Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday – and therein lay half the problem. At least we provide an extra day and, as I said, 42 hours as opposed to the longest session under the previous system of 42 hours. We got through many more questions as an opposition in that 42 hours than perhaps this current opposition got through this year and last year in 42 hours.
Of course, it is difficult to match. We finished up being such a good opposition that they made us government. They made us government because we were so effective.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: We were so effective as an opposition, we were so effective with our use of time that that was recognised by the Northern Territory back in August 2001 and reaffirmed a month or so ago.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! I will call you in a moment, member for Braitling. Leader of the Opposition, you know very well in the House that you refer to members by their proper title.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your forbearance if I do jump at the wrong time; I am still not quite used to being on the floor here on this side.
It is interesting listening to both sides talk about the estimates process. The Treasurer was right; it did discriminate against and disadvantage Independents, and that is the weakness of the process at the moment. I ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at whether we can change the process by allowing alternate questions. The opposition goes first on one area, and an Independent on another. I am not sure. I can see the Opposition Leader wriggling. It is the opposition which sees themselves having the role of questioning government, but the Independents have a very strong role in this House to question the government and we should be given the opportunity. I did not get one opportunity to question the Treasurer, for instance, on the overview of the budget because the entire time was taken by the opposition. The most important questions I wanted to ask were on Territory Housing but we ran out of time. That is, obviously, something we will follow up.
However, it has disadvantages in the fact that the time is consumed and controlled by the opposition and the Independents miss out. It works better when you go clause by clause; at least we do get an opportunity then. For the most part, the system has that discriminatory element to it. I am quite sure we could learn from other parliaments in Australia that have estimates involving opposition members and Independents. It is something we will be raising.
I feel that many of the questions the opposition asked were repeated many times and there was a lot of filibustering and dithering going on, which is part of the process of trying to score points against the government, whereas many of my questions and those from the member for Nelson were direct questions to which we at least did get answers. I am pleased about the answers we got, but there were many we did not have the opportunity to ask. Of course, we will either be submitting them as Written Questions, asking them during Question Time, or writing to the minister.
The disadvantage is making public the answer you receive. The good part about the Estimates Committee is that it is a very public hearing. The media does listen and report, and it is on record whereas, if you write to a minister and get a reply in writing then, somehow or other, you have to manage to get that into the public arena.
I have to say that there was time wasting. It is frustrating listening to a question being asked in a number of ways over and over again. Ministers could cut back on the preambles they like to give before they answer questions, and just get on with it.
I was mortified listening to the Leader of the Opposition ask questions over a considerable amount of time on a statement made by the Minister for Health and Community Services 12 months ago. This was the process of estimates. Why did we have to have that?
Although you felt the chairman was contemptuous at times, I would have thought the chairman could have pulled people up now and again and said: ‘Let us stick to the budget. Is this relevant? Can we get back to what we are supposed to be questioning?’ It was very wide-ranging and a huge amount of valuable time was, in fact, wasted.
It is a great time to see the departments work together with the ministers to answer questions. Yes, there is a huge amount of work that goes into the preparation for this. No, it is not a waste of time because the work done at least summarises for departments and ministers exactly where they are going.
I place on the public record my thanks to the staff of all the departments, and say that I will be seeking a briefing or following up – wait for it, it will be coming. I thank the Department of the Legislative Assembly staff who, again, have done a magnificent job in getting everything done so quickly, especially the Hansard people upstairs. We were just commenting earlier how one of the Hansard people can have her earphones on, type what she is listening to and have a conversation with you at the same time. I reckon that is a tremendous skill because I cannot even take my eyes off the keyboard if I am trying to type. We have some extremely talented professional people in this organisation.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee to take the process back to the Standing Orders Committee to see if we can find a way that does not discriminate against Independents; think about an alternative approach or think about putting time limits on certain sectors of questioning so that we can get through it a lot more quickly and effectively. Overall, even though it is a long process, the other system was a long, drawn out process, too. I am not sure how we will ever have an effective, efficient Estimates Committee unless you are prepared to put in a lot more days and a lot more hours to do it.
Mr BONSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, I contribute to the Estimates Committee Report 2005, the fourth such report. I thank all members of the committee, particularly government members who, throughout the whole process, conducted themselves very professionally.
This process was designed to allow the opposition the opportunity to examine the budget. The Opposition Leader’s attack on process for the sake of attacking process is designed for political purposes. She is trying to associate the word ‘arrogant’ with this government already and, obviously, that is a game plan of the opposition. They are trying to undermine all the good work that we have done over the last four years and what we are going to do in the next four years. I do not think that word will stick, Leader of the Opposition, because the one thing that you forget about this process is that it was introduced many years ago in every other jurisdiction in Australia except for the Northern Territory because the CLP was scared of scrutiny.
We came into power and we introduced the estimates process. We joined the other jurisdictions in Australia and entered into the modern age of democracy. Estimates is a fantastic initiative, particularly because it allows ministers to be cross-examined so that the general public can understand the budget for the year coming. It also allows for public servants to be on hand to answer questions, and I thank them because they were very professional and provided unbiased evidence to the committee. I do not think anyone in this House can argue with that.
The issue of time always comes up. It is a theme, tactic and strategy of the opposition. The reality is that we went for three-and-a-half days, for 42 hours. It became patently obvious that some members, and in particular the member for Greatorex, were just going around in circles looking to grandstand, to make some kind of king hit that was going to bring down the government. They wasted hours and hours of opportunity to ask questions.
I am happy that member for Braitling talked about public housing. During the election campaign, the opposition tried to raise it as a big election issue. I think it was seven minutes - and I may stand corrected – that the member for Greatorex gave to public housing. I, like the member for Braitling, was very interested in public housing questions, as Millner traditionally is an area with a high density of public housing. Through the grandstanding of the member for Greatorex, and other members of the opposition, we saw a clear time-wasting strategy. Today, they made a poor attempt of saying that they were not given enough time for questions.
I agree with the Opposition Leader on one thing: the member for Nhulunbuy did give a good speech two years ago, and it was from the heart. It was about democratic process. It was about bringing the Northern Territory parliament into the modern era, and through, the introduction of estimates, this has occurred.
My role, as a member of the committee and government, was to allow the opposition and Independents the opportunity to cross-examine ministers on the budget. One of the highlights for me was hearing the minister for Education talk about indigenous education in remote areas and our goals and achievements compared with past performances of governments.
Another highlight was the Chief Minister’s detail on the waterfront: that is going to be a fantastic venue for Darwin and the wider community of the Northern Territory. It will be very much an icon. I also welcome the Minister for Business and Industry’s explanation of Defence support. Some 20% of my electorate has a Defence Force background and they are constituents on the RAAF Base. Defence personnel as a group is getting larger in the Northern Territory and we need to have a strategy. It was great to hear from him.
There was a lot of time wasting from the member for Greatorex on CDSCA issues. I know he was the Deputy Leader before the election; now he has been demoted and has to make a bit of an example of himself. However, not to address the issue of Housing tenants was a very poor effort, but he might get his opportunity yet.
As people know, I am a lover of sport and recreation and all sports. To hear about the money going to netball, international cricket, the soccer stadium, the Palmerston Magpies, money going to Australian Rules football, the extra hundreds of thousands of dollars into NTIS was fantastic. Being an avid amateur fisherman, I loved the Primary Industry and Fisheries explanation of what we have done with boat ramps all around the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Chairman, I thank all the parliamentary staff, and we all know who those characters are. They work behind the scenes tirelessly, and for well in excess of the 42 hours over three-and-a-half days that the committee sat. That commitment takes them away from their families and from things such as the State of Origin. They deserve our thanks for making this process run smoothly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Chairman, this is the second estimates in which I have been involved since I first came into the Assembly in 2003, but it is the first one in which I have been so intently involved. I found the process very interesting from several aspects; the first being that I, like my colleagues, spent an enormous amount of time trawling through the mountains of budget information that were provided. This followed the very busy time of the recent election campaign. It would be an understatement to say that there would not be one person in this building who is not very, very tired at this point.
It is very important to be as familiar as possible with all aspects of the budget, and to have the opportunity to question ministers about their portfolios. The estimates process, if allowed to progress in an open and accountable manner, assists all members of the Territory community to understand how the government will be handling Territory money for the next 12 months. My job in opposition is to ensure that the best interests and the concerns of the people of the Northern Territory are served.
I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition; that we had insufficient time to get through all the questions that we wanted to ask. I have 50 questions across my portfolio areas that have gone unasked.
A very interesting observation that I made during this estimates is the great difficulty that the chairman at the time - and I am particularly referring to the member for Karama - has in being impartial. In all my experience in committees, I have never seen such arrogance and bias by a chairman. At no time did the chairman pull up any of the ministers for any of their derogatory comments and remarks made towards the opposition, but my goodness, the chairman certainly wielded anything she could to protect her government ministers during questioning. I would say that you would win the award in theatrics, especially as a drama queen.
There are, obviously, different rules observed in good manners and openness and accountability in this magnificent building where we are elected to serve the people of the Northern Territory. I have to say that I am still getting my head around the arrogance of some of it. In no other committee, in my vast knowledge and experience over a long period, have I ever seen such grandstanding power played out. I can assure you that it served as a strong reminder that this government, in the very early stages of its second term, is already displaying arrogance.
Just when I thought I might have been able to say how reasonably fair the other chairman, the member for Sanderson, was - and he has been pretty good actually - Lo and behold! during this morning’s hearings of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, he decided that it was his last opportunity to grandstand, too, and spent some of our valuable question time on his own political spin asking questions of the Power and Water representatives that were not relevant. It was nothing more than abuse of his position as chairman; not at all impartial.
In the time that I had allocated to the relevant ministers in my portfolio areas of Tourism, Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Environment and Heritage, I did not have anywhere near enough time to get all my questions asked. However, I was reasonably happy with the answers that I did receive and look forward to receiving, in the near future, the answers to the other 50 questions that are on notice.
In the area of Tourism, the biggest concern that I have is the ongoing challenge of reliable scheduled airline flights into Darwin. This is highlighted with the withdrawal of Virgin Blue Airlines as of October, again making the Northern Territory harder to access. It is not encouraging for operators to develop and promote their product without the reliability of airline passenger seats into the Northern Territory. I see the biggest challenge in the short term for tourism is for this government to vigorously lobby airlines to get additional seats into the Territory following the withdrawal of Virgin Blue. The additional funding that the government has given to tourism marketing is necessary in promoting the Territory, but will not be fully appreciated without the capacity of airline seats into the Northern Territory.
The fear of limited airline flights into the Territory with only one carrier is that the price of airline tickets will rise without competition. This will be, without a doubt, a deterrent to potential tourists when deciding what destination they will choose. For those people who have disposable income, the cost of the air fare is not as likely to be a factor as those who are on a limited budget. For the Northern Territory to be attractive to the majority of travellers, we need to be affordable, and the price of travel is a significant factor in determining one’s destination. This government has a responsibility to attract and secure regular airline services into the Territory. I am not for one minute suggesting that this is an easy task, as we know from past experience, but nonetheless, government bears that responsibility.
Another disappointing downturn in the tourism industry is the decline in backpacker numbers into the Territory. Backpackers traditionally travel in budget seats, stay in the cheaper accommodation, but spend considerably more on tours. In other words, they are the adventure travellers. In the past, backpackers have been relied upon for seasonal work, mainly in the horticultural area, picking melons, pumpkins, mangoes and the like. It has been challenging for several years now to get enough backpackers to fill these very important roles. Their contribution to the Northern Territory is valuable across several industries.
I had quite a few more questions to ask in the Tourism portfolio but, of course, I did not have anywhere near enough time. At least it was an improvement on last year when I got one question in.
The Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Casuarina, answered most of the questions that I was able to ask in the time allowed, although I was a little surprised at his answers to any question on the subject of uranium. It is as though the person asking the question of him all of a sudden had illuminated green eyes the moment they said the word ‘uranium’. The very thought of the word seems to invoke fear. It is interesting because this is the place where we are expected to have informed debate on all sorts of issues, whether they are considered controversial in the public domain or not. Uranium is one of those issues.
I believe we need to have lengthy and informed research, debate and discussion on the subject of uranium in the future, and that is across all aspects of mining, use and storage. It is only after we are truly and accurately informed that we can all make a sound decision in the best interests of the people we know and represent. It may be that at the end of this lengthy process, we decide in the House that it is not a good idea to go ahead and open up more uranium mines, but let us go through the process so that we are accurately informed. It would be interesting to know how much knowledge and detail each member of this House has on uranium at this very moment. I could guarantee that most of it is based purely on scaremongering and fear. Fear spells out false evidence appearing real. Now, there you are. I do not think my eyes have turned illuminating green at the moment, have they? I do not think so.
In another area of Mines and Energy, it was interesting to hear from the minister that there has been no notice of intent lodged as yet in relation to the reopening of Maud Creek gold mine. I was led to believe that there has been, so I will be following that up. I am also reassured that there will be no repetition of the environmental challenges that Mt Todd faces.
The Katherine River is the water source for Katherine. Maud Creek mine is in the upper catchment of the Katherine River, and should there be any leakage from that mine site, it would only be a matter of hours before there would be contamination of the Katherine River, which would be a major disaster.
You can understand the concerns that the Katherine region has about Maud Creek gold mine. The extraction process does not present any significant challenges, but should the mining company decide to process the ore at the site, there would be strong opposition from the community in general. The risk to the Katherine region is not worth the small financial gain.
In relation to Primary Industry and Fisheries, I do not agree with the lengthy restrictions that this government has placed on landowners in the Daly region. They have overreacted to a minority group, and have not taken into consideration the interests and financial commitments that primary industry has made to this area. Whilst I support sound scientific research and retaining the land and rivers for which we are responsible, I sincerely believe that this government has overreacted in this instance. The primary industry people in the Daly are very conscious of ensuring that their land and water supplies are sustainable. They are responsible landowners, and have not shown otherwise.
I am also intrigued why the report from the Daly River Community Reference Group, which was handed to government in December, was not made public until after the election was called, and why this government is forming another reference group to address the same issues. I am interested to hear why government is not accepting the report from the first reference group. I wonder how many more reference groups we will have before a decision is made by this government.
At estimates, the minister provided information about the meatworks at Katherine, and the progression towards its reopening some time in the future. He has assured me that his department will be monitoring any future changes and live cattle export prices that could give Katherine meatworks the opportunity to be viable. I will be keeping a keen eye on that area, as this facility provided valuable jobs for Katherine.
The minister has also advised that access to the King River junction for recreational fishermen and women is still progressing, but would not give a certainty that it would happen in the next 12 months. As this was also a commitment by the Country Liberal Party at the election, and knowing what benefit this will be to Katherine, I will also be pursuing this area vigorously.
Unfortunately, I had very little time to discuss any issues on Environment and Heritage, but I did get some questions on the EPA answered.
I have a total of 50 questions that are unanswered. I eagerly await the answers. I support the idea of having at least two additional days for estimates so that we are able to scrutinise the budget to its fullest.
In closing, I thank all the Assembly staff for their hard work making sure we were fed and supplied with coffee as many times as we needed to be. They did an exceptional job. I thank the girls in Hansard who had to try to understand everything as it was being said, and for being so prompt in getting our Daily Hansard reports to us. I especially thank the public servants for the long hours that they put in preparing these estimates because I know that they have spent many hours, many late nights, working over a long period of time. Despite the fact that we did not get the opportunity to have a lot of information passed on from those public servants, I know that we may be able to glean that in the future.
Mr Deputy Chairman, all in all, it has been a very tiring week; rewarding in some parts and not in others.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Chairman, it is with pleasure I contribute to debate as Deputy Chair of the Estimates Committee. Obviously, I had an integral role in the estimates week; I was there for a significant number of hours.
I do not believe estimates was a failure, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition. Estimates is very much an opposition process. All government members who participated in the Estimates Committee did everything they could to facilitate allowing all the time to be used by the opposition and Independents for questions. What we found, though, was an essentially disorganised rabble, often with CLP members competing amongst themselves to ask questions despite the hierarchy established for the shadow minister. If there is a failure in this process of estimates, the failure is in the opposition’s incapacity to be organised and focused, and understand that estimates is about the scrutiny of budget appropriation of government’s expenditure.
I sat through hour upon hour upon hour of questions that had absolutely nothing to do with the estimates process. It was political trawling and really gutter trawling at some stage by the member for Greatorex during the CDSCA session that did not go to appropriation or scrutiny of the budget. It was a shame because there were many questions that should have been asked on behalf of the public by the opposition as to appropriation and expenditure. However, it really was a political grandstanding process by the opposition to try to crawl through and make ideological points, whether it be on uranium or the appointment of public servants that they did not seem to think was in keeping with what they wanted.
It is easy to sit there in opposition and tag a government as arrogant, but if you look through Hansard and look at how many times government members actually spoke in 42 hours, it was very seldom. When the chair ….
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There is hysterical laughter coming from the Leader of the Opposition, but the record speaks for itself. Maybe you might want to get Shane Stone, who is doing the review of the party, to also review the performance of the parliamentary wing during estimates, because there could be some tips he could give you on how to tighten up your process and, perhaps, become a more effective opposition, which we all really …
Ms Carney: Get it off your liver, Delia. Come on, get it all off.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman! The Leader of the Opposition knows that in this Chamber, she can only refer to members by electorate ...
Ms Carney: I forgot, sorry. I am so sorry, Paul.
Mr HENDERSON: She consistently abuses that and I ask that she withdraw.
Ms Carney: Sorry, Delia.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: The word ‘Delia’? Thank you. I will withdraw the word ‘Delia’, Mr Deputy Chairman, it being her name and all.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The point I was making is that if there is a real desire by the CLP to improve itself as an opposition, then I really do recommend that within the review undertaken by Shane Stone they review their approach to estimates.
It would be heartening as a government member to see an improvement in the quality of questions asked by the opposition, because estimates is about scrutinising appropriation. However, too much time was wasted by opposition in political grandstanding. It would have been far more illuminating to public servants, the taxpayers, the broader community and, indeed, members of government if we had more questions that focused on appropriation expenditure by government.
The member for Braitling raised the issue of repetition; that was a significant falling down in the process. I would have to say that in chairing several sessions, it very quickly became apparent that members of the opposition in questioning if they were not satisfied with the answer - that is, they did not agree with the answer, which is going to be the case in most cases; that is the nature of government and opposition, they tend to disagree - they would reframe the question and ask it again and again. If you scrutinise the Hansard of the estimates process, you will see that in some instances upwards of two hours was wasted through such a process.
As a chair, when you tried to draw members’ attention to the issues of repetition, scope and sticking to scrutiny of estimates and appropriation, you were then accused of gagging. I pick up on the member for Braitling’s point that she would have preferred to see the chairs more regularly try to bring the process back on track to the scrutiny of appropriation. However, have a look back through Hansard, member for Braitling, and you will see that where attempts were made to do that by the chair - and certainly I can think of quite a few instances where I did that - the offensive remarks that would immediately come flying from the mouths of opposition members just shows that it was a real impediment to being a chair who was genuinely trying to keep us on track in a process of scrutiny. I absolutely agree with her comments that there was a lot of time wasting and repetition of questions which really had nothing to do with the scrutiny of estimates.
I note the Opposition Leader is asking for three additional days and then the Deputy Leader asks for two additional days. This is yet another example of how the opposition does not seem to be able to work as a team, and identify in a very thorough sense how to achieve better outcomes. The Leader of the Opposition made a great play in believing she understood the thoughts and wishes of public servants in the comments she made, believing that she was interpreting the facial expressions or otherwise of public servants. I question whether the Leader of the Opposition has asked any public servants whether they want another three days of estimates and what their views on that would be; whether any consultation occurred before she came in here and suggested another three days, or whether it continues to be a circle of CLP arrogance in which they only navel gaze and discuss amongst themselves rather than go out and consult with people who are involved in the process.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Member for Karama, cease. The interjections and the chatter from the opposition are becoming a little excessive.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, just hold on a second! I ask that you accord the member for Karama the same respect that she accorded you when you spoke. Continue, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. A lot of work goes into estimates preparation by public servants and I take exception to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition that ministers did not prepare at all. I am very aware of the great hours that ministers put into preparation for estimates and the seriousness with which they take their roles as ministers of the government, the seriousness they apply to the estimates process, which is a very important process of scrutiny. To make glib statements that ministers did not prepare shows the level of ignorance that we have to deal with in terms of the remarks coming from the opposition. Public servants work with their ministers to provide a whole range of information ready for the opposition, quite appropriately, during the scrutiny process.
The opposition, quite rightly, should be involved in any process that the Standing Orders Committee undertakes in looking at how we can improve the estimates process. I know that I had some suggestions during estimates about how the process could be improved regarding timing and scheduling breaks. All chairs had to call for short breaks within a period of an estimates session to allow for comfort stops, as it were. I was criticised by the opposition for having done that, after having sought advice from the secretary of the committee that, indeed, I could take a short toilet break.
There are always opportunities to refine and improve the estimates process and, as government, there is a committee through which we can do that work, which is the Standing Orders Committee. Before people espouse what they believe public servants feel they want, I urge members to consider that there is an opportunity to consult with public servants as to what they think could occur to improve the estimates process because they are involved in it.
The member for Katherine’s contribution today showed the level of personal vindictive attack that occurred numerous times through the estimates process. It is a shame. One would hope that we could work professionally as members of parliament and accept that each of us have a role to play in any process and that the role of chair is not always an enviable role. It is certainly a very important role and one I know the member for Sanderson and I took very seriously. We both took an approach where we did out utmost to ensure impartiality; to allow broad and open debate, discussion and questioning. However, from time to time, we obviously had to exercise the role of chair and try to get order back into the process. Member for Katherine, you can refer to me in all manner of derogatory terms, but I will never resile from the important role of chair that I take very seriously in the estimates process.
I thank very much the staff of the Assembly. They have worked tirelessly through the week, as they do throughout the year, to support the members of the Assembly. Hansard does a magnificent job; they are a group of very professional and talented women. The Table Office staff sat there hour after hour and supported us fully. To the secretary of the committee, Terry Hanley, and to your staff, I thank you sincerely.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chairman, I have a few things to say about the Estimates Committee. I enjoy it. That might sound sick. I enjoy it because it makes me feel like I am part of the parliamentary process that is vitally important for the good governance of the Territory. It gives me an opportunity that I do not have in Question Time because the minister can give you an answer and that is the end of that. In estimates, you can follow up on the answers that the minister gives. Ministers have advice from members of staff to help them. The process is an extremely important part of the overall parliamentary process. It is better than the previous process, where members were here all night asking question after question, and they did not have the staff resources as we do in the current system.
The Treasurer asked for constructive criticism. From an Independent’s point of view, this Estimates Committee was far too close to the election. The reason is that although the budget was some time before the Estimates Committee, most people in the political sphere would have been spending most of their time seeing whether they could get back into this parliament at the election. Having estimates two weeks after that, when we also had the opening of parliament, made it difficult, as an Independent, to cover the range of portfolios and adequately write up questions for each department.
I was not at the V8s; Ford got done so it was probably good that I was not. The reason I was not there is because I was writing up questions for estimates. Be that as it may, that is part of the process. In this case, we could have had another two weeks to get over the stress, you might say, of the election and to have a bit more time to put questions together.
I say this as constructive criticism: we tend to, except for the Treasury, weigh all departments evenly. The Minister for Lands and Planning has an extremely important portfolio and a big spending department with many smaller departments within that portfolio. I do not think we have ever got down to Ports. We might have one year, but I would love to have asked about whether the rods are still snapping down there on the first stage. That is a really important question for a multimillion dollar project, but it is one of the questions we did not get to.
Some members of the Public Accounts Committee visited Tasmania to look at their parliamentary accounts process. They have two Houses and, believe it or not, the two Houses have Estimates Committees operating at the same time, so departments are quizzed twice. They will tell you that the friendliest, most non-political and expeditious is the Upper House committee because it is full of Independents. I understand what that is: it is not as political upstairs. There were more questions being asked simply because people wanted to know the answer.
They had a process where they sat for five days. I think they start at around 9 am and finish about 10 pm, or might have been a little earlier than that, and they broke it up into three sections. I wonder whether instead of going to 11.30 pm - which I know it is not as bad as 4.30 am or 7.30 am - some days could have the evening section set aside for portions of the larger departments that could be run into the evening so we do cover all those matters.
That may be difficult to work in practice because of staffing and all that sort of thing, but the Minister for Health also has carriage of Justice, and they are two pretty big portfolios. There are many questions you would like to ask the minister, yet you really cannot do it justice - pardon the pun - within the time we are given.
Be that as it may, we have to tighten up on both questions and answers. I am to blame to some extent. The member for Sanderson did pull us up from time to time. He knows I get passionate about a few things. Sometimes, that is also in response to a fairly long-winded answer by the minister. There are times when we could shorten the questions, make them more precise, and not have so much opinion within the question. Equally, ministers could spare us a lecture on the entire policy of the department in relation to this one little aspect and just give us the answer. If someone had the time, and they would like to go through the questions and answers and was good at doing prcis, it would be interesting to see, if you took out all the waffle, what amount of time is left.
On both sides, we need to tighten up and make sure we are not repeating questions. I had a lot of questions and, when the opposition asked them, I crossed them off my list unless they were not covered fully. I was happy with that as long as the questions were asked.
A comparison of the way questions are asked is evident from this morning’s session with Power and Water. You can see the difference between dealing with politicians and dealing with corporate representatives. There is a variation in the way questions are asked and answered. If you want to get a good sample of time management, at least the Power and Water session was better.
We need a standard clock, by the way, Mr Deputy Chairman. I accept the decision of the chair last night and I was not having a go at her, but perhaps we need a standard clock.
In respect of what a minister should answer, and because we use accrual accounting now and we deal with outputs and outcomes, I noticed in the Budget Overview the following statement:
- Outputs and output groups relate to outcomes, with each output group linking to at least one outcome.
That sounds good:
- Outcomes represent the objectives of the government in seeking to achieve, on behalf of the community, through
the delivery of outputs. Thus, outcomes reflect the government’s policy directions and outline why particular outputs
are delivered.
We do not have what we used to have as a standard budget; we have a different form of budget which is about inputs, outputs and outcomes. A lot of that is measured by policy. It is important that, in the scrutiny of government departments and ministers, we are entitled to scrutinise the policy of government because that policy is reflected in the budget. It is important we take on issues that are controversial such as uranium. I did not ask the question because I did not want to start a brawl; I asked it because I felt that I should test the minister on that policy. I asked about cotton not because I am a great fan of growing cotton all over the place, but because I felt the logic was not correct when other crops, I feel, can do more damage.
I am a great supporter of the environment, and if I speak in this parliament, it is not because I want to destroy the environment but because sometimes the government’s policies are a bit haywire ...
Mr Bonson: We are worried, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Well, I must admit, many years ago when I was 19, my father had on the back of his car before protests became the normal thing: ‘Save the Little Desert’. Probably not many people would know that the Little Desert is, but it is a small national park in Victoria. A group of us, horticultural colleagues, went out of our way to stop the Premier of Victoria selling it off to a large wheat farmer. The Little Desert is still there.
My credentials, although people might think they are a bit mixed up at times, are basically there …
Mr Stirling: Why do you want cotton?
Mr WOOD: I did not say that, minister. You see, you missed the point. I want cropping that is sustainable and does not do damage. I do not sit there and just take things for granted; I look at the science and the logic. That is what I am testing. That is my job as an Independent: to come here and ask the minister why does he do that and what is the decision behind that, which is important.
Mr Deputy Chairman, it is a good system, although it needs some refining. We all should try to tighten up on questions and answers. I thank all the staff who support the process. I thank the ministers for coming along. I thank the Legislative Assembly staff and the media. It is very important that the media comes along. When you look at estimates hearings, how many members of the public were there? Very few. The media has a very important role in the estimates process.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Chairman, I agree with the member for Nelson. Going through estimates is an experience that is satisfying as an elected representative and a member of parliament. To have that level of access to ministers over an extended period of time, as well as heads of department and others who work in agencies to assist in finding answers to very important questions, is satisfying.
There are aspects of this process that do cause genuine irritation and they should be raised and allowed to be considered sensibly. We are here to advance the best interests of Territorians, not political interests as much the long-term interests of Territorians. It reminds me a little of trying to get a handle on what is going on. There are two levels of discussion that occur. I was trying to think of an analogy and it is a bit like The Truman Show, which is the Jim Carrey movie where he was living in a false world - everyone else knew but he did not and it had been concealed from him.
The opposition has the obligation to reveal the true story, whereas government wants to conceal a story and maintain a perception. For the opposition, it is a bit like going fishing. If you have ever been fishing and you know there is a barramundi underneath an overhang, you just know it is there, you keep fishing, you keep throwing your lure in. You know it is there and you will not give up until you get that strike. We in opposition often know the answer to the question and we know that the minister knows the answer to the question and very cleverly evades the answer ...
Mr Stirling: If you know the answer, why are you asking the question?
Mr MILLS: This is the role of opposition: to ensure that there is appropriate accountability.
Mr Stirling: Failure of strategy No 1. Do not ask questions to which you already know the answers. It is a waste of time.
Mr MILLS: If we know the answer to the question, we ask the question so that government may be able to come out into the open and speak quite plainly so that the wider community understands the truth. However, the greater level of energy is political and is spent in concealing that which is beneficial to prosecuting the core issue of accountability and transparency. That is the game that is being played. Those who see this game in action and do not understand it and criticise the repeat of a line of questioning as a waste of time, would believe a fairy story. We would be asking questions like: ‘Please, minister, tell us all the great initiatives that have been achieved in your area over the past 12 months?’ ‘Thank you very much, member of parliament, for asking such a question. Let me tell …’. Then out pumps all this bulldust and we give you a round of applause, with tears in our eyes and go on to ask another question. ‘Tell us all the wonderful things that happened’. ‘Please do not ask a negative question because we are doing such a fine job and it would be quite upsetting and we would take it personally if you ever asked a question that would probe a little deeper than the surface’.
This is not The Truman Show; this is real life. It is real money that belongs to Territorians and we have been charged with a very serious responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability.
Parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government. They are the Labor government’s own words and that is the endeavour that we undertake. We operate in a political environment that I, for one - and I believe my colleagues are the same - would like to see the political element of this reduced so that we can be satisfied with prosecuting the core matter here. That is to operate in an unhindered way, to praise and criticise or call to account. That is why a line of questioning is often pursued: because we know darn well what is being concealed and it is appropriate accountability. We will be continuing with this.
Members opposite try to shrug off this tag of arrogance in the clear knowledge that you went to an election with a budget that had not been scrutinised. You knew that. You played the game. You took that to Territorians with an extraordinary level of self-promotion immediately after the budget, went to an election and immediately had estimates. I guess you were rubbing your hands together with glee thinking there are only a few little opposition members and that you would run over the top of them.
I am proud to say that we put up a good show on behalf of Territorians. We hold you to account and will continue to do so because we have a higher duty, and it is not self-interest. It is not governed primarily by politics; it is governed by prosecuting the core business of accountability to the public of financial expenditure in every agency, and it starts with management of the economy.
The estimates process provided an opportunity to have clearly revealed intellectual inconsistency in Labor Party policies. When issues of principle are referred to, I would like to see that the principle is sound and can withstand scrutiny. The intellectual position with regards to uranium mining is baffling and disturbing, particularly when you marry that with a similar Labor Party policy with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and the failure of this government to take any responsibility on that issue of principle. It reveals, in the member for Nelson’s words ‘a haywire approach’ to matters of policy that are undergirded by sound principle. These are the sort of things that Territorians need to see: that you are yourselves governed in your own intellectual rigour by principle.
Be fair, be honest; you have raised expectations as to the way business would be conducted in this Chamber. I was elected in 1999 in a by-election. I had a short time as a backbencher in government. Two years later, I went to a general election, at the same time as the member for Wanguri. We entered the Chamber in different circumstances with positions reversed. I listened carefully to all of the speeches that were made. All those maiden speeches, I remember well, and I have mentioned this a number of times. I took to heart the things that many of you said, but I did not expect to see the level of hatred and vitriol that has been sustained to this day for the CLP. I did not expect that.
I expected to see the ability to think outside of prejudice, to think creatively and to honour principles that were espoused in maiden speeches. I expected that words contained in your Good Governance document meant more than something you get in The Truman Show. They have to mean something.
If we ask questions that hold you to account and rankle slightly, think a little deeply. What is it really about? We might expose an embarrassed minister, a minister of the Crown who is discharging a very profound responsibility. We might embarrass them. We have members come in and try to interject to block a line of attack. Are we are attacking the person? Good heavens, no. We are not attacking that person; we are holding that person to account in the responsibility that they hold. If some do not understand that and operate at that lower level and think that it is a game of football where you attack the other player, you are in the wrong place. We are governed by self-interest, not in the greater interests of those whom we serve.
I appreciate the opportunity. The member for Braitling, obviously, does not understand the responsibility that we take seriously as shadow minsters to get a grasp of the fiscal strategy and how revenue is being expended to serve the greater and longer term interests of the Territory. It cannot be prosecuted in four or five quick and easy questions - it cannot be. It is an incredibly complex business. The Treasurer knows that from the number of questions I asked that he was unable to answer and had to call upon the cast of thousands gathered around to assist. There is the opposition with a clip board, just the four of us with minimal resources, having to get across a number of issues.
The truth is that some of these matters take a fair amount of time to lead up to. In the core scrutiny, being the management of the Territory economy, it was revealed quite plainly, and members opposite will have difficulty if they are accustomed to preserving self-interest, that the Labor Party has not managed the Territory economy well at all.
Any indicator as to whether the economy is travelling well would show that we have not matched expectations. You only have to look at every other state or territory and you can see the strong indicators. The primary indicators are population increase and employment growth. They are down in the Territory and reveal an economy that is not going as well as it could be. This is not just a wild assertion from opposition. The Territory public need to know this: you have had a very unusual opportunity, and that has been the increase in revenue. In the Treasurer’s own words, it was far greater than expected. If you are running a business, you run it within your budget. If you receive far greater income than you expected, you can use it in either of two ways. One, you could employ more staff and have a jolly good time in the shop, or you could invest it deeply into your business to make it more profitable in the longer term. That is the issue.
How has the increase in revenue, far greater than expected to the tune of $300m additional, unexpected, been applied? How has it been used? Has it been used to make deep investments to increase the profitability and the strength of the Territory economy? Yes or no?
A member: Yes.
Mr MILLS: If I ask that question, of course government says yes, yes, yes. However, we have access to figures and indicators, too, and we have to hold their assertions to account. Their assertions do not marry with reality. This is the real world. Expectations have been raised in glossy documents, and statements made around budget time do not match the actual outcome in terms of population or employment growth. What we have seen is an increase in recurrent expenditure, but we have not seen enough evidence of deeper level investments that increase long-term profitability - immediately, wave pool and waterfront come to mind. Well and good. However, with a significant, unexpected increase in revenue, and a prior commitment to balanced budgets and debt reduction, why then increase nett debt to the tune of $200m? Why increase the debt?
We took the opportunity through estimates to actually ask that question, to develop that case, and to put that question in a way that stands up to scrutiny. The budget figures clearly demonstrate nett debt has increased, revenue has increased, key indicators to determine whether the economy is growing indicate only meagre progress, and the ultimate story is one that Territorians will judge. It is our responsibility to ask these questions and, if it is unpleasant or prolonged for the Independent member who spoke earlier, the member for Nelson, I make no apology. We have taken our task very seriously.
In concluding, there is much more that I could say. I am looking forward to these four years, I really am. There is much to be done and, as I said earlier last week, I expect the Territory to be a markedly different place in four years time. There will be a different level of discussion and consideration. I hope that hope is strengthened for what can be achieved in the Northern Territory. The Territory has immense potential, and it is up to each of us to find our contribution to unleash that potential. That can only be done if we rise above political self-interest and find our way towards dealing with that core business: asking honest questions and having the guts to answer them.
To finish off, we often, in times of human weakness, say: ‘Gee whiz, it is late, early days, a lot of preparation’, and there has been all of that. We are rewarded well as parliamentarians. However, there are also others who have not gone around saying: ‘Gee whiz, I am really tired, and look at me and how many hours I put in’. They are those wonderful people who have been with us, day by day, from morning to night. I would like to put their names on the public record because I, along with fellow members, sincerely appreciate the dedication and the superb service that we receive from the staff of the Legislative Assembly.
Thank you - and I am sure I say this on behalf of all members - Joanne Carbone, Anna-Maria Socci, Kim Cowcher, Pat Hancock, Annette Brown, Graham Gadd and Stephen Stokes, who work with us on the floor as our day-to-day helpers, and those characters who work behind the scenes. We may not know that they are there but everything seems to be in place. Thank you to Derek Stafford, Tony Hume, Tony Hibberd and Peter McGann for the work that you did behind the scenes.
A member: Terry Hanley.
Mr MILLS: Oh, Terry Hanley, of course. The reason Terry’s name is not on this is because I asked him to provide the names. Isn’t that beautiful? Thank you, Terry, I hope you are listening and we sincerely appreciate your efforts. To those who are also listening at this time, thank you to the Hansard workers.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: We finish and they continue. I think it was yesterday I received one of those little yellow Daily Hansard books and it was still hot because it had just come out of the printers. It was not that long before I had spoken those words, and there they were. Thank you very much on behalf of all members to the Hansard workers.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Chairman, it is important for us in opposition to voice our concerns about the estimates process. We see a government, newly elected, with 19 members, and I congratulate the government for achieving that. To see them cynically schedule not only the ceremonial sittings of parliament which are, obviously, necessary, and then go straight into the estimates process, as the member for Nelson said, after we had gone through a two-and-a-half week election campaign. Many of us had been campaigning long before that in the Clayton’s campaign. We have been, effectively, working really hard for quite a long time. I suppose the government looked at it cynically and said: ‘Oh well, here is a severely diminished opposition, they are not able to deal with it. Let us steamroll them and push everything through’.
If the government was serious about open and transparent governance of the Territory and was prepared to expose the budget to close scrutiny, they would allow time for preparation of detailed questions that we could put to ministers. The fact that the opposition carried the fight to the government, I believe, surprised the government and perhaps even the media and political commentators around the place. We were focused, we knew what we were about, we knew the issues that had to be raised with this budget, and we raised them in an effective manner. I appreciate that the media took time to consider the issues that were raised by us and reported them accordingly.
The member for Braitling said: ‘We did not have enough time for Independent members to ask questions of ministers and there should be alternate questions between the opposition and the member for Braitling’. Well, she has another think coming.
Mr Stirling: Democracy!
Dr LIM: She is not in opposition.
Mr Stirling: She is not entitled to a voice now? Interesting. You are as arrogant as you ever were.
Dr LIM: She is not in opposition, and the job of the opposition is to closely scrutinise the government on behalf of all Territorians.
When the member for Nelson was speaking about the estimates and commented on how tightly the estimates were placed with the ceremonial sittings, you could see the body language of the Deputy Chief Minister; his arrogant manner, cynically dismissing what the member for Nelson had to say. The member for Nelson made a lot of sense. There needs to be a fairer process. Diminished in numbers we might be, but diminished in fight, definitely not.
Coming to some of the specific issues that were raised in parliament, I made a very scathing comment about the mistaken list that came from Madam Speaker when she tabled members’ overseas travel. I look forward to the corrected list and that will be forthcoming I am sure. However, it is a pity that Madam Speaker tabled a paper that she did not closely scrutinise, one which had no relevance to the current budget.
As regards education, we tried to get government to make it clear that their election commitments and commitments made in the budget were, in fact, genuine. One that I raised was the commitment by the Chief Minister on the night of the election in her victory speech, when she said that her government was committed to 10 000 apprentices and that, in fact, she - or we, and I use the words in quotes – ‘‘We will deliver’. When that point was put to government, you could see the ministers all running 100 miles in the other direction, especially the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. There were weasel words being used: ‘Oh, we were talking about apprentices and trainees. We are talking about 10 000 Territorians. No, we are not talking about 10 000 apprentices’. The average Territorian understands what an apprentice is. An apprentice is a person who is undertaking a course in trades with the hope that, after three or four years of training, that person becomes a qualified tradesman.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in fact, admitted that a tradie, after two to five years in private work, could be generating an income well in excess of $100,000. There was a significant difference between what the Chief Minister promised and how the government now tries to re-interpret its pre-election promise. That is cynical. It is not telling Territorians the truth. If you did make a mistake, admit you made a mistake, like the Beattie fellow, the Premier of Queensland. People used to forgive him. Used to - not any more.
A member: Warren Beattie?
Dr LIM: No, Warren Beattie is the actor. He might have been an actor too, but Queenslanders used to forgive the Premier for his admission of wrong, but it has worn a little thin of late and he is copping a little. But admit that you are wrong. Admit that you cannot deliver 10 000 qualified tradesmen over the next four years …
Mr Mills: It sounds good, though.
Dr LIM: It sounds good, very good, of course it sounds good. Even in the budget papers, they were quite clear when they said they were not going to be able to have a completion rate of 100%. In other words, you might have 10 000 people starting apprenticeship training, but at best they are going to have 48% completion. That is a very telling point. Yes, we did labour on that a fair bit and, as the member for Blain said earlier, we had to labour on points such as this to ensure that government’s commitments are accurately defined for Territorians.
In terms of Tourism, while I was not there, I was monitoring the Chief Minister’s comments on the parliamentary broadcast system, and I am very disappointed that Virgin Blue is withdrawing from Alice Springs entirely and appears to be going to do the same in Darwin. I offer this suggestion to the government, something that I have discussed at length within the Country Liberal Party: the government could implement a policy - if it is not too late, that is - to ensure that, say, 10% or more of all government airline travel – and that includes ministers, backbenchers, parliamentarians, all public servants - be placed with airlines other than Qantas. That way, you provide core business to those airlines without costing $1 more, without having to provide subsidies, or any other form of financial support. You can just say: ‘10% of government travel will be booked with other airlines, whether they be regional or national carriers’.
That way, those airlines could say: ‘We can survive’. This is a Country Liberal Party policy that we are offering, again, to government. Take it on because it will be for the betterment of Territorians to have successful regional and national airlines servicing the Territory. It is not about your policy or my policy; it is about how Territorians can benefit.
I hear a giggle from one of the backbenchers, newly elected, on the government side. In due course, you might think again. You might live in Darwin - and it is all very well and fine that you can get in and out of Darwin easily - but those of us living in the regions have continued to struggle to get appropriate travel services.
I come to Health. I was astonished - literally astonished - when the question was put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Health Minister about whether there were any locum anaesthetists practising at the Alice Springs Hospital, and he was so quick to respond: ‘No. We are all fine, we have a full complement’. When I pushed him, his response was: ‘No, everything is fine’. I kept pushing, and I kept pushing and that obviously rang a bell with the minister. Uh-oh! That doctor from Alice Springs, Limmy, he actually knows something that I do not know.
While I was watching the body language of the officers sitting behind the minister, the person who should know, the General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital, kept giving the minister the same answer: no, no, no, no. Finally, and after several minutes of confusion on the minister’s part and his officers around him, they pulled out a piece of paper that indicated that, indeed, there was at least one locum anaesthetist at the Alice Springs Hospital. That is the level of incompetence within the management of the Alice Springs Hospital. That is what I was trying to demonstrate.
Mr Henderson: That is an outrageous attack on public servants again.
Dr LIM: There is! There is that level of incompetence, and it is no wonder you have problems at the Alice Springs Hospital.
The waiting list is a classic example. At the change of government four years ago, there were about 450 patients waiting for surgery. Now we have some 1600 patients. That is an increase of nearly four times over four years. You have to wonder why. The case I quoted about this particular person who saw me last weekend at the Alice Springs Show complaining that his elective hip surgery, for a very painful osteoarthritic hip condition, had been cancelled and re-booked six times. Six times! The last time it was cancelled was within days of the surgery when he had already presented himself to the hospital for a pre-surgical assessment and everything was all set and ready to go.
It is like the Olympic walker, I cannot remember her name now, who walked the whole course until the last 400 m and then she was disqualified. How tragic would that be? Had you been disqualified within the first kilometre or two of the race, you would say that is fine, but when you are right at the end and you think: ‘Yes, I am now over the line, I am going to be there’, you have the case cancelled. When this man was talking to me, he was absolutely distraught; there were tears in his eyes. For 12 months he has been waiting for this surgery. The pain he has had to live with the last 12 months is still there. I hope the minister will examine this case. I am sure he would know who the patient is because there are not very many patients who have been put off six times in 12 months. I hope the minister will check the case out and personally intervene. Fix it up, for goodness sake, because it is not fair on anyone, least of all this man and his family.
There was some confusion with ministers. Members will recall I put a question to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure about the level of contamination of the ground at the wharf precinct. I asked him how much dirt was going to be removed, where it was going to be moved to, and what it is going to cost Territorians. Well, not much information was forthcoming from the minister. He was not able to give me any accurate costings of what it will be for Territorians to bear over the foreseeable future, that being five, 10, 15 years into the future, to rehabilitate the ground that we know is contaminated. Then, when I quoted some figures that I know were available within the department and the Darwin City Council, the Chief Executive Officer and the minister contradicted me. He said: ‘No, you are wrong’.
I am glad the member for Nelson was able to support me in that matter and produce documentation right there and then, provided either by the Darwin City Council or directly to him that, in fact, there is no soil that has to be treated or removed from the wharf precinct as far as the Chief Executive Officer knew. That is the sort of incompetence that really worries the opposition.
The government has to manage the Northern Territory well. You have won an election overwhelmingly and, fine, manage the Territory, but do it well. The opposition will undertake to make sure that you do so. That is our role, and governments are only as good as the opposition. I seek to ensure that this government knows what it is doing and tells Territorians the truth. Do not hide behind a lot of obfuscation, a lot of words that tell us nothing.
The third incident of conflicting evidence came when questions were put to various ministers about whether the budget promotion papers were translated and produced by government. When that question was put to the Treasurer, he initially denied having anything to do with it. He knew nothing about it and said nothing like that happened. When push came to shove, he started to back off and suggested that maybe the Chief Minister might know what happened there and, in fact, suggested that I ask the Chief Minister that particular question. As far as he was concerned, he did not know. Well, not entirely did not know; he thought there might be something like that happened, but he was not sure, or did not want to say. To use the words of the member for Blain, he did not want to say whether there was or not, and suggested I should ask the Chief Minister.
The Leader of the Opposition did ask the Chief Minister that question, and she initially did not respond. The Chief Financial Officer for the Department of the Chief Minister responded on the Chief Minister’s behalf, and said initially there was nothing. Again, as the Leader of the Opposition pushed for a more accurate response, there was reluctant admission: ‘Yes, there might be some translation costs, but that is really the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’ responsibility and you need to ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’. It went back and forth and no one wanted to take any responsibility for it. Then, gleefully, the Chief Minister said, and I quote: ‘Can I just add that I am very proud of the fact that we do actually translate the budget’. It is about time! Now, the Chief Minister says: ‘No, no, we did do it’. However, would she give us the figures, or who authorised it? No, she would not. That is cynical, devious, hiding behind a lot words. That is what I do not like about governments that try to conceal what they do.
When it came to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs’ time to face the Estimates Committee, I put the same question to him. Guess what? He said: ‘Oh, it is not my decision. We are the service agency, we provide the translation service to a client agency/minister’, and ‘Oh, well, yes we did’. I said: ‘Which language do you use?’ ‘Oh, we do not know.’ Then he eventually said: ‘Oh, it is Greek, Filipino, Indonesian and Chinese, and we only paid $480.64 for the translation’. My mind just could not accept that. I said: ‘Hey, that is four languages; that is $120 per language to produce 1200 bits of different brochures in language’. That is a lot of work and so very little money was used to translate. Something is just not right, and I propose to put this to the Auditor-General to seek that he investigate this matter closely.
Thank you to all the staff. The member for Blain mentioned all your names. Thank you very much for your support. I apologise that I picked up a paper that I just bundled in with my papers. I have returned it to Mr Hanley and hope things will be squared off.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, I would also like to thank the committee for their hard work, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Independents over the four days of the Estimates Committee.
The chairman, the member for Sanderson, and the deputy chair, the member for Karama, I thought, in the times that I was in the seat, acted impartially and tried to keep the questions flowing. It is important that those questions keep flowing. It is interesting that some of the members of the opposition and Independents think the chairs did a pretty good job, but obviously, the member for Araluen, in the bile that she brought forth earlier this afternoon could not bring herself to say that.
In terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to this committee report, we had 20 minutes of invective, anger and bitterness and no mention - not one mention – of expenditure and the areas where she scrutinised ministers on departmental expenditure, and some of the criticisms that I would expect the opposition to have of the priorities in expenditure of the current government and the budget. The Leader of the Opposition has totally missed the point: estimates is about scrutiny of the 2005-06 Budget, not a personal tirade of abuse for 20 minutes about individual members on this side of the House.
Ms Carney: Tirade of abuse!
Mr HENDERSON: Hansard will bear me out and, if the Leader of the Opposition is just going to carry on in that vein, it is going to be an interesting four years.
I had four separate Chief Financial Officers come to the table with the agencies that I carried through the budget this year, and I think only one of them actually answered a question on the budget. So much of it was just trawling down vacant alleyways looking for a conspiracy theory that was never there in the first place. As the father of the House, the member for Nhulunbuy who has been in this parliament for 17 years, said, and we have said time and time again, 42 hours was made available to the opposition and the Independents to scrutinise the budget and they still could not prioritise the areas they needed to focus on. The previous record during the previous government’s reign was 42 hours. So to allege that we were gagging debate again does not stand scrutiny in terms of the history …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: … in terms of the history of this parliament.
It is interesting to see the different attitudes of members on the committee from the opposition to the Independents. The member for Braitling asked specific electorate or Alice Springs questions on policy issues. I make a commitment to the member for Braitling: the Standing Orders Committee will look at time and how we can better balance the time for the Independents in the parliament through the Estimates Committee process. We will have a little review, look at what is happening in parliaments around Australia and try to balance that up, because Independents do have a significant role, not only in representing their electorate, but scrutinising government.
The opposition questions were repeated over and over and over again. Listening to the members for Greatorex and Blain saying: ‘We know the answer and we are going to ask you the question. If you do not tell us the answer, we are going to keep asking the question over and over and over again’. What is the point of that? If there is an accusation or an allegation against the government, why not put the allegation and say: ‘Minister, this is the document that I have. This is the representation I have had. I am informed that blah, blah, blah is the particular issue and you have misled the committee’. Not once did that occur. It was endless trawling down rabbit holes for no particular effect.
Take cricket and netball: I was asked so many questions about cricket and whether it was going to come back to the Northern Territory. I am astounded that the member for Blain, the shadow sports minister - and I think he was the shadow sports minister in the previous parliament - did not know what the Australia A cricket team was. There were other areas that we could have gone to. There were questions on the election commitment of $4.8m for netball in 2007-08. We were looking at the 2005-06 Budget. How the election commitment for 2007-08 was in any way relevant to this budget astounds me, and we must have spent 20 minutes on that.
Of all the responsibilities in government, I would have thought Family and Children’s Services is probably one of the most difficult, one of the most challenging in a policy and emotional sense and there is not a government around Australia that does not face challenges in improving child protection and responding to child abuse. But, oh no, we did not want to talk about the budget, and how much was allocated, and what were the government’s priorities for the next year. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to debate a statement of 12 months ago …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman!
Mr HENDERSON: … in this House that had absolutely no relevance to what was in the budget.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, minister. What is the point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman, is that the member well knows not to mislead. I asked those questions with a reference to the budget. Had I not done so, I am sure the deputy chair would have picked me up. I do not mind the member being creative, but I do object to him lying.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. There is a process if you believe the minister is misleading.
Ms CARNEY: No, just lying.
Mr HENDERSON: Responding to the point of order, I am pretty sure that, as the member for Araluen sat down, she said: ‘I do object to the member lying’.
Ms Carney: Yes, I did.
Mr HENDERSON: I ask her to withdraw that comment unless she wants to bring it on by way of a substantive motion.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the comment, but if that is what you said and you agreed that you said it, please withdraw it, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the fact that I said I object that he is lying.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! Leader of Government Business.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is too smart by half. If my memory of that debate is questionable, I recall the member for Braitling said that the Leader of the Opposition in referencing that speech and taking up so much of the minister’s time was contemptuous of the process. That was what the member for Braitling said, so if you do not believe me, member for Araluen, the member for Braitling said the same thing.
The member for Katherine said that she has 50 unanswered questions. I urge her to put them on the table because we will respond to them. I would have thought in the hierarchy of the opposition that as Deputy Leader, the member for Katherine would take precedence over the members for Greatorex and Blain. If she, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has unanswered questions, there is certainly something happening in the party room where the member for Greatorex has ascendency over the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Nelson mentioned the timing of the election; an interesting comment. We thought long and hard about when we would bring estimates on, and we decided to bring the process on as soon as we could because the government did have a budget on the table with appropriation allocated for the 2005-06 financial year. We want to get on with those programs and that expenditure as soon as possible and so, I believe, do public servants.
To the member for Nelson, yes, we will look at the issues of government questions. If you did not get to ask the question on the port and it was a priority, then I suggest you put it in writing to the minister or seek a briefing and I am sure you will get the answer.
On the member for Blain, I am not going to comment. There was a lot of hypothesis about the state of the economy and where were the priorities in terms of getting the economy moving; very little in challenging the appropriation in the budget to particular output areas.
The member for Greatorex wasted ages on the number of speed camera checks and tickets that the police issued and what revenue was collected. It was very clearly demonstrated to the member for Greatorex that Territorians are responding in a responsible way. The number of people being booked for speeding is reducing; it has been reducing for a number of years. The amount of revenue being collected is reducing; one would expect that. He insisted he wanted a monthly breakdown of those figures. Is he saying that the police are providing misleading information? I had specific advice at the table and stated to the member for Greatorex over and over again that the amount of work that would be required in the police finance area and the revenue section of Treasury to reconcile tickets that were issued with receipts received on a month-by-month basis would be extraordinary, and asked why he needed this particular information. He was unable to give any answer. We must have wasted about 20 minutes on that issue. To say that they did not have time for all their questions to be answered is patently absurd.
I can say that I am very pleased with this budget. It has been crafted with a lot of hard work not only by Cabinet ministers, but by public servants across the Northern Territory. Many, many hours - probably hundreds and thousands - go into creating a budget. There are some exciting initiatives in there for the 2005-06 financial year, and we will deliver on those. I would like to put on the record tonight my thanks to all of those public servants who participated in the estimates process.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: It is interesting when you talk to those public servants about what they think of the process. I will not divulge some of those comments, but it is a process that focuses, not only the public service, but ministers and governments in doing the right thing, making sure that processes and protocols within government are established and adhered to.
My thanks to all Legislative Assembly staff who supported the Estimates Committee process - fabulous work! It is really draining on you guys as well as us. Like the member for Arafura, as I was driving home down Bagot Road about 8.15 last night, and the State of Origin was probably 30 minutes in, there was not another car on the road, and I felt sorry for people still in the parliament debating estimates and not watching the State of Origin. So all to all of the staff of the Legislative Assembly, members of the committee, and public servants, thank you. It is a vigorous process. We will look at the process, and we will be back again next year.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Chairman, I thank all ministers, core members of the Estimates Committee, opposition and Independent members who contributed to the debate.
The common theme that seemed to come through was concern about whether the time was adequate. The majority of members of the opposition were saying they wanted longer. The core members of the PAC who were there at the start - and I am referring to the members for Greatorex, Nelson and myself - participated in a mission to Tasmania. I believe the member for Greatorex also went to another parliament in a different jurisdiction to have a look at how their estimates worked. We came back and trialled our system, and I believe everyone, from the time of the first estimates, will remember just how it was, with every member of opposition sitting up on the bench, all strung along, and a few members of government on the PAC, and how that was really quite an unmanageable circus. Things did get out of hand in that case.
We debated that estimates process, reviewed and modified it and changed it into something similar to what we see today. It needed a bit more tinkering the following year until last year, when we felt really comfortable with the process and the time that was allocated per portfolio.
I remind members that the then Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in the House, was full of praise for it. We are here at this point, and members who were critical of the time allocation are not members who have been actively participating in the process of the Estimates Committee.
I can see that it would come as a bit of a surprise and a shock to be thrown in, but, once again, I say that we have got to the point of 42 hours based on the historic knowledge of how long the budget was interrogated for in previous regimes, and how we got to this point. I am of the firm belief the 42 hours is long enough. Some members of the Estimates Committee are also of that belief, yet we do have to look at the distribution and allocation time within the portfolios, and I go along with that.
Once again, I will talk about the member for Greatorex. We had two instances in the committee stage: one where, as the shadow minister, he was prepared to forgo his first shot at an output and offered it to the member for Nelson. As the chair, I said no, we have a process to follow, because you, as the shadow minister responsible for this portfolio, should go through and exhaust all those questions. I believe that is the right call. Perhaps I did not make it that clear at the start and we had an internal debate about it. However, we did get through okay. We did get over to the member for Nelson, as a committee member, to ask his questions.
The other instance was this morning during scrutiny of the GOC when there were two hours set. There was only one line item, so we were not going through output-by-output. We were able to, without too much trauma, give the opposition member the opportunity to have a one-and-a-quarter hour bite of it straight up, and then we opened it up to the committee. Clearly, the member for Greatorex did have more questions, but he could see the value in opening up the floor to other members of the committee so that they could ask their questions. Then we were able to get it back over to the opposition side. There was a lot of room for private member’s questions, which were asked around the table.
It worked, but that method can only work on a single-line item such as the GOC. Where we have output-by-output, the challenge is going to be to try to find out exactly how we can do it. I would not like to see us cut off the opposition on their line of interrogation. If they believe there is something further they need to interrogate, we run the chance of, perhaps, cutting them short. That is not what estimates is all about; estimates is about giving a good rein to opposition and Independents and to local members to interrogate the budget, and to have a really good, in-depth discussion with the minister and the public sector officers who are assisting them at the table.
Without being overly critical of how this year’s performance went, there were times when some of the questions being asked were about information that was already in the public domain. The information was already there. Perhaps members did not know it existed, but it comes back to research. I take the point that in the middle of all of this, there was an election. Well, there will not be next year or the year after …
A member: Oh, I don’t know!
Mr KIELY: No, I do not have a crystal ball! I do know there are a lot of members travelling to Tennant Creek in the same plane. No, I will not go so far as to say that.
You will have the opportunity. It was not said tongue-in-cheek, when a number of ministers offered briefings. I know you think that is code for ‘you are telling us we are not doing our job’, but it is not. Sincerely, when the budget comes down, all of us should seek briefings on areas of interest or responsibilities, and then get all the information you can and get it out of the way. Then, you will know where to look for all that information that is in the public domain, and you can target and help facilitate the timeliness, and there will be ample time for Independents and local members.
As I said, I am not going to go to individual members and their particular lines of questioning. However, I will say this about the Leader of the Opposition: being in the chair, there were times when I thought it was a little personalised in some responses to me. It is going to be a long four years if we keep this up. I can give a commitment now that I am not going to bite. I have bitten so many times on the lines the Leader of the Opposition throws at me. I give this commitment now.
Mr Henderson: Careful, Len.
Mr KIELY: No, no, because, as the member for Blain was saying with his fishing analogy about chucking the lure out, I have bitten a few times; I will admit to that …
Mr Stirling: A few!
Mr KIELY: Those days are behind me. I thought I was going to get a bit of a rap from the Deputy Opposition Leader. I was chuffed about that. I thought: ‘Gee, this is a pretty good thing for the member for Katherine’. It did not quite go that far; I was slapped instead. I would like to say to the Deputy Opposition Leader that the chair can ask questions; the chair is allowed to ask questions. Over the whole of the three-and-a-half days, the 42 hours, I asked three. That is all; just three. The questions I asked happened to deal with the powerline coming from Brisbane, and that might have cranked you up a little, but they were fair and legitimate questions.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Member for Katherine, there are no standing orders to preclude the chair from asking questions. I just thought I would clarify that.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex.
Mr KIELY: It is on the record from all of us our true appreciation of the Legislative Assembly staff who provided all the support. I, too, as the Chair of the Estimates Committee, wholeheartedly thank all those involved, and it goes right from the top, from the Clerk down to the people who come in and clean up the rooms afterwards, the whole lot. Without that support team behind us we could not function, we could not operate. I truly appreciate it and I know that all members of the committee do as well.
I would also like to extend a sincere thank you to all the public sector officers who were coming in to assist us interrogate the budget. They put in long hours, and some did not get up into the front. I, too, was looking at the body language. They were attentive, they had the information on hand, and they were trying to get it up to the minister as quickly and effectively as possible.
There were times, believe it or not, that there was some goodwill shown in the committee between the shadows and the minister, and there were times when there was a bit of humour going around. When I was watching their body language, they could also see the times when it was in good humour, but I did not see anyone rolling their eyes. We are talking about highly paid professionals. They do not sit in the audience and roll their eyes at the back of the minister, let me tell you. I never saw any of that sort of business. So to all of the members of our professional and diligent public sector, I thank you for your attention and assistance in this interrogation.
I would finally give my sincere thanks to the new members who joined us coming straight off the back of an election, straight in for one week in parliament and being sworn in. They were there, sitting at the table, helping to interrogate the 2005-06 Budget. I would like to say thank you to them for a job well done. I am certain that some of you are probably going to get more experience on there than what you bargained for.
The Estimates Committee is a fantastic concept and it is something that I commend. I am proud and pleased that we brought it in and I am sure that it is here to stay.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chair of the Estimates Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion, as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill (No 2) 2005-06, or the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2005-06 be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
In many ways, it is a very solid piece of work and it reflects a growing economy in the Northern Territory, and will deliver sustainable services and outcomes throughout 2005-06.
Budgets do not get easier despite a few years of experience behind us. Budget Cabinet probably remains the most onerous process that ministers have to come to grips with throughout a given year. That is exactly as it should be because there are no more important decisions in general than those made at Budget Cabinet as those decisions are critical to the future of the Territory.
Those are the decisions that finish up in the document that is the guiding light, which outlines the agenda of government and which pushes the public service and the policy decisions from government out into the community. It is the document that drives government, propels the Territory forward and keeps the Territory moving ahead. Sometimes the process seems to start earlier than ever, but of course it has its finishing date when we finally get here to deliver budget. As difficult a process as it is, there is no more exciting piece of work in government, from my view, than the work that goes into framing budgets.
I do want to put my final thanks on the record to, first and foremost, Treasury, who do an enormous amount of work. Talk about the midnight oil; drive past Treasury at 2 am and 3 am as we get close to budgets! All the lights are ablaze, and they are hard at it. No one sees it, but that is a fact. That is how professional, dedicated and diligent these officers are. Prior to that stage of keeping Treasury busy all night, there is an enormous amount of work at agency level. Chief Financial Officers and Chief Executives throughout the agencies do a similar amount of work at their own level putting together their bids and ideas. It does tie up a huge number of public servants and it drives Cabinet very hard.
I am very proud of this budget. Given where we are and what we have done in the last three or four years, this is the best one yet. I hope they continue to get better, but I think it is a very solid and sound piece of work that will guide us well into the future, and my thanks go to all involved in it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I want to make some comments on some of the topics on which I was unable to comment during estimates.
I wish to address some of these remarks to the Treasurer because no matter what spin you put on it, Treasurer, Territory debt is again beginning to spin out of control: a total of $1.781bn. Even though the CLP panicked when the debt was beginning to get near $2bn, an unsustainable amount for a population of 200 000, you seem to be wanting to justify it.
The nett debt for the Territory increased considerably, an increase of $128m over four years totalling $1.781bn, an increase of $28m over the level of debt you inherited in 2001 that you said was a black hole. Would you say now that this budget also has a black hole? Is it true, for instance, that the borrowing program is the largest to date for debt refinancing and that an estimated $530m is due to mature this year?
Can you advise whether Treasury will be undertaking borrowings for new and extra funds for 2005, or only for refinancing previous borrowings that are due to mature this year? If this is so, what is the interest payment? Your table indicates that the interest payments are decreasing. How can this be so when the debt is continuing and annual borrowings are continuing? What is a more realistic figure for interest borrowings?
In this year’s budget papers, one table indicates that there is an estimated surplus of $46m for 2004-05. There is a turnaround deficit of $68m for this financial year, 2005-06. If my maths is correct, this is a turnaround of $114m for one year. I know you keep saying it is for the waterfront, but that is a huge increase in spending. How can you justify this increase in spending when you have continually condemned the previous debt? Is the government becoming complacent and trusting that the GST will pull them out of the situation?
It is a fault of the Estimates Committee process that I was not able to question the Treasurer on this area, but I raise it now because I believe close scrutiny of the debt that we are going into and the way the debt is being managed is one of the important elements that we should, as members, be questioning hard.
Mr Stirling: It is, and it is being well managed.
Mrs BRAHAM: I hope you can explain to me how you are going to refinance some of these debts and how you are going to repay and not get us further into debt, Treasurer.
Mr Stirling: I will arrange an urgent briefing, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: Unfortunately, as members know, time ran out before I could question the government on one of the most important areas of my electorate, and that is the previous minister’s policy of social engineering and the effect on public housing. I wanted to question the Chief Minister about her media release on getting tough with Housing tenants and ask what initiatives are in the budget to do this, but, unfortunately, I did not have time.
In one of my suburbs, we have experienced mob violence where people were armed with star pickets and axes - hardly traditional weapons, although this was a family dispute flowing into town. People were denied access to their homes during this riot, as the streets were closed off by the police, and parents were unsure of the safety of their families. Houses have been burnt down. There has been drug dealing coming out of the units. There has been murder. There has been suicide. There has been domestic violence as well as alcohol-related fighting. Even small babies have been used as human shields during domestic violence arguments. There is over-crowding arising from uncontrolled visitors and a lack of control has resulted in brawls. The health and hygiene standards are thrown out the window because rubbish is strewn everywhere and there are inadequate toilet facilities in the house or unit where visitors have taken over.
It is a pretty sad picture to paint, Madam Speaker, but this has happened during this period of the previous minister’s carriage of public housing when he was not strong enough to speak up against what was going on and direct his department to take some control. Chief Minister, I am looking forward to a new Housing minister, and looking forward to you giving them the means to, as you say, get tough on tenants because the situation is deplorable and we cannot continue to live with it. I hope that the new minister for Housing comes to Alice Springs, and I invite him to come with me and visit some of the areas in the electorate where people are constantly putting up with this behaviour. Then I would like to see in the budget where these measures are that will address this deplorable situation.
I also did not have an opportunity to ask the mining minister or the Chief Minister about the government’s policy on uranium mining. I cannot understand how this government can continue to allow exploration if they do not intend to allow mining from any credible find such as we have seen recently out of Alice Springs. Is it not, in fact, Madam Speaker, perpetuating a fraud to those 10 to 12 mining companies currently involved in exploration for uranium? Is it okay to accept the benefits of their endeavours, but deny them the fruits of their investments? For a government promoting employment, does the Chief Minister acknowledge the many jobs generated by these mining companies seeking uranium? Does she acknowledge the revenue flowing to land councils? Does she acknowledge the involvement of Aboriginal communities and the estimated $45m that is being spent by these companies in the Territory each year?
If she does, does she also listen to what her colleagues from interstate are saying? Premier Bob Carr commented on his concern about global warming, its effect on our weather and his state’s subsequent water shortage. Is she aware of the incentives the South Australian government is giving to mining companies in the form of funding for drilling initiatives and the promotion and boost to their economy that is occurring because of it? Has the Chief Minister ever had a mammogram or an X-ray? Will she ban the use of uranium in the treatment of cancer patients, or does she have a forked-tongue approach to allowing its use but denying its production?
I remind the Chief Minister that her predecessors Bob Collins and Maggie Hickey were both in favour of uranium mining. When you know that one of the founders of Greenpeace, the scientist Patrick Moore, breaks ranks and says that a new look needs to be taken at nuclear power if we are to get a significant reduction in the greenhouse effect, how can we continue not to acknowledge what must inevitably happen?
As far as I am concerned, there are double standards being voiced by the Chief Minister. She wants the mining companies to invest. She has not banned the use of uranium in the Territory in whatever form it is being used. She allows yellowcake to be transported on the railway and shipped out of the port, but gives no encouragement or confidence to those mining companies currently in the Territory that their efforts will be rewarded. I find that a very hypocritical stance to be taken by the Chief Minister. I ask her to seriously think about this stance, and of what she is doing to the confidence of mining companies within the Territory and how they must be feeling about her statements. It is not the way to encourage investment in the Territory.
I was also, unfortunately, not able to speak to the minister on environmental matters. The minister recently made a number of grants and, if you look closely at them, you will find that many are to do with recycling. They are great. Install a custom-built skip with an in-built bank of single can crushers and pop holes to collect crushed cans, Nyirripi; purchase and install a can crusher at Maningrida; extend the existing 5 item container deposit, Titjakala; and so on. It reflects an obvious number of applications from communities saying: ‘We would really like to get on with recycling’. The minister has acknowledged that by giving this funding. As we pointed out, the Arid Lands Environment Centre at the Alice Springs Show collected 6000 cans. That was how many were returned. Those 6000 cans were then not dumped in the landfill; they were given to a recycling firm to take south.
Madam Speaker, I am running out of time. Is it possible for me to have an extension?
Madam SPEAKER: Standing order 77 deals with extensions of time. Consent is required of the majority of members.
Ms LAWRIE: We will not support an extension in the third reading, Madam Speaker.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks during adjournment tonight. However, the gist of my argument is that this government has to be a lot more honest with what they are doing as regards their debt, uranium mining, employment in this Territory, the environment, and getting tough on public housing because I am certainly not satisfied with the answers I received.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak at this stage because I believe that most has already been covered.
However, in the event of anyone reading the Hansard only of this element of the debate, getting the idea that the issues that were raised by the member for Braitling were not soundly dealt with in the Estimates Committee, I wish to join with the member for Braitling and re-affirm my concern about the rising level of debt, which was clearly demonstrated through the estimates process, and to re-affirm the clear hypocrisy and inconsistency with regards to the stance on uranium mining when that is married up with the same principled stance of the Labor Party with regards to the Kyoto Protocols. It does not marry, it does not make sense, and it resonates quite wrongly through the community.
I support what the member for Braitling had to say about antisocial behaviour in public housing. As a local member, I received tremendous support from the member for Braitling, a former Housing minister. It was proactive support from an active minister who has made a clear difference in my electorate of which I am appreciative. I have to say I am not receiving the same level of proactive response to issues in Palmerston at this point. However, I remain ever hopeful and join my comments with the member for Braitling.
I say again that the issues regarding debt were clearly demonstrated. Allied with that was the issue, which was clearly presented through this debate, of the significant increase in revenue, which provides the capacity to reduce debt. Rather, this government has not maintained the status quo, but increased debt by $200m.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, you have the right of response if you wish to take it.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Oh, absolutely. Madam Speaker; I did not appreciate that. Standing orders always leave me breathless and confused.
Let us go to this question of deficit and debt for the benefit of the member for Braitling. I am more than pleased if she would take the opportunity for a relatively high-level briefing from Treasury on this matter.
What we described as the black hole in August 2001 was the subsequent deficit revealed to a new government by the then Under Treasurer within six weeks of the budget passing through this Assembly with a given bottom line that would be a $12m deficit; that is, the government, over the financial year 2001-02, would spend $12m more than it took in revenue. That was the starting point for that budget.
After the election, one of our first meetings was with the Under Treasurer. He said: ‘Chief Minister and ministers, I have to inform you the budget is in an unsustainable position’. ‘Well, how can that be?’, we said, ‘We have only just passed it with a $12m deficit; we are only just weeks into the financial year’. He said: ‘That is not the true state of the books and it needs a thorough going over to establish what the true level of debt may come to through the financial year’.
That is when Professor Percy Allan, in the black suit, was brought in and worked very closely with Treasury, and best bottom line was established at a deficit likely to be between $126m and $139m, as opposed to the $12m that this Assembly and the people of the Northern Territory were led to believe. That was the black hole. The difference between the minus $12m that the CLP said they would achieve, and the potentially worse case scenario of minus $139m.
We subsequently had the November mini-budget in 2001, changed the agency structures, drew lines around expenditure and the rest, and we achieved a negative deficit of $83m, a significant improvement on the position that we had been left with.
So do not let us get confused about nett debt, which has always been high, a big pile of debt that had been built up over many, many years by former governments, and the black hole deficit. The deficit is what occurs in one year. Deficit or surplus occurs in one year as an outcome. Nett debt is what the Territory owes after you take all of its assets into account, the cash it is holding, what it would have to pay out tomorrow if it was to be absolutely square.
That figure jumped in the first two years of this government. Why? Because there was a $150m payment to the railway still not made when we came to government. Any cash in this new government? No, because we were headed for a $139m deficit, worse case. Where was the $150m payment for the railway going to come from? Hello! The banks; borrowing. What does that do to nett debt? Hello! It increases it by $150m. You say it has gone up alarmingly. There was $150m that had to be paid, had to be found, had to be borrowed and went onto nett debt.
We have had surpluses in terms of outcomes. In a cash sense, we have had more money at the end of the financial year after 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, than we spent. So that has arrested nett debt because we have not had to go out and borrow more money. We have actually had more money left at the end of the financial year - modest amounts, I admit, but better than over spending the books.
In terms of the borrowings in any financial year, and why the daily interest rate, which we used to refer to as around $0.5m a day. I think it is well down below perhaps $470 000 a day or somewhere in that order. Why is that reducing when nett debt remains fairly large? It is because many long-term loans that were taken out by previous government to fund the debt were at very high interest rates. They were long-term, fixed, high interest rate loans that continued to accrue that high interest even though, over the years, interest rates have fallen to quite historically low levels. The way the loans were structured meant that if it was 14% or 15% at the time, that is what government continued to have to pay.
At a given point in time, those loans, a 14- or 15-year loan, or a 10-year loan or whatever it was, finish. Then that has to be refinanced and it is refinanced, of course, at 5.8%, 5.9%, so it is a huge bottom line improvement to government. Even though nett debt may increase and will increase marginally over the next couple of years, the interest rate and the daily interest rate that government pays on its overall nett debt will, in fact, be less because it is financed at much more attractive interest rates. This financial year, we will see the last of those high rate loans, accrued over many years past, wash through the system.
At some point in the future, we will go again through a period of high interest rates and it will be the reverse effect. Our very attractive low interest rate loans will expire, and we will be forced into the market at 8%, 9% 10%. Hopefully, that does not come too soon, but that is the natural cycle of events and probably one day we will be back there again.
In looking at nett debt as a figure - that is what government would owe if it took all of its cash available and everything it had and plonked it there, what it would owe at the end - in June 2002, it stood at about $1753m or $1.753bn. We increase marginally over the next couple of years with the waterfront, but we come back to a balanced budget in 2008-09, and in June 2009, we estimate we will owe $1754m, a nett worsening of $1m only over those four years.
I accept what you said, that nett debt jumped; it jumped very early but because of $150m for the railway - no other reason – which had to be found. There was no cash in the budget. There was a ballooning deficit that had to be covered as well and that $150m had to go on borrowings then and there. Otherwise there would have been a failure to meet contractual obligations around the railway.
However, I encourage you and the opposition spokesperson individually or together, whichever would be your preference, to go through some of these issues with Treasury. They have good people who are not Treasury-speak people. They can get me to understand most things - not everything, but most things, and if they can get me across these sorts of issues, I have no doubt that they would get you across them as well.
Mrs Braham: That is probably a clearer explanation today …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Braham: … than we have heard throughout estimates.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr STIRLING: It is what I tried to take people through on Monday morning when these issues were being fired across the table, but of course the heightened atmosphere of estimates and all of that and cut off with further questions perhaps makes it - and I have had a practice now because I tried to explain it Monday and I have probably done a better job this afternoon. Thank you for your comment there.
If any member of this Assembly, should they want a greater understanding or have questions about Treasury matters and how budgets fit together and what this page means, please speak to my office and we will arrange that. Treasury are only too pleased to - and I do not want to sound patronising - educate so that people have a much fuller and greater understanding because it is in their interests.
The Auditor-General would only be too pleased. He, as well, has an interest in seeing everyone know and understand as much as they desire in matters fiscal and budgetary.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the points you were making. There are other issues in there that you are putting on the table, but we will write to you and offer you a briefing and I would be pleased if you accept it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 3)
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 4)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 5)
(Serial 3)
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 4)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 5)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Are we talking about the Pay-Roll Tax Amendment Bill?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, the cognate bills, member for Blain.
Mr Stirling: They are all together.
Mr MILLS: Yes, the whole package. I understand; my apologies for not being on the ball right at that moment. The opposition will, of course, permit unhindered passage of this bill because we believe that the payroll tax relief is sorely needed by industry. We have argued to that end consistently in the last term of government.
Of course, it goes without saying that there are different approaches to dealing with the economy and how our public funds are administered. A CLP government would have done it differently, but we are not in government; we can only raise the argument. Government has the right to deal with these matters in a way that they choose. We would have directed the GST payments in a much earlier phase to provide effective and more aggressive relief by way of payroll tax and stamp duty earlier on to allow industry to grow at a time when they were really struggling, particularly payroll tax because providing payroll tax relief earlier would have provided the incentive for small business to retain workers who are skilled. We saw, as a result of not passing on this GST benefit earlier on and showing that national leadership, that we have lost a skills base. It is now going to be a very expensive proposition to repair and to fill that vacuum.
That is an argument that has been had. From opposition, we endeavoured to mount that. The last election has, once again, allowed this government to continue on the path that they have determined. We will endeavour to provide robust debate on these matters. These bills have the support of opposition.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in reply closing debate, I thank the member for Blain for his generally supportive comments, notwithstanding he thinks perhaps that some of these things could have been done earlier.
These are very dramatic changes that we have made to payroll tax. It was a matter at the time of taking a deep breath and saying: ‘Let us think big and use big numbers, and we are not going to change the threshold from $600 000 to $650 000. We are going to go - bang! - $800000, a $200 000 jump in one hit’. We took another deep breath and said: ‘In the next year, let us take it from $800 000 to $1m, not $850000 or $880 000 but massive leaps in the threshold to get the result we want’. From next year, $1.25m, by which time if further changes were to be made, they ought to be around the rate rather than the threshold.
No one likes payroll tax; that is no secret. No Treasury and no government in the country likes payroll tax; it is a tax on jobs. For Labor governments particularly, which want to see more jobs and creation of more employment, payroll tax is one of those elements stuck in the system that you simply cannot wash out of the system straight away, but you can make moves to, as far as you can, rein it in and minimise it.
There is an interesting process being put together by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in relation to payroll tax. They are putting a proposal to the federal government, given the massive surpluses that the federal government is racking up, really behind everyone’s back while they point at the GST in the states and territories, that the federal government ought buy out the payroll tax accrued by the states and territories, even if it was to do it over a period of time. The federal government came out coyly and said: ‘We could have a $5bn surplus’. It quickly becomes $8bn, and three of four days later it is likely to be $10bn or $11bn. By the time we get the finals, I would be surprised if it is not $15bn or $16bn, and therein lies the ability to get rid of this tax through the system.
Can it be managed? I suspect it could, with goodwill on the part of the federal government, and a willingness to use those massive surpluses to get rid of what is not a very popular or welcome tax in any jurisdiction, but one that remains a critical part of our revenue base. I certainly wish the Australian Chamber of Commerce well in that approach.
There is similar thinking around the stamp duty; I think it was $85 000 when we first came in as a threshold for first home owners. We have pushed it to $125 000, then to $200 000, and, as an election commitment, pushed it to $225 000, which is welcome to all first home owners and gives them breathing space. The principal place of residence rebate has gone from $1500 to $2500. That was welcomed, and with as soon as possible commencement dates, I think we set 1 July and 3 May, some of those changes, and 20 June were the effect of the others, so that the market was not distorted in any way by people withholding or changing their mind or trying to defer or delay their purchase. In a sense, these bills are retrospective from, in the first place 3 May, 20 June and, of course, 1 July.
I thank the opposition for their support. A number of other taxes go; a couple of those are part of the intergovernmental agreement. We still have not heard back from the federal government in relation to that. I believe he remains preoccupied with the response from Western Australia and New South Wales at this stage, but we would expect to hear in the near future that our proposal has been accepted. He may come back and say: ‘We want some slight change around this’. Generally, we think our proposal is in there with a positive stamp from the federal Treasurer, but we wait to be fully informed.
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support, and urge acceptance by all members.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Rae Elizabeth Flanagan, a gracious and courageous woman who died on 12 June after a long battle with cancer. In doing so, I shall draw on some of Rae’s own words and the reflections of her many friends.
Rae was born the second of four children in a working class, Australian-Irish Catholic family in Colac in Victoria. Her parents were Denis and Brenda Flanagan. Not long after Rae’s sixth birthday, the family moved to Geelong. Rae said it was like a breath of fresh air to be in a city by the sea, rather than in the greyness of the Western District.
Rae began her schooling at Sacred Heart College, and remained there until she was 18. Despite the conservatism of provincial Victoria in the 1950s and 1960s, Rae’s school days were uniformly happy. Reflecting on these days, she said:
- My family’s interests were sport, music, politics and the Catholic faith. We had good conversations round the dinner table,
mainly led by my father, a self-educated man, who wanted us to have the opportunities denied him. He worked at the Ford
factory and, every night when he came home from work, he played sport with us in the backyard - cricket in the summer;
football in the winter. When I was about 11, I could drop-kick with either foot and also bowl a reasonable leg break, not skills
I kept up!
After school, Rae commenced at teachers college and graduated in 1969. She gave up teaching for a while, lived in Melbourne for a couple of years, and then went on a 72-day bus trip from Kathmandu to London. It was all very 1970s with flared jeans, ribbed polo necks and platform shoes. She married in London and did the European jaunt, including a visit to her Irish relations still living in the thatched cottage in Tipperary from which her great-grandfather and his brothers emigrated.
Many years later, Rae took her sons, Kieran and Lachlan, to visit so they would know their roots and some of their culture. This decision was probably influenced by her work with Aboriginal people both in Darwin and out bush. She always believed if you knew you were coming from, you might have a better chance of knowing where you want to go.
Rae came to Darwin with her husband, Graeme, in 1978. Like many others, she thought it was for a couple of years, but when George Brown, Graeme’s new boss, met them at the airport, he shook Rae’s hand and said: ‘Welcome home’. His words proved prophetic because Rae came to love living in Darwin and thought of it as home.
Rae had many gifts that she shared with all she knew. She had a gift for making and maintaining strong and lasting friendships. She was a wonderful musician, playing recorder, piano and, later, viola, which she mastered in order to become a member of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra.
With Lorraine Connell and Andrea Britten, she started a recorder group, originally called The Terrible Territory Tootlers, but later to become the Abellare Consort. They played at numerous functions and soirees, and later Rae helped establish the Recorder Guild.
In her early days in Darwin, Rae helped start a netball team with other young teachers. The times on and off the court helped cement lasting friendships. She played hockey in the early days, and was also an enthusiastic founding member of the Aralia Street Tennis Club, and she proudly supported Lachlan and Kieran when they became involved in hockey.
Rae had a well-developed social conscience. Her work at Charles Darwin University - before that, NTU, as it was - only served to further heighten Rae’s social justice sensibilities. At FATSIS, she immersed herself in the action, including a period as Associate Dean and teaching at all levels. Rae enrolled in Yolngu studies and developed basic conversation and command of a complex kinship system with all its names and responsibilities. She also organised highly successful Yolngu pandanus weaving workshops for interested Darwin women.
Rae loved the bush. Her work with Aboriginal rangers and their families at Maningrida was very dear to her. She visited Maningrida regularly for about five years. People there still tell the story of the broken down four-wheel drive in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere.
Rae is remembered at the university as an amazing teacher, a master of improvisation, who could bring together training in literacy and numeracy and make both of them relevant and meaningful to students.
Rae was a long-standing member of the Australian Labor Party, committed to its fundamental principle: equality of opportunity. I am sure all honourable members will join me in expressing our condolences to Rae’s sons, Kieran and Lachlan, and her many, many friends and loved ones.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Distinguished Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, before you go on, I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a delegation from the Tibetan Autonomous Region Department of Education, which is visiting Darwin. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, this week we also saw the passing of a terrific Territorian, who I am sure will be familiar to everyone who has visited Pine Creek. I refer of course to Alistair Quest, who died in Royal Darwin Hospital on 30 June, at the age of 67.
I am grateful to Elaine Gano and Elizabeth Close, his friends from the National Trust, for information about Alistair’s life. Originally from New Zealand, Alistair spent a number of years in the army, serving in New Guinea. He was always the ex-military man and frequently referred to his time in service. He lived in the Territory for many years, working on his beloved railways but also the Mt Wells Battery before settling in Pine Creek. In 1995, he started as a volunteer caretaker at the Pine Creek Railway Station, a National Trust of Australia property where he entertained all visitors with his tall tales. Alistair is probably most famous for his dog-spike whistles, which he made and sold or gave away.
I understand that one of his whistles was given to every passenger on the inaugural Adelaide to Darwin Ghan trip in 2004, and I proudly still have that whistle. He loved railways and trains and was a fixture at the station, always ready to chat with visitors. He communicated with the world outside Pine Creek by fax machine, an item of technology that he loved. He remained at the station despite failing health until two weeks before his death.
Our condolences go to his family and friends. We are all the poorer for the passing of this original and entertaining Territory character. On behalf of us all, and I know that the member for Daly probably has a few words to say about Alistair Quest, but on behalf of us all: farewell, Questie.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: This week, Madam Speaker, we were saddened to hear of the passing of Mr W Rabuntja Pengarte, AM, a man known and respected by all Territorians. To tell you the truth, it is hard to believe that he has gone. When you look at the town of Alice Springs, or as he would have had me say, Mparntwe, embedded within the sacred landscape, ancient red gums in the river and the backdrop of the MacDonnell Ranges, I will always think of this old man, and my thoughts are with his family now.
Mr Rabuntja was born at Burt Creek, north of Alice Springs, in about 1923. His life spans the development of the town of Alice. He grew up at the Telegraph Station in a humpy made against a big red gum along the Todd River. As a small child, he recalls sneaking into The Bungalow kitchen like a kadaicha man to get potato peelings to cook on the coals, and playing cowboys and Indians with Bernie Kilgariff in the river bed. He remembers the ceremonies where the casino now stands and later lived at a soak near the present Coles complex.
He worked as a brick maker, drover, butcher and cook. In all respects, he was the quintessential outback Australian man: a man who could and did turn his hand to anything, whose ability to celebrate his spirituality and connection to the land through political and creative contribution was unparalleled.
Mr Rabuntja served as deputy chair of the interim Central Land Council in 1975, chair from 1976 to 1980, and 1985 to 1988; foundation member of the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, 1979 to 1989, including three years as chair from 1983 to 1985; foundation member of the Conservation Commission, 1980 to 1986, and reappointed 1991 to 1995; foundation member of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, 1989 to 1999; appointed to the National Reconciliation Council in 1991 and reappointed in 1995; and served on the Boards of the Tangentyere Council and the Yipirinya School.
Mr Rubuntja’s central leadership role on three pivotal organisations, the CLC, the Sacred Sites Authority and the Conservation Commission, changed the way indigenous cultural traditions are recognised and valued by the wider community.
Mr Rubuntja was an artist of international reputation. Both Queen Elizabeth II and the late Pope John Paul II held his paintings in their collections. Mr Rubuntja’s extraordinary life was documented through the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, and in 2002, I was privileged to join him in launching this wonderful biography, The Town Grew Up Dancing.
Mr Rubuntja was known by statesmen and elders all over Australia, and his contribution to policy is acknowledged by Prime Minsters Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, not to mention the numerous people of Alice Springs he mentored and brought up. He was a father to many.
I heard a story about him in the week before he died. Apparently he got up, grabbed the blanket from his wife, Cynthia, who was keeping him company in a chair beside him in the hospital, and said: ‘I am going out bush. Call up the sacred sites mob. They are taking me out bush’.
From this parliament, farewell, Old Man. You will be greatly missed by all of us. Our deepest sympathy to Cynthia and the family on the loss of this great man.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on recycling, something I was unable to do in the Estimates Committee over the last few days.
Members may be aware that there was a meeting of Environment ministers in Perth last Friday and, for obvious reasons, the Northern Territory minister was not able to attend. State and federal ministers made an historic agreement on new recycling targets for Australia. They agreed to incorporate an overall packaging recycling target of 65% into the National Packaging Covenant to be achieved by 2010. They also agreed to set separate recycling targets for paper, steel, aluminium, glass and plastic, with a safety net if the industry does not deliver.
A definite 65% target shows the ministers were prepared to resist industry attempts to weaken the agreement by making these targets only aspirational. At the moment, recycling is achieved at a rate of about 35%.
Unfortunately, our minister was not there, as I said, for obvious reasons, so we are not sure whether the Territory will become a signatory to this agreement or not. That will be very important over the next few weeks when Cabinet discusses this issue. At the moment, any target would only be aspirational in the Northern Territory because we really do not know how much is being recycled. We have no idea of what is happening out there. All we know is that there is a huge amount being dumped in landfill and I mentioned earlier the 6000 cans that were returned at the Alice Springs Show and went to a private recycler who will return them to Adelaide.
Normally, in the clean-up after a show, all that would be dumped in the landfill at the Alice Springs dump. That is what is happening all the way along. It will happen in Tennant Creek tomorrow. All the junk will be thrown into the Tennant Creek dump. This is why it would have been a great initiative if the minister had said we will do this all the way along for all the shows, for every major event. What an enormous amount of recycling we would do, even if you just did aluminium cans and did not concentrate on anything else.
When the minister announced the grants, there were a large number of grants to people in communities who, obviously, are of the view that we need to start recycling. I mentioned earlier Nyirripi, Maningrida, Titjakala, Palmerston, Daly Waters, Roper River can recyclers, and so on. All these communities have this desire to start recycling. It is good that they are being assisted by the minister by having these grants given to them, but it is only piecemeal and it is only in certain pockets throughout the Territory. What we really need to do is to make a Territory push so that we will all be involved in this recycling.
At the moment, we only have one firm that recycles in Alice Springs. They receive very little encouragement or incentive from government or from the Alice Springs Town Council, which is a real disappointment. The Alice Springs Town Council has no recycling policy as far as I can determine. They have what they call The Bowerbird Shop at the dump, but the recycling firm has bins where people can go and dispose of their cans. Unfortunately, people abuse it, as I see in the units where I stay. They throw their household waste in these bins as well as the cans, and when the firm has to separate them and then take the rubbish that has been dumped with the cans, they are charged by the town council for the rubbish they dump. You would think there would be some sort of incentive from the council saying: ‘If you are recycling and collecting these cans from people, we will at least not charge for the rubbish that is collected with them’, but there is no incentive for this firm from the council.
Instead of the government giving away $0.5m in different litter grants throughout the year, why don’t they start thinking about the bigger picture? Get out of the box, think wider than that and start saying: ‘How can we encourage this and how can we have a coordinated approach?’ At the moment, apparently to return the cans, steel and whatever is recycled, is not too expensive to do on the railway. I am sure government could negotiate either with the empty transport vehicles that go back to South Australia or with the railway for a better deal for people and communities.
The federal minister, Senator Ian Campbell, was glowing in his praise of the agreement reached in Perth. He said that the new target was challenging but realistic, and to have the federal government behind this measure will be encouragement and incentive for the Northern Territory government to be part of it. I look forward to seeing whether our minister will take it up.
One of the interesting projects to receive a grant was ‘Collect a can; Scouts can’. The Scouts of the Northern Territory are getting together at Palmerston to have collection bags so that they can collect cans. If the Scouts throughout the Territory, or the Guides or any service club, said to people in our regional towns: ‘Once a month, we will come around and collect your cans; leave them out the front for us’, I am quite sure people would do that. However, at the moment, most of us throw our cans in with the rest of our household rubbish and they go to the dump.
Recycling has benefits. It creates employment, it saves our natural resources and, let us face it, we cannot continue to use our resources without thinking about recycling. We know the value of recycling paper and how easy it is to recycle aluminium cans, so we should, as a nation, get behind this. The Territory could be leaders in this area. South Australia has shown that they recycle 85% of their packaging and containers, which is a huge amount. They have shown how successful it can be. It even goes up to the smaller communities in the north of South Australia where they have the ability to exchange their cans for cash, which is very important. The member for Nelson and I seem to harp on this, but it is such a simple thing.
During the election campaign, many people approached me and said: ‘Yes, we agree that we should be doing something about it’. I wonder why we cannot get government to think big and implement this scheme right across the Northern Territory; put their money into helping people establish collection agencies, create employment for people, create some money for the people who collect the cans; do something we know will reduce the impact on landfill and the rubbish on our highways. You only have to look at some of the Letters to the Editor in the paper to see how shocked people are who visit the Territory and see the litter that we unfortunately tend to take for granted. We become desensitised to it.
When the new minister for Environment is announced, I hope they will come to Alice Springs. I will take them to our only recycling business so that they can discuss how we could make it better and think about how they can work cooperatively with local government. If they do not want to do it themselves, perhaps they can do it with community and local governments so it becomes a Territory-wide venture.
Last term, I sponsored a bill for container deposit legislation. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was not supported by either the opposition or government. It was one of those unique occasions in this House where the member for Nelson and I stood on one side of the House and 23 members stood on the other. I guess there has never been such resounding defeat. However, I hope that new members may have sympathetic views on what we want to do so that we can change that decision. I will be reintroducing CDL legislation. We will go through it again, refine it and make sure it conforms with Commonwealth guidelines. I will be more than happy to offer the new members a briefing on how it should work so we can have more support in the House for it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight for the first time in the Tenth Assembly of this parliament to, first, thank the people of Nightcliff for placing their trust in me for a second term. It is a true honour to be able to serve the residents of Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Sunset Cove in this way, and I look forward to continuing to meet with residents, whether they be in their homes, at shopping centres, along the beautiful Nightcliff foreshore, the Nightcliff Markets, or in my office in Pavonia Way.
In the last term of government, I developed a motto for the electorate of Nightcliff: ‘The place where all the women are gorgeous, all the men are handsome, and all the children are above average’. I might add, honourable members, that even those who simply wander into the beautiful electorate of Nightcliff take on this mantle for the period they visit.
Fighting an election is, as we all know, a tough business and requires a lot of support and hard work by many people. I extend my regards to my major opponents, Mr Anthony Reiter of the CLP and Ms Ilana Eldridge of the Greens, for a clean and decent campaign. For all people who seek public office, it is a major commitment for the individual and their families and supporters, and I would like to extend my best wishes to Anthony and Ilana for their futures.
Throughout my last term as the member for Nightcliff, I was blessed by the tremendous support of a large group of volunteers and supporters who assisted me over the four years in many ways. As honourable members may be aware, each week I have a mobile electorate office at the Nightcliff foreshore, Nightcliff Woolworths, and I open my office on a Sunday during Nightcliff Markets. In order to do this, I call on volunteers to assist me. This is a huge level of support over a four-year period. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Bob Corry, Bill McMahon, Jack Myer-Shearer, Bill Tutty, Jodi Tutty, Denise Walsh, Betty Woods, Helen Campbell, Sally Gearin, Carole Rollason and Chris Draffin in particular, as well as my long-suffering electorate officer, Warren Martin and his family. Warren is taking a well-deserved break at the moment, and I hope he returns to the job rested and well in the next couple of weeks.
In relation to the election itself, I would like to thank, once again, the people of Nightcliff for their generosity of spirit when I visit them in their homes. I am a member who really enjoys the doorknocking experience. I am always grateful for the warm reception that I receive when I am visiting people in their homes, and I remain humbled by the gracious way in which residents share their lives, trials, tribulations and joys with me. It makes the job of being the member very worthwhile, and constantly reminds me that our job is to serve the people in our electorates. I commit that in this term I will continue to visit people and look forward to listening to the many stories of people in the electorate.
Of course, it would be remiss not to mention some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of my electorate. In my maiden speech in 2001, I remarked on the fact that some constituents come to the door in the nude. Let me assure honourable members that this aspect of doorknocking has continued in the electorate of Nightcliff, a place where lifestyle is clearly important.
I would like to express my thanks to my campaign team, especially to my campaign manager, my former electorate officer, Mr Chris Draffin, Miss Carole Rollason, Ms Sally Gearin, Ms Helen Campbell and my electorate officer, Mr Warren Martin. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Alf Leonardi, who provided me with reassurance and stern words whenever they were needed, and thank him for his continuing support and warm friendship of more than 20 years. You are a very special person, Alf; thank you.
Of course, a campaign such as this requires considerable talent and effort by a central team and I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations, first, to the Chief Minister. It is a big ask of any member to seek re-election, to seek the re-election of a government is a massive task and a huge personal commitment for an individual and their family. I thank the Chief Minister for her commitment to government members and for her hard work for the Australian Labor Party, but especially her commitment to the people of the Northern Territory and their future.
I extend my thanks to the government Chief of Staff, Ms Adele Young. Adele is feared by many, but I think she is just a teddy bear. Thank you, Adele. Your hard work and commitment to the Australian Labor Party and your efforts on behalf of all members is greatly appreciated. I thank the very calm Michael Gunner and Ryan Neve for their hard work for candidates and their special way of dealing with the many difficult requests.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to mention the many people who helped throughout the campaign itself, and I will seek leave shortly to incorporate a list in alphabetical order of people who assisted me. This list is not prioritised, and I express my real gratitude to these people. A candidate simply cannot win unless they have the support of many people. I am very grateful for the support of so many people and I thank them sincerely.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in the Hansard.
Leave granted.
- Alex Aagaard, Simon Aagaard, Warren Martin, Chris Draffin, Carol Rollason, Bob Corry, Jack Myers, Bill Tutty,
Jodi Tutty, Kirsty McCallum, Anna King, Matt Hawkins, Kean Like, Helen Campbell, Sally Gearin, Dawn Lawrie,
Kerry Gardiner, Mark Nelson, Bill McMahon, Des Gellert, Pam Smith, Karen Munro, Edward Tilton, Gabrielle Mullen,
Sharon McAnelly, Caroline Edwards, Ann Alderslade, Mary Wheaton, Kim Pradier, Fred McCue, Betty Woods,
Kate Costigan, Vida Goodvach, Jacqueline Scrymgour, Trish Foley, Judith Dowling, Rob and Merrilyn Wasson,
Michael O’Donnell, Sarah Giles, Trish Hansen, Sharon Connolly, Surya Silva, Sue Gleed, Peter McMeal, Cathy Nicol,
Evelyn Jackson, Clare Hart, Heather Parbs, Sylvia Hurse, Liz Walker, Barbara Kelly and Stuart Fitch.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, I express my thanks to honourable members for the trust you have placed in me to serve as your Speaker. This is a significant honour and I commit to work as impartially and fairly as I can during the Tenth Assembly. I thank the Chief Minister for proposing me and, particularly, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the gracious way in which she seconded the proposal. I agree with her that this is probably unprecedented in Australian politics. I thank especially the members of the opposition for this as well.
I also like to express my thanks, and I am sure that of all members, to the member for Braitling for her time as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I thank her for the gracious remarks she made in her Address-in-Reply to the Administrator’s Address, and look forward to following in her footsteps and maintaining order and decorum in the House. Thank you, member for Braitling.
It would also be remiss of me not to place on the record my thanks to the Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and staff of the Assembly for all their help over the past week. I look forward to working with you during the Tenth Assembly of this parliament.
Finally, I want to place on record my thanks and love to my husband, Simon, and children, Alex, Michael and Zoe for their ongoing love and support.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I inform the Assembly of the festivities in Palmerston during NAIDOC Week, and congratulate the Palmerston City Council for its support of NAIDOC Week.
Before going to those celebrations, I would like to say that my wife and I attended the Palmerston Markets on 1 July and thought the fireworks display for Territory Day most enjoyable. On Sunday, 3 July, I attended the Family and Community Day at Marlows Lagoon, which was part of the NAIDOC celebrations and the event was well attended. Congratulations must go to the organisers of this event and those who volunteered their time to make this event such a success. Organisations such as Danila Dilba and Lions Club also lent their support.
Jack Ah Kit, a former minister in this government and the first Aboriginal person to be a minister in the Northern Territory, is Patron of Palmerston NAIDOC Week. He was at the family day and he, Chris Natt, the member for Drysdale, and I were privileged to hand out a number of awards.
Christopher Puruntatamerireceived an award for Outstanding Achievement in Education. Christopher is 13 years old and attends Bakewell Primary School. He is a high academic achiever and is always willing to help others. He is House Sports Captain and a member of the Student Leadership Council. He manages a paper run and is reported as an excellent role model for all students.
Jake Barlow, who is 12 years old, received an Outstanding Contribution award for his contribution to the sport of Rugby Union. He not only plays for the Palmerston Crocs, but referees juniors and is a Touch Judge for the seniors. He is the youngest referee in the game at this time.
Richard Tambling received an award for his Outstanding Achievement in the sport of Australian Rules football. He played for Southern Districts Football Club prior to his recruitment to Richmond Football Club. Rated one of the most talented players on offer in the 2004 National Draft, he was the Harrison Medallist in 2004 as the Best Player in the National Under 16 and Under 18 Championships and earned an All-Australian Under 18 selection – a fantastic role model, and already playing like the champion we know he is.
Bruce Dharmarrandgji received an award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. Originally from Elcho Island, he has been a positive influence and is a great mentor for local youth.
Sally Wotha received an Outstanding Contribution award for her contribution to the community. Also originally from Elcho Island, she has been working to improve the lives of young people in the Palmerston area.
Phillip Goodman received an award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. He has spent most of his life around the Humpty Doo area, and currently works tirelessly to develop initiatives and address issues for the Palmerston Indigenous Village. He mentors and motivates other members of the community and has shown great leadership.
Jindulu Garawirrtja received his award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community. Born in Galiwinku, he lives at Knuckey Lagoon and often goes back to country often to fulfil cultural obligations for ceremony, and shares knowledge of culture with young people through his art. He is a well respected man and a good leader, keeping culture and family strong in his community.
Billy David received an award for Outstanding Service to the Community. Originally from Cairns, he has lived in Darwin for the last eight years and worked in Palmerston for the last four years as an Aboriginal Community Policing Officer. His nomination came from young people who made the following comments about him:
- He is the best cop in the NT we know, he treats us normal, not like others and looks after us.
He tries to understand the youth and is a good role model to us.
And finally:
- He tries to keep us kids off the street and out of trouble.
Peter Detourbet was recognised for Outstanding Contribution to Palmerston Youth. Peter has devoted much of his time working with young people in Palmerston through his church youth group and, more recently, working at the Palmerston YMCA. He has a positive influence on young people is a fantastic role model who, through his own life experience, has proven that no matter what barriers you face, there is always hope for the future. He is also the Palmerston Australia Day Young Person of the Year. I understand from others that he is also a fantastic break dancer.
The FAST Program received an award for its Outstanding Contribution to Families and the Community. It is the first time a program has been nominated. It is a school-based program introduced at Moulden School early last year. The program works together with the school, parents and other agencies to improve self-esteem, develop skills and strengthen families. It has achieved fantastic results within the local community. Its success is the direct result of the commitment of everyone who works within the program including the school, the workers and families. Congratulations to all involved in the FAST Program.
Dottie Daby received an acknowledgement for her outstanding contribution to the community and is the Palmerston Australia Day Person of the Year. Delsey Tamiano was acknowledged for outstanding contribution to the community.
There were also some special appreciation awards. Joan Mullins received her award for Outstanding Contribution and Commitment to the Community through her work Yilli Rreung, ATSIC Regional Council and as founding member and inaugural chair of Palmerston NAIDOC Week, only stepping down this year to pursue other interests.
This government’s very own John Ah Kit received an award for his Outstanding Contribution and Commitment to the Territory Community. Jack’s contribution was summed up by former Senator Aden Ridgeway:
- Politics will lose a great Aboriginal role model when Jack Ah Kit retires. Jack has been an inspiration to Aboriginal people all
over the country in his 10 years in mainstream politics. In his time in the NT Legislative Assembly, he has stood up for
Aboriginal interests, sometimes against his own party’s wishes and suffered for that. However, he still went on to become
a minister in the NT Labor government, the first Aboriginal person to do so.
I think the number of Aboriginal members of this Assembly is part of Jack’s legacy, shared with other Aboriginal leaders who have been members of previous Assemblies or who have made their contribution in other places.
On Monday, which incidentally is Independence Day for the United States of America, NAIDOC celebrations in Palmerston included a number of Labor MLAs attending the flag raising ceremony at Palmerston City Council chambers. I was honoured to raise the Australian flag with the Mayor of Palmerston. It was good to see it flying alongside the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag. When I look at each of the flags, I am reminded of the struggles and sacrifices made by many people under each of them. Flags are important symbols. To see the three flags flying together in unison says something about the strength of our multicultural society and respect for our indigenous people. I feel that the Territory leads the way in terms of multiculturalism.
I attended a lunch at the Terrace Gardens Aged Care facility. The centre caters for those who have become frail with age and those with other health problems, such as dementia. I put on the record my admiration for the staff at Terrace Gardens and all those who work in providing care to our elderly citizens. It is a hard a job but also, I understand from carers, very rewarding. It is fair to say that the role of aged care is undervalued. Maybe this is accentuated by the Territory’s young population, but it is something that is common throughout our country and a number of others. We are prone to forget that we are where we are because of those who went before us.
Our older citizens have a wealth of experiences and knowledge that we all should treasure. Much of it will not make it into books or other forms of media, but it is our collective oral history. It seems to me that our modern society could better follow the example of our indigenous peoples’ respect for the protection of oral histories.
I would like to say well done to Alice Sotheren for organising the lunch. Part of the Palmerston NAIDOC celebrations were hair braiding and hairdressing workshops held by Narelle and her staff at Friends Hairdressing Salon in the Gray shops. It is very generous of Narelle and her staff to make the salon available in this way. When I visited the salon, it was quite literally packed with young people learning about washing hair, braiding and the use of various hair products. I was particularly impressed that there were as many as young men in attendance as young women.
I take this opportunity to apologise to Dottie Daby, who organised the Palmerston senior residents’ luncheon today as part of NAIDOC celebrations. I had intended to go to that lunch, but unfortunately other matters meant that I had to miss the event. I am sure it was a success and that the staff of The Hub looked after those who were able to attend.
Events of the Palmerston NAIDOC week continue, and anyone interested can find a copy of the program on my electorate office’s shop front or, alternatively, I am happy to e-mail the program to any interested members.
Palmerston City Council is currently hosting a delegation from its sister city, Kupang. I wish the visit every success. I believe connections between cultures at a community and local government level are very valuable. I am biased in this because of my involvement with Darwin City Council’s own program in years gone by. I indicated to the Mayor and officers of council my desire to be involved in functions and other events to assist promoting Palmerston’s sister city link.
Last week, I went to the Alice Springs Show. It is important to attend local community events outside my own electorate because, as a member of this Assembly, I believe I have a general commitment to all Territorians, not just those in my electorate of Brennan. The various shows are important community events and an opportunity to discover regional issues through discussions with people. I am attending the other shows, and look forward to meeting people and listening to their views.
I have listened to other members of this Assembly discuss the Estimates Committee process. I simply want to say that, as a new member, I found the process extremely useful. I have gained insights into the operation of government that I did not have previously. I look forward to contributing to improving life in the Northern Territory as much as I can in my capacity as member for Brennan.
This is the end of my first sittings as a member of the Legislative Assembly, and I thank the staff of the Assembly for their assistance, patience and perseverance.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of this country.
I also congratulate you on your new role as Speaker. I know that you will discharge your duties in a very fair and impartial manner, and I wish you all the very best.
Last week, I was very honoured and privileged to listen to the maiden speeches of our seven new members of parliament. Each spoke with compassion, commitment and conviction. I know that they will serve their respective electorates and the Northern Territory well. To Rob Knight, the member for Daly, Ted Warren, the member for Goyder, Alison Anderson, the member for Macdonnell, James Burke, who has just spoken, the member for Brennan, Barbara McCarthy, the member for Arnhem, Chris Natt, the member for Drysdale, and Kerry Sacilotto, the member for Port Darwin, congratulations to you all. Madam Speaker, I think you will agree that we are truly blessed with some fine new talent in this House.
I also congratulate other members who were re-elected. It is lovely to see people back here unscathed. I congratulate you all.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my good friend, my brother, Jack Ah Kit, the former member for Arnhem. We had some wonderful times in this House and, indeed, outside the House. There was never a dull moment, and Jack was always on hand to give advice on a whole range of issues, particularly when I first came into this House, as he did for all the other members. To you, Jack, and, of course, to your good wife, Gail, to Jonathon, Ngaree and Bardi, we wish you all the very best. Take care, my brother.
I pay tribute to the members opposite: to Jodeen Carney, congratulations on your election as Leader of the Opposition; Fay Miller, Deputy Leader; Terry Mills; and Dr Richard Lim. Equally, my congratulations to Loraine Braham, the member for Braitling, and to Gerry Wood, the member for Nelson.
Quite often, this place is described as a bear pit; a place where we can debate our differences in a very robust way and, at the same time, respect our differences. I acknowledge Sue Carter, Denis Burke, Steve Dunham and Tim Baldwin for their contributions to this place and to the Northern Territory.
Importantly, I would like to thank the people of the Barkly for their kind support and trust. I hope that I will continue to repay their faith in me and the Martin Labor government in a very fair, equitable and committed manner. You often hear me speak in this House about the Barkly. It is a very special, wonderful place. It is made up of people who are straight, honest, self-reliant, creative, innovative, hard working and very industrious. They possess a quiet determination to get things done. In saying that, I acknowledge that there is much more to be done in regards to the Barkly and, indeed, a lot of the other bush communities.
The Barkly electorate is now our largest, some 381 000km2 incorporating places such as Alpurrurulam, which is new to the electorate, and of course Barrow Creek, Tara, Ali Curung, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Mungkarta, Tennant Creek, Mungalawurru, Elliott, Borroloola, Mungoorbarda, otherwise known as Robinson River, and a whole host of pastoral properties such as Brunette Downs, Alexandria, Kurundi, and numerous roadhouse such as Wauchope, Three Ways, Renner Springs and Dunmarra, amongst many others.
The Barkly has been a major wealth creator for the Northern Territory going back over a great many years and, obviously, beef production in the Barkly remains a high priority. I know that over the period of time, people in the Barkly, the pastoralists and a whole host of other people, continue to work very hard in growing that industry. The Barkly is the cattle capital of Australia, and I know that there is a lot more potential, particularly if we are in a position to ensure that indigenous people are part of that wealth and job creation.
Roads remain an important issue, not only in regards to the pastoral properties, but also to all the communities in the regions. It is imperative for us as a government to continue to work hard to improve our road network, quite apart from its economic potential, but also for those people who are visiting towns in Tennant Creek and other parts of the Northern Territory for footy, social and cultural purposes.
I have often spoken in this House about mining and I am pleased to advise that Bootu Creek is on track for producing 600 000 tonnes of manganese over the next few months, generating about 90 new jobs - a very timely response, given the fact that Giants Reef ceases production in September or October this year and about 40 jobs will go. I am encouraged by the fact that the Giants Reef management is talking to management at Bootu Creek about the placement of some of those people.
In mentioning Giants Reef, I want to thank them. Clearly, it would have been nice for them to remain in production for a lot longer, however, during their period in Tennant Creek, they were great supporters of the local community to the extent that they sponsored BAFL, the Barkly Australian Football League, to the tune of $60 000 over two years, probably one of the Northern Territory’s largest regional sponsorships. They also provided dollars to some of the small schools and particularly the one at Warrego. To Giants Reef, thank you very much.
I have already mentioned the pastoral industry. The mining industry also has a lot of scope for ensuring that employment opportunities exist for people in the regions and for indigenous people. I hope that we will put in place a framework to ensure that indigenous organisations, people and the land councils will be in a position to be able to enter into joint venture projects in the near future.
The tourism industry continues to grow in the Barkly, with the commissioning of Nyinkka Nyunyu which is a world-class indigenous cultural centre. It is fitting, Madam Speaker, that Alison Anderson, who is now the member for Macdonnell, opened that complex about two-and-a-half years ago.
The Battery Hill mining complex remains an important destination for tourism in the Barkly, and one of our new initiatives in respect of our commitments is the establishment of a Barkly Pastoral Interpretive Centre.
I have already spoken about pastoralism, and it has a long history and heritage in respect of the Barkly and throughout the Northern Territory. There is also a very strong link between the indigenous community and the pastoral industry, and the idea that we have in mind is to build a pastoral complex not dissimilar to that of Nyinkka Nyunyu, which will show case the pastoral industry’s contribution not only to the Barkly, but right across the Northern Territory. Obviously, we will need to consult with the NT Cattlemen’s Association, pastoralists, indigenous organisations and the Tennant Creek Town Council.
Other initiatives which will enhance the capacity of Tennant Creek is the $250 000 allocated to the Mary Ann Dam project and the $1m upgrade to Paterson Street. Already we have had several meetings in Tennant Creek regarding that project. We will be working very hard to ensure that all stakeholders are involved. More important is to ensure that the businesses are part of it because, as I have said to them, there is no point in doing up the main street if you do not have businesses onboard to enhance their existing businesses.
Borroloola and the Gulf remains a very important area in the Northern Territory. I really believe that Borroloola is the uncrowned jewel in regards to potential economic and social development throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in relation to the advent of the promotion of the Savanna Highway, which passes from Queensland through Borroloola into the Northern Territory and on to Western Australia. The construction of two new boat ramps out at Mule Creek and Rocky Creek will enable new opportunities to be developed in Borroloola. Also our commitment to upgrade the sewerage is a very important one for development. That amounts to $5m in stage one and a total of $15m over the duration of this term.
Also important is the allocation of $5m to a new school in Borroloola, something that is badly needed, and the $3.2m allocated to the McArthur River Bridge, and $1.8m for crossings to the Queensland border.
The other community that I would like to mention is Alpurrurulam. As I mentioned, it is a new community in my electorate. There are about 600 or 700 people there. They are really gutsy, strong, dedicated people. They have been out there battling for a long time. I know that they have a lot of potential in regards to providing a better lifestyle for not only themselves but the broader region and the allocation of $1.2m to upgrade the airstrip at Alpurrurulam will be of benefit to those people.
Alpurrurulam is an isolated community. As I said, the people are gutsy and courageous. They are always trying new initiatives or new ways of doing things. Two years ago, they were recipients of $330 000 of CDEP dollars. This financial year, they were in receipt of $69 000, which is a reduction of something like $260 000. You can only truly appreciate and understand what impact that has on a community when CDEP is the main base upon which you are able to fund their night patrol, their women’s programs and that sort of stuff. I want to give an assurance to the people that Alpurrurulam that I will work very hard to get that money back into the community.
I want to extend personal thanks to a lot of people who assisted me and the Australian Labor Party throughout the Barkly over the last 12 months, more so over the last three to four years. Very quickly, I want to thank Peter Callinan, Graham Dingwall, David Harvey, Carol and Dave Harris, Miriam Charlie, Thelma Douglas, Cathy Willets, Keith Rory, Malcolm Thompson, Albert Charlie, George Matthews and, of course, my grandfather, Kingsley, and Gloria Friday.
In the Alpurrurulam region, I would like to thank very much Kenny Philomac, Jennifer Mahoney, Maxie Ray and Tony Willy. I extend a very special thanks to Tony Willy because in a period of around seven days, we travelled 6000 kilometres and he was with me for that whole period. That meant driving at all hours of the night. So to Tony Willy, thank you very much for the hard work you put in.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude there and continue in a later adjournment.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, first, I support the condolence motion by the Chief Minister in regard to the late Mr Alistair Quest. It just so happened that I doorknocked Mr Quest a week before his death. He was truly a great character who contributed greatly to the Pine Creek community and he will be sadly missed.
My adjournment speech tonight is to acknowledge and congratulate Mr Eddie Ah Toy on being named Territorian of the Year.
Mr Ah Toy lives in my electorate in Pine Creek, and I am very proud that someone from my electorate was named Territorian of the Year. In receiving the award, Mr Ah Toy paid tribute to his father, Jimmy, and his mother, Lily. My wife’s family knew Jimmy and Lily, and they were fine people. In 1954 or 1955, Jimmy wrote to the then Native Affairs officer to stop my mother-in-law, who was then six or seven years old, from being forcibly removed from Pine Creek after her stepfather died. That was the law at the time.
Jimmy and Lily were extremely kind to all the people in the area, especially to the Aboriginal people, and they gave them jobs and great generosity. I believe these qualities and values have naturally flowed onto Eddie. Eddie quoted his father as saying that if you live in a place, you strive to make progress and bettering the life of that place. That is what Eddie has done in his 67 years living in Pine Creek. He gave his time, leadership, some of his own money, his equipment and his business confidence in dire times in Pine Creek to benefit the community.
To give an overview of Mr Ah Toy’s life and work, I quote from the reliable information gathered by the local council in their newsletter Up The Creek:
- Eddie Ah Toy was born in 1937 in the Pine Creek Building which now houses the Natural Trust Museum. He was evacuated to
Adelaide during the war with his family from 1942 to 1945. On their return, Eddie attended Pine Creek Primary School and then
went to high school in Darwin.
In January 1955, at the age of 18, he returned to Pine Creek and started work in his family’s general store, a position he has held
for 50 years.
Eddie has also given 50 years of continuous service to the community of Pine Creek and the development of the Northern
Territory through his commitment to local government.
In 1965, Ed married a Darwin girl, Pauline Chin, and they raised four children in Pine Creek. All four children are living and working
in the Northern Territory.
Eddie has also been an active member in the community and volunteers for many local events by manning the barbecue at
Clean Up Australia Day, Australia Day events, Territory Day, the school fete and has lent his staff and equipment to local working
bees to build the race and golf courses, Miners Park and the museum. His family have donated many historic items and
photographs to the local museum.
He is a willing sponsor of many local events, and he can always be relied on to donate goods to fund raising raffles for many
community groups.
As the owner/manager of Ah Toy’s General Store, he has provided many local students with after school employment,
giving them invaluable experience in the work force, enabling them to use that experience when applying for other jobs.
During his time in Pine Creek, Eddie Ah Toy has been involved in all aspects of the community, and these include Trustee of
Government Reserves, and that includes halls, churches, the Triangle Park, the oval and the cemetery. He did if for 30 years,
from 1957 to 1987. He has also served as a Progress Association president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer and
committee member continuously from 1957 to 1987.
He was a founding member of the Pine Creek branch of the National Trust of Australia in 1979 and remains a member to the
present day. He helped to establish and set up the National Trust Museum.
He was elected as the first President of the Pine Creek Community Government Council in 1987, and has had continuous service
since then as president, vice- president and councillor. He was just re-elected as the vice-president of the council.
He was on the executive and a committee member of the sports and social club from 1958 to 1988. He has served on the
school committee and school council as president and secretary/treasurer from 1973 to 1988.
He has had 35 years service with the Volunteer Fire Brigade. He was service agent for a local power and water supply from 1964
to 1980. He was a member of the Bicentennial Committee from 1997 to 1998. He was a member of the Pine Creek
Millennium Committee. He was a founding member of the Pine Creek Tourism Association, and has been an active member
since 1996. He was also the winner of the first Pine Creek Citizen of the Year Award in 1990.
One last and undoubtedly unforgettable contribution to the community by Mr Ah Toy was in participation in The Full Monty nude calendar in 2000 to raise money for their New Year’s Eve party. You have to comment on a bloke who is prepared to get his gear off to help the community.
Finally, Mr Ah Toy is a fine and deserved winner of this award. I am proud that he comes from my electorate. Congratulations to Eddie Ah Toy.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand before this Assembly as the newly re-elected member for Sanderson, but also humbled by the enormous vote of confidence given to me by the electorate of Sanderson as reflected in the election results.
These results could not have been achieved without the constant faith and assistance of many wonderful people - not just throughout the election period, but throughout the four years of my first term.
Shortly after the election results were known, former Chief Minister Shane Stone was attributed with making the comment that you cannot fatten the pig on market day. He was talking about the significant change in status of the parties. I reflected on what Shane Stone said and I thought it could apply to us in that our result was not just because we ran a good campaign, and I will talk about that later. I believe our result was an endorsement by the community of the Northern Territory of the good leadership of the Chief Minister, the hard work of her ministers, and the equally hard work of the backbenchers and the committees. All MLAs worked hard over the years in their own electorates for their own communities.
I am truly in agreement with Shane Stone that you cannot fatten the pig on market day, and that our result is not just a blip from a good campaign or from the misadventures of the opposition, but rather because we have been serving the community. We will continue to proudly serve our communities. I, for one, certainly give that commitment to the people of Sanderson.
You cannot achieve a campaign win by yourself. There are many people who help you. I was very lucky in that I had a great team of supporters and friends around me. My campaign team comprised Didge McDonald, my campaign manager, Sandy Oldroyd, Marie Kirkwood, Mickey Dewar, Neil Spencer and Therla Fowlestone. I have the greatest admiration for the dedication they showed during the campaign because nothing was too much trouble for these people. We would meet regularly, and it was them acting as a think tank and their freely-flowing ideas that helped us to achieve our aim. This team, together with campaign volunteers, is the very reason we achieved the result we did in Sanderson.
I would also like to mention, as part of my central campaign team, the two outstanding contributions from people from interstate who volunteered to help. One was Cameron Crowther from Brisbane who recently returned from assisting in US campaigns. I guess you could describe him best as a political animal. He joined my team and that was fantastic. I also had my brother-in-law, Peter Keech who came up to assist in the last election. Peter has great expertise and knowledge when it comes to campaigns. He has been a campaign manager for his wife, Margaret Keech, whom he helped get across the line in Albert. I was pleased, as he was, that he was staying with us, living at home and really bringing fresh blood into the team and really helping with the mix. That helped us along a great deal.
I am also proud and grateful to my multicultural campaign volunteers, the vast majority of whom live in the electorate of Sanderson and are people I have known for years, or I have met through the job. There was Joe and Pacita Bonson, Martin Gentle, Steve Glennon, Jenny Russell, Rod McLaren, Terri Domingo, Fuk Sang Lay, Taek Fung Lay, Michael and Teng Murray, Tse Leong Lay, Cecily Willis, Doreen Walsh, Wendy White, Christine Long, Robyn Miller, Ian Smith, Jimmy Francis, Danny Coombes, Lee Treacy, John and Rachel Kroes, Heather Traeger, David Hardy, Tony Fowlestone, Liz Lohmeyer, Rob McFarlane, Felicity Creed, Marie Evans, Phil Cashmore, Barbara Bagley, Ian Gallacher, Denis Blackford, Cythia Bader, Trish Kurnoth, Judith Ventic, Ram Badlu and Di Stanford.
All these wonderful people responded immediately to a phone call request when the team needed assistance. I have been working with many of these people for the four years. Many of them are volunteers who help out in the office. As Madam Speaker and many of my colleagues would know, our newsletters are A3 in size and have to be folded and distributed. Many of these people would come in and sit around the table in the meeting room folding, talking and eating, bringing in their own food and sharing it with us. We used to have this great big cook-up and all sorts of different food around the table. I must admit, they were partial to a little Kentucky Fried Chicken every now and again as well.
Ms Scrymgour: Is that why the waist is widening?
Mr KIELY: Yes, yes. It is an enjoyable time in my office when that occurs. It is a fantastic thing when you have everyone sitting on the table and all the different languages are going. The spirit of the place is truly wonderful and it does bring home the term ‘community’.
I have talked about the team in electorate, but we have a great central campaign team. I place on the record my great thanks to them. To Adele Young, who I do not think is a teddy bear, Madam Speaker. She is a wonderfully professional person who gets across the line. No truly, Adele Young, Brett Walker, Sonia Peters, Michael Gunner, Ryan Neve, Frank Moukaddem, Laurene Hull, John Martin, Mary Fall, and Christine Gray. There is a whole range of people helping coordinate because it is a massive logistical task and these people have my sincere thanks. I am sure there are more I have forgotten to name. That team is wonderful. From the people of Sanderson and from my family and from me particularly, I thank you for your assistance.
There are also some individuals who need singling out and they are Trish Crossin, who has supported me for four years and who was with me before I was elected the first term. Her rock-solid friendship, guidance and mentoring have been fantastic strengths. I place on the public record my thanks to her for everything she has done in standing by me through the four years. It has been tremendous.
I place on the record my very sincere thanks to my electorate officer, Therla Fowlestone. She came on to my campaign team as well as the role that she had as electorate officer. Therla has immense skills in her relations with members of the public, working long hours beyond the remuneration period. A local member cannot function well without the support of a good electorate officer, and I am lucky that Therla enjoys her job working with the people of Sanderson who know her and have great respect for her.
However, Therla could not do this work and the extra hours without the support of her husband, Tony. I am particularly grateful to Therla who suffered a great personal loss during the last few days of the campaign. She mustered hidden strengths and took this tragedy in her stride, carried on campaigning without seeming to miss a beat. Therla, you are an inspiration.
My wife: we all thank our partners, but she is a true gem. She certainly kept me focused. We are a bit like the Clintons in our house! Certainly, she is not one to be shy with political advice, however, it is very good. In any relationship, either work or personal, you need someone who will throw up a contrary view to test you and to give you reality checks. My wife is not at all shy about giving me reality checks – I get at least one a week. I want to put on record my gratitude to Marie, not only for the assistance she provided during the course of the campaign, but over the whole four years, particularly for the care and control of our children. Clare and Ned were fantastic; we had to pay them off with a trip to Zone Three with three mates, but my children were very supportive and I could not do the work I do without the support of my wife and family. For them, I want to put on the record that I very much thank them for it. I have an undying love for them; I am blessed to have such a wonderful family.
There is another group I must thank, and these are the people who agreed to endorse me as the hardworking member for Sanderson. These are people in the community whom I saw and said I was standing for re-election and asked if they would endorse me, and they did. They are locals. They are everyday, run-of-the-mill, but all very special: Uncle Jimmy Anderson, Rob Fischer, Margaret Stehouwer, Sarah Fischer, Sean Stimson, Jo Glennon and Rob Fletcher. I am glad that the election results reflected your trust in me. Thank you for all the support you gave me.
Election campaigns are not cheap. Over the course of four years, we have been running fund raisers in different venues: St Mary’s, Northlakes Chinese restaurant, the Greek Hall where all manner of people go, particularly Christine Long who always helps out. She is an unswerving helper; just fantastic. Through that time, we raised money for the campaign, and at the end of it, people were donating to help. I will not embarrass them by naming them, but I truly want to say thank you for your donations. They helped get the message about, which was what it was all about; communicating with the electorate.
We promised some good things in our electorate over the next four years. I am particularly pleased about the fitness track that will go around Abala Road at Marrara. That is a fantastic thing for the community. We are also going to be opening the road that runs down beside the Italian Club to give another exit/entrance point, and I will talk to the minister for Transport, who I hope is Dr Burns because we do not want traffic lights there; we want a roundabout. I will talk to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Environment, whoever that may be, about that.
As members may recall, there were concerns expressed at the Darwin Golf Club sometime prior to the election regarding cash problems. There are many solutions that could be proposed for clubs. The government wisely said: ‘We do not bail out clubs’. You cannot; there is a definite shake-up going on in the licensed club area and clubs have to compete in the same way as everyone else. However, I was pleased and proud to be part of the solution of a golf tournament in the shoulder season, which we know will inject money not only into the Darwin and Palmerston Golf Clubs, but also into our tourism areas.
Madam Speaker, I can see the clock winding down. I will give this commitment to Darwin Golf Club and to the members of my electorate: I will follow through on all the promises that we made. I will work with the community, but it does not stop there. What I promise the people of Sanderson and the greater community of Northern Territory is that we will deliver good government over the next four years because of the endorsement that you have given us, and that is the endorsement we will give back to you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016