2013-10-17
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Araluen
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence be granted to the member for Araluen today on account of a family bereavement. Madam Speaker, for the information of you and honourable members, the member for Araluen’s mother passed away last night. I am sure on behalf of all members I can send our condolences in this time of great sadness.
Members: Hear, hear!
Leave granted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Wills Amendment (International Wills) Bill – that has a certain Dr Seuss quality to it – is to amend the Wills Act to provide for the validity in the Northern Territory of wills executed in accordance with the principles and requirements contained in the Annex to Convention on providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will 1973.
In July 2010, the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed that Australia should take steps to accede to the convention and that each state and territory take action to implement the convention’s uniform law into their domestic legislation. Following enactment in each state and territory, the Commonwealth government would then take the necessary steps to accede to the convention. The convention seeks to introduce a new form of will, the international will, into the jurisdiction of each contracting party. It does so by requiring contracting parties to adopt the uniform law on the form of international will, which is attached to the convention, into their domestic legal scheme.
The uniform law prescribes necessary elements for the form of an international will include witnessing, writing and certification requirements. The convention seeks to harmonise and simplify the process approving the formal validity of wills that contain international characteristics. Such characteristics include situations where the country of nationality, residence, or domicile of the testator making the will is different to the country in which the will is executed, or where the assets, real property and beneficiaries named in the will are located.
The use of the international will is optional and open to all prospective testators in Australia. It will not replace existing forms of will in Australia. The convention will not affect the existing domestic succession laws of Australia. Currently, the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that has not introduced legislation based upon the model bill.
The bill is based on a model bill prepared by the Australasian Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee in 2010. The bill will not commence in the NT, nor in any other jurisdiction in Australia, until the convention has entered into force in Australia. The Commonwealth government must accede to it – see Clause 2(2).
New section 48C sets out that the Annex to the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will 1973 has the force of law in the Northern Territory. The annex is set out in the new Schedule 2 to the Wills Act.
This provision gives effect to Article 2 of the convention. They key provisions are that Articles 1 to 15 of the new schedule set out the rules for making international wills.
Article 1 provides that an international will shall be valid as regards form, irrespective of the place where the will is made, of the location of the assets and the nationality, domicile or residence of the testator if it is made in the form of an international will that complies with Articles 2 and 5 of the uniform law.
Article 2 provides that a joint will cannot be drawn up in the form of an international will.
Article 3 requires that an international will be in writing. It can be written in any language, by hand or by other means, and need not be written by the testator.
Article 4 requires the testator to declare that a document is his or her will and he or she knows the contents of the will, before two witnesses and an authorised person (an Australian legal practitioner or public notary of any Australian jurisdiction are authorised persons). The testator does not have to inform the witness or authorised persons of the contents of the will.
Article 5 requires the testator to sign the international will in the presence of the two witnesses and the authorised person, or to acknowledge his or her signature if signed previously. If the testator is unable to sign the will, the authorised person must note on the will the reason for the incapacity.
Article 6 requires the signature of the testator, witnesses, and authorised person be placed at the end of the international will. If the will consists of several pages, each page of the will should be numbered and signed by the testator.
Article 7 provides that the date of the international will, will be the date on which it was signed by the authorised person.
In the absence of any mandatory rule about the safekeeping of a will, Article 8 requires the authorised person to ask the testator whether he or she wishes to make a declaration about the safekeeping of the international will. If the testator wishes to make such a declaration, he or she can request that the certificate that the authorised person attaches to the will (under Article 9) mentions the place that he or she intends to have the will kept.
Article 9 requires the authorised person to attach a certificate to the international will certifying the obligations of the uniform law have been complied with.
The form of the certificate is prescribed in Article 10. The form of the certificate is important as it aims to facilitate the reading of a certificate, especially if a reader speaks a foreign language and the easy identification of relevant details such as the name of the testator and the authorised person.
Articles 11 to 13 relate to specifics concerning the certificate.
Article 14 states the international will is subject to the ordinary rules of revocation of wills.
The key benefit to Australia in acceding to the convention is that it provides greater legal certainty for testators and beneficiaries. The practical benefit of an international will is most apparent at the probate stage of proving the validity of the will, when additional information, such as the evidence from witnesses and evidence of foreign law, may not be necessary to prove formal validity. This is considered to be beneficial to testators who may have assets or beneficiaries located in several different foreign jurisdictions.
Other clauses in the bill of significance include:
Part 5 of the Wills Act currently sets out provisions that govern the current recognition of wills that are executed in accordance with the law of another place. The new section 48A provides that the provisions of Part 5 do not affect the operation of Part 5A. This means that a will that conforms with Part 5A is valid, despite the fact that it may not conform to the law of a place in which it was executed.
The new section 48D sets out the classes of person authorised to act in connection with international wills. As mentioned before, Articles 4 to 12 of the annex provide roles for authorised witnesses in the making of international wills. For the purposes of these articles, new section 48D(1) provides that persons in the following classes of persons are authorised persons when acting in Australia:
Under the uniform law, the authorised person is required to sign a certificate confirming compliance with the formalities of making of international wills. The new section 48D(2) provides that persons who are authorised persons under the laws of other parties to the convention are also authorised persons.
The new section 48E provides that the requirements for a person to act as a witness are governed by Northern Territory laws. These are contained in Part 2, Division 2 of the Wills Act and they are matters such as:
The new section 48F provides that the general provisions of the Wills Act apply to international wills. For example, provisions such as section 54 (access to wills), section 50 (keeping of wills) as well as other provisions such as the revocation and construction of wills.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to expand the membership of the parole board from the current 10 members to 18 members. This will be achieved by increasing the number of members appointed to the parole board under sections 31B(1)(c),(d),(e) and (f).
There is also an amendment to allow the appointment of a proxy for the Director of Correctional Services, who is a member at section 3B(1)(b).
The purpose of these changes is to provide the chairperson with flexibility in the scheduling of meetings and to allow the parole board to adopt a new meeting model.
With the introduction of self-government the Parole of Prisoners Act commenced on 3 September 1979, replacing the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971.
Since this time, the number of matters heard by the parole board each month has continued to increase. A snapshot of data from the 2011 annual report indicates the number of business matters considered in 2001 was 412, 2006 was 482 and 2011 was 612. Data for 2013 shows this trend is increasing with current projections indicating the parole board is likely to hear almost 900 business matters.
I would like to highlight that the parole board hears a number of different types of business matters pertaining to their statutory responsibilities under the Parole of Prisoners Act. Only some of these matters relate to the assessment of applications from prisoners for release to parole.
Other matters relate to activities essential to the management of parolees in the community, including the assessment of breaches which may result in parolees being returned to prison.
The increase in business matters before the parole board can be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, the rising number of offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment has a direct effect on the number of prisoners eligible for parole. Secondly, the advocacy work undertaken by Aboriginal legal services in prisons has increased understanding of parole and has provided prisoners with assistance including the preparation of submissions on their behalf. Thirdly, the commitment which members apply to their responsibilities means that matters may be deferred for a period of time whilst information is clarified or additional information is sought.
In the Northern Territory, it is the practice of the parole board to decide parole matters on the papers provided without a prisoner being present. The parole board is of the view that the materials received or obtained by the parole board provide a fair and comprehensive basis to decide whether a prisoner should or should not be granted parole.
A chairperson may require the prisoner to be brought before the parole board pursuant to section 3G of the Parole of Prisoners Act; however, this is rarely applied.
It is expected that prior to attending the meeting, parole board members will have reviewed the file for each matter listed, the documentation will always include:
a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer
an institutional report prepared by staff of the correctional centre or detention centre where the prisoner or a detainee or is held
a record of the prisoner’s prior convictions; and
a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing remarks, if the prisoner was sentenced in that court.
The board may also consider such other reports as are relevant for the individual case, including:
pre-sentence reports
psychological/psychiatric assessments and reports
rehabilitation course assessments and reports including assessments and reports about anger management courses, sexual offender courses, and Indigenous Family Violence Offender courses
medical assessments and reports
assessments and reports from substance misuse programs and treatment facilities
legal submissions made on behalf of the prisoner
letters and/or reports from interstate services
letters from the prisoner or written on behalf of the prisoner, and
letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
The increased workload and excessive preparation time required has placed a strain upon members, particularly community members. Increasing the membership of the parole board will allow for the model to be implemented, where the parole board meets twice a month and considers a smaller number of matters.
No change to the constitution or quorum for meetings has been made and, therefore, members appointed under Section 3B(1)(d), (e) and (f) will still attend the same number of meetings.
The parole board holds sole responsibility for decisions relating to the release of prisoners to parole. As such, they are a critical element of the criminal justice system, and I believe that it is essential that they are supported in this important role.
I have asked that this be listed as a matter of urgency in accordance with Standing Order 179 and be introduced. Actually, no, I do not; I am going to scratch that.
I will leave it at ‘important role’. I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 was introduced into this House during the August 2013 sittings and is currently awaiting passage. As members will be aware, the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 will fill the gap in the statute book of the Northern Territory regarding advance medical directives and the appointment of future decision-makers.
The Advance Personal Planning Act, once commenced, will allow for competent adults to make advance personal plans for their future care should they lose decision-making capacity. An advance personal plan could contain one or all of the following three aspects:
1. An advance consent decision about future healthcare, also known as advance healthcare directive.
2. An advance care statement to guide other people in making decisions about their future healthcare, lifestyle needs.
This bill, the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, will enable the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 to operate effectively by making consequential amendments to a range of Northern Territory laws which are impacted by this long overdue reform.
The Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 was developed through a robust consultation process, which included the release of a public issues paper and conducting face-to-face sessions in all major centres. Many amendments and issues identified through that process have been incorporated into this consequential amendment bill.
I will now outline the main consequential amendments contained in the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The most significant amendments are:
To the Adult Guardianship Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act, and the Powers of Attorney Act. The Advance Personal Planning Bill is, itself, being amended prior to commencement to address some issues raised during consultation, particularly issues raised by the Registrar-General.
Amendments are proposed to insert a new section 16(a) into the Adult Guardianship Act, and a new section 12(a) into the Aged and Infirm Persons Property Act to provide for the appointment of a guardian or manager, even though a person may already have appointed a decision-maker under an advance personal planning plan. If a person has appointed a future decision-maker under an advance personal plan to cover all aspects, there will be no need to appoint a guardian or manager when the person loses capacity.
However, these amendments recognise that functions of a decision-maker appointed under an advance personal plan may not always cover every aspect relating to a person and that, in some circumstances, appointment of a guardian under the Adult Guardianship Act or a manager under the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act may still be needed. Under these new sections, the court is restricted from making a guardianship order or a protection order that will give the guardian or manager authority to do anything that a decision-maker appointed under an advance personal plan has the authority to do.
Amendments are also being made to insert a new section 23B into the Adult Guardianship Act and a new section 23B into the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act, to provide for situations where a court makes a guardianship order or a protection order in relation to a person but the court is unaware the person has a valid advance personal plan in place, the guardianship or protection order does not become invalidated. However, application may be made to the court for the orders to be amended.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Darwin Middle School accompanied by Loraine Caldwell. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House and I hope your visit here is an enjoyable one.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, provision is also being made for the court to address conflicts where a person already has other agents appointed. The new sections 23A and 29A are being inserted into the Adult Guardianship Act and the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act respectively to enable the making of orders for the purposes of ensuring a reasonable and workable division of decision-making authority between the adult guardian or manager with all other agents of the person, included the decision-maker in the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013.
In relation to the interaction with the Mental Health and Related Services Act, amendments are proposed to allow for a decision-maker appointed by a person under the advance personal plan to apply for the person to be admitted as a voluntary patient. This will bring the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 into line with existing processes of adult guardians appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act, who may also apply to have a person admitted as a voluntary patient.
A number of further amendments throughout the Mental Health and Related Services Act will ensure a decision-maker appointed by the person under an advance personal plan is notified in the same circumstances as the adult guardian appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act is currently required to be notified.
Circumstances of notification include refusal to admit as a voluntary patient, admission on the grounds of mental illness or mental disturbance, removal or suspension of interim community management orders, or authorising the performance of a major medical procedure.
Amendments to section 3 of the Emergency Medical Operations Act will enable a medical practitioner to perform emergency operations without consent if, in the medical practitioner’s opinion, it is not practicable to delay the performance of the operation until it can be ascertained whether a patient has made a consent decision or, alternatively, whether a consent decision can be made under Part 4 of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013.
However, a medical practitioner will not be entitled to perform an operation if they do not know that the patient has made an advance consent decision refusing consent for the operation, or that a decision-maker, adult guardian or local court has already refused consent for the operation.
I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Powers of Attorney Act. As well as covering future health care decisions, advance personal plans will cover the same ground as those that are currently known as enduring powers of attorney which relate to financial and property matters. Therefore, section 13 will be amended to close off the ability for a person to make an enduring power of attorney.
Instead, people will be able to make an equivalent financial arrangement through an advance personal plan. If a person only wants to appoint a financial decision-maker and does not want to appoint a decision-maker relating to health matters, or make a consent decision or advance care statement, then the person will only have to fill out that part of the form relevant to appointing financial decision-makers.
However, any enduring powers of attorney executed before the commencement of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 will continue to be enforced under the Powers of Attorney Act as it currently exists. It is acknowledged that these transitional arrangements may give rise to circumstances where a person has an enduring power attorney and, then, later makes an advance personal plan. It could then be possible that both documents will be operating side-by-side.
Section 15 of the Powers of Attorney Act is to be amended to allow the public trustee, an agent for the donor of an enduring power or any person who has an interest in the property which may be dealt with by the donee of an enduring power, to apply to the court for an order giving the donee powers for the purposes of ensuring a workable division of decision-making authority between the donee and any other decision-makers.
Another significant aspect of the consequential amendment is that being made to both section 15 of the Powers of Attorney Act and section 5 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act to change the jurisdiction in those acts from the Supreme Court to the Local Court. This change will streamline the administration by making the jurisdiction for all matters relating to adult guardianship and decision-making matters consistent.
Both the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 and the Adult Guardianship Act provide for matters in issue under these acts to be dealt with by the Local Court. There may be circumstances where orders under the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act or Powers of Attorney Act will need to be made in respect to the same matters.
Making the jurisdiction of the court consistent across all these acts will make the process much simpler and avoid the need to make multiple applications if there are conflicts. In the near future, these provisions will be considered for amendment as part of the development of legislation to establish an administrative tribunal.
These amendments are also being made to section 11 of the Transplantation and Anatomy Act. These amendments will allow for the consent to remove tissue or donations of blood to be given in advance consent decision. If a person does not have a decision-making capacity, a consent decision may be made by an appointed decision-maker, an adult guardian, or a court.
It should be noted, however, that this is subject to the restriction in clause 25 of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013, which restricts a decision-maker from approving removal of non-regenerative tissue. Therefore, a decision-maker can approve donations of regenerative tissue - for example, skin - but not non-regenerative tissue - for example, a kidney. Approval for non-regenerative organ donation would need to be given by a court.
As I have already mentioned, the bill also makes some minor amendments to the Advance Personal Planning Act itself. These amendments have come to light during the drafting of consequential amendments, and also through the consultation process. The amendments include a new clause 44A to allow for consent decisions to be made by another person with a right under another law of the Territory; for example, a next of kin. This amendment will avoid any unintentional supressing of existing rights people have to make decisions on behalf of others.
Clause 78 is also being amended to create a new offence for decision-makers who recklessly or knowingly exercise authority while a person has decision-making capacity. The maximum penalty for this offence will be imprisonment for five years.
The new Part 4A of the Advance Personal Planning Act is also to be inserted to establish the advance personal planning Part 4A register.
Currently, section 8 of the Powers of Attorney Act provides that a dealing in relation to land is of no effect unless the instrument creating the power is registered. As making of an enduring powers of attorney will be closed off and, instead, be available through the making of an advance personal plan, the need for a new register for relevant advance personal plans for the purposes of land dealing was identified. This was identified by stakeholders during the consultation process, noting there needed to be a different registration requirement for property and financial matters compared to other matters dealing with health issues. Whilst registration for health and lifestyle matters could be discretionary, registration requirements for property and financial matters needed to be mandatory and more robust, as is currently the case under the Powers of Attorney Act.
A range of other minor amendments are made to the Disability Services Act, the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act, the Carers Recognition Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Public Trustee Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Serious Crime Control Act, the Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Regulations and the Power of Attorney Regulations.
Generally, these amendments allow for the recognition, where appropriate, of decision makers appointed under the advanced personal plans.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 174FA of the Criminal Code, which is the offence known as hit and run, to insert a requirement to report to police an incident involving a vehicle where a death or serious harm is caused.
The offence of hit and run in this section 174FA was introduced into the Criminal Code by the Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run and Other Endangerment Offences) Act 2008. The offence provides that it is a crime if a driver of a vehicle does not stop and render reasonable assistance where the driver’s vehicle was involved in an incident that resulted in another person suffering serious harm or being killed. The prosecution must also prove that the driver knew or was reckless as to whether the vehicle was involved in the incident and knew or was reckless about whether the other person suffered serious harm or was killed.
The penalty for the crime is 10 years imprisonment if the incident resulted in death, or seven years if it resulted in serious harm. The offence does not depend on proof that the driver was driving dangerously or negligently in any way and the crux of the offence is the moral duty of a person involved in a serious crash to stop and render assistance.
In the second reading speech introducing a Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run and Other Endangerment Offices) Bill 2008, the then Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns, stated that the offence and its serious penalty:
The Full Court of the Supreme Court in the recent decision of the Queen v Yusoff [2013] NTSC 43, considered the scope of the offence in section 174 FA of the Criminal Code and decided the offence obliged the driver involved in an incident, where another person suffered serious harm or death, to stop and render assistance, and that if either of those two duties was not discharged, the driver had committed the offence.
Specially, the Full Court noted at paragraph [15] of its decision that the offence in section 174FA did not require a driver to remain at the scene and assist authorities, and noted that other regulatory provisions, namely regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations, imposed that requirement.
This appears to be inconsistent with the original purposes of section 174FA in preventing drivers from fleeing the scene because they think they might be charged with dangerous driving or to avoid a breath test.
Regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations and the Australian Road Rule 278 require a driver involved in a crash that results in an injury or damage to a person or property to stop and allow enquiries to be made by the other person, render reasonable assistance, and to report the crash and provide his or her name and address to a member of the police force, either at a police station or at the scene of the crash.
A driver of a vehicle involved in an incident may be prosecuted under Regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations or section 174FA of the Criminal Code, depending on the seriousness of the case and the level of the injury caused. Ordinarily, the prosecution would need to choose between the two and would choose section 174FA of the Criminal Code, where the driver failed to stop and assist and serious harm or death had occurred. This is because the Criminal Code offence of hit and run reflects the seriousness of not stopping and rendering assistance when a person is seriously injured.
However, a situation where the victim of the vehicle dies highlights the deficiency in the offence of hit and run.
Without there being a requirement to notify police of the incident in the offence of the hit and run, a driver will not have committed the offence if they are involved in an incident where the person dies. They stop, check and decide that no assistance is reasonably necessary and then drive off and leave the deceased. In this situation, the driver can evade breath testing or identifying themselves as the other driver in the incident. If the incident was on a quiet street in a remote area, then the incident could go undetected by authorities for some time.
This falls short of what is expected by the community. The bill is intended to remedy this shortfall by making it explicit that a driver must notify police of the incident, regardless of whether rendering assistance is futile.
In the development of this bill, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice consulted prosecutors from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Police (Traffic Operations) and the Department of Transport about the technical requirements of the offence. It was asked what should be required of a driver under section 174FA of the Criminal Code, in addition to stopping and rendering assistance.
Following that consultation, it was decided that the driver should be required to notify police, provide their name and the location of the accident and comply with any reasonable directions of the police officer. The bill therefore inserts a new subsection (1)(b)(iii) into section 174FA to require a driver, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the incident or rendering assistance, to notify a representative of the police force: (a) that the incident occurred, (b) of the location of the incident, (c) that the driver was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident and (d) of the driver’s name.
New subsection (1)(b)(iv) will also require the driver to comply with any practical directions given by the representative of the police force in relation to the incident.
Under this subsection, the driver will need to reasonably cooperate with police and is intended to be flexible to cater for the circumstances of each case, by allowing police officers to tailor the reasonable direction to individual circumstances. For example, a reasonable direction under this subsection might include: to remain at the scene of the accident until a police officer arrives to divert traffic around the crash site, to comply with a breath test, or, if it is unsafe to remain at the scene of the incident, to attend at the nearest police station.
The new provisions require notification to ‘a representative of the police force’. This phrase will have a specific meaning, for the offence will include a police officer, meaning a member of the police force under the Police Administration Act, and a public sector employee working in a communications section operated by the police force. The definition contemplates that in a vehicle collision situation, an instinctive response might be to call triple zero, to call for an ambulance and the police. However, when a person calls triple zero in the Northern Territory, the call will be diverted to the Northern Territory communications, operated by the NT police. This will be manned by both sworn members of the Northern Territory police force and civilians.
It was necessary to include a public sector employee working in the Northern Territory communication section in the range of persons to whom the driver must report the incident and follow reasonable directions. Otherwise, the driver will technically commit an offence if they report the incident to a civilian and not to a police officer when they call triple zero. This bill corrects a shortfall in the offence of hit and run in section 174FA, by expressly including a requirement to notify police of the incident and comply with any reasonable directions of a police officer. It also fulfils the expectation of the community that when a driver of a vehicle is involved in an incident, no matter how innocent they are, the driver must not drive off without notifying police and abandon a person who is seriously injured, or worse, dead.
Before I finish, I did make some comments in the media about cultural practices in Alice Springs and certain circumstances that occurred in the media that excited some interest. I have since been guided by the member for Namatjira that the cultural practices I referred to were nothing more than vigilantism. This bill contemplates those particular matters. However, I place on the record that the correction of what was described in the media was incorrect, and it was not a cultural practice.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 August 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, today I will speak about the amendments the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has brought before the House. These amendments are in regard to the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill. I indicate that the opposition will support the bill. We are all for diversification of the portfolio held, at the moment, by pastoralists. However, we have to make a few notes in regard to the bill. I hope the minister will take into account the comments I make.
First, we know the Northern Territory pastoral estate is more than 600 000 km in size. The 2011-12 annual report of the Pastoral Land Board indicates that the gross value production of the Territory cattle industry was estimated at $285.3m in 2010-11. That represents 53.5% of the total value of the Territory’s rural industries and fisheries production.
We recognise the contribution of the pastoral industry to the Territory economy and the potential benefits of the diversification of income streams for pastoralists. Pastoralists work very hard in challenging environments, and sustainable diversification of land use can make properties more available into the future. The pastoral industry, over the past few years, has suffered significantly. The mantra from the previous opposition was about closing the live cattle trade to Indonesia; however, nobody should believe that was the only reason the pastoral industry has suffered. There were moves by Indonesia to curtail the import of live cattle because some politicians in Indonesia hold the idea that Indonesia can be self-sustaining. They even promoted the idea that Indonesia could be self-sustaining by 2014, despite the fact that on many occasions I pointed out to bureaucrats and politicians in Jakarta that this was not achievable.
The other thing is the continuous restriction on the kind of cattle that can be imported to Indonesia, the reduction to 350 kg live weight, and talk about bringing it down to 300 kg.
I remind you of the reaction of the Australian public to the pictures we saw on television at the time the measure was announced by the federal government. Those pictures were with regard to the way the cattle were handled and slaughtered in Indonesia. I was shocked because I know pastoralists in Australia and people working in abattoirs would not treat animals like that. I was proven wrong, because a few days later there were reports on Australian television of the mistreatment of animals in Australian abattoirs. Footage also showed animals in Australian abattoirs being mishandled and not treated with the proper care they deserve.
Also, at the time, both parties in this parliament stood by our pastoral industry. We protested strongly to our federal counterpart that the live cattle trade ban was the wrong move and it should be reversed. I offered to travel to Jakarta, something that was rejected by the then minister for Primary Industry; however, we were successful in instigating a new committee on the issue. Luke Bowen, Executive Director of the Cattlemen’s Association in the Territory, was to be a part of this committee.
I also recall that the minister for Primary Industry, Joe Ludwig, later rang me personally and asked me to go to Jakarta to find out what the climate was there, which did not take much thinking. He also wanted me to mediate with the then minister for Agriculture in Indonesia about the broken relationship between Australia and Indonesia with regard to live cattle exports.
I undertook the trip. Thanks to the Ambassador of Australia to Indonesia, Mr Moriarty, who helped us very much – he fed all the information back to the federal minister – the ban was reversed. However, at the time, the damage to the industry was done; people lost income. Our government always supported the pastoral industry. I, as a minister, always supported the pastoral industry. I know these people personally and their contribution to the economy, but I also understand the difficulties they face, and I support the diversification of their portfolios.
The issue of non-pastoral land and use of pastoral leases is not new. I, as a minister, was approached many years ago and asked if I could authorise change of the use of pastoral lease to something different. I could not strictly do it in accordance with the law, but we found a way around it to allow people to have something different done with the pastoral leases, still within the legal framework of the act. However, it was not clearly specified in the act.
In 2002, the Productivity Commission produced an informative research paper on the issue. The research paper found that more performance-oriented and outcome-focused pastoral leasing arrangements could be better provided for the long-term economic and ecological prospect of the rangelands of Australia.
That is nothing new. If you go to Europe or other places you will find that people with a pastoral property are raising animals on this section, they have an orchard, they have a food production area, and they might have a tourist area. I cannot understand why we cannot do that in Australia, in the Territory.
The research paper of the Productivity Commission went on to state that pastoral leasing arrangements are generally designed to support and facilitate pastoralism. The arrangements typically constrain the imaginative non-pastoral land uses and inhibit competition between pastoral and non-pastoral land uses.
In the Territory, you can tell the difference between a pastoral property, rural and agricultural property, how far apart they are, and how different they are. Many pastoral properties are concentrated in areas where the rainfall is not the same as, say, in Katherine where we have an agricultural area, or in the north of the Territory.
I believe different uses can co-exist in a pastoral lease arrangement. I am very pleased the minister has made these amendments to allow pastoralists to diversify. There are things like that happening in Western Australia. There is a very well-known tourist destination in Western Australia based on a pastoral lease – it is not far away from here – in the Kimberley region. Everyone wants to go there because of the location and arrangements. Something like that could happen in the Northern Territory.
Key aspects of the bill before the House are provisions to register a non-pastoral use permit to the lease, as opposed to the lessee, and to approve permits for a period of up to 30 years. I fully understand that. I understand that banks will not finance a project if it is only of five-year duration. They are looking for long-term projects. I have no problem with that.
The problems I have are with the changes proposed. They can impact on communities that are neighbours to the pastoral lease, local government, competing uses, and on the environment. While we support the amendments and pastoralists being able to diversify their portfolio and have something else on their pastoral lease, we should always be conscious of how these changes can impact.
I will give you an example. There is a lease and the lessee decides to go into an agreement with a big interstate company to establish a tourism venture. That is fantastic. It improves the income stream and does not take much of his pastoral lease. However, at the same time, if that tourism venture is successful, there will be an impact from people who drive in and out of the property. There will be an impact on the roads that are managed by the local government, the demand for water and the demand for land set aside for the disposal of waste. All these things which can be part of the proposed development should be taken into account
There are no provisions here. First of all, when the proposal goes before the board, the board will consider it to make a decision, but no one will know until the first structure is erected. It would probably be a good idea to follow the path we followed with the planning approvals. Yes, the board gets notification, then this proposal is displayed in the local media or in a prominent area in the vicinity. This means other people can know about it, and people like traditional owners, who may have some comments to make with regards to the Native Title Act, will know beforehand that something is happening. They will start negotiations to resolve native title issues, instead of finding out afterwards and starting a court case which can drag on for many years and will impede the development.
I know the member for Nelson will bring some amendments to the House which will encompass this proposal - the display of a notification, or notifying the media of a proposed development so people know about it and are familiar with it - which we will support. At the same time, my concern is, has the department consulted with the stakeholders, not just in the pastoral industry but outside the pastoral industry: local government, or with the Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and the others?
These are the questions I do not have answers to and I would like you to answer them when you advise us. Overall, we support the amendments. It is quite right to give people in the pastoral industry an opportunity to develop their leases in a different way, as long as the proposed development does not take away the operations or the business from its original purpose as a pastoral lease.
Also, you mentioned before that it will increase the value of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. What effect will that have on the lease the pastoralist has? For example, a lessee has a pastoral lease and he, hypothetically, pays $20 000 a year for it. Suddenly, he has a tourist venture appearing that is worth millions of dollars, will this tourist venture have an impact on the lease overall? Will this venture affect the value of the lease and then the person has to start paying, not ten, not twenty, not thirty thousand, but a significant amount of money?
These are the issues that need to be considered, but, overall, we support the bill and I am looking forward to the debate that will follow through the member for Nelson, and certainly the response from the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a great bill in the sense that it will encourage more development in the Northern Territory, and I am a supporter of development. The minister knows I have some issues about how water is given out, but that does not mean I am against development. What we have here today is a good example of the government making practical changes to legislation that will give practical impetus to the economy.
Sometimes we hear statements - I will not pre-empt too much of a statement today – that are like good news stories and are full of generalisations. They might sound good and you can discuss it up here in the high altitude and deal with the philosophies of what has been put forward. However, here is a bill that will actually change things on the ground.
A classic example of what I was asking about today is the poppy industry. I presumed that if they expand to a large area, they will be required to get permission, because it is non-pastoral use, if it is on a pastoral property. If they want the opportunity to put in a 30-year plan for poppies on Tipperary Station, these amendments will allow them to look at that long-term plan, and any development of a large size will require capital investment. Banks will not give money for a two, three, four or even five-year investment. Companies also want to know that if they invest a lot of money into a project there is an adequate time – which will be guaranteed by the 30-year lease – for them to recover the money they have put into the project. Many of the projects we would be talking about would obviously be intensive, especially if they are horticultural. With horticultural projects, there is a high capital input in the form of irrigation, pumps, electricity, clearing of the land, fencing, and those sorts of things, plus the administrative side of it all costs money.
If you are going to develop a project in the Northern Territory, you need to have certainty out of the land tenure for a reasonable period, and the change that says we have moved from five years to 30 years makes a lot of sense.
A classic example is forestry. You are not going to get a return, in many cases, for about 20 or 30 years, so five years is not really going to be an option if there is a chance you will not be able to renew that option. Banks will want to know when they can get a return on their loans to that developer. I see that this change certainly will open up the Territory, not only for the people on the stations who may want to do some of this themselves, but investors coming into the Territory. They may see opportunities that were perhaps very limited to only freehold land before.
I was listening to the minister in Question Time. This will also help those struggling pastoralists, especially those pastoralists who are family based. Some of the big companies also struggle, but they have a little more backing behind them.
There is an old saying, ‘Do not have all your eggs in one basket’, and in this case, this is what could change some of the productivity of these pastoral properties. We all know that economies go up and down, the weather goes up and down and there are times when production can fail because of pests and diseases, floods and droughts. I have spoken before about having the ability to diversify our economy in the Northern Territory. This is so we do not just rely on mining or tourism, but the same on a more micro-economic example, that is say, a pastoral property. This could be where pastoralists have the ability to, if they want to, go into tourism, run a bed and breakfast or do tours through their property. These tours could be eco tours, as we know some of the best country in the Territory is locked up in pastoral properties. Pastoralists, generally, would have concern about open slather in some of those areas, but here is a chance for them to perhaps develop tourism on their properties. This would be managed so it did not interfere with the pastoral aspect of the property.
I probably cannot think of all the possibilities that could be out there, but certainly tourism, especially ecotourism, is a great possibility. I will give you an example. I went to Lorella Springs and, without knocking the good people at Lorella Springs, it is not the greatest pastoral property. You would not compare it with some of your big pastoral properties, but it has developed a tourist industry based on the beauty of that area. It is right next to the national park. I spent a day there and I want to go back and spend more than a day. It is always a hurry when you are in this job.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Good luck finding more than a day.
Mr WOOD: That is right, yes.
There were lots of people there, it is a basic tourist operation, but it is another form of income for the people who own the property. Horticulture has opportunities, but of course there will be limitations. One is having the right soil, right slope, good roads, water and a market. You have to do things like the poppy company from Tasmania has done. You have to put in a trial first and do that sort of work.
I see this as a great outcome and I certainly welcome it. I remember years ago, would you believe, when I was a lot younger and very keen to grow vegetables in the Northern Territory, I thought, ‘One day, I am not going to be working on missions anymore. I want to go out and see if I can grow some crops on nearby stations’, and that was very difficult to do.
There were garden leases around, there are still a few, and they are normally attached to a mining lease. However, even then, it was a difficult thing because you had to get permission to lease the land. I thought then that it was a bit too complex for a person like me and I gave that idea away.
I knew there were lots of places, like on Tipperary Station, where there was good land available for horticulture. However, that was a long time ago, but now we have an opportunity to give people who want to develop whatever a chance to do it.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Chris Burns, who is in the building looking suitably refreshed after his sojourn through Europe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I table the 2012-13 Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosure’s Annual Report.
PETITION
Birth Choices in Darwin
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 276 petitioners relating to birth choices in Darwin. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
PASTORAL LAND AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, continuing on from where I was before the break, I was thanking the government, especially the minister, for bringing forward this bill and commenting on what a good move this is by the government. It will be great for the pastoral industry, especially a pastoral industry that has been struggling since the live cattle ban.
There are four amendments and I spoke about the first amendment before lunch. The second amendment was to grant the permit by way of a registrable instrument against the lease so it runs with the lease and is not personal to the lessee. That makes good common sense. It means at the sale of a pastoral property you do not have to apply again for permission for the non-pastoral use; it comes with the property. That will also give great comfort to financial institutions to know that the proposal still has approval and can continue without having to go through red tape. This is one area where the government is also proactive in reducing red tape, and that is good as well.
Also, you can extend a permit for an additional period if the application is lodged by the permit holder within two years before the permit expiry date. I could not quite see in the bill – maybe I will ask the minister in the committee stage – whether there is any room for a late application? Is there any leeway, for argument’s sake, if you miss by a day? I am interested to find out whether there is any movement in that, or is it so rigid that it is a case of ‘oh dear, how sad’? I am interested in finding that out from the minister.
The last one is to suspend, cancel, or vary a permit for failure to comply with conditions attached to the permit at the request of the permit holder. That is common sense as well.
I have a couple of questions to put to the minister. I could ask them during the committee stage, but I will put them to him now. They are in relation to an application for non-pastoral use and the amount of detail that might be required. By the way, I also thank the department for its briefing. I have all my notes here, but sometimes later on you think of something else that was not part of the briefing.
When someone is applying for non-pastoral use do they say, ‘I just want the land for horticultural crops’? What happens if they find out that watermelons are not doing too well this year and they think they should put in mahoganies, which is forestry? Does that mean we have to go back through a new proposal? What level of detail is required in the application before a new application would be needed, if there was a change of crop, for instance? A change of use might be better. It is just a more practical question.
There are some amendments coming through. I put on the record my thanks to the minister for supporting the amendments I put forward. The amendments, I feel, will put the Pastoral Lands Board on a similar plane to the Development Consent Authority. I say that because in the third reading, the minister said:
Basically, the Pastoral Lands Board - I was one of the people when the last government was looking at this who believed we either should have a Development Consent Authority that floats all around the Northern Territory or we should look at using the Pastoral Lands Board - has become a consent authority. That is why I brought in similar things that are required for the Development Consent Authority.
A non-pastoral use is a nice way of saying a development application. If my neighbour wanted to put in 3000 ha of mangoes, I certainly would expect the Development Consent Authority to put a notice somewhere in the paper and let neighbours know that is happening. That is what should happen with non-pastoral uses, so that Aboriginal people, neighbouring pastoral companies, local councils and the community in general know what is going on. This is because not only will it be a matter that might have local implications, there could be Territory implications from the point of view of the environment, like water, land clearing and flora and fauna habitat. If a large amount of land needed to be cleared, that would also come under the land clearing guidelines the board has to adhere to.
But this allows for a more open and transparent approach to non-pastoral uses, which is another way of saying for development. We do it in towns, and we do it in the rural area. We need that similar process, especially on pastoral properties, and it makes for good government. I have my ups and downs in this place at times, sometimes you get flogged and sometimes you get half an answer. This time we had a win, and I do not say that in a show-off fashion, but I hope people realise that when you sit in this parliament you should have the ability to put forward amendments. You hope politics will not get in the way all the time and those amendments you put forward help government legislation become better legislation. I do appreciate what the minister has done.
I also thank Parliamentary Counsel. I can write up the amendments anyway I like, but you would probably end up in the courts for the next ten years trying to work out what I wrote. I especially thank Nicky Armstrong, who understood what I was trying to get at and when it came out of the system it was a professional looking document that we can debate today as to whether people support it or not.
In summing up, this is a great piece of legislation, and I am not saying great in a frivolous way. We have opportunities to develop the Territory. It can be done in a proper manner through this process, and it will open up new opportunities for people coming to the Territory who might want to lease land. One of the really important things is that, considering the plight of the pastoralists in the Northern Territory, this gives them another opportunity to get themselves out of, in some cases, dire financial stress. They can either lease their land to other people or they can do some of these proposals themselves.
There are a lot of, you might say, fingers in the pie, and opportunities that will come from these changes. I welcome the changes and thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for the amendments today and for supporting my amendments. Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my support to the minister for these amendments he is putting forward. I also thank the department for the briefing they gave me. I dragged out the second reading speech the minister made, and I have a few notes against that. It is talking about non-pastoral use of the land, and that is the amendment going through. In doing that, he highlighted the producers who are reliant on live export trade, and the problems we had when that was stopped.
It was not just the producers who were affected by this, and it is not just the producers who will gain out of this. I have a mate who has a helicopter and does a lot of mustering. One of the things stopping the live cattle trade did to him was to almost send him to the wall. He also had some information about the things he noticed while he was flying around. Many properties were not doing their fire breaks, fencing and so forth. All of these things mean there was a stack of industries affected by the live trade ceasing to Asia. The opposite side of that is that these amendments will help not just the pastoralists, but a stack of industries. Being from the bush, I know it will also help people in the bush.
When I sat on the Daly River Management Group, one of the things it looked at was land use. One of the presentations made to us - I have forgotten who actually did it. I am sorry, I have lost the documents. It was done in about 2009-10 and we had a flood in 2011 so I lost the documents.
One of the interesting things is that if - you will have to excuse me for the figures - you have pastoral land, it may be productive at $1000 a hectare. If that grazing land then changes across to agriculture, you might get a doubling of that return. It then goes to $2000, but when you get to something like horticulture, you are getting up to a tenfold return on that land. While we are talking about non-pastoral use of land, people need to realise we are also increasing the value of output we get. These stages we go through from grazing, to agriculture to horticulture do not just happen because someone wants to do horticulture. When you get to horticulture there is a lot of infrastructure in and around that, so there are many industries that are affected by this. If you change from pastoral, to agricultural, to horticulture you are not just helping the pastoralists overcome the debacle of the live trade, you are also helping some of those bush areas grow. When you put a lot of infrastructure in, for example, horticulture, you are talking about jobs.
Indigenous people who have pastoral leases would have to alter that lease so they could get into agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Sorry, I have not mentioned forestry, but forestry is in there somewhere. Not only can they do that, but there are many people who have a keen interest in Indigenous tourism and many of these properties are beautiful. The property behind me is Lizzy Downs, and the sites on Lizzy Downs are just as good as Kakadu, as I am sure the member for Nelson would agree. There is a fishing hole there called Mission Hole, which I think used to be called Serpentine Lagoon, until the missionaries moved from the Mango Farm. I do not know why they wanted to move from there, but they moved from there to Lizzy Downs; I suppose it is a bit bigger. When they got there, the name changed to Mission Hole, and that fishing spot leaves Corroborree for dead and I am glad they do not allow the amateur fisherman in there. That would ruin it, having all those people in there; it should be kept for ourselves.
Indigenous people can get into tourism quite easily. They do not have to deal with the door of the land council and get all their section 19 leases set up. The 30-year thing, the concern I had, that I raised – I am happy with the answer – was to do with water licences. I know water licences have a standard term of 10 years. I have been told that the minister does have the option to extend past that. When people apply for these 30-year non-pastoral use agreements, or whatever we are calling them, they can match the water licence up, so I am happy about that. The other concern I did have was in regard to native title, but I noticed in his speech the minister said we still have to comply with native title. When I say concern, it was just a question I wanted to ask.
I am quite supportive of it, as are all the people in my electorate. I see it not only helping the pastoralists, but also creating many job opportunities in the bush around these pastoral areas.
Thank for bringing it forward, minister. You have my support.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I wish to contribute to the debate. It is nice to do things easily in this House. The easy jobs are the ones we can celebrate; the hard jobs simply have to be done.
I thank the minister, his department, and the government for bringing this bill forward. My contribution to the bill is in the sense of good planning because, essentially, the principles of good planning relate to good consultation.
A great example in the Northern Territory was the Enquiry by Design process, which planned the new city of Weddell and the new community area of Kilgariff in Alice Springs. Everyone talked very positively about bringing the community along with you. It is not only a positive aspect of planning, it is also good for government because it brings people along on an informative and educational journey, as opposed to being left behind, unsure, and where conspiracy theories are allowed to develop.
It is great to see the amendments brought forward by the member for Nelson, and the minister accepting those in a positive light in the House. It is important that we get to that stage next. Planning is a very important principle to consider and, when we are considering this bill, that it really has bipartisan support for our pastoral industry and the families and companies that drive the rural economy of the Northern Territory. This should also be a celebration we all share in, the history of the pastoral industry and operations on the vast stretches of the Northern Territory.
There is a great deal of diversity already taking place and it is part of the conversation about this bill in the electorate of Barkly. I was contacted by Mr Peter Walker from Lorella Springs, now the Lorella Springs Wilderness Park. He embarked on this journey in 1989, received permission to diversify on a pastoral lease and has created a dynamic tourist operation. The member for Nelson has visited, I have visited, and it is an exceptional part of the gulf country, but it also has potential to develop. Peter, Rhett and the family are developing extra areas and have now pushed right to the coast. Anyone who is interested will be able to access a part of that gulf country coast which many people have never seen before.
That was 1989. Now, the minister is right up date with creating a legislative instrument which will allow the pastoral industry and pastoral lessees to look at diversification.
What we have seen over a period of time is many stations increasing the capacity of their stores; they have been providing fuel and accommodation. This is a good income stream for diversity and, once again, it relates to a good consultation process. This bill will formalise that and, with the amendments, will ensure it is a very formal process in the approvals. There will be the development application, there will be the public exhibition period, there will be consultation, and then an opportunity for people to engage in debate, which is healthy. It is a good process, because in many cases, the people proposing the development, the diversification, can learn from a process, learn from others, and learn from other ideas.
A couple of stations in the Barkly are now offering accommodation for contractors, and stores for community members, visitors, tourists and contractors alike. When there is fuel available, you see an increase in traffic.
One of the logical things that comes to mind is that many of the pastoral properties, mainly the smaller ones, have a single user road. However, many properties share roads. If I am on a property, I may have a plan to diversify and bring many more people through my neighbour’s land to get to my property, where they are going to access that diversified experience, whatever it may be, and there is a great deal of responsibility about management of infrastructure. It comes down to, very simply, gates to start with. I remember the beautiful sign on the horse paddock gate at Wollogorang many years ago. It was the border gate for the Northern Territory and Queensland. It said, ‘God may forgive, but we do not, so shut the …’ – you can imagine the next word – ‘… gate.’ That was a good learning for the teachers and me, and anybody who wanted to wrangle with Bulwaddi Edmunds up at the big house over that gate was making a big mistake.
However, this is something that has to be normalised and, through a good planning process and consultation, it can be, with everybody moving forward together without too much grief.
I have spoken in this House, and I speak around the Territory and to anybody who will listen, about diversification in niche market tourism, very much a high-end product. I have been encouraging the Aboriginal constituents in the Barkly on Aboriginal land to think about it. Paul Zlotkowski at Wollogorang Station explored this option many years ago as well, around hunting of pigs and feral animals. I remember raising it in this House and the member for Daly jumped up immediately and, as a mango grower and a farmer, he ran me down big time. How dare I suggest introducing pigs on a famous spring and turning it into a niche market where a German bow hunter would pay a considerable amount of money – we will put a figure on it, $20 000 – to come and shoot a pig for a trophy! If the old ladies of that community were prepared to make some baskets and talk to the bow hunter and his wife, that will add another $5000 to the price tag. It is that high-end niche tourism that I am very interested in. It is also an opportunity for the pastoralists and has been explored in the past at Wollogorang Station.
You would need to be very clear in the planning processes, consultation, and approval processes around that. An interesting example about Wollogorang was that it was hunters using rifles and firearms which, as you could imagine, would need very intensive management. I see the bow hunter as a great opportunity to lessen the impact of the hunting but, at the same time, achieve those economic outcomes and that diversity.
You have to look at infrastructure, access roads, have these plans in place, and know how to work with your neighbours. In the pastoral industry, as more people take this opportunity there will be an increase in activity, particularly tourist activity. Therefore, neighbours will need to be brought along on the journey so everybody is getting the best benefits out of it. Having spoken about that, there should be consultation around the land councils as well, because it is imperative that native title is respected and acknowledged.
A real commitment from government is needed in that area because there is a choice, which is litigation. If you want to drive a hard bargain, if you get too caught up in the ideology of cutting red tape and green tape, you can generally end up in court. Nobody gets a win out of that. There are some examples from past history in the Territory where that has occurred.
Diversity in the bill is promoted by government, and is the word. Let us face it, if we are looking at this in the purest form, it is about diversification. If we are talking about adding income streams and opening up opportunities across vast stretches of the Northern Territory, it relates to the most recent letter I have written to Prime Minister Tony Abbott around the anti-Muckaty campaign. In one of the paragraphs of that letter, I said to the Prime Minister that we really need to open this debate at a national level, in relation to an issue of national interest and security. One of the ways to open that debate would be to call on submissions nationally for people who may want to entertain the construction and management of what will be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility.
This bill, in essence, could provide that opportunity for a property in the Douglas Daly next to some feedlots. How would it go if Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility was suddenly to be landed in the Douglas Daly, among the feedlots that provide that important supply chain of our beef going from birth onto the boats? I say this in good faith because this is a real issue. It is a real issue for me, as the member representing the people of Barkly, and all those traditional owners and tens of thousands of Territorians and Australians opposed to what is going forward. The most recent rhetoric coming from the Prime Minister, with his most recent announcement, is that we are now seriously talking about what we always knew. It will be intermediate- to high-level waste. That opens the debate around Australia producing its own nuclear power.
This is no longer about a smoke screen of hospital waste. This is about the real deal. This is about responsibility. By the way, I have put on the public record that we have to have a facility, but remember I qualified not a storage facility above the ground in sheds, but a world-class, best practice disposal facility with a deep geological solution. We know the geography, and we know the area in Australia where that should go.
In terms of diversity and opening up opportunities and potential, let us put it out there. It could be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility, which could earn considerable money for the proponent and for that project. We would need a very clear and concise process of consultation, public exhibition and engagement before there would be any approvals for a pastoral lease to be diversified. At the moment, we are in the debate and in the federal court about this same issue on Aboriginal land. The federal court will bring down a very important decision about the Muckaty case and this bill will take serious note from that.
It was good to hear the shadow minister, the member for Casuarina, for this area of governance, as a previous minister. I thank him for his briefing and support. He certainly gave me some good advice and we worked with a good team on the fourth floor and worked through this. He encouraged me to speak about it and I am honoured to do that because I represent people in a vast electorate, and I say with confidence, hosting the best cattle stations in the world. That is something to be very proud of as Territorians, and particularly those Territorians from the Barkly.
Minister, well done, you have a lot of support out there. You will be asked a few questions, or you have been already, about the consultation processes you have been through, and those amendments are very productive and positive. They will add to this legislation, making it a good instrument that will deliver the intention of the government, which is diversity and opportunity that will cross all sorts of boundaries in opening up futures for Territorians. Thank you.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak on the statement, but first of all I say thank you to the minister for giving me a briefing on this some time ago. I also went outside the House and got information around this.
The member for Barkly talked about the history around pastoralists, cattlemen and the like. When the live cattle ban happened, it not only affected pastoralists, it affected Aboriginal people as well, especially in my electorate. We are Gurrurrun, they are my traditional people from my grandmother’s side and my grandfather is Jawoyn. Let me explain that. The Gurrurrun Association and the Dalawyn people are pretty much mixed in with Rembarrnga Ritharrtnug people in Arnhem Land. They are very associated. The Jawoyn are the next door neighbours.
That fractured us so badly. Do you know how many people benefited from Gurrurrun, the company itself? Every year, there was distribution of royalties to my people. That fractured everybody. These families relied on that for the Christmas holidays, to buy their kids Christmas presents, everything, furniture, cars, it supported them for years. It was one of my grandfathers. He has passed now, he was a traditional man of Bulman. His traditional land was between Bulman and Ngukurr. He was the one who brought this together. He was the driver of the seat. He implemented this whole thing. He worked with the cattlemen back then, and we must not forget cattlemen in the Northern Territory, as we had our own cowboys too.
Where did Indigenous people start? They started at stations. We had our own ringers, we are no different. My father was a ringer, his brothers were ringers. My grandfather was more of a cultural man, but in that time, when my fathers were born and my mothers were born, being cattlemen was a life for them. Working in a station was a life. My partner, in the Barkly region, was the same thing. He was a ringer. He started at Hayfield station. He went to school. His family is the same. There is a history of Aboriginal ringers. They all started at stations and the numbers are growing. We now have Indigenous cattle owners, cattle station owners. They have moved to the next step, we cannot forget that. We are supporting our own with this and expanding their businesses; it is not only non-Indigenous people, it is Indigenous people too. That is the history left by the former Labor government. They fractured not only non-Indigenous people, but Indigenous people who own these cattle stations and made a living out of them.
The member for Barkly would know there are numbers in his area. There is a large number of cattle stations owned by Indigenous people, a good number in my electorate, the Stuart electorate and the Namatjira electorate. This is something we need to consider, and look forward to supporting our own. Let us just go back to my speech of thanks.
I have examined the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill, in regard to its second reading. The proposed amendments to the Pastoral Land Act have many features that potentially could impact the native title holders, and pastoral leases, under the Commonwealth Native Title Act. I do support this legislation, noting there are likely to be important implications for native title holders. This would strongly suggest the need for more extensive consultation with those affected. These are not the cattlemen, the cattle station owners, these are the native title owners of the land. That is what I am referring to. I wish to recommend that, given the potentially significant implications of this legislation, it be further considered within the committee framework so any potential implications can be fully explored and understood by all stakeholders.
We are looking at stakeholders like the NLC, the CLC, the native title holders of the land and the cattlemen who are leasing the land. Everybody needs to be consulted on this. I am sure my colleague has taken that into consideration. At the end of the day, I support this because I know that Aboriginal people do own cattle stations and I wish for them to do better. So, thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I will address a few of the issues raised by members in the House; however, first I pass on my thanks to the opposition and the member for Nelson for supporting this bill. It is an important piece of legislation and, as I said in Question Time earlier, this really is a watershed moment for the pastoral sector. This will completely change the capacity of the pastoral industry in a number of different ways and all the changes will be quite beneficial.
I will move to a few things the member for Casuarina raised, and I again thank him for supporting the bill. He referred to the Indonesian situation and the problem we had arising out of the live cattle ban. He suggested it was not entirely the live cattle ban that put us where we are today, but I suggest that the live cattle ban was certainly the trigger for the major reduction in cattle imports to Indonesia at that time. We are still struggling to come to terms with and deal with that.
Consequently, this makes this amendment even more important so cattlemen are no longer in a position where they have all their eggs in one basket. I fear that is what happened in a number of different ways and on a number of different fronts. The first front was that there was little opportunity for diversification on pastoral property prior to this piece of legislation coming in. Yes, five-year permits were allowed, but as I said previously, it is very difficult to commercialise a five-year operation.
Sitting behind that was that the whole market situation for live cattle into Asia had changed over the 10 years or so prior to the ban. More work should have been done by the former government in engaging existing and new markets in Asia so our cattlemen were not so entirely reliant on Indonesia for that trade.
The member for Casuarina also spoke about his level of consciousness for the implications of change around water, waste and the use of roads. That has been a common theme amongst a number of the speakers today. I point out that any of the activities involving the use of water or discharge of waste water, those types of things, would still be covered by other Northern Territory legislation. In those instances, the Water Act would apply.
A number of people have spoken about the considerations around the Native Title Act. I can assure everybody in the room and everyone listening that there are strict guidelines around non-pastoral use under the Native Title Act. If I turn to that section of the Native Title Act – in fact, I have an explanation which probably makes it a little easier for me to read into Hansard. It says section 24GA of the NTA defines what primary production activity is under the Native Title Act. The definition goes on to say:
The expression primary production activity includes the following:
It explicitly excludes mining. It says:
I turn to the amendments. There is direct reference in the amendments to deal with native title. The issuance of a permit must be done, bearing in mind the provisions of the Native Title Act. Effectively, nothing can occur on that land unless it complies with the NTA, lest it trigger other issues around native title. We have been very careful to cover off on that.
There has been a fair amount of consultation which has occurred about this. Obviously, there has been significant consultation with the pastoral industry. I am delighted to report their full support for this, because they understand the needs of the pastoral industry now and into the future.
Consultation has also been conducted in the past. There was some legislative review going on a couple of years ago and, during that time, there were some discussions about amendments to the Pastoral Land Act. There was some early consultation as well.
There will be ongoing consultation. I will move to the member for Nelson’s amendments shortly, because they talk about the consultative process and deal with issues about planning insofar as consultation relates to that.
I have indicated to the member for Nelson that we will be accepting his amendments because, in essence, they are innocuous amendments; they do not change the intent of the head amendments to this act. It is something we could have dealt with in another fashion. The act makes provisions for ministerial guidelines, so we could have done it through ministerial guidelines and allowed that process of consultation and advertising. In effect, the amendments from the member for Nelson do not suggest any contradiction to the act and are easy enough to put in, so that will not be a problem. Clearly, the amendments by the member for Nelson are supported by other speakers in this debate as well.
The member for Casuarina also raised an issue about pastoral rents and whether there might be some impacts on them. There may well be a small impact. I believe the member for Daly also picked up on the change in value of land, given different uses. There has been a working group put together which is looking at a number of issues around the financial side of this; that is, the costs of permitting and how that will affect the pastoral rents into the future.
If you look at a large pastoral concern – many of them are large – taking a small piece of that and improving it will mean a change in land use of probably a very small percentage of the overall piece of land. That changed land use should not have an enormous impact on the rents, but we are looking again at fee structures and how they will work. We are working very closely with industry on that.
That just about covers all the issues raised. I gather we will be going into committee stage to make these amendments, so there will be an opportunity for anyone who has any questions ...
Mr McCarthy: No nuclear waste dumps, minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No nuclear waste dumps, right. Fortunately, nuclear waste dumps do not fit within the terms of the Native Title Act for the purposes of non-pastoral use for this land. I do not believe that will be a problem, member for Barkly.
I note that the member for Casuarina adjourned this debate when the bill was introduced. I was a little surprised that the member for Nightcliff did not adjourn it, given that she is the shadow minister. This falls under the administrative arrangements for the Department for Land Resource Management. It is neither here nor there, but I just wondered why the member for Nightcliff did not become involved in this debate, given that she is the shadow minister technically, which might explain why she did not avail herself of an opportunity to get briefed on it as well.
But anyway never mind …
Ms Fyles: You cannot keep up with your administrative orders.
Ms Anderson: Not in Darwin, that is why.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Not in Darwin - perhaps there is no interest in the pastoral industry, but that is okay. Let me thank my department for the efforts they have put in to bring this amendment to the House. They have been a great source of help, inspiration and information for me, so that is very much appreciated for all those who have been involved.
Thank you again to all in the House who are supporting this very sensible bill that, given time, will see some changes to the pastoral industry that will be most positive in nature. I reiterate what I said in Question Time this morning; this presents opportunities, not just for the pastoral industry, the family or corporate-owned pastoral properties - certainly it does for them, but they are not the only people to benefit. People who live in the regions and remote parts of the Territory will also benefit from this.
Every new job that is created out of this is a new job for someone who lives in the Northern Territory. Whether it be one extra job on a pastoral property or 30 or 40 extra jobs on a pastoral property, they will all contribute to growing the economy of the whole of the Northern Territory, but also on a very regional and local basis. I know the bush members who have remote and rural seats will be very pleased to see the benefits that will flow from this.
We will be working very closely with the pastoral industry to implement this, and I suspect we will aim to bring it to force on 1 January. That will be the intent, and it will give people three months to the end of the year to start thinking about how they intend to take advantage of the change in this legislation.
They will be able to start thinking long term, and beyond what the turn off of cattle will be for next year. They will be able to start thinking about the vagaries and the ups and downs of the cattle sector per se, and start thinking about what they want their place to look like in 20 or 30 years’ time.
Bearing in mind that 48% of the Territory’s land mass, or thereabouts, is pastoral land, and not all of it is the very best land for pastoral use. This is a contemporary approach to dealing with land in the Northern Territory. We do not want pastoral land to be tied just to pastoral use. It does not make sense. If you just maintained a romantic notion that all our pastoral land should be used to run cows, then you are not giving that land the best opportunity to produce revenue. If you have land that is marginal country for cattle and you want to turn it into something else, this will give you the opportunity to do that.
Thanks again to all the members who have contributed to the debate and I appreciate their support on it. I will certainly be letting the cattle sector know this afternoon that this had support broadly in the parliament of the Northern Territory. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Just a couple of points, one I raised during the debate; minister, you might not have caught that. It was, how much level of detail is required in an application for non-pastoral use? What I am getting at is that, in simplistic terms, I applied for some non-pastoral use to grow watermelons. If I am stuck with that in my non-pastoral use and next year I want to grow pumpkins, do I have to apply again? If I took it a bit further – that is a simple one - for example, if I wanted to go from horticulture to forestry, would I have to get a new permission? I am wondering what level of detail comes in before you have to reapply for a non-pastoral use?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Member for Nelson, what I will be able to do is address issues around level of detail through ministerial guidelines. At the moment, you have got an application process the Pastoral Land Board uses for determining the five-year permits. I do not see that there would be a substantial change to the level of detail required, other than for the application to address the length of time the permit is required for. You are quite right when you say that if you change your use of land under the auspices of a permit, substantial changes will have to be re-permitted. The example you used of going from rockmelons to forestry is quite right, you would no doubt need a new permit for a different type of use. However, if you were changing from rockmelons to watermelons, I suspect there would be no need to get a new permit.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. One of the other examples could have been a better one, such as going from watermelons to rice.
Just so we clarify it in Hansard, the issue about dominance – in other words, the pastoral characteristics of the property still have to remain dominant over the non-pastoral use. I think I was asked in the brief – I could not see it in my notes –but is that dominance to do with area or with value?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, a good question, and the answer to that is area. Non-pastoral use will have to remain less than 50% of the area of the pastoral property.
Mr WOOD: If I only have two cows on the rest of the property, and I have 1000 ha of rice, it would look like one is more dominant than the other, even though the two cows are on more land.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, understood, member for Nelson. The issue of a pastoral lease carries with it conditions and those conditions relate to stocking rates on your land and all sorts of things around management of the land. The conditions of the lease would remain in force for the portion of the pastoral property that is still being used for pastoral purposes. The non-pastoral use permit would then apply to the non-pastoral areas. Pastoralists will still have to comply with all the conditions of their lease for the pastoral portion.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 9.1 standing in my name. Clause 4A amends section 29 of the act. It includes a new clause 29(ha) which says:
Because there is a section now which is a new amended Part 7, I felt that what we needed to say, within the functions of the board, there was to be – to reflect those changes. All that has done is put in a new clause (ha). I asked Parliamentary Counsel why it went down there, as I had it on the top. They said the protocol is that a new clause in a section such as ‘Functions of the Board’ goes in the same position as it would appear within the act. It is no more than ensuring that what we are doing today is also included as one of the functions of the board.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, nmember for Nelson, that will be accepted. This amendment was considered to be innocuous. There are references to the issuing of permits contained within the act further through, but this is not inconsistent with that and there is no objection to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. .
Clauses 5 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: I move amendment 9.2, standing in my name, inserting new clause 87(2)(ca). All that does is that when the board is assessing an application, it is saying beforehand to take into account submissions received by the board under clause 87A with the period specified in the notice given under section 87A(3)(c), and then continues on. When we get to 87A, that will probably explain why that needs to be in there. It is to ensure the board takes into account the submissions that come in, either written or at a public meeting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Chairman, there is no objection to this amendment either. Once we deal with the other amendments, it will make perfect sense to those reading this legislation. It says that the Pastoral Land Board must take into account submissions received by the board. I do not believe that will be terribly onerous and it is reasonable for the board to consider submissions received under the new section 87A, when this legislation comes into force. Much was said during the debate, in general, about consultation allowing people to understand what is going on with non-pastoral use permit applications. It is reasonable for this provision to exist, so the board must take into account those submissions when they are presented to them.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 9.3, standing in my name.
I had better explain. This puts in the requirement that if the board wishes it can hold a public meeting. Then it describes what should happen if there is a public meeting. The board in this case must invite the applicant – makes good sense – and any person who made a submission under section 87A to attend the meeting and give any person attending the meeting a reasonable opportunity to address the board.
That means if someone comes along to the meeting, they are at least given an opportunity to speak before the board. This has come from the minister’s second reading speech where he talked about the Pastoral Land Board being the consent authority. Knowing how the consent authority works – if you have been to a consent authority meeting – even though you might not have put in a submission, the chair normally has the latitude to allow other people to put in a verbal submission. That is a good common sense clause.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Chairman, this portion of the amendment will also be agreed to by government. It was this amendment by the member for Nelson that caused the most discussion between the department and me, so that I could understand what the implications of this were. The thing that gets this over the line is that the words ‘may be open to the public’ are used, rather than ‘must’. It allows the board the latitude to make a decision about whether a meeting should be public or not. They have to deal with many commercial-in-confidence issues during the course of their meetings. There would need to be some serious consideration given as to whether the board would, indeed, agree to open up a consideration to a public forum.
That said, as I mentioned before, there is an opportunity for me to make ministerial guidelines. One of the ways through this issue that we considered was how those ministerial guidelines directing some of those meetings might occur. Another consideration was that commercial-in-confidence meetings and meetings that deal with the general business of the Pastoral Land Board may not necessarily be open to the public. That could be done and dusted in one meeting and a separate meeting opened afterwards that deals with the public side of consideration around a permit for a non-pastoral use. This provides that they may do it. We are not going to encourage the Pastoral Land Board to close up shop and not be a part of this process. We support this amendment without any problem.
Mr WOOD: Thanks for that, minister. That makes good sense. One of the reasons I also put ‘may’ in was that you will possibly get some very small applications for non-pastoral use. It might be for a Telstra tower or something like that, and it may simply make good sense that you do not really need a public meeting. You could still ask for submissions, if necessary. Common sense would prevail. Of course, the other thing in Development Consent Authority meetings is that the decision-making process is not public. There is a public forum and then the people leave. During that period the board could call back a person if there were some matters of confidentiality, or they would deal with those matters amongst themselves anyway. What you have put forward is a set of guidelines for the minister in how these meetings should be run, and it would make good sense.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 9.4, standing in my name.
This is part of the issue of opening up the process for public consultation. Section 87A comes under the heading ‘Public Notice of Application’. Basically, it requires the board to put in a public notice when there is an application. It says:
I would hope that the Pastoral Land Board does not give it to the local school council’s newsletter. I hope it puts it in something broad enough, because we know how complaints happen if it is not in the right paper. It is also on the website, so that is important anyway. Then it just basically says that if you are going to put a notice in the paper this is the requirement, and that is fairly straightforward. As I said before, this gives it more of a feel of good governance by having these clauses in there.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, again, the government does not have a problem with this amendment. It goes to the nub of part of the contribution made by some of the members in this House about consultation and ensuring people know what is going on. I particularly refer to a discussion I had with the member for Arnhem around this. It is fair and reasonable that those people who live in the geographical area of a pastoral property who might be applying for a non-pastoral use be given the opportunity to have their say and make a submission to the Pastoral Land Board on a permit application. Referring to your comment before, member for Nelson, about local school newsletters, common sense would prevail. You would find those advertisements would go into the major newspaper in the locality for which that non-pastoral permit application mostly applied.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I table the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, containing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the government’s fiscal performance for the 2012-13 financial year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
This government inherited a financial position from the former Labor Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, which was simply unsustainable. Fiscal deficits were predicted each and every year over the budget cycle to 2015-16, and the nett debt was expected to rise steeply to $5.5bn.
As a result of the Labor Treasurer’s fiscal irresponsibility, the Territory’s AAA1 credit rating was placed in a negative outlook by the Moody’s Rating Agency. At the time of the last budget of the Labor opposition leader, back in May 2012, the 2013 fiscal balance outcome for the non-financial public sector was projected to be a deficit of $767m.
When the Country Liberals came to power just over 12 months ago, the first priority was to get the financial position of the Territory back on a pathway to surplus. As highlighted in the mini-budget and the 2013-14 budget, we have implemented a range of savings and efficiency measures, in order to begin the process of returning the budget to a fiscal surplus by 2017-18.
These savings measures have already been realised, in excess of $70m in the 2012-13 year, and by the end of the current forward estimates, will have realised cumulative savings in excess of $1bn. In addition, we have gone a long way to address the financial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation. When coupled with the reform agenda underway, this will see Territorians reap the benefits of increased competition and greater levels of financial accountability by the corporation. The Giles Country Liberals government has put the corporation back on a firmer financial footing.
While the 2012-13 outcome continues to be influenced by constrained revenues, the final outcome is a significantly reduced deficit from that projected by the Labor government back in May 2012. It is also an improvement from the final estimate included in the May 2013 budget. When compared to the original 2012-13 budget, the operating balance deficit of $101m, at the general government sector, is a $62m improvement. The fiscal balance deficit of $516m, at the non-financial public sector, is a $251m improvement. This is an outstanding achievement, by any measure.
In addition, nett debt is $449m lower than originally projected, and the nett debt to revenue ratio has improved by 11 percentage points.
The improved outcome since the original budget has been influenced by the following key factors:
Increased taxation revenue of $67.5m. Predominantly, this is payroll tax related, as a result of employment and wages growth, and a large one-off commercial stamp duty related transaction
increased GST revenue of $88.7m, as a result of a higher Territory share of the national population following the 2011 census.
However, for 2013-14, following the February 2013 update by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, it is projected that the Territory will receive less GST revenue in absolute terms than in 2012-13. The revised timing of Commonwealth-funded expenditure which affects any of the timing differences to be included in 2013-14 mid-year report; increased utility tariffs of $32m, together with the improved operational performance by the Power and Water Corporation; and lower levels of infrastructure spending achieved through the reprioritisation and realignment of spending in general government as private sector investment increases, and by the Power and Water Corporation in line with demand management initiatives.
These amounts have been offset by nett increased expenditure of $56.8m. This expenditure relates to election commitments, new initiatives and legacy items that have been largely funded through savings and revenue measures and the recognition of finance leases over Aboriginal land totalling $41.4m.
These amounts, combined with lower operating expenses across agencies since the May 2013 final estimate, have resulted in the overall improvement in the final outcome.
I turn to the Territory’s balance sheet. For the non-financial public sector, nett debt for 2012-13 is $3.132bn which, as mentioned previously, is $449m lower than the original 2012-13 budget projection. This is predominately due to the better than expected fiscal balance outcome combined with increased returns on government investments, reflective of current market conditions.
When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett debt at 30 June 2013 for the non-financial public sector had declined to 58%, from the 69% projected at the time of the original 2012-13 budget. Again, this is a significant achievement and a step in the right direction.
The 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statements have been issued with a qualified audit opinion by the Auditor-General. This qualification, which is a flow on from the previous years, is of a technical nature and results from the continued uncertainty over the carrying value of construction works in progress, related to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. It is important to note that the technical nature of this qualification does not necessarily mean that the amount recorded in the government’s balance sheet is wrong. Rather, it means until community packages are completed, it is uncertain whether some elements recorded as works in progress should have been expensed or depreciated during the year. It is, however, envisaged that as remaining packages of work in communities under the alliance contracting methodology are finalised, this issue will be resolved in 2013-14.
The overall improvement in the 2012-13 deficit position from that projected both in the original May 2012 Labor budget and the 2013 Country Liberals’ budget is evidence of the commitment by this government to getting the financial position of the Territory back on to an even keel. This is in no small part evidenced by the budget improvement measures across agencies that have been implemented over the last 12 months, together with the improved financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation.
The focus on fiscal responsibility has already wiped almost $0.5bn off of the nett debt that was projected not much more than a year ago. Notwithstanding, the challenge in the short term, while revenue growth remains restricted, is to ensure spending levels grow at a lower rate than revenue. Based on the 2012-13 outcome, the Country Liberals government has proven itself to be fiscally responsible, and we will continue to focus on a return to surplus in 2017-18.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and I commend it to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, today I provide the Assembly with a ministerial statement on Business and Industry in the Northern Territory and how the business community is prospering under a CLP government they elected to govern for them.
Since coming to government, we have found the full extent of the previous Labor administration’s mismanagement of the Territory. Not only did we find out that the Territory bank account was empty, but we also discovered that Territory families had been left with a $5.5bn projected debt to pay off. On top of this, Labor turned the public service into a large and unwieldy organisation, suppressed by a government that had no strategic direction or sense of purpose. As a result, we had a health system that was broken, the worst educational outcomes in Australia, a housing and accommodation crisis, and a business community crying out for a government willing to help and listen.
The important task is to fix Labor’s mess for business and Territory families, and put in its place a diversified and thriving economy. We are about planning responsibly for tackling Labor’s legacy of debt, to help grow the economy and provide more opportunities for Territory business. Changes in health, education, power and water, tourism and, of course, my own Department of Business, are all about fixing Labor’s mess.
Labor’s $5.5bn debt has meant a reduction in spending. We are identifying better efficiencies, reorganising public services and, importantly, dusting off the cobwebs to improve morale and give workers a clearer path forward.
The Territory is not just about INPEX. It is our intention to ensure that the Territory economy is driven not just by construction projects. We are making sure all areas of the business community prosper. We are creating an environment that is conducive to business and driving economic growth and development through private sector investment. We are out there talking up the Northern Territory interstate and overseas, attracting investment and trade. We are making it simpler to do business by improving the Territory’s regulatory environment by cutting red tape, streamlining approvals and, importantly, introducing a culture that looks first at ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ to our business community.
When it comes to helping our business community, the philosophy is to first look at why we are going to do it ahead of why we are not. We are ensuring that we do not take our eyes off the horizon by putting in place long-term strategies that will shape the future economic welfare of the Territory. Most importantly, we have provided a vision. Chief Minister Adam Giles and my colleagues’ vision identifies new projects, new industries, and new markets. This vision is for new ports, new energy projects, and new rail systems. It is one that develops new agricultural projects, new mining projects, oil and gas, petrochemicals, logistics and transport.
The Labor Opposition Leader, Delia Lawrie, is on the record as hating tourists, which is why this industry was ignored by her and her colleagues when in government. Well, the Country Liberals love tourists and we are out there doing everything we can to bring more of the people Labor hates to the Territory.
There was a time under former CLP governments that the Territory was the envy of all Australian jurisdictions for our relationships with our Asian neighbours. We were always the first in the door, more often than not ahead of our Australian Prime Ministers. That is because we were not fair-weather friends with Asia. We recognised and valued the opportunity to do business with the region. A key focus of fostering new business growth and prosperity for the Territory is re-engaging with Asia and repairing friendships damaged by the previous Labor administrations.
Our relationships with our Asian neighbours are fundamental to growing trade into Asia, and progress has been made. Labor almost destroyed the Territory’s live cattle trade. In contrast, this CLP government is all about creating new markets. The open for business sign is up and the Country Liberals government is rebuilding the bridge to Asia destroyed by the Labor Party.
The Northern Territory’s trade relationship with Asia will thrive under the Adam Giles Country Liberals government and Territory business will benefit. Our commitment is to lead and to map a path of prosperity for all Territorians.
Recently, the Chief Minister released our Framing the Future document. The Country Liberals government wants all Territorians to be part of our vision for an economy that creates wealth and jobs; is open, competitive and innovative; is built on exports and the needs of our trading partners, captures the ideas, energy and opportunities across the Territory; and lands new, local, national and international investment.
I urge all Territorians, have your say, it is your Territory, it is your future. We want Territory business to provide comment on the Framing the Future blueprint. Our priority actions to underpin business and industry development in the Northern Territory are:
fostering an environment in which business can prosper in increasing investor certainty
supporting market development for Territory business through major projects, Asian engagement and trade development
supporting small to medium enterprises through an improved suite of business services that are focused on innovation of processes, products and marketing.
enhancing the capacity of our local industries to meet the opportunities of major projects and sustained growth in our economy and population
unlocking the full potential of our human capital
fostering an environment where businesses can prosper
increasing investor certainty.
Financial investment and industry engagement is the mantra. The measures that we are putting in place have not gone unnoticed by the Territory business community. In fact, small to medium businesses consider the Northern Territory government to be the most supportive government in the nation, according to the latest Sensis Business Index.
The Sensis Business Index’s findings show that support for the government rose by 10% in the last quarter alone. This is further evidence that we are heading in the right direction. The 10% increase in support for the Country Liberals government was the largest increase of any state or Territory government. The Territory recorded the highest regional business confidence in the nation at 47%. Overall, Territory business confidence grew by 6% points to 26%, the second highest in the nation. This was well above the national average of 17%, which actually declined 5% over the quarter.
Territory businesses are also performing better than all other states or Territories in sales, employment, prices and profitability. The Sensis Business Index findings followed a recent Deloitte survey, which found that almost a fifth of Territory businesses in the Northern Territory expect growth of over 30% within the next 12 months.
As I move around the small business community, I am encouraged by the spirit and enthusiasm of the people who make up this sector. In August, retail trade turnover in the Territory increased by 0.9% to $247m. This was the highest monthly growth rate in our nation, with only South Australia and Tasmania having anything close to our strong monthly results.
In annual terms, retail trade turnover in the Territory increased by 2.9% in August this year, compared to a year ago. This was the second highest growth rate in the nation behind only Queensland, which was up by 3.1%.
If only the Labor members on the opposition benches could have the same confidence in the Territory as our small business sector does. The Territory business community has had enough of the opposition members talking the Territory down at every opportunity.
They see the Labor members opposite for what they are. The opposition are always in opposition to anything and everything. There is no better example of this than our most recent labour force figures. Last week, these figures revealed trend employment in the Territory has increased by 0.3% in September and continues to have the highest growth rate in Australia.
This was on the back of it increasing by .2% in August. We have an economy that is leading most Australian states, workforce participation is as its highest level since 2009 and in the past two months, an extra 850 full-time workers in the Northern Territory. This does not include fly in, fly out workers.
Rather than celebrating the news of the increase in full time jobs in the Territory in September and August, and an extra 1918 jobs compared to September 2012, the shadow business spokesman was talking down the Territory economy. He made the nonsensical claim that it is hard to get a job in the Territory. The Territory has the highest growth rate in Australia. I urge the Labor members opposite to cheer up and celebrate, along with the rest of the Territory. The national participation rate is 65%. In the Territory, it is 10.2% higher on 75.2%. The trend unemployment in the Northern Territory remains unchanged at 5.5%, the third lowest in the nation. Importantly, the monthly increase was driven by growth in full-time employment.
The Country Liberals government, under Chief Minister, Adam Giles, is framing an economy that creates wealth and jobs for families, and the latest increase in jobs is further proof of that. So too are the latest quarterly building activity figures for the Territory. In June, the Territory recorded the highest quarterly level of building activity on record. It increased by 6% to $441m. Driving growth in the quarter was a 36.3% increase in non-residential building. This reflects work on the new Darwin correctional precinct, and the Ichthys workers camp. Importantly, residential building activity surrounding the construction of new houses also helped drive growth in the quarter.
Private residential work is at record levels. In August, the trend number of residential building approvals in the Territory increased by 1.4%, compared to July. This is the highest monthly number of building approvals since December 1999. Nationally, the trend number of residential building approvals increased by just 0.1% over the same period. In the year to August, the number of residential building approvals in the Territory increased by 29.9%, jumping from 1614 to 2096. This is the second highest growth rate nationally. Also in the year to August, the number of housing finance commitments in the Territory has increased by a healthy 7.1% to 4379. The Territory is again outdoing the powerhouse states of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
The growth rate in housing finance commitments was the third highest in the nation, behind Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Compared to July, the trend number of housing finance commitments for owner occupation in the Territory increased by 2.5% to 370 in August this year. Nationally, housing finance commitments increased by just 0.6% over the same period. In the year to August 2013, the number of commitments by first homebuyers increased by 1.5% to 869. By non-first homebuyers, excluding re-financing, the increase was 11.7% to 2230. For re-financing, the increase was 3.5% to 1280. For purchase of established dwellings, the increase was 6.7%, to 3840 dwellings.
Given the $5.5bn Labor debt that the Territory is burdened with, we are making strong inroads into fixing, for business, the Labor mess that we inherited. Only the members on the opposition benches would deny that the economy is heading in the right direction. Only the Labor opposition would talk down forecasts of strong growth.
This year, the Northern Territory is forecast to grow by 5% and 7% the following year. It is expected to moderate beyond that to 4.5% in 2015-16, 3.9% in 2016-17, but remain buoyant.
The Giles Country Liberals government is proudly working on a program that creates a thriving local business community that is the most competitive in the world. Everything we do is about meeting the demands of economic growth. It is about more housing, greater infrastructure, a better health system and a lifestyle that is the envy of the rest of the world. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting Territorians to train up and benefit from our growing economy. We want Territorians to be the first to reap the rewards of our economic programs. Through our education and training programs, we want Territorians to be the first to get the best jobs. Our commitment to tertiary and vocational education will ensure that Territorians are the talent being hired first. Territorians for Territory jobs, I say.
It is an exciting time for the Territory with the major projects heading our way. The Giles Country Liberals government is spending more than $8m on workforce growth, and more than $98.1m on training. The Country Liberals government is investing $27.7m for apprentices and trainees, which includes an additional $1.5m to the $2.9m apprenticeship and traineeships support package. This includes more money to support apprentices and trainees in completing their studies, such as travel and accommodation subsidies and to attend off the job training.
We are also investing $1m for the Indigenous workforce participation program that develops workforce planning and supports increased Indigenous employment opportunities. We are committed to developing and growing our human capital. To innovate and compete, we need a dynamic and capable workforce. To help us achieve this, we are improving how we work with business to understand skills gaps, including through the Business Advisory Council, and providing skills training to Territorians to ensure that they have the skills businesses need.
In 2013, more than $12m has been committed to training Territorians in the four identified industry groups of building construction, engineering and mining, transport and storage utilities. We are providing up-skills programs to improve the technical, managerial and leadership capacity of Territory small to medium enterprises. We are growing the Territory’s footprint as an education destination, so that our training in higher education providers can improve their ability to up-skill Territorians and further develop education as an export industry.
The CLP government recognises the need to increase the capability of Territory industry to meet the demand of our growing economy and major projects. Local businesses, through improving their capabilities, will be in an improved position to win more work on the major projects in the Territory and beyond. To this end, we are providing better information on capability gaps at an industry level to small and medium enterprises, and pushing for better feedback to small businesses from major project operators and their contractors, encouraging collaboration and partnerships between businesses. This might be local businesses partnering with each other, or partnering with businesses nationally or internationally.
We are profiling and promoting Northern Territory capability, including through the Industry Capability Network. We are linking small to medium enterprises with major companies and working to enable access into the global supply chains of our major project proponents and their multinational contractors. We are developing a project of investment attraction and business migration priorities to address capability gaps.
The Giles Country Liberals government is about investing in the bush after years of neglect by former Labor administrations. It is because of the hard work of my fellow Country Liberal colleagues that the Territory now has the highest regional business confidence in the nation at 47%.
As I said previously, our valuable pastoral industry is a benefactor of the Country Liberals re-engagement with Asia. Central Australia, the Barkly and Katherine regions are being sourced for cattle to the region. The vast majority are destined for Indonesia. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting the pastoral industry in developing new markets and strengthening those existing ones. Vietnam is a growing market for NT cattle, and the NT government has been working closely with the industry in Vietnam to develop this market. In the next few years, exports to Vietnam could rise to 10 000 head a year. This is great news for Territory pastoralists. This is an exciting prospect and builds further confidence in the NT’s cattle trade, which is still recovering from being under the watch of the Labor Opposition Leader, Delia Lawrie.
We are the gateway to Asia. Trading partners such as China want to use Darwin as a launching base for southeast Asian operations. I am referring to companies such as Chinese heavy machinery giant XCMG, which has signed an agreement paving the way for the construction of a large assembly and distribution plant in Darwin. Stage 1 of the project will bring a direct investment of $60m into the Northern Territory economy.
This Country Liberals government, unlike the previous Labor administration, will continue to engage and encourage investment and job creation in the Territory. Our door is open to all businesses in the Territory. Since taking government, we have made it our business to bring big business to the Territory. Big business generates demand for goods and services of our local businesses. Big businesses bring capital, technical expertise and skills. This translates into opportunities for local businesses and their services by involving local suppliers in their supply chains, and strengthening our links further with other markets.
It is our mission to continue to pursue businesses, both internationally and national, to establish operations in the Northern Territory. We want their capital and technical expertise, the local jobs they create, access to their global supply chains for our local industry, and the demand they create in our local economy. Importantly, this Country Liberals government is committed to entrenching employment opportunities for Territorians. Everything we are doing is aimed at creating a commercial environment, so that Territory small businesses, our lifeblood, can prosper and grow.
Australia’s second largest infrastructure project is under way on the shores of Darwin harbour and more significant projects are on the Territory horizon. The Ichthys industry participation plan for the INPEX project is in place to encourage local content and provide opportunities for local business. The industry participation plan, negotiated by the Department of Business, is the first to include a requirement to cascade the commitments of the industry participation plan to their major Tier 1 contractors.
Around 160 lower tier subcontract commitments have been awarded to Territory-based companies by JKC and their major subcontractors. The Ichthys project commitment in the Territory, including contracts, procurement and overheads, both awarded and pending, totals in excess of $5bn. This will generate some 2200 jobs for Territorians. We are actively supporting our businesses to participate in this and other major projects through an improved range of programs from the Department of Business.
We made an election commitment to cut red tape. It is our mission to make it simple for Territory businesses to interact with government. We are reducing red tape and getting out of the way of business. Our main focus is on removing unnecessary, redundant or inefficient legal provisions, lengthy and costly administrative procedures and paper work, and impediments to business growth for small to medium enterprises. We are reinforcing a pro-business and can-do culture within the department and throughout government. The Northern Territory government is streamlining processes, creating opportunities for the private sector and simplifying regulation.
The future is one where businesses are dynamic, robust, free of red tape, and able to get on with what they do best. Significant advances in reducing red tape are already being achieved. A new red tape reduction program is currently being rolled out, and includes a new red tape business advocate to assist businesses address red tape issues across government.
The Department of Business is streamlining processes and service delivery. The turnaround time for processing of occupational high-risk licences, for instance, has been reduced from 20 days to 20 minutes over the counter of the Territory Business Centres. This has been achieved through streamlining the approval processes and will benefit approximately 6000 renewables per annum, plus any new licences that are issued.
We have been working closely with the hotel industry to improve what is currently a complex licensing system and create further opportunities. This is a massive employment industry in the Territory and, together with the industry, we have a common goal of seeing business thrive.
Another critical change is NT WorkSafe. We have moved from being an enforcer and regulator, which is effectively reactive, to working with business proactively. While the regulator powers remain, the focus of WorkSafe is on providing advice and information, assisting Territory business to become world leaders in workplace safety.
The Department of Business recognises that government is a significant consumer of Territory goods and services. Reforms to the procurement processes will ensure a better go for local business. Key reforms include: improving procurement planning through additional tools and templates; improving decision-making through greater transparency and increased accountability; refocusing procurement from time frames to outcomes; improving the quality of feedback provided to tenderers and supporting small to medium enterprises through an improved suite of business services that are focused on innovation of processes, products and marketing. To support this, we are taking a new lens to the business support programs that we offer.
The Department of Business helps businesses help themselves through a number of programs to support innovation across the operational and organisational processes and marketing: The Territory Business Growth program provides grants and consultant services to help existing businesses; the Territory business employment support program delivers grants and consultant services to people in business to enhance their workforce planning; the Territory business technology support program delivers grants and consultant services to business people to guide and assist them to take up new technology; and ecoBiz NT is a grant program, which assists NT small to medium enterprises to adopt resource efficient practices which are good for their financial bottom line, as well as the environment.
Under this Giles Country Liberals government, the future is bright for business in the Northern Territory. Just have a look at the cranes dotting the Darwin city horizon. That is just a sample of what is to come: Increased economic activity; greater investment; and diversified industry. The potential of our regions is unlocked and stronger links with our Asian neighbours is the future for Territory families.
There has been debate around Australia on whether the mining boom has peaked. Well, not in the Northern Territory; the future could not be brighter for mining, oil and gas exploration. We have an abundance of resources that are critical to the growth demands of our northern neighbours, and we will work with them to grow these important industries. Oil, gas and mining service and supply has a long-term demand prospect and is rich with opportunities for our business community. We are helping Territory businesses to position themselves to capture some of that market.
We have co-invested with industry to build our capabilities in oil and gas. The Northern Territory government has invested $3.5m in the North Australian institute for oil and gas. We have the ability to train and develop our own talent here to work in or start their own businesses to meet the demand of the oil and gas sector.
I made mention earlier of the Business Advisory Council. This council was launched in July and I have attended its first two meetings. The council is made up of Territory business people who are currently at the coalface. The members of council will make sure that government is linked into the issues and concerns of business. They will provide feedback on the effectiveness and relevance of the services delivered by the Department of Business. The council members will enable us to further support local businesses by removing red tape and other costs to businesses, which negatively impact on their competitiveness and, importantly, work with us on the productivity challenges that we and Australia face. It is important to note the ingenuity of Territory businesses. Cases abound where an entrepreneur has seen a need in the market and delivered an innovative solution. For example, there is Auslift, now on sale at Bunnings, a simple and clever solution to give a shovel more force, or the air tipped trailer under development in Alice Springs.
The Country Liberals government is working to create the most favourable environment for business, free of unnecessary government intervention and rich in opportunity. We are increasing certainty for investors and will work with the private sector to develop innovative solutions for infrastructure and industry development. To foster a dynamic environment and increased investor certainty, we are unlocking the potential of our regions. We are doing this by aligning our business and industry programs to help our regional and remote businesses and communities.
From perfect, sweet, juicy mangoes, to leading edge tourism experiences; from croc skins for designer handbags to leaders in tropical health research, Territory goods and services are up there with the best in the world.
Some analysts forecast that by 2020, the Asian middle class will be bigger than the rest of the world combined. This growing market for high quality premium products, demanded by middle class consumers, is a significant opportunity for Territory businesses.
I want to finish today on a business initiative put in place by the Country Liberals, which has stood the test of time for the last 19 years. I am referring to October Business Month. This much celebrated event is delivering a selection of keynote speakers, workshops, professional development, and networking opportunities to enable Territory businesses to access new and current ideas and information to boost their businesses.
The Country Liberals initiative is the premier business event in the Northern Territory. Last year, more than 6600 people attended October Business Month events and, at the halfway point, we are on target to eclipse these numbers. The October Business Month Department of Business team works closely with the business community throughout the year to identify trends and issues facing the local business sector.
The themes for October Business Month 2013 are: leadership, motivation and inspiration, marketing and social media and technology for business. October Business Month provides vital information that the business community is seeking. It also involves the business community as sponsors and partners in the delivery of events and workshops addressing specific issues business has identified.
October Business Month is delivered to provide businesses with the opportunity to take advantage of world-class presentations, training and networking opportunities at little or no cost. There are workshops, seminars, conferences and professional development programs throughout October, across the Northern Territory and online.
I encourage all Territory business owners and managers to access the diverse range of internationally and nationally recognised speakers on offer to gain new ideas for your business, to advance, grow and become more competitive.
This year’s speakers include Jamie Durie, who opened October Business Month, both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Jamie told the story of how he got started in business, how he turned an interest into a career, and how he got to where he is today. Layne Beachley, of course, is not just a world surfing champion, but a determined, inspirational and successful businessperson in her own right. She told her story this month. She attracted close to 900 people to her event. Steve Davis returns to October Business Month to provide a showcase of best practice examples relevant to a Territory audience, in the area of social media for business. Rowland McGabhann spoke about determination, motivation and what it took to overcome paralysis as a young man, to join the ranks of the sports elite and to make a career as a Hollywood stuntman.
These speakers are just a part of the October Business Month story, with more than 85 events this year. I strongly urge everyone in business to take advantage of these outstanding events.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): I welcome the opportunity from the Business minister to discuss business issues. On that last note about October Business Month, it is an excellent month. The Business department does a fantastic job and we thank them for all the work they do, and all the work they do during the rest of the year. I have enjoyed the October Business Month functions I have been to so far.
I also welcome my sister, who is a teacher, and my three nieces Abby, Alice and Ava.
I was a little disappointed not to hear the Deputy Chief Minister’s watermelon story. I have heard it six or seven times now. We may hear it in the minister’s wrapping speech. However, true to form, the minister started with a rather broad political spray on the previous government.
We now have a new CLP government which has been in power for 14 months, and what has the CLP government done? They have broken promises. They promised to cut the cost of living, they promised to cut debt, they promised frontline workers would be safe, and they have broken those promises. The new Chief Minister and the new Deputy Chief Minister have brazenly broken those election promises to cut the cost of living, cut debt, and that frontline workers would be safe. They did this despite knowing the books before they were elected. We have all now been through estimates. We had some new members of parliament this term, but we all went through the estimates process in June this year. Having been through estimates, we knew that the CLP knew the books before they were elected. Despite knowing the books, they promised to cut the cost of living, cut debt, and that frontline workers would be safe. Unfortunately, we have seen all of those promises broken.
Their broken promises and their decision to increase the cost of power and water have doubled cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory. It has hurt business, it has hurt families. Budget Paper 2, page 25 of the Treasurer’s own budget books – the CPI is forecast to increase from 2% to 3.9% due to the Territory government’s utility price increases.
The CLP doubled cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory. What was the Business minister’s response to power and water increases – 30% increase in power prices to a business and 40% increase in water prices to a business with six weeks’ notice? The Business minister’s response was to increase ecoBiz grants from $220 000 to $440 000. That was a paltry response in the face of significant pressures on business and with only six weeks’ notice. Business needs a lot of time and notice to prepare for an impact like this on their business and they were given six weeks’ notice. That was unfortunate.
The ecoBiz program is excellent; it is well-run, it is well-targeted, but as a response to the pressure on business after a 30% increase in power and water prices, it was nowhere near enough.
The CLP made a clear promise to cut debt. It was a very straightforward promise, ‘We will cut debt’. Those were their words. As we have seen, it is easy for the CLP to say things, but what do they do? In this budget, they borrowed $1.1bn. They took debt from $3.278bn to $4.417bn. I note that the Treasurer, in his previous statement, provided an update on the budget to the House. However, in this budget, they borrowed an extra $1.1bn, and that is a broken promise to Territorians.
By their own actions, they have shown that all their rhetoric is just political grandstanding, because in this budget, they borrowed $1.1bn. Despite knowing the books before they were elected, they made the decision to borrow $1.1bn, despite their election promise to cut debt.
They are brazen, and frontline staff are being sacked. We need to value our professional public service. The public service is crucial to delivering major projects. Politicians do not do it alone. When the Martin/Henderson governments brought the INPEX and Ichthys projects to fruition, it was not Clare Martin and Paul Henderson on their own; they were with very professional public servants. We have some fantastic public servants, but unfortunately we do not believe that our public service is being valued. We have seen a loss of experienced, credible staff from our public service, which affects our corporate knowledge. That is a significant loss to the ability and competency of a government, and we are seeing that through the work of the current government. Damage comes from losing credible, valuable public servants. We have seen teams where there are four, eight or 12 fewer staff. Fewer people are doing more. One, two or three people are doing the work that previous teams did. We are seeing people performing higher duties without being recognised for the work they are doing. These are all things which have an impact on a government.
One thing I acknowledge is that the current Treasurer did rescue the previous Under Treasurer. After she was let go, he found a job for her in the Department of Health. You cannot afford to lose someone like Jennifer Prince. Unfortunately, we have lost a whole other cohort of professional, experienced public servants. You do not get major projects without a public service behind you. We had years and decades of corporate knowledge and experience in dealing with people in the Northern Territory, Australia and around the world, and we have, unfortunately, lost those people. That is a blow to governments. We have seen that in the actions of this government; they lost those valuable people.
In his speech the minister talked about vocational education and training, and investing in trades and jobs in the future. The CLP, in this budget, cut their funding to Charles Darwin University. At the bottom of page 195 of Budget Paper No 3, the new Chief Minister cut the operating grant of Charles Darwin University from $9.6m to $6.8m, a 30% cut. Over the last few years, federal funding of Charles Darwin University has grown, and it grew again this year. However, the CLP cut funding to our university by 30%.
In estimates, we found they also cut money to the operating and infrastructure grants, the Higher Education Operating Grant and the VET Infrastructure Grant. They also cut our VET in Schools Program. So, $842 000 came out of our VET in Schools Program, which delivers vocational education and training to our school students. They are making cuts to those programs, which we need to deliver the workforce we need for our future. Unfortunately, they are making what are quite short-sighted decisions.
The Territory was the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small business. On Page 18 of Budget Paper No 2, it says that by 2016-17 the CLP has flagged that tax in the Northern Territory will be on par with the national average. We are removing our competitive advantage. We have seen – the Deputy Chief Minister did not want to talk about it – that there are 7500 Territorians who cannot get a job in the Territory right now. Those were the last labour force statistics. Under the CLP, Territorians are losing their jobs and there are currently 7500 Territorians who cannot get a job. From page 20 of the labour force statistics, in the last year, 2200 more Territorians have joined the unemployment queue including 100 in the last month alone. At 5.5%, unemployment remains at the highest level it has been in seven years.
Unemployment figures, obviously, do not include the people who have lost their jobs and have had to leave the Northern Territory. We all know it is incredibly hard to stay in the Northern Territory without a job, especially after a 30% increase in the cost of power, a 40% increase in the cost of water, and a 25% increase in the cost of sewerage ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mister Speaker! I know that is an ABS document, which is probably publicly available. I am wondering if you could table it so I can read it.
Mr GUNNER: That is page 20 of the labour force statistics I am using ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am not trying to be cute. It is just going to save me doing the work myself. Thank you.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to provide it to you later. Page 20 of the labour force statistics, which came out earlier this week or last week – very recently, Thursday last week.
The Country Liberal Party promised to cut the cost of living. Obviously, they did not and it is very hard and difficult to live in the Northern Territory without a job, especially with those costs going up. It puts a massive impost on people.
Infrastructure has been cut and will continue to be cut. Page 1, Budget Paper No 4 says that total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than last year, 2012-13, and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. Power and water prices are going up by 30%, but power and water infrastructure spending has been cut by $20m. We are seeing money cut out of those areas of the budget that directly deliver jobs and benefit business. The Territory is a small place. That has a big impact on businesses and jobs in the Territory.
As I said before, we have a competitive advantage in the Northern Territory, one we have fought very hard for and to maintain, to make sure we have a competitive tax environment. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-size enterprises. The Northern Territory has a small population and our small- and medium-size enterprises are crucial to job growth and employment for Territorians.
We have to ensure we remain competitive. We have a lot of cost pressures in the Northern Territory, and there are only a few things that government can control the pressures of. One of them was power and water; this government let that pressure build by putting on those increases to power, water and sewerage. But they have now flagged in this budget that they are looking at moving the Northern Territory to be on par with other states taxation wise by 2016-17. That is moving a big burden onto our small- and medium-size enterprises which we need to be competitive. They have a lot of pressures in the Northern Territory and we need them to be competitive.
This is a decision that will hurt business and this statement provides no detail on what the government will do. If you make statements like, ‘We will be competitive. We will be on a par with other states taxation-wise.’ Prepare for it. What are you doing? You have flagged it, give us some detail. This statement gives us no detail on what the government will do taxation-wise, but in some ways we should not be surprised, because the government does have form in this area.
When I asked the Minister for Business about consultation and what the Business department is meant to do, we got a very Pythonesque answer during estimates. I will quote from the Minister for Business on 18 June:
That is a rather extraordinary statement.
So the businesses that were consulted on the revenue measures might not have realised they were being consulted at the time they were being asked. It is quite an extraordinary statement. I will quote the Minister for Business again:
That is where we are at with this government and how they do business; either they do not consult you or you do not know you are being consulted. It is an extraordinary position to be in, and it is a remarkable and bizarre situation with the Minister for Business. It is extraordinary and businesses are hurting.
That has been the clear message from business. This is a quote I have read out in the past from the Chamber of Commerce, from Julie Ross, and it is specifically about the impost of the power and water charges, which were a big impost:
This is a quote from the Minister for Business:
This is not the message we have heard back from business. A big thing for business, because they like to plan and know what is coming, is the six weeks’ notice. We have no doubt on our side that was a big impost on business. Even if a business has the capacity to reform its business practices or change equipment to reduce the power and water charges, six weeks is not enough time to adjust. As I said, the government has an excellent eco-business program that they inherited from us, but it does not in any way relieve pressure on every small and micro-medium business in the Northern Territory.
When we asked the Minister for Business how many businesses there are in the Northern Territory, he said there are 14 000-plus registered businesses. When asked in estimates how many had received an eco-Biz grant, we got the answer of eight. Out of 14 000-plus businesses, eight received an eco-Biz grant, so business is hurting. The power and water charges have gone up and the government has flagged that taxes will go up, but no one knows the detail of those taxes.
In June when we discussed this with the Minister for Business at estimates, unemployment was at 5.1%, and today it is 5.5%. Within the minister’s own department, 36 jobs have already gone and only nine of those were at executive level. There was a guarantee that frontline workers would be safe, especially if you earn under $110 000, but out of the 36 jobs already gone, only nine were executive level.
I quote from the Minister for Business:
There were still job losses to come within the Department of Business. When asked how many the minister replied:
There is no detail in this statement about who has lost their job in departments since estimates in June, what the impact has been on the Department of Business and what the impact has been on their ability to service business.
They flagged a further $2.5m in savings in employee costs, but we still have not heard what that impact has had on the Business department and its ability to serve its customers: businesses. We think this is crucial and obviously another part of the minister’s responsibility. It was identified in the budget papers, the need to work closely with peak business and industry bodies to identify new industry opportunities and support regional and remote business development.
The CLP ran an election campaign around having three hubs. That was their campaign, that was their promise, no problems. How are you going to do it? How will the Business minister deliver the three key hubs? That is part of his responsibility, clearly identified in the budget papers around their KPIs, but to quote the minister:
We are now 14 months into the CLP term of government, and the Business minister, when asked, said:
The first thing the CLP did when they were elected was freeze public service hiring and spending, which obviously threw things into chaos. There are many people in the Northern Territory who rely on the work government does, who rely on the certainty government provides, and when that freeze came into place, it threw a lot of Territorians out. Anyone doing business with government found their interactions slowed to a crawl and departments had to adjust. There is always an adjustment period, but this was a very brutal adjustment period and departments were adjusting to a new government. The freeze was put in place and people found it very hard to do business in the Territory.
One report that we had was from the map division of Lands and Planning which went from four staff to one. This created an entire log jam for developers. That was an extremely difficult time, and because the freeze was in place, that department had its hands tied in trying to get extra people there to free up that work. Most importantly, as I touched upon already, business prices went up massively. This had a massive impact on business and we saw confidence levels of the people in the Northern Territory and business confidence levels plummet.
We saw the Wanguri election result, which was a massive vote of no confidence in the government, and we saw over 8000 people leave the Territory. A large part of that was due to the power price increases.
Something had to change. Something had to happen, and we are not talking about the change of Chief Minister. The new Chief Minister came in, and one of his first decisions, and probably the smartest decision he has made, was to turn to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. He brought on board the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, because he recognised they needed to make a change in how they did things and Paul Henderson – on our side we definitely agree with this – is an excellent communicator. In Australia and worldwide he has a reputation for knowledge and experience in major projects, and his passion for the Territory is second to none. We are all very passionate Territorians, but we just cannot dispute that Hendo loves the Territory.
We turned to the Chief Minister, and what did the CLP have to say about the former Chief Minister? This is the bio that they kindly provide on Paul Henderson:
This is an incredibly impressive CV, and this is the person who the CLP turned to when confidence levels in them hit rock bottom. What does Paul Henderson do? What is missing from this statement? It is identified in the Chief Minister’s own media release at the time. He will be:
This is a key priority – ‘attracting the next INPEX’. This is on the agenda for the CLP and they turned to a former Labor Chief Minister to deliver it.
We have no problems with that decision. We want the Territory to become a great place. It is a great place; we want it to become better. We have no problems with the CLP turning to the former Chief Minister, but we do have a problem with the Business minister coming into this House saying, ‘You do not say the Territory is going well’. We think the Territory is going well in many ways. What we do not agree with is the Deputy Chief Minister’s assertion that it is all the CLP’s achievement: that it had nothing to do with the previous government, now opposition.
The Deputy Chief Minister would like you to believe that everything has turned around under his watch as Treasurer. That is not the case, and it is clear by their decision to employ Paul Henderson that the former Labor government put a range of things in place that have led to many of the positive results we are seeing in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that the Ichthys project is having a massive impact on the Northern Territory economy. The people who delivered this were Clare Martin and Paul Henderson. It was a Labor government, yet the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Business minister comes into this House and asks, ‘Why aren’t you giving me credit? Why are you not thanking me?’ In the CLP’s own words, it is quite clear who we need to thank and why.
It is quite extraordinary. Every project the Deputy Chief Minister talks about – Ichthys, the Marine Supply Base, the workers camp, the new prison, new Palmerston suburbs were all started by the previous government.
The minister talks about vision, he talks about a new port, new projects, new railway systems, but provides no detail in his statement. He says, ‘We are open for business’, but at the moment, as far as we can see, this is a mantra. We are talking about a government that is asking people to trust them when they say they are open for business. However, their actions do not support the faith they are asking people to have in them. We only have to look at what happened in Gove.
On our side, we thought things moved a little too slowly under the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, but it was a very considered approach. It was a slow approach, but considered, and he came through with a firm, clear offer. Then we saw a change in Chief Minister, a complete change in approach, and what was, essentially, a debacle. We saw the position constantly change.
If you ask business to have confidence in you, in return, you have to give confidence and certainty to business. We saw the ground constantly move under the feet of that deal, and we saw incredible uncertainty. We had what we thought was a slow process, but one really providing certainty under the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, a considered approach, and then we saw a completely different way of handling things under the new Chief Minister. This was a process that no business would support and provided no certainty to business – process that provided confusion to the people of Nhulunbuy, a complete debacle, yet they asked business to trust them and have confidence in them, and they said they were open business.
However, by their very actions in Gove they have proven the exact opposite to be true. It was a ham-fisted botching of a deal that had been arranged by a previous Chief Minister. From the outside looking in, you could see no benefit and no virtue as to why a CLP government would change the deal that was on the table and undo all the good work which had been done by the previous Chief Minister. It made no sense.
Obviously the CLP’s damage does not stop there. I have spoken before about how they have cut VET and CDU funding. Those were not good decisions. Territory businesses do have confidence in the future of the Northern Territory. They know there is money to be made here and they can invest here. The linchpin of that confidence is not the government, as the Deputy Chief Minister likes us to believe and asks us to give him credit for. It is the massive Ichthys project which is driving all of the positive indicators in the Northern Territory.
As I mentioned last week in parliament, engineering construction work is up 83% in the last year. Total construction is up 55%, private capital investment is up 162%, and the list goes on. It is all largely due to INPEX and the Ichthys project. In fact, pretty much every piece of economic data at the moment indicates that you can give credit to the Ichthys project.
The Deputy Chief Minister would like us to fall at his feet and say, ‘Thank you very much, Deputy Chief Minister’. However, without a doubt, in the CLP’s own words, the credit in this instance can be put at the feet of Chief Ministers Martin and Henderson. We thank them for the fact that the Northern Territory at the moment has a positive direction and that we are heading in the right direction.
I believe our side has extreme confidence in the Northern Territory. We may be unsure and not have much confidence in the current government, but we have confidence in the Northern Territory and our businesses that do great work in the Northern Territory. I have confidence in the Business department, which does great work with businesses in the Northern Territory. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not have confidence in this government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to talk about business. This is typical of the Labor Party’s thinking. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his input. I did not quite get his labour force figures, but I did rat out some others from the Northern Territory government website.
I am curious about this loss of jobs he keeps referring to. In September 2012, employment was 128 733 and in September 2013, employment was 130 469, which shows a year-on-year increase of 1.4%. I am unsure where his 7500 unemployed people have come from …
Mr Gunner: Page 20. I will table it for you, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. I am really not sure where they are coming from, mate. The full-time employment, or the whole labour force …
Mr Gunner: On page 20, 7500 people.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am hearing you, and I am just responding to you. The labour force in September 2012 was 132 528, and the labour force in September 2013 was 137 005, an increase of some 4500 jobs. These are jobs on the ground. To put that into context, if each of these jobs lived in one place, it would be an extra electorate in the Northern Territory, and would hold a seat in this parliament.
Whilst the member opposite likes to have a crack at the unemployment rate, it is interesting to note that he looks at an unemployment rate of, let us say, September last year of 4%, then determines that it is an unemployment rate of 5.5% now. This is somehow a loss of 7500 jobs, when the number of real jobs on the ground is there.
It is interesting to note that in the Northern Territory the participation rate – this is the amount of people who are looking for jobs – is 75.2%. When you compare that with the Australian average of 65%, an extra 10% of our population is looking for jobs.
Here is a thought! Perhaps the participation rate has gone up slightly in the Northern Territory, which is what makes it look like there is a higher unemployment rate. Let us look. Oh, goodness gracious me, the labour force figures for September 2013 show a 1% increase in the participation rate in the Northern Territory in the last 12 months, 75% up to 76%. It is a higher unemployment rate because there are more people looking for work in an environment where there are more jobs.
It is a bit of hokey-pokery from the member opposite to try to draw some economic argument that we are somehow driving down jobs. If you think about it in more specific and general terms, the spurious nature of his argument is made out by his own comments. He acknowledged that things are going well. He said things are going well, that there are lots of jobs out there and there is an increase in economic activity. He pointed out that some numbers had gone up by well over 100%, and that is correct. How are all these jobs disappearing in an environment of increased economic activity?
It is a farcical proposition that there are fewer jobs in an environment where there is increased economic activity. He defeats his own argument. Once again, this is one of the problems. The stuff these guys opposite trot out is written by somebody upstairs and they, sadly, do not appear to be doing a great deal of research themselves.
Whilst I know I am running the risk of pre-empting debate, I will mention it anyhow. I take the opportunity to talk about the fiscal management of the Northern Territory. It is part of the business environment we enjoy. I remember going to Westpac’s economic breakfast about three or four weeks ago at the SKYCITY Casino where they had – I forget his name, the economist of the Westpac Bank. He basically said the boom times for the Northern Territory will continue for another two-and-a-half, possibly three years, before the heat comes out of our economy. That is pretty much consistent with the cycle we have experienced for a very long time here.
If we listen to the members opposite, we would now be increasing expenditure and building more things in an environment where we have increased economic activity. This is the mistake the former government made. I am not saying they were all bad, but this was a fundamental mistake they made early in the noughties. The fundamental mistake was that they sought to engage in projects like the waterfront development in a time when it was directly competing with a warm economy. Rather than having counter-cyclical spending, they were amplifying the expenditure and competing for resources with the private sector.
Small wonder, during that period there was a very sharp increase in house prices. Unit prices and house prices went up through the roof during that period up to about 2005. Then, of course, things got a little untidy with the global financial crisis. That also affected house prices in the Northern Territory, because there were fewer jobs around. Many of those units that had been built and purchased were now full and, as a consequence, we had a plateau in house prices and in jobs. The government at that stage also realised they had to start to restrain their spending a little, but they did not. They should have in the respect of trying to contain debt. But because their debt was going up because they had competed with an overheated economy previously, they had the choice of buttoning off or keeping their foot on the accelerator to engage in what they would have called counter-cyclical expenditure.
In fact, it was not counter-cyclical, it was expenditure in the hot part of the high growth area of the cycle and, then, expenditure in the low growth of the cycle. That is why we started to see this debt mountain climb.
It is proper and right that the Northern Territory government is a bit more cautious at this time of vast or substantial economic development. This is so we make sure we take this opportunity to start to retire some debt, as well as save a bit of money so we are not competing with a private sector which is, at the moment, very active. There are some 12 cranes on the Darwin skyline. That being the case, you would expect to find, in our economic papers, in our budget papers, a response that reflects that sort of business management. I point out to honourable members that in the TAFR that was just tabled the nett debt projected in the 2012-13 budget – Labor’s last budget – for the non-financial public sector was $3.581bn.
The outcome for the year – we had been in control of the budget for little over six months – was $3.132bn. This is a variation of $468m, which is $468m less debt than we would have had, had we followed the spending practices of the former Labor government. That is half a billion dollars. Some of that was a product of what we know caused pain to Northern Territorians. I draw members’ attention to page 12 of the report, where it says:
It then points out a number of other increases of revenue, brought about as part of the mini-budget process. Curiously, I note that in this period of high unemployment the member for Fannie Bay talks about, on page 12 of the TAFR, it says there was:
In this wasteland of unemployment, it seems that we are, as a government, magically extracting blood from a stone. The Treasurer has clearly gone into the wilderness and been able to tax the spinifex to the tune of an increased amount of income of nearly $68m. Is it the case that the unemployment rant we heard from the member opposite is more the result of a higher participation rate than it is a result of jobs missing? The assertion that these jobs are going missing is absolute hokum – absolute provable, demonstrable hokum, but we are used to this from the other members opposite. I will give you a classic example.
Yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘We have never had an ECO6 on the fifth floor of Parliament House’. Balderdash, you had two of them when you lost the election. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and tells mistruths. We heard the member for Wanguri firing off a question which was ill considered this morning about a review of the public service, and the member for Nightcliff running that stunt with the FrogWatch thing the other day, clearly demonstrating that these peoples’ contact with the truth is about as close as the contact of Pluto with the Earth. It is astronomical units away from reality. Nevertheless, they persevere in relentlessly trying to say the Northern Territory is going backwards. How can you possibly run the argument that the Northern Territory is going backwards, while at the same time saying the Northern Territory is going forward? Because that is exactly the argument the member for Fannie Bay was trying to run.
I also note that the fiscal position of the Northern Territory is improving. The legacy left to us by the former Treasurer, now Opposition Leader, was a nett debt to revenue ratio, the highest in the Territory’s history, of 69% in the 2012-13 budget. This has been reduced, through careful and prudent fiscal management by the Country Liberals, to a nett debt to revenue ratio of 58%. That is a very important outcome. It is a reduction of 11% in a single budgetary cycle, and that is very reassuring.
However, 58% is still high, but it is much better than the place we were taken to by the former government. They would, in the current environment, still be borrowing, as the member for Casuarina has admitted, to pay the wages of doctors and nurses
Mr Vatskalis: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you did.
Mr Vatskalis: Do not put words in my mouth. Read it carefully and you will find …
Mr ELFERINK: I did not put the words in your mouth, you said it yourself.
Mr Vatskalis: … you always do that
Mr ELFERINK: You said it all by yourself
Mr Vatskalis: No I did not. Table it!
Mr ELFERINK: Mate, we quoted it back to you lots of times and we have tabled the Hansard. You said it.
Mr Vatskalis: You can quote me, but I did not mention paying wages
Mr ELFERINK: You see, this is the point. When you are too busy trying to …
Mr Vatskalis: You know what I said but you twist everything. You are good at twisting things, John, admit it.
Mr ELFERINK: You said it, mate. I was sitting here and picked up on it. I grabbed the Hansard, highlighted it and showed it to the Treasurer, who was most impressed. It was the member for Casuarina rambling off at the mouth without thinking about what he was saying, and that was the result
Mr Vatskalis: I knew what I was saying.
Mr ELFERINK: Man, he is sensitive about it too!
Mr Vatskalis: No, I am not sensitive.
Mr ELFERINK: There are only two people in …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Get back onto the subject. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: He is sensitive about it and I can understand that, because it was a massive blue. Unfortunately, they are learning one of the things I learnt in opposition, and that is without the support of the people – I am spoilt for wealth at the moment with the support of the people I have around me, the calibre, and the work they do. There is literally an obscenity of riches, compared to the harsh Victorian poverty of the opposition benches. I understand, from time to time, the opposition will make mistakes, but my goodness, have they been exposed for their lack of capacity? When you take away, over the period of a year, all the support they had and now they have to rely on their own resources, we see them calamitously crashing so regularly in this House. That is because they have become spoilt in reliance, in the past, on staff they now deny they ever had, including the ECO6s.
We are a business-friendly government and will continue to be so. We will welcome to the Northern Territory with open arms all types of proprietors and operators to set up their legitimate businesses throughout our communities. I stridently encourage the Treasurer to seek out and find manufacturing. It is the one big egg missing from the collective basket. In fact, we should get another basket so we do not have all our eggs in one basket – to avoid running into the trap of that metaphor. I would like to see manufacturing tied up to an onshore gas supply. I would like to see manufacturing tied up to a capacity to develop factories in Darwin so the boom/bust cycle of the resources environment internationally can have the peaks and troughs cut out of it. This is so we can have a more stable cycle and, therefore, make the need for the countercyclical spending we still have to allow for more restrained and less of an intrusion into our budgetary cycle.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this important statement into the House. We have to continue to signal, through what we say in this place, in the media, and in the public domain, that we are a business-friendly government. I am proud to be a member of a business-friendly government. I am certain that members of this House know we are in the business of getting on with business.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter I have received from Kensington Palace, dated 1 October 2013. The letter thanks the Assembly for the letter Madam Speaker sent on the Assembly’s behalf to Her Majesty the Queen regarding the birth of Prince George.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Araluen
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence be granted to the member for Araluen today on account of a family bereavement. Madam Speaker, for the information of you and honourable members, the member for Araluen’s mother passed away last night. I am sure on behalf of all members I can send our condolences in this time of great sadness.
Members: Hear, hear!
Leave granted.
WILLS AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL WILLS) BILL
(Serial 50)
(Serial 50)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Wills Amendment (International Wills) Bill – that has a certain Dr Seuss quality to it – is to amend the Wills Act to provide for the validity in the Northern Territory of wills executed in accordance with the principles and requirements contained in the Annex to Convention on providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will 1973.
In July 2010, the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed that Australia should take steps to accede to the convention and that each state and territory take action to implement the convention’s uniform law into their domestic legislation. Following enactment in each state and territory, the Commonwealth government would then take the necessary steps to accede to the convention. The convention seeks to introduce a new form of will, the international will, into the jurisdiction of each contracting party. It does so by requiring contracting parties to adopt the uniform law on the form of international will, which is attached to the convention, into their domestic legal scheme.
The uniform law prescribes necessary elements for the form of an international will include witnessing, writing and certification requirements. The convention seeks to harmonise and simplify the process approving the formal validity of wills that contain international characteristics. Such characteristics include situations where the country of nationality, residence, or domicile of the testator making the will is different to the country in which the will is executed, or where the assets, real property and beneficiaries named in the will are located.
The use of the international will is optional and open to all prospective testators in Australia. It will not replace existing forms of will in Australia. The convention will not affect the existing domestic succession laws of Australia. Currently, the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that has not introduced legislation based upon the model bill.
The bill is based on a model bill prepared by the Australasian Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee in 2010. The bill will not commence in the NT, nor in any other jurisdiction in Australia, until the convention has entered into force in Australia. The Commonwealth government must accede to it – see Clause 2(2).
New section 48C sets out that the Annex to the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will 1973 has the force of law in the Northern Territory. The annex is set out in the new Schedule 2 to the Wills Act.
This provision gives effect to Article 2 of the convention. They key provisions are that Articles 1 to 15 of the new schedule set out the rules for making international wills.
Article 1 provides that an international will shall be valid as regards form, irrespective of the place where the will is made, of the location of the assets and the nationality, domicile or residence of the testator if it is made in the form of an international will that complies with Articles 2 and 5 of the uniform law.
Article 2 provides that a joint will cannot be drawn up in the form of an international will.
Article 3 requires that an international will be in writing. It can be written in any language, by hand or by other means, and need not be written by the testator.
Article 4 requires the testator to declare that a document is his or her will and he or she knows the contents of the will, before two witnesses and an authorised person (an Australian legal practitioner or public notary of any Australian jurisdiction are authorised persons). The testator does not have to inform the witness or authorised persons of the contents of the will.
Article 5 requires the testator to sign the international will in the presence of the two witnesses and the authorised person, or to acknowledge his or her signature if signed previously. If the testator is unable to sign the will, the authorised person must note on the will the reason for the incapacity.
Article 6 requires the signature of the testator, witnesses, and authorised person be placed at the end of the international will. If the will consists of several pages, each page of the will should be numbered and signed by the testator.
Article 7 provides that the date of the international will, will be the date on which it was signed by the authorised person.
In the absence of any mandatory rule about the safekeeping of a will, Article 8 requires the authorised person to ask the testator whether he or she wishes to make a declaration about the safekeeping of the international will. If the testator wishes to make such a declaration, he or she can request that the certificate that the authorised person attaches to the will (under Article 9) mentions the place that he or she intends to have the will kept.
Article 9 requires the authorised person to attach a certificate to the international will certifying the obligations of the uniform law have been complied with.
The form of the certificate is prescribed in Article 10. The form of the certificate is important as it aims to facilitate the reading of a certificate, especially if a reader speaks a foreign language and the easy identification of relevant details such as the name of the testator and the authorised person.
Articles 11 to 13 relate to specifics concerning the certificate.
Article 14 states the international will is subject to the ordinary rules of revocation of wills.
The key benefit to Australia in acceding to the convention is that it provides greater legal certainty for testators and beneficiaries. The practical benefit of an international will is most apparent at the probate stage of proving the validity of the will, when additional information, such as the evidence from witnesses and evidence of foreign law, may not be necessary to prove formal validity. This is considered to be beneficial to testators who may have assets or beneficiaries located in several different foreign jurisdictions.
Other clauses in the bill of significance include:
Part 5 of the Wills Act currently sets out provisions that govern the current recognition of wills that are executed in accordance with the law of another place. The new section 48A provides that the provisions of Part 5 do not affect the operation of Part 5A. This means that a will that conforms with Part 5A is valid, despite the fact that it may not conform to the law of a place in which it was executed.
The new section 48D sets out the classes of person authorised to act in connection with international wills. As mentioned before, Articles 4 to 12 of the annex provide roles for authorised witnesses in the making of international wills. For the purposes of these articles, new section 48D(1) provides that persons in the following classes of persons are authorised persons when acting in Australia:
- o Australian legal practitioners – these are people who have a state or territory practising certificate for the purposes of the Legal Profession Act; and
Under the uniform law, the authorised person is required to sign a certificate confirming compliance with the formalities of making of international wills. The new section 48D(2) provides that persons who are authorised persons under the laws of other parties to the convention are also authorised persons.
The new section 48E provides that the requirements for a person to act as a witness are governed by Northern Territory laws. These are contained in Part 2, Division 2 of the Wills Act and they are matters such as:
o witnesses need not know the contents of what they are signing (section 9);
o when the court may dispense with requirements for execution of wills (section 10);
o persons who may not be witnesses to wills (section 11); and
o can interested witnesses benefit from dispositions under wills? (section 12).
The new section 48F provides that the general provisions of the Wills Act apply to international wills. For example, provisions such as section 54 (access to wills), section 50 (keeping of wills) as well as other provisions such as the revocation and construction of wills.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to expand the membership of the parole board from the current 10 members to 18 members. This will be achieved by increasing the number of members appointed to the parole board under sections 31B(1)(c),(d),(e) and (f).
There is also an amendment to allow the appointment of a proxy for the Director of Correctional Services, who is a member at section 3B(1)(b).
The purpose of these changes is to provide the chairperson with flexibility in the scheduling of meetings and to allow the parole board to adopt a new meeting model.
With the introduction of self-government the Parole of Prisoners Act commenced on 3 September 1979, replacing the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971.
Since this time, the number of matters heard by the parole board each month has continued to increase. A snapshot of data from the 2011 annual report indicates the number of business matters considered in 2001 was 412, 2006 was 482 and 2011 was 612. Data for 2013 shows this trend is increasing with current projections indicating the parole board is likely to hear almost 900 business matters.
I would like to highlight that the parole board hears a number of different types of business matters pertaining to their statutory responsibilities under the Parole of Prisoners Act. Only some of these matters relate to the assessment of applications from prisoners for release to parole.
Other matters relate to activities essential to the management of parolees in the community, including the assessment of breaches which may result in parolees being returned to prison.
The increase in business matters before the parole board can be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, the rising number of offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment has a direct effect on the number of prisoners eligible for parole. Secondly, the advocacy work undertaken by Aboriginal legal services in prisons has increased understanding of parole and has provided prisoners with assistance including the preparation of submissions on their behalf. Thirdly, the commitment which members apply to their responsibilities means that matters may be deferred for a period of time whilst information is clarified or additional information is sought.
In the Northern Territory, it is the practice of the parole board to decide parole matters on the papers provided without a prisoner being present. The parole board is of the view that the materials received or obtained by the parole board provide a fair and comprehensive basis to decide whether a prisoner should or should not be granted parole.
A chairperson may require the prisoner to be brought before the parole board pursuant to section 3G of the Parole of Prisoners Act; however, this is rarely applied.
It is expected that prior to attending the meeting, parole board members will have reviewed the file for each matter listed, the documentation will always include:
a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer
an institutional report prepared by staff of the correctional centre or detention centre where the prisoner or a detainee or is held
a record of the prisoner’s prior convictions; and
a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing remarks, if the prisoner was sentenced in that court.
The board may also consider such other reports as are relevant for the individual case, including:
pre-sentence reports
psychological/psychiatric assessments and reports
rehabilitation course assessments and reports including assessments and reports about anger management courses, sexual offender courses, and Indigenous Family Violence Offender courses
medical assessments and reports
assessments and reports from substance misuse programs and treatment facilities
legal submissions made on behalf of the prisoner
letters and/or reports from interstate services
letters from the prisoner or written on behalf of the prisoner, and
letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
The increased workload and excessive preparation time required has placed a strain upon members, particularly community members. Increasing the membership of the parole board will allow for the model to be implemented, where the parole board meets twice a month and considers a smaller number of matters.
No change to the constitution or quorum for meetings has been made and, therefore, members appointed under Section 3B(1)(d), (e) and (f) will still attend the same number of meetings.
The parole board holds sole responsibility for decisions relating to the release of prisoners to parole. As such, they are a critical element of the criminal justice system, and I believe that it is essential that they are supported in this important role.
I have asked that this be listed as a matter of urgency in accordance with Standing Order 179 and be introduced. Actually, no, I do not; I am going to scratch that.
I will leave it at ‘important role’. I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ADVANCE PERSONAL PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
(Serial 54)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 was introduced into this House during the August 2013 sittings and is currently awaiting passage. As members will be aware, the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 will fill the gap in the statute book of the Northern Territory regarding advance medical directives and the appointment of future decision-makers.
The Advance Personal Planning Act, once commenced, will allow for competent adults to make advance personal plans for their future care should they lose decision-making capacity. An advance personal plan could contain one or all of the following three aspects:
1. An advance consent decision about future healthcare, also known as advance healthcare directive.
2. An advance care statement to guide other people in making decisions about their future healthcare, lifestyle needs.
This bill, the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, will enable the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 to operate effectively by making consequential amendments to a range of Northern Territory laws which are impacted by this long overdue reform.
The Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 was developed through a robust consultation process, which included the release of a public issues paper and conducting face-to-face sessions in all major centres. Many amendments and issues identified through that process have been incorporated into this consequential amendment bill.
I will now outline the main consequential amendments contained in the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The most significant amendments are:
To the Adult Guardianship Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act, and the Powers of Attorney Act. The Advance Personal Planning Bill is, itself, being amended prior to commencement to address some issues raised during consultation, particularly issues raised by the Registrar-General.
Amendments are proposed to insert a new section 16(a) into the Adult Guardianship Act, and a new section 12(a) into the Aged and Infirm Persons Property Act to provide for the appointment of a guardian or manager, even though a person may already have appointed a decision-maker under an advance personal planning plan. If a person has appointed a future decision-maker under an advance personal plan to cover all aspects, there will be no need to appoint a guardian or manager when the person loses capacity.
However, these amendments recognise that functions of a decision-maker appointed under an advance personal plan may not always cover every aspect relating to a person and that, in some circumstances, appointment of a guardian under the Adult Guardianship Act or a manager under the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act may still be needed. Under these new sections, the court is restricted from making a guardianship order or a protection order that will give the guardian or manager authority to do anything that a decision-maker appointed under an advance personal plan has the authority to do.
Amendments are also being made to insert a new section 23B into the Adult Guardianship Act and a new section 23B into the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act, to provide for situations where a court makes a guardianship order or a protection order in relation to a person but the court is unaware the person has a valid advance personal plan in place, the guardianship or protection order does not become invalidated. However, application may be made to the court for the orders to be amended.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Darwin Middle School accompanied by Loraine Caldwell. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House and I hope your visit here is an enjoyable one.
___________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, provision is also being made for the court to address conflicts where a person already has other agents appointed. The new sections 23A and 29A are being inserted into the Adult Guardianship Act and the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act respectively to enable the making of orders for the purposes of ensuring a reasonable and workable division of decision-making authority between the adult guardian or manager with all other agents of the person, included the decision-maker in the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013.
In relation to the interaction with the Mental Health and Related Services Act, amendments are proposed to allow for a decision-maker appointed by a person under the advance personal plan to apply for the person to be admitted as a voluntary patient. This will bring the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 into line with existing processes of adult guardians appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act, who may also apply to have a person admitted as a voluntary patient.
A number of further amendments throughout the Mental Health and Related Services Act will ensure a decision-maker appointed by the person under an advance personal plan is notified in the same circumstances as the adult guardian appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act is currently required to be notified.
Circumstances of notification include refusal to admit as a voluntary patient, admission on the grounds of mental illness or mental disturbance, removal or suspension of interim community management orders, or authorising the performance of a major medical procedure.
Amendments to section 3 of the Emergency Medical Operations Act will enable a medical practitioner to perform emergency operations without consent if, in the medical practitioner’s opinion, it is not practicable to delay the performance of the operation until it can be ascertained whether a patient has made a consent decision or, alternatively, whether a consent decision can be made under Part 4 of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013.
However, a medical practitioner will not be entitled to perform an operation if they do not know that the patient has made an advance consent decision refusing consent for the operation, or that a decision-maker, adult guardian or local court has already refused consent for the operation.
I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Powers of Attorney Act. As well as covering future health care decisions, advance personal plans will cover the same ground as those that are currently known as enduring powers of attorney which relate to financial and property matters. Therefore, section 13 will be amended to close off the ability for a person to make an enduring power of attorney.
Instead, people will be able to make an equivalent financial arrangement through an advance personal plan. If a person only wants to appoint a financial decision-maker and does not want to appoint a decision-maker relating to health matters, or make a consent decision or advance care statement, then the person will only have to fill out that part of the form relevant to appointing financial decision-makers.
However, any enduring powers of attorney executed before the commencement of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 will continue to be enforced under the Powers of Attorney Act as it currently exists. It is acknowledged that these transitional arrangements may give rise to circumstances where a person has an enduring power attorney and, then, later makes an advance personal plan. It could then be possible that both documents will be operating side-by-side.
Section 15 of the Powers of Attorney Act is to be amended to allow the public trustee, an agent for the donor of an enduring power or any person who has an interest in the property which may be dealt with by the donee of an enduring power, to apply to the court for an order giving the donee powers for the purposes of ensuring a workable division of decision-making authority between the donee and any other decision-makers.
Another significant aspect of the consequential amendment is that being made to both section 15 of the Powers of Attorney Act and section 5 of the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act to change the jurisdiction in those acts from the Supreme Court to the Local Court. This change will streamline the administration by making the jurisdiction for all matters relating to adult guardianship and decision-making matters consistent.
Both the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 and the Adult Guardianship Act provide for matters in issue under these acts to be dealt with by the Local Court. There may be circumstances where orders under the Aged and Infirm Persons’ Property Act or Powers of Attorney Act will need to be made in respect to the same matters.
Making the jurisdiction of the court consistent across all these acts will make the process much simpler and avoid the need to make multiple applications if there are conflicts. In the near future, these provisions will be considered for amendment as part of the development of legislation to establish an administrative tribunal.
These amendments are also being made to section 11 of the Transplantation and Anatomy Act. These amendments will allow for the consent to remove tissue or donations of blood to be given in advance consent decision. If a person does not have a decision-making capacity, a consent decision may be made by an appointed decision-maker, an adult guardian, or a court.
It should be noted, however, that this is subject to the restriction in clause 25 of the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013, which restricts a decision-maker from approving removal of non-regenerative tissue. Therefore, a decision-maker can approve donations of regenerative tissue - for example, skin - but not non-regenerative tissue - for example, a kidney. Approval for non-regenerative organ donation would need to be given by a court.
As I have already mentioned, the bill also makes some minor amendments to the Advance Personal Planning Act itself. These amendments have come to light during the drafting of consequential amendments, and also through the consultation process. The amendments include a new clause 44A to allow for consent decisions to be made by another person with a right under another law of the Territory; for example, a next of kin. This amendment will avoid any unintentional supressing of existing rights people have to make decisions on behalf of others.
Clause 78 is also being amended to create a new offence for decision-makers who recklessly or knowingly exercise authority while a person has decision-making capacity. The maximum penalty for this offence will be imprisonment for five years.
The new Part 4A of the Advance Personal Planning Act is also to be inserted to establish the advance personal planning Part 4A register.
Currently, section 8 of the Powers of Attorney Act provides that a dealing in relation to land is of no effect unless the instrument creating the power is registered. As making of an enduring powers of attorney will be closed off and, instead, be available through the making of an advance personal plan, the need for a new register for relevant advance personal plans for the purposes of land dealing was identified. This was identified by stakeholders during the consultation process, noting there needed to be a different registration requirement for property and financial matters compared to other matters dealing with health issues. Whilst registration for health and lifestyle matters could be discretionary, registration requirements for property and financial matters needed to be mandatory and more robust, as is currently the case under the Powers of Attorney Act.
A range of other minor amendments are made to the Disability Services Act, the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act, the Carers Recognition Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Public Trustee Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Serious Crime Control Act, the Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Regulations and the Power of Attorney Regulations.
Generally, these amendments allow for the recognition, where appropriate, of decision makers appointed under the advanced personal plans.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (HIT AND RUN) BILL
(Serial 57)
(Serial 57)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 174FA of the Criminal Code, which is the offence known as hit and run, to insert a requirement to report to police an incident involving a vehicle where a death or serious harm is caused.
The offence of hit and run in this section 174FA was introduced into the Criminal Code by the Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run and Other Endangerment Offences) Act 2008. The offence provides that it is a crime if a driver of a vehicle does not stop and render reasonable assistance where the driver’s vehicle was involved in an incident that resulted in another person suffering serious harm or being killed. The prosecution must also prove that the driver knew or was reckless as to whether the vehicle was involved in the incident and knew or was reckless about whether the other person suffered serious harm or was killed.
The penalty for the crime is 10 years imprisonment if the incident resulted in death, or seven years if it resulted in serious harm. The offence does not depend on proof that the driver was driving dangerously or negligently in any way and the crux of the offence is the moral duty of a person involved in a serious crash to stop and render assistance.
In the second reading speech introducing a Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run and Other Endangerment Offices) Bill 2008, the then Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns, stated that the offence and its serious penalty:
- … not only reflects the abandonment of a person who is dead, dying or seriously injured deserves serious punishment regardless of who is to blame for the accident, but also importantly removes the incentive for those persons who think that they might be charged with dangerous driving causing death or dangerous driving causing serious harm to escape from the scene. Specifically, it provides a strong deterrent against the people who may choose to flee an accident scene to avoid a breath test.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court in the recent decision of the Queen v Yusoff [2013] NTSC 43, considered the scope of the offence in section 174 FA of the Criminal Code and decided the offence obliged the driver involved in an incident, where another person suffered serious harm or death, to stop and render assistance, and that if either of those two duties was not discharged, the driver had committed the offence.
Specially, the Full Court noted at paragraph [15] of its decision that the offence in section 174FA did not require a driver to remain at the scene and assist authorities, and noted that other regulatory provisions, namely regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations, imposed that requirement.
This appears to be inconsistent with the original purposes of section 174FA in preventing drivers from fleeing the scene because they think they might be charged with dangerous driving or to avoid a breath test.
Regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations and the Australian Road Rule 278 require a driver involved in a crash that results in an injury or damage to a person or property to stop and allow enquiries to be made by the other person, render reasonable assistance, and to report the crash and provide his or her name and address to a member of the police force, either at a police station or at the scene of the crash.
A driver of a vehicle involved in an incident may be prosecuted under Regulation 19 of the Traffic Regulations or section 174FA of the Criminal Code, depending on the seriousness of the case and the level of the injury caused. Ordinarily, the prosecution would need to choose between the two and would choose section 174FA of the Criminal Code, where the driver failed to stop and assist and serious harm or death had occurred. This is because the Criminal Code offence of hit and run reflects the seriousness of not stopping and rendering assistance when a person is seriously injured.
However, a situation where the victim of the vehicle dies highlights the deficiency in the offence of hit and run.
Without there being a requirement to notify police of the incident in the offence of the hit and run, a driver will not have committed the offence if they are involved in an incident where the person dies. They stop, check and decide that no assistance is reasonably necessary and then drive off and leave the deceased. In this situation, the driver can evade breath testing or identifying themselves as the other driver in the incident. If the incident was on a quiet street in a remote area, then the incident could go undetected by authorities for some time.
This falls short of what is expected by the community. The bill is intended to remedy this shortfall by making it explicit that a driver must notify police of the incident, regardless of whether rendering assistance is futile.
In the development of this bill, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice consulted prosecutors from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Police (Traffic Operations) and the Department of Transport about the technical requirements of the offence. It was asked what should be required of a driver under section 174FA of the Criminal Code, in addition to stopping and rendering assistance.
Following that consultation, it was decided that the driver should be required to notify police, provide their name and the location of the accident and comply with any reasonable directions of the police officer. The bill therefore inserts a new subsection (1)(b)(iii) into section 174FA to require a driver, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the incident or rendering assistance, to notify a representative of the police force: (a) that the incident occurred, (b) of the location of the incident, (c) that the driver was the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident and (d) of the driver’s name.
New subsection (1)(b)(iv) will also require the driver to comply with any practical directions given by the representative of the police force in relation to the incident.
Under this subsection, the driver will need to reasonably cooperate with police and is intended to be flexible to cater for the circumstances of each case, by allowing police officers to tailor the reasonable direction to individual circumstances. For example, a reasonable direction under this subsection might include: to remain at the scene of the accident until a police officer arrives to divert traffic around the crash site, to comply with a breath test, or, if it is unsafe to remain at the scene of the incident, to attend at the nearest police station.
The new provisions require notification to ‘a representative of the police force’. This phrase will have a specific meaning, for the offence will include a police officer, meaning a member of the police force under the Police Administration Act, and a public sector employee working in a communications section operated by the police force. The definition contemplates that in a vehicle collision situation, an instinctive response might be to call triple zero, to call for an ambulance and the police. However, when a person calls triple zero in the Northern Territory, the call will be diverted to the Northern Territory communications, operated by the NT police. This will be manned by both sworn members of the Northern Territory police force and civilians.
It was necessary to include a public sector employee working in the Northern Territory communication section in the range of persons to whom the driver must report the incident and follow reasonable directions. Otherwise, the driver will technically commit an offence if they report the incident to a civilian and not to a police officer when they call triple zero. This bill corrects a shortfall in the offence of hit and run in section 174FA, by expressly including a requirement to notify police of the incident and comply with any reasonable directions of a police officer. It also fulfils the expectation of the community that when a driver of a vehicle is involved in an incident, no matter how innocent they are, the driver must not drive off without notifying police and abandon a person who is seriously injured, or worse, dead.
Before I finish, I did make some comments in the media about cultural practices in Alice Springs and certain circumstances that occurred in the media that excited some interest. I have since been guided by the member for Namatjira that the cultural practices I referred to were nothing more than vigilantism. This bill contemplates those particular matters. However, I place on the record that the correction of what was described in the media was incorrect, and it was not a cultural practice.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PASTORAL LAND AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 40)
Continued from 22 August 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, today I will speak about the amendments the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has brought before the House. These amendments are in regard to the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill. I indicate that the opposition will support the bill. We are all for diversification of the portfolio held, at the moment, by pastoralists. However, we have to make a few notes in regard to the bill. I hope the minister will take into account the comments I make.
First, we know the Northern Territory pastoral estate is more than 600 000 km in size. The 2011-12 annual report of the Pastoral Land Board indicates that the gross value production of the Territory cattle industry was estimated at $285.3m in 2010-11. That represents 53.5% of the total value of the Territory’s rural industries and fisheries production.
We recognise the contribution of the pastoral industry to the Territory economy and the potential benefits of the diversification of income streams for pastoralists. Pastoralists work very hard in challenging environments, and sustainable diversification of land use can make properties more available into the future. The pastoral industry, over the past few years, has suffered significantly. The mantra from the previous opposition was about closing the live cattle trade to Indonesia; however, nobody should believe that was the only reason the pastoral industry has suffered. There were moves by Indonesia to curtail the import of live cattle because some politicians in Indonesia hold the idea that Indonesia can be self-sustaining. They even promoted the idea that Indonesia could be self-sustaining by 2014, despite the fact that on many occasions I pointed out to bureaucrats and politicians in Jakarta that this was not achievable.
The other thing is the continuous restriction on the kind of cattle that can be imported to Indonesia, the reduction to 350 kg live weight, and talk about bringing it down to 300 kg.
I remind you of the reaction of the Australian public to the pictures we saw on television at the time the measure was announced by the federal government. Those pictures were with regard to the way the cattle were handled and slaughtered in Indonesia. I was shocked because I know pastoralists in Australia and people working in abattoirs would not treat animals like that. I was proven wrong, because a few days later there were reports on Australian television of the mistreatment of animals in Australian abattoirs. Footage also showed animals in Australian abattoirs being mishandled and not treated with the proper care they deserve.
Also, at the time, both parties in this parliament stood by our pastoral industry. We protested strongly to our federal counterpart that the live cattle trade ban was the wrong move and it should be reversed. I offered to travel to Jakarta, something that was rejected by the then minister for Primary Industry; however, we were successful in instigating a new committee on the issue. Luke Bowen, Executive Director of the Cattlemen’s Association in the Territory, was to be a part of this committee.
I also recall that the minister for Primary Industry, Joe Ludwig, later rang me personally and asked me to go to Jakarta to find out what the climate was there, which did not take much thinking. He also wanted me to mediate with the then minister for Agriculture in Indonesia about the broken relationship between Australia and Indonesia with regard to live cattle exports.
I undertook the trip. Thanks to the Ambassador of Australia to Indonesia, Mr Moriarty, who helped us very much – he fed all the information back to the federal minister – the ban was reversed. However, at the time, the damage to the industry was done; people lost income. Our government always supported the pastoral industry. I, as a minister, always supported the pastoral industry. I know these people personally and their contribution to the economy, but I also understand the difficulties they face, and I support the diversification of their portfolios.
The issue of non-pastoral land and use of pastoral leases is not new. I, as a minister, was approached many years ago and asked if I could authorise change of the use of pastoral lease to something different. I could not strictly do it in accordance with the law, but we found a way around it to allow people to have something different done with the pastoral leases, still within the legal framework of the act. However, it was not clearly specified in the act.
In 2002, the Productivity Commission produced an informative research paper on the issue. The research paper found that more performance-oriented and outcome-focused pastoral leasing arrangements could be better provided for the long-term economic and ecological prospect of the rangelands of Australia.
That is nothing new. If you go to Europe or other places you will find that people with a pastoral property are raising animals on this section, they have an orchard, they have a food production area, and they might have a tourist area. I cannot understand why we cannot do that in Australia, in the Territory.
The research paper of the Productivity Commission went on to state that pastoral leasing arrangements are generally designed to support and facilitate pastoralism. The arrangements typically constrain the imaginative non-pastoral land uses and inhibit competition between pastoral and non-pastoral land uses.
In the Territory, you can tell the difference between a pastoral property, rural and agricultural property, how far apart they are, and how different they are. Many pastoral properties are concentrated in areas where the rainfall is not the same as, say, in Katherine where we have an agricultural area, or in the north of the Territory.
I believe different uses can co-exist in a pastoral lease arrangement. I am very pleased the minister has made these amendments to allow pastoralists to diversify. There are things like that happening in Western Australia. There is a very well-known tourist destination in Western Australia based on a pastoral lease – it is not far away from here – in the Kimberley region. Everyone wants to go there because of the location and arrangements. Something like that could happen in the Northern Territory.
Key aspects of the bill before the House are provisions to register a non-pastoral use permit to the lease, as opposed to the lessee, and to approve permits for a period of up to 30 years. I fully understand that. I understand that banks will not finance a project if it is only of five-year duration. They are looking for long-term projects. I have no problem with that.
The problems I have are with the changes proposed. They can impact on communities that are neighbours to the pastoral lease, local government, competing uses, and on the environment. While we support the amendments and pastoralists being able to diversify their portfolio and have something else on their pastoral lease, we should always be conscious of how these changes can impact.
I will give you an example. There is a lease and the lessee decides to go into an agreement with a big interstate company to establish a tourism venture. That is fantastic. It improves the income stream and does not take much of his pastoral lease. However, at the same time, if that tourism venture is successful, there will be an impact from people who drive in and out of the property. There will be an impact on the roads that are managed by the local government, the demand for water and the demand for land set aside for the disposal of waste. All these things which can be part of the proposed development should be taken into account
There are no provisions here. First of all, when the proposal goes before the board, the board will consider it to make a decision, but no one will know until the first structure is erected. It would probably be a good idea to follow the path we followed with the planning approvals. Yes, the board gets notification, then this proposal is displayed in the local media or in a prominent area in the vicinity. This means other people can know about it, and people like traditional owners, who may have some comments to make with regards to the Native Title Act, will know beforehand that something is happening. They will start negotiations to resolve native title issues, instead of finding out afterwards and starting a court case which can drag on for many years and will impede the development.
I know the member for Nelson will bring some amendments to the House which will encompass this proposal - the display of a notification, or notifying the media of a proposed development so people know about it and are familiar with it - which we will support. At the same time, my concern is, has the department consulted with the stakeholders, not just in the pastoral industry but outside the pastoral industry: local government, or with the Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and the others?
These are the questions I do not have answers to and I would like you to answer them when you advise us. Overall, we support the amendments. It is quite right to give people in the pastoral industry an opportunity to develop their leases in a different way, as long as the proposed development does not take away the operations or the business from its original purpose as a pastoral lease.
Also, you mentioned before that it will increase the value of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. What effect will that have on the lease the pastoralist has? For example, a lessee has a pastoral lease and he, hypothetically, pays $20 000 a year for it. Suddenly, he has a tourist venture appearing that is worth millions of dollars, will this tourist venture have an impact on the lease overall? Will this venture affect the value of the lease and then the person has to start paying, not ten, not twenty, not thirty thousand, but a significant amount of money?
These are the issues that need to be considered, but, overall, we support the bill and I am looking forward to the debate that will follow through the member for Nelson, and certainly the response from the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a great bill in the sense that it will encourage more development in the Northern Territory, and I am a supporter of development. The minister knows I have some issues about how water is given out, but that does not mean I am against development. What we have here today is a good example of the government making practical changes to legislation that will give practical impetus to the economy.
Sometimes we hear statements - I will not pre-empt too much of a statement today – that are like good news stories and are full of generalisations. They might sound good and you can discuss it up here in the high altitude and deal with the philosophies of what has been put forward. However, here is a bill that will actually change things on the ground.
A classic example of what I was asking about today is the poppy industry. I presumed that if they expand to a large area, they will be required to get permission, because it is non-pastoral use, if it is on a pastoral property. If they want the opportunity to put in a 30-year plan for poppies on Tipperary Station, these amendments will allow them to look at that long-term plan, and any development of a large size will require capital investment. Banks will not give money for a two, three, four or even five-year investment. Companies also want to know that if they invest a lot of money into a project there is an adequate time – which will be guaranteed by the 30-year lease – for them to recover the money they have put into the project. Many of the projects we would be talking about would obviously be intensive, especially if they are horticultural. With horticultural projects, there is a high capital input in the form of irrigation, pumps, electricity, clearing of the land, fencing, and those sorts of things, plus the administrative side of it all costs money.
If you are going to develop a project in the Northern Territory, you need to have certainty out of the land tenure for a reasonable period, and the change that says we have moved from five years to 30 years makes a lot of sense.
A classic example is forestry. You are not going to get a return, in many cases, for about 20 or 30 years, so five years is not really going to be an option if there is a chance you will not be able to renew that option. Banks will want to know when they can get a return on their loans to that developer. I see that this change certainly will open up the Territory, not only for the people on the stations who may want to do some of this themselves, but investors coming into the Territory. They may see opportunities that were perhaps very limited to only freehold land before.
I was listening to the minister in Question Time. This will also help those struggling pastoralists, especially those pastoralists who are family based. Some of the big companies also struggle, but they have a little more backing behind them.
There is an old saying, ‘Do not have all your eggs in one basket’, and in this case, this is what could change some of the productivity of these pastoral properties. We all know that economies go up and down, the weather goes up and down and there are times when production can fail because of pests and diseases, floods and droughts. I have spoken before about having the ability to diversify our economy in the Northern Territory. This is so we do not just rely on mining or tourism, but the same on a more micro-economic example, that is say, a pastoral property. This could be where pastoralists have the ability to, if they want to, go into tourism, run a bed and breakfast or do tours through their property. These tours could be eco tours, as we know some of the best country in the Territory is locked up in pastoral properties. Pastoralists, generally, would have concern about open slather in some of those areas, but here is a chance for them to perhaps develop tourism on their properties. This would be managed so it did not interfere with the pastoral aspect of the property.
I probably cannot think of all the possibilities that could be out there, but certainly tourism, especially ecotourism, is a great possibility. I will give you an example. I went to Lorella Springs and, without knocking the good people at Lorella Springs, it is not the greatest pastoral property. You would not compare it with some of your big pastoral properties, but it has developed a tourist industry based on the beauty of that area. It is right next to the national park. I spent a day there and I want to go back and spend more than a day. It is always a hurry when you are in this job.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Good luck finding more than a day.
Mr WOOD: That is right, yes.
There were lots of people there, it is a basic tourist operation, but it is another form of income for the people who own the property. Horticulture has opportunities, but of course there will be limitations. One is having the right soil, right slope, good roads, water and a market. You have to do things like the poppy company from Tasmania has done. You have to put in a trial first and do that sort of work.
I see this as a great outcome and I certainly welcome it. I remember years ago, would you believe, when I was a lot younger and very keen to grow vegetables in the Northern Territory, I thought, ‘One day, I am not going to be working on missions anymore. I want to go out and see if I can grow some crops on nearby stations’, and that was very difficult to do.
There were garden leases around, there are still a few, and they are normally attached to a mining lease. However, even then, it was a difficult thing because you had to get permission to lease the land. I thought then that it was a bit too complex for a person like me and I gave that idea away.
I knew there were lots of places, like on Tipperary Station, where there was good land available for horticulture. However, that was a long time ago, but now we have an opportunity to give people who want to develop whatever a chance to do it.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Dr Chris Burns
Dr Chris Burns
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Chris Burns, who is in the building looking suitably refreshed after his sojourn through Europe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosure’s Annual Report 2012-13
Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosure’s Annual Report 2012-13
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I table the 2012-13 Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosure’s Annual Report.
PETITION
Birth Choices in Darwin
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 276 petitioners relating to birth choices in Darwin. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- The signatories below support birth choices for women. We believe that women should have the right to decide where, how, and with whom their baby is born and be supported in that choice. My body, my baby, my right to decide.
PASTORAL LAND AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, continuing on from where I was before the break, I was thanking the government, especially the minister, for bringing forward this bill and commenting on what a good move this is by the government. It will be great for the pastoral industry, especially a pastoral industry that has been struggling since the live cattle ban.
There are four amendments and I spoke about the first amendment before lunch. The second amendment was to grant the permit by way of a registrable instrument against the lease so it runs with the lease and is not personal to the lessee. That makes good common sense. It means at the sale of a pastoral property you do not have to apply again for permission for the non-pastoral use; it comes with the property. That will also give great comfort to financial institutions to know that the proposal still has approval and can continue without having to go through red tape. This is one area where the government is also proactive in reducing red tape, and that is good as well.
Also, you can extend a permit for an additional period if the application is lodged by the permit holder within two years before the permit expiry date. I could not quite see in the bill – maybe I will ask the minister in the committee stage – whether there is any room for a late application? Is there any leeway, for argument’s sake, if you miss by a day? I am interested to find out whether there is any movement in that, or is it so rigid that it is a case of ‘oh dear, how sad’? I am interested in finding that out from the minister.
The last one is to suspend, cancel, or vary a permit for failure to comply with conditions attached to the permit at the request of the permit holder. That is common sense as well.
I have a couple of questions to put to the minister. I could ask them during the committee stage, but I will put them to him now. They are in relation to an application for non-pastoral use and the amount of detail that might be required. By the way, I also thank the department for its briefing. I have all my notes here, but sometimes later on you think of something else that was not part of the briefing.
When someone is applying for non-pastoral use do they say, ‘I just want the land for horticultural crops’? What happens if they find out that watermelons are not doing too well this year and they think they should put in mahoganies, which is forestry? Does that mean we have to go back through a new proposal? What level of detail is required in the application before a new application would be needed, if there was a change of crop, for instance? A change of use might be better. It is just a more practical question.
There are some amendments coming through. I put on the record my thanks to the minister for supporting the amendments I put forward. The amendments, I feel, will put the Pastoral Lands Board on a similar plane to the Development Consent Authority. I say that because in the third reading, the minister said:
- The amendments will deliver a legislative mechanism that provides the Pastoral Land Board, as the consent authority for non-pastoral use applications …
Basically, the Pastoral Lands Board - I was one of the people when the last government was looking at this who believed we either should have a Development Consent Authority that floats all around the Northern Territory or we should look at using the Pastoral Lands Board - has become a consent authority. That is why I brought in similar things that are required for the Development Consent Authority.
A non-pastoral use is a nice way of saying a development application. If my neighbour wanted to put in 3000 ha of mangoes, I certainly would expect the Development Consent Authority to put a notice somewhere in the paper and let neighbours know that is happening. That is what should happen with non-pastoral uses, so that Aboriginal people, neighbouring pastoral companies, local councils and the community in general know what is going on. This is because not only will it be a matter that might have local implications, there could be Territory implications from the point of view of the environment, like water, land clearing and flora and fauna habitat. If a large amount of land needed to be cleared, that would also come under the land clearing guidelines the board has to adhere to.
But this allows for a more open and transparent approach to non-pastoral uses, which is another way of saying for development. We do it in towns, and we do it in the rural area. We need that similar process, especially on pastoral properties, and it makes for good government. I have my ups and downs in this place at times, sometimes you get flogged and sometimes you get half an answer. This time we had a win, and I do not say that in a show-off fashion, but I hope people realise that when you sit in this parliament you should have the ability to put forward amendments. You hope politics will not get in the way all the time and those amendments you put forward help government legislation become better legislation. I do appreciate what the minister has done.
I also thank Parliamentary Counsel. I can write up the amendments anyway I like, but you would probably end up in the courts for the next ten years trying to work out what I wrote. I especially thank Nicky Armstrong, who understood what I was trying to get at and when it came out of the system it was a professional looking document that we can debate today as to whether people support it or not.
In summing up, this is a great piece of legislation, and I am not saying great in a frivolous way. We have opportunities to develop the Territory. It can be done in a proper manner through this process, and it will open up new opportunities for people coming to the Territory who might want to lease land. One of the really important things is that, considering the plight of the pastoralists in the Northern Territory, this gives them another opportunity to get themselves out of, in some cases, dire financial stress. They can either lease their land to other people or they can do some of these proposals themselves.
There are a lot of, you might say, fingers in the pie, and opportunities that will come from these changes. I welcome the changes and thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for the amendments today and for supporting my amendments. Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my support to the minister for these amendments he is putting forward. I also thank the department for the briefing they gave me. I dragged out the second reading speech the minister made, and I have a few notes against that. It is talking about non-pastoral use of the land, and that is the amendment going through. In doing that, he highlighted the producers who are reliant on live export trade, and the problems we had when that was stopped.
It was not just the producers who were affected by this, and it is not just the producers who will gain out of this. I have a mate who has a helicopter and does a lot of mustering. One of the things stopping the live cattle trade did to him was to almost send him to the wall. He also had some information about the things he noticed while he was flying around. Many properties were not doing their fire breaks, fencing and so forth. All of these things mean there was a stack of industries affected by the live trade ceasing to Asia. The opposite side of that is that these amendments will help not just the pastoralists, but a stack of industries. Being from the bush, I know it will also help people in the bush.
When I sat on the Daly River Management Group, one of the things it looked at was land use. One of the presentations made to us - I have forgotten who actually did it. I am sorry, I have lost the documents. It was done in about 2009-10 and we had a flood in 2011 so I lost the documents.
One of the interesting things is that if - you will have to excuse me for the figures - you have pastoral land, it may be productive at $1000 a hectare. If that grazing land then changes across to agriculture, you might get a doubling of that return. It then goes to $2000, but when you get to something like horticulture, you are getting up to a tenfold return on that land. While we are talking about non-pastoral use of land, people need to realise we are also increasing the value of output we get. These stages we go through from grazing, to agriculture to horticulture do not just happen because someone wants to do horticulture. When you get to horticulture there is a lot of infrastructure in and around that, so there are many industries that are affected by this. If you change from pastoral, to agricultural, to horticulture you are not just helping the pastoralists overcome the debacle of the live trade, you are also helping some of those bush areas grow. When you put a lot of infrastructure in, for example, horticulture, you are talking about jobs.
Indigenous people who have pastoral leases would have to alter that lease so they could get into agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Sorry, I have not mentioned forestry, but forestry is in there somewhere. Not only can they do that, but there are many people who have a keen interest in Indigenous tourism and many of these properties are beautiful. The property behind me is Lizzy Downs, and the sites on Lizzy Downs are just as good as Kakadu, as I am sure the member for Nelson would agree. There is a fishing hole there called Mission Hole, which I think used to be called Serpentine Lagoon, until the missionaries moved from the Mango Farm. I do not know why they wanted to move from there, but they moved from there to Lizzy Downs; I suppose it is a bit bigger. When they got there, the name changed to Mission Hole, and that fishing spot leaves Corroborree for dead and I am glad they do not allow the amateur fisherman in there. That would ruin it, having all those people in there; it should be kept for ourselves.
Indigenous people can get into tourism quite easily. They do not have to deal with the door of the land council and get all their section 19 leases set up. The 30-year thing, the concern I had, that I raised – I am happy with the answer – was to do with water licences. I know water licences have a standard term of 10 years. I have been told that the minister does have the option to extend past that. When people apply for these 30-year non-pastoral use agreements, or whatever we are calling them, they can match the water licence up, so I am happy about that. The other concern I did have was in regard to native title, but I noticed in his speech the minister said we still have to comply with native title. When I say concern, it was just a question I wanted to ask.
I am quite supportive of it, as are all the people in my electorate. I see it not only helping the pastoralists, but also creating many job opportunities in the bush around these pastoral areas.
Thank for bringing it forward, minister. You have my support.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I wish to contribute to the debate. It is nice to do things easily in this House. The easy jobs are the ones we can celebrate; the hard jobs simply have to be done.
I thank the minister, his department, and the government for bringing this bill forward. My contribution to the bill is in the sense of good planning because, essentially, the principles of good planning relate to good consultation.
A great example in the Northern Territory was the Enquiry by Design process, which planned the new city of Weddell and the new community area of Kilgariff in Alice Springs. Everyone talked very positively about bringing the community along with you. It is not only a positive aspect of planning, it is also good for government because it brings people along on an informative and educational journey, as opposed to being left behind, unsure, and where conspiracy theories are allowed to develop.
It is great to see the amendments brought forward by the member for Nelson, and the minister accepting those in a positive light in the House. It is important that we get to that stage next. Planning is a very important principle to consider and, when we are considering this bill, that it really has bipartisan support for our pastoral industry and the families and companies that drive the rural economy of the Northern Territory. This should also be a celebration we all share in, the history of the pastoral industry and operations on the vast stretches of the Northern Territory.
There is a great deal of diversity already taking place and it is part of the conversation about this bill in the electorate of Barkly. I was contacted by Mr Peter Walker from Lorella Springs, now the Lorella Springs Wilderness Park. He embarked on this journey in 1989, received permission to diversify on a pastoral lease and has created a dynamic tourist operation. The member for Nelson has visited, I have visited, and it is an exceptional part of the gulf country, but it also has potential to develop. Peter, Rhett and the family are developing extra areas and have now pushed right to the coast. Anyone who is interested will be able to access a part of that gulf country coast which many people have never seen before.
That was 1989. Now, the minister is right up date with creating a legislative instrument which will allow the pastoral industry and pastoral lessees to look at diversification.
What we have seen over a period of time is many stations increasing the capacity of their stores; they have been providing fuel and accommodation. This is a good income stream for diversity and, once again, it relates to a good consultation process. This bill will formalise that and, with the amendments, will ensure it is a very formal process in the approvals. There will be the development application, there will be the public exhibition period, there will be consultation, and then an opportunity for people to engage in debate, which is healthy. It is a good process, because in many cases, the people proposing the development, the diversification, can learn from a process, learn from others, and learn from other ideas.
A couple of stations in the Barkly are now offering accommodation for contractors, and stores for community members, visitors, tourists and contractors alike. When there is fuel available, you see an increase in traffic.
One of the logical things that comes to mind is that many of the pastoral properties, mainly the smaller ones, have a single user road. However, many properties share roads. If I am on a property, I may have a plan to diversify and bring many more people through my neighbour’s land to get to my property, where they are going to access that diversified experience, whatever it may be, and there is a great deal of responsibility about management of infrastructure. It comes down to, very simply, gates to start with. I remember the beautiful sign on the horse paddock gate at Wollogorang many years ago. It was the border gate for the Northern Territory and Queensland. It said, ‘God may forgive, but we do not, so shut the …’ – you can imagine the next word – ‘… gate.’ That was a good learning for the teachers and me, and anybody who wanted to wrangle with Bulwaddi Edmunds up at the big house over that gate was making a big mistake.
However, this is something that has to be normalised and, through a good planning process and consultation, it can be, with everybody moving forward together without too much grief.
I have spoken in this House, and I speak around the Territory and to anybody who will listen, about diversification in niche market tourism, very much a high-end product. I have been encouraging the Aboriginal constituents in the Barkly on Aboriginal land to think about it. Paul Zlotkowski at Wollogorang Station explored this option many years ago as well, around hunting of pigs and feral animals. I remember raising it in this House and the member for Daly jumped up immediately and, as a mango grower and a farmer, he ran me down big time. How dare I suggest introducing pigs on a famous spring and turning it into a niche market where a German bow hunter would pay a considerable amount of money – we will put a figure on it, $20 000 – to come and shoot a pig for a trophy! If the old ladies of that community were prepared to make some baskets and talk to the bow hunter and his wife, that will add another $5000 to the price tag. It is that high-end niche tourism that I am very interested in. It is also an opportunity for the pastoralists and has been explored in the past at Wollogorang Station.
You would need to be very clear in the planning processes, consultation, and approval processes around that. An interesting example about Wollogorang was that it was hunters using rifles and firearms which, as you could imagine, would need very intensive management. I see the bow hunter as a great opportunity to lessen the impact of the hunting but, at the same time, achieve those economic outcomes and that diversity.
You have to look at infrastructure, access roads, have these plans in place, and know how to work with your neighbours. In the pastoral industry, as more people take this opportunity there will be an increase in activity, particularly tourist activity. Therefore, neighbours will need to be brought along on the journey so everybody is getting the best benefits out of it. Having spoken about that, there should be consultation around the land councils as well, because it is imperative that native title is respected and acknowledged.
A real commitment from government is needed in that area because there is a choice, which is litigation. If you want to drive a hard bargain, if you get too caught up in the ideology of cutting red tape and green tape, you can generally end up in court. Nobody gets a win out of that. There are some examples from past history in the Territory where that has occurred.
Diversity in the bill is promoted by government, and is the word. Let us face it, if we are looking at this in the purest form, it is about diversification. If we are talking about adding income streams and opening up opportunities across vast stretches of the Northern Territory, it relates to the most recent letter I have written to Prime Minister Tony Abbott around the anti-Muckaty campaign. In one of the paragraphs of that letter, I said to the Prime Minister that we really need to open this debate at a national level, in relation to an issue of national interest and security. One of the ways to open that debate would be to call on submissions nationally for people who may want to entertain the construction and management of what will be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility.
This bill, in essence, could provide that opportunity for a property in the Douglas Daly next to some feedlots. How would it go if Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility was suddenly to be landed in the Douglas Daly, among the feedlots that provide that important supply chain of our beef going from birth onto the boats? I say this in good faith because this is a real issue. It is a real issue for me, as the member representing the people of Barkly, and all those traditional owners and tens of thousands of Territorians and Australians opposed to what is going forward. The most recent rhetoric coming from the Prime Minister, with his most recent announcement, is that we are now seriously talking about what we always knew. It will be intermediate- to high-level waste. That opens the debate around Australia producing its own nuclear power.
This is no longer about a smoke screen of hospital waste. This is about the real deal. This is about responsibility. By the way, I have put on the public record that we have to have a facility, but remember I qualified not a storage facility above the ground in sheds, but a world-class, best practice disposal facility with a deep geological solution. We know the geography, and we know the area in Australia where that should go.
In terms of diversity and opening up opportunities and potential, let us put it out there. It could be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility, which could earn considerable money for the proponent and for that project. We would need a very clear and concise process of consultation, public exhibition and engagement before there would be any approvals for a pastoral lease to be diversified. At the moment, we are in the debate and in the federal court about this same issue on Aboriginal land. The federal court will bring down a very important decision about the Muckaty case and this bill will take serious note from that.
It was good to hear the shadow minister, the member for Casuarina, for this area of governance, as a previous minister. I thank him for his briefing and support. He certainly gave me some good advice and we worked with a good team on the fourth floor and worked through this. He encouraged me to speak about it and I am honoured to do that because I represent people in a vast electorate, and I say with confidence, hosting the best cattle stations in the world. That is something to be very proud of as Territorians, and particularly those Territorians from the Barkly.
Minister, well done, you have a lot of support out there. You will be asked a few questions, or you have been already, about the consultation processes you have been through, and those amendments are very productive and positive. They will add to this legislation, making it a good instrument that will deliver the intention of the government, which is diversity and opportunity that will cross all sorts of boundaries in opening up futures for Territorians. Thank you.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak on the statement, but first of all I say thank you to the minister for giving me a briefing on this some time ago. I also went outside the House and got information around this.
The member for Barkly talked about the history around pastoralists, cattlemen and the like. When the live cattle ban happened, it not only affected pastoralists, it affected Aboriginal people as well, especially in my electorate. We are Gurrurrun, they are my traditional people from my grandmother’s side and my grandfather is Jawoyn. Let me explain that. The Gurrurrun Association and the Dalawyn people are pretty much mixed in with Rembarrnga Ritharrtnug people in Arnhem Land. They are very associated. The Jawoyn are the next door neighbours.
That fractured us so badly. Do you know how many people benefited from Gurrurrun, the company itself? Every year, there was distribution of royalties to my people. That fractured everybody. These families relied on that for the Christmas holidays, to buy their kids Christmas presents, everything, furniture, cars, it supported them for years. It was one of my grandfathers. He has passed now, he was a traditional man of Bulman. His traditional land was between Bulman and Ngukurr. He was the one who brought this together. He was the driver of the seat. He implemented this whole thing. He worked with the cattlemen back then, and we must not forget cattlemen in the Northern Territory, as we had our own cowboys too.
Where did Indigenous people start? They started at stations. We had our own ringers, we are no different. My father was a ringer, his brothers were ringers. My grandfather was more of a cultural man, but in that time, when my fathers were born and my mothers were born, being cattlemen was a life for them. Working in a station was a life. My partner, in the Barkly region, was the same thing. He was a ringer. He started at Hayfield station. He went to school. His family is the same. There is a history of Aboriginal ringers. They all started at stations and the numbers are growing. We now have Indigenous cattle owners, cattle station owners. They have moved to the next step, we cannot forget that. We are supporting our own with this and expanding their businesses; it is not only non-Indigenous people, it is Indigenous people too. That is the history left by the former Labor government. They fractured not only non-Indigenous people, but Indigenous people who own these cattle stations and made a living out of them.
The member for Barkly would know there are numbers in his area. There is a large number of cattle stations owned by Indigenous people, a good number in my electorate, the Stuart electorate and the Namatjira electorate. This is something we need to consider, and look forward to supporting our own. Let us just go back to my speech of thanks.
I have examined the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill, in regard to its second reading. The proposed amendments to the Pastoral Land Act have many features that potentially could impact the native title holders, and pastoral leases, under the Commonwealth Native Title Act. I do support this legislation, noting there are likely to be important implications for native title holders. This would strongly suggest the need for more extensive consultation with those affected. These are not the cattlemen, the cattle station owners, these are the native title owners of the land. That is what I am referring to. I wish to recommend that, given the potentially significant implications of this legislation, it be further considered within the committee framework so any potential implications can be fully explored and understood by all stakeholders.
We are looking at stakeholders like the NLC, the CLC, the native title holders of the land and the cattlemen who are leasing the land. Everybody needs to be consulted on this. I am sure my colleague has taken that into consideration. At the end of the day, I support this because I know that Aboriginal people do own cattle stations and I wish for them to do better. So, thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I will address a few of the issues raised by members in the House; however, first I pass on my thanks to the opposition and the member for Nelson for supporting this bill. It is an important piece of legislation and, as I said in Question Time earlier, this really is a watershed moment for the pastoral sector. This will completely change the capacity of the pastoral industry in a number of different ways and all the changes will be quite beneficial.
I will move to a few things the member for Casuarina raised, and I again thank him for supporting the bill. He referred to the Indonesian situation and the problem we had arising out of the live cattle ban. He suggested it was not entirely the live cattle ban that put us where we are today, but I suggest that the live cattle ban was certainly the trigger for the major reduction in cattle imports to Indonesia at that time. We are still struggling to come to terms with and deal with that.
Consequently, this makes this amendment even more important so cattlemen are no longer in a position where they have all their eggs in one basket. I fear that is what happened in a number of different ways and on a number of different fronts. The first front was that there was little opportunity for diversification on pastoral property prior to this piece of legislation coming in. Yes, five-year permits were allowed, but as I said previously, it is very difficult to commercialise a five-year operation.
Sitting behind that was that the whole market situation for live cattle into Asia had changed over the 10 years or so prior to the ban. More work should have been done by the former government in engaging existing and new markets in Asia so our cattlemen were not so entirely reliant on Indonesia for that trade.
The member for Casuarina also spoke about his level of consciousness for the implications of change around water, waste and the use of roads. That has been a common theme amongst a number of the speakers today. I point out that any of the activities involving the use of water or discharge of waste water, those types of things, would still be covered by other Northern Territory legislation. In those instances, the Water Act would apply.
A number of people have spoken about the considerations around the Native Title Act. I can assure everybody in the room and everyone listening that there are strict guidelines around non-pastoral use under the Native Title Act. If I turn to that section of the Native Title Act – in fact, I have an explanation which probably makes it a little easier for me to read into Hansard. It says section 24GA of the NTA defines what primary production activity is under the Native Title Act. The definition goes on to say:
The expression primary production activity includes the following:
- (a) cultivating land
- (b) maintaining, breeding or agisting animals
- (c) taking or catching fish or shellfish
- (d) forest operations (defined in section 253)
- (e) horticulture activities (see section 253 for the definition of horticulture)
- (f) aquacultural activities
- (g) leaving fallow or de-stocking any land in connection with the doing of any thing that is a primary production activity.
It explicitly excludes mining. It says:
- The expression primary production activity does not include mining
I turn to the amendments. There is direct reference in the amendments to deal with native title. The issuance of a permit must be done, bearing in mind the provisions of the Native Title Act. Effectively, nothing can occur on that land unless it complies with the NTA, lest it trigger other issues around native title. We have been very careful to cover off on that.
There has been a fair amount of consultation which has occurred about this. Obviously, there has been significant consultation with the pastoral industry. I am delighted to report their full support for this, because they understand the needs of the pastoral industry now and into the future.
Consultation has also been conducted in the past. There was some legislative review going on a couple of years ago and, during that time, there were some discussions about amendments to the Pastoral Land Act. There was some early consultation as well.
There will be ongoing consultation. I will move to the member for Nelson’s amendments shortly, because they talk about the consultative process and deal with issues about planning insofar as consultation relates to that.
I have indicated to the member for Nelson that we will be accepting his amendments because, in essence, they are innocuous amendments; they do not change the intent of the head amendments to this act. It is something we could have dealt with in another fashion. The act makes provisions for ministerial guidelines, so we could have done it through ministerial guidelines and allowed that process of consultation and advertising. In effect, the amendments from the member for Nelson do not suggest any contradiction to the act and are easy enough to put in, so that will not be a problem. Clearly, the amendments by the member for Nelson are supported by other speakers in this debate as well.
The member for Casuarina also raised an issue about pastoral rents and whether there might be some impacts on them. There may well be a small impact. I believe the member for Daly also picked up on the change in value of land, given different uses. There has been a working group put together which is looking at a number of issues around the financial side of this; that is, the costs of permitting and how that will affect the pastoral rents into the future.
If you look at a large pastoral concern – many of them are large – taking a small piece of that and improving it will mean a change in land use of probably a very small percentage of the overall piece of land. That changed land use should not have an enormous impact on the rents, but we are looking again at fee structures and how they will work. We are working very closely with industry on that.
That just about covers all the issues raised. I gather we will be going into committee stage to make these amendments, so there will be an opportunity for anyone who has any questions ...
Mr McCarthy: No nuclear waste dumps, minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No nuclear waste dumps, right. Fortunately, nuclear waste dumps do not fit within the terms of the Native Title Act for the purposes of non-pastoral use for this land. I do not believe that will be a problem, member for Barkly.
I note that the member for Casuarina adjourned this debate when the bill was introduced. I was a little surprised that the member for Nightcliff did not adjourn it, given that she is the shadow minister. This falls under the administrative arrangements for the Department for Land Resource Management. It is neither here nor there, but I just wondered why the member for Nightcliff did not become involved in this debate, given that she is the shadow minister technically, which might explain why she did not avail herself of an opportunity to get briefed on it as well.
But anyway never mind …
Ms Fyles: You cannot keep up with your administrative orders.
Ms Anderson: Not in Darwin, that is why.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Not in Darwin - perhaps there is no interest in the pastoral industry, but that is okay. Let me thank my department for the efforts they have put in to bring this amendment to the House. They have been a great source of help, inspiration and information for me, so that is very much appreciated for all those who have been involved.
Thank you again to all in the House who are supporting this very sensible bill that, given time, will see some changes to the pastoral industry that will be most positive in nature. I reiterate what I said in Question Time this morning; this presents opportunities, not just for the pastoral industry, the family or corporate-owned pastoral properties - certainly it does for them, but they are not the only people to benefit. People who live in the regions and remote parts of the Territory will also benefit from this.
Every new job that is created out of this is a new job for someone who lives in the Northern Territory. Whether it be one extra job on a pastoral property or 30 or 40 extra jobs on a pastoral property, they will all contribute to growing the economy of the whole of the Northern Territory, but also on a very regional and local basis. I know the bush members who have remote and rural seats will be very pleased to see the benefits that will flow from this.
We will be working very closely with the pastoral industry to implement this, and I suspect we will aim to bring it to force on 1 January. That will be the intent, and it will give people three months to the end of the year to start thinking about how they intend to take advantage of the change in this legislation.
They will be able to start thinking long term, and beyond what the turn off of cattle will be for next year. They will be able to start thinking about the vagaries and the ups and downs of the cattle sector per se, and start thinking about what they want their place to look like in 20 or 30 years’ time.
Bearing in mind that 48% of the Territory’s land mass, or thereabouts, is pastoral land, and not all of it is the very best land for pastoral use. This is a contemporary approach to dealing with land in the Northern Territory. We do not want pastoral land to be tied just to pastoral use. It does not make sense. If you just maintained a romantic notion that all our pastoral land should be used to run cows, then you are not giving that land the best opportunity to produce revenue. If you have land that is marginal country for cattle and you want to turn it into something else, this will give you the opportunity to do that.
Thanks again to all the members who have contributed to the debate and I appreciate their support on it. I will certainly be letting the cattle sector know this afternoon that this had support broadly in the parliament of the Northern Territory. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Just a couple of points, one I raised during the debate; minister, you might not have caught that. It was, how much level of detail is required in an application for non-pastoral use? What I am getting at is that, in simplistic terms, I applied for some non-pastoral use to grow watermelons. If I am stuck with that in my non-pastoral use and next year I want to grow pumpkins, do I have to apply again? If I took it a bit further – that is a simple one - for example, if I wanted to go from horticulture to forestry, would I have to get a new permission? I am wondering what level of detail comes in before you have to reapply for a non-pastoral use?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Member for Nelson, what I will be able to do is address issues around level of detail through ministerial guidelines. At the moment, you have got an application process the Pastoral Land Board uses for determining the five-year permits. I do not see that there would be a substantial change to the level of detail required, other than for the application to address the length of time the permit is required for. You are quite right when you say that if you change your use of land under the auspices of a permit, substantial changes will have to be re-permitted. The example you used of going from rockmelons to forestry is quite right, you would no doubt need a new permit for a different type of use. However, if you were changing from rockmelons to watermelons, I suspect there would be no need to get a new permit.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. One of the other examples could have been a better one, such as going from watermelons to rice.
Just so we clarify it in Hansard, the issue about dominance – in other words, the pastoral characteristics of the property still have to remain dominant over the non-pastoral use. I think I was asked in the brief – I could not see it in my notes –but is that dominance to do with area or with value?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, a good question, and the answer to that is area. Non-pastoral use will have to remain less than 50% of the area of the pastoral property.
Mr WOOD: If I only have two cows on the rest of the property, and I have 1000 ha of rice, it would look like one is more dominant than the other, even though the two cows are on more land.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, understood, member for Nelson. The issue of a pastoral lease carries with it conditions and those conditions relate to stocking rates on your land and all sorts of things around management of the land. The conditions of the lease would remain in force for the portion of the pastoral property that is still being used for pastoral purposes. The non-pastoral use permit would then apply to the non-pastoral areas. Pastoralists will still have to comply with all the conditions of their lease for the pastoral portion.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 9.1 standing in my name. Clause 4A amends section 29 of the act. It includes a new clause 29(ha) which says:
- … to consider and determine applications for permission to use pastoral land for a non-pastoral purpose in accordance with Part 7;
Because there is a section now which is a new amended Part 7, I felt that what we needed to say, within the functions of the board, there was to be – to reflect those changes. All that has done is put in a new clause (ha). I asked Parliamentary Counsel why it went down there, as I had it on the top. They said the protocol is that a new clause in a section such as ‘Functions of the Board’ goes in the same position as it would appear within the act. It is no more than ensuring that what we are doing today is also included as one of the functions of the board.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, nmember for Nelson, that will be accepted. This amendment was considered to be innocuous. There are references to the issuing of permits contained within the act further through, but this is not inconsistent with that and there is no objection to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. .
Clauses 5 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: I move amendment 9.2, standing in my name, inserting new clause 87(2)(ca). All that does is that when the board is assessing an application, it is saying beforehand to take into account submissions received by the board under clause 87A with the period specified in the notice given under section 87A(3)(c), and then continues on. When we get to 87A, that will probably explain why that needs to be in there. It is to ensure the board takes into account the submissions that come in, either written or at a public meeting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Chairman, there is no objection to this amendment either. Once we deal with the other amendments, it will make perfect sense to those reading this legislation. It says that the Pastoral Land Board must take into account submissions received by the board. I do not believe that will be terribly onerous and it is reasonable for the board to consider submissions received under the new section 87A, when this legislation comes into force. Much was said during the debate, in general, about consultation allowing people to understand what is going on with non-pastoral use permit applications. It is reasonable for this provision to exist, so the board must take into account those submissions when they are presented to them.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 9.3, standing in my name.
I had better explain. This puts in the requirement that if the board wishes it can hold a public meeting. Then it describes what should happen if there is a public meeting. The board in this case must invite the applicant – makes good sense – and any person who made a submission under section 87A to attend the meeting and give any person attending the meeting a reasonable opportunity to address the board.
That means if someone comes along to the meeting, they are at least given an opportunity to speak before the board. This has come from the minister’s second reading speech where he talked about the Pastoral Land Board being the consent authority. Knowing how the consent authority works – if you have been to a consent authority meeting – even though you might not have put in a submission, the chair normally has the latitude to allow other people to put in a verbal submission. That is a good common sense clause.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Chairman, this portion of the amendment will also be agreed to by government. It was this amendment by the member for Nelson that caused the most discussion between the department and me, so that I could understand what the implications of this were. The thing that gets this over the line is that the words ‘may be open to the public’ are used, rather than ‘must’. It allows the board the latitude to make a decision about whether a meeting should be public or not. They have to deal with many commercial-in-confidence issues during the course of their meetings. There would need to be some serious consideration given as to whether the board would, indeed, agree to open up a consideration to a public forum.
That said, as I mentioned before, there is an opportunity for me to make ministerial guidelines. One of the ways through this issue that we considered was how those ministerial guidelines directing some of those meetings might occur. Another consideration was that commercial-in-confidence meetings and meetings that deal with the general business of the Pastoral Land Board may not necessarily be open to the public. That could be done and dusted in one meeting and a separate meeting opened afterwards that deals with the public side of consideration around a permit for a non-pastoral use. This provides that they may do it. We are not going to encourage the Pastoral Land Board to close up shop and not be a part of this process. We support this amendment without any problem.
Mr WOOD: Thanks for that, minister. That makes good sense. One of the reasons I also put ‘may’ in was that you will possibly get some very small applications for non-pastoral use. It might be for a Telstra tower or something like that, and it may simply make good sense that you do not really need a public meeting. You could still ask for submissions, if necessary. Common sense would prevail. Of course, the other thing in Development Consent Authority meetings is that the decision-making process is not public. There is a public forum and then the people leave. During that period the board could call back a person if there were some matters of confidentiality, or they would deal with those matters amongst themselves anyway. What you have put forward is a set of guidelines for the minister in how these meetings should be run, and it would make good sense.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 9.4, standing in my name.
This is part of the issue of opening up the process for public consultation. Section 87A comes under the heading ‘Public Notice of Application’. Basically, it requires the board to put in a public notice when there is an application. It says:
- … the notice must be published in a newspaper circulating in the area of the Territory where the pastoral lease is located and on the Board’s website.
I would hope that the Pastoral Land Board does not give it to the local school council’s newsletter. I hope it puts it in something broad enough, because we know how complaints happen if it is not in the right paper. It is also on the website, so that is important anyway. Then it just basically says that if you are going to put a notice in the paper this is the requirement, and that is fairly straightforward. As I said before, this gives it more of a feel of good governance by having these clauses in there.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, again, the government does not have a problem with this amendment. It goes to the nub of part of the contribution made by some of the members in this House about consultation and ensuring people know what is going on. I particularly refer to a discussion I had with the member for Arnhem around this. It is fair and reasonable that those people who live in the geographical area of a pastoral property who might be applying for a non-pastoral use be given the opportunity to have their say and make a submission to the Pastoral Land Board on a permit application. Referring to your comment before, member for Nelson, about local school newsletters, common sense would prevail. You would find those advertisements would go into the major newspaper in the locality for which that non-pastoral permit application mostly applied.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s 2012-13 Annual Financial Report
Treasurer’s 2012-13 Annual Financial Report
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I table the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, containing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the government’s fiscal performance for the 2012-13 financial year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
This government inherited a financial position from the former Labor Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, which was simply unsustainable. Fiscal deficits were predicted each and every year over the budget cycle to 2015-16, and the nett debt was expected to rise steeply to $5.5bn.
As a result of the Labor Treasurer’s fiscal irresponsibility, the Territory’s AAA1 credit rating was placed in a negative outlook by the Moody’s Rating Agency. At the time of the last budget of the Labor opposition leader, back in May 2012, the 2013 fiscal balance outcome for the non-financial public sector was projected to be a deficit of $767m.
When the Country Liberals came to power just over 12 months ago, the first priority was to get the financial position of the Territory back on a pathway to surplus. As highlighted in the mini-budget and the 2013-14 budget, we have implemented a range of savings and efficiency measures, in order to begin the process of returning the budget to a fiscal surplus by 2017-18.
These savings measures have already been realised, in excess of $70m in the 2012-13 year, and by the end of the current forward estimates, will have realised cumulative savings in excess of $1bn. In addition, we have gone a long way to address the financial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation. When coupled with the reform agenda underway, this will see Territorians reap the benefits of increased competition and greater levels of financial accountability by the corporation. The Giles Country Liberals government has put the corporation back on a firmer financial footing.
While the 2012-13 outcome continues to be influenced by constrained revenues, the final outcome is a significantly reduced deficit from that projected by the Labor government back in May 2012. It is also an improvement from the final estimate included in the May 2013 budget. When compared to the original 2012-13 budget, the operating balance deficit of $101m, at the general government sector, is a $62m improvement. The fiscal balance deficit of $516m, at the non-financial public sector, is a $251m improvement. This is an outstanding achievement, by any measure.
In addition, nett debt is $449m lower than originally projected, and the nett debt to revenue ratio has improved by 11 percentage points.
The improved outcome since the original budget has been influenced by the following key factors:
Increased taxation revenue of $67.5m. Predominantly, this is payroll tax related, as a result of employment and wages growth, and a large one-off commercial stamp duty related transaction
increased GST revenue of $88.7m, as a result of a higher Territory share of the national population following the 2011 census.
However, for 2013-14, following the February 2013 update by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, it is projected that the Territory will receive less GST revenue in absolute terms than in 2012-13. The revised timing of Commonwealth-funded expenditure which affects any of the timing differences to be included in 2013-14 mid-year report; increased utility tariffs of $32m, together with the improved operational performance by the Power and Water Corporation; and lower levels of infrastructure spending achieved through the reprioritisation and realignment of spending in general government as private sector investment increases, and by the Power and Water Corporation in line with demand management initiatives.
These amounts have been offset by nett increased expenditure of $56.8m. This expenditure relates to election commitments, new initiatives and legacy items that have been largely funded through savings and revenue measures and the recognition of finance leases over Aboriginal land totalling $41.4m.
These amounts, combined with lower operating expenses across agencies since the May 2013 final estimate, have resulted in the overall improvement in the final outcome.
I turn to the Territory’s balance sheet. For the non-financial public sector, nett debt for 2012-13 is $3.132bn which, as mentioned previously, is $449m lower than the original 2012-13 budget projection. This is predominately due to the better than expected fiscal balance outcome combined with increased returns on government investments, reflective of current market conditions.
When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett debt at 30 June 2013 for the non-financial public sector had declined to 58%, from the 69% projected at the time of the original 2012-13 budget. Again, this is a significant achievement and a step in the right direction.
The 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statements have been issued with a qualified audit opinion by the Auditor-General. This qualification, which is a flow on from the previous years, is of a technical nature and results from the continued uncertainty over the carrying value of construction works in progress, related to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. It is important to note that the technical nature of this qualification does not necessarily mean that the amount recorded in the government’s balance sheet is wrong. Rather, it means until community packages are completed, it is uncertain whether some elements recorded as works in progress should have been expensed or depreciated during the year. It is, however, envisaged that as remaining packages of work in communities under the alliance contracting methodology are finalised, this issue will be resolved in 2013-14.
The overall improvement in the 2012-13 deficit position from that projected both in the original May 2012 Labor budget and the 2013 Country Liberals’ budget is evidence of the commitment by this government to getting the financial position of the Territory back on to an even keel. This is in no small part evidenced by the budget improvement measures across agencies that have been implemented over the last 12 months, together with the improved financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation.
The focus on fiscal responsibility has already wiped almost $0.5bn off of the nett debt that was projected not much more than a year ago. Notwithstanding, the challenge in the short term, while revenue growth remains restricted, is to ensure spending levels grow at a lower rate than revenue. Based on the 2012-13 outcome, the Country Liberals government has proven itself to be fiscally responsible, and we will continue to focus on a return to surplus in 2017-18.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2012-13 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and I commend it to the House.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Business and Industry in the Northern Territory
Business and Industry in the Northern Territory
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, today I provide the Assembly with a ministerial statement on Business and Industry in the Northern Territory and how the business community is prospering under a CLP government they elected to govern for them.
Since coming to government, we have found the full extent of the previous Labor administration’s mismanagement of the Territory. Not only did we find out that the Territory bank account was empty, but we also discovered that Territory families had been left with a $5.5bn projected debt to pay off. On top of this, Labor turned the public service into a large and unwieldy organisation, suppressed by a government that had no strategic direction or sense of purpose. As a result, we had a health system that was broken, the worst educational outcomes in Australia, a housing and accommodation crisis, and a business community crying out for a government willing to help and listen.
The important task is to fix Labor’s mess for business and Territory families, and put in its place a diversified and thriving economy. We are about planning responsibly for tackling Labor’s legacy of debt, to help grow the economy and provide more opportunities for Territory business. Changes in health, education, power and water, tourism and, of course, my own Department of Business, are all about fixing Labor’s mess.
Labor’s $5.5bn debt has meant a reduction in spending. We are identifying better efficiencies, reorganising public services and, importantly, dusting off the cobwebs to improve morale and give workers a clearer path forward.
The Territory is not just about INPEX. It is our intention to ensure that the Territory economy is driven not just by construction projects. We are making sure all areas of the business community prosper. We are creating an environment that is conducive to business and driving economic growth and development through private sector investment. We are out there talking up the Northern Territory interstate and overseas, attracting investment and trade. We are making it simpler to do business by improving the Territory’s regulatory environment by cutting red tape, streamlining approvals and, importantly, introducing a culture that looks first at ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ to our business community.
When it comes to helping our business community, the philosophy is to first look at why we are going to do it ahead of why we are not. We are ensuring that we do not take our eyes off the horizon by putting in place long-term strategies that will shape the future economic welfare of the Territory. Most importantly, we have provided a vision. Chief Minister Adam Giles and my colleagues’ vision identifies new projects, new industries, and new markets. This vision is for new ports, new energy projects, and new rail systems. It is one that develops new agricultural projects, new mining projects, oil and gas, petrochemicals, logistics and transport.
The Labor Opposition Leader, Delia Lawrie, is on the record as hating tourists, which is why this industry was ignored by her and her colleagues when in government. Well, the Country Liberals love tourists and we are out there doing everything we can to bring more of the people Labor hates to the Territory.
There was a time under former CLP governments that the Territory was the envy of all Australian jurisdictions for our relationships with our Asian neighbours. We were always the first in the door, more often than not ahead of our Australian Prime Ministers. That is because we were not fair-weather friends with Asia. We recognised and valued the opportunity to do business with the region. A key focus of fostering new business growth and prosperity for the Territory is re-engaging with Asia and repairing friendships damaged by the previous Labor administrations.
Our relationships with our Asian neighbours are fundamental to growing trade into Asia, and progress has been made. Labor almost destroyed the Territory’s live cattle trade. In contrast, this CLP government is all about creating new markets. The open for business sign is up and the Country Liberals government is rebuilding the bridge to Asia destroyed by the Labor Party.
The Northern Territory’s trade relationship with Asia will thrive under the Adam Giles Country Liberals government and Territory business will benefit. Our commitment is to lead and to map a path of prosperity for all Territorians.
Recently, the Chief Minister released our Framing the Future document. The Country Liberals government wants all Territorians to be part of our vision for an economy that creates wealth and jobs; is open, competitive and innovative; is built on exports and the needs of our trading partners, captures the ideas, energy and opportunities across the Territory; and lands new, local, national and international investment.
I urge all Territorians, have your say, it is your Territory, it is your future. We want Territory business to provide comment on the Framing the Future blueprint. Our priority actions to underpin business and industry development in the Northern Territory are:
fostering an environment in which business can prosper in increasing investor certainty
supporting market development for Territory business through major projects, Asian engagement and trade development
supporting small to medium enterprises through an improved suite of business services that are focused on innovation of processes, products and marketing.
enhancing the capacity of our local industries to meet the opportunities of major projects and sustained growth in our economy and population
unlocking the full potential of our human capital
fostering an environment where businesses can prosper
increasing investor certainty.
Financial investment and industry engagement is the mantra. The measures that we are putting in place have not gone unnoticed by the Territory business community. In fact, small to medium businesses consider the Northern Territory government to be the most supportive government in the nation, according to the latest Sensis Business Index.
The Sensis Business Index’s findings show that support for the government rose by 10% in the last quarter alone. This is further evidence that we are heading in the right direction. The 10% increase in support for the Country Liberals government was the largest increase of any state or Territory government. The Territory recorded the highest regional business confidence in the nation at 47%. Overall, Territory business confidence grew by 6% points to 26%, the second highest in the nation. This was well above the national average of 17%, which actually declined 5% over the quarter.
Territory businesses are also performing better than all other states or Territories in sales, employment, prices and profitability. The Sensis Business Index findings followed a recent Deloitte survey, which found that almost a fifth of Territory businesses in the Northern Territory expect growth of over 30% within the next 12 months.
As I move around the small business community, I am encouraged by the spirit and enthusiasm of the people who make up this sector. In August, retail trade turnover in the Territory increased by 0.9% to $247m. This was the highest monthly growth rate in our nation, with only South Australia and Tasmania having anything close to our strong monthly results.
In annual terms, retail trade turnover in the Territory increased by 2.9% in August this year, compared to a year ago. This was the second highest growth rate in the nation behind only Queensland, which was up by 3.1%.
If only the Labor members on the opposition benches could have the same confidence in the Territory as our small business sector does. The Territory business community has had enough of the opposition members talking the Territory down at every opportunity.
They see the Labor members opposite for what they are. The opposition are always in opposition to anything and everything. There is no better example of this than our most recent labour force figures. Last week, these figures revealed trend employment in the Territory has increased by 0.3% in September and continues to have the highest growth rate in Australia.
This was on the back of it increasing by .2% in August. We have an economy that is leading most Australian states, workforce participation is as its highest level since 2009 and in the past two months, an extra 850 full-time workers in the Northern Territory. This does not include fly in, fly out workers.
Rather than celebrating the news of the increase in full time jobs in the Territory in September and August, and an extra 1918 jobs compared to September 2012, the shadow business spokesman was talking down the Territory economy. He made the nonsensical claim that it is hard to get a job in the Territory. The Territory has the highest growth rate in Australia. I urge the Labor members opposite to cheer up and celebrate, along with the rest of the Territory. The national participation rate is 65%. In the Territory, it is 10.2% higher on 75.2%. The trend unemployment in the Northern Territory remains unchanged at 5.5%, the third lowest in the nation. Importantly, the monthly increase was driven by growth in full-time employment.
The Country Liberals government, under Chief Minister, Adam Giles, is framing an economy that creates wealth and jobs for families, and the latest increase in jobs is further proof of that. So too are the latest quarterly building activity figures for the Territory. In June, the Territory recorded the highest quarterly level of building activity on record. It increased by 6% to $441m. Driving growth in the quarter was a 36.3% increase in non-residential building. This reflects work on the new Darwin correctional precinct, and the Ichthys workers camp. Importantly, residential building activity surrounding the construction of new houses also helped drive growth in the quarter.
Private residential work is at record levels. In August, the trend number of residential building approvals in the Territory increased by 1.4%, compared to July. This is the highest monthly number of building approvals since December 1999. Nationally, the trend number of residential building approvals increased by just 0.1% over the same period. In the year to August, the number of residential building approvals in the Territory increased by 29.9%, jumping from 1614 to 2096. This is the second highest growth rate nationally. Also in the year to August, the number of housing finance commitments in the Territory has increased by a healthy 7.1% to 4379. The Territory is again outdoing the powerhouse states of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
The growth rate in housing finance commitments was the third highest in the nation, behind Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Compared to July, the trend number of housing finance commitments for owner occupation in the Territory increased by 2.5% to 370 in August this year. Nationally, housing finance commitments increased by just 0.6% over the same period. In the year to August 2013, the number of commitments by first homebuyers increased by 1.5% to 869. By non-first homebuyers, excluding re-financing, the increase was 11.7% to 2230. For re-financing, the increase was 3.5% to 1280. For purchase of established dwellings, the increase was 6.7%, to 3840 dwellings.
Given the $5.5bn Labor debt that the Territory is burdened with, we are making strong inroads into fixing, for business, the Labor mess that we inherited. Only the members on the opposition benches would deny that the economy is heading in the right direction. Only the Labor opposition would talk down forecasts of strong growth.
This year, the Northern Territory is forecast to grow by 5% and 7% the following year. It is expected to moderate beyond that to 4.5% in 2015-16, 3.9% in 2016-17, but remain buoyant.
The Giles Country Liberals government is proudly working on a program that creates a thriving local business community that is the most competitive in the world. Everything we do is about meeting the demands of economic growth. It is about more housing, greater infrastructure, a better health system and a lifestyle that is the envy of the rest of the world. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting Territorians to train up and benefit from our growing economy. We want Territorians to be the first to reap the rewards of our economic programs. Through our education and training programs, we want Territorians to be the first to get the best jobs. Our commitment to tertiary and vocational education will ensure that Territorians are the talent being hired first. Territorians for Territory jobs, I say.
It is an exciting time for the Territory with the major projects heading our way. The Giles Country Liberals government is spending more than $8m on workforce growth, and more than $98.1m on training. The Country Liberals government is investing $27.7m for apprentices and trainees, which includes an additional $1.5m to the $2.9m apprenticeship and traineeships support package. This includes more money to support apprentices and trainees in completing their studies, such as travel and accommodation subsidies and to attend off the job training.
We are also investing $1m for the Indigenous workforce participation program that develops workforce planning and supports increased Indigenous employment opportunities. We are committed to developing and growing our human capital. To innovate and compete, we need a dynamic and capable workforce. To help us achieve this, we are improving how we work with business to understand skills gaps, including through the Business Advisory Council, and providing skills training to Territorians to ensure that they have the skills businesses need.
In 2013, more than $12m has been committed to training Territorians in the four identified industry groups of building construction, engineering and mining, transport and storage utilities. We are providing up-skills programs to improve the technical, managerial and leadership capacity of Territory small to medium enterprises. We are growing the Territory’s footprint as an education destination, so that our training in higher education providers can improve their ability to up-skill Territorians and further develop education as an export industry.
The CLP government recognises the need to increase the capability of Territory industry to meet the demand of our growing economy and major projects. Local businesses, through improving their capabilities, will be in an improved position to win more work on the major projects in the Territory and beyond. To this end, we are providing better information on capability gaps at an industry level to small and medium enterprises, and pushing for better feedback to small businesses from major project operators and their contractors, encouraging collaboration and partnerships between businesses. This might be local businesses partnering with each other, or partnering with businesses nationally or internationally.
We are profiling and promoting Northern Territory capability, including through the Industry Capability Network. We are linking small to medium enterprises with major companies and working to enable access into the global supply chains of our major project proponents and their multinational contractors. We are developing a project of investment attraction and business migration priorities to address capability gaps.
The Giles Country Liberals government is about investing in the bush after years of neglect by former Labor administrations. It is because of the hard work of my fellow Country Liberal colleagues that the Territory now has the highest regional business confidence in the nation at 47%.
As I said previously, our valuable pastoral industry is a benefactor of the Country Liberals re-engagement with Asia. Central Australia, the Barkly and Katherine regions are being sourced for cattle to the region. The vast majority are destined for Indonesia. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting the pastoral industry in developing new markets and strengthening those existing ones. Vietnam is a growing market for NT cattle, and the NT government has been working closely with the industry in Vietnam to develop this market. In the next few years, exports to Vietnam could rise to 10 000 head a year. This is great news for Territory pastoralists. This is an exciting prospect and builds further confidence in the NT’s cattle trade, which is still recovering from being under the watch of the Labor Opposition Leader, Delia Lawrie.
We are the gateway to Asia. Trading partners such as China want to use Darwin as a launching base for southeast Asian operations. I am referring to companies such as Chinese heavy machinery giant XCMG, which has signed an agreement paving the way for the construction of a large assembly and distribution plant in Darwin. Stage 1 of the project will bring a direct investment of $60m into the Northern Territory economy.
This Country Liberals government, unlike the previous Labor administration, will continue to engage and encourage investment and job creation in the Territory. Our door is open to all businesses in the Territory. Since taking government, we have made it our business to bring big business to the Territory. Big business generates demand for goods and services of our local businesses. Big businesses bring capital, technical expertise and skills. This translates into opportunities for local businesses and their services by involving local suppliers in their supply chains, and strengthening our links further with other markets.
It is our mission to continue to pursue businesses, both internationally and national, to establish operations in the Northern Territory. We want their capital and technical expertise, the local jobs they create, access to their global supply chains for our local industry, and the demand they create in our local economy. Importantly, this Country Liberals government is committed to entrenching employment opportunities for Territorians. Everything we are doing is aimed at creating a commercial environment, so that Territory small businesses, our lifeblood, can prosper and grow.
Australia’s second largest infrastructure project is under way on the shores of Darwin harbour and more significant projects are on the Territory horizon. The Ichthys industry participation plan for the INPEX project is in place to encourage local content and provide opportunities for local business. The industry participation plan, negotiated by the Department of Business, is the first to include a requirement to cascade the commitments of the industry participation plan to their major Tier 1 contractors.
Around 160 lower tier subcontract commitments have been awarded to Territory-based companies by JKC and their major subcontractors. The Ichthys project commitment in the Territory, including contracts, procurement and overheads, both awarded and pending, totals in excess of $5bn. This will generate some 2200 jobs for Territorians. We are actively supporting our businesses to participate in this and other major projects through an improved range of programs from the Department of Business.
We made an election commitment to cut red tape. It is our mission to make it simple for Territory businesses to interact with government. We are reducing red tape and getting out of the way of business. Our main focus is on removing unnecessary, redundant or inefficient legal provisions, lengthy and costly administrative procedures and paper work, and impediments to business growth for small to medium enterprises. We are reinforcing a pro-business and can-do culture within the department and throughout government. The Northern Territory government is streamlining processes, creating opportunities for the private sector and simplifying regulation.
The future is one where businesses are dynamic, robust, free of red tape, and able to get on with what they do best. Significant advances in reducing red tape are already being achieved. A new red tape reduction program is currently being rolled out, and includes a new red tape business advocate to assist businesses address red tape issues across government.
The Department of Business is streamlining processes and service delivery. The turnaround time for processing of occupational high-risk licences, for instance, has been reduced from 20 days to 20 minutes over the counter of the Territory Business Centres. This has been achieved through streamlining the approval processes and will benefit approximately 6000 renewables per annum, plus any new licences that are issued.
We have been working closely with the hotel industry to improve what is currently a complex licensing system and create further opportunities. This is a massive employment industry in the Territory and, together with the industry, we have a common goal of seeing business thrive.
Another critical change is NT WorkSafe. We have moved from being an enforcer and regulator, which is effectively reactive, to working with business proactively. While the regulator powers remain, the focus of WorkSafe is on providing advice and information, assisting Territory business to become world leaders in workplace safety.
The Department of Business recognises that government is a significant consumer of Territory goods and services. Reforms to the procurement processes will ensure a better go for local business. Key reforms include: improving procurement planning through additional tools and templates; improving decision-making through greater transparency and increased accountability; refocusing procurement from time frames to outcomes; improving the quality of feedback provided to tenderers and supporting small to medium enterprises through an improved suite of business services that are focused on innovation of processes, products and marketing. To support this, we are taking a new lens to the business support programs that we offer.
The Department of Business helps businesses help themselves through a number of programs to support innovation across the operational and organisational processes and marketing: The Territory Business Growth program provides grants and consultant services to help existing businesses; the Territory business employment support program delivers grants and consultant services to people in business to enhance their workforce planning; the Territory business technology support program delivers grants and consultant services to business people to guide and assist them to take up new technology; and ecoBiz NT is a grant program, which assists NT small to medium enterprises to adopt resource efficient practices which are good for their financial bottom line, as well as the environment.
Under this Giles Country Liberals government, the future is bright for business in the Northern Territory. Just have a look at the cranes dotting the Darwin city horizon. That is just a sample of what is to come: Increased economic activity; greater investment; and diversified industry. The potential of our regions is unlocked and stronger links with our Asian neighbours is the future for Territory families.
There has been debate around Australia on whether the mining boom has peaked. Well, not in the Northern Territory; the future could not be brighter for mining, oil and gas exploration. We have an abundance of resources that are critical to the growth demands of our northern neighbours, and we will work with them to grow these important industries. Oil, gas and mining service and supply has a long-term demand prospect and is rich with opportunities for our business community. We are helping Territory businesses to position themselves to capture some of that market.
We have co-invested with industry to build our capabilities in oil and gas. The Northern Territory government has invested $3.5m in the North Australian institute for oil and gas. We have the ability to train and develop our own talent here to work in or start their own businesses to meet the demand of the oil and gas sector.
I made mention earlier of the Business Advisory Council. This council was launched in July and I have attended its first two meetings. The council is made up of Territory business people who are currently at the coalface. The members of council will make sure that government is linked into the issues and concerns of business. They will provide feedback on the effectiveness and relevance of the services delivered by the Department of Business. The council members will enable us to further support local businesses by removing red tape and other costs to businesses, which negatively impact on their competitiveness and, importantly, work with us on the productivity challenges that we and Australia face. It is important to note the ingenuity of Territory businesses. Cases abound where an entrepreneur has seen a need in the market and delivered an innovative solution. For example, there is Auslift, now on sale at Bunnings, a simple and clever solution to give a shovel more force, or the air tipped trailer under development in Alice Springs.
The Country Liberals government is working to create the most favourable environment for business, free of unnecessary government intervention and rich in opportunity. We are increasing certainty for investors and will work with the private sector to develop innovative solutions for infrastructure and industry development. To foster a dynamic environment and increased investor certainty, we are unlocking the potential of our regions. We are doing this by aligning our business and industry programs to help our regional and remote businesses and communities.
From perfect, sweet, juicy mangoes, to leading edge tourism experiences; from croc skins for designer handbags to leaders in tropical health research, Territory goods and services are up there with the best in the world.
Some analysts forecast that by 2020, the Asian middle class will be bigger than the rest of the world combined. This growing market for high quality premium products, demanded by middle class consumers, is a significant opportunity for Territory businesses.
I want to finish today on a business initiative put in place by the Country Liberals, which has stood the test of time for the last 19 years. I am referring to October Business Month. This much celebrated event is delivering a selection of keynote speakers, workshops, professional development, and networking opportunities to enable Territory businesses to access new and current ideas and information to boost their businesses.
The Country Liberals initiative is the premier business event in the Northern Territory. Last year, more than 6600 people attended October Business Month events and, at the halfway point, we are on target to eclipse these numbers. The October Business Month Department of Business team works closely with the business community throughout the year to identify trends and issues facing the local business sector.
The themes for October Business Month 2013 are: leadership, motivation and inspiration, marketing and social media and technology for business. October Business Month provides vital information that the business community is seeking. It also involves the business community as sponsors and partners in the delivery of events and workshops addressing specific issues business has identified.
October Business Month is delivered to provide businesses with the opportunity to take advantage of world-class presentations, training and networking opportunities at little or no cost. There are workshops, seminars, conferences and professional development programs throughout October, across the Northern Territory and online.
I encourage all Territory business owners and managers to access the diverse range of internationally and nationally recognised speakers on offer to gain new ideas for your business, to advance, grow and become more competitive.
This year’s speakers include Jamie Durie, who opened October Business Month, both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Jamie told the story of how he got started in business, how he turned an interest into a career, and how he got to where he is today. Layne Beachley, of course, is not just a world surfing champion, but a determined, inspirational and successful businessperson in her own right. She told her story this month. She attracted close to 900 people to her event. Steve Davis returns to October Business Month to provide a showcase of best practice examples relevant to a Territory audience, in the area of social media for business. Rowland McGabhann spoke about determination, motivation and what it took to overcome paralysis as a young man, to join the ranks of the sports elite and to make a career as a Hollywood stuntman.
These speakers are just a part of the October Business Month story, with more than 85 events this year. I strongly urge everyone in business to take advantage of these outstanding events.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): I welcome the opportunity from the Business minister to discuss business issues. On that last note about October Business Month, it is an excellent month. The Business department does a fantastic job and we thank them for all the work they do, and all the work they do during the rest of the year. I have enjoyed the October Business Month functions I have been to so far.
I also welcome my sister, who is a teacher, and my three nieces Abby, Alice and Ava.
I was a little disappointed not to hear the Deputy Chief Minister’s watermelon story. I have heard it six or seven times now. We may hear it in the minister’s wrapping speech. However, true to form, the minister started with a rather broad political spray on the previous government.
We now have a new CLP government which has been in power for 14 months, and what has the CLP government done? They have broken promises. They promised to cut the cost of living, they promised to cut debt, they promised frontline workers would be safe, and they have broken those promises. The new Chief Minister and the new Deputy Chief Minister have brazenly broken those election promises to cut the cost of living, cut debt, and that frontline workers would be safe. They did this despite knowing the books before they were elected. We have all now been through estimates. We had some new members of parliament this term, but we all went through the estimates process in June this year. Having been through estimates, we knew that the CLP knew the books before they were elected. Despite knowing the books, they promised to cut the cost of living, cut debt, and that frontline workers would be safe. Unfortunately, we have seen all of those promises broken.
Their broken promises and their decision to increase the cost of power and water have doubled cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory. It has hurt business, it has hurt families. Budget Paper 2, page 25 of the Treasurer’s own budget books – the CPI is forecast to increase from 2% to 3.9% due to the Territory government’s utility price increases.
The CLP doubled cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory. What was the Business minister’s response to power and water increases – 30% increase in power prices to a business and 40% increase in water prices to a business with six weeks’ notice? The Business minister’s response was to increase ecoBiz grants from $220 000 to $440 000. That was a paltry response in the face of significant pressures on business and with only six weeks’ notice. Business needs a lot of time and notice to prepare for an impact like this on their business and they were given six weeks’ notice. That was unfortunate.
The ecoBiz program is excellent; it is well-run, it is well-targeted, but as a response to the pressure on business after a 30% increase in power and water prices, it was nowhere near enough.
The CLP made a clear promise to cut debt. It was a very straightforward promise, ‘We will cut debt’. Those were their words. As we have seen, it is easy for the CLP to say things, but what do they do? In this budget, they borrowed $1.1bn. They took debt from $3.278bn to $4.417bn. I note that the Treasurer, in his previous statement, provided an update on the budget to the House. However, in this budget, they borrowed an extra $1.1bn, and that is a broken promise to Territorians.
By their own actions, they have shown that all their rhetoric is just political grandstanding, because in this budget, they borrowed $1.1bn. Despite knowing the books before they were elected, they made the decision to borrow $1.1bn, despite their election promise to cut debt.
They are brazen, and frontline staff are being sacked. We need to value our professional public service. The public service is crucial to delivering major projects. Politicians do not do it alone. When the Martin/Henderson governments brought the INPEX and Ichthys projects to fruition, it was not Clare Martin and Paul Henderson on their own; they were with very professional public servants. We have some fantastic public servants, but unfortunately we do not believe that our public service is being valued. We have seen a loss of experienced, credible staff from our public service, which affects our corporate knowledge. That is a significant loss to the ability and competency of a government, and we are seeing that through the work of the current government. Damage comes from losing credible, valuable public servants. We have seen teams where there are four, eight or 12 fewer staff. Fewer people are doing more. One, two or three people are doing the work that previous teams did. We are seeing people performing higher duties without being recognised for the work they are doing. These are all things which have an impact on a government.
One thing I acknowledge is that the current Treasurer did rescue the previous Under Treasurer. After she was let go, he found a job for her in the Department of Health. You cannot afford to lose someone like Jennifer Prince. Unfortunately, we have lost a whole other cohort of professional, experienced public servants. You do not get major projects without a public service behind you. We had years and decades of corporate knowledge and experience in dealing with people in the Northern Territory, Australia and around the world, and we have, unfortunately, lost those people. That is a blow to governments. We have seen that in the actions of this government; they lost those valuable people.
In his speech the minister talked about vocational education and training, and investing in trades and jobs in the future. The CLP, in this budget, cut their funding to Charles Darwin University. At the bottom of page 195 of Budget Paper No 3, the new Chief Minister cut the operating grant of Charles Darwin University from $9.6m to $6.8m, a 30% cut. Over the last few years, federal funding of Charles Darwin University has grown, and it grew again this year. However, the CLP cut funding to our university by 30%.
In estimates, we found they also cut money to the operating and infrastructure grants, the Higher Education Operating Grant and the VET Infrastructure Grant. They also cut our VET in Schools Program. So, $842 000 came out of our VET in Schools Program, which delivers vocational education and training to our school students. They are making cuts to those programs, which we need to deliver the workforce we need for our future. Unfortunately, they are making what are quite short-sighted decisions.
The Territory was the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small business. On Page 18 of Budget Paper No 2, it says that by 2016-17 the CLP has flagged that tax in the Northern Territory will be on par with the national average. We are removing our competitive advantage. We have seen – the Deputy Chief Minister did not want to talk about it – that there are 7500 Territorians who cannot get a job in the Territory right now. Those were the last labour force statistics. Under the CLP, Territorians are losing their jobs and there are currently 7500 Territorians who cannot get a job. From page 20 of the labour force statistics, in the last year, 2200 more Territorians have joined the unemployment queue including 100 in the last month alone. At 5.5%, unemployment remains at the highest level it has been in seven years.
Unemployment figures, obviously, do not include the people who have lost their jobs and have had to leave the Northern Territory. We all know it is incredibly hard to stay in the Northern Territory without a job, especially after a 30% increase in the cost of power, a 40% increase in the cost of water, and a 25% increase in the cost of sewerage ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mister Speaker! I know that is an ABS document, which is probably publicly available. I am wondering if you could table it so I can read it.
Mr GUNNER: That is page 20 of the labour force statistics I am using ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am not trying to be cute. It is just going to save me doing the work myself. Thank you.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to provide it to you later. Page 20 of the labour force statistics, which came out earlier this week or last week – very recently, Thursday last week.
The Country Liberal Party promised to cut the cost of living. Obviously, they did not and it is very hard and difficult to live in the Northern Territory without a job, especially with those costs going up. It puts a massive impost on people.
Infrastructure has been cut and will continue to be cut. Page 1, Budget Paper No 4 says that total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than last year, 2012-13, and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. Power and water prices are going up by 30%, but power and water infrastructure spending has been cut by $20m. We are seeing money cut out of those areas of the budget that directly deliver jobs and benefit business. The Territory is a small place. That has a big impact on businesses and jobs in the Territory.
As I said before, we have a competitive advantage in the Northern Territory, one we have fought very hard for and to maintain, to make sure we have a competitive tax environment. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-size enterprises. The Northern Territory has a small population and our small- and medium-size enterprises are crucial to job growth and employment for Territorians.
We have to ensure we remain competitive. We have a lot of cost pressures in the Northern Territory, and there are only a few things that government can control the pressures of. One of them was power and water; this government let that pressure build by putting on those increases to power, water and sewerage. But they have now flagged in this budget that they are looking at moving the Northern Territory to be on par with other states taxation wise by 2016-17. That is moving a big burden onto our small- and medium-size enterprises which we need to be competitive. They have a lot of pressures in the Northern Territory and we need them to be competitive.
This is a decision that will hurt business and this statement provides no detail on what the government will do. If you make statements like, ‘We will be competitive. We will be on a par with other states taxation-wise.’ Prepare for it. What are you doing? You have flagged it, give us some detail. This statement gives us no detail on what the government will do taxation-wise, but in some ways we should not be surprised, because the government does have form in this area.
When I asked the Minister for Business about consultation and what the Business department is meant to do, we got a very Pythonesque answer during estimates. I will quote from the Minister for Business on 18 June:
- The businesses affected by the revenue measures may not have realised they were being consulted about revenue measures.
That is a rather extraordinary statement.
So the businesses that were consulted on the revenue measures might not have realised they were being consulted at the time they were being asked. It is quite an extraordinary statement. I will quote the Minister for Business again:
- The businesses affected by the revenue measures may not have realised they were being consulted about revenue measures.
That is where we are at with this government and how they do business; either they do not consult you or you do not know you are being consulted. It is an extraordinary position to be in, and it is a remarkable and bizarre situation with the Minister for Business. It is extraordinary and businesses are hurting.
That has been the clear message from business. This is a quote I have read out in the past from the Chamber of Commerce, from Julie Ross, and it is specifically about the impost of the power and water charges, which were a big impost:
- Small businesses will not be able to absorb this increase, they are going to get a double whammy from consumers not spending as much with them because they need to pay for their power bills and also rising costs. But the Business minister believes power and water has a small input into business costs.
This is a quote from the Minister for Business:
- Power and Water has a small input into business costs.
This is not the message we have heard back from business. A big thing for business, because they like to plan and know what is coming, is the six weeks’ notice. We have no doubt on our side that was a big impost on business. Even if a business has the capacity to reform its business practices or change equipment to reduce the power and water charges, six weeks is not enough time to adjust. As I said, the government has an excellent eco-business program that they inherited from us, but it does not in any way relieve pressure on every small and micro-medium business in the Northern Territory.
When we asked the Minister for Business how many businesses there are in the Northern Territory, he said there are 14 000-plus registered businesses. When asked in estimates how many had received an eco-Biz grant, we got the answer of eight. Out of 14 000-plus businesses, eight received an eco-Biz grant, so business is hurting. The power and water charges have gone up and the government has flagged that taxes will go up, but no one knows the detail of those taxes.
In June when we discussed this with the Minister for Business at estimates, unemployment was at 5.1%, and today it is 5.5%. Within the minister’s own department, 36 jobs have already gone and only nine of those were at executive level. There was a guarantee that frontline workers would be safe, especially if you earn under $110 000, but out of the 36 jobs already gone, only nine were executive level.
I quote from the Minister for Business:
- We intend to make savings in employee costs of $2.59m. They are yet to be achieved, and these are areas that the department is focusing on.
There were still job losses to come within the Department of Business. When asked how many the minister replied:
- … how long is a piece of string?
There is no detail in this statement about who has lost their job in departments since estimates in June, what the impact has been on the Department of Business and what the impact has been on their ability to service business.
They flagged a further $2.5m in savings in employee costs, but we still have not heard what that impact has had on the Business department and its ability to serve its customers: businesses. We think this is crucial and obviously another part of the minister’s responsibility. It was identified in the budget papers, the need to work closely with peak business and industry bodies to identify new industry opportunities and support regional and remote business development.
The CLP ran an election campaign around having three hubs. That was their campaign, that was their promise, no problems. How are you going to do it? How will the Business minister deliver the three key hubs? That is part of his responsibility, clearly identified in the budget papers around their KPIs, but to quote the minister:
- … we have not really put any KPIs in place for ourselves in regard to this …
We are now 14 months into the CLP term of government, and the Business minister, when asked, said:
- We still do not have KPIs within the Business department for growing the three-hub economy
The first thing the CLP did when they were elected was freeze public service hiring and spending, which obviously threw things into chaos. There are many people in the Northern Territory who rely on the work government does, who rely on the certainty government provides, and when that freeze came into place, it threw a lot of Territorians out. Anyone doing business with government found their interactions slowed to a crawl and departments had to adjust. There is always an adjustment period, but this was a very brutal adjustment period and departments were adjusting to a new government. The freeze was put in place and people found it very hard to do business in the Territory.
One report that we had was from the map division of Lands and Planning which went from four staff to one. This created an entire log jam for developers. That was an extremely difficult time, and because the freeze was in place, that department had its hands tied in trying to get extra people there to free up that work. Most importantly, as I touched upon already, business prices went up massively. This had a massive impact on business and we saw confidence levels of the people in the Northern Territory and business confidence levels plummet.
We saw the Wanguri election result, which was a massive vote of no confidence in the government, and we saw over 8000 people leave the Territory. A large part of that was due to the power price increases.
Something had to change. Something had to happen, and we are not talking about the change of Chief Minister. The new Chief Minister came in, and one of his first decisions, and probably the smartest decision he has made, was to turn to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. He brought on board the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, because he recognised they needed to make a change in how they did things and Paul Henderson – on our side we definitely agree with this – is an excellent communicator. In Australia and worldwide he has a reputation for knowledge and experience in major projects, and his passion for the Territory is second to none. We are all very passionate Territorians, but we just cannot dispute that Hendo loves the Territory.
We turned to the Chief Minister, and what did the CLP have to say about the former Chief Minister? This is the bio that they kindly provide on Paul Henderson:
- Visionary and challenge-driven former political leader, with a keen focus on broadening the Northern Territory economy and ensuring the revenue benefits flow to improved infrastructure and Government Services to a small and remotely dispersed population.
Acknowledged as leading a strong and growing economy in very difficult circumstances during and post the GFC. Excellent Government and Industry contacts in Australia and overseas especially in Asia.
As Chief Minister lead the Northern Territory through an unprecedented period of economic growth, creating 13 000 jobs, during and post the GFC. Deloitte Access Economics forecast economic growth of an average of 4.2% over the next five years.
Developed Territory 2030, the Northern Territory government’s first long-term strategic plan for the economic and social development of the Northern Territory for 20 years.
Developed Northern Territory government’s Working Future policy to transform 20 of the largest remote Aboriginal communities into growth towns. This will see these growth towns with the same economic and social infrastructure of similar sized towns across Australia.
Secured the second largest investment in Australia’s history, delivering the $34bn Icthys LNG project for Darwin. This project is also the largest single investment offshore by any Japanese company (Inpex). Developed the vision for Darwin to become northern Australia’s oil and gas service and support hub for offshore exploration and production. Delivered a world class marine service and supply base for Darwin. Hosted the first ever visit to Darwin by a US President, President Barack Obama on 17 November 2011.
…
Hosted the first ever visit to Darwin by a Chinese Vice President, Vice President Xi Jinping on 22 June 2010. Hosted a visit to Darwin by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on 2 July 2012. Worked with the Australian government and the US government to facilitate the deployment of up to 3000 US marines to the Northern Territory.
Established the NT Japan and China Minerals Investment strategy.
Eestablished the Northern Territory clinical school at Charles Darwin University in partnership with Flinders University. Established Clontarf Football Academies in all urban NT middle schools and high schools.
This is an incredibly impressive CV, and this is the person who the CLP turned to when confidence levels in them hit rock bottom. What does Paul Henderson do? What is missing from this statement? It is identified in the Chief Minister’s own media release at the time. He will be:
- Attracting the next INPEX, the next global company into the Northern Territory …
This is a key priority – ‘attracting the next INPEX’. This is on the agenda for the CLP and they turned to a former Labor Chief Minister to deliver it.
We have no problems with that decision. We want the Territory to become a great place. It is a great place; we want it to become better. We have no problems with the CLP turning to the former Chief Minister, but we do have a problem with the Business minister coming into this House saying, ‘You do not say the Territory is going well’. We think the Territory is going well in many ways. What we do not agree with is the Deputy Chief Minister’s assertion that it is all the CLP’s achievement: that it had nothing to do with the previous government, now opposition.
The Deputy Chief Minister would like you to believe that everything has turned around under his watch as Treasurer. That is not the case, and it is clear by their decision to employ Paul Henderson that the former Labor government put a range of things in place that have led to many of the positive results we are seeing in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that the Ichthys project is having a massive impact on the Northern Territory economy. The people who delivered this were Clare Martin and Paul Henderson. It was a Labor government, yet the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Business minister comes into this House and asks, ‘Why aren’t you giving me credit? Why are you not thanking me?’ In the CLP’s own words, it is quite clear who we need to thank and why.
It is quite extraordinary. Every project the Deputy Chief Minister talks about – Ichthys, the Marine Supply Base, the workers camp, the new prison, new Palmerston suburbs were all started by the previous government.
The minister talks about vision, he talks about a new port, new projects, new railway systems, but provides no detail in his statement. He says, ‘We are open for business’, but at the moment, as far as we can see, this is a mantra. We are talking about a government that is asking people to trust them when they say they are open for business. However, their actions do not support the faith they are asking people to have in them. We only have to look at what happened in Gove.
On our side, we thought things moved a little too slowly under the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, but it was a very considered approach. It was a slow approach, but considered, and he came through with a firm, clear offer. Then we saw a change in Chief Minister, a complete change in approach, and what was, essentially, a debacle. We saw the position constantly change.
If you ask business to have confidence in you, in return, you have to give confidence and certainty to business. We saw the ground constantly move under the feet of that deal, and we saw incredible uncertainty. We had what we thought was a slow process, but one really providing certainty under the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, a considered approach, and then we saw a completely different way of handling things under the new Chief Minister. This was a process that no business would support and provided no certainty to business – process that provided confusion to the people of Nhulunbuy, a complete debacle, yet they asked business to trust them and have confidence in them, and they said they were open business.
However, by their very actions in Gove they have proven the exact opposite to be true. It was a ham-fisted botching of a deal that had been arranged by a previous Chief Minister. From the outside looking in, you could see no benefit and no virtue as to why a CLP government would change the deal that was on the table and undo all the good work which had been done by the previous Chief Minister. It made no sense.
Obviously the CLP’s damage does not stop there. I have spoken before about how they have cut VET and CDU funding. Those were not good decisions. Territory businesses do have confidence in the future of the Northern Territory. They know there is money to be made here and they can invest here. The linchpin of that confidence is not the government, as the Deputy Chief Minister likes us to believe and asks us to give him credit for. It is the massive Ichthys project which is driving all of the positive indicators in the Northern Territory.
As I mentioned last week in parliament, engineering construction work is up 83% in the last year. Total construction is up 55%, private capital investment is up 162%, and the list goes on. It is all largely due to INPEX and the Ichthys project. In fact, pretty much every piece of economic data at the moment indicates that you can give credit to the Ichthys project.
The Deputy Chief Minister would like us to fall at his feet and say, ‘Thank you very much, Deputy Chief Minister’. However, without a doubt, in the CLP’s own words, the credit in this instance can be put at the feet of Chief Ministers Martin and Henderson. We thank them for the fact that the Northern Territory at the moment has a positive direction and that we are heading in the right direction.
I believe our side has extreme confidence in the Northern Territory. We may be unsure and not have much confidence in the current government, but we have confidence in the Northern Territory and our businesses that do great work in the Northern Territory. I have confidence in the Business department, which does great work with businesses in the Northern Territory. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not have confidence in this government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to talk about business. This is typical of the Labor Party’s thinking. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his input. I did not quite get his labour force figures, but I did rat out some others from the Northern Territory government website.
I am curious about this loss of jobs he keeps referring to. In September 2012, employment was 128 733 and in September 2013, employment was 130 469, which shows a year-on-year increase of 1.4%. I am unsure where his 7500 unemployed people have come from …
Mr Gunner: Page 20. I will table it for you, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. I am really not sure where they are coming from, mate. The full-time employment, or the whole labour force …
Mr Gunner: On page 20, 7500 people.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am hearing you, and I am just responding to you. The labour force in September 2012 was 132 528, and the labour force in September 2013 was 137 005, an increase of some 4500 jobs. These are jobs on the ground. To put that into context, if each of these jobs lived in one place, it would be an extra electorate in the Northern Territory, and would hold a seat in this parliament.
Whilst the member opposite likes to have a crack at the unemployment rate, it is interesting to note that he looks at an unemployment rate of, let us say, September last year of 4%, then determines that it is an unemployment rate of 5.5% now. This is somehow a loss of 7500 jobs, when the number of real jobs on the ground is there.
It is interesting to note that in the Northern Territory the participation rate – this is the amount of people who are looking for jobs – is 75.2%. When you compare that with the Australian average of 65%, an extra 10% of our population is looking for jobs.
Here is a thought! Perhaps the participation rate has gone up slightly in the Northern Territory, which is what makes it look like there is a higher unemployment rate. Let us look. Oh, goodness gracious me, the labour force figures for September 2013 show a 1% increase in the participation rate in the Northern Territory in the last 12 months, 75% up to 76%. It is a higher unemployment rate because there are more people looking for work in an environment where there are more jobs.
It is a bit of hokey-pokery from the member opposite to try to draw some economic argument that we are somehow driving down jobs. If you think about it in more specific and general terms, the spurious nature of his argument is made out by his own comments. He acknowledged that things are going well. He said things are going well, that there are lots of jobs out there and there is an increase in economic activity. He pointed out that some numbers had gone up by well over 100%, and that is correct. How are all these jobs disappearing in an environment of increased economic activity?
It is a farcical proposition that there are fewer jobs in an environment where there is increased economic activity. He defeats his own argument. Once again, this is one of the problems. The stuff these guys opposite trot out is written by somebody upstairs and they, sadly, do not appear to be doing a great deal of research themselves.
Whilst I know I am running the risk of pre-empting debate, I will mention it anyhow. I take the opportunity to talk about the fiscal management of the Northern Territory. It is part of the business environment we enjoy. I remember going to Westpac’s economic breakfast about three or four weeks ago at the SKYCITY Casino where they had – I forget his name, the economist of the Westpac Bank. He basically said the boom times for the Northern Territory will continue for another two-and-a-half, possibly three years, before the heat comes out of our economy. That is pretty much consistent with the cycle we have experienced for a very long time here.
If we listen to the members opposite, we would now be increasing expenditure and building more things in an environment where we have increased economic activity. This is the mistake the former government made. I am not saying they were all bad, but this was a fundamental mistake they made early in the noughties. The fundamental mistake was that they sought to engage in projects like the waterfront development in a time when it was directly competing with a warm economy. Rather than having counter-cyclical spending, they were amplifying the expenditure and competing for resources with the private sector.
Small wonder, during that period there was a very sharp increase in house prices. Unit prices and house prices went up through the roof during that period up to about 2005. Then, of course, things got a little untidy with the global financial crisis. That also affected house prices in the Northern Territory, because there were fewer jobs around. Many of those units that had been built and purchased were now full and, as a consequence, we had a plateau in house prices and in jobs. The government at that stage also realised they had to start to restrain their spending a little, but they did not. They should have in the respect of trying to contain debt. But because their debt was going up because they had competed with an overheated economy previously, they had the choice of buttoning off or keeping their foot on the accelerator to engage in what they would have called counter-cyclical expenditure.
In fact, it was not counter-cyclical, it was expenditure in the hot part of the high growth area of the cycle and, then, expenditure in the low growth of the cycle. That is why we started to see this debt mountain climb.
It is proper and right that the Northern Territory government is a bit more cautious at this time of vast or substantial economic development. This is so we make sure we take this opportunity to start to retire some debt, as well as save a bit of money so we are not competing with a private sector which is, at the moment, very active. There are some 12 cranes on the Darwin skyline. That being the case, you would expect to find, in our economic papers, in our budget papers, a response that reflects that sort of business management. I point out to honourable members that in the TAFR that was just tabled the nett debt projected in the 2012-13 budget – Labor’s last budget – for the non-financial public sector was $3.581bn.
The outcome for the year – we had been in control of the budget for little over six months – was $3.132bn. This is a variation of $468m, which is $468m less debt than we would have had, had we followed the spending practices of the former Labor government. That is half a billion dollars. Some of that was a product of what we know caused pain to Northern Territorians. I draw members’ attention to page 12 of the report, where it says:
- Non-financial public sector operating revenue has increased from the May 2012 Budget by $247.2m. The key policy and non-policy variations during 2012-13 were:
tariff increases for electricity, water and sewerage totalling $32m
It then points out a number of other increases of revenue, brought about as part of the mini-budget process. Curiously, I note that in this period of high unemployment the member for Fannie Bay talks about, on page 12 of the TAFR, it says there was:
- … increased taxation revenue of $67.5m, predominantly relating to payroll tax collections, as a result of employment and wages growth, particularly among the larger employers forming part of the Territory’s payroll tax base and a large one-off commercial transaction resulting in an extra $12m in stamp duty.
In this wasteland of unemployment, it seems that we are, as a government, magically extracting blood from a stone. The Treasurer has clearly gone into the wilderness and been able to tax the spinifex to the tune of an increased amount of income of nearly $68m. Is it the case that the unemployment rant we heard from the member opposite is more the result of a higher participation rate than it is a result of jobs missing? The assertion that these jobs are going missing is absolute hokum – absolute provable, demonstrable hokum, but we are used to this from the other members opposite. I will give you a classic example.
Yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘We have never had an ECO6 on the fifth floor of Parliament House’. Balderdash, you had two of them when you lost the election. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and tells mistruths. We heard the member for Wanguri firing off a question which was ill considered this morning about a review of the public service, and the member for Nightcliff running that stunt with the FrogWatch thing the other day, clearly demonstrating that these peoples’ contact with the truth is about as close as the contact of Pluto with the Earth. It is astronomical units away from reality. Nevertheless, they persevere in relentlessly trying to say the Northern Territory is going backwards. How can you possibly run the argument that the Northern Territory is going backwards, while at the same time saying the Northern Territory is going forward? Because that is exactly the argument the member for Fannie Bay was trying to run.
I also note that the fiscal position of the Northern Territory is improving. The legacy left to us by the former Treasurer, now Opposition Leader, was a nett debt to revenue ratio, the highest in the Territory’s history, of 69% in the 2012-13 budget. This has been reduced, through careful and prudent fiscal management by the Country Liberals, to a nett debt to revenue ratio of 58%. That is a very important outcome. It is a reduction of 11% in a single budgetary cycle, and that is very reassuring.
However, 58% is still high, but it is much better than the place we were taken to by the former government. They would, in the current environment, still be borrowing, as the member for Casuarina has admitted, to pay the wages of doctors and nurses
Mr Vatskalis: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you did.
Mr Vatskalis: Do not put words in my mouth. Read it carefully and you will find …
Mr ELFERINK: I did not put the words in your mouth, you said it yourself.
Mr Vatskalis: … you always do that
Mr ELFERINK: You said it all by yourself
Mr Vatskalis: No I did not. Table it!
Mr ELFERINK: Mate, we quoted it back to you lots of times and we have tabled the Hansard. You said it.
Mr Vatskalis: You can quote me, but I did not mention paying wages
Mr ELFERINK: You see, this is the point. When you are too busy trying to …
Mr Vatskalis: You know what I said but you twist everything. You are good at twisting things, John, admit it.
Mr ELFERINK: You said it, mate. I was sitting here and picked up on it. I grabbed the Hansard, highlighted it and showed it to the Treasurer, who was most impressed. It was the member for Casuarina rambling off at the mouth without thinking about what he was saying, and that was the result
Mr Vatskalis: I knew what I was saying.
Mr ELFERINK: Man, he is sensitive about it too!
Mr Vatskalis: No, I am not sensitive.
Mr ELFERINK: There are only two people in …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Get back onto the subject. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: He is sensitive about it and I can understand that, because it was a massive blue. Unfortunately, they are learning one of the things I learnt in opposition, and that is without the support of the people – I am spoilt for wealth at the moment with the support of the people I have around me, the calibre, and the work they do. There is literally an obscenity of riches, compared to the harsh Victorian poverty of the opposition benches. I understand, from time to time, the opposition will make mistakes, but my goodness, have they been exposed for their lack of capacity? When you take away, over the period of a year, all the support they had and now they have to rely on their own resources, we see them calamitously crashing so regularly in this House. That is because they have become spoilt in reliance, in the past, on staff they now deny they ever had, including the ECO6s.
We are a business-friendly government and will continue to be so. We will welcome to the Northern Territory with open arms all types of proprietors and operators to set up their legitimate businesses throughout our communities. I stridently encourage the Treasurer to seek out and find manufacturing. It is the one big egg missing from the collective basket. In fact, we should get another basket so we do not have all our eggs in one basket – to avoid running into the trap of that metaphor. I would like to see manufacturing tied up to an onshore gas supply. I would like to see manufacturing tied up to a capacity to develop factories in Darwin so the boom/bust cycle of the resources environment internationally can have the peaks and troughs cut out of it. This is so we can have a more stable cycle and, therefore, make the need for the countercyclical spending we still have to allow for more restrained and less of an intrusion into our budgetary cycle.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this important statement into the House. We have to continue to signal, through what we say in this place, in the media, and in the public domain, that we are a business-friendly government. I am proud to be a member of a business-friendly government. I am certain that members of this House know we are in the business of getting on with business.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Letter from Kensington Palace on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen
Letter from Kensington Palace on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter I have received from Kensington Palace, dated 1 October 2013. The letter thanks the Assembly for the letter Madam Speaker sent on the Assembly’s behalf to Her Majesty the Queen regarding the birth of Prince George.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016